72 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

So when you pug with people who refuse to advance, just hang back and snipe to farm for damage and kills, can we report them too?

[Kjudoon]

The validity for 'non participation' ended the instant CW came to be. Now with the layer of campaign level objectives outside the match being a master of the non-fight is a valid tactic to tie up units that are rapidly burning through victories.

Of course this infuriates many who want only to pew pew. The sad but true news is that cw is no place for such players. That is the PQs. If you cannot, will not be patient, you are a detriment on the battlefield. If you are unable to realize you have committed to fight an enemy who if they cannot beat you has a vested interest to keep you from winning another match, go back to the PQs and stay there. You committed 30 minutes of your time, and id you want it shorter, it is incumbent on you to make it so. There is no other excuse.

Go kill, quit or deal with it and stop the QQ. Your argument is invalid.

Illuzian Pryde, on 26 December 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Whatever means you use to justify it, it is against the Code of Conduct:
http://mwomercs.com/...ploitsgriefing/
"Non-Participation Abuse
If a player has joined a match, they must have launched the game with intent to play. Players who are not moving, or are otherwise not participating in the spirit of the game, fall under this category. While we all understand the call of nature: Repeated abuse of this behaviour, similarly to 'Mech Suicide and Team Killing, results in an unfair advantage for the enemy teams, and is thus not considered acceptable use. Please keep in mind that idling on your cap point without armour or moving does not constitute a form of tactical "Base Defense"."

[Dirty Starfish]

Apostal Sinclair, on 27 December 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

This strategy is a total failure... on both maps the Defending team CAN get over the gates to engage you at your drop zone, even without jumpjets. If a team employs this then we will farm them out regardless... we will press the attackers early just to get a quick match turn around (and honestly pugs are also looking for good fights, fight them on more even footing and they enjoy the match even if it's a beat down).

Yeah. If the defenders are so good that the attackers are pissing their pants, not attacking the gates ain't gonna stop the stomp train.

[Worm Seraphin]

This seems to me like a skirmish match where one team hides till the clock runs out, which was reportable last I remember.
You think winning a planet in CW gives you the right to take away other players enjoyment of actually playing the game?

[Roadbeer]

Worm Seraphin, on 27 December 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

You think winning a planet in CW gives you the right to take away other players enjoyment of actually playing the game?

You think spawn camping, min/maxing and metahumping, because it's within the 'rules' gives you the right to take away other players enjoyment of actually playing the game?

[Worm Seraphin]

Roadbeer, on 27 December 2014 - 08:18 PM, said:

You think spawn camping, min/maxing and metahumping, because it's within the 'rules' gives you the right to take away other players enjoyment of actually playing the game?

Spawn camping is already being worked on. The others don't prevent playing the game.
How would you feel buying tickets to a baseball game and one team decides not to leave the dugout?

[Baelfire]

Thats a pretty bad example, because when the game starts they have already left the dugout (the lobby). They are on the map and you can reach, shoot and kill them.

A better example would be a game of soccer where two defensive teams meet each other. Boring to watch, but again completely legit.

Edited by Baelfire, 27 December 2014 - 09:17 PM.

[Kjudoon]

False analogy.. you aren't the spectator at that game you are the other team. You didn't buy tickets you came to play and now you won. You agreed to come and play a match and owe the opposition your time. 15 or 30 minutes. Even if they forfeit, You owe them your time. That is all.

[Worm Seraphin]

Technically thats correct, not the best analogy.
I guess examples of not playing being a valid strategy are hard to come by, thankfully.
It's too bad people would rather win than have a good game that both sides enjoy.

Edited by Worm Seraphin, 27 December 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Worm Seraphin, on 27 December 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

Technically thats correct, not the best analogy.
I guess examples of not playing being a valid strategy are hard to come by, thankfully.

Because you're confusing war strategies as game tactics.

There is a new level of the meta game that has nothing to do with builds, weapons, or map strategies. This is where Cease Fires, Holding Actions, Delaying Operations, Non-Aggression Pacts, etc. all come in to play.

[Kjudoon]

Cw is the addition of out of match politics. Those who hate it should stick to the PQs because you will get frustrated with it, and there are many of us who have been waiting for this socio-political meta game since open release. Now to develop the tools of that game and associated logistical tools. Think of it as the "Master Of Orion" overlay to MWO.

[Worm Seraphin]

Wow, ok let's call the game "Ceasefire" then, see how long it lasts.
I'd rather fight for planets.
Having sociopolitical decisions determining battles sounds great, but not creating non-battles, that's all I'm saying.

Edited by Worm Seraphin, 27 December 2014 - 10:15 PM.

[Black Phoebe]

Worm Seraphin, on 27 December 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

It's too bad people would rather win than have a good game that both sides enjoy.

Well, it happens mostly during PUG vs Premade games. And in this scenario only one side enjoys the game, while the other side gets stomped and pretty often insulted for "psychological warfare" as well. "Not attacking" is boring and will almost always happen if the attackers feel that they are "outgunned", which leaves not much room for a game that is fun for both sides.

To be honest the main difference between the countless premades-destroy-our-enjoyment and this thread seems to be, that this time the premades are on the receiving end.

Edit: my intention was to post this with Baelfire, not with my clan account. Well, it's late over here in germany.

Edited by Black Phoebe, 27 December 2014 - 10:23 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Politics of war. Inescapable part of CW. Have you never played "Risk"? I won't attack you if you attack him? That is CW.

[Worm Seraphin]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

Politics of war. Inescapable part of CW. Have you never played "Risk"? I won't attack you if you attack him? That is CW.

risk is a very enjoyable game, because you don't have to waste an hour of your time waiting for the other guy to decide he's not attacking that round.

[Roadbeer]

Worm Seraphin, on 27 December 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

risk is a very enjoyable game, because you don't have to waste an hour of your time waiting for the other guy to decide he's not attacking that round.

You and I play Risk very differently. I've had a game take over a week.

Some people look at the long game, some people just at whats outside their cockpit. Neither are wrong,

I just find it amusing that all of a sudden, a valid strategy is being called a bannable offence while over the last 2 years, broken mechanics have been exploited and called "being pro"

Edited by Roadbeer, 27 December 2014 - 10:51 PM.

[Fat Jack Murphy]

Just to put the dirty old pirate scum`s opinion here:

if it helps taking control of a planet or defending it against beeing taken, then it is a valid strategy.
blocking a premade for 30 minutes while the PUGs battle it out is valid the minute the other side decided to premake vs. pugs.

keep in mind we are talking strategy vs tactics. thats why liao is currently failing out. they are all in for battles against the fedcom.
if they made all the matches slow ones, the fedcom would loose interest. people would choose to battle on the clan front instead or mess with the bigger draconis combine.

and i have a definite source for that:

Quote

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.


21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

Sun Tzu`s Art of War - http://classics.mit....Tzu/artwar.html

thats a 5000 year old technique used to win by sorting out hotshots or delaying the superior team so the less skilled teams can take enough wins for the general objective to be lost.


in other words: do as the pirate would. sneak in, take objective and run like you stole it, or try to trick them into leaving base and slip a sneaker in their rear. years as a locust pilot teach you that... frontal assault against a strong enemy within his fortress could be considered mass suiciding, after all it is a bannable offence, folks...

EDIT : oh, btw... you might get your arse shot, as was proven by french vs english longbowmen, but anyone tried mech-mooning yet ?

Edited by Fat Jack Murphy, 27 December 2014 - 10:59 PM.

[Commander A9]

Illuzian Pryde, on 26 December 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Whatever means you use to justify it, it is against the Code of Conduct:
http://mwomercs.com/...ploitsgriefing/
"Non-Participation Abuse
If a player has joined a match, they must have launched the game with intent to play. Players who are not moving, or are otherwise not participating in the spirit of the game, fall under this category. While we all understand the call of nature: Repeated abuse of this behaviour, similarly to 'Mech Suicide and Team Killing, results in an unfair advantage for the enemy teams, and is thus not considered acceptable use. Please keep in mind that idling on your cap point without armour or moving does not constitute a form of tactical "Base Defense"."

During a PUG match in CW, as an attacker, I outlined a plan, and said "attack."

The PUGs didn't move.

In fact, they refused to move due to enemy suppression fire.

They refused to cross the gates out of fear.

Is being paralyzed by the fear of blowing up a violation of the terms of service? I was stuck in THAT match as much as the opponent I had dropped against.

Furthermore, if I know my team is going to get butchered by fruitlessly throwing ourselves through the gates with no hope of victory, is it a violation of the terms of service to hold back and refuse to die needlessly?

Edited by Commander A9, 27 December 2014 - 11:23 PM.

[OldWateley]

I don't drop into community warfare and put up with the long wait times between matches because I want to blow up a generator on a big gun or stop someone else from doing it. I do it to support my faction and hopefully capture or defend a planet. If pinning a superior force down for an extended period of time as a pug player helps take the planet, then its seems to be a valid and fair tactic. Untrained militia forces have had that assignment for years. I am personally surprised at how much cooperation you can get from us pugs in community warfare versus any other game mode.

[Kjudoon]

Worm Seraphin, on 27 December 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

risk is a very enjoyable game, because you don't have to waste an hour of your time waiting for the other guy to decide he's not attacking that round.

Meh. Some people never look beyond their sgt chevrons, some never look beneath their captain's bars. Both are needed. CW is not the PQs. If you don't want a strategic campaign level game that's what you play. Otherwise you have all new strategies to deal with that never show in your crosshairs.

Those things are often more important in the long run while what goes under your crosshairs is neccessary to become victorious in the other. This also means knowing when to fight and when not.