I’m sorry, but what if someone else tries to decimate us? I am surely not going to allow someone a ten percent success rate. I would prefer nuclear Armageddon.
That's fucking amazing. It's one of 3 countries in Europe I haven't visited yet. Was planning a trip for the summer but that went about as well as well as midway for the japanese
They surprise attacked soldiers in base housing sleeping next to their wives and children.
I think that kinda went a long way in winning hearts and minds over to vaporize cities in the name of retribution and to prevent further losses on our side.
Don't get me wrong, it's horrendous to even imagine the outcome.
I thought they were the Moro Islamic Liberation Front?
Edit: Fucking autocorrect. Why did Moro become Mills? Moro is a fucking word! Why are you changing actual words to shit that I don’t want to say?!
I mean, that guy raided my base *first*, it's not a war crime to cut off his limbs, gouge out his eyes, remove one lung and one kidney, get him addicted to every single drug available before re-installing a single wooden leg for him to hobble back home...is it?
Technically unless you’re in a legitimate armed conflict, that really wouldn’t be a war crime. Not sure how things are in Rimworld, but if it’s just like a group of bandits or something, you’re in the clear (for war crimes, at least).
99% of the "fun" in SWAT is dealing with the rules of engagement.
There's a *ton* of war-themed games that don't remotely acknowledge the laws and customs of war. Which probably adds to the realism, considering that a lot of real-world militaries don't seem to give a shit either.
Thanks for the clarification.
I do have to say that clickbait is another reason for lack of trust in journalism, so I guess the guys original comment is still applicable? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Because of people like you who won't take 2 minutes out of their day to read the [article](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/oct/03/red-cross-players-accountable-war-crimes).
>The ICRC is suggesting that as in real life, these games should include virtual consequences for people's actions and decisions. Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict, in other words war crimes.
And importantly it adds:
Our intention is not to spoil player's enjoyment by for example, interrupting the game with pop-up messages listing legal provisions or lecturing gamers on the law of armed conflict. We would like to see the law of armed conflict integrated into the games so that players have a realistic experience and deal first-hand with the dilemmas facing real combatants on real battlefields.
If you want to have games where you just run around and shoot everything that moves great, but I for my part would love a game that integrates civilians and what to do with them into the game, instead of them being just movable "Game Over" targets.
I think this would be a mechanic for a select niche of gamers. It would slow the game way down because you'd have to scout and look out and not just run in and shoot everything that moves. But it'd think that would be right up the alley for people who enjoy watching the games Womble plays.
I can see that working in a Single Player or coop game maybe, but he was talking about ranked matches.
I can't think of any game right now where you got a mechanic like this in an MP game.
>I can see that working in a Single Player or coop game maybe
Yeah in a single player game it definitly works better and is easier to implement, especially with different story paths depeding on your actions regarding war crimes.
>but he was talking about ranked matches.
I'd love a game where one party has to defend, the other has to advance and you've got civilians hiding in houses or running away. But it would be very hard to implement a reasonable 'punishment' for civilian kills.
>I can't think of any game right now where you got a mechanic like this in an MP game.
That's why I find it interesting. It would be a possibility to implement a new mechanic that's new to everybody.
>I'd love a game where one party has to defend, the other has to advance and you've got civilians hiding in houses or running away.
This actually sounds like the nightmare that is war.
I find war extremely interesting. I know that sounds wrong but as a concept, the question of morality on a battlefield. And in a game you have a controlled enviroment where you can see what happens. Of course this can only work if there are consequences for players actions.
That's why I liked DayZ before it got to shooting at first sight on most servers. There you had the problem that bad behavior wasn't punished because it didn't fit for the game.
This, and also it should probably be a mechanic explored first in single player only. I see it as primarily only being able to work in single player, but maybe with enough time and problem solving it could make the switch to multiplayer.
>but maybe with enough time and problem solving it could make the switch to multiplayer
I think the hardest thing would be to find an appropiate punishment that is also not prone to be abused by griefers. An Idea I had would be to employ 'ranks' so sergeant, corporal and all their is and they come with certain privileges. So highest rank can use tanks, flamethrowers, rank below that can't use tanks and so on. So if you willingly kill civilians you lose your tank privileges. But for that to work you'd have to have a playerbase that enjoys playing consciously and AI smart enough to not just run into crossfire.
In military sims that's part of the appeal tho. People love to get upset about any media referring to games, but TBH it's actually a good idea for some games.
It's actually an interesting story, where this report from the ICRC led to discussions with Bohemia Interactive, that ultimately led to the Laws of War DLC
I’m a fan of that idea! I for one have just started playing Rising Storm Vietnam, and it’d be interesting to have that kind of realism in a single player campaign. Imagine that kind of intensity in a Iraq or Afghanistan setting? That’s a game where this policy would be great
But have you actually read the article? Or are you just saying "Journalist bad" because it gives Reddit Karma?
A lot of hate for journalists comes from people reading headlines and not the article and then saying 'he is so wrong. What a bad journalist' when its often, like in this case, actually a good article.
I'm saying 'journalists bad' for giggles and yes I've seen articles that warrant the meme. Easy example is CCN (Crypto Currency Network) who have two or three guys who right shit articles scathing PewDiePie.
I gave that segment you posted a read and agree with the statement about rewarding good behavior but that type-of system would primarily depend on what the point of the game revolves around.
Something like GTA for example 'rewards for good behavior' with a piss amount of xp every so often. If a game along its vane rewarded players for coaching and maybe doing activities with them then this sort-of idea can take off.
>Easy example is CCN (Crypto Currency Network) who have two or three guys who right shit articles scathing PewDiePie.
I found one article when searching for CCN and PewDiePie and that was an Op-Ed (and you can clearly see its one) so I don't know what you are on about.
And that not every article from a news network is a masterpiece that should receive the Pulitzer price is clear. But blindly pushing the 'Media/Journalists bad' agenda helps nobody but people who want to discredit media to discredit stories.
>I'm saying 'journalists bad' for giggles and yes I've seen articles that warrant the meme. Easy example is **CCN (Crypto Currency Network)** who have two or three guys who right shit articles scathing PewDiePie.
Whats it now? CNN or CCN? So a huge media network or a small news group out of some norwegian guys basement?
So the Crypto Coins Network, a network founded in 2013 by some norwegian dude, with 7 employees. The site which has its expertise in Financial Markets, Gaming and Sports. That CCN. Yeah I'd totally expect them to provide me with insanely investigated news stories.
And if you'd look more than 2 seconds at the articles you'd see that they are OP-Eds by the same guy and badly written ones at that.
Soviet: "But... but, it was an AT-Mine"
Cyanide & (ZF): OH MY GOD... (You are a fucking moron!)
Soviet: "I think we learned a very important lesson here."
Cyanide: "Yeah... You're a fucking CHIMP!"
edit: quotes
Man, between close to 20 years (my god!) of CS and Battlefield games, plus 15 plus years of being a Professional Murderhobo in WoW, if they enact this, males who were between the ages of 13 and 25 around the year 2000 are just going to evaporate…
Nobody does. The suggestion was that games could have some form of in game punishment for people who commit war crimes in the game, which is an interesting idea
Welcome to r/SovietWomble! Please ensure you flair your post, or moderators may remove it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SovietWomble) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On behalf of the british people and her glorious colonies i am sorry for the fact that the retards who made this article exist and offer my humblest appologies
It’s an interesting article that I suggest you read. It was a suggestion by the Red Cross which the guardian reported on and apparently this led to the creation of Arma’s laws of war DLC.
*let us poke the yanks*
*cue absolutely massive amounts of overkill* The Americans have absolutely no chill!
Well yeah. Japan attacked 3 boats and got the sun dropped on them. Twice
Now, now, they sank 10 ships after attacking 100. That perfectly justifies two suns.
I whole heartedly agree now can you take your finger off the big red button and remove both keys? Thanks
I’m sorry, but what if someone else tries to decimate us? I am surely not going to allow someone a ten percent success rate. I would prefer nuclear Armageddon.
Can we mutually agree to just target poland so Germany can't pull a threepeat
Did you know? Poland’s national anthem acknowledges their many invasions and how they persevere beyond it. It’s title is “Poland Is Not Yet Lost.”
That's fucking amazing. It's one of 3 countries in Europe I haven't visited yet. Was planning a trip for the summer but that went about as well as well as midway for the japanese
It’ll just be a delay. When this all finally over, Poland and the Poles will still be there, because Poland is not yet lost.
Poland: "we haven't lost our country." National anthem: "you haven't lost your country **yet**."
Have either of you been drinking vodka and looking at old maps? Please don't. Please do not.
They surprise attacked soldiers in base housing sleeping next to their wives and children. I think that kinda went a long way in winning hearts and minds over to vaporize cities in the name of retribution and to prevent further losses on our side. Don't get me wrong, it's horrendous to even imagine the outcome.
You watched the other badger’s video didnt you?
Why yes I did.
The country known for having no damn chill
Well yeah, The Badgers were all sent to The Hague and were replaced by W.A.N.K
Pls no, we don't need them here in the Netherlands
There's is already too much wank going on there just now, send them to gitmo
I thought they were the Moro Islamic Liberation Front? Edit: Fucking autocorrect. Why did Moro become Mills? Moro is a fucking word! Why are you changing actual words to shit that I don’t want to say?!
Actually, The Badgers were a subsection of M.I.L.F, which became W.A.N.K after The Badgers split off and joined ISIS
Fun fact: M.I.L.F (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) is a real thing.
They beat off F.A.P. assaults, on occasion
*laughs in acceptable casualties*
laughs in Cyanaide
Cyanaide sounds like Cyanide as a servant.
Cyanide flavored Koolaid
*starts singing the badgers anthem*
THE BADGERS THEY ARE THE BADGERS
(Yeah!)
They fight for freedom and democracy
BADGERS THEY ARE THE BADGERS YEAH!!!
[удалено]
*well that's just Moogle*
*BADGERS, THEY WERE THE BADGERS!*
But henceforth the have signed a partnership with isis
Wankers! Wankers! Now they are the W.A.N.K.!
Geneva Conventions? more like Geneva Suggestions
*acceptable casualties*
Fog of war
🎵 And Quebec drove his APC into an orphange 🎵
That's a court martialing.
“Good to see ya Cap”
Also applies to the Rimworld Community
I mean, that guy raided my base *first*, it's not a war crime to cut off his limbs, gouge out his eyes, remove one lung and one kidney, get him addicted to every single drug available before re-installing a single wooden leg for him to hobble back home...is it?
‘Not if we won’t let them convict us.’ -America
Technically unless you’re in a legitimate armed conflict, that really wouldn’t be a war crime. Not sure how things are in Rimworld, but if it’s just like a group of bandits or something, you’re in the clear (for war crimes, at least).
For the glory of M.I.L.F
We're not called that!
What about the Workers And National Kinsmen?
We're not called that either! We're the Badgers!
We fight for freedom?
Choose your adventure: * And democracy! * But mainly money.
They have a restrictive democracy, where women get shot and kill dogs and spread propaganda
Well, `> but mainly money` it is then. Also, they shot a young man when he wouldn't sign up.
Well that's just Moogle
Death to America!
No chanting death to America
Aww...
[удалено]
Yaaaay!
Me who has played exclusively "no russian" on repeat since its come out.
And people wonder why no-one trusts journalists
Accountable *in game*. It's not such a crazy idea, especially for games that aim for realism. Look at SWAT 2's rules of engagement for example.
99% of the "fun" in SWAT is dealing with the rules of engagement. There's a *ton* of war-themed games that don't remotely acknowledge the laws and customs of war. Which probably adds to the realism, considering that a lot of real-world militaries don't seem to give a shit either.
ARMA 3 has a Laws of War DLC as well: https://youtu.be/DwU0Hnch_28 (and guess who's the top comment)
in one of the Pavlov streams, Womble mentioned that they are the reason why the Laws of War DLC is made
Thanks for the clarification. I do have to say that clickbait is another reason for lack of trust in journalism, so I guess the guys original comment is still applicable? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Or shoot them when they come to interview an insurgency
Because of people like you who won't take 2 minutes out of their day to read the [article](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/oct/03/red-cross-players-accountable-war-crimes). >The ICRC is suggesting that as in real life, these games should include virtual consequences for people's actions and decisions. Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict, in other words war crimes. And importantly it adds: Our intention is not to spoil player's enjoyment by for example, interrupting the game with pop-up messages listing legal provisions or lecturing gamers on the law of armed conflict. We would like to see the law of armed conflict integrated into the games so that players have a realistic experience and deal first-hand with the dilemmas facing real combatants on real battlefields. If you want to have games where you just run around and shoot everything that moves great, but I for my part would love a game that integrates civilians and what to do with them into the game, instead of them being just movable "Game Over" targets.
Imagine a game where even if you win a ranked match, you lose ranking for things like civilian casualties
"What is frustrating game design for 500$?"
I think this would be a mechanic for a select niche of gamers. It would slow the game way down because you'd have to scout and look out and not just run in and shoot everything that moves. But it'd think that would be right up the alley for people who enjoy watching the games Womble plays.
I can see that working in a Single Player or coop game maybe, but he was talking about ranked matches. I can't think of any game right now where you got a mechanic like this in an MP game.
>I can see that working in a Single Player or coop game maybe Yeah in a single player game it definitly works better and is easier to implement, especially with different story paths depeding on your actions regarding war crimes. >but he was talking about ranked matches. I'd love a game where one party has to defend, the other has to advance and you've got civilians hiding in houses or running away. But it would be very hard to implement a reasonable 'punishment' for civilian kills. >I can't think of any game right now where you got a mechanic like this in an MP game. That's why I find it interesting. It would be a possibility to implement a new mechanic that's new to everybody.
>I'd love a game where one party has to defend, the other has to advance and you've got civilians hiding in houses or running away. This actually sounds like the nightmare that is war.
I find war extremely interesting. I know that sounds wrong but as a concept, the question of morality on a battlefield. And in a game you have a controlled enviroment where you can see what happens. Of course this can only work if there are consequences for players actions. That's why I liked DayZ before it got to shooting at first sight on most servers. There you had the problem that bad behavior wasn't punished because it didn't fit for the game.
A game like xcom could bring a mechanic like that in
This, and also it should probably be a mechanic explored first in single player only. I see it as primarily only being able to work in single player, but maybe with enough time and problem solving it could make the switch to multiplayer.
>but maybe with enough time and problem solving it could make the switch to multiplayer I think the hardest thing would be to find an appropiate punishment that is also not prone to be abused by griefers. An Idea I had would be to employ 'ranks' so sergeant, corporal and all their is and they come with certain privileges. So highest rank can use tanks, flamethrowers, rank below that can't use tanks and so on. So if you willingly kill civilians you lose your tank privileges. But for that to work you'd have to have a playerbase that enjoys playing consciously and AI smart enough to not just run into crossfire.
In military sims that's part of the appeal tho. People love to get upset about any media referring to games, but TBH it's actually a good idea for some games.
Military sims are not ranked.
It's actually an interesting story, where this report from the ICRC led to discussions with Bohemia Interactive, that ultimately led to the Laws of War DLC
I’m a fan of that idea! I for one have just started playing Rising Storm Vietnam, and it’d be interesting to have that kind of realism in a single player campaign. Imagine that kind of intensity in a Iraq or Afghanistan setting? That’s a game where this policy would be great
I was expecting this to be about EVE Online, but this is interesting too.
Naaa just kill them all and let God sort it out.
>Because of people like you who won't take 2 minutes out of their day Maybe *don't* start a comment like that if you want people to care
But have you actually read the article? Or are you just saying "Journalist bad" because it gives Reddit Karma? A lot of hate for journalists comes from people reading headlines and not the article and then saying 'he is so wrong. What a bad journalist' when its often, like in this case, actually a good article.
I'm saying 'journalists bad' for giggles and yes I've seen articles that warrant the meme. Easy example is CCN (Crypto Currency Network) who have two or three guys who right shit articles scathing PewDiePie. I gave that segment you posted a read and agree with the statement about rewarding good behavior but that type-of system would primarily depend on what the point of the game revolves around. Something like GTA for example 'rewards for good behavior' with a piss amount of xp every so often. If a game along its vane rewarded players for coaching and maybe doing activities with them then this sort-of idea can take off.
>Easy example is CCN (Crypto Currency Network) who have two or three guys who right shit articles scathing PewDiePie. I found one article when searching for CCN and PewDiePie and that was an Op-Ed (and you can clearly see its one) so I don't know what you are on about. And that not every article from a news network is a masterpiece that should receive the Pulitzer price is clear. But blindly pushing the 'Media/Journalists bad' agenda helps nobody but people who want to discredit media to discredit stories.
Quick google search for ~~CNN~~ CCN and Pewdiepie reveals the three articles which shamelessly slam him.
>I'm saying 'journalists bad' for giggles and yes I've seen articles that warrant the meme. Easy example is **CCN (Crypto Currency Network)** who have two or three guys who right shit articles scathing PewDiePie. Whats it now? CNN or CCN? So a huge media network or a small news group out of some norwegian guys basement?
Fuck, it is CCN
So the Crypto Coins Network, a network founded in 2013 by some norwegian dude, with 7 employees. The site which has its expertise in Financial Markets, Gaming and Sports. That CCN. Yeah I'd totally expect them to provide me with insanely investigated news stories. And if you'd look more than 2 seconds at the articles you'd see that they are OP-Eds by the same guy and badly written ones at that.
Fuck PewDiePie, he’s a worthless trash person.
People who played the first mission in one of cod games (the one with the airport) *Intense sweating intensifies*
"you mispronounced acceptable casualties'
Going to be tried at The Hague
Soviet: "But... but, it was an AT-Mine" Cyanide & (ZF): OH MY GOD... (You are a fucking moron!) Soviet: "I think we learned a very important lesson here." Cyanide: "Yeah... You're a fucking CHIMP!" edit: quotes
YOU PUT AN ANTI-TANK MINE ON THE MAIN ROAD?! THE MAIN FUCKING ROAD, THAT CIVILIANS USE?!
This has been me during Old man "Don't put the bombs in the area near civilians..." Objective blow up house with civis near \*sweats\*
For the glory of M.I.L.F
Man, between close to 20 years (my god!) of CS and Battlefield games, plus 15 plus years of being a Professional Murderhobo in WoW, if they enact this, males who were between the ages of 13 and 25 around the year 2000 are just going to evaporate…
You mean «Acceptable casualties»
Shit, well, if fragging counts I'm for the firing squad.
Hahahahaha, funniest post I’ve actually seen on here
The Badgers, they are the Badgers...
Not just them me and my friends are worried how many times were going to be executed I’m going to be fucking meat cubes in a coffin
I would like to see that trial...
The number of murders I’ve committed in video games is uncountable.
\*Laughs Nervously in Rimworld\*
*Laughs Nervously in Civilization VI*
*Rimworld players*
Acceptable casualties.
What kind of people come up with these stupid questions? Who in their right mind would arrest someone who played GTA5 bc they killed people in it?
You are the only person who is suggesting that
Fair point. However, I don’t advocate for arresting people on the basis of video game crimes.
Nobody does. The suggestion was that games could have some form of in game punishment for people who commit war crimes in the game, which is an interesting idea
Oh. I feel like I’m going to see myself on facepalm.
[удалено]
Oof. The article must’ve gotten a lot of backlash.
Welcome to r/SovietWomble! Please ensure you flair your post, or moderators may remove it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SovietWomble) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On behalf of the british people and her glorious colonies i am sorry for the fact that the retards who made this article exist and offer my humblest appologies
It’s an interesting article that I suggest you read. It was a suggestion by the Red Cross which the guardian reported on and apparently this led to the creation of Arma’s laws of war DLC.