805 replies to this topic

[Ethan Kell]

Tyr Gunn, on 06 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

So yeah. I don't think I'm not gonna shut the f up anymore. Might as well ban me now, Mason.

If you're concerned with people viewing you as a crybaby look no further than this snippet of your post.

I haven't read many of your posts because they're all too long and I'm not invested in the discussion in any way. But I will say that if your goal is to influence people to your way of thinking, statements like that aren't going to get you closer to your objective.

[Christopher Dayson]

Tyr Gunn, on 06 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Good for you, I'd love to continue making my points about how I feel this entire situation has been mismanaged, but a few days ago I've was asked personally by a mod to keep NWH out of this while the flaming and "whining" continues. It was all under a socially engineered ploy that called us "contributors to the thread", but getting us to back off only seems to have encouraged the accusations that we're whining or crying about something. People don't even seem to read out posts, they just read the tone of them and decide we're babies.

It infuriates that one side of this argument gets to be made without mods pressuring them back off. Well, I'm sick of that. I'm sick of this thread. And I'm sick of being called a crybaby with no supporting evidence. We voiced our goddammed opinions. If that makes me a crybaby, it makes everyone ELSE sycophantic, tool-gobbling bandwagon-jumpers blindly defending the Devs or repeating previous attacks.

So yeah. I don't think I'm not gonna shut the f up anymore. Might as well ban me now, Mason.

Way to make my point for me. You're reading into my words what you want to see, what you've already decided.

I am not calling anyone a Baby or a Flamer or a Whiner. Just making note that there is a plethora of posts to such fashion.

I'm also not Anti-BWC nor am I Anti-NWL, I'm not anti-anyone.

I've said many times I want merc companies to be made, I want them to be successful, I just want them to be original creations and not from the IP specifically. I don't want a situation where someone comes into the game late and goes: Oh gosh Jimmy, I want to play a Wolf's Dragoon! Then runs into any sort of elitism or exclusive group that doesn't include him for any reason.

Everyone needs to have equal right and ability to play canon groups. In this case, for the time being, that equal right is: None.

Do I agree with /that/, no. I want them to make the big merc groups into factions of their own with the dev's assigning which merc group works for who based on population and activity. That would be super sweet to me. As those merc players progress in their faction they can /earn/ to work for individual units within that company. Same as a House person.

So say Timmy wants to play in the Black Widow Company, he'd first join the Wolf's Dragoons faction, and have to /earn/ his way into the Black Widows, same way as a Kurita player has to earn their way into the Prospertina Hussars or the Swords of Light for example.

It's an even ability to play in their chosen IP group. For good or ill, you can't please everyone, and out of 90,000 people, a few hundred are a small group.

EDIT: That's really as reasonable as I can be, I'm not trying to be offensive, Wolf's Dragoon's and BWC was used as examples, etc. Replace any merc group name with any other IP group, represented or not, and the point is the same

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 06 May 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[Tyr Gunn]

Ethan Kell, on 06 May 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

If you're concerned with people viewing you as a crybaby look no further than this snippet of your post.

I haven't read many of your posts because they're all too long and I'm not invested in the discussion in any way. But I will say that if your goal is to influence people to your way of thinking, statements like that aren't going to get you closer to your objective.

You should try reading the words people write before you start tapping eagerly away at your keyboard. I've made points, and I guess because they're all too verbose, they don't get read. It seems the posts mosty jumped on and picked at. I'm obviously pissed off at this point, and I'm not contributing to the discussion. I've been asked to back off while other people stomp on us, that's BS. That's why I'm posting now. If the mods want me to shut up, they need to ban me now. I'm sorry, I can only standby and watch my bretheren and me get repeatedly attacked while not being permitted to respond.

Your post is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You said it yourself, you don't read the posts, you're not invested. So *** are you doing here? I AM invested, and while at the moment, I'm pissed off, I have contributed.

So many people, like yourself, are jumping in here just to get a kick in. Bryan's post portraying the Highlanders kicking him while he's down certainly didn't help to keep people from blindly jumping to his defense with sycophantic passion.

To be fair, there are a lot of legitimate contributions in this thread, and I am totally generalizing when I say "everyone", but let me make it clear, we were asked to back off while it seems others were not, and nothing seems to get done about flames. This entire thread is BS and the moderation of it has been... Suspect.

[Arturus]

Fellow 'Mechwarriors,

Seems like this whole announcement and resulting debate is boiling down to a simple realization (for ours and most other 'canon-themed' units). We can use our normal unit name on our websites just like we always have...no one can tell us otherwise. But in-game, where PGI calls the shots and there are certainly RL IP/legal, storyline/lore considerations, etc. associated with development of MWO, we're simply going to have to make a new name for our in-game unit/team.

For example, our unit probably won't be able to use "Skye Rangers", or any of the established Skye Regimental unit names (i.e., 4th Skye Rangers, 22nd Skye Rangers, etc), or a variant thereof. But (most likely) we would be able to go with "Crimson Plague" (our command lance nickname), "Defenders of Summer", "Skye Reavers" or "Summer's Own", "Fire Lizards" (a famed drink on the planet Mizar), etc. etc. Although we won't get the name we would prefer to use in-game, our club trascends just this one game, so we will make this new unit/team within our website/guild for participation in MWO.

This announcement isn't ideal for the canon-themed units, but it really doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. No one is losing their own website names, club/guild joining criteria, domain names, ranks/medals, etc. Just in game you can't use the banned canon names. I for one can accept this...We will all endure ... we're tougher than this...we're 'Mechwarriors! There really is no reason to insult each other ... none of us are making the rules for MWO, PGI is ...

Good hunting.../Salute

[Ethan Kell]

Tyr Gunn, on 06 May 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

You should try reading the words people write before you start tapping eagerly away at your keyboard. I've made points, and I guess because they're all too verbose, they don't get read. It seems the posts mosty jumped on and picked at. I'm obviously pissed off at this point, and I'm not contributing to the discussion. I've been asked to back off while other people stomp on us, that's BS. That's why I'm posting now. If the mods want me to shut up, they need to ban me now. I'm sorry, I can only standby and watch my bretheren and me get repeatedly attacked while not being permitted to respond.

Your post is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You said it yourself, you don't read the posts, you're not invested. So *** are you doing here? I AM invested, and while at the moment, I'm pissed off, I have contributed.

So many people, like yourself, are jumping in here just to get a kick in. Bryan's post portraying the Highlanders kicking him while he's down certainly didn't help to keep people from blindly jumping to his defense with sycophantic passion.

To be fair, there are a lot of legitimate contributions in this thread, and I am totally generalizing when I say "everyone", but let me make it clear, we were asked to back off while it seems others were not, and nothing seems to get done about flames. This entire thread is BS and the moderation of it has been... Suspect.

You proposed a theory on why you felt people were viewing you as a crybaby. I was offering a neutral party's opinion on why people may be viewing you as a crybaby. You can either accept that observation and use it to modify your behavior or you can continue on down the path you've seen simply isn't working.

You should step away from the keyboard to save face. Nothing good ever comes from nerd-raging on a message board.

[wwiiogre]

Someone, anyone just lock this thread please.

Chris

[Tyr Gunn]

Christopher Dayson, on 06 May 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Way to make my point for me. You're reading into my words what you want to see, what you've already decided.

Sorry. I quoted you as an example of how you're apparently free and confident to have your say. I wasn't calling you a flamer. You said you intend to defend the dev position, and that's great. I've been asked by a mod NOT to. So, flames and trolls aside, that's really what ****** me off. You get to say whatever. And EVERYTIME I come in here to post, the echoes of basically of being told to shut up ring in my ears. Flamers and trolls can eat me. Mods trying to shut me up, yeah, I'm not gonna stand for that. Especially when, until now, most of my posts have been fairly coherent and level headed. I'm sure I'll regret going off when I'm not so pissed off anymore.

[Marowi]

Tyr Gunn, on 06 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Good for you, I'd love to continue making my points about how I feel this entire situation has been mismanaged, but a few days ago I've was asked personally by a mod to keep NWH out of this while the flaming and "whining" continues. It was all under a socially engineered ploy that called us "contributors to the thread", but getting us to back off only seems to have encouraged the accusations that we're whining or crying about something. People don't even seem to read out posts, they just read the tone of them and decide we're babies.

I'm not sure I understand, you could have continued to make your points without bringing NWH into it? As far as I understand the problem, it applies equally to other fans of famous or historic canonical mercenary units.

Tyr Gunn, on 06 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

It infuriates that one side of this argument gets to be made without mods pressuring them back off. Well, I'm sick of that. I'm sick of this thread. And I'm sick of being called a crybaby with no supporting evidence. We voiced our goddammed opinions. If that makes me a crybaby, it makes everyone ELSE sycophantic, tool-gobbling bandwagon-jumpers blindly defending the Devs or repeating previous attacks.

Again, I'm also extremely confused. Who is attacking you? I'm deeply troubled by the fact that the pattern of this conversation for the last 48 hours has been intense discussion by the community at large punctuated by outbursts of defensive ranting. People are being very direct, yes, but if that's equivalent to an "attack", then I don't think it's the community that's at fault. I'm sort of beside myself here; how much more reasonable do I have to be?

EDIT: God bless Arturus' heart.

Edited by Marowi, 06 May 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[Jaroth Winson]

Christopher Dayson, on 05 May 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

The point is that you have an application process, therefor are not inclusive. Inclusive takes anyone who wants, not just those who agree with you.

Not exactly. Suppose I am the leader of a Unit & one day while on a VoIP (be it TS3 or Ventrilo etc.), a random person joins the channel I am in & says he wants to be part of my unit. Let us then say at the time in question, my unit is in fact recruiting. I say "Sure we are looking for people, here is the site/forums, check us out." Does that mean I have accepted or rejected him? Does that even mean he is in the unit?

No on all counts. An application gives the unit some essential information about said prospect. You can then know his/her e-mail so you can send that person updates about the unit, learn what part of the world he/she lives in order to better accommodate him/her as far as times go for practice, matches, meetings etc. You can find out if he/she has any past experience playing any MW game or other games for that matter to get an idea of how training would needed to be run for that particular individual. I could go on & on but I hope you get the point. It is not about exclusion, it is about organization & information.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 06 May 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Christopher Dayson]

I can commiserate with that Tyr, being told to shut up is not fun. I can only assume that they thought it would degenerate in some fashion. I apologize if I've been the cause of some sort of grief. Was never my intention to anyone.

I enjoy debate and discussion I also enjoy playing Devil's Advocate as I often see both sides of the coin with close to equal clarity (At least I like to think so).

I can fully understand why certain people would be upset about the announcement, I can even commiserate (As my chosen faction isn't in game either), but I understand where they're coming from.

Actually, this kind of defensive behavior is another good reason why IP canonical groups shouldn't be in control of players. I'll start using McCarrons as example instead of any mechwarrior merc group so as to not ruffle any feathers with my examples. Since as a merc force that refuses to use mech's, they're not even an option.

@

Jaroth Winson, on 06 May 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

Not exactly. Suppose I am the leader of a Unit & one day while on a VoIP (be it TS3 or Ventrilo etc.), a random person joins the channel I am in & says he wants to be part of my unit. Let us then say at the time in question, my unit is in fact recruiting. I say "Sure we are looking for people, here is the site/forums, check us out." Does that mean I have accepted or rejected him? Does that even mean he is in the unit?

No on all counts. An application gives the unit some essential information about said prospect. You can then know his/her e-mail so you can send that person updates about the unit, learn what part of the world he/she lives in order to better accommodate him/her as far as times go for practice, matches, meetings etc. You can find out if he/she has any past experience playing any MW game or other games for that matter to get an idea of how training would needed to be run for that particular individual. I could go on & on but I hope you get the point. It is not about exclusion, it is about organization & information.

Yes, it is exclusive because A) you have to be 'recruiting' which means there will be times when you'd say no out of hand because you're not recruiting. B ) They still have to go through /your/ screening process, instead of simply joining the unit in game, and C) Wether or not it's about organization and information is irrelevant since by it's nature a player made organization is exclusive. You literally cannot have one without the other unless it could be joined by /anyone/ in game, at /any/ time.

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 06 May 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[Volthorne]

Ethan Kell, on 06 May 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

You proposed a theory on why you felt people were viewing you as a crybaby. I was offering a neutral party's opinion on why people may be viewing you as a crybaby. You can either accept that observation and use it to modify your behavior or you can continue on down the path you've seen simply isn't working.

You should step away from the keyboard to save face. Nothing good ever comes from nerd-raging on a message board.

You there, stop that reinforcement of Tyr's point! You're making yourself look like an ***** in a rush.

Christopher Dayson, on 06 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Yes, it is exclusive because A) you have to be 'recruiting' which means there will be times when you'd say no out of hand because you're not recruiting. B ) They still have to go through /your/ screening process, instead of simply joining the unit in game, and C) Wether or not it's about organization and information is irrelevant since by it's nature a player made organization is exclusive. You literally cannot have one without the other unless it could be joined by /anyone/ in game, at /any/ time.

Fine, now let's see you argue the other side, seeing as you love to play Devil's Advocate so much.

Edited by Volthorne, 06 May 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[Ethan Kell]

Volthorne, on 06 May 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

You there, stop that reinforcement of Tyr's point! You're making yourself look like an ***** in a rush.

I wasn't telling him to "shut up." I was simply trying to share some wisdom I've picked up from years of posting on forums. That sometimes it's best to step away and regroup when you've become frustrated, then reengage when you've got a level head.

If you think that this is "***** in a rush" behavior, then that's because you've chosen to view me as an adversary since I'm not openly supporting the side of the argument you've chosen.

[Jaroth Winson]

Christopher Dayson, on 06 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Yes, it is exclusive because A) you have to be 'recruiting' which means there will be times when you'd say no out of hand because you're not recruiting. B ) They still have to go through /your/ screening process, instead of simply joining the unit in game, and C) Wether or not it's about organization and information is irrelevant since by it's nature a player made organization is exclusive. You literally cannot have one without the other unless it could be joined by /anyone/ in game, at /any/ time.

Does a company thinking of laying off workers, put out ads for new employees? If the unit is inactive for instance & someone wants to join why would we accept them in good faith knowing they most likely will not get to play? How is the application a "screening process"? Take WSB (the merc unit I joined) for example, I submitted my application & was accepted. Based on the information I gave them, they put me in the group that is made up of mostly US players because their time & mine is almost exactly the same. Someone else from say Spain for instance would have been placed in the Euro division because of the info he put in his application. Yes you can have it. It is just doing things in an organized way. A slow yes is still a yes.

You can try as hard as you like, but the beauty of logic is, in the end it will stand up to your arguments.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 06 May 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Nakir]

Warning everyone to use a civil and peaceful tone in any kind of discussion!!!.Do not force me to close this topic.

[Zekester81]

Fellow Mercenaries, hang in there. Our unit is dealing with this predicament in orderly fashion and will work through this adversity. Thanks for telling us now before the game got going and we were just unable to enter because of naming issues. Once again, I apologize, especially to Bryan, for earlier comments, I did not mean to be derogatory. I had no knowledge of the naming issues and it was quite sudden to me and I overreacted. This is just an issue to overcome and does not take away from the hard work the Devs are putting into this game. Thank you PGI, I hope this game will be as good as expected, and I'm sure it will be that and more.

[Christopher Dayson]

@Volthorne

Sooo you want me to argue against myself? Ok.

By allowing players to form IP Canonical groups it allows a higher level of immersion for those people that get in, something which will be sorely lacking without permanent mech loss, character death, and salvage.

It /could/ allow for continuity from other MechWarrior games (at least for the single group that snagged McCarrons Armored Cavalry that is).

Umm... That's really all I've got now that I think about it. Every other benefit of a player made group is the benefit of a player made group and not a benefit of being a /canonical/ group.

I can start listing tons of negatives to allowing it though:

1) Everyone else who wants McCarron's Armored Cavalry is out in the rain.
2) The inability of the Devs to have complete control over McCarron's Armored Cavalry for story purposes.
3) The angst that people who are told 'No' will generate bad publicity for the game as they go off and generate negative publicity.
4) The chance that the players who have taken McCarron's Armored Cavalry behave in unrealistic patterns that shatter other people's immersions and the lore (My god, McCarron's Armored Cavalry is all tanks and vehicles, they don't use mech's! Apply to Zellbrigen etc)
5) The Drama Llama's that inherently affect player groups and their inherent instability, as population fluctuates and leadership changes you get situations where whole companies could collapse, and if that happened to McCarron's Armored Cavalry it now affects anyone else who wants to play that group.

Now:

Jaroth Winson, on 06 May 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Does a company thinking of laying off workers, put out ads for new employees? If the unit is inactive for instance & someone wants to join why would we accept them in good faith knowing they most likely will not get to play? How is the application a "screening process"? Take WSB (the merc unit I joined) for example, I submitted my application & was accepted. Based on the information I gave them, they put me in the group that is made up of mostly US players because their time & mine is almost exactly the same. Someone else from say Spain for instance would have been placed in the Euro division because of the info he put in his application. Yes you can have it. It is just doing things in an organized way. A slow yes is still a yes.

You can try as hard as you like, but the beauty of logic is, in the end it will stand up to your arguments.

You're still failing to see my point. You are having to go through extra hurdles to play in a group you wish to. With a group as popular as the IP companies will be everyone needs to have equal access and equal ability to play them. Period.

If I was claiming myself Archon of House Steiner and had built a Steiner web page and told everyone that if they wanted to play in House Steiner that they'd have to sign up on my web page and be approved, by me, or my council, or whatever to play in House Steiner I'd get the blue laughed off my Steiner Fist.

It's the same thing for the Mercenary companies. I'd posit even worse, the Houses are big and generally nameless, but the books give us insight into the inner workings of the popular mercanary companies which creates even /more/ attachment to them. This is why it is imperative that they be equally allowed to all, or equally disallowed to all.

You have yet to even acknowledge this point. This is why being inclusive or exclusive /is/ such a big point and really the crux of the whole thing rather than some 'little' thing I am trying to put forth as others have suggested.

[Tyr Gunn]

Marowi, on 06 May 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'm not sure I understand, you could have continued to make your points without bringing NWH into it? As far as I understand the problem, it applies equally to other fans of famous or historic canonical mercenary units.

Seriously, that's just silly. My concerns about this issue are for NWH. Why wouldn't I bring them up in any examples I might have? Especially, when the unit name has interchangeable nouns and adjectives. Eg: Northwind Highlanders, Highlanders of Northwind, Or simply Highlanders. This could lead to a uniquely restrictive stance where what might be allowed. It could very well be that "Highlanders" is completely out of bounds. I contend that is just wrong.

And we can't seem to make that point without people breaking down the post for everything BUT the point.

Marowi, on 06 May 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Again, I'm also extremely confused. Who is attacking you? I'm deeply troubled by the fact that the pattern of this conversation for the last 48 hours has been intense discussion by the community at large punctuated by outbursts of defensive ranting.

I really don't believe your confusion here. If you look through all of the threads that have devolved into variations of this topic, you can't possibly miss a theme of general hate toward people caught off guard by this whole thing. We're all either "not creative" enough to come up with our own names, didn't see this coming or are trying to find ways to circumvent the naming policies. Maybe even all of the above.

The point is, nobody is attacking me personally, but they ARE attacking the group of players that were hit by this ruling. When people in that group of players try to make their points and raise their concerns, they're almost universally shot down and slotted into one of the above mentioned categories. Apparently, mods felt the best way to address the issue was by asking people in my group to back off. I don't wanna play nice anymore. Come at me with flames, I AM gonna put the mods to work. That's a ********* promise.

[Christopher Dayson]

I've certainly not been flaming anyone Tyr. I made one comment direction wwiiogre to step away from the grape kool-aid as I thought he was being excessively aggressive in his statements. It felt more like a rant than a discussion.

I genuinely /like/ most the people in the Highlanders, I like debating and talking with them, I agree with them on a great many things. I'm certainly not flaming them. I used the highlanders as example simply because the name was most noticable due to the traffic of the postings. I also used the Black Widow Company, and Wolf's Dragoons, as examples, because they're all well known IP companies.

Don't take it personally.

[Marowi]

Tyr: I think you have unfairly interpreted the direct, but reasonable comments of others to be attacks against your organization. You should not interpret this, also, to be an "attack", as it is my sincere impression and I equally sincerely encourage you to relax. At the moment, you are the only party that seems to be behaving out of line. (Your "opponents" in this thread are busy clarifying and apologizing, for Heaven's sake! Meanwhile you're saying "Come at me with flames! I'll put the mods to work! I don't [expletive] care!" How can this do anything but discredit you and your organization?)

Edited by Marowi, 06 May 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[Tyr Gunn]

Christopher Dayson, on 06 May 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I've certainly not been flaming anyone Tyr. I made one comment direction wwiiogre to step away from the grape kool-aid as I thought he was being excessively aggressive in his statements. It felt more like a rant than a discussion.

I genuinely /like/ most the people in the Highlanders, I like debating and talking with them, I agree with them on a great many things. I'm certainly not flaming them. I used the highlanders as example simply because the name was most noticable due to the traffic of the postings. I also used the Black Widow Company, and Wolf's Dragoons, as examples, because they're all well known IP companies.

Don't take it personally.

You're not even on my radar as a flamer or troll. So, you can relax. Even the flammers and trolls can relax. It's not as if I can actually do anything about it but continue to eat their crap. Still, that doesn't mean I won't go off from time to time if I do have to eat it.

Evidently, that's what's gone on here today.