480 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Grynos, on 21 January 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

Honestly , there is nothing to say that players cannot play alts or even their real characters in CW the way they choose to.. PGI chooses the planets, not the players.

As for people calling it griefing , while it may be , there is nothing wrong with it.. Because after all , it is really only a different tactic . Just like flooding queues, tar pitting, spawn camping,etc. Just a tactic nothing more nothing less..

I hate to say it but the community is more than just the players who think they can decide how everyone else is suppose to play. OMG the world is coming to the end , because people did the opposite of what we want them to do.. Really.. Because people want to play CW the way that they want to play CW and it's not the way you want it to be played then there is a problem.

It is not a broken mechanic of the game, nor will it ever be, because a few people do not have the right to tell everyone else who they can and cannot attack.. It's not the players decision, it's PGI's

Attacking an ally is not a tactic. A tactic is how you complete the mission. So if the desire is to mess up the Factions relationship with it's ally, attacking the Ally is a tactic. So if teh mission is to disrupt ally cohesion, you are a Traitor OR a enemy plant. Both os which should be allowed to be dealt with.

Its a game of war, and underhanded doings like this need a mechanic to deal with it. We Need a chain of Command for the Houses, and an ability to review Unit Loyalty to the House's agenda.

[Bluttrunken]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:

If the ONLY purpose is to try and destroy cease fires/alliances, you're saying it's legal...

Psychological Warfare, False Propaganda and the wilful negative manipulation of the public face of an enemy faction sure have history.

Psychological Warfare and Espionage are often called "unfair"(because since when is war fair?), in modern MMOs, but are viable tools to undermine an enemy faction. The CW beta is far away from Eve Levels, of course, but I don't see the problem with either of it.

Edited by k05h3lk1n, 21 January 2015 - 02:53 AM.

[Yokaiko]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

Then these folk should quit the Faction and go Lone Wolf. If you are a faction you really need to drink that factions kool aid!

Except that isn't an option now is it.

[Aceramic]

So, let me get this straight. Some people, who by no means speak for the community as a whole, or even their faction, agreed to a ceasefire, with no means of enforcing it. Some "bad people" decided not to play by your "house rules", because we aren't even in your house. Your solution is to punish these "bad people".

I'm sending you to your room, and taking away your toys. You can come out when you grow up.

[Abivard]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 09:00 PM, said:

There's an issue that we've noticed with a certain "unit" claiming Davion loyalty constantly attacking Steiner worlds.

They are a relatively new unit (not on any previously posted unit lists), and the members that we've been able to search on this forum to attempt to find forum profiles for, don't appear to exist.

Before I name and shame, I want to know what PGI thinks of this sort of activity, the creation and use of alt accounts to have one faction attack an allied faction?

Is this a valid tactic?

If you have an attack lane you are not allies in the eyes of PGI.

[Joseph Mallan]

Yokaiko, on 21 January 2015 - 02:49 AM, said:

Except that isn't an option now is it.

So I guess its time to push for that option, or to make PGI enforce nonaggression between Allies.

k05h3lk1n, on 21 January 2015 - 02:49 AM, said:

Psychological Warfare, False Propaganda and the wilful negative manipulation of the public face of an enemy faction sure have history.

Psychological Warfare and Espionage are often called "unfair"(because since when is war fair?), in modern MMOs, but are viable tools to undermine an enemy faction. The CW beta is far away from Eve Levels, of course, but I don't see the problem with either of it.

Does the faction being Undermined have a means of "dealing with" said espionage in game?

[Abivard]

Lukoi Banacek, on 20 January 2015 - 10:27 PM, said:

To be fair, we were making progress with a planet a day (or close to it) in DCMS space before QQ, Remnant and 228 arrived. Quite the embarrassment of riches now though.

Umm -cough- You wont attack CGB and your only other attack was Kurita, what is your sudden influx of fiches? a certainty of never taking more than a lone planet every ceasefire?

[Grynos]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 02:46 AM, said:

Attacking an ally is not a tactic. A tactic is how you complete the mission. So if the desire is to mess up the Factions relationship with it's ally, attacking the Ally is a tactic. So if teh mission is to disrupt ally cohesion, you are a Traitor OR a enemy plant. Both os which should be allowed to be dealt with.

Its a game of war, and underhanded doings like this need a mechanic to deal with it. We Need a chain of Command for the Houses, and an ability to review Unit Loyalty to the House's agenda.

There is an easy way to deal with that.. Ignore them.. If it is as you say between two factions that have a treaty or whatever. If you ignore the people they will eventually get bored of ghost dropping and go elsewhere..

This is a game, of robot combat, derived from a fictitious TT game/books... it is not some grand scheme of a war simulator . It is just another game mode.. That's all it is.

[Grynos]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 02:55 AM, said:

So I guess its time to push for that option, or to make PGI enforce nonaggression between Allies.


Does the faction being Undermined have a means of "dealing with" said espionage in game?

.


PGI had the option, and still does every night when it give a planet to each of you to attack one another... Lol one group is undermining your whole faction??? I find that very hard to believe that twelve people are causing so much chaos.

[Joseph Mallan]

Grynos, on 21 January 2015 - 03:03 AM, said:

There is an easy way to deal with that.. Ignore them.. If it is as you say between two factions that have a treaty or whatever. If you ignore the people they will eventually get bored of ghost dropping and go elsewhere..

This is a game, of robot combat, derived from a fictitious TT game/books... it is not some grand scheme of a war simulator . It is just another game mode.. That's all it is.

There is a better way to handle it. In game. Ignoring the attacks stack up losses where they should not be happening. I will assume that eventually these planets will provide resources to each faction. Nip the stupidity in the bud now, and do not allow allied to attack one another.

Grynos, on 21 January 2015 - 03:07 AM, said:

.


PGI had the option, and still does every night when it give a planet to each of you to attack one another... Lol one group is undermining your whole faction??? I find that very hard to believe that twelve people are causing so much chaos.

Dude you don't know much. We just celebrated One Man who made a huge difference.

[Grynos]

This is still Beta, the planets at the moment have no value. If and when they do, which is probably six months to a year from now, CW will be totally different. Four man teams actually fighting against either other players or quite possibly AI. I mean there is no way right now to figure out what PGI will do with CW, just like there is no way we know how Solaris is going to be. And while I hope this wouldn't be the case, we don't even know if PGI will be here a year from now.. I want it to be , but stranger things have happened in the world of MMO's .

[Egomane]

As no player holds real political power in MWO any alliances made are just among those who agreed to this. There is no way to make a binding contract for all players of a faction, as you can not assume that they all agree to your leadership or your politics.

It doesn't matter if those are secondary accounts going against your interests or not, as creating secondaries is totally fine within the game rules. It is up to the individual player if they want to follow the imagined leadership of a house or not, no matter how many accounts they have and for how many factions they play.

There is nothing illegal happening here.

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 02:46 AM, said:

Attacking an ally is not a tactic.

Who declared that it is an ally? Some random players from both factions, with absolutly no authority to make that decision for everyone.

Edited by Egomane, 21 January 2015 - 03:53 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Egomane, on 21 January 2015 - 03:42 AM, said:

As no player holds real political power in MWO any alliances made are just among those who agreed to this. There is no way to make a binding contract for all players of a faction, as you can not assume that they all agree to your leadership or your politics.

It doesn't matter if those are secondary accounts going against your interests or not, as creating secondaries is totally fine within the game rules. It is up to the individual player if they want to follow the imagined leadership of a house or not, no matter how many accounts they have and for how many factions they play.

There is nothing illegal happening here.


Who declared that it is an ally? Some random players from both factions, with absolutly no authority to make that decision for everyone.

30 years of canon count?

[Egomane]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 04:03 AM, said:

30 years of canon count?

No, as PGI is creating it's own version of the conflicts. If we replayed this by canon, all battles would be pre-decided.

The fact, that PGI allows conflicts by "canon allies" by declaring each others planets as targets should be able to tell you as much.

Edited by Egomane, 21 January 2015 - 04:07 AM.

[oldradagast]

So, to clarify, stomping PUG's, spawning killing, camping on defense and refusing to attack, and so on is okay because, "this is war!" but this tactic goes too far? Can't have it both ways. Either this is a game and should be fun for all (a position I support), or this is "war" and every sleazy tactic that one can pull off is allowed.

Next up - the use of aim-bots and why it's okay in CW, brought to you by the "winning is everything" crew.

Edited by oldradagast, 21 January 2015 - 04:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Egomane, on 21 January 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

No, as PGI is creating it's own version of the conflicts. If we replayed this by canon, all battles would be pre-decided.

The fact, that PGI allows conflicts by "canon allies" by declaring each others planets as targets should be able to tell you as much.

Actually as someone who played many of the FASA Scenario Packs over the years. What is meant to happen can be changed, at My table. PGI needs to be a more active GM if this game is to be a BattleTech game.

oldradagast, on 21 January 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

So, to clarify, stomping PUG's, spawning killing, camping on defense and refusing to attack, and so on is okay because, "this is war!" but this tactic goes too far? Can't have it both ways. Either this is a game and should be fun for all (a position I support), or this is "war" and every sleazy tactic that one can pull off is allowed.

Next up - the use of aim-bots and why it's okay in CW, brought to you by the "winning is everything" crew.

And as such the faction needs mechanics to be allowed to deal with such Sleazy tactics. I am not against it happening, just let the House deal with the problem internally.

[Kjudoon]

Until such time as mercs and loyalists start getting in game controls for their factions to control units in some manner, this will not stop without moderator controll. There are too many petty people focussed so hard on 'winning' that sooner rather than later these tools MUST come to be.

Ultimately, this is going to be Phase 3 level development from what I see under control of a faction mod or player council. Sorry pGI... time to build the tools for governance.

[Egomane]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 04:09 AM, said:

Actually as someone who played many of the FASA Scenario Packs over the years. What is meant to happen can be changed, at My table. PGI needs to be a more active GM if this game is to be a BattleTech game.

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.

[Yokaiko]

Abivard, on 21 January 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

Umm -cough- You wont attack CGB and your only other attack was Kurita, what is your sudden influx of fiches? a certainty of never taking more than a lone planet every ceasefire?

We tried to attack Kurita actually, say in the queue for 35 minutes or so and said the hell with it and hit a ghost bear planet instead. Bang, damn near instant game (improved call to arms?).

REM was Kurita last contract, my understanding was that no one wanted to do anything, so we went clan for a bit.

[Kjudoon]

I see what you are saying egomane, and understand why this must be so. The catch is then PGI needs to install faction moderation where units can go to their mods with issues, desires and direction of the game.

This can't be an absentee landlord situation