480 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

People keep trotting this out. In the latest Town Hall, Russ said he *does* want player driven factions.

Can you provide a citation please?

[Alexander Steel]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

Can you provide a citation please?

He said he likes the idea of player driven politics but gave no indication he was in favor of anything to give them power to enforce their will on the rest of the player base.

[Egomane]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

Can you provide a citation please?

He probably means this:

Quote

"In regards to lore based alliances, such as the FedCom, there are no plans to enforce them. Russ prefers to leave it a player driven political system."

I don't see it as any indication that he wants the factions to be run by players. Players can do politics on a unit level just fine.

Edited by Egomane, 21 January 2015 - 12:17 PM.

[Nunspa]

Attenion all Inner Sphere players

Create Clanner accounts and create clan units.. and start attacking other clan units... in mass..

maybe everyone jump on clan wolf, all at once

we can make this VERY intresting

[RG Notch]

Alexander Steel, on 21 January 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

He said he likes the idea of player driven politics but gave no indication he was in favor of anything to give them power to enforce their will on the rest of the player base.

That's fine and exactly the way it should be. I am not against people playing politics amongst themselves, I am simply opposed to them having some in game power to enforce their agreements on non parties.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alexander Steel, on 21 January 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

Neither side is more important. Those who want to play Space Game of Thrones while they don their wizards caps and fight over treaties and blame the Starks for bringing their army out of the north and into Steiner territory while the White Walkers of Ghost Bear and Smoke Jag advance on the Summer Lands can do so.

People who just want to fight whoever is up for the day can do so as well.

Yes... But they can do that outside of the CW que. I know, I dropped with the Law in a Non CW Que for a few hours Friday. I joined the Steiners Due to their Politics and Allies. If we are not going to hold to these. Maybe its time for me move on... I'll have to think about it.

(NOTE: Not a threat to do do so, just needing to consider if this game is going to be right for me.) Kind of shame to find this out after I put in another $80.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 January 2015 - 12:23 PM.

[Harathan]

Egomane, on 21 January 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

I don't see it as any indication that he wants factions to be run by players. Players can do politics on a unit level just fine.

Whereas I do see it as an indication that he wants factions to be run by palyers. Unit politics have to work at a faction level, otherwise there's no point there being factions.

Besides, if you and your unit is not interested in the politics, why not drop pub queue and avoid the aggro, unless you're griefing on purpose?

Edited by Harathan, 21 January 2015 - 12:19 PM.

[Alexander Steel]

And you can play space game of thrones outside of CW. Heck I was playing space game of thrones before MWO game out as a table top game.

All that said they are giving out some really nice rewards for getting loyalty points with factions, something you can't get from dropping in the non-CW Que. I know I'm faction hopping to get the first few levels of stuff from every faction, as well as seeing which faction I'd like to stick with... if any.

[Wildstreak]

Yoseful Mallad, on 21 January 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

the best way to handle this is to PM Russ personally or contact him on it on Twitter. Any issues or suggestions I have, I PM him or contact him on Twitter and he get back to me very quickly. These types of issues are those you would be best taking directly to him, if you want something to get done about it.

When support is nothing more than PM'ing someone who probably does not read his PMs here and using a Social Media service someone may not want to use, Company Support is hurting badly. This is also seen on the PGI site.
This is called a problem.

Caine2112, on 21 January 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Dimento, seriously, if there are "spies" in your network intent on disrupting established non-aggression pacts with other factions, then let them. I guarantee that after 30 minutes of playing Turret-Warrior Online, they'll either stop and queue up on planets where there is action, or hit the Public queues.

Then, the attacked faction you have an NA pact with, can just cap the red tiles back down below 50%, or take the planet back the next day.

Eezy Peezy

Egomane, on 21 January 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

Because I am a third party with a neutral viewpoint?

No, I get it! You need to vent your anger and you need to do so publicly. If that were not the case you would at least respect the opinion of those who do participate and still tell you that you are overreacting.

I know for a fact both of these posters and anyone who disagrees with them are wrong.

A true CW story.
When I tried CW back 3 weeks ago, I played for Davion and almost all the fighting I could actually get in on was either Defending against Clans or Liao. That's it.
Then I saw a Liao planet being attacked by Davion. Thinking of trying something new and seeing why this was happening, I decided to drop once there. The team formed with an 8 man and 4 PUGs counting me, no Liao were defending.
While waiting for the Ghost Drop to happen, I asked in chat about the change, why Davion were attacking when they had not before. Members of the 8 man said their team plus at least 2 others were intentionally Ghost Dropping to either take the planet or force Liao to stop attacking Davion so much because they were tired of always playing Defense.

The point of this story is clear, when a team wants to Ghost Drop, they are NOT doing it simply because they are bored and want something new, they are also NOT going to stop if their mind is hell bent on doing Ghost Drops. This has been known to happen since when I played if not earlier.

I also knew then and see now people making alts pretending to be one faction when they are really another faction. You want ot call this espionage? Then there has to be counter espionage but there isn't. Freedom to do what you want? Time to make separate CW servers then because that is the ONLY way I know of to resolve it.

CW already lost people due to issues.
- Failure to allow PUG play separate from teams.
- Failure to deal with Mech balance issues, though the 'meta' changes there have always been balance issues with Mechs.

Now we can add mixing the Lore fans with the I Can Do What I Want players. This would also include a group in the middle, those who wish to make Factions but have different alliances than lore.

You cannot put all those people in one CW, it will not bind them all to Sauron.

Edited by Wildstreak, 21 January 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[WarZ]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

Me personally? I'm just a cog in the wheel And have no desire to be in command. I would be an Iron fisted DICtator. But I do think that since this is a BattleTech game Davions should not fight Steiners, FWL should not fight Fight Liao... Liao cannot afford to lose any more planets.

There needs to be a Commander/CEO I don't care what they are called but each House needs an actual direction for it's forces.

Which basically does not even remotely answer my question to you Aside from stating what you "want"

As for dimento continuing to drive on regarding his "wants", I notice how he completely ignored my post regarding the highly explainable role playing elements that this can represent. And as I know it dimento is a big time role player. No dice then ?

[Harathan]

Alexander Steel, on 21 January 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

And you can play space game of thrones outside of CW.

So essentially, invading the soccer pitch and saying "It's ok, you can still go play soccer on that car park over there".

Lovely.

Edited by Harathan, 21 January 2015 - 12:24 PM.

[Abivard]

Egomane, on 21 January 2015 - 04:13 AM, said:

See? What is meant to happen (the alliance) can change. It's the same just on a bigger scale.

PGI made it pretty clear that they don't want player control of the factions. They are thinking about allowing some influence in the future, but that is not even close to being the same. That some now assume that they do have that control and power is disturbing.

Actually PGI has made pretty clear the it is the opposite of what you are saying. PGI WANTS player driven politics, which means PGI is not going to be enforcers for any unit or group of units.

[Harathan]

Abivard, on 21 January 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

Actually PGI has made pretty clear the it is the opposite of what you are saying. PGI WANTS player driven politics, which means PGI is not going to be enforcers for any unit or group of units.

Right, but Egomane's point was, I think, that he believes (and he thinks PGI believes) player control should stop at the unit level and not extend to the faction level. Frankly I think that makes Factions pointless, but there you go.

Edited by Harathan, 21 January 2015 - 12:26 PM.

[Krivvan]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 12:26 PM, said:

Right, but Egomane's point was, I think, that player control should stop at the unit level and not extend to the faction level. Frankly I think that makes Factions pointless, but there you go.

It means that Factions are in a FFA against other factions essentially, but are biased towards defending against Clans or defending against IS. That's all. Everything else is a unit on unit non-aggression pact at best.

[Dimento Graven]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

That's fine and exactly the way it should be. I am not against people playing politics amongst themselves, I am simply opposed to them having some in game power to enforce their agreements on non parties.

Why the hell not, it's JUST LIKE REAL LIFE!!!!

[Alexander Steel]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

So essentially, invading the soccer pitch and saying "It's ok, you can still go play soccer on that car park over there".

Lovely.

More like the Soccer pitch was open to everybody who wanted to show up and do whatever they wanted ((by the owners)) but some people who go there and don't own it are trying to make everybody play the game based on their made up rules because they all really liked a book about soccer featuring some make believe characters they all read when they were younger.

[Egomane]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

Besides, if you and your unit is not interested in the politics, why not drop pub queue and avoid the aggro, unless you're griefing on purpose?

I have no unit and I don't want one. While there are some rather relaxed ones, in the end it is about competition. I'm not competetive. I'm here to enjoy myself, not to be in a contest with someone over some virtual pixels.

Dropping as a PUG in CW is what drove me away from CW for the time being. It simply wasn't enjoyable.

[Wildstreak]

WarZ, on 21 January 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

In the end, it doesnt truly matter, and its adding flavor to CW experience. And if anything you should be able to role play the crap out of this. It sounds awesome in its own way.

Wrong, you can't. To RP it, the anti-rebel faction would have to have the ability to attack the rebels and, if they win, inflict punishment such as kicking the unit out of the Faction.

Show where exactly the tools are for that.

Otherwise, separate servers have to be done.

Edited by Wildstreak, 21 January 2015 - 12:43 PM.

[RG Notch]

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Why the hell not, it's JUST LIKE REAL LIFE!!!!

I hate to break this to you, this is a game. No one elected you space pope or what have you. You can play all the political games you want with the rest of the players who want that type of game. You just have to account for rogue units, disloyal neo feudal lords and what have you. That happens in real life too.

[Appogee]

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

If I were to do the same on this account, I could be kicked from the RRB, banned from their TS servers, the people in charge of the RRB could work with other Davion units to ensure I'm not picked up in another unit (after all who would want me if I'm doing nothing but attacking allies?) and ban me from other TS servers.

Which would be fine. Your risk, your life, your consequences.

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

However, when an entire team of people with THROW AWAY accounts do the same, no big deal, no need to worry about reputation or any consequences. It screws over Steiner? F'EM WHO CARES I DO WHAT I WANT AND NO ONE CAN TOUCH ME!

Not so. The traitors/spies/maniacs have to create a new account, grind up a set of competitive Mechs, AND remain undetected by the people they are betraying.

That's their effort, their risk, their potential consequences.

If you want to go on a witchhunt to find the traitors (and I would, too) then fine.

But I don't see that PGI need to do anything about it.