335 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

Yes, Periphery Pirates is how I want to represent the Clans...

I understand your point, that there are exceptions, but those are not recognized by the Clans, and therefore worth nothing more than a periphery pirate would be to the Clans. Even Wolfs Dragoons, and eventually some of the other merc corps, earned the Clans respect, which puts them higher than the Dark Caste in the Clans eyes.

Actually no, the Dark Caste whilst still essentially Dezgra would be at least one step up from periphery pirates or Mercs as they have members who were representative of the Clans and not the IS. They are still a part of Clan society in Clans eyes.

There are even rumours of under the table dealings with the Clans e.g Clan Burrock, and the idea of the Dark Caste being left alone to some extent to continue their existance due to them being used as a training platform for the Clan warrior Caste.

Also the idea that insurgents from the Dark Caste are actually representative within the Clan Rosters anyhow as spies.

Later on in the history of BT the Dark Caste have a significant uprising against the Warden Clans or warring in the Kerensky cluster and elsewhere as part of the Reaping. There are also some very notorious figures from Clan soceity who fell from grace into this part of Clan soceity.

Just because the clans do not recognise them as Clan, does not mean they do not have a significant presence in Lore or the history of BT or that they couldnt have a viable presence as a faction in their own right.

Edited by Noesis, 12 August 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[Cimarb]

I see that, Reno, and I am glad that you could rename your unit and be happy with it. Coffi and our other leaders are trying to come up with a compromise as far as the naming, but we do not really have the option of just creating a "new unit" like you did. Clans did not do that.

I am fine with being Ghost Bear International, Ghost Bear Command, or something similar, but if we cannot even use "Ghost Bear" in the name, or use any of the canon sub-unit names like Night Howlers, then we are in a big pickle... And even if we CAN use the subunit names, are associations between those Galaxies going to be strong enough to allow us to continue functioning as a cohesive unit?

Ideally, I would like us to be able to use subunit names and have a way (in game) of communicating, organizing and sharing resources between all subunits under the "main banner" of Clan Ghost Bear. That would be the "loyalist" content I would like to see, so GCGB, RCGB, us and all other CGB units could "feel" like a cohesive faction.

Noesis, on 12 August 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Actually no, the Dark Caste whilst still essentially Dezgra would be at least one step up from periphery pirates or Mercs as they have members who were representative of the Clans and not the IS. They are still a part of Clan society in Clans eyes.

There are even rumours of under the table dealings with the Clans e.g Clan Burrock, and the idea of the Dark Caste being left alone to some extent to continue their existance due to them being used as a training platform for the Clan warrior Caste.

Also the idea that insurgents from the Dark Caste are actually representative within the Clan Rosters anyhow as spies.

Later on in the history of BT the Dark Caste have a significant uprising against the Warden Clans or warring in the Kerensky cluster and elsewhere as part of the Reaping. There are also some very notorious figures from Clan soceity who fell from grace into this part of Clan soceity.

Just because the clans do not recognise them as Clan, does not mean they do not have a significant presence in Lore or the history of BT or that they couldnt have a viable presence as a faction in their own right.

Everything you just said could be attributed to Periphery Pirates as well. My statements about that still stand. The Dark Caste would be great to have as a unit, but those of us representing "true" Clan factions should not be forced to make a Dark Caste unit by locking out every canon unit's names.

[Noesis]

Well no, I would not intend that Clan players form a Dark Caste unit, that wasnt my point.

Tags will allow any named unit to show their allegiances irrespective of what they are called. My point was that there is scope to represent the Dark Caste as part of Clan soceity but Clan bandits as opposed to IS or Periphery bandits. For convenience there are probably better ways to represent them in MWO with more lose affiliations for the sake of mechanics but the idea of distinguishing them of Clan if not of Clan factions is relevant.

The big 4 then have those Tags to use. For the warden clans and other later crusader clans a more generic Clan tag would likely be applicable? But for Clan Bandits there is not tag atm other than say lone wolves at best to represent them. Though based on the objectives of a player unit certain clan bandits could be considered Mercantile and possibly represented by Mercs for those gaming interests. Ideally I would like to see MWO introduce bandit and pirate factions to allow for a more chaotic style of gameplay in MWO more suited to those factions.

Edited by Noesis, 12 August 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Noesis, on 12 August 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

BT has a history so imagine if players formed a unit with a canon name and didnt follow it? BT lore would soon go out the window wouldn't it. Hence why PGI are using the method they have indicated to restrict player units from representing Canon units or noteable figures.

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

PGI has already stated that we will be able to determine the outcome of the invasion, so the BT history you are talking about has not been written yet. Even if we ran a canon unit, its lore-based future "history" would be determined by us

Exactly. The past history of our factions (with few exceptions like the FedCom being split :\ ) stands, but the future will be changed.
People like Pariah are already thinking about how to avoid the future mistakes of their Clan..

Besides, how would you follow exactly each single battle on every single planet?

Reno Blade, on 12 August 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

I don't know if it could be done without a lot of problems.
I definitely don't want to go "back" where we could have 5 different GDLs running around, because it would feel like all of them "stole" my 15+ years of Mechwarrior "past".

The issue with the GDL is that they have only a regiment of mixed troops. An unit could represtend the 1st Battalion.. But the second would have to represent an infantry or aerospace battalion

However, with bigger units like Wolf's Dragoons, each unit can represent a regiment or even a battalion, based on their size. Problem solved

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

I see that, Reno, and I am glad that you could rename your unit and be happy with it. Coffi and our other leaders are trying to come up with a compromise as far as the naming, but we do not really have the option of just creating a "new unit" like you did. Clans did not do that.

I am fine with being Ghost Bear International, Ghost Bear Command, or something similar, but if we cannot even use "Ghost Bear" in the name, or use any of the canon sub-unit names like Night Howlers, then we are in a big pickle... And even if we CAN use the subunit names, are associations between those Galaxies going to be strong enough to allow us to continue functioning as a cohesive unit?

Ideally, I would like us to be able to use subunit names and have a way (in game) of communicating, organizing and sharing resources between all subunits under the "main banner" of Clan Ghost Bear. That would be the "loyalist" content I would like to see, so GCGB, RCGB, us and all other CGB units could "feel" like a cohesive faction.

I am glad i am not the only one who sees the issue

If there will still be NPC-driven canon units we can join, well what is the point of House and Clan player-made units?

[Noesis]

CW will be a scripted process not a sandbox, the battle lines will loosely follow history as per last indication. You will not be able to re-write lore as a result. So sorry, you lose at Tukkayid.

Edited by Noesis, 12 August 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[101011]

Noesis, on 12 August 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

CW will be a scripted process not a sandbox, the battle lines will loosely follow history as per last indication. You will not be able to re-write lore as a result. So sorry, you lose at Tukkiyad.

Source? This right here says otherwise.

Paul Inouye said:

This is where players will have the ability to follow a recreation of the Clan Invasion by forcing their way down into FRR territory and harassing House Steiner and House Kurita along the way. However, if the Inner Sphere players are organized, they can even change the course of BattleTech history and try to stop the Clans in their tracks.

Edited by 101011, 12 August 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Noesis, on 12 August 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

CW will be a scripted process not a sandbox, the battle lines will loosely follow history as per last indication. You will not be able to re-write lore as a result. So sorry, you lose at Tukkiyad.

Source for that?

Well, the fronts will be scripted, and probably the invasion corridors will , too. But this does not mean we cannot do something crazy! At the CW presentation they said that fronts would flip when completely conquered. This means that potentially Clan Smoke Jaguar could push further into the Draconis Combine rather than toward Terra..

And if, for example, the Jade Falcons are stopped by the FRR players? Something could change.

What if the Clans are easy to keep at bay in CW and the FedCom (actually LyrCom and FedSuns) choose to ally against the Draconis Combine? And maybe the Clans ally with it..?

I do not see a reason why it should happen, but i believe it can happen.

Ah, i have a question for you all. How do you believe the conquest of Terra will be handled? I doubt it will be capturable as the other planets. I believe that if a Clan gets close enough (1 jump away?) PGI will organize an in-game event or something like that. It would be great if PGI (as they represent ComStar and thus the ComGuards) would organize a tournament or a series of battles against the aspiring IlClan (however, they are not very good so it would easy to conquer Terra ).

[VanillaG]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

I am fine with being Ghost Bear International, Ghost Bear Command, or something similar, but if we cannot even use "Ghost Bear" in the name, or use any of the canon sub-unit names like Night Howlers, then we are in a big pickle... And even if we CAN use the subunit names, are associations between those Galaxies going to be strong enough to allow us to continue functioning as a cohesive unit?

Don't take this the wrong way, but why do you think that YOU have the right to setup and run a canon unit? The devs have already stated that you can't for IS units so why would the Clans be any different. From a lore perspective, take your inspiration from the Wolf Spiders and create your own faction unit that is aligned with your clan of choice.

My guess is that once your faction unit gains enough loyalty your unit can be associated with one of the canon units like the Golden Bears or Night Howlers. You still have autonomy to run your unit but would be associated with the canon unit in name only.

[Noesis]

Well I understood that the process was to be scripted to avoid the pitfalls of big fish wins in the IS pond, if it was a sandbox? This was the original brief handed down as part of the info regarding CW.

How very interesting if it does turn out to be a sandbox. Though the term "re-creation" is in there so might suggest some scripted elements still but perhaps with a bit more flexibilty. Hmmm.

[CyclonerM]

VanillaG, on 12 August 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but why do you think that YOU have the right to setup and run a canon unit? The devs have already stated that you can't for IS units so why would the Clans be any different. From a lore perspective, take your inspiration from the Wolf Spiders and create your own faction unit that is aligned with your clan of choice.

Hmm.. I do not understand your example of the Wolf Spiders. The 13th Wolf Guards are a canon unit, so its name will be banned. If you mean that it is a Cluster, not a whole Clan like "Ghost Bear", than your point makes no sense, but i may be wrong.

[Threat Doc]

I wonder if canon units could be used, if PGI would change their minds, if the various leaders of the various iterations of the canon units -for example, GDL- could get together, duke it out, test it out, and see who comes out on top; sort of a very important Trial of Position? Say you have three Commander's wanting to claim GDL... they fight to see who comes out on top, perhaps best two out of three between all Commander's, the one with the most points wins that match. Then, there would be the academic, organizational, historical, and skills-based testing for each, to see if they can handle the administrative side. Third, an actual leadership exam, based on, again, best two out of three with Lance's going toe-to-toe. Whomever earns the most points wins the CO position of the overall unit, second most points is the Executive Officer, and third-most runs third Regiment/Battalion/Company.

All members from each of the groups are then integrated into the main web site and elements, without showing favor, of the CO, and voila, you have your canon merc unit, Clan, or House.

Who makes up the tests? A third-party non-canon peer unit.

What happens if there's a tie? There's a vote of all members.

Now, a lot of people aren't going to like this idea, because they want to RUN their own canon units, but at least this gives the opportunity for the canon unit to be run at all, rather than just saying no, and having it be that, period.

A lot of folks don't seem to realize that, when rules are set, if you want to change those rules, you might have to compromise something. At least the way I've laid out, here, allows for a strong Commander, a strong Exec, and a larger organization of each.

[CyclonerM]

Kay, remember that this issue is limited to the smaller canon units. Those big and famous enough (those more likely to be claimed by multiple leaders) are usually of multi-regiment size. As for the Galaxies of each Clan, there is no issue, for example, for Wolf's Dragoons units. Of course someone would want to claim the entire unit, but unless you have hundreds of active players, you can just claim a regiment. For example, 5 regiment-sized units and two battalion-sized units could claim a sub-unit of the Wolf's Dragoons.

The only issue may be overall leadership. Some Clans have more than a Khan in MWO for example. However, some sort of closer association is possible and can solve even this problem. The Ghost Bears' Alpha and Beta Galaxies are under the banner of a single -player- unit, and the Omega Galaxy of Clan Wolf recognizes our Khan (Alpha Galaxy) as theirs too, and they have a Galaxy Commander as unit leader.

I am quite interested in how players handle their units, i find this all fascinating

P.S. for Clans, a Trial of Possession seems a quicker way to solve any dispute lol

[Threat Doc]

http://mwomercs.com/...-and-positions/

You even liked Durant Carlyle's post on the first page of that one. I know I started another Commander's post, somewhere, but I'm not able to find it, just now.

Okay, you mentioned that this would only be a problem for the smaller units, and I both agree and disagree... for the Clans, yes, you have a Clan Khan who may be recognized across other elements of that Clan, and Galaxy Commander's for each of your larger elements, etc., but I would think the larger units, such as Wolf's Dragoons, would have an even more difficult time choosing an overall commander from among the ranks of everyone claiming to be Wolf's Dragoons. Okay, so you have the regiment's commander's can go to, if they agree to that, and one head may be nominated to helm the entire unit, but what about those outsiders who've also been running their own version in other leagues over the course of the last twenty years, and they want to get in, but the choice is to accept the leadership of a colleague who's also been working that canon unit for twenty years, basically damning them and all their MechWarrior's to becoming scrubs, or to go form their own unit altogether. There are, of course, ways around this argument, but the likelihood is that no one would adhere to them.

This is the problem PGI wrestles with, and why they said, "No canon units".

So, yes, smaller units might have leadership issues, but the larger units cannot escape this, only mitigate it all.

[CyclonerM]

Well, you could just have only the Colonels for each regiments and have them meet to decide the overall strategy for CW .

[Cimarb]

VanillaG, on 12 August 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but why do you think that YOU have the right to setup and run a canon unit? The devs have already stated that you can't for IS units so why would the Clans be any different. From a lore perspective, take your inspiration from the Wolf Spiders and create your own faction unit that is aligned with your clan of choice.

My guess is that once your faction unit gains enough loyalty your unit can be associated with one of the canon units like the Golden Bears or Night Howlers. You still have autonomy to run your unit but would be associated with the canon unit in name only.

The fact is Clans are designed differently than Houses. They do not employ mercenaries. They do not have "House Loyalist Units" per se, which are independent units that fight only for that House (basically semi-merc). They have "House Units", and that is it. Even second-line warriors are part of the canon units - just in separate Galaxies or otherwise segregated - so there are no non-canon units in Clan society.

Since every Clan unit has been detailed in canon, that means every Clan unit is canon and therefore, under these rules, would be an ineligible name. That delegates all Clan warriors to some sort of weird quasi-unit that was not part of the assault, but we will be the ones actually doing the assault... Just really full of bleh, IMO.

I do hope that your second paragraph is true, though. That would be acceptable to most of us, I think, but it wholly depends on how PGI handles it, and we honestly have no idea even though u it creation is coming up in ONE WEEK...

PGI, please, please five us some details before we have to create our unit!!

[Cimarb]

CyclonerM, on 12 August 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

The only issue may be overall leadership. Some Clans have more than a Khan in MWO for example. However, some sort of closer association is possible and can solve even this problem. The Ghost Bears' Alpha and Beta Galaxies are under the banner of a single -player- unit, and the Omega Galaxy of Clan Wolf recognizes our Khan (Alpha Galaxy) as theirs too, and they have a Galaxy Commander as unit leader.

I am quite interested in how players handle their units, i find this all fascinating

P.S. for Clans, a Trial of Possession seems a quicker way to solve any dispute lol

Our leadership was actually very forward-looking in this regard, as we do not recognize a Khan within our unit. I do not believe GCGB does either, and I am not sure about RCGB, but I think we would work well under some sort of system that had an "NPC Khan" over all of CGB and then our individual leaders for our respective Galaxies.

Having someone at PGI that handled things like that, with a team of community managers acting as Khans (and whatever a particular House calls them), would be a huge boost to the community.

PGI, are you hiring for "Khan", by any chance?... I vote Niko for ilKhan!

[CyclonerM]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

PGI, are you hiring for "Khan", by any chance?... I vote Niko for ilKhan!

If i was a Khan, i would give my "AYE!" for him

[Reza Malin]

Xeno Phalcon, on 18 June 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

wut O.o

MWOGuilds? also



If you guys are thinking that having mech types (Is or clan) locked to your faction in terms of CW you might as well put a fork in it now cause next they will be rumbling over faction oriented mechs (IE Kintaro and Dragon being kurita centric, ect ect). Not to mention this would cause a massive influx of players to the clans, many people have outright sold their IS stuff at this point.

Why did people sell their IS stuff, and whose fault is it?

You really thought CW would have mixed faction units? in which case the fault is entirely with whichever pilots sold their IS mechs if they intended to be part of an IS unit at any point.

Completely ridiculous comment.

[VanillaG]

CyclonerM, on 12 August 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Hmm.. I do not understand your example of the Wolf Spiders. The 13th Wolf Guards are a canon unit, so its name will be banned. If you mean that it is a Cluster, not a whole Clan like "Ghost Bear", than your point makes no sense, but i may be wrong.

What I was trying to say is that the Clans create and disband units over time. Create a new unit, say the 666th Assault Galaxy "Wolf Demons", instead of trying to use an existing canon unit. You would still be associated with Clan Wolf at the unit level but would not be a canon unit. DHB already did this so I don't see what the big deal is.

The reality is if MWO takes off in popularity there will be more people playing than there are slots in the TO&E for all faction units. You will have to create new units if the faction populations get over a certain level so doing that now makes it easier.

[VanillaG]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

The fact is Clans are designed differently than Houses. They do not employ mercenaries. They do not have "House Loyalist Units" per se, which are independent units that fight only for that House (basically semi-merc). They have "House Units", and that is it. Even second-line warriors are part of the canon units - just in separate Galaxies or otherwise segregated - so there are no non-canon units in Clan society.

Since every Clan unit has been detailed in canon, that means every Clan unit is canon and therefore, under these rules, would be an ineligible name. That delegates all Clan warriors to some sort of weird quasi-unit that was not part of the assault, but we will be the ones actually doing the assault... Just really full of bleh, IMO.

I do hope that your second paragraph is true, though. That would be acceptable to most of us, I think, but it wholly depends on how PGI handles it, and we honestly have no idea even though u it creation is coming up in ONE WEEK...

PGI, please, please five us some details before we have to create our unit!!

They do have "House Loyalist Units" and the Wolf Spiders is perfect example. They were a new unit created from scratch and added to the Clan touman. The Clan toumans are not static entities and are always going through periods of expansion and contraction. Look at this as part of an expansion phase.

If it helps you feel better think of every battle that you fight as your unit is the direct result of winning a bid. While you don't have the formalized batchall, your battle is the result of your unit winning the rights to fight the enemy for an objective.