The Context

/r/arma is dedicated to discussing the Arma series, primarily Arma 3 and the sequel testbed Arma Reforger. Like many simulation games, Arma 3 has lots of DLCs (about 19 so far), but they're all fairly good and add a plethora of content to the vanilla game. Of the DLCs, a handful are viewed in very high regard. Apex (Pacific spec-ops), S.O.G. Prairie Fire (Vietnam War), Western Sahara (lore-friendly desert warfare), Contact (non-canon alien sci-fi), Tac-Ops ("meanwhile" mission pack occurring alongside the base game's campaign), Laws of War (Red Cross-backed humanitarian non-combat story campaign), and Global Mobilization ("Cold War gone hot" 1980s Germany) are generally considered the best for their content and popularity, and are viewed quite fondly. So fondly, in fact, that perhaps not liking them is a cardinal sin to others...

The Drama

This morning, a user posted their personal Arma 3 DLC tier list to the sub. Recall those DLCs I listed, because out of all of them, only Tac-Ops got to the top tier alongside Tanks and Helicopters (which both added a couple of their titular vehicles and improved gameplay mechanics for them, but not much else). Notably, Apex and S.O.G. Prairie Fire were in the middle tier, even though the community generally considers them the best DLCs. "Pretty good" might not be pretty bad, until you realize the only ones below it are Marksmen (added cool infantry weapons), Karts (a joke DLC that barely counts), and CSLA Iron Curtain (which was so bad the devs apologized and offered full refunds). So yeah, that's not a great position to be in.

• Some users wonder whether OP is "well" based on Apex and S.O.G.'s ranking. The sub quickly agrees that OP is stupid and that the post is probably bait, because "everyone likes SOG". OP responds, twice, and gets a total of 200 downvotes for their troubles (not entirely unwarranted; the reasoning was basically "Apex didn't have armored fighting vehicles, and S.O.G. did but not the one I wanted"). Their second response also prompts a user to hit OP with a callout block of text for judging entire game expansions based on the presence of specific armored fighting vehicles. Another user tries to defend OP and is told off because if you post on Reddit, you should expect criticism. Fair, I guess.

• A more tolerant user asks OP why they happened to rate the infantry-focused DLCs, particularly the well-received Marksman DLC, so low. OP states this is because they prefer vehicular combat over infantry combat, which strikes a nerve with another user, apparently based on the implication that Arma 3's tank simulation doesn't count as real tank simulation.

• One user asks about S.O.G.'s ranking, noting its high quality, and deduces OP must prefer vehicles more. OP's confirmation of this is downvoted heavily for no reason, prompting a user to bring up the stock response of the Reddit hivemind, sparking a brief argument about what upvoting and downvoting is even supposed to mean.

• A user repeats the belief that "prairie fire should be way higher". When OP sends a passive-aggressive reply advising them to make their own tier list, the user responds with the Neil deGrasse Tyson "we're dealing with a badass over here" rage comic meme, which was long thought to be extinct.

• One user tries to understand Global Mobilization's ranking, considering it has plenty of armored fighting vehicles. OP states this is because it didn't include vehicles they wanted, but also because "SPAAs dont work as they should". When the user asks what they mean by that, OP states it's because you can only aim them manually when the real ones used automatic radar-guided aiming... and, in the same line, notes this is a vanilla issue, meaning it's not the DLC's fault to begin with.

• A user suggests switching the rankings of Helicopters and Marksmen. When OP repeats that they aren't quite fond of infantry, another user tries to convince them by noting the Helicopters DLC added just three helicopters, while the Marksman DLC added a bunch of weapons and ghillie suits for infantry, which OP already said they didn't like. Upvotes suggest the sub thinks this is a pretty good response anyway.

• A developer of Spearhead 1944, a fairly new World War II DLC not included in the tier list, asks why it's not there. Mind you, it has plenty of vehicles, being WWII and all, so it's got a lot of what OP seems to like. OP's downvoted response: they don't really care for WWII.

And finally, the best for last:

• A user asks OP if this is satire. When OP states this is their actual personal opinion, the user proceeds to insist OP isn't a real human; upvotes suggest the sub agrees with this general sentiment. OP's response to this is removed by the mods, but after a brief back-and-forth, nothing is accomplished and the status of OP's existence as a conscious human being is left unresolved, though the topic has apparently been made a subjective matter.

OP has since deleted their account.

The Flairs

• "Does the sun shine on thine brain at all??😂😂"

• "There's a comment section for a reason and it's not to suck the OP off(most of the time LOL)"

• "If you're so spongy you can't handle someone having a disagreement with your opinion, and reflecting it by pressing a downward arrow, maybe the Internet isn't for you"

• "Nuh uh P E R S O N A L O P I N I O N"

https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1cz6awn/sure_as_you_say_its_subjective_and_it_is_my/