Ingame mandates and airsoft player ethics.

Feedback e debriefings from Berget 7.
User avatar
motorhead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 351
Joined: 22 Mar 2008, 15:25
Location: Hönefoss, Norway

Ingame mandates and airsoft player ethics.

Post by motorhead » 01 Jul 2009, 04:27

With reference to the mindless rougue fraction sabotage of NATO mission and mandate in Bashir city a reference to the top post here is made:

viewtopic.php?t=5403&start=15

Additionally the Slovenian character "Beckett" from gameplay NATO, India COY, platoon 4 admits openly having backstabbed his own ingame batallion here:
Beckett wrote:Thursday:
Payed 100 B$ to go through BC and photograph India 4 in front of BC church.
Ask the father for the blessing of the unit and received one. Thank you, father.
Friday:
Went to BC with alpha group and part bravo group. Payed 50 B$ to priest for blessing of our unit. Payed 50 to hookie massage. Upon leaving we got info (thanks ORC trustee) that the priest had a lot of cash on him. I could not resist - I only explained the robbing plan to the 2 slovenians on the team - they agreed and I gave it a go. all others were ordered to wait in front of the bar, not knowing what was about to happen. Went to church for confession. Priest was turned upside down. Only 20 B$ that we did not take.
Instead we tried to knock out the casino. Was too well guarded for a "knife" and smuggled pistol. Went to NATO base. On rute 15 m from BC we,ve met bank manager and robbed him. 1500 B$ .. score :)
We ran from the police. In base the loot was distributed evenly to all paricipants :) and I was waiting for court marshal. I informed INDIA Coy what happened and my non complience with the orders (300 m NAOT base parimeter active recon).
So the question goes:
How far can roleplay go in such an airsoftgame before Berget should implement a player-oriented sanction system that can be enforced ingame?

In a more milsim-like setting reenacting a mandate-bound NATO-unit such characters would have been summonly court-martialled and punished thereafter - possibly executed or imprisoned for life for stabbing their own units in the back - also called traitors. But in a fictional game setting all opportunism is allowed, right?

It seems like we're having a trend where the (edit:) experienced milsim roleplayers versus speedball enthusiasts cannot find a proper ingame balance between different gameplay factors. I think the organisator is not to blame here - merely a few mindless speedball-oriented players out of their league doing their own selfish stuff versus more structured teamwork roleplay.

The implications and political ramifications in the real world in such a hypothetical conflict setting would have been severe and escalating.
Media would have gone ballistic and the involved rougue NATO fractions kicked out of their units and court-martialled - to put it mildly.

As we all know there is no so-called NATO unit that would have tolerated or authorized the ingame rougue behaviour we've seen inside and around "Bashir" at Berget 7. Google it up and prove otherwise.

Of course this is a big airsoftgame and not so called realistic, but the brand-name NATO cannot be used if its name shall be tarnished like this.
We better call it "Blueland" or "Peaceforce" etc. instead on future Berget-games. While we play around with hoax like this in our backyard the mentioned NATO is an actual world player in Afghanistan and people die there while we speak.

I think we should respect that fact and not behave like whacko disrespectful kids with such elements in our airsoftgames.
Last edited by motorhead on 01 Jul 2009, 05:23, edited 3 times in total.
Motörhead, SBA, Norway
B6: NATO, Oscar COY, 3rd PLT, 3rd squad
B7: NATO S6 - smoke signal operator
B8: Pol. 3rd Mount. S6/Liaison - ditto
B9: Pol. 3rd Mount. Com dude - ditto
B10: On leave
B11: Hot Dog

User avatar
Seraph
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
Posts: 27
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 23:39

Re: Ingame mandates and airsoft player ethics.

Post by Seraph » 01 Jul 2009, 04:51

motörhead wrote:It seems like we're having a trend where the experienced roleplayers versus the more mandate-bound milsim enthusiasts cannot find a proper ingame balance between different gameplay factors.

To avoid confusion, it should rather be "milsim players versus speedball players".

I believe, as I have said in many other posts, that a game on this scale needs more discipline, otherwise things like this are bound to happen. It is not too much to ask to give directions on how the different factions should act, and I doubt that people are so dumb that they can't figure out a little by themselves. It is not hard to make the game more milsim and still pleasing the action-minded players either. But it depends on what the organizers want to do. They can set the bar higher and require people to develop respect and at least try to assume a mindset that corresponds to the chosen faction and position within it. Just letting people do whatever they want just to get more participants is foolish. Berget isn't a place for democracy.

I see that they are already planning to have 2000+ participants for Berget 8 and it seems to me that their priorities are a bit ill placed. Focus more on storyline and requirements for the different sides to effectively improve the quality of the games. Then, demanding things from the players isn't a bad thing either. You're not paying to be able to do whatever you want. You're paying to be part of a grand experience, but in order to achieve this you need to respect everyone else of the 1500 people just as much as they should respect you and your effort to contribute to the overall experience. People who do not wish to RP don't have to do so either, but they need to respect those who do, and they need to respect the setting, storyline and standpoint of their faction.

Much has already been said on this topic since the end of B7 and much more can be said, but I think it is time the organizers take all of the opinions up to date into account and think of how to improve the events to come.

User avatar
motorhead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 351
Joined: 22 Mar 2008, 15:25
Location: Hönefoss, Norway

Post by motorhead » 01 Jul 2009, 05:03

Agreed. Speedballers versus milsim is the more non-diplomatic answer. A more subtle game-control must be devised - where the different player styles are better handled. There's nothing wrong with being a speedballer, but a game this size is not suitable for fragfests around the clock. And definitely not for the constantly BB-fragfest seekers without sorely needed tactical and ingame politicial judgement.

2000+ players next year is a recipe for parodic settings and requires another level of disipline from players representing big ingame fractions like this years ingame NATO.

Not to mention the strain it puts on fraction leadership and ingame logistics. We're already having a certain turnover factor in the top leading positions.
Motörhead, SBA, Norway
B6: NATO, Oscar COY, 3rd PLT, 3rd squad
B7: NATO S6 - smoke signal operator
B8: Pol. 3rd Mount. S6/Liaison - ditto
B9: Pol. 3rd Mount. Com dude - ditto
B10: On leave
B11: Hot Dog

User avatar
Seraph
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
Posts: 27
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 23:39

Post by Seraph » 01 Jul 2009, 05:11

I didn't really mean it in a condescending way either. It's simply two sides of the hobby.

And of course, I believe we agree on all points. It'll be interesting to hear the opinions of others as well.

User avatar
Bulow
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 00:01
Location: Prague
Contact:

In game discipline

Post by Bulow » 01 Jul 2009, 10:17

As a game organiser I can say that such a loose cannon action players bring no good to the game. Look because of NATO in Bashir people in other fractions were not able to use in game money. That is a pitty because there was no use for the money at all.

Look on it from the other side:

You must print money (Double side print) thats a cost to the game budget so if you dont use them at all its realy waste of money to have them.

Game marshalls should have kicked out blue boys out of the Bashir City and clearly explain them that they shall not do this.

NATO HQ should have been immediatelly informed.

I understand that berget is for all types of players speedballers as well as milsimers but I wouldnt say it is much a milsim. Unless you really make it for you as a Milsim but thats more indifiduall effort based upon the discipline.

NATO players acting like renegades and damaging scenario shall in my opinion rethink if they want to come next time. If this would happen on my game I would not invited such a plyers again.
B5 VDV Vasilij COY Commander
B7 Orlov COY 4 Commander
B9 Reporter and Game Master

User avatar
HardCoil
Private
Private
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 May 2007, 11:04
Location: Denmark

Re: Ingame mandates and airsoft player ethics.

Post by HardCoil » 01 Jul 2009, 10:20

Seraph wrote:You're not paying to be able to do whatever you want. You're paying to be part of a grand experience, but in order to achieve this you need to respect everyone else of the 1500 people just as much as they should respect you and your effort to contribute to the overall experience.
With that many people, this is impossible. There are bound to be a significant number of socially dysfunctional indiciduals in such a large crowd. I overheard some of the NATO rogues bragging about their raids on Bashir City at the beer party. Ruining the game for other players was not a problem for these guys, it was a bonus.

User avatar
Beckett
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 11:42

Re: Ingame mandates and airsoft player ethics.

Post by Beckett » 01 Jul 2009, 12:00

motörhead wrote:With reference to the mindless rougue fraction sabotage of NATO mission and mandate in Bashir city a reference to the top post here is made:

viewtopic.php?t=5403&start=15

Additionally the Slovenian character "Beckett" from gameplay NATO, India COY, platoon 4 admits openly having backstabbed his own ingame batallion here:

So the question goes:
How far can roleplay go in such an airsoftgame before Berget should implement a player-oriented sanction system that can be enforced ingame?

In a more milsim-like setting reenacting a mandate-bound NATO-unit such characters would have been summonly court-martialled and punished thereafter - possibly executed or imprisoned for life for stabbing their own units in the back - also called traitors. But in a fictional game setting all opportunism is allowed, right?

It seems like we're having a trend where the (edit:) experienced milsim roleplayers versus speedball enthusiasts cannot find a proper ingame balance between different gameplay factors. I think the organisator is not to blame here - merely a few mindless speedball-oriented players out of their league doing their own selfish stuff versus more structured teamwork roleplay.

The implications and political ramifications in the real world in such a hypothetical conflict setting would have been severe and escalating.
Media would have gone ballistic and the involved rougue NATO fractions kicked out of their units and court-martialled - to put it mildly.

As we all know there is no so-called NATO unit that would have tolerated or authorized the ingame rougue behaviour we've seen inside and around "Bashir" at Berget 7. Google it up and prove otherwise.

Of course this is a big airsoftgame and not so called realistic, but the brand-name NATO cannot be used if its name shall be tarnished like this.
We better call it "Blueland" or "Peaceforce" etc. instead on future Berget-games. While we play around with hoax like this in our backyard the mentioned NATO is an actual world player in Afghanistan and people die there while we speak.

I think we should respect that fact and not behave like whacko disrespectful kids with such elements in our airsoftgames.
1st:
I'm playing a GAME with stretchy rules. I wanted to expand my experience and I am very thankful to everyone involved. PLEASE, don't take this SO EMOTIONALY! It's only a game.
If you want to take it on a philosophical level:
MY BELIVE is:
PEACE cannot be reached through weapons, violence, force, NATO. It can be reached through openess, love, dialogue and letting go of the past conflicts totally by all sides.
So for me, NATO policy in real life is "bullsh1t". I see them as state mercs, with some key people in their structure getting filthy rich (since war is all about that - money for destruction, than money to rebuild and making that region ecconomicaly dependent on IMF). All other stuff and NATO policy is just a NICE bed time story - if you belive it, ql, but it's so far away from reality.
There are a lot proven accusations for nato solders selling nato weapons, dealing drugs, etc.
My sister works as part of NATO force and her husband is military international law lawyer - I know what I am saying :P

2nd:
Everything I did got priorly communicated to my COY, India 0 the day before. And Ian said he will discuss this at NATO HQ. I got no reply, only that India 4 got recon-assault mission on ORC base. India 4 was constantly held back in reserve ob whole 2 days of attack on CP1 and BC (Ian I know you've done your best to deliver).
That is why I have returned my radio and resigned as India 4 coy on friday night after the game off form game masters. I told Ian I don't have a heart to keep giving my guys false hope for some REAL MASSIVE ACTION and helding them back for 2 days. BC and me going rouge are the only times that I did not follow the ordes form my COY or NATO HQ. Which I cannot say for most of the other companies (and I saw them on the field, and I heard more than you think, since on 2nd day India 4 was the personal guard for India 0 near CP 1).

3rd:
I am not sorry for my actions. I followed my heart, not mind. Also Motorhead in HQ I explaind 2 u I will delivere 3 silents, not to disrupt the abillity of NATO HQ to coordinate NATO force, but to post some real guard on HQ and to express my noncomplyance on the level, that is going to be heard and felt.

4th:
I game court marshal was missing on NATO side :) With some in game consequences (not too drastical).

Lastly:
Thank you all. I know that is hard to make the game great and satisfactiory for everyone.
I enjoyed it every minute. Just of the record: I got killed 3 times, gave 3 silent kills at ORC base, if not for my hop-up problem I would killed the whole ORC HQ, I loved the recon missions - unsuspected and undetected, this is my moto (and this is how I love to play it), we avoided ORC patrol less than 15 m away from us in full daylight, ...
Being a coy for the platoon was a great honor and I did my best - all of my guys kept telling me that.
My bravo team of fillipinos were a real fighting force, hearts like lions, you should see them in action - pure poetry. And I wanted to unleash them upon the "enemy" - but did not have a real chance. This is the only thing I am sorry for.

I have explained myself. This is my perspective and I respect all other opinions, perspectives and comment. Thanks.

And some quotes:
I do not confer praise or blame: I accept. I am the measure of all things. I am the centre of the world. W. Somerset Maugham
Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame. Erica Jong
I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Be not too hasty either with praise or blame; speak always as though you were giving evidence before the judgement-seat of the Gods. Seneca

1st Edit: adding under "1st", adding "court marshal system"
2nd Edit: shortening of quote
3rd edit: adding under "1st", added quotes
"I'll be in touch... silent kill that is." Fun lovin' criminal
-----------------------
Berget 5 - RU; medic
Berget 7 - NATO; India Coy, 4th platoon
HAS team, Slovenia
www.has-team.com

User avatar
wormbyte
Major
Major
Posts: 566
Joined: 05 May 2008, 18:21
Location: In a bush watching you...

Post by wormbyte » 01 Jul 2009, 12:29

There are ways of going about things and the way you did it was not one of them.

Yes you voiced your opinion to me and you wanted me to ask HQ if India company could go rogue and sell itself to the highest bidder, because you felt you were not getting enough action.

I said I would speak to the other platoon commanders and then HQ.

Every other platoon commander reported back with high morale. Yes they thought the game had been slow so far but all were enjoying themselves.

I then spoke to HQ who spoke to the Berget Crew. As a consequence we made up a mission just for you to keep you happy. That was the hit and run attack on the ORC base. As a back up plan you were to be offered the chance to move out of NATO and join the civilians. But that would have involved you moving all your kit from NATO, wearing the appropriate clothing for the civilian faction and the correct armband.

We thought the raid on the ORC base would have satisfied your needs. but I guess not....because you then proceeded to speak to individual members of India about raiding the bank after you entered the city.

I was informed of this prior to the Op and HQ was informed plus we had measures in place to punish any such behaviour.

If you ask me, NATO should be a MilSim faction and those that don't play the role correctly should be removed.

Players do pay to play but NO ONE has the right to disrupt the organisers game plan which resulted in a lot of players have a shit Friday night.
B6 - Platoon Commander (India 1st Platoon) - NATO
B7 - Company Commander (India Coy) - NATO
B10 - 3rd Rangers Commander
B12 - GCT Ranger Commander
B13 - GCT Para Inf - Company Commander
B14 - Commanding Officer of the Nordic Alliance Force

User avatar
Beckett
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 11:42

Post by Beckett » 01 Jul 2009, 12:39

motörhead wrote:Agreed. Speedballers versus milsim is the more non-diplomatic answer. A more subtle game-control must be devised - where the different player styles are better handled. There's nothing wrong with being a speedballer, but a game this size is not suitable for fragfests around the clock. And definitely not for the constantly BB-fragfest seekers without sorely needed tactical and ingame politicial judgement.

2000+ players next year is a recipe for parodic settings and requires another level of disipline from players representing big ingame fractions like this years ingame NATO.

Not to mention the strain it puts on fraction leadership and ingame logistics. We're already having a certain turnover factor in the top leading positions.
Agree on everything. Coys should also have some managing skills and report their player structure based on player prefered gamestyle. This can be observes on first game day, than prepare the missions suitable to different game styles.
"I'll be in touch... silent kill that is." Fun lovin' criminal
-----------------------
Berget 5 - RU; medic
Berget 7 - NATO; India Coy, 4th platoon
HAS team, Slovenia
www.has-team.com

User avatar
Beckett
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 11:42

Post by Beckett » 01 Jul 2009, 12:46

wormbyte wrote:There are ways of going about things and the way you did it was not one of them.

Yes you voiced your opinion to me and you wanted me to ask HQ if India company could go rogue and sell itself to the highest bidder, because you felt you were not getting enough action.

I said I would speak to the other platoon commanders and then HQ.

Every other platoon commander reported back with high morale. Yes they thought the game had been slow so far but all were enjoying themselves.

I then spoke to HQ who spoke to the Berget Crew. As a consequence we made up a mission just for you to keep you happy. That was the hit and run attack on the ORC base. As a back up plan you were to be offered the chance to move out of NATO and join the civilians. But that would have involved you moving all your kit from NATO, wearing the appropriate clothing for the civilian faction and the correct armband.

We thought the raid on the ORC base would have satisfied your needs. but I guess not....because you then proceeded to speak to individual members of India about raiding the bank after you entered the city.

I was informed of this prior to the Op and HQ was informed plus we had measures in place to punish any such behaviour.

If you ask me, NATO should be a MilSim faction and those that don't play the role correctly should be removed.

Players do pay to play but NO ONE has the right to disrupt the organisers game plan which resulted in a lot of players have a shit Friday night.
True. Agree. I was not aware of most of comms betwean you and HQ. Guess there was not enough time to communicate everything. Would influence my decissions greatly.
Guys were happy with the hit&run mission and the recon stuff, like I have written in previous threads. The only thing that was hoped for was the big assault contact. That is all.
And I shall say again. I was very satisfied with Berget 7 and hope that all that I did will contribute to evolve this event even further.

I was expecting some sort of public apperal and communication of HQ stuff to all the players in base on B7 start and during the days if needed. People need to have a feeling someone is there for them - this comes from my 15 yrs boyscout exp, being on all levels of leadership in the BS organisation, organizing hikes, 14 day campings, etc.

I accept all consequences for my actions.
"I'll be in touch... silent kill that is." Fun lovin' criminal
-----------------------
Berget 5 - RU; medic
Berget 7 - NATO; India Coy, 4th platoon
HAS team, Slovenia
www.has-team.com

User avatar
Tiger_1
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 907
Joined: 26 Nov 2007, 13:14
Location: Norway

Post by Tiger_1 » 01 Jul 2009, 13:34

I am not sure I got what you were asking for. But if it was info from HQ you wanted, the way to go about that is to ask your chain of command.
I was asked by the commander of Oscar it I had the time to give his company a "big picture" brief. I did this, spending about 15-20 min giving them a rundown on what they had done, what it was for, and what the others had been doing. I belive this helped them understand the game more. Had any other company commander asked me, and I had the time I would have done that for them also. But if people dont ask, we cant know. And some people will never be able to get ALL the info on what is happening to a bat with 400+ men.
"go to your God like a soldier!"

User avatar
Beckett
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 11:42

Post by Beckett » 01 Jul 2009, 13:39

Tiger_1 wrote:I am not sure I got what you were asking for. But if it was info from HQ you wanted, the way to go about that is to ask your chain of command.
I was asked by the commander of Oscar it I had the time to give his company a "big picture" brief. I did this, spending about 15-20 min giving them a rundown on what they had done, what it was for, and what the others had been doing. I belive this helped them understand the game more. Had any other company commander asked me, and I had the time I would have done that for them also. But if people dont ask, we cant know. And some people will never be able to get ALL the info on what is happening to a bat with 400+ men.
Thanks for clarifying. I would love to have that. Did not ask, because I had expectations (which is never a good thing) it will be done in game at the beginning to all the players. There is always some communication breakdown - for my part, now I see that I should ask more, even HQ directly. Learned a lot. Thanks for the post.
"I'll be in touch... silent kill that is." Fun lovin' criminal
-----------------------
Berget 5 - RU; medic
Berget 7 - NATO; India Coy, 4th platoon
HAS team, Slovenia
www.has-team.com

User avatar
wormbyte
Major
Major
Posts: 566
Joined: 05 May 2008, 18:21
Location: In a bush watching you...

Post by wormbyte » 01 Jul 2009, 13:50

Well that is another lesson for Berget staff.

HQ's need missions as soon as possible so we can plan them effectively.

Coy cmdr's should be briefed in HQ with all the details and they then pass that down the chain. That was not coming from HQ, simply because they did not have enough time to put it together in my view, and that was because they did not get the mission briefs until the last minute. That was out of HQ's hands and it must of been very frustrating for them!

Which is why I put in the "3 comments" post about Berget getting more resources to help with these events.
B6 - Platoon Commander (India 1st Platoon) - NATO
B7 - Company Commander (India Coy) - NATO
B10 - 3rd Rangers Commander
B12 - GCT Ranger Commander
B13 - GCT Para Inf - Company Commander
B14 - Commanding Officer of the Nordic Alliance Force

Tunkis
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Dec 2008, 16:17

Re: Ingame mandates and airsoft player ethics.

Post by Tunkis » 01 Jul 2009, 14:15

motörhead wrote: Of course this is a big airsoftgame and not so called realistic, but the brand-name NATO cannot be used if its name shall be tarnished like this.
We better call it "Blueland" or "Peaceforce" etc. instead on future Berget-games. While we play around with hoax like this in our backyard the mentioned NATO is an actual world player in Afghanistan and people die there while we speak.

I think we should respect that fact and not behave like whacko disrespectful kids with such elements in our airsoftgames.
As I have said in different treads now, NATO didn´t have any ordinary peacekeeping/humanitarian intervention missions, I don´t know if it´s BE that have planned bad or that our HQ didn´t give such missions. But what I can say is that me and many others in my platoon were bored with doing missions that led to us getting killed like cattle or simply just walking away from the victories we have made. So if NATO should be a more MILSIM fraction (which I would approve of) then we need to get people into the milsim early and also adapt it for our players. Me and my friends havn´t played MILSIM before and therefore it´s a bit hard to get into that while dealing with platoon- and squadleaders from the homeguard which demand militarytraining or the equal from everyone. Also in Bravo i felt that our morale was pretty low, some of my friends were even banned from playing with their platoon because of a disagreement with their PL. So that´s a situation were the bravo COY or even the HQ should come down and talk to us and find a solution for the problems which basically were based in the fact that many of my friends felt a lack of action in a AIRSOFT event and to much Milsim. I had other issues with our platoon and overall strategical planning, but the lack of action was the main reason.

And to conclude with the fact that airsoft/milsim is a hobby were civilians pretend to be soldiers and uses real units as inspiration. That means that their name will be misused but I don´t believe that anyone wish to disrespect the soldiers that fight today. If people do, like occasions during B7 then the HQ should intervene and teach people the values of our played fraction.
B7: NATO; Bravo 2&3 Soldier

User avatar
Robman
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 299
Joined: 02 Nov 2008, 21:02
Location: United States

Post by Robman » 01 Jul 2009, 14:21

Milo's felt the time crunch as well when receiving missions from BE staff. Fortunately, we were only 120 personnel. So, we could manage a mass briefing for all the Milo's members early in the morning. However, there were people that slept in and refused to get out of their sleeping bag. This was difficult because we are not a military organization and can't force them to come to the briefings.
Robert "Robman" Manore
Berget 7 - Milo's Tigers, Spec Ops
Berget 8 - Poldavian 15th PSYOPS, Intel Officer
Berget 9 - Town Elder, Townspeople of Janco
Berget 10 - Commander, NAF 9th Recon & Sniper

Post Reply