480 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

So now you're changing your story; you're griefing the community because you believe the community doesn't exist.

The community would beg to differ.



Since you've now finally admitted that this behaviour is griefing, I'm wondering if you can expand upon your point of view that griefing is ok?

What part of the CoC does it violate? I used the term in it's most basic term, that it is causing you grief. I admitted nothing. I said that you are encourage people who derive joy from other people's pain to engage in activities that annoy you. That's far cry from griefing in the terms of a sanctionable CoC violation, but please keep on about how this ticks you off and you ahve no tools to stop it and see what happens.
PGI is not going to let a small number of people tell the rest how they can play CW. I honestly don't get what you expect to happen. Seriously, you really think it's ok for a group of players, the same as any other player, to have the ability to control non affiliated, non agreeing parties to an ex parte ceasefire that they had no say in? How exactly would that work? I'm being serious. Who selects who gets to tell me what I can and can't do in CW? How is it enforced?

[Egomane]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

What are you talking about? Seriously? What 80% 20% are you referring to? We're all playing the same CW, on the same CW map, with the same CW factions. In that situation, what divide could you implement that prevents the 20% from griefing the 80%?

How are they griefing? By not following the rules you made up for yourself?

[Alexander Steel]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

So now you're changing your story; you're griefing the community because you believe the community doesn't exist.

I'm not changing my story. There are rules to the game, and breaking those rules gets you in trouble with PGI. PGI has up CW work a particular way. They are the ones that have the power to stop people from doing thigns. If they wanted the Davion and Steiner not to be able to attack each other, guess what.. the game wouldn't let us. It would make it against the rules. Just like Davion can't attack Clan Jade Falcon, they can defend IS worlds attacked by them, but they can't attack them.

The community while a thing doesn't have the power to enforce or make rules, they can only request that PGI does so.

[Martis Gradivus]

I just don't see the griefing. I see it as playing the game the way it is PGI has currently designed it to be played.

It's why clanners use TimberGod and VomitCrows in CW drops, it's why IS use the Thunder "Lightning" Bolt in their drop decs. It's also why you have LRM mechs come out in force for event weekends, it's why we had the jump-snipe meta, it's why ghost heat happened.

People will play the game, will play it however they can. As long as they play in the rules of the game and don't violate the rules, I say more power to them. If it happens against us, we'll just take the needed time to smack them back to their holes, and failing that, well, we deserve it.

[Harathan]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

PGI is not going to let a small number of people....

I love how you keep trotting this out as if it's true.

Those making up the current Community of Community Warfare are not the minority bud.

[RG Notch]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

I love how you keep trotting this out as if it's true.

Those making up the current Community of Community Warfare are not the minority bud.

Umm, as per this thread not all the Community is playing your version of CW. I note you cut out the relevant portion requesting how you are going to be elected space pope and tell the rest of us plebes in the community what we can and cannot do.

[stratagos]

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?

Let me answer the actual question here - as I understand it - since this has turned into 14 pages of bile and misinformation

* Does PGI 'care' about alliances in any way that will force players to respect agreements, be they set by a relative handful of groups or by 99% of the relevant units

In the short term, they have been very consistent in their statements that the answer is "no".

While they have stated they 'enjoy' the diplomacy they have seen, they have exhibited zero desire to force any kind of behavior on units, whatever tags they happen to carry.

Is this 'right', in the sense of 'is this the type of experience we, the community, want'?

That is a *very* different question - and one I suspect you and I have significantly differences of opinions on - but the answer to your stated question is pretty darn plain.

[Harathan]

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

Umm, as per this thread not all the Community is playing your version of CW. I note you cut out the relevant portion requesting how you are going to be elected space pope and tell the rest of us plebes in the community what we can and cannot do.

Yeah, I cut out and decided not to answer to you being childish. I'm still waiting for you and your friends to explain why you think it's ok for a small group of players (that is, those not bothering with being in the community) to screw things up for a larger group of players (that is, those that are bothering with being in the community).

Edited by Harathan, 21 January 2015 - 01:29 PM.

[RG Notch]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:27 PM, said:

Yeah, I cut out and decided not to answer to you being childish.

Aww so you don't have an answer? Check, complain about a so called problem with no suggested solution. That's childish whining.

[Harathan]

RG Notch, on 21 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Aww so you don't have an answer? Check, complain about a so called problem with no suggested solution. That's childish whining.

I have suggested a solution. That you don't like it is your problem, not mine.

[Alexander Steel]

I for one am enjoying the community warfare aspect of this thread.

[Harathan]

Alexander Steel, on 21 January 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

I for one am enjoying the community warfare aspect of this thread.

I was actually thinking the same thing. Good lord, we agree on something, maybe there's hope.

Edited by Harathan, 21 January 2015 - 01:32 PM.

[Appogee]

Dimento Graven, on 21 January 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

I find your rationalization idiotic at best.

I find your requirement for PGI to be your clan's nanny quite sad.

If some guy doesn't observe the treaties created by self-appointed faction heads then that's their call. You don't get to dictate which planets someone else can attack, nor should you expect deus ex machina to help you if they do

Welcome to the treacherous Inner Sphere, where stuff happens, and you just have to man up and deal with it.

Edited by Appogee, 21 January 2015 - 01:43 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Vlad Ward, on 21 January 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

Because they kill things real goodly. That's it in a nutshell, really. Right now, plenty of extremely competent merc units are being treated like **** by smaller, less experienced, and/or less competitive faction units (not even talking about my own, Smoke Jags are pretty cool peeps overall). The end result, contrary to what seems to be the popular belief, is not a game where no one is willing to hire these mercs.

The end result is a game where the first faction willing to treat Mercs with respect and let them do their own thing will end up with an extreme excess of highly skilled, active players who will take planets for them all day, every day.

You say Mercs should be jockeying for favor with Factions. I say Factions should be scrambling to provide the most inclusive, welcoming environment for Mercs. It's not like Faction units are going to switch sides if they don't like the way things are going for them.

Only at that point the Faction units are not in control of the war their faction is fighting, is it? Take Davion as an example - if a merc unit is attacking Steiner and Steiner, in turn, is having to pull units off its Clan Wolf border to deal with them then Davions efforts to support the Steiner border against Clan Wolf is a loss. It doesn't matter how good or bad those mercs are; for Davion they are wasted resources. They are a detriment, not a benefit. In fact those Steiner units could be pulled off the Marik border, freeing more Marik units to attack Davion.

Doesn't matter how good or bad those mercs are. Merc units who don't stick to the plan are dead weight or worse. If the system works out like you're talking about where Factions are happy to pay Merc units to just show up and do their own thing... again, why have CW at all? Why not just put Invasion in as a game mode in group queue, because there's no actual 'war' going on. Just a bunch of pointless brawls for cbills.

A war between factions is, or at least should be, an intentional thing. One of the biggest issues with CW from the outset is PGIs decision that it should be a random 'Faction Deathmatch' environment. That's already bad and hamstrings most of what CW could/should be. I get why though, you don't want players defacto in charge of groups. However if you then nerf their ability to effectively self-manage and more or less enforce a complete deathmatch anarchy environment then you eliminate any point of faction loyalist units, or factions even. Just make it units in a random map playing random matches for cbill bonuses.

That's what it comes down to. If the power sits with the mercs then there is no 'Community Warfare'. It's Deathmatch with Super Ego Stroking Bonus Mode for the best merc units. It's certainly not factions fighting each other as factions in some sort of war environment. However if it's Faction Loyalist units in complete control of factions you get Gaming Uber Dictator Mode and you've got people trying to go all Napoleon. So the current system of having a general consensus of faction Loyalist and long-term trusted Merc units work out an overall strategy for the faction and in time enforced by having additional incentives to offer to useful, loyal and reliable merc units is the best option.

Alliances and closed fronts happen for a reason. When someone breaks that it mucks up the overall tactics of a faction. There is nothing a merc unit is going to add that offsets that. If PGI goes the Deathmatch mode with no means for Factions to actually function like Factions then, well, look forward to split queues and Elo eventually and CW being a gamemode update for existing queues. If PGI does decide to make CW about Faction on Faction warfare then expect merc units who disrupt their employers overall strategy to get less respect and command less value than those who integrate into the factions over all strategy and plan.

[Appogee]

Egomane, on 21 January 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

How are they griefing? By not following the rules you made up for yourself?

^ This.

[Harathan]

MischiefSC, on 21 January 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

Only at that point the Faction units are not in control of the war their faction is fighting, is it? Take Davion as an example - if a merc unit is attacking Steiner and Steiner, in turn, is having to pull units off its Clan Wolf border to deal with them then Davions efforts to support the Steiner border against Clan Wolf is a loss. It doesn't matter how good or bad those mercs are; for Davion they are wasted resources. They are a detriment, not a benefit. In fact those Steiner units could be pulled off the Marik border, freeing more Marik units to attack Davion.

Doesn't matter how good or bad those mercs are. Merc units who don't stick to the plan are dead weight or worse. If the system works out like you're talking about where Factions are happy to pay Merc units to just show up and do their own thing... again, why have CW at all? Why not just put Invasion in as a game mode in group queue, because there's no actual 'war' going on. Just a bunch of pointless brawls for cbills.

A war between factions is, or at least should be, an intentional thing. One of the biggest issues with CW from the outset is PGIs decision that it should be a random 'Faction Deathmatch' environment. That's already bad and hamstrings most of what CW could/should be. I get why though, you don't want players defacto in charge of groups. However if you then nerf their ability to effectively self-manage and more or less enforce a complete deathmatch anarchy environment then you eliminate any point of faction loyalist units, or factions even. Just make it units in a random map playing random matches for cbill bonuses.

That's what it comes down to. If the power sits with the mercs then there is no 'Community Warfare'. It's Deathmatch with Super Ego Stroking Bonus Mode for the best merc units. It's certainly not factions fighting each other as factions in some sort of war environment. However if it's Faction Loyalist units in complete control of factions you get Gaming Uber Dictator Mode and you've got people trying to go all Napoleon. So the current system of having a general consensus of faction Loyalist and long-term trusted Merc units work out an overall strategy for the faction and in time enforced by having additional incentives to offer to useful, loyal and reliable merc units is the best option.

Alliances and closed fronts happen for a reason. When someone breaks that it mucks up the overall tactics of a faction. There is nothing a merc unit is going to add that offsets that. If PGI goes the Deathmatch mode with no means for Factions to actually function like Factions then, well, look forward to split queues and Elo eventually and CW being a gamemode update for existing queues. If PGI does decide to make CW about Faction on Faction warfare then expect merc units who disrupt their employers overall strategy to get less respect and command less value than those who integrate into the factions over all strategy and plan.

^ This.

What is the point of Factions on the map if Factions don't actually exist as an entity, whether that entity is the Community of that Faction or PGI wearing their GM cloak? And if CW is not, therefore, Faction vs Faction but instead Lulz vs Lulz, what's the point of CW mode at all?

Edited by Harathan, 21 January 2015 - 01:43 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

MischiefSC, on 21 January 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

Only at that point the Faction units are not in control of the war their faction is fighting, is it? Take Davion as an example - if a merc unit is attacking Steiner and Steiner, in turn, is having to pull units off its Clan Wolf border to deal with them then Davions efforts to support the Steiner border against Clan Wolf is a loss. It doesn't matter how good or bad those mercs are; for Davion they are wasted resources. They are a detriment, not a benefit. In fact those Steiner units could be pulled off the Marik border, freeing more Marik units to attack Davion.

Doesn't matter how good or bad those mercs are. Merc units who don't stick to the plan are dead weight or worse. If the system works out like you're talking about where Factions are happy to pay Merc units to just show up and do their own thing... again, why have CW at all? Why not just put Invasion in as a game mode in group queue, because there's no actual 'war' going on. Just a bunch of pointless brawls for cbills.

A war between factions is, or at least should be, an intentional thing. One of the biggest issues with CW from the outset is PGIs decision that it should be a random 'Faction Deathmatch' environment. That's already bad and hamstrings most of what CW could/should be. I get why though, you don't want players defacto in charge of groups. However if you then nerf their ability to effectively self-manage and more or less enforce a complete deathmatch anarchy environment then you eliminate any point of faction loyalist units, or factions even. Just make it units in a random map playing random matches for cbill bonuses.

That's what it comes down to. If the power sits with the mercs then there is no 'Community Warfare'. It's Deathmatch with Super Ego Stroking Bonus Mode for the best merc units. It's certainly not factions fighting each other as factions in some sort of war environment. However if it's Faction Loyalist units in complete control of factions you get Gaming Uber Dictator Mode and you've got people trying to go all Napoleon. So the current system of having a general consensus of faction Loyalist and long-term trusted Merc units work out an overall strategy for the faction and in time enforced by having additional incentives to offer to useful, loyal and reliable merc units is the best option.

Alliances and closed fronts happen for a reason. When someone breaks that it mucks up the overall tactics of a faction. There is nothing a merc unit is going to add that offsets that. If PGI goes the Deathmatch mode with no means for Factions to actually function like Factions then, well, look forward to split queues and Elo eventually and CW being a gamemode update for existing queues. If PGI does decide to make CW about Faction on Faction warfare then expect merc units who disrupt their employers overall strategy to get less respect and command less value than those who integrate into the factions over all strategy and plan.

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.

[Harathan]

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

Some of these BSI guys are giving me the heeby jeebies.

Because Vlad Ward has a stellar reputation.

*yawn*

[RG Notch]

Harathan, on 21 January 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

I have suggested a solution. That you don't like it is your problem, not mine.

Which is make you space pope and tell the space plebes what they can and cannot do based on what you and your cardinals deem worthy? Where is the method of selection of the space pope and his court? What are the sanctions for heresy against the way you've decided CW must be played by all? Seriously? Who gets to be in charge and how does PGI enforce your decisions?

[Dimento Graven]

stratagos, on 21 January 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

Let me answer the actual question here - as I understand it - since this has turned into 14 pages of bile and misinformation

* Does PGI 'care' about alliances in any way that will force players to respect agreements, be they set by a relative handful of groups or by 99% of the relevant units

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?

IE: Creating accounts you don't care about and could care less if they are banned, blown to bits, never expect to win a match, JUST SO you can grant your primary preferred faction a numerical advantage.

Is THAT a valid tactic?

Quote

In the short term, they have been very consistent in their statements that the answer is "no".

While they have stated they 'enjoy' the diplomacy they have seen, they have exhibited zero desire to force any kind of behavior on units, whatever tags they happen to carry.

Is this 'right', in the sense of 'is this the type of experience we, the community, want'?

That is a *very* different question - and one I suspect you and I have significantly differences of opinions on - but the answer to your stated question is pretty darn plain.

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.