Jump to content

Peace Reigns Between Cw And Csj


135 replies to this topic

#121 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,681 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 17 February 2015 - 07:29 AM

View Postjeirhart, on 16 February 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

Advocating breaking the rules completely ends the discussion.

Why should he be advocating breaking the rules? He said he would like to "encourage pugs" to go drop elsewhere. That means, for me, that i can tell you "See, these mercs are attacking our neighbour faction for no reason, i do not want to create a diplomatic incident though. Would you like to drop with me on this other planet instead?".

#122 Seth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 785 posts

Posted 17 February 2015 - 07:53 AM

I do not know why he suggested it, but he did so all the same. He was suggesting that GB loyalists join MS teams for the sole purpose of destroying their own Mechs and giving advantage to whatever other Clan faction that MS was attacking at the time while explaining in a soothing tone the error of MS's way. That violates the spirit, and likely the rules, of the game. That brought the conversation to a full stop for Jeirhart. In my own opinion, the guy's penchant for espousing diplomacy and #borderlinecreepy preaching writing style was enough to turn me off a while ago.

#123 Prussian Havoc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 1,056 posts
  • LocationShenandoah, PA

Posted 17 February 2015 - 09:02 AM

View PostCyclonerM, on 17 February 2015 - 07:29 AM, said:

Why should he be advocating breaking the rules? He said he would like to "encourage pugs" to go drop elsewhere. That means, for me, that i can tell you "See, these mercs are attacking our neighbour faction for no reason, i do not want to create a diplomatic incident though. Would you like to drop with me on this other planet instead?".


It is called CIVIL WAR, the taking of direct action against a malicious, malfeasant Rogue Mercenary Corps Unit.

I will tweet Russ and Roadbeer for their reactions.

There is a time for LOYALIST to try to work with Rogue Mercenary Corps Units.

But eventually there comes a time when recalcitrant, recidivistic Rogue Mercenary Corps Units MUST have Direct Action taken against them.

In Lore Liao did this with the Northwind Highlanders, when the Highlanders abrogated their contract with Liao to go across the battle lines and work for Liao enemy at the time, Hose Davion, Liao took Direct Action against the Highlander Base of Operations.

In similar fashion in Community Warfare (alone of all MWO game modes) it should be right and proper for LOYALIST to Directly Combat Rogue Mercenaries.

Just ack yourself what Mercenary Unit would DARE transgress against their EMPLOYER'S directives, terms and contractual obligations if they knew a potential punitive action of their EMPLOYER 'S LOYALIST FORCES was to drop on planets where these Rogue Mercenaries are operating against their EMPLOYER'S ALLY with a purpose to augment THEIR ALLY and NOT the Rogue Mercenary.

Think about it for a minute!

ANY NATION IN THE WORLD would directly combat Rogue Mercenaries operating under False Flags if their ALLY's cities and sectors were imperiled. It would be RIGHT and PROPER to defend your ally if it was your EMPLOYEE attacking them.



If PGI can not or will not POLICE OUR RANKS FOR US, then it is only right and proper that WE POLICE OUR OWN RANKS - this is Community Warfare after all.



My original #3 from the post above was for a non-violent means of PLAYER-INTERVENTION when a Rogue Mercenary EMPLOYEE is attacking a. Faction's Ally - basically drop in game and eject three times, overheating and self-destructing with your fourth Mexh, all the while providing your calm, mature and professionally delivered rationale for supporting your ALLY at the direct expense of your ROGUE MERCENARY EMPLOYEE. I say non-violent because in this example the LOYALIST does not fire on the Mechs of the Rogue Mercenary Corps Unit. But the more I think on this the more I really believe we have an opportunity here to take our Community ACCOUNTABILITY to a Correct and Appropriate Level.

Who is morally in the wrong?

The LOYALIST that FORSAKES his ALLY in favor of his MALFEASANT EMPLOYEE'S DEPRIVATIONS or the LOYALIST that complicity sits by in silence while an EMPLOYEE steals an ALLY's world to the direct benefit of the LOYALIST.

Direct benefit in that:

1.) More planets equals more attack vectors against more opponents.

2.). Planet count is and always will be a measure of which Clan deserves to be ilClan and whose case is strongest for ilClan will in part be based on demonstrated prowess in battle as measured by the number of worlds possessed by each Clan

3.). And finally, CW Phase 3 will introduce Unit Logistics. Unit Logistics, it has been announced, will confer some small amount of value per each planet. It might only ever be 0.0045 C-bills into the Unit Fund but aggregate planet count is expected to be as ourselves of value.


In my opinion NOT ONLY should a LOYALIST hold himself publicly responsible in the forums for malfeasant contractual actions by his Faction's Mercenary EMPLOYEES, but be ready to take Direct Action against those Malfeasant Mercenaries against himself.

Like I said I will now tweet this throughout the Twitter MWO Communiy. I would expect ther to be soon be comments both here and on Twitter.


Please understand just because we have been conditioned by 3-years of Dearhmatches that Team-killing is wrong DOES NOT MEAN THIS PRACTICE SHOULD HOLD FORTH INTO COMMUNITY WARFARE.

Civil War SHOULD be possible.

Policing our own ranks SHOULD be possible.



I am looking forward to your responding to you comments.

#124 Prussian Havoc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 1,056 posts
  • LocationShenandoah, PA

Posted 17 February 2015 - 09:17 AM

View Postjeirhart, on 16 February 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

Advocating breaking the rules completely ends the discussion. Remove that option and then maybe we can ask CGB leadership to approach one (or more) of these options.

View PostSeth, on 17 February 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

I do not know why he suggested it, but he did so all the same. He was suggesting that GB loyalists join MS teams for the sole purpose of destroying their own Mechs and giving advantage to whatever other Clan faction that MS was attacking at the time while explaining in a soothing tone the error of MS's way. That violates the spirit, and likely the rules, of the game. That brought the conversation to a full stop for Jeirhart. In my own opinion, the guy's penchant for espousing diplomacy and #borderlinecreepy preaching writing style was enough to turn me off a while ago.


I invite you to join the debate to #ChangeTheRules: https://twitter.com/...732448465666048

Let's see what Community response develops into, and whether PGI reveals any intent as to refinements to Mercenary Corps Units latitude of behavior under up-coming patches / Community Warfare Phase Three.

Perhaps PGI will offer definitive guidance on this matter: https://twitter.com/...732448465666048 or perhaps monetizations concerns and placating Mercenary Corp Unit gamers will preclude any substantive changes to Mercenary Corps Unit constraints and restraints: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144456


I am looking forward to this Twitter and Forum debate... obviously we all will accept PGI as the definitive arbitrator of this debate, understanding that initial PGI findings will continue to be informed by gamer debate as we approach Steam Launch as well as CW Phase 3.

THIS (gamer debate) IS WHAT BETA IS ALL ABOUT, passionate gamers debating both sides of an issue, reexamining historically ironclad assumptions and looking for out-of-the-box solutions... and a "Civil War" option is about as far out of the box as it gets.

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 17 February 2015 - 09:53 AM.


#125 ApolloKaras

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 1,948 posts
  • LocationSeattle, Washington

Posted 17 February 2015 - 09:24 AM

Quote

Who is morally in the wrong?


Oh this is easy. You are. Advocating breaking the rule set, griefing other players because they aren't fitting your vision of how they should play. Not only this but you are attempting to JUSTIFY team killing... I just can't...


Edited by Saxie, 17 February 2015 - 09:24 AM.


#126 Seth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 785 posts

Posted 17 February 2015 - 09:26 AM

View PostPrussian Havoc, on 17 February 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

Please understand just because we have been conditioned by 3-years of Dearhmatches that Team-killing is wrong DOES NOT MEAN THIS PRACTICE SHOULD HOLD FORTH INTO COMMUNITY WARFARE.


It is against the Terms of Service and is a report-able offense. It is a form of griefing and makes the game suck for the players they are team killing and robs the other team of a fair match. It should not be tolerated by anyone, especially by those who want to play the part of Clanners - warriors who are supposed seek glorious combat. The lore enthusiast in me still expects those who play under the banner of the Clans to hold themselves to a higher standard. Whether you want to look at team killing as gamers gaming, breaking the rules, or dezgra tactics, it IS wrong plain and simple. CSJ and your unit may tolerate this nonsense, but I won't have any part of it.

#127 Prussian Havoc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 1,056 posts
  • LocationShenandoah, PA

Posted 17 February 2015 - 10:00 AM

View PostSaxie, on 17 February 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:


Oh this is easy. You are. Advocating breaking the rule set, griefing other players because they aren't fitting your vision of how they should play. Not only this but you are attempting to JUSTIFY team killing... I just can't...

View PostSeth, on 17 February 2015 - 09:26 AM, said:


It is against the Terms of Service and is a report-able offense. It is a form of griefing and makes the game suck for the players they are team killing and robs the other team of a fair match. It should not be tolerated by anyone, especially by those who want to play the part of Clanners - warriors who are supposed seek glorious combat. The lore enthusiast in me still expects those who play under the banner of the Clans to hold themselves to a higher standard. Whether you want to look at team killing as gamers gaming, breaking the rules, or dezgra tactics, it IS wrong plain and simple. CSJ and your unit may tolerate this nonsense, but I won't have any part of it.



There is nothing wrong with debating this option.

You are now both vehemently on record, excellent... and to tell you the truth I agree with many of your points.

But here does need to be a PGI pronouncement on Mercenaries.

- If their current wide latitude to disrupt LOYALIST efforts is precisely "spot on" with PGI intentions, it would be announced.

- If PGI is considering some refinement to Mercenary latitude of action then this too should be announced.

I hope my post here and my Tweet to Russ et al compel just such announcements.

Let us know what is or is not going to come down from PGI about a subject that cuts so near to our enjoyment of this game mode.




And to anyone who doesn't understand the value of a Devil's Advocate in transformational change, I suggest you start here: http://en.m.wikipedi...il%27s_advocate

Haters are going to hate my post regardless... but some few will see the service I am attempting to perform.

#128 Harper Steel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 192 posts
  • Locationwashington state

Posted 17 February 2015 - 07:48 PM

from reading the above posts I believe Prussian is not advocating breaking any rules but to debate the merits of the CW community policing itself against rogue units disrupting the game..
I do not see him telling anyone to do anything but proposing a method that should be debated
so by seeking to open a debate on ComWarfare policing itself he is asking for your opinions and ideas on how to IMPROVE the CW experience for all

#129 Prussian Havoc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 1,056 posts
  • LocationShenandoah, PA

Posted 18 February 2015 - 06:56 AM

View PostDeejayM, on 17 February 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

from reading the above posts I believe Prussian is not advocating breaking any rules but to debate the merits of the CW community policing itself against rogue units disrupting the game..
I do not see him telling anyone to do anything but proposing a method that should be debated
so by seeking to open a debate on ComWarfare policing itself he is asking for your opinions and ideas on how to IMPROVE the CW experience for all


PRECISELY, ty.

I have also tweeted this issue and a link to above to Russ, NGNG and MWO: ChangeTheRules: https://twitter.com/...732448465666048

I also submitted these questions and more for the Townhall debate tomorrow night: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4205116

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 18 February 2015 - 07:26 AM.


#130 Dungeon Keeper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 18 February 2015 - 11:02 PM

Greetings from rogue unit VRGD! :)
It's very possible we'll join one of clans on Friday this or next week. Havoc, will this topic be renamed back?

#131 Prussian Havoc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 1,056 posts
  • LocationShenandoah, PA

Posted 18 February 2015 - 11:28 PM

View PostDungeon Keeper, on 18 February 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

Greetings from rogue unit VRGD! :)
It's very possible we'll join one of clans on Friday this or next week. Havoc, will this topic be renamed back?


DungeonKeeper, if you bring VRGD to CSJ, I will name this thread whatever (in good taste) you would prefer, Good Sir.

#132 Asatur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 19 February 2015 - 01:07 AM

View PostPrussian Havoc, on 18 February 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

^^ And this guys are clanners? *facepalm*

Edited by Asatur, 19 February 2015 - 01:07 AM.


#133 Prussian Havoc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 1,056 posts
  • LocationShenandoah, PA

Posted 19 February 2015 - 04:57 AM

View PostAsatur, on 19 February 2015 - 01:07 AM, said:

^^ And this guys are clanners? *facepalm*


We are not the Clan Smoke Jaguar of Lore, true.
We accept that Mercenaries are a vital prerequisite for the Clan that would first reach Terra.
Only a parochial, Lore-purist would deny the inherent value and martial prowess of Units like VRGD.

Quiaff?

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 19 February 2015 - 05:02 AM.


#134 Lukoi Banacek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 4,353 posts

Posted 19 February 2015 - 05:09 AM

Mercs are part of the game and influence the politics and corridors of every Clan. You do not have to like it, but if you want to enjoy any level of factional success in CW you have to deal with it.

That being said....some mercs get marginalized and to a degree ignored because they do not wish to work much with the loyalists. Some so much that they simply choose to leave rather than remain unsupported. Loyalists have little they can do to influence mercs but support/non-support can have an impact.

Other mercs (even with the occassional misunderstanding muddying the waters) collaborate with loyalist units and are considered valued members of the faction. Turning them into returning/habitual members of the faction is key to a faction's overall success in many ways.

#135 mihali4

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 92 posts
  • LocationArdoz (GMT4)

Posted 21 February 2015 - 04:12 PM

View PostPrussian Havoc, on 19 February 2015 - 04:57 AM, said:

We are not the Clan Smoke Jaguar of Lore, true.
We accept that Mercenaries are a vital prerequisite for the Clan that would first reach Terra.
Only a parochial, Lore-purist would deny the inherent value and martial prowess of Units like VRGD.

The guy, our true love guy, Prissian Havoc, paid us 100 million CB, so that we fought for the glory of jaguars :3
nice guy i have to say
althought, we like this guy)
he is the first one to pay the *unit to fight specific side of t he conflict

AND

we won 2 planets this evening
FOR
the glory of CSJ

VRGD XO,
mihali4

#136 mihali4

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 92 posts
  • LocationArdoz (GMT4)

Posted 21 February 2015 - 04:31 PM

ps
we have not 72 pilots, but only 102 members @ 22.02.2015
JOIN NOW/.http://varguard.ru/viewforum.php?id=8

Edited by mihali4, 21 February 2015 - 04:32 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users