480 replies to this topic

[Harathan]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

Which is make you space pope blah blah blah I didn't actually bother reading your comments so I'll make stuff up.

Reading comprehension fail, bud. Big time.

[Martis Gradivus]

Right now, in Vancouver, PGI is sitting back, reading this thread, drinking a nice, cold 311 Helles Lager and telling themselves that THIS is exactly what was going to happen and that they didn't tell US about their fears / concerns because they knew we'd be telling them they are stalling and just don't care about our needs.

Ironic

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 21 January 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

There's going to have to be room for both styles of play - that much is obvious from the merc response to the plethora of these threads littering the forums lately. I don't expect every faction to welcome mercs. I expect we'll end up seeing a split between faction units that insist on dictating what everyone in their faction does and faction units that take the Mercs for better or worse. Which style ends up resulting in more combat power is what we'll have to see over the coming months. I obviously have my expectations, like you have yours.

For the moment, I think it's fairly obvious that I should avoid going Davion. Some of these BSI guys are giving me the heeby jeebies.

There are merc units advising in AFFS. There are some amazing merc units serving with Davion and they have a huge impact on faction strategy.

The difference though is that they're involved and part of the overall system. I don't think most of Davion supports a system of somehow 'enforcing' control over units and available fronts. Then you end up with a 'who watches the watchers' situation. A system where Loyalist units can offer rewards to merc units though is almost certain. As to how that will break out....

Well, how coordinated is CJS? Davion? CGB? Factions with focused and coordinated command structures win and win a lot. If there are factions happy to throw money at merc units who show up and fight wherever and however they want, well good on them. As to how that will play out in the long run though that's not hard to predict.

What we need is Invasion gamemode in pug/group queue. For people who want to just go fight and grind cbills and like the gamemode. I totally get that; I'd play it tons. CW though is about Faction vs Faction combat and that requires Factions be, well, unified Factions. If it's just Faction Deathmatch then it eliminates the point of actually having Factions aside from enjoying having a logo next to your name.

[Dimento Graven]

Martis Gradivus, on 21 January 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

Right now, in Vancouver, PGI is sitting back, reading this thread, drinking a nice, cold 311 Helles Lager and telling themselves that THIS is exactly what was going to happen and that they didn't tell US about their fears / concerns because they knew we'd be telling them they are stalling and just don't care about our needs.

Ironic

Goddang but that's probably true beyond ANY tiniest modicum of doubt...

[Martis Gradivus]

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

Let me state, AGAIN, for the record that my question is as follows:

Is it a valid tactic to create BRAND NEW THROW AWAY and nigh untraceable accounts to purposefully disrupt the fighting ability of your PRIMARY account's faction's enemy?

You've YET to prove that your question is valid. How do you know that they ARE helping their own faction? Unless you can point to me WHO they are, WHAT they are definately doing and give me PROOF, you're just tinfoiling.

[RG Notch]

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

But does PGI care that hundreds, perhaps thousands of alternate accounts, of no value other than to throw away after they've served their purpose, a purpose of artificially skewing one faction's abilities.

I would think that from a data management aspect alone, there might be cause for concern.

But then they couldn't claim a 20% increase in activity? Plus many of these accounts won't be throw aways and people may spend MC on them, and while playing them they aren't adding to a stockpile of C bills the main account has. This functions as an indirect C bill sink as well. I'd bet the server load is worth these other benefits in PGI's mind. Also how do you propose to stop it?

[Martis Gradivus]

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

Goddang but that's probably true beyond ANY tiniest modicum of doubt...

Damned....we agree.

Cats and Dogs will soon live together in harmony

[Dimento Graven]

Martis Gradivus, on 21 January 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

You've YET to prove that your question is valid. How do you know that they ARE helping their own faction? Unless you can point to me WHO they are, WHAT they are definately doing and give me PROOF, you're just tinfoiling.

And now we're back to some of my point:

The accounts, from our perspective, are nigh untraceable.

These accounts all but two of which were created within the last 30 days, some created just days prior to now.

You're trying to get me to believe that a random group of 12 brand new users, created a account within days of one another, formed a unit, randomly chose a faction, then randomly chose to fight that faction's stated ally, disrupting the allies main battle against the clan, was NOT done with a purpose of improving the situation of one of the factions Steiner is facing, was just some giant happy coincidence?

Way to many coincidences for me to believe that.

If it were one or two accounts, maybe.

Heck, if it were 6, MAYBE...

But we're talking as many as 10 accounts.

Nuh uh. Don't believe it.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 21 January 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[RG Notch]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

Reading comprehension fail, bud. Big time.

So you still have no answers to these questions? I get that it is easy to complain and hard to come up with solutions, so keep on lecturing and making bad analogies to real life rather than answer how you would select who's in charge and what sanctions there are to non compliance. Personally it seems to work perfectly well right now. You have your political games with those who submit to your authority and the rest of us can choose to play along or not. Seems perfectly reasonable. If as you say those who want to play your way are the vast majority what can a few rogues do? Seems like a non problem for most folk. We'll see how this shakes out, but I for one wouldn't count on PGI letting you folks tell the rest of the player base how they can play.

[Dimento Graven]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

But then they couldn't claim a 20% increase in activity?

Plausible, certainly any increase of activity is something you'd want market whether based on actual players or players playing more than one account.

That would require a lot more fore thinking than we've heretofore seen from PGI though.

Quote

Plus many of these accounts won't be throw aways and people may spend MC on them, and while playing them they aren't adding to a stockpile of C bills the main account has.

I seriously doubt the percentage of these accounts that actually start earning real dollars is going to be significant. I suppose it's possible, but will the amount earned justify the overhead of thousands of mostly dormant accounts?

A question I can't answer.

Quote

This functions as an indirect C bill sink as well.

I doubt it does anything of the sort considering that the primary accounts can't transfer CBills to another accounts, I don't see any stockpiled CBills getting drained as a result... Or are you thinking something else?

Quote

I'd bet the server load is worth these other benefits in PGI's mind.

Debatable, but again, not something we can anser.

Quote

Also how do you propose to stop it?

Man, that's the killer question.

I don't have any ideas that are nothing more than 'minor' inconveniences, mainly to slow down the process, ie: You can't participate in CW until you've gone through your first 25 battles.

So instead of it being "minutes" to create and start griefing CW with a throw away account, it would require an investment of an hour or so (however long it takes you to play your first 25 matches on that throw away account).

Beyond that that... Man, I'm stumped.

[Dimento Graven]

Martis Gradivus, on 21 January 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

Damned....we agree.

Cats and Dogs will soon live together in harmony

I am actually reasonable, but the evidence and 'truth' of your statements must meet a significantly high level of 'adequacy' before I'll allow the point.

The inertia of opinion functions in that manner for all of us, whether we realize and/or admit it or not.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

To use your analogy, what you're doing is going into a public park, seeing a bunch of guys already playing a game of soccer, and deciding to go play a game of frisbee in the middle of it.

Doing that in real life would make you a jackass, and you know it. Doing it here? Same thing.

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

However, this still doesn't give you the right, using your Frisbee vs. football analogy for you and your Frisbee tossing buddies to decide that you're going to throw your Frisbee EXCLUSIVELY on the one side of the team that you've bet against is playing to disrupt their ability to make plays.

Sorry, even in THAT scenario, at the very least both sides of the football team have the option to just get up beat the living puke out of you and then go on with their game. You can play Frisbee all you like, you just shouldn't do it in such a manner as to INTENTIONALLY F with anyone else's game.

That's trolling.

See, I think you and I are on the same page, just in different editions of the same book.


As for the analogy, it's more akin to me taking my 11 friends and playing frisbee in one part of the park (a Steiner world), while you and 11 of your friends are playing football in another part of the park (a Liao world), while 24 others are flying kites over by the pond (a Kurita world), and then there are a bunch of people having a picnic in the shade (a Marik world).

The 12 guys attacking a Steiner world aren't affecting YOUR game, they're playing frisbee over in their corner of the park. Your game involves you playing football, flying kites, or picnicking in those areas of the park by playing on the Marik, Liao, or Kurita borders.

YOUR units decided to not play frisbee in the Steiner Corner. The others may not have decided that.

Would it be neat if PGI implemented in game tools to build ceasefires where all the Davions and Steiners that log into the game could vote on having a ceasefire and if the majority of the two factions come to agreement, then there would be no chance that individuals could do what they're doing. Until that time expires and it's time to vote again.

As for the 12 guys/gals doing it? Ignore them, they WANT the attention if their trolling. Let the Steiners handle it, when those 12 guys get bored of turret drops just let the Steiner units you had a ceasefire with take them back.

[Dragon Fetladral]

We play who we want to play and we fight where PGI has allowed us the option to do so.

We wish to bring war to many places. We will continue to do so. Our numbers continue to grow as we recruit more pilots.

They were great fights between our unit and SRoT, CI led groups and one time MS I believe. We thank you for the matches!

[pbiggz]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

Because Vlad Ward has a stellar reputation.

*yawn*

Try harder bro.

[Dimento Graven]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 21 January 2015 - 02:17 PM, said:

See, I think you and I are on the same page, just in different editions of the same book.

As for the analogy, it's more akin to me taking my 11 friends and playing frisbee in one part of the park (a Steiner world), while you and 11 of your friends are playing football in another part of the park (a Liao world), while 24 others are flying kites over by the pond (a Kurita world), and then there are a bunch of people having a picnic in the shade (a Marik world).

The 12 guys attacking a Steiner world aren't affecting YOUR game, they're playing frisbee over in their corner of the park. Your game involves you playing football, flying kites, or picnicking in those areas of the park by playing on the Marik, Liao, or Kurita borders.

YOUR units decided to not play frisbee in the Steiner Corner. The others may not have decided that.

Would it be neat if PGI implemented in game tools to build ceasefires where all the Davions and Steiners that log into the game could vote on having a ceasefire and if the majority of the two factions come to agreement, then there would be no chance that individuals could do what they're doing. Until that time expires and it's time to vote again.

As for the 12 guys/gals doing it? Ignore them, they WANT the attention if their trolling. Let the Steiners handle it, when those 12 guys get bored of turret drops just let the Steiner units you had a ceasefire with take them back.

Nope, here's what they've done:

The 12 guys attacking Steiner left the park, changed clothes to look like some of my guys playing my game, but they're playing their game directly in conflict with Steiner, posing as my guys.

Were it to function as it would in a 'park' both Steiner and my guys could deal directly with the posers, it wouldn't be just up to Steiner.

Dragon Fetladral, on 21 January 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

We play who we want to play and we fight where PGI has allowed us the option to do so.

We wish to bring war to many places. We will continue to do so. Our numbers continue to grow as we recruit more pilots.

They were great fights between our unit and SRoT, CI led groups and one time MS I believe. We thank you for the matches!

I'd take you oh so much more seriously if your throw away Davion account wasn't less than a month old.

[Alexander Steel]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

But then they couldn't claim a 20% increase in activity? Plus many of these accounts won't be throw aways and people may spend MC on them, and while playing them they aren't adding to a stockpile of C bills the main account has. This functions as an indirect C bill sink as well. I'd bet the server load is worth these other benefits in PGI's mind. Also how do you propose to stop it?

If one thing playing and watching Eve Online has proven is that you'd be surprised how much money people will spend on spai, throw-away, alt accounts.

[RG Notch]

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

I doubt it does anything of the sort considering that the primary accounts can't transfer CBills to another accounts, I don't see any stockpiled CBills getting drained as a result... Or are you thinking something else?

I was referring to the fact that any c bills they are earning on the alts does no go to the main account, so time spent on the alt is not adding to their C bill stock on their main account.

[jackal40]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 10:00 PM, said:

My investigations pretty much rule out them being anything else BUT alt accounts.

Anyway, just the logic of it alone: Your chose Davion faction, but ignore multiple requests to stop attacking an aligned faction to get on board with the goals of the vast majority...

Also on accounts where most can't be traced to their original owners, or who have had name changes to obscure the profile history...

Well, not this actually matters to the discussion, but the unit I belong to is aligned with Davion - and we refuse to honor any ceasefire agreements negotiated by unelected leaders. Frankly, I'm all for supporting these folks. There should be NO player established ceasefires, at all.

[MischiefSC]

jackal40, on 21 January 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:

Well, not this actually matters to the discussion, but the unit I belong to is aligned with Davion - and we refuse to honor any ceasefire agreements negotiated by unelected leaders. Frankly, I'm all for supporting these folks. There should be NO player established ceasefires, at all.

So why have factions then if it's just a big deathmatch? I'm curious about that. Without any sort of Faction unity or purpose to factions why not just have it be Invasion gamemode in pug/group queue? The point of a Faction is a single over-arching organization bigger than just the individual units. If you're against factions actually organizing into factions.... what is their purpose? Why not just color-code map sections and cut it into an even 12 pie wheel that all meets in the middle?

[Vlad Ward]

MischiefSC, on 21 January 2015 - 02:43 PM, said:

So why have factions then if it's just a big deathmatch? I'm curious about that. Without any sort of Faction unity or purpose to factions why not just have it be Invasion gamemode in pug/group queue? The point of a Faction is a single over-arching organization bigger than just the individual units. If you're against factions actually organizing into factions.... what is their purpose? Why not just color-code map sections and cut it into an even 12 pie wheel that all meets in the middle?

Because the result is discussions like this, and the faction swapping, planet stealing, rage sandwiching shenanigans which drive interest in the game. Both a pure deathmatch and pure greek utopia would be significantly more boring.