804 replies to this topic

[Damocles]

Would love to see actual concrete dev posts on this. And not the talking heads extrapolating rules.

Until then I guess woe is me and BT fans can fail to see any real immersion of their favorite brands.
Cant wait to see nothing but Pony Brigades, Warhammer 40K references and other IP muddling instead of fighting against BT-named units.

Edited by Damocles, 04 May 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Opus]

Damocles, on 04 May 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Would love to see actual concrete dev posts on this. And not the talking heads extrapolating rules.

Until then I guess woe is me and BT fans can fail to see any real immersion of their favorite brands.
Cant wait to see nothing but Pony Brigades, Warhammer 40K references and other IP muddling instead of fighting against BT-named units.

there are plenty on this thread; Paul, Bryan, and Garth have all posted official comments, but they are reviewing this issue, the rest is speculation

Bryan Ekman, on 03 May 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

It's under consideration yes. Our long term goal is to slowly introduction a way for players to run the NPC factions as well (hugely ambitious and highly risky).

there are quite a few more, but over all it was fun to watch

Edited by Opus, 04 May 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[Mason Grimm]

Rnadmo, on 04 May 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

How about "Crylanders"?

Seriously, jokes aside that is the mental name I have for the lot of ya.

This does nothing to further the conversation.

Quote

Is what you're saying a useful contribution? Are you trying to start a fight? (Common Sense, everyone)

Folks, please think carefully before posting silly stuff in this thread. Devs read this thread for feedback and are much too busy to throw on plastic sheets like they are at a Gallagher show.

If you have a valid contribution to this overly sensitive issue then by all means, step up but if you are just going to throw around "Ha ha, you are butthurt" and things like that then just save yourself the time and consequence. Let's all get along, mkay?

[Opus]

Sprouticus, on 04 May 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

I am Sprouticus......

That you are, I am Opus - the Godless Wolf

[Jaeren]

Considering the passion PGI has put into developing this game, this has been a really poor showing of our gratitude. Every bit of "freedom" and player-influence allowed in the universe has to be considered before writing future events in the universe. If you have to sacrifice a bit of that freedom and instead come up with something truly original and independent for your unit, at least recognize that your sacrifice will make it that much easier for unique and interesting scripting to take place - Mercenary organizations being deeply involved in developing plot-points, possibly even wiped out or unaccounted for temporarily, the immersion of such a plot point is shaken when you see their component parts or affiliated units running around the battlefield.

Sure - we know the general events that will take place in the upcoming timeline, maybe even many specifics because of our interest in the universe, but when it comes to how they intend to unfold it and what changes they may make, we are ignorant. What they have produced so far should earn them some concessions and respect on our part, they deserve it. Besides, it has to also be considered that it is free to play and will continue development after release - if something about the game upsets you so much, don't pay (I'll be paying as often as I have the funds, just to support it and keep development going), or wait and see what future developments offset that negative factor, they aren't stopping you at the gate and demanding a toll to enter and ride the rides, so by what right does any of us make a demand rather than a suggestion?

It sounds like a bunch of kids complaining that they aren't getting exactly what they want when and where they want it. I know this will probably generate some grief as well, but I hope it resonates with some. And I hope it makes it clear to the developers that there are those of us that are happy to make some concessions in the hopes that the scales will continue to be tipped very much in the favor of positive features and immersion, as they have been.

J

[Victor Morson]

David Decoster, on 04 May 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

Although I can certainly understand your frustration, please try and show some empathy to the Dev's here... It's not like this is an industry first. Something similar happened in City of Heroes years ago, when Marvel superhero lookalikes had to change their names / characters because of an impending Marvel lawsuit. Not saying this is the same case here, but the Devs do have to put the game's best interest before the individuals / clan's...

While it's discouraged for reasons of extreme necessity, lawsuits aren't the issue here. They obviously wouldn't let someone in say, DC Universe play Batman; but they're not going to sue DC Universe over someone playing Batman.

In other words, no one is going to sue MWO for someone playing Gray Death Legion. The problem is instead 50 units all wanting to be Gray Death Legion for one, and two, if they want to keep GDL's actions as entirely canon in a retelling.

I am strongly of the "reboot" logic rather than a retelling - I think once the Clan invasion shows up, all bets should be off on how things go from there, outside of protected planets to stop any one faction from being completely eliminated (otherwise, factions WOULD get destroyed and then the game would require constant resetting - not the vibe they're going for).

As far as fluff goes I think it would be far, far more fascinating if the person writing the fluff did so over the actions of PC run units, rather than just coming up with little clips based on the BTU lore/history. If a player run faction like Northwind Highlanders invaded a Davion planet, a creative paragraph to explain what happened would be far more interesting to me then just using BattleTech history: The Cliffnote Version; it'd really require the same amount of work, too. Hearing stories about player actions dramatized is just a lot more fun.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 May 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[wolf74]

Can We(mercs/house/Clan units) have list of Name in a Searchable PDF format that are Not allowed. This way we can go through it and come up with a New name so we can stay within the rules on the name.


(edited spelling)

Edited by wolf74, 04 May 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[Korbyn McColl]

wolf74, on 04 May 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Can We(mercs/house/Clan units) have list of Name in a Searchable PDF format that are Not aloud. This way we can go through it and come up with a New name so we can stay within the rules on the name.

No such list would really be viable. Although the list of 5,965 units Bryan mentions would tell us which units are locked due to being canon, the reality is any of us who are fans of a canon unit know all of the sub-units throughout the history of that unit anyway. We can't use any of them.

That's not the issue.

The issue is what is left up to the CSR's to determine.

They will have the power to force you to rename your unit (or ban you, apparently) if they feel your unit too closely resembles one of those 5,965 units. In other words, you could work hard creating a unit like, let's say, Semper Fi. You figure you're safe. It's not a canon unit and its well known as the motto of the US Marine Corps. But a CSR can then come along and say, sorry, Always Faithful is a canon merc unit (it is), and Semper Fi is too close to that. Rename your unit.

That's the issue we're concerned with.

[Max OConnor]

Exactly, none of us are upset about having to change our name. We never expected to be THE NWH here but we are frustrated in the vagueness of what will and will not be allowed. We are all actually pretty excited to blaze our own path and come up with a totally new and personal unit we can all be proud to have created. We just want to know what we can call ourselves.

[empath]

maxoconnor, on 04 May 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Exactly, none of us are upset about having to change our name. We never expected to be THE NWH here but we are frustrated in the vagueness of what will and will not be allowed. We are all actually pretty excited to blaze our own path and come up with a totally new and personal unit we can all be proud to have created. We just want to know what we can call ourselves.

...yeah, those pesky domain registrars insist on you telling them *exactly* what the domain you want to reserve, dangit.

As for us? Well...


We're kinda used to it...

[Korbyn McColl]

Oh, we'll be keeping the Northwind Highlanders domain. Although we will have to rename and alter our storyline for MWO, we still play in other games and leagues.

And before anyone takes that as a threat...no, we are not talking about boycotting MWO. We are more than willing to live by PGI's rules and alter our unit for this game. We just don't want to spend too much time developing an RP storyline, name, logos, etc...only to have some CSR come along and take them from us.

[Marowi]

This entire discussion of "vagueness" is a red herring. You know what you can call yourselves: something original. The issue isn't whether "Semper Fi" is too close to "Always Faithful", but whether you're trying to circumvent (what I imagine) will be the terms of use that proscribe the use of canon faction/unit names. "Semper Fi" isn't circumvention, and you know it, because it may reasonably refer to something else. Circumvention would be something like the "Northwind_Highlanders", or the "N0rthw1nd Hi1ghl4nd3rs", or the "xXxNorthwind HighlandersxXx". These cannot reasonably refer to something else, and would be off-limits. To use the Star Trek Online example, you're trying to say that it's unclear whether Jean-Louis Norman would be off-limits because it's tangentially evocative of Jean-Luc Picard. Obviously not. But JeanLuc Picard would be.

Besides, this entire discussion is also something of a non-issue. I've played every iteration of Call of Duty, and have always joined different clans, some with the same people. some with different people, some with a mix. Often, clans move into new games and change names, but are satisfied maintaining the legacy. "Yeah, we were [TDO] back in the original CoD and now we're [APD]." That seems... clearly reasonable. What's wrong with saying, "Yeah, here we're Hadrian's Wall, but in MWLL we were the Kearny Highlanders"? Nothing that I can see. I've yet to see a cogent, worthwhile argument that players should be allowed to use canon faction or unit names that isn't some variation of, "we had the name in a totally different game and we deserve it here." Arguing lack of clarity, I think, is a little disingenuous.

EDIT: STO also has a prohibition on any copyrighted name, whatsoever. I don't think "Semper Fi" is copyrighted, but if the same rule applied here, you wouldn't have people running around with references to Warhammer 40K or Spongebob Squarepants.

Edited by Marowi, 04 May 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[Korbyn McColl]

Marowi, on 04 May 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

This entire discussion of "vagueness" is a red herring. You know what you can call yourselves: something original. The issue isn't whether "Semper Fi" is too close to "Always Faithful", but whether you're trying to circumvent (what I imagine) will be the terms of use that proscribe the use of canon faction/unit names. Semper Fi isn't circumvention, and you know it, because it may reasonably refer to something else. Circumvention would be something like the Northwind_Highlanders, or the N0rthw1nd Hi1ghl4nd3rs, or the xXxNothwind HighlandersxXx. These cannot reasonably refer to something else, and would be off-limits. To use the Star Trek Online example, you're trying to say that it's unclear whether Jean-Louis Norman would be off-limits because it's tangentially evocative of Jean-Luc Picard. Obviously not. But JeanLuc Picard would be.

Besides, this entire discussion is also something of a non-issue. I've played every iteration of Call of Duty, and have always joined different clans, some with the same people. some with different people, some with a mix. Often, clans move into new games and change names, but are satisfied maintaining the legacy. "Yeah, we were [TDO] back in the original CoD and now we're [APD]." That seems... clearly reasonable. What's wrong with saying, "Yeah, here we're Hadrian's Wall, but in MWLL we were the Kearny Highlanders"? Nothing that I can see. I've yet to see a cogent, worthwhile argument that players should be allowed to use canon faction or unit names that isn't some variation of, "we had the name in a totally different game and we deserve it here." Arguing lack of clarity, I think, is a little disingenuous.

EDIT: STO also has a prohibition on any copyrighted name, whatsoever. I don't think "Semper Fi" is copyrighted, but if the same rule applied here, you wouldn't have people running around with references to Warhammer 40K or Spongebob Squarepants.

I wish that were so, but it isn't. Here's the exchange we had with Bryan from earlier in the thread:

maxoconnor, on 03 May 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

Since we are discussing this on our forum. Can I get a definitive yes or no on the use of the word NORTHWIND in our name, is ok or not?

Bryan Ekman, on 03 May 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Northwind is just a word. So I would assume you could use it. Again, I leave the policy to the CSRs.

Devil Man, on 03 May 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

I'm assuming you guys will outrank the CSRs when it comes to making decisions in the game.

If we put Northwind in our name and a CSR tells us we can't use it, can we tell them we have your permission to use it.

If we're looking for alternate unit names, we'd like to be able to settle on one.

Bryan Ekman, on 03 May 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

If you haven't noticed, I'm copping out. The final rules are not written yet. I promise to let you know when they're all drafted.

Note that he said that the issue would be left for the CSRs to decide. That's the stickler, if you will.

EDIT: What we are asking is for these rules to be codified, as Bryan said they will, eventually be. But he also stated the CSRs would handle this. You mentioned STO. If you'll note, STO has a policy on names that is codified, as do all MMOs that I can think of.

As for your unit(s) using numerous names in different games, or joining different units, more power to you. That's not our thing.

Edited by Devil Man, 04 May 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[Sheogoraath]

I have an interesting question: Team Banzai, the Hong Kong Cavaliers and the Blue Blazers/Blue Blaze Irregulars are in-Battletech-universe references (in Warrior: Riposte by Michael Stackpole) to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (a particualrly amazing bit of 80s filmmaking). Now, clearly the intellectual rights to these names are held by whomever holds the copyrights to Buckaroo Banzai as an IP, unless they sold those rights to FASA, or Michael Stackpole, or whomever owns the BT license (unlikely). So, would it be possible to use those unit names within MWO, I find it hard to believe that you could run into legal trouble there, unless W.D. Richter or MGM were willing to come after you (again, unlikely)....

curious what you lot think.

Edited by Sheogoraath, 04 May 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[Marowi]

Then wait until the policy is codified before taking issue with "vagueness"! Of course Bryan is going to "cop-out" if you're asking him for carte blanche regarding usage of the word "Northwind"! How could he possibly answer that? If we're still halfway through the rule-making, then surely that's not a valid question, is it? I think the devs wanted to have a discussion to hear some ideas from the community in the interest of transparency. But we know the basic rule (or what I at least assume it to be), and I think we can make some fairly safe assumptions about it. To my mind, a safe assumption is that a group using the word "Northwind" isn't also going to call themselves "Highlanders." Read his comments closely. It is "just a word." Yes, that's true. But if the unit name also has the word "Highlander", which is also "just a word", then I highly doubt that will conform to the rules as implemented, regardless of the specific guidelines for us or the CSRs. Is that really a radical point? I don't think so. Either way, my main point (which I should have made clearer) was that arguing about vagueness is a non-issue because if you're arguing vagueness, then that doesn't mean you actually disagree with the rule, just its implementation. Since the rule isn't even codified yet (which they told you up front), then that's just another reason why we should all relax. Have I missed anything? (P.S.: I did read your initial exchange with Bryan and the devs before I initially posted--you might not believe it, but I did take the time to think before I spoke.)

EDIT: Sheogoraath: Actually, they could run into trouble, although it's unlikely. U.S. copyright law is insane somewhat extreme, and corporate copyrights last for 95 years since the date of creation (not publication). The original rights-holder has the right to usage of the names or any derivatives based on them. As I said, though, it's unlikely because of the cost of paying Wall Street lawyers versus the gain of making sure someone can't name their online gaming group "Team Banzai".

Edited by Marowi, 04 May 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[Sheogoraath]

I was more referring to relative levels of danger, especially in relation to naming a unit something like Wolf's Dragoons or Kell Hounds, something firmly rooted in BT, and originating in BT, whereas as Team Banzai is a reference to another work. (the names of the members of that unit in the book are even characters from the movie).

[Zylo]

So how many players would be against some sort of cost to unlock "premium unit names"?

The policy to block house and clan faction names makes sense but would people be against for example the NWH guys or others being able to purchase canon merc unit naming rights for a small cost like $15? Sure there may be multiple versions of some popular unit names but each would carry a cost to unlock which would in most cases probably encourage players to unlock a unique canon unit name.

Players who are choosing merc units already probably aren't going to want to give up that merc unit control to a game controlled version of the canon merc units. It will simply lead to the canon merc unit names being unused. Going along that path if canon merc unit names will be blocked then why allow players to be named after actual BT characters? Shouldn't those names all be reserved and blocked as well?

At some point it really makes more sense to allow established groups to use the names they have used for years. While I understand that many might want to play as a player controlled major faction that just doesn't make much sense with the focus on playing as a merc group for more active participation vs being in a major faction with a more passive role in events.

The logical conclusion would be treating merc unit names the way player names are done now, it won't make everyone happy but it will be better than the alternative and I suspect many would agree that seeing player controlled versions of the canon merc groups would be better than seeing them as a game controlled faction, or worse not seeing them at all.

I would rather see a few copies of any of those thousands of canon merc group names compared to seeing even more non-canon unit names that only vary slightly from each other.

[Marowi]

It's an interesting question--probably deserving of its own topic, because it's somewhat off-topic here--but remember: PGI is going to own the rights to anything we do in-game. That's probably (almost certainly) going to be a condition of our user agreements. PGI, presumably, also has the rights to the BattleTech fiction. Is there a legal problem to our using BT IP in-game? I don't think so, not at first blush. Strictly-speaking, they will be the legal actor using the IP (not us)--since we'll have surrendered any claim of ownership to them. Using other peoples' IP is a different question, one that I think has a clearer answer.

Edited by Marowi, 04 May 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[Zylo]

Marowi, on 04 May 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Strictly-speaking, they will be the legal actor using the IP (not us)--since we'll have surrendered any claim of ownership to them. Using other peoples' IP is a different question, one that I think has a clearer answer.

I think if this is an ownership issue that canon BT character names would be a similar problem, if that is in fact the reason why canon merc unit names are being blocked. If it's not an ownership issue then the situation may be easily resolved by treating canon merc unit names the same way as pilot names.

I'm curious to see if PGI has a specific reason for blocking the merc unit names. The major house/clan factions being blocked make sense so I have no question about those.

[Naduk]

i think the best solution is to put the major merc corps as sub units for the house they work for the most
and over time they can change their allegiance based on BT LORE
players can join said units, organize with in those units and do what ever the rest of the house units get up to
i would also expect players to have the required amount of loyalty points before they can join their desired unit
and when choosing your house there should be a viewable list/roster of what units are in each house

people who join the high profile merc units generally need to have good service record in the house ranks before their CV is even looked at
merc corps dont go hiring noobs and giving them mechs , you need to earn your place amongst them just like anyone else

something else needs to considered, some of these units people love and want to play as .... ALL DIE
the inner sphere is a volatile place and many units have their history end, nothing you do/wish/role play is ever going to change their fate
and if you join those units, you will die along side them, some of them vanish for years, some are never heard from again
so then what...do you quit playing MWO when that happens ? would you accept regular house unit play after the fact?
(or maby the devs just dont include units with a fatal future)

personally i am really looking forward to creating my own merc corp and carving my own history into the innersphere
my unit is not even bothering with deciding on a name until we see what we can get during registration
we have a few choice names in mind, but we will not be developing any art, story or anything until our corp is built in game IMHO anything else is a waste of time