175 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

12-18 ssrm6? Really?

I dunno about that. With equal pilot skill? Sure, most Clanners are terrible at the game. What if they are not terrible?

yeah evil 1000m range streak missiles totally hard to come by if your FS9 is is slower and shorter ranged.

[Crockdaddy]

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

12-18 ssrm6? Really?

I dunno about that. With equal pilot skill? Sure, most Clanners are terrible at the game. What if they are not terrible?

We've game tested 10 FS9-S vs. 10 Streak Crows over a year ago. If lights ball up they will take down each and every streak crow while receiving greatly mitigated damage. We ran around 6 matches or so testing this out. If lights spread out they are dead. It is possible it may not work 4v4 ... but I bet it does. Especially if lights use their speed and angle of attack to cream the first crow quickly. We used to run this deck to maintain light rushes and completely counter the Clan Streak Armada back in CW 1.

[Deathlike]

Sniper09121986, on 20 April 2016 - 03:16 AM, said:

The douche level of this statement is over 9000. Since when is taking part in a vote an inactive position? People want to fight for their faction, they do not want to take part in unit politicking, butt-kissing, wheeling and dealing, and you know what? They have every right for these things! What you, good sir, have just uttered is 1) unit players are big kids and solo players are cannon fodder, and 2) faction loyalty should not be rewarded with the privilege of determining said faction's fate. You basically promote player segregation. That is just medieval. You want strategy - you have to go to the faction forum, make a thread, present the "intelligent decisions" you speak of and finally, have the bollocks to accept the result of a democratic majority vote.

The vote should be irrelevant if...

...you don't actually play FW. So yes, you may have voted, but if you don't play, why should your vote matter?

If people complained about balance, but having played it recently and went by stats or other things irrelevant to the current meta, how does that show that you are informed?

Say if a large Davion contingent hated Kurita and decided to vote that way.. but that same contingent refused to drop against them (for whatever strange reason), what is the point of starting a fight vs Kurita?

That's kinda why it matters.

[Leggin Ho]

Deathlike, on 20 April 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

The vote should be irrelevant if...

...you don't actually play FW. So yes, you may have voted, but if you don't play, why should your vote matter?

If people complained about balance, but having played it recently and went by stats or other things irrelevant to the current meta, how does that show that you are informed?

Say if a large Davion contingent hated Kurita and decided to vote that way.. but that same contingent refused to drop against them (for whatever strange reason), what is the point of starting a fight vs Kurita?

That's kinda why it matters.

So make a player that want's to vote to have at least 2 drops in that last 24 hour period, 2 drops in either scouting or invasion should be doable for anyone that say they want to be part of the process and to be honest it's really a low ball figure at that.

[Tier 1 Smurf]

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

The only reason for solo loyalists to vote is because they want to feel special and 'involved' when they've actively decided to take a non-involvement position in their faction. They want to play in the kiddie pool but have a vote at the big kids table about what the big kids do.

That vote is meaningless. Just like your vote. You make mountain out of mole hill. Units are not factions. Units are just players. Just like tagless players, they just don't get tags or MC.

[MischiefSC]

Sniper09121986, on 20 April 2016 - 03:16 AM, said:

The douche level of this statement is over 9000. Since when is taking part in a vote an inactive position? People want to fight for their faction, they do not want to take part in unit politicking, butt-kissing, wheeling and dealing, and you know what? They have every right for these things! What you, good sir, have just uttered is 1) unit players are big kids and solo players are cannon fodder, and 2) faction loyalty should not be rewarded with the privilege of determining said faction's fate. You basically promote player segregation. That is just medieval. You want strategy - you have to go to the faction forum, make a thread, present the "intelligent decisions" you speak of and finally, have the bollocks to accept the result of a democratic majority vote.

Except we've got a faction TS, website, faction forums and all those tools already. It's all there. What you're saying is that the people who refuse to participate in any of that, who don't want to play with/against coordinated groups, who want to stick to kiddie pool matched, who refuse to participate in any of the things you just listed above should get the same impact on the faction as someone who does?

Don't join a unit. Make a 1 player unit, never get involved in the politics (not that there are any). However the war planning is happening and anyone who wants to actively participate is welcome.

The problem is that you think "Faction Loyalty" is clicking a button. Faction loyalty is working with your faction, actively. We have a huge set of tools for that. If someone doesn't want involved in that, great. It's just a game. You're saying however that someone playing the easy mode no organized units, refusing to use any of the mountain of tools their faction is spending thir own money to provide them still gets the same input?

No. This isn't a government, it's a game. if you want to be a part of your factions war planning you need to put forward the effort to do so. Everyone else isn't required to come find you and drag you in to it.

[MischiefSC]

Leggin Ho, on 20 April 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

So make a player that want's to vote to have at least 2 drops in that last 24 hour period, 2 drops in either scouting or invasion should be doable for anyone that say they want to be part of the process and to be honest it's really a low ball figure at that.

Even beyond that there's not a way to confirm someone is involved in a war planning discussion. Faction loyalty is more than a button click and war planning is more than I hate that guy. It's a lot of coordination and communication and units are already doing it.

Davion for example has a faction TS and meetings on it, we've got a faction website with private faction forums plus the forums here. We've got a ******* WhatsApp going for unit coordination so we can effectively deal with having 2 to 1 attackers on our borders for 2/3rds of every day.

Having a bunch of people who've said they don't want involved with any of that, don't want to play against any of the real adversaries and units we play against, pretty much want to derp around and collect LP and not take responsibility for driving wins as a faction instead of just their personal performance?

**** those guys.

If someone is a Davion loyalist and wants to participate, be involved, share info and coordinate in a faction level I'm all for it. Don't care what their tag is. There is no real "politics". Just all hands on deck every day all the time. Would love to get them involved.

Admittedly there's not a lot of solo loyalists right now. Ergo they eliminate themselves from the equation. The potential to exploit that exists though.

[Adamski]

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

Even beyond that there's not a way to confirm someone is involved in a war planning discussion. Faction loyalty is more than a button click and war planning is more than I hate that guy. It's a lot of coordination and communication and units are already doing it.

Davion for example has a faction TS and meetings on it, we've got a faction website with private faction forums plus the forums here. We've got a ******* WhatsApp going for unit coordination so we can effectively deal with having 2 to 1 attackers on our borders for 2/3rds of every day.

Having a bunch of people who've said they don't want involved with any of that, don't want to play against any of the real adversaries and units we play against, pretty much want to derp around and collect LP and not take responsibility for driving wins as a faction instead of just their personal performance?

**** those guys.

If someone is a Davion loyalist and wants to participate, be involved, share info and coordinate in a faction level I'm all for it. Don't care what their tag is. There is no real "politics". Just all hands on deck every day all the time. Would love to get them involved.

Admittedly there's not a lot of solo loyalists right now. Ergo they eliminate themselves from the equation. The potential to exploit that exists though.

As long as players are dropping in FW, their votes should count. That should be the only criteria.

The more you play FW the more your vote is worth. This filters out the loyalists who only drop quickplay or the spy accounts created to mess with a faction. (Not that its an issue, but better to stop a problem before it becomes one)

[MischiefSC]

Adamski, on 20 April 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

As long as players are dropping in FW, their votes should count. That should be the only criteria.

The more you play FW the more your vote is worth. This filters out the loyalists who only drop quickplay or the spy accounts created to mess with a faction. (Not that its an issue, but better to stop a problem before it becomes one)

So if your soloists get tire of fighting Clan streak boats because they're losing while you win they should get to force FRR to fight Kurita? They're fighting pugs regardless, you'll be dropping against 228, NS, COMA, 6RNT, etc. You'll be unable to attack any Clan fronts and slowly get whittled down as a faction because your soloists prefer is pugs?

A Faction isn't a forum tag. It's a group of people. You're either an active, communicating and coordinating part of the group or you're not. If you're not why are you trying to to dictate group policy?

Soloists don't deal with any units in other factions. They're just in casual QP for CW Maps/ Modes with LP rewards. Why are they involved in saying what units their factions units play against?

[Carl Vickers]

Sniper09121986, on 20 April 2016 - 03:16 AM, said:

The douche level of this statement is over 9000. Since when is taking part in a vote an inactive position? People want to fight for their faction, they do not want to take part in unit politicking, butt-kissing, wheeling and dealing, and you know what? They have every right for these things! What you, good sir, have just uttered is 1) unit players are big kids and solo players are cannon fodder, and 2) faction loyalty should not be rewarded with the privilege of determining said faction's fate. You basically promote player segregation. That is just medieval. You want strategy - you have to go to the faction forum, make a thread, present the "intelligent decisions" you speak of and finally, have the bollocks to accept the result of a democratic majority vote.

Im going to quote Adam Sandler, the price is wrong @#$%^.

Only units should be doing the war planning, want to get a vote and be part of it, join a unit.

This whole game mode is about units, thats the way it was designed from the start. Your solo hero mentality is what makes things bad and you should feel bad.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Adamski, on 20 April 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

As long as players are dropping in FW, their votes should count. That should be the only criteria.

The more you play FW the more your vote is worth. This filters out the loyalists who only drop quickplay or the spy accounts created to mess with a faction. (Not that its an issue, but better to stop a problem before it becomes one)

This is a pretty good idea. The more you drop, the more the vote is weighted.

Additionally, even though I still think that Solo Loyalists should be able to vote, units should probably get a leading role. Perhaps voting should be in two phases: the 1st could be for units only and the 2nd for Solo Loyalists.

In the 2nd voting phase, perhaps only options that meet a certain threshold/criteria from the 1st phase are made available for Solo Loyalist votes.

Both phases could be weighted according to drops.

This way, Loyalist Units take the lead and select the targets available for attacking. Then Solo Loyalists add their votes to a selection of targets that meet the aforementioned threshold.

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 April 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

This is a pretty good idea. The more you drop, the more the vote is weighted.

Additionally, even though I still think that Solo Loyalists should be able to vote, units should probably get a leading role. Perhaps voting should be in two phases: the 1st could be for units only and the 2nd for Solo Loyalists.

In the 2nd voting phase, perhaps only options that meet a certain threshold/criteria from the 1st phase are made available for Solo Loyalist votes.

Both phases could be weighted according to drops.

This way, Loyalist Units take the lead and select the targets available for attacking. Then Solo Loyalists add their votes to a selection of targets that meet the aforementioned threshold.

So why does a soloist get to decide what units his factions units have to play against when he's just going to play against pugs regardless?

Help me understand that. He's actively decided NOT to be involved in either his faction as a group OR the consequences (other factions units) his factions units have to deal with while safely keeping his environment largely the same. Why is he getting the power and authority of voting while avoiding any consequences and opting out of communicating with the group whos future he's voting on?

Because he should get to feel special for showing up? Because everyone should feel like a winner? Because we're not supposed to post put that carrying 100 lbs of effort is more than carrying 5 lbs?

[Adamski]

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

So if your soloists get tire of fighting Clan streak boats because they're losing while you win they should get to force FRR to fight Kurita? They're fighting pugs regardless, you'll be dropping against 228, NS, COMA, 6RNT, etc. You'll be unable to attack any Clan fronts and slowly get whittled down as a faction because your soloists prefer is pugs?

A Faction isn't a forum tag. It's a group of people. You're either an active, communicating and coordinating part of the group or you're not. If you're not why are you trying to to dictate group policy?

Soloists don't deal with any units in other factions. They're just in casual QP for CW Maps/ Modes with LP rewards. Why are they involved in saying what units their factions units play against?

Yes?

If the majority of the people actually fighting for the FRR want to change it up, then that is democracy.

I personally wouldn't vote that way, and would probably encourage more people to vote my way if my choice consistently lost the vote. But again, that is how democracy works, the people actually fighting for the FRR should be the ones to determine where the FRR fights, not self proclaimed spokespeople / arbiters of whats proper.

[MischiefSC]

Adamski, on 20 April 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

Yes?

If the majority of the people actually fighting for the FRR want to change it up, then that is democracy.

I personally wouldn't vote that way, and would probably encourage more people to vote my way if my choice consistently lost the vote. But again, that is how democracy works, the people actually fighting for the FRR should be the ones to determine where the FRR fights, not self proclaimed spokespeople / arbiters of whats proper.

It's not a democracy though. The solo queue is NOT dealing with any consequences of the choices nor are they willing to participate or be involved an any discussion on war planning.

It's playing "lets you and him fight". They get pugs regardless. Make sense? There is no equality in the voter populous. You've got one segment that has opted out of both the discussion and any possible consequence but still votes.

Again, not enough soloists to make it an issue but do you truly think nobody in this game community is going to exploit it?

[Adamski]

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

So why does a soloist get to decide what units his factions units have to play against when he's just going to play against pugs regardless?

Help me understand that. He's actively decided NOT to be involved in either his faction as a group OR the consequences (other factions units) his factions units have to deal with while safely keeping his environment largely the same. Why is he getting the power and authority of voting while avoiding any consequences and opting out of communicating with the group whos future he's voting on?

Because he should get to feel special for showing up? Because everyone should feel like a winner? Because we're not supposed to post put that carrying 100 lbs of effort is more than carrying 5 lbs?

If your faction is so strongly organized and such great communicators, then how is it the majority of your faction is voting for something else consistently enough that it has you this upset?

Or is it that the self described faction leaders are realizing just how hollow the titles they took for themselves really are.

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

It's not a democracy though. The solo queue is NOT dealing with any consequences of the choices nor are they willing to participate or be involved an any discussion on war planning.

It's playing "lets you and him fight". They get pugs regardless. Make sense? There is no equality in the voter populous. You've got one segment that has opted out of both the discussion and any possible consequence but still votes.

Again, not enough soloists to make it an issue but do you truly think nobody in this game community is going to exploit it?

That's why I specifically suggested that votes be weighted by CW participation. The more you participate, the more your vote matters, because its going to impact you more.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

So why does a soloist get to decide what units his factions units have to play against when he's just going to play against pugs regardless?

Help me understand that. He's actively decided NOT to be involved in either his faction as a group OR the consequences (other factions units) his factions units have to deal with while safely keeping his environment largely the same. Why is he getting the power and authority of voting while avoiding any consequences and opting out of communicating with the group whos future he's voting on?

Because he should get to feel special for showing up? Because everyone should feel like a winner? Because we're not supposed to post put that carrying 100 lbs of effort is more than carrying 5 lbs?

The simple answer is that the game should be inclusive so as to encourage more people to play.

The deeper answer is that Loyalist Units, with 1st voting rights and more weighted votes would still be largely determining which target to attack.

Solo Loyalists with 2nd voting rights and less weighted votes would really just be voicing their guided opinion. (By "guided" I mean their choice under the guidance of options presented to them by those units with 1st voting rights and more weighted votes). They'd only have choices to select from after the Units have guided the vote.

[MischiefSC]

Adamski, on 20 April 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

If your faction is so strongly organized and such great communicators, then how is it the majority of your faction is voting for something else consistently enough that it has you this upset?

Or is it that the self described faction leaders are realizing just how hollow the titles they took for themselves really are.



That's why I specifically suggested that votes be weighted by CW participation. The more you participate, the more your vote matters, because its going to impact you more.

Davion is currently running 85-90% conformity on votes. We do really good at coordination. At no point would I expect it to be relevant to my particular faction without a huge number of alts.

The problem is people voting for faction direction without being involved with what that entails.

Like someone in Wyoming voting for an Idaho budget measure and he's never even driven through Idaho.

[Adamski]

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 06:21 PM, said:

Davion is currently running 85-90% conformity on votes. We do really good at coordination. At no point would I expect it to be relevant to my particular faction without a huge number of alts.

The problem is people voting for faction direction without being involved with what that entails.

Like someone in Wyoming voting for an Idaho budget measure and he's never even driven through Idaho.

I take it your candidate for POTUS just lost a primary ballot? Because you keep talking like the solo loyalists have the numbers or ability to take something away from the units.

And when I provided a solution "Weight faction voting by faction participation" you ignored it and kept steamrolling through about stolen elections / votes and how these uninvolved parties are theives.

I don't know why you think some self important people pretending to hold townhalls / ent moots with their friends for 3 hours on a stream should have more say than people actually dropping and fighting the battles for the faction.

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 April 2016 - 06:15 PM, said:

The simple answer is that the game should be inclusive so as to encourage more people to play.

The deeper answer is that Loyalist Units, with 1st voting rights and more weighted votes would still be largely determining which target to attack.

Solo Loyalists with 2nd voting rights and less weighted votes would really just be voicing their guided opinion. (By "guided" I mean their choice under the guidance of options presented to them by those units with 1st voting rights and more weighted votes). They'd only have choices to select from after the Units have guided the vote.

So what purpose does 2nd tier voting rights serve if it's not going to really matter to the outcome?

Solo Loyalists 'voting' is there are a "you're special too" as they're voting for something that they don't deal with the consequences of.

How about this - units can vote to have solo queue used as filler for unit matches or to post up 12 solos against enemy 12mans we want to avoid? It would just require a 95% unit vote, so probably will never happen, so that's fine right?

People voting for what happens to someone else isn't cool or fair. If you want to vote for who your faction units fight you have to fight the same people. How is that anything BUT fair and democratic?

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

People voting for what happens to someone else isn't cool or fair. If you want to vote for who your faction units fight you have to fight the same people. How is that anything BUT fair and democratic?

This argument cuts both ways.

If you want to give the entire Faction a direction, you want to focus all your resources on it. In this case, those resources are players.

But players are people, Unit Members and Solo, alike.

If Solo players have no voice, then they also are victims of "people voting for what happens to someone else": the Units are voting for them.

That's why I suggest it's reasonable to give Units a leading role, but unreasonable to preclude other people from having a voice at all.

Surely, the compromise of allowing Units 1st choice at selecting viable targets AND giving their vote greater weight against Solo players is acceptable?

If the voting weight increases with number of drops in a given period, then active Solo players will still have a reasonable voice and inactive Unit members will have a diminished voice.

Not all Solo players don't care about the Faction. Many would love to contribute however they can but cannot commit to a unit (for a variety of reasons) and don't want to get lumped into the Unit queue by creating a 1-man Unit (and getting ROFLstomped).