318 replies to this topic

[CyclonerM]

LakeDaemon, on 16 October 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

There will be folks who have fun winning the game at all costs. These people probably dont care about the genre, or the story, the history of BT. To them its unnecesary fluff

But, there are fair number of people who want to experience BT as more than just a win lose combat sim. They want to be immersed to varying degrees in the BT genre. Fandom takes many forms. If players want to go whole hog and observe Clan traditions and rules of engagement, form clan units, have trials and duels, etc.. then they should do it and the game should accomodate it.

No one should be smacked down for their style of combat or choice of immersion into the game and BT genre.. or lack of it. There is a limit though. The "win at all costs" crowd also includes hax, exploit abusers, and cheaters. They should be incinerated..literally.

Damn right. Too bad this game is actually focused on casual and "win at all costs!" players atm..

[Viper69]

Kay Wolf, on 09 January 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Honor is not about handicapping, it's about having a civilized, relatively fair, non-barbaric means of winning. I've said it before, and I say it again, now... cowards fight dishonorably.

Its a good thing for most of the people in the United States that our militia forces fought so dishonorably according to the British. Honor is sung about by the victor, when you are dead on the field with nothing but your honor in tact, do you think anyone but you will care? Nope, because the person walking away from the fight will be talking about how honorably he fought the fight while buzzards suck out your eyes.

[Threat Doc]

That is the most ridiculous nonsensical thing I've heard, today. Thank you for putting a smile on my face with that bit of inanity.

[Teela Zain Elmes]

I hope that clanners have Honor, lots of it! But I often got capped so nope.

[CyclonerM]

Teela Zain Elmes, on 16 October 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

I hope that clanners have Honor, lots of it! But I often got capped so nope.

If you wish to see some Honor then fight with me in a Circle of Equals

[Teela Zain Elmes]

CyclonerM, on 16 October 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

If you wish to see some Honor then fight with me in a Circle of Equals

Thx for the invitation CyclonerM, will do so!

[101011]

CyclonerM, on 16 October 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

Yeah this is right, but someone has to be better than the others.. There is a reason there are no novels AFAIK telling stories from a Liao warrior ahahah

That's because Liao is the worst faction around, for sure. However, I'm sure that if they wanted to they could get SOMEONE who at least doesn't favor Davion in their writing.

[CyclonerM]

Teela Zain Elmes, on 16 October 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Thx for the invitation CyclonerM, will do so!

I look forward to fight you then! Prepare your best medium or heavy 'Mech for the bidding procedures

101011, on 16 October 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

That's because Liao is the worst faction around, for sure. However, I'm sure that if they wanted to they could get SOMEONE who at least doesn't favor Davion in their writing.

Every enemy of the Davions. That means.. Pretty much anyone before the FedCom and then the Clans..? Especially Dracs.
Remember, everyone hates the most powerful guy ..

Edited by CyclonerM, 16 October 2013 - 01:51 PM.

[HugoStiglitz]

CyclonerM, on 16 October 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

Damn right. Too bad this game is actually focused on casual and "win at all costs!" players atm..

Believe it or not, most wars aren't fought honorably, they are only depicted as honorable later. Wars are often "win at all cost" warfare where the 'honorable' side typically gets wiped out, just ask the modern day samauri.

But I want to know what you think is dishonorable. Capping? What better way to defeat a team that is just turtling in a defensive position or split the forces of a team that has a superior grouping. Legging? Leg armor exists for a reason and it's a good way to disable a light mech. Seriously, what do you think is dishonorable?

[Dugra Dugrasson]

I for one will be following the RoE as per Zellbrigen while piloting a Clan 'Mech. If PGI doesn't reward me for playing as such, I will be disappointed.

[Threat Doc]

In order to role-play Clan honor properly, from the mercenary side of the house, I will not be able to instruct my MechWarrior's for at least the first six months, hehe, what Zellbriggen is all about. In my unit's history, though, which may of course be rewritten after 3050, we basically ignored the Clans until after Tukkayyid. What a lot of people forget is there is still stuff to take care, despite the Clan invasion, so AU took on a lot of those contracts, not becoming involved against the Clans until after 3052. Hmmm, I wonder if the Battle for Tukkayyid and, perhaps, the subsequent truce will be considered as a major event in this game, considering that was mainly ComStar vs. the Clans?

Oh, and addressing honor, again... there are already a lot of things PGI have taken care of, whether unwittingly or by design, to reduce the ancient problems that plagued the game from MW2 through MW4. Not all, but many. For example, the leg armor is so well pumped up, and the single leg explosions have never existed in MWO, that the legging rule really has no teeth, anymore. As well, the hit boxes for the head are so small, anymore, that if you hit one on purpose you should probably actually be considered to be an ace, rather than dishonorable. Shooting someone in the back, not allowing someone to retaliate because you jump on their back and start chewing, and firing on someone while they're down are still problems, but not nearly as bad as they used to be. So, kudos to PGI for taking care of many of these problems.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 16 October 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[CyclonerM]

HugoStiglitz, on 16 October 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Seriously, what do you think is dishonorable?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Zellbrigen

May not be 100% accurate but will give you an idea.

[Threat Doc]

I think my changed definition of what would be honorable is,

Seven Rules
1) Obey the orders given, whether vocally or through the BattleGrid, by your Lance Leader, which may be passed down from higher, as if they were;

2) Pick on someone your own size or bigger. If you're smaller, expect to get swatted, but do your best to give as good as you get. If you're too small to take on a bad guy, don't shrink in the face of the enemy, call for some ONE to come help you and, if no one's available, disengage and find someone your own size;

3) If you're good enough to win through legging and heading, you're good enough to win without using these deplorable tactics;

4) Shooting people in the back, and then remaining on their back, is cowardly, no matter what size you are. Get a bigger 'Mech's attention to draw them away from your buddies, or give your buddies the ability to get in a couple of shots on a distracted pilot, and then disengage. Engage another 'Mech to keep them off-kilter, then re-engage the first target a minute or two later, come back again to keep them off guard. Don't stay on their back;

5) Artillery and air strikes are equalizers and nothing more;

6) Bring back the gear if you can. You can't do that if you're dead. Unless you were ambushed, you're most likely dead because of something stupid you did; examine yourself after each fight, determine what you did wrong, correct it, and drive on;

7) Be there for your fellow unit members, drop as often as real-life allows, participate when not in drops, and keep your positive standing in AU. Take care of one-another on and off the battlefield.

These are my very basic corporate rules for honor.

Now, will my unit members, if I decide to start AU back up, will follow these? There are many who will, and a few who will not; I'll just have to live with that, I guess.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 17 October 2013 - 12:41 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Viper69, on 16 October 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Its a good thing for most of the people in the United States that our [/size]militia forces fought so dishonorably according to the British. Honor is sung about by the victor, when you are dead on the field with nothing but your honor in tact, do you think anyone but you will care? Nope, because the person walking away from the fight will be talking about how honorably he fought the fight while buzzards suck out your eyes.

Yes... The Losers love to cry foul all the time don't they? I know I care about the enemy that fights with honor and I remember them and return the honor when we meet again. The Law went from rivals with the Smoke Jaguars to allies because of Honor on and off the field. Honor is not dead.

Quote

3) If you're good enough to win through legging and heading, you're good enough to win without using these deplorable tactics;

Legging is not dishonorable. It allows the opponent the chance to surrender before any need to kill. At the other end of the spectrum Head-capping is a sniper's/Marksman's bread and butter.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 October 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[Teela Zain Elmes]

Well I think that I speak for all that we ignore the orbital bombardment! Everyone makes mistakes, some more than others but yeah well, there is also a solution for that called punishment right?!

[Threat Doc]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 October 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

Yes... The Losers love to cry foul all the time don't they? I know I care about the enemy that fights with honor and I remember them and return the honor when we meet again. The Law went from rivals with the Smoke Jaguars to allies because of Honor on and off the field. Honor is not dead.

See, I was just going to give you a like, before you wrote this...

Quote

Legging is not dishonorable. It allows the opponent the chance to surrender before any need to kill. At the other end of the spectrum Head-capping is a sniper's/Marksman's bread and butter.

For the legging, in MWO I mostly agree, because PGI have gone to lengths to make it so legging is not as "effective" as it used to be, which was why the honor rule was put together in the first place.

As to the heading, I will always hold this to be dishonorable, even by lore. "Save the metal, kill the meat!" has never sat well with me, even as a kid playing the game 27 years ago, and it never will.

Honestly, the win by any means necessary is just barbaric, to me.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kay Wolf, on 18 October 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

See, I was just going to give you a like, before you wrote this...

I honor your decision.

Quote

For the legging, in MWO I mostly agree, because PGI have gone to lengths to make it so legging is not as "effective" as it used to be, which was why the honor rule was put together in the first place.

As to the heading, I will always hold this to be dishonorable, even by lore. "Save the metal, kill the meat!" has never sat well with me, even as a kid playing the game 27 years ago, and it never will.

Honestly, the win by any means necessary is just barbaric, to me.

In real life... I am fairly barbaric when the situation calls for it. I am a trained killer after all.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 October 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Jakob Knight]

Viper69, on 16 October 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Its a good thing for most of the people in the United States that our [/size]militia forces fought so dishonorably according to the British. Honor is sung about by the victor, when you are dead on the field with nothing but your honor in tact, do you think anyone but you will care? Nope, because the person walking away from the fight will be talking about how honorably he fought the fight while buzzards suck out your eyes.

The most common mistake is to confuse pride and honor. They are not the same.

Honor is as much in how a soldier conducts themselves in defeat as in victory, and off the battlefield as well. It is living according to a set of moral standards regardless of circumstances or personal cost. Pride, on the other hand, is all about the victory and ceases to be in existance as soon as there is a loss. Pride is all about the individual and what they have, where they stand in regards to others, and is very dependent on circumstances.

In your example, the British did exactly this...mislabled pride as honor. That is why the British fought in ranks with bright uniforms declaring who they were (at first...near the end, they too started to fight like the Colonials). The fact the colonials didn't massacre every British soldier who surrendered to them and kept agreements made points to no lack of honor on that side, though to the British they were rebels acting against their pledged loyalty to their ruler. Even when that ruler acted in disregard for the well-being of those 'rebels', who were supposed to be subjects to be cared for.

Declaring honor is dependent upon results and circumstance is one of the best indication one is speaking from pride instead of honor (others include if the benefit to oneself in any way is the main motivation in an action). As we have seen so recently with the US Congress, the ends do not justify the means.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 18 October 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[William Knight]

Jakob Knight, on 18 October 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

The most common mistake is to confuse pride and honor. They are not the same.

Honor is as much in how a soldier conducts themselves in defeat as in victory, and off the battlefield as well. It is living according to a set of moral standards regardless of circumstances or personal cost. Pride, on the other hand, is all about the victory and ceases to be in existance as soon as there is a loss. Pride is all about the individual and what they have, where they stand in regards to others, and is very dependent on circumstances.

In your example, the British did exactly this...mislabled pride as honor. That is why the British fought in ranks with bright uniforms declaring who they were (at first...near the end, they too started to fight like the Colonials). The fact the colonials didn't massacre every British soldier who surrendered to them and kept agreements made points to no lack of honor on that side, though to the British they were rebels acting against their pledged loyalty to their ruler. Even when that ruler acted in disregard for the well-being of those 'rebels', who were supposed to be subjects to be cared for.

Declaring honor is dependent upon results and circumstance is one of the best indication one is speaking from pride instead of honor (others include if the benefit to oneself in any way is the main motivation in an action). As we have seen so recently with the US Congress, the ends do not justify the means.

The British fought in bright coats and in line so that the General could see what his men were doing.
The British also made use of full camouflage right from the start of the American revolution (in fact they* used full camouflage against the French during the French and Indian War). So the British were not being foolish but in fact being quite sensible.

*Some units.

Sorry, but i'm one of those guys that would happily shoot you in the back. Practicalities of War you understand.

Edited by William Knight, 18 October 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Jakob Knight, that is a fantastic description of the difference between honor and pride. To be honest, I've never considered that part of the argument, so it is fascinating to me nonetheless. Pride and hubris, if I'm not mistaken, are roughly the same thing, no?

Joseph Mallan, on 18 October 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

In real life... I am fairly barbaric when the situation calls for it. I am a trained killer after all.

As am I. U.S. Army, 1993 - 1999. However, there is a way to fight honorably that does not include performing certain acts that seem despicable, and 99.995% of our Armed Force in the United States act with honor and distinction. So, I would be willing to bet that, if it came down to the wire, you wouldn't fight with the level of barbarism you think. Remember, as Jakob pointed out the difference between honor and pride, so too is there a difference between a hard-fast-brutal fight and barbarism.