There was a time, not so long ago, when calling someone a ghost capper was an insult.

Now entire outfits, entire platoons are doing it.


(this may be the shortest post I have ever made ever lol)

There was a time, not so long ago, when usage of the ESF Coyotes was a moveton. Now whole air squads fly with Coyotes equipped.
So this is war. Any means are good.

Yeah?

How about genocide?

How about torture?

Cause in war, some countries, the civilised ones, still respect some rules. There are rules about prisoners, there are rules about chemical weapons, and in particular, there are rules about civilians, specially the medical associations. Do I really need to go on about this?



That's obviously "out of character", but it works in the same way:

Not only that, but in war, you can act bravely, honourably, or like a dick, or a coward. Whatever you do, doesn't change the fact that it's war, so "this is war" isn't relevant. It could be monopoly and you could still act like a dick. And people may still call you a dick for doing so, and when that dickish behaviour later becomes fashionable, "this is war" changes nothing.

But not only that .... it was war when ghost capping was an insult. Or are you referring specifically to OW?

Just because you deem it an insult doesn't mean it's an invalid tactic.

Also I love when people bring up realism in this game, a game that has plasma weapons, and hover tanks.

Also... I'll stress it again... it's a game.

Cemeteries are filled with those who wanted a fair fight.

That makes me want to stress the fact that its a game.

Games are supposed to be fun. And one of the most important tasks of developers is to make sure players dont develop strategies and tactics that are decidedly unfun for either the player doing it or the opposition. You can make an awesome high-ROF gun that lobs chainsaws that are on fire and flashbangs everyone at your enemies, but if it makes the game cheap and easy for the wielder and impossible for the opposition you have to change it. We saw this happen with ZOE for example, it was too cheap and easy to use and needed changing (and was nerf hammered to nothingness).

Ghost capping is no different. Starting a ghost cap in order to create a fight is good, but the targeted and calculated ghost cap is bad. The ghost cappers can make it nigh impossible to find them, sapping time from the people hunting them, and then just persistently cap a point until the enemy gives up out of boredom or frustration. Those emotions are the last one's you want a gamer to have.

It doesnt matter that this is a war. Its a war in a GAME. If it was based on a "real" war of this tech level we would be sitting behind a console and pressing a button now and then, if it wasnt done entirely by drones.

Fair fight or not, it needs to be fun. And yes we could make the game fun during unfair fights like when you are outpopped.

I'd like to point out fun is subjective, while I dont partake in ghost capping, maybe the individuals find it fun... they are doing it for a reason and I could be wrong but I doubt it is because they find it boring. If it is not the intended play then the devs should fix it. However trying to hurl insults to stop it is comical at best. (Not saying you did but rather the OP intends it to be).

Point is, it used to be a shameful thing to do, the gaming community would mock players who did this. In the same way, camping is something many FPS players do, but at the same time, many FPS players will call out campers and insult and mock them.

So whether something is shameful or something to be proud of is based on hypocrisy; in the same way as, depending on who you ask, it is shameful or a "valid tactic" to kill sundies at 4 am on an empty one lane continent because you "kill teh fight".

It's hypocritical because what determines whether something is popular or shameful isn't a matter of morality or ethics, of knowing what is good or bad, or right or wrong, it's a matter of what suits you.

So if someone is ghost capping an empty continent while you are enjoying a nice fruitless fight, and that leads to your fight being cut off, then you will flame the ghost capper, insult him, cause he ruined your fight, and he took all your bases. But if you don't care about the fight, and all you want is a score for the OW or some more resources to pull a bastion, then it's fine.

People will consider right or wrong according to whether it serves or goes against their interest, not according to what makes something right or wrong. Which is why they change their minds so easily.


________________



Realism matters, and if there is no Geneva Convention in this game, that's irrelevant because the principles work in the same way, which is why "realistic" illustrations are relevant.


Here's an example :

The game of monopoly is a board game. PlanetSide 2 isn't a board game. But you can act like a dick while playing monopoly. In the same way, you can act like a dick in PS2.

Your behaviour whether in one game or another is what is relevant, the reasons why you act that way is relevant, how people playing that same game will consider your behaviour is relevant.


Since you like to stress things, they are both games. And in both cases, just like with any game, and just like with anything not a game in real life, you can act like a dick and be called out for being a dick. So whether war in PS2 has real bullets or hovering vehicles is irrelevant.


When the wise man points to the moon, the fools stare at his finger.

Yeah, and cemetaties are filled with children too.

Cemetaries are filled with women and innocent people, cemetaries are filled with everyone.


I get that your point may be that the smart "fighter" is the one who survives and you may not have expressed that so well, but even so, think of all the movies where there are stereotype good guys and bad guys. I'm talking of cliché, you know what I mean right?

Think of Game of Thrones, and the cunning, selfish, evil but smart treacherous bad guy who manipulates lies steals betrays and so on, whether he survives or dies isn't the point, the point is no one likes that guy, hes a bad guy, not a good guy.

Engaging humans in virtual combat is why I came to Planetside. I simply do not understand those who only want to fight a timer.

That is kind of my point: it shouldnt be fun JUST for the user. Everyone wants a more low-key gameplay sometimes, which Ghost Capping offers. But it does not offer the same experience for the opposition that has to waste more time, energy and manpower to hunt him down. After which the ghosr capper can do it again. This is an unbalanced cycle of fun that will eventually reduce the amount of players as there's more players hurt with this mechanic than it helps enjoy.

Change it or remove it, but as it is now it has too little beneficial purpose for the game.

And removing it in favor of better gameplay I can get behind, but attempting to demean someone for their legit gameplay is kind of a childish thing to do.

Like pointing out attacking an enemy Sunday on late night... its literally, part of the game and rewards with certs/directives but op disapproves so it's a "dick" thing to do...

Gotta draw a line somewhere with it.

Its really not atteckers job to bring oposition. If i have squad stuck in ghost town continent i wont be waiting at warpgate for anything to happen.
Will just throw my guys to as many bases as possible to quickly triger allert and be out of there. (well and get some resources)

Being unable to join an "active" continent and doing whatever while waiting for the queue isn't the same thing.

I'm talking of entire outfits organising, coordinating "special ops" specifically to capture empty bases on empty continents that have no enemies.

Yes, insults can be demeaning. But I find that insults can do much more than just demean. Done right they can help relieve stress and indicate to others how you feel about something.

He calls it a dickish move. I would call it a strategy that is just bad for the game. The fact that someone can call it a dickish move is a great indicator how the strategy is seen by players.

As for "legit gameplay", you should always consider that just because something is possible, should you really do it? At one point you could throw grenades through a wall into a spawnroom. Its possible, its "legit", so should you do it? Is it even a legit strategy just because something is possible?

The Sunderer example is tougher ofcourse: its a very important part of the game to destroy a Sunderer in order to ward off attackers. But it also stops the main attraction of the game from continueing. So in order to keep it fun you need to make it more enjoyable to defend it, say you get to command support strikes and abilities and give more detailed orders to all local players from the Sunderer, meaning someone will be present when it is attacked. Or making the gameplay flow different when a Sunderer is destroyed. For example the Sunderer leaves an AMS trace to the previous base, allowing the defenders that destroyed the Sunderer to teleport to the attacker's base (use one of the many antennae as AMS receiver) and assault it, keeping a fight going.

"Ghost Capping" implies you started a capture, and left the base. That's different from a small squad looking to start a fight. And very different from a platoon deciding to steamroll a base because they know they can't lose with their sheer numbers.

PS2 is a sandbox without any endgame or story or good or bad way of playing it (aside from griefing, TKilling, etc... Anything that damages other players).

So each player can find a way to play that suits him or her. To talk about "good" or "bad" way of playing a sandbox is an hoximoron.

_____________________________
No ...


I hear that argument every day, I swear to god. So much so that my reply is now pretty well prepared.

Instead of using it though, I try to use different illustrations each time, it makes it fun


(normally, I'd be like "you can behave like a dick in monopoly, you can behave like a dick while playing SNAP, in the same way, you can behave like a dick in PlanetSide 2. Whether one game or the other is a sandbox or not is irrelevant, you can behave like dick whatever the context. But more to the point, whatever behaviour you may have in whatever you do, including games, including sandboxes, can and will be judged by other players.

Whatever you do, some people will like what you do, some people won't, some people won't care. But at the end of the day, in the same way as you're free to camp in a FPS, FPS players are absolutely entitled to their opinion on your choice of game behaviour.)


___________________________________________


But this time I feel more like trying another angle :

IT DAMAGES OTHER PLAYERS.

I'm guessing you're like "huh?", cause if I have to point it out, you obviously can't see it, but I'll let you ask me if you care enough to know.

Or, in one sentence, as a "TL;DR" :

If it's legal, you do what you want, no one is disagreeing here about that, but the community thinks it's lame, they have a right to think that.



(and if the community changes point of view, I have a right to point that out)

Think and say all you want pal

Thanks God we do not live in China and Freedom of Speech is one of the few perks left in our decadent Western hemisphere.