480 replies to this topic

[dervishx5]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

The issue is that there's no recourse that can be taken against these 'rogue' individuals who decide to go with an 'F the majority' attitude.

Given how easy it is to change a character name in this game (a simple email request and X number of days later, new identity) it can be problematic for faction viability...

But hey, if you're saying it's ok to do this intentionally, Davions got a LOT of members who might think a shortcut to the back of Liao territory might just be the ticket...

As if Liao poses a threat to anyone.

Edited by dervishx5, 20 January 2015 - 10:41 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Vlad Ward, on 20 January 2015 - 10:30 PM, said:

Oh for sure. CSJ's house units are solid. I'm just saying it's got a bit overstacked at the moment, planets are flipping to 100% way before ceasefire and queues are flooded on this side. Even project unity is only delaying the issue, as we had more than 3x as many defenders as attackers on some clan worlds tonight. It was impossible to get a game.

Very true. Our faction doesn't have as much "work" as some, but we started off with such a small player base so it made sense to approach things the way we have. I admit, it's not optimal for folks wanting to get into scraps often. We've been lucky though. The addition of three comp12 merc teams allowed us to focus on some internal Trials and practices for MCW this week without sweating CW losing steam.

[Dimento Graven]

dervishx5, on 20 January 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

As if Liao poses a threat to anyone.

It's not about them being a threat, it's about just wanting them to no longer exist.

[dervishx5]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 10:44 PM, said:

It's not about them being a threat, it's about just wanting them to no longer exist.

Mission accomplished!

[Dimento Graven]

dervishx5, on 20 January 2015 - 10:46 PM, said:

Mission accomplished!

Nah, I can still see their sickly green color on my faction map.

That needs to be gone...

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 20 January 2015 - 10:22 PM, said:

There's a difference between something being a goal and something being a perceived side effect, outside of your control. I don't control what other units do. I'm okay with that.

CSJ is currently winning because they're sitting on an extreme excess of active, skilled merc units and their only attack lanes are Ghost Bear and Kurita, the latter of which is only just starting to get real 12-mans going on some of their borders each night.

Coordination at the game level is awesome. I love it. I will gladly roll with the plans. People telling me what planets I can and can't attack? No thanks. Using CSJ as an example, I'll attack Kurita first because it's easier not to make waves, but when the planet hits 100%, the opposing queue drops to zero, and the only other CW options are either attacking CGB (ceasefire) or sitting for 20+ minutes in a 24/60+ defense queue for the falcons, I'll attack CGB. It's not because I give a crap about griefing CSJ. I have friends in CSJ, they're cool peeps. But I want to play CW, so I'll play CW.

Which you absolutely can do - here's the thing though. If CGB decides that it's a consistent issue and starts regularly attacking CSJ and forces CSJ to divert units from the Kurita border to fight you weaken CSJ overall.

So it's just like the rambo pug who runs off because he wants to do his own thing, gets a little damage in and then dies. His team is now 11 v 12. There is nothing he did running off alone that was a benefit to his team.

That's fine if he doesn't care if his team wins or loses; he is, however, a burden to his team. That is what it is - you're not required to be a net positive to your team. Overall though the issue is, are you a net positive to your team or not? Going off alone against your teams overall tactical directive be that in a match or a faction makes you a net negative 99% of the time. There's no rule that says someone has to be a good team player. Someone who sprints off and suicides is playing the game the way they want. Good on them. They're not 'standing up to the man' or accomplishing something. Tactics exist at a match and a faction level. You're either in with the tactics or you're not.

[Krivvan]

There is no formal ceasefire/alliance system in this game. At all. There's nothing wrong with any group of players not following an alliance/ceasefire agreed upon by other players.

[Dimento Graven]

Krivvan, on 20 January 2015 - 10:58 PM, said:

There is no formal ceasefire/alliance system in this game. At all. There's nothing wrong with any group of players not following an alliance/ceasefire agreed upon by other players.

I just find it fascinating that of the 12 "Davion" accounts in question that I've searched, only 10 still exist, and MOST OF THOSE, for less than 30 days...

It seems the accounts were created for the SOLE PURPOSE of just f'ing up Davion/Stiener relations.

[Vlad Ward]

MischiefSC, on 20 January 2015 - 10:54 PM, said:

Which you absolutely can do - here's the thing though. If CGB decides that it's a consistent issue and starts regularly attacking CSJ and forces CSJ to divert units from the Kurita border to fight you weaken CSJ overall.

So it's just like the rambo pug who runs off because he wants to do his own thing, gets a little damage in and then dies. His team is now 11 v 12. There is nothing he did running off alone that was a benefit to his team.

That's fine if he doesn't care if his team wins or loses; he is, however, a burden to his team. That is what it is - you're not required to be a net positive to your team. Overall though the issue is, are you a net positive to your team or not? Going off alone against your teams overall tactical directive be that in a match or a faction makes you a net negative 99% of the time. There's no rule that says someone has to be a good team player. Someone who sprints off and suicides is playing the game the way they want. Good on them. They're not 'standing up to the man' or accomplishing something. Tactics exist at a match and a faction level. You're either in with the tactics or you're not.

The difference between the two situations is that the whole team is affected when a PUG decides to go off on their own. If the team loses, the PUG also loses.

What do mercs lose when factions go to war? Absolutely nothing. In fact, quite the opposite, more fighting between factions means more open queues and thus more fights and more money for Mercs, as well as additional opportunities for planet claiming for those who care about that sort of thing.

Not only is there no benefit for a merc unit to go along with faction RP ceasefires, it is actually beneficial for them to play more chaotically.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 20 January 2015 - 11:09 PM.

[Krivvan]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 11:05 PM, said:

I just find it fascinating that of the 12 "Davion" accounts in question that I've searched, only 10 still exist, and MOST OF THOSE, for less than 30 days...

It seems the accounts were created for the SOLE PURPOSE of just f'ing up Davion/Stiener relations.

I've made an alt account very recently (not Davion) and am planning to join up with a bunch of other alt accounts. I made it solely to be able to play as IS while we're on Clan and I know I probably won't care about any ceasefires agreed upon by those that aren't us.

[Dimento Graven]

Vlad Ward, on 20 January 2015 - 11:06 PM, said:

The difference between the two situations is that the whole team is affected when a PUG decides to go off on their own. If the team loses, the PUG also loses.

What do mercs lose when factions go to war? Absolutely nothing. In fact, quite the opposite, more fighting between factions means more open queues and thus more money for Mercs, as well as additional opportunities for planet claiming for those who care about that sort of thing.

Not only is there no benefit for a merc unit to go along with faction RP ceasefires, it is actually beneficial for them to play more chaotically.

Yeah yeah yeah, here's the problem with your theory, the people in question are apparently NOT looking to earn and maintain something on the accounts they're playing on.

Two of the accounts are ALREADY no longer active/alive accounts.

All but maybe 2 of the rest have existed less than a month:

Member Since 27 May 2012
Member Since 05 Sep 2013
Member Since 27 Dec 2014
Member Since 28 Dec 2014
Member Since 29 Apr 2014
Member Since 30 Dec 2014
Member Since 31 Dec 2014
Member Since 31 Dec 2014
Member Since 16 Jan 2015
Member Since Yesterday, 10:01 PM

So you tell me? "Rebels without a cause" or just some idiots from one faction just trying to malf up the relations between two other factions to cut his preferred faction some slack?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 20 January 2015 - 11:15 PM.

[Davers]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

The issue is that there's no recourse that can be taken against these 'rogue' individuals who decide to go with an 'F the majority' attitude.

Given how easy it is to change a character name in this game (a simple email request and X number of days later, new identity) it can be problematic for faction viability...

But hey, if you're saying it's ok to do this intentionally, Davions got a LOT of members who might think a shortcut to the back of Liao territory might just be the ticket...

Publicly we will denounce it, but privately...

Seriously though, If PGI puts out a contract on a planet then we can't get mad that someone takes it. Just tell Steiner not to defend. People will get tired of ghost drops, then Steiner can take the worlds back.

[Dimento Graven]

Krivvan, on 20 January 2015 - 11:11 PM, said:

I've made an alt account very recently (not Davion) and am planning to join up with a bunch of other alt accounts. I made it solely to be able to play as IS while we're on Clan and I know I probably won't care about any ceasefires agreed upon by those that aren't us.

So, regardless of the faction your 'alt' IS accounts are members of, you're STILL playing for your preferred CLAN faction of your 'primary' account.

You don't think that is a problem?

[Krivvan]

Dimento Graven, on 20 January 2015 - 11:18 PM, said:

So, regardless of the faction your 'alt' IS accounts are members of, you're STILL playing for your preferred CLAN faction of your 'primary' account.

You don't think that is a problem?

Not really no. If we were to attempt sandbagging games it'd be very easy to report. Personally I chose to play for a faction that would have nothing to do with my primary account's faction just to avoid any conflicts of interest. Like I said, the whole breaking ceasefires/alliances thing is of no concern because those don't exist besides unofficially. If you can't force a random new player to follow it, then it has no real power as a ceasefire between factions, it only exists as a ceasefire between units and it remains like that regardless of what alt accounts do.

Put simply there is no such thing as faction politics in CW as of yet. There are only unit politics, and that means they don't and shouldn't have any power over "rogue" units.

Edited by Krivvan, 20 January 2015 - 11:30 PM.

[dervishx5]

If you're willing to create an alt account, it's just going to have trial mechs for a while. And if you spend the money to buy mechs that are actually effective in order to have an effective second account, you might want to stand back and rethink your life.

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 20 January 2015 - 11:06 PM, said:

The difference between the two situations is that the whole team is affected when a PUG decides to go off on their own. If the team loses, the PUG also loses.

What do mercs lose when factions go to war? Absolutely nothing. In fact, quite the opposite, more fighting between factions means more open queues and thus more fights and more money for Mercs, as well as additional opportunities for planet claiming for those who care about that sort of thing.

Not only is there no benefit for a merc unit to go along with faction RP ceasefires, it is actually beneficial for them to play more chaotically.

The difference for the merc is reputation - there's a lot of opportunities for great merc groups and their members. A merc group that is effectively shafting the long term goals of the faction it's working for is not making friends with everyone who actually plays for that faction with the intent of 'winning' for that faction. This means less support from other groups and less respect for that group overall. Even from other factions; who wants a group that just makes drama and sandbags their team to play for them? Not to mention the increased odds of someone from your own faction actively taking steps to leave you in a bad place on the field. 'Whoops, was I standing behind you and pinning you in that LRM fire? How clumsy of me'. A merc unit who's shafting the faction they're working for has every reason to expect the actual loyalists to that faction to seek some sort of retribution.

So in the long term it behooves merc units to actually do their best to help the faction they are fighting for and that factions long term goals. It looks like there are 'faction loyalist' perks on the way and mechanics related to faction loyalists offering perks to merc units (was in the original goals and was reiterated in one of the town halls). Essentially ways for units to spend unit coffers to pay merc units for example. A merc unit with a bad reputation is going to see less of that.

If all a merc unit wants is more drops and more action why not play in the group queue? Not trying to be dismissive, being very honest here. CW both in scope and concept is about more than just grinding missions, cbills and LP. It's wars between factions. If you're actively working against the long term success of your faction because you're a traitor that's one thing. Doing it because you're bored....

that's the pug losing in the long run. He may think he's going to 'catch those LRM boats alone' and once in a blue moon he might even do it. In the long run though he's damaging the success of his team and everyone who sees him is going to think 'oh, it's that guy. He's worthless, let's use him as a meat shield'. That's not how a merc unit is successful in the long run.

Besides, they're not 'opening fronts'. For example the recent events with people from Steiner and Davion attacking across their borders isn't going to open a Steiner/Davion conflict. It's just inconvenienced a few people. In context of whoever from Davion was dropping against Steiner, if someone wanted to ghost drop and try to get their name on a planet they could have done so on an active front, this was just stupid. It's going to waste time for some 12mans later today or tomorrow to fix things between both factions or they may just ignore it. The Davion mercs in question could have made 10x as much dropping against actual live drops with Marik or Liao. This was just someone either wanting to be an irritation or wanting attention or even just terribly confused. At best they accomplished a minor irritation, more to the point they accomplished wasting other peoples time.

Which is the biggest issue I guess. It's why people treat it like griefing - it's not that there's some danger of a conflict or broken alliance. That's not going to happen due to someone doing something like that. It's just someone actively trying to waste other peoples time, either because they are bored or want attention or want to feel they did something interesting or for whatever reason they may have to want to do so. There's no benefit in it for them other than, well, being a minor irritation.

Actual legit merc units going wherever they get paid? Sure, I can see that. It's not what's being discussed here though. Also, wouldn't you make more money defending another Clan faction than ghost dropping?

[Joseph Mallan]

Vlad Ward, on 20 January 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

Because these dudes on the internet don't like being told what to do by other holier-than-thou dudes on the internet, they clearly must be sock accounts and griefers and should be banned.

At least the accounts that are attacking an in game ally should. Yes I agree.

TripleEhBeef, on 20 January 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:

Didn't we have a rogue Steiner unit come at us during the Christmas Ceasefire?

Were they Steiners or were they Rogue Mercs flying the Steiner flag?

Davers, on 20 January 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

Sure it is. Are saying I can't be a part of a merc unit fighting for kurita and a merc unit fighting for ghost bear? What is the point of an alt if you have to fight for the same faction with both?

Actually yes. Clans DON'T HIGHER MERCS!

[Joseph Mallan]

Vlad Ward, on 20 January 2015 - 10:03 PM, said:

It only takes a quick glance at the individual faction forums to see plenty of examples of legitimate units getting fed up with being told what to do by high councils and just going off attacking people at random.

The attacks could be perpetrated by players who have decided to go through the hassle of creating alt accounts, grinding millions upon millions of c-bills to buy, master, and module a stable of mechs, and spend real money on MC for mech bays, solely to screw with other people on the internet. Or it could just be dudes playing the game and choosing to ignore e-warlords trying to dictate what they can and can't do in a video game. Occam's razor.

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!

[Joseph Mallan]

Vlad Ward, on 20 January 2015 - 11:06 PM, said:

The difference between the two situations is that the whole team is affected when a PUG decides to go off on their own. If the team loses, the PUG also loses.

What do mercs lose when factions go to war? Absolutely nothing. In fact, quite the opposite, more fighting between factions means more open queues and thus more fights and more money for Mercs, as well as additional opportunities for planet claiming for those who care about that sort of thing.

Not only is there no benefit for a merc unit to go along with faction RP ceasefires, it is actually beneficial for them to play more chaotically.

Until such a time as PGI actually tracks the doings of Mercs. Loyalty should also include penalties for attacking an Ally. breaking cease fires (once they are made official). Factions need a chain of command and a Merc Review Board. Plain and simple Mercs should not have free reign like they have now.

AND LETS GET SOME HOUSE FORCES IN THIS NUT HOUSE ALREADY!

[Grynos]

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

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!

Nope sorry this is a game. I can choose to play it anyway, within the limits of the game itself....