128 replies to this topic

[Harathan]

Vlad Ward, on 30 January 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

Because the only thing that will come out from your "Faction politics" is fewer fights to be had for everyone else. It's not like there are NPC ceasefires in place right now for the Factions to nullify in order to open more fronts. All you can do is close fronts and reduce other people's play options.

Are you even reading what's being posted, or just making stuff up?

How will it result in less fights? Half the possible drop planets in any given freefire period are empty anyway, how would taking 1 away result in substantially less fights? For whom? Mercs can go wherever they like to get a fight, House units will be focusing on whatever opponent they've chosen to focus on. The only people who would even possibly end up with fewer fights are the people that actually chose to be involved in the voting process for the ceasefire in the first place. If anything, it will concentrate forces on fewer fronts, resulting in *more* fights, not less. Davion House units voting for a ceasefire against Steiner doesn't mean Steiner players can't attack Davion planets, unless the Steiner House units also vote to ceasefire against Davion. That being the case, Merc units who don't like the arrangement can go Merc elsewhere, that's the benefit of being a Merc. You can move around to find the best contract for you, House units don't get that, so where is their benefit? You're basically trying to force Merc behaviour on everyone, rather than allowing a compromise between the two types of play. Why is that?

Edited by Harathan, 30 January 2015 - 02:41 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

I'm reading lots of things, including thread after thread of bored Faction and Merc units who sit on their thumbs on a daily basis because they don't want to get yelled at for breaking ceasefires, or go through the monotony of ghost drops until enough people (read: pugs) join an "allied" planet attack to get real fights going.

Planets aren't empty because of a lack of people - at least outside of 4-front wonders like Davion.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 30 January 2015 - 02:47 PM.

[Harathan]

hybrid black, on 30 January 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

but there are no alliances and treaties for factions only units with in a faction have them, what gives someone like you for example the right to say a faction can not attack someone else. because your loyal? or want to RP more then someone else? you loyalist all think you control your faction when really you have no power and should not, your in a unit in a faction if anything the people not in a unit and are in a faction are really the people playing for that faction you play for your tags they play for there faction.

Another reading comprehension fail and an attempt to force Merc gameplay on everyone else. Why shouldn't House units, units who choose to permanently align with a Faction, be allowed to influence the direction of their chosen Faction? It doesn't hurt Mercs, Mercs can move around all they like to pick a fight. House units can't. The only people being told what to do are those people in units who choose to engage in that manner of gameplay. If you don't want to be told what to do, you're a Merc, go fight elsewhere, you have that ability, there's nothing stopping you.

Vlad Ward, on 30 January 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

I'm reading lots of things, including thread after thread of bored Faction and Merc units who sit on their thumbs on a daily basis because they don't want to get yelled at for breaking ceasefires, or go through the monotony of ghost drops until enough people (read: pugs) join an "allied" planet attack to get real fights going.

Planets aren't empty because of a lack of people - at least outside of 4-front wonders like Davion.

Ok now you've gone back to making stuff up. It hurts nobody to allow House units to be House units and engage in their politics, and allow Mercs to be Mercs and move around to pick their contract as they see fit. Factions need to be more than colours on a map, otherwise PGI may as well just stick a map overlay on Public Queue and call it done.

I'll tl:dr this: If House units can be House units and give their Faction some direction, and Merc units can be Merc units and pick their contracts at will, and those two game types could co-exist with no greater effect than Merc units having to actually be Merc units... why is that a problem for you?

Edited by Harathan, 30 January 2015 - 02:59 PM.

[hybrid black]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 02:48 PM, said:

Another reading comprehension fail and an attempt to force Merc gameplay on everyone else. Why shouldn't House units, units who choose to permanently align with a Faction, be allowed to influence the direction of their chosen Faction? It doesn't hurt Mercs, Mercs can move around all they like to pick a fight. House units can't. The only people being told what to do are those people in units who choose to engage in that manner of gameplay. If you don't want to be told what to do, you're a Merc, go fight elsewhere, you have that ability, there's nothing stopping you.


Ok now you've gone back to making stuff up.

no but loyalist haven't proven that they have any right to control a faction, t his is like walking up to the first random [redacted] and saying hey your the president of the united states go pick who were going to war with.

[Harathan]

hybrid black, on 30 January 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

no but loyalist haven't proven that they have any right to control a faction

And Mercs have? Cos some of the big Merc alliances are doing a good job of pushing some Factions around simply by being there. What right have they to do that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why, if the two types of gameplay could co-exist, are you so against it? If House units could represent their Factions, like they want to, and Mercs could jump from contract to contract, like they want to... what's the problem?

[hybrid black]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

And Mercs have? Cos some of the big Merc alliances are doing a good job of pushing some Factions around simply by being there. What right have they to do that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why, if the two types of gameplay could co-exist, are you so against it? If House units could represent their Factions, like they want to, and Mercs could jump from contract to contract, like they want to... what's the problem?

Give the mercs a reason to do what you say not force it on them, the game is about choice and because you think your loyalist ways are better and you should get to say what someone else can do and can not do. no player has the right to limit who others can fight and how they chose to play the game.

[Kjudoon]

Let's face it, if you don't want consequences, politics, diplomacy and interaction with people, CW is not for you. Stay in the PQs where there are no consequences... well comparitively... as compared to CW. Trolls deserve penalties for being bad actors. Mercs control their destiny only in the confines of their employing factions. Otherwise, they're pirates and anyone who hires pirates deserves what they get.

This is part of why there needs to be an accountability system for Mercs and create the class of unit known as pirates.

[Peter2000]

Cimarb, on 30 January 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

He could have also meant 101st...

Regardless, yes, the commanders of the Division do have a major impact on American foreign policy, because they are the ones in the foreign campaigns influencing things and enacting that policy. They do report back to their superiors, and if they fail in their jobs, they are fired (or worse).

The hire up on rank the soldier is, the less soldier and more politician they become. Remember, the top is the Commander in Chief, and he is also the President.

Mercenaries are not hired by the Army, btw.

Maybe if Loyalist factions had an actual benefit worth the dedication, and mercenaries were rewarded/punished based upon their loyalty, there would be more loyalists, and less mercenaries, like there should be.

The point is that these military members are not responsible for diplomatic actions such as declaring war or peace with neighboring countries (factions in MWO). Similarly, to pretend like perm-con units (which are *at best* parts of a RCT or Touman) are responsible for directing foreign policy seems like intentional misinterpretation of "reality". Their successes and actions may shape foreign policy (much like the 101st airborne, or any Merc running the faction's colors at the time), but they are not the political arm of the faction.

[Peter2000]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 02:48 PM, said:

Ok now you've gone back to making stuff up.

I promise you, he's not. Read the threads in the CSJ, CGB, or Wolf forums if you have any doubts. Or join one of those factions. You'll see that the "far-fetched" scenario he is describing is reality on a day-to-day basis.

[Harathan]

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

The point is that these military members are not responsible for diplomatic actions such as declaring war or peace with neighboring countries (factions in MWO). Similarly, to pretend like perm-con units (which are *at best* parts of a RCT or Touman) are responsible for directing foreign policy seems like intentional misinterpretation of "reality". Their successes and actions may shape foreign policy (much like the 101st airborne, or any Merc running the faction's colors at the time), but they are not the political arm of the faction.

Nope, the point is you're trying to apply how the real world works, to a video game. The flaw with that approach is, in the real world someone would be controlling the Factions. Here, nobody is. No, PGI isn't doing it. An automated algorithm that selects attack and defence planets is not the same thing.

So again:

You still haven't answered my question. Why, if the two types of gameplay could co-exist, are you so against it? If House units could represent their Factions, like they want to, and Mercs could jump from contract to contract, like they want to... what's the problem?

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

I promise you, he's not. Read the threads in the CSJ, CGB, or Wolf forums if you have any doubts. Or join one of those factions. You'll see that the "far-fetched" scenario he is describing is reality on a day-to-day basis.

I don't interpret those threads the same way, but even if that's the case, answer me this: if it's a problem now under the current system of complete anarchy, why is the argument that it would suddenly become a problem under my suggestion?

Edited by Harathan, 30 January 2015 - 03:55 PM.

[hybrid black]

Kjudoon, on 30 January 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Let's face it, if you don't want consequences, politics, diplomacy and interaction with people, CW is not for you. Stay in the PQs where there are no consequences... well comparitively... as compared to CW. Trolls deserve penalties for being bad actors. Mercs control their destiny only in the confines of their employing factions. Otherwise, they're pirates and anyone who hires pirates deserves what they get.

This is part of why there needs to be an accountability system for Mercs and create the class of unit known as pirates.

consequences, politics, diplomacy and interaction with people are all in. There are meetings everyday for units that matter, people are removed from negotiations, and basically exiled from unit talks for there actions, politics have been going on before CW even started and the units doing well in CW have been doing all of this since day one.

[Peter2000]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

And Mercs have? Cos some of the big Merc alliances are doing a good job of pushing some Factions around simply by being there. What right have they to do that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why, if the two types of gameplay could co-exist, are you so against it? If House units could represent their Factions, like they want to, and Mercs could jump from contract to contract, like they want to... what's the problem?

Again, the issue is that diplomacy should be between units (or voluntary coalitions of units), not between factions, since it is impossible to say who "truly" speaks for a faction.

And quite bluntly, the reason that Mercs appear to be dominating the political scene is that outside of the first few weeks (where Davion was well-staffed, well-organized, and on their diplomatic A-game), they've been doing most of the leg work both diplomatically AND getting more results on the map/drop than most house units in most factions. This is largely a function of most of the competitive scene adopting the mercenary banner. Highly skilled highly active players are going to have a huge impact.

Kjudoon, on 30 January 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Let's face it, if you don't want consequences, politics, diplomacy and interaction with people, CW is not for you. Stay in the PQs where there are no consequences... well comparitively... as compared to CW. Trolls deserve penalties for being bad actors. Mercs control their destiny only in the confines of their employing factions. Otherwise, they're pirates and anyone who hires pirates deserves what they get.

This is part of why there needs to be an accountability system for Mercs and create the class of unit known as pirates.

I don't mind consequences. What I mind is other players who for no good reason other than that they feel they "own" a faction, and can therefore impose arbitrary consequences on me.

[Harathan]

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

Again, the issue is that diplomacy should be between units (or voluntary coalitions of units), not between factions, since it is impossible to say who "truly" speaks for a faction.

Then as many have pointed out before, it's not Faction vs Faction but Unit vs Unit and PGI may as well stick a map overlay on Public Queue and call it done.

House units being allowed to vote on the direction of their Faction only significantly affects House units, i.e the units that have chosen to engage in this type of game play. Mercs can easily and quickly find a contract they like elsewhere.

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

What I mind is other players who for no good reason other than that they feel they "own" a faction, and can therefore impose arbitrary consequences on me.

No apparently what you mind is that idea that some people can have fun doing something different than yourself.

Again:

If House units are allowed to be House units and influence their Faction, and Mercs are allowed to be Mercs and allowed to move around to chose contracts, and there is no significant disruption to either, why is this a problem?

[Peter2000]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

Then as many have pointed out before, it's not Faction vs Faction but Unit vs Unit and PGI may as well stick a map overlay on Public Queue and call it done.

Ummmm... no. There's still a faction map and incentive for units that find themselves on the same faction to cooperate and coordinate: that's what moves borders the most, given set forces. You sound like somebody who has no idea what unit-unit diplomacy can entail. There's just no "OVERRIDE" button for a few controlling RP-ers.

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

House units being allowed to vote on the direction of their Faction only significantly affects House units, i.e the units that have chosen to engage in this type of game play. Mercs can easily and quickly find a contract they like elsewhere.


No apparently what you mind is that idea that some people can have fun doing something different than yourself.

Again:

If House units are allowed to be House units and influence their Faction, and Mercs are allowed to be Mercs and allowed to move around to chose contracts, and there is no significant disruption to either, why is this a problem?

Except, if they do something colossally stupid like close of their only border with a real population on the other side (and this stuff happens), I'm stuck there for the duration of the contract, with my thumb up my ass. If they don't want to fight there, so be it. But I'll be damned if some perm-con unit leader thinks he's superior to me just because he tied the knot with his faction, and can boss me around as a result.

If I am just an employee of the faction, so is he. We're both getting our payments distributed by the PGI NPC who hands out cash at the end of the game. What right does he have to dictate policy? If he starts handing out LP and C-Bill payments out of HIS OWN POCKET then we can talk about paying me to listen to his decrees.

Edited by Peter2000, 30 January 2015 - 04:26 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Vlad Ward, on 30 January 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

Because the only thing that will come out from your "Faction politics" is fewer fights to be had for everyone else. It's not like there are NPC ceasefires in place right now for the Factions to nullify in order to open more fronts. All you can do is close fronts and reduce other people's play options.

ALL the fights/read Deathmatches a gamer could want are available in the Public Queues.

Community Warfare... C O M M U N I T Y warfare connotes the undergirding rules, norms and consequences that ANY (save Pirate and Kingon ) community requires a necessary precursor to member/Unit interaction.

Like it or not, PGI is already on record as stating that COMMUNITY warfare will be the "hard mode", objectified for gamer immersion and tilted toward 12-man Teams when it comes to ease with witch to find games/gain games.

The single mechanism that will level LOYALIST playing fields with LARGE UNITS is the Faction Grouping. In the truest since of "COMMUNITY" the Faction Grouping brings together Soloist, Small Group and Individuals from Large Units (who just don't have their Unit on yet.)

The longer a Faction has and increasingly invest time and talent in TeamSpeak-enabled Faction Groups, the better the average level of play in that Faction will become.

This is a primary reason what so much credit is due LB and the -SA- for funding and tailoring Strana Mechty in order to aggregate Coan Gamers in a very well kitted out TS3 server resource. CSJ benefits at all levels from LB's largesse. It directly benefits NOT just CSJ but ALL Clans and their gamers.

Think how easy it is for me to "Call the Banners" from across Strana Mechty and give rise in 2-minutes to 50-gamers ready to execute OPN CLAN UNITY (http://mwomercs.com/...ion-clan-unity/) and bring online an aggressive Clan Common Defense of a CSJ world...

How many DIFFERENT (and largely, parochial exclusive) TeamSpeaks would my Inner Sphere counterpart need to visit in order to do the same thing... and after 40-minutes and 3 lost sectors, just how many of those he spoke with would end up coming to his aid?

COMMUNITY WARFARE - it ain't your father's public queue!

You want endless-Deathmatches?

Go the way of the Public Queuss.

Community Warfare already comes with #POLITICS

...and #MWOpoliticsIsSoOP!

Seyla...

hybrid black, on 30 January 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

but there are no alliances and treaties for factions only units with in a faction have them, what gives someone like you for example the right to say a faction can not attack someone else. because your loyal? or want to RP more then someone else? you loyalist all think you control your faction when really you have no power and should not, your in a unit in a faction if anything the people not in a unit and are in a faction are really the people playing for that faction you play for your tags they play for there faction.

I have NEVER prevented a single gamer from dropping into a match.

I have debated, discussed and given rise to discourse in favor of the CSJ Seniors' (NOT my own, really important distinction here) agreement with their CGB counterpart-Seniors that for the good of the Clan Drive on Terra, NO aggression will EVER be condoned between their respective Units... I then take this agreement and actively advocate in favor of it on these forums. I work to craft posts that bare witness to the MUCH GREATER benefits to Clan gamers of "going along" with this decision than instead for largely short-sighted, PAROCHIAL reasons taking actions detrimental to CLAN UNITY AND PEACE.

The "reluctance" some gamers feel when privy to these forum's debates on the topic is a direct result of your (and others) debates, discourse and dialogue with myself and those much more senior in the community than I, who just so happen to agree with some of what I write.

Guess what?

That is 100% a "COMMUNITY" derived interaction, right there.

PGI is OP, we already have top-tier CW interaction at multiple levels - Kudos Russ!

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

The point is that these military members are not responsible for diplomatic actions such as declaring war or peace with neighboring countries (factions in MWO). Similarly, to pretend like perm-con units (which are *at best* parts of a RCT or Touman) are responsible for directing foreign policy seems like intentional misinterpretation of "reality". Their successes and actions may shape foreign policy (much like the 101st airborne, or any Merc running the faction's colors at the time), but they are not the political arm of the faction.

CONSTITUENCIES.

Think of them as military drones if ONE wishes to, but as COMMUNITY Warfare continues, it is becoming increasingly clear that Faction members are CONSTITUENCIES.

With all the vile and vitriol sometimes (think DC partisan politics ATM) but also all the hope and intents of those within out gaming community that are trying to BUILD something of worth for their own CONSTITUENCIES.



Just as I am trying to do so for Clans First, Smoke Jaguars Always!

And you and others are doing for your own sets of championed Factions/Faction-subsets/Units.



Neither of us is completely wrong.


Neither of us is completely right.


But it will be in OUR compromises and PGI's carefully crafted CW Phase 3 that long-term VIABILITY of MWO rests.

I look at it this way, I ALONE am to blame if in a year MWO isn't a game I want to play any longer.

I advocate and post these #WallsOfText to communicate across multiple audiences my hopes for MWO and the potential of certain game interactions over (and sometimes at the expense of) other game interactions.


And I have enjoyed each match and every post that I have thus far had the opportunity to contribute.

Thank you for reading to the vey conclusion of yet another #WallOfText!

[Harathan]

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

Ummmm... no. There's still a faction map and incentive for units that find themselves on the same faction to cooperate and coordinate: that's what moves borders the most, given set forces.

Which could be done just as well with a map overlay of the Public Queue. What's your point?

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

You sound like somebody who has no idea what unit-unit diplomacy can entail.

You sound like someone who makes massive unfounded assumptions about other people.

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

If I am just an employee of the faction, so is he.

So... you want everyone to play the same way; like a merc? No difference between House units and Merc units? But there IS a difference. Why would you want to make shallow the only depth PGI has ever provided us?

Peter2000, on 30 January 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

We're both getting our payments distributed by the PGI NPC who hands out cash at the end of the game. What right does he have to dictate policy? If he starts handing out LP and C-Bill payments out of HIS OWN POCKET then we can talk about paying me to listen to his decrees.

You're continuing to avoid directly answer the actual question I keep asking.

If House units are allowed to be House units and influence their Faction, and Mercs are allowed to be Mercs and allowed to move around to chose contracts, and there is no significant disruption to either, why is this a problem?

I'm not asking for hypothetical reasons why it can't/won't/shouldn't work. I'm asking what your problem is with the idea that it could.

hybrid black, on 30 January 2015 - 03:32 PM, said:

no player has the right to limit who others can fight and how they chose to play the game.

And yet, by refusing to compromise on the idea of Factions as an entity, that's exactly what you are doing. You're disrupting how others choose to play the game. Can you really not see that?

Edited by Harathan, 30 January 2015 - 04:49 PM.

[hybrid black]

Prussian Havoc, on 30 January 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

Sorry that's your "UNITS" community did you bring CSJ pugs in to ask them what they wanted? I am guessing no, so you are your forcing your will on them and any smaller units that are not in your circle, so yes you are forcing players to play the way you want to.

[Prussian Havoc]

hybrid black, on 30 January 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Sorry that's your "UNITS" community did you bring CSJ pugs in to ask them what they wanted? I am guessing no, so you are your forcing your will on them and any smaller units that are not in your circle, so yes you are forcing players to play the way you want to.

ANYONE can advocate for the game they want on these very free and open Forums.

As to "forcing one's will on anyone" ... Seriously? My posting comments and threads couldn't "force" a chicken to cross the road.

Gamers will game however they like.

PGI will continue to develop (or not) MWO CW along the lines the latest Townhall seems to indicate.

This is a BETA, feedback is crucial to PGI.

My feedback.

Your feedback.

Everyone's feedback.

Cost/benefit analysis will drive PGI in certain directions, but within those lanes there just might be some remarkable latitude to realize some quite remarkable facets of a game we ALL clearly enjoy.

I advocate for what I want to see.

You advocate for what you want to see.

EVERYONE can advocate for what they want to see.

We will ALL await PGI's future patches, townhalls, etc to see just what made the cut and just how immersive (or not) MWO CW evolves into.


There is no "Forcing" PGI to do ANYTHING in any of this.

(Though I do think we as a Community kinda "FORCED" the Urbie into existance!!!! And all I need say on that topic is Hallelujah!)

[Kjudoon]

hybrid black, on 30 January 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Sorry that's your "UNITS" community did you bring CSJ pugs in to ask them what they wanted? I am guessing no, so you are your forcing your will on them and any smaller units that are not in your circle, so yes you are forcing players to play the way you want to.

Just like in match you can't make pugs do anything. Some get the point this is a social and team game and get involved here and/or join a team and better their experience. But they aren't forced by anything beyond their own dissatisfaction and willingness to improve their experience.

[Noesis]

IG VOIP and other improvements might just make MWO a more social game. Which I'm sure will bring a whole new wave of issues to be resolved as part of a "community", but hopefully help to raise the performance bar with pugs, especially co-ordination interests.

One of the more helpful things that PGI could do however would be to open the game up to steam and perhaps market the game with a bit more fervour to try and stimulate a larger game population. But I'm sure RL infrastructure, associations with BT and other issues come into this in terms of what PGI can support. But then if players simply end up blobbing to larger alliances or factions then it may simply cause more "big fish" issues with objectives in the meta arena anyhow.

My main concern at the moment is to ensure there is sufficient interest to sustain gameplay throughout the day and moreso in time zone areas with less player population. The EU and Oceanic Time Zones could definatley do with some love in terms of player numbers, assuming PGI want to keep and maintain interest with this part of the playerbase. Though the recent changes with these TZ's now finally being able to impact the gameplay more readily it does give more importance or value to some extent to players like myself in the less populated TZs. Lag and associated technical issues, promotions, CW interests all effectively tuned to the US TZ audience has effectively detered more and more EU and Oceanic players to lose interest with MWO which ideally needs repairing.