480 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

And if the whole faction want it to thats different from just one small group within the faction. So I still stand that the Faction needs a ability to govern itself or better PGI to do so. If the players are allowed to muck up things just to watch them burn. It will be bad for the overall direction of the game.

PGI cannot be an absentee GM

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 January 2015 - 04:30 AM.

[Yokaiko]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 04:28 AM, said:

And if the whole faction want it to thats different from just one small group within the faction. So I still stand that the Faction needs a ability to govern itself or better PGI to do so. If the players are allowed to muck up things just to watch them burn. It will be bad for the overall direction of the game.

What direction? Are we trying to relive the timeline? Or is this a sandbox. Personally I could give a crap about the RP, there aren't the mechanics to support a sandbox.

Ever play Eve? THAT is a sandbox.

[Egomane]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 04:28 AM, said:

PGI cannot be an absentee GM

They are not! They are giving you planets to attack. It's up to each individual player if he wants to make that attack or not.

And I don't see "whole factions" wanting something. I see a bunch of players declaring themself as THE FACTION. They are not. All they are doing is informal and at best appliable on a unit level. They can not force their will on others, who don't want to follow their lead. They have no authority to lead. They might claim it, but they still don't have it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Just thought of this a minute or two ago. There is nothing stopping the "Faction" from Defending against the "Problem makers" on what ever planet is "wrongfully" being attacked is there?

[Dracol]

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?

This issue has come up within the Clans in two major threads:
-"How Can PGI Fix The Merc Issue" created when Clan Ghost Bear units attack across the ceasefire into Clan Wolf around xmas/New Years Eve

- "Unsanctioned Attack on Clan Ghost Bear" started when Clan Smoke Jaguar recently attack CGB across a ceasefire

Here are the facts:
- Every ceasefire produces contracts to attack worlds in all adjacent factions available to all pilots
- PGI has sole discretion on what planets are offered
- Major units in one faction have been making ceasefire agreements with units in other factions
- Ceasefires have taken considerable time investments from certain players to establish
- There is no easy way for all faction members to be notified of ceasefire agreements made between units, nor for ceasefires to be enforced
- Currently, there are no means for units to officially play as pirates, insurgents, or special ops units deep behind enemy lines

On the surface it sucks. Players invest a lot of time into politics to establish faction beneficial ceasefires. These efforts can seem like a waste if any old unit can ignore em.

On the other hand, these ceasefires close off additional chances for more and sometimes quicker CW games, and in the case of the Clan ceasefires, closes off a completely different gaming experience (Clan v Clan).

Here's how it doesn't suck:
These ceasefires do not offer complete protection, but they do offer lowered risk along that border. As players, we can not completely remove an attack lane, but the ceasefires will ensure that what does cross over is not a concentrated assault by the faction as a whole.

It presents opportunities to participate in politics for those inclined. First, intel on who is attacking needs to be gathered. Then reaching out to them to try to establish friendly dialogue. It gives a chance for a faction to reach out to new units. It also tests the political savvy of those who are creating the ceasefires. Can they reassure their allies that they are up holding their agreement?

It can also represent the dirtier elements of the Battletech universe. Pirate attacks, black ops, false flag, rogue planetary leaders, and planetary civil wars.

Just be advised, how a faction has responded to these types of attacks has had an influence on how that faction is perceived by the community. Will your faction be seen as one who demands to be followed in the name of winning or lore? Or one who is working with their community to build an enjoyable gaming experience?

Edited by Dracol, 21 January 2015 - 04:46 AM.

[Bluttrunken]

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

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

Yes, you're just on it.

[ApolloKaras]

I'm just trying to figure out why it matters anyway. They wouldn't be that difficult to dispatch they would be in trial mechs. Each faction is responsible for their own security. At the end of the day the planets mean jack and squat, as does territory.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dracol, on 21 January 2015 - 04:44 AM, said:

Just be advised, how a faction has responded to these types of attacks has had an influence on how that faction is perceived by the community. Will your faction be seen as one who demands to be followed in the name of winning or lore? Or one who is working with their community to build an enjoyable gaming experience for the majority?

Just one fix I saw needed.

[Midori No Ryuu]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 04:42 AM, said:

Just thought of this a minute or two ago. There is nothing stopping the "Faction" from Defending against the "Problem makers" on what ever planet is "wrongfully" being attacked is there?

Actually no, you cannot defend against your own "faction" attacking an "ally" (PGI gives us both attack and defense options) This is something that could be easily fixed allowing everyone to do as they please which seems to be the consensus activity for your "rogues".

Some people are not happy unless they are destroying something that somebody else values.

[Dracol]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:

Just one fix I saw needed.

" gaming experience for the majority?" Like 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner?

I didn't use majority for a reason. If the majority want to have Clan v Clan removed completely due to ceasefires, that I could not agree with.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gramr, on 21 January 2015 - 04:54 AM, said:

Actually no, you cannot defend against your own "faction" attacking an "ally" (PGI gives us both attack and defense options) This is something that could be easily fixed allowing everyone to do as they please which seems to be the consensus activity for your "rogues".

Some people are not happy unless they are destroying something that somebody else values.

What I am saying is if You and yours are Steiners Attacking a Davion World, Can me and Mine defend that Davion World against you?

[Bill Lumbar]

All I can say to the OP's question and concern is this. I remember playing games back in the day, and still do play Romance of the Three Kingdoms 3 with my Father from time to time to this day. This is just a very simple Super Nes game, that has many tactics to beat your enemy. You can send spies into your enemies lands to help destroy them from within, you can marry enemies daughters to align your side with theirs. In such a simple game you have so many options and tactics to bring your enemies down. You can choose to seize letters that come through your lands, you can seize supplies and Gold coming through your lands.... You could seize a general that brings you offers and gifts/gold to get you to align with their cause. You could release them, kill them, or recruit them to your army.

Granted if you killed them or took what they offered and didn't follow through with terms they offered, you lost honor points that would effect how effective you are at making deals with others. It also effected your own generals, your honor, and if they would turn against you or stay and fight for you.

Why does such a old game, a simple game, have so many more ways designed into the game that add real depth and many different tactics/objectives hidden or in the open to defeat your enemies and this one doesn't? There should be many ways to bring down rival factions, clan or IS, it shouldn't matter. Why does it seem so many are set on only one or two ways to win battles or the war for their faction? Have we all been playing this game for so long we can't be creative until PGI steps it up and gives us some real content that effects the outcome of battles in this game that allows us more options then balling up into a death ball and killing em all or hitting three gens and then a cannon?

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 21 January 2015 - 05:06 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dracol, on 21 January 2015 - 04:56 AM, said:

" gaming experience for the majority?" Like 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner?

I didn't use majority for a reason. If the majority want to have Clan v Clan removed completely due to ceasefires, that I could not agree with.

Yes as in 2 wolves and a Sheep. Ah but the Clans don't make binding cease fires and wage trials against one another for everything from A case of Booze to the right to use the HPG. They are called Trials of Possession. And can be fought between Clan allies at any time.

[Dracol]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

Yes as in 2 wolves and a Sheep. Ah but the Clans don't make binding cease fires and wage trials against one another for everything from A case of Booze to the right to use the HPG. They are called Trials of Possession. And can be fought between Clan allies at any time.

What about those players who have only been introduced to Battletech via Mechwarrior Online? They may just queue up in a wolf/bear queue to play clan v clan. Should they be required to jump through hops to do that?

[Wildstreak]

And so CW devolves further with the advent of CW Politics.
Alt accounts, subterfuge, backstabbing are all taking center stage instead of playing and reporting problems in a Beta.

Damn it feels good to play in the Usual Queue.

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.

Stomping PUGs happens because there is no method of separation and certain people did not want separate play, they want to force people to play with teams. There has been and always will be 2 ways of dealing with it.
1 - PGI makes a system for PUGs & Teams to play CW separately like in the Usual Queue. A bunch of crazed people are against this.
2 - The community makes efforts through social media to separate the two but again there is the anti-PUG group and we see here how well that works.

Spawn Killing came about because of Respawns. I happens in other games like the Jagex one I played recently that died and was one of the reasons it died. It also results in requests for safe spawn points that creates whole new problems as seen in same said dead game.

Camping on defense happens too. Only way to stop it is to attack the campers.

This is not War, anyone telling you otherwise is lying. Not all sleazy tactics people think happen in War.

People seeking control & power in games has been going on for decades. It was never a big deal back in say the 80s because most gamers played non-computer games in their local area though it could be a problem. I remember blowout fights with friends over D&D, CBT, superhero games, etc. I knew one guy who always tried to prove he was the Big Man in SFB and demand everyone do things his way to the point where he tried to manipulate who played in the group and who did not.

With the Internet & people playing within larger groups covering the globe, you now see people coming from different viewpoints used within their local group clashing with each other. What used to be local disputes now happens on Internet forums like this.

This is one reason I roll solo. Far less drama, I had my share some time ago.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bill Lumbar, on 21 January 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

All I can say to the OP's question and concern is this. I remember playing games back in the day, and still do play Romance of the Three Kingdoms 3 with my Father from time to time to this day. This is just a very simple Super Nes game, that has many tactics to beat your enemy. You can send spies into your enemies lands to help destroy them from within, you can marry enemies daughters to align your side with theirs. In such a simple game you have so many options and tactics to bring your enemies down. You can choose to seize letters that come through your lands, you can seize supplies and Gold coming through your lands....

Why does such a old game, a simple game, have so many more ways designed into the game that add real depth and many different tactics/objectives hidden or in the open to defeat your enemies and this one doesn't? There should be many ways to bring down rival factions, clan or IS, it shouldn't matter. Why does it seem so many are set on only one or two ways to win battles or the war for their faction? Have we all been playing this game for so long we can't be creative until PGI steps it up and gives us some real content that effects the outcome of battles in this game that allows us more options then balling up into a death ball and killing em all or hitting three gens and then a cannon?

I think the ones who are against nefarious actions are trying to go beyond what PGI has in place just as much as those who are. The thing I see is that there is little to nothing that those who WANT alliances can do to stop it.

Unless like I asked before, Can a Steiner Unit defend a Davion world against Steiner Attackers?

Dracol, on 21 January 2015 - 05:04 AM, said:

What about those players who have only been introduced to Battletech via Mechwarrior Online? They may just queue up in a wolf/bear queue to play clan v clan. Should they be required to jump through hops to do that?

Then when the players with the background ask them to not attack an Ally what should the new player do? I would say ask if they can continue or who is a fair target for the Faction.

Wildstreak, on 21 January 2015 - 05:04 AM, said:

And so CW devolves further with the advent of CW Politics.
Alt accounts, subterfuge, backstabbing are all taking center stage instead of playing and reporting problems in a Beta.

Actually this can be considered part of testing Beta. What limits are there to doing this sort of action. Can there be systems put in place to limit it? Should there BE limits?

It is work that Beta is meant to do.

[Bill Lumbar]

Wildstreak, on 21 January 2015 - 05:04 AM, said:

And so CW devolves further with the advent of CW Politics.
Alt accounts, subterfuge, backstabbing are all taking center stage instead of playing and reporting problems in a Beta.

Damn it feels good to play in the Usual Queue.


Stomping PUGs happens because there is no method of separation and certain people did not want separate play, they want to force people to play with teams. There has been and always will be 2 ways of dealing with it.
1 - PGI makes a system for PUGs & Teams to play CW separately like in the Usual Queue. A bunch of crazed people are against this.
2 - The community makes efforts through social media to separate the two but again there is the anti-PUG group and we see here how well that works.

Spawn Killing came about because of Respawns. I happens in other games like the Jagex one I played recently that died and was one of the reasons it died. It also results in requests for safe spawn points that creates whole new problems as seen in same said dead game.

Camping on defense happens too. Only way to stop it is to attack the campers.

This is not War, anyone telling you otherwise is lying. Not all sleazy tactics people think happen in War.

People seeking control & power in games has been going on for decades. It was never a big deal back in say the 80s because most gamers played non-computer games in their local area though it could be a problem. I remember blowout fights with friends over D&D, CBT, superhero games, etc. I knew one guy who always tried to prove he was the Big Man in SFB and demand everyone do things his way to the point where he tried to manipulate who played in the group and who did not.

With the Internet & people playing within larger groups covering the globe, you now see people coming from different viewpoints used within their local group clashing with each other. What used to be local disputes now happens on Internet forums like this.

This is one reason I roll solo. Far less drama, I had my share some time ago.

Yeah I hear you, my father made a WWII naval campaign based on the old Grand Imperialism board game from MB. We had a 8-13 man gaming group of die hard historical gamers that played in it. I was only around 12-15 years old, and we would all get together and play it every weekend back in the day. My dad made a 3 foot by 5 foot gaming board based off the old MB games map. Just like Grand Imperialism we had the simple land combat with dice. When a naval battle would ensue, we used a more complex set of rules for the naval battles. I played Japan most of the time out of the 3 or 4 campaigns we had played over the course of 4 years.

The Drama in that group of players was unreal! People making deals, and then breaking them, others trying to manipulate players into doing what they wanted them to do... It was crazy! I made a home land base to go on top of the simple map my Father made of my home land. I painted it... and put sand, and buildings on it to make it look like a mini gaming board. I put sewer lines running out onto the guys home land that played the British. I remember his reaction to this the first time he seen it.... He flipped out and got all pissed. LOL. He was in his 40's, and acted like a complete baby about it. This is a guy that would hold his pepe instead of getting up to go to the bathroom when he had to pee because he didn't want to miss anything going on in the game!

[Bill Lumbar]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:

I think the ones who are against nefarious actions are trying to go beyond what PGI has in place just as much as those who are. The thing I see is that there is little to nothing that those who WANT alliances can do to stop it.

Unless like I asked before, Can a Steiner Unit defend a Davion world against Steiner Attackers?


Then when the players with the background ask them to not attack an Ally what should the new player do? I would say ask if they can continue or who is a fair target for the Faction.

Actually this can be considered part of testing Beta. What limits are there to doing this sort of action. Can there be systems put in place to limit it? Should there BE limits?

It is work that Beta is meant to do.

I would say as long as you don't have a team that part of their team turns on them in a battle they drop in together and team kills or throws the match, yes they should be able to fight each other in battle if they want or feel the need to do so.

[Thorn Hallis]

Bill Lumbar, on 21 January 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

Why does such a old game, a simple game, have so many more ways designed into the game that add real depth and many different tactics/objectives hidden or in the open to defeat your enemies and this one doesn't?

Because Koei had two Rot3K titles before to build upon, something that PGI does not have. A 3rd instance of CW might be as deep as Rot3K III was.

[Bill Lumbar]

Thorn Hallis, on 21 January 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

Because Koei had two Rot3K titles before to build upon, something that PGI does not have. A 3rd instance of CW might be as deep as Rot3K III was.

Ha ha... a fellow RM player? And yes I agree that had two others to build up off of, but even the 1st one had many of these same features... just the graphics and battles got better. One really cool thing about it also was that you could issue a challenge at the start of the battle, your best general against the enemies best. If you won, you took down that generals army and the general. You could later chose to behead him, or recruit him, or set him free. This are all things that add depth to a game and make it fun....

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 21 January 2015 - 05:30 AM.