Mark Karlfeldt
-
Posts
457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Events
Forums
Posts posted by Mark Karlfeldt
-
-
Got my beta key, and installing now. 55%
-
Has Hasbro responded?
-
I watched Scarlet play this on Skype. He's not kidding.
It actually looks like a playable game.
And you know that it's something when I admit a game is anything other than shit.
-
This just demonstrates your lack of experience in offensive combat. Ordo is rarely they force that instigates weapon escalation. The defending / hostile force will more often then not escalate to "super weapons" as you put it, purely because the Ordo is doing so well using light, maybe even medium weapons. Any raid OIC can tell you that more often then not, the moment Ordo arrives, hostile forces escalate to armor, mini guns and aircraft, and if not right off the bat, normally within the first thirty minutes. It is a rare case when we come across a military that doesn't escalate it's weaponry and even rarer where the Ordo initiates the escalation itself.
Yes, I'm fully aware I have a reputation for using excessive force, however I have only escalated to such levels upon legitimate grounds, only after the hostiles have escalated. Honestly, Mark, as Aryte said, I'm not going to dictate to you how to script weapons without knowing what to do, actually go on offenses before you comment on battlefield tactics.
Also you full well know I feel no guilt for my war crimes, deal with it.
Log: 13SEP11Raid Target: CDF (Hazardous)
OIC: Huttser Ishelwood
1825 - Huttser hits a lonewolf with a UAV missile while organising a raid because the defense line was not mustering in time.
1835 - Huttser announces "heavy weapons from the start" before even launching the raid. Attacking Hazardous (CDF).
1836 - Raid deployed. Announces "It's one of my raids, so you know everything is going to be deployed."
1842 - Deploys a Praesidium due to heavy resistance. Probably warranted by the sounds of things.
1846 - Replaces the Praesidium with an autocrat. Announces "This tank is banned in two sims because of me. They can Ffffing ban this one too."
1847 - Repeats "Heavy weapons authorized against the mech, I do not care what you do to bring it down."
1848 - Good progress being made, despite this, heavy weapons and armour is still being used.
1849 - Switches to Tyrant due to the Autocrat "being ineffective against mechs".
1851 - Switches back to Praesidium. An Ordo member (possibly Havoc) uses an unauthorised weapon against CDF, Huttser allows it.
1859 - Reveals he's using both a Comms Pack and a tank at the same time.
1901 - Pulls out an Ultor. Ookami says "Isn't that decommissioned?". Huttser replies with "Not if officers deem it necessary."
1902 - Ookami: "Weapons auth?". Huttser: "Overkill."
1903 - Possibility of aircraft deployment brought up. Huttser considers the idea of deploying a Thantanemesis.
1904 - Thantanemesis deployed. Afevis is the pilot. Hutter: "Bomb the flying Ffff out of them. I'm not pulling stops on this military."
1906 - Huttser tells Havoc to "deploy your weapon" - likely referring to the previously mentioned disallowed weapon.
1908 - Employs new tactic consisting of him tank-charging into the enemy base and distracting enemy infantry.
1911 - Announces an Aegis is also deployed. Huttser: "They have bullshit technology so we have to use our superior skill".
1922 - Orders Ryu (who was holding back due to a numbers rule) to fight, intentionally violating sim rules. Huttser: "You can fight until they bitch about it."
1925 - Almost yells at people to "shut the Ffff up". "SHUT THE - ...". Obviously angry.
1933 - Appears stuck at the last objective.
1935 - Knifes an enemy while in a tank.
1938 - Yells again on Ventrilo to clear comms. Deploys more armour. "I don't care if you get banned in the next five minutes, tie them the Ffff up."
1940 - Final objective captured. Puts an artillery strike on their front door whilst leaving.
-
Why play a game, if you arent aiming to win as a secondary goal?
Military endeavours you have winnign as a primary goal. Sports and gaming, it is secondary. With fun as first.
SO why would we allow loosing to become a goal at all? Keep fun as our primary goal. Like we do. Keep winning as a secondary goal. Like we do.
This translates to.."it aint broke. so dont fix it"
This has nothing to do with "losing as a goal". This has to do with "winning becomes so important that it drowns out everything else".
Also, "loosing" refers to something which is coming loose, e.g. a tied knot slipping free. Just wanted to point that out.
-
This thread has steadily derailed from my original point. Let me put it back on track.
I have nothing against the number of members we use on defense or offence - SL combat should be fun, and being forced to sit on the sidelines with your thumb up your ass isn't fun. But when we have thirty defenders facing down five attackers, it becomes extremely difficult to justify elevating those thirty personnel to heavy weapons, armour or bombers, unless the attackers pull something out which gives them an extraordinarily unfair advantage - such as, yes, unkillable tanks (which are against our rules anyway and warrant a swift admin smackdown). However, if the attackers manage to make headway without resorting to such bullshit, that becomes our own onus, and I don't see any reason to smack down the big stick in response. That's essentially punishing them for our own mistakes.
This same principle goes for offensive operations, even if the specific situations change. Numbers are often more equal, and combat frequently devolves rapidly into trading superweapons, or even enduring estate administrator abuse. There comes a line where the silently agreed-upon rules of combat are thrown out the window. I have nothing against the use of extreme force in these instances - where the opponent has proved that they don't care about combat, only for their bruised egos. But if this isn't happening, if they're fighting fair and still holding us back when we're on relatively equal footing - to escalate force to overwhelm them is to punish them for our own mistakes. That's our own bruised egos taking over.
And really, if you're going to compare Second Life to real life in any way, you can stop trying. This isn't real life. This is a virtual simulation of something vaguely resembling real life. The same rules do not apply in any way. If you're going to compare combat in SL to combat in real life, why don't you feel any remorse when you shoot someone's avatar? Why don't you hesitate before you put a virtual bullet in them? Do you feel no guilt for your war crimes?
You cold-blooded murderer.
-
I'll put on my human-suit.
-
If an enemy military has a bigger stick, we should either aim at disabling their stick or bringing out a bigger one. As much as I would love to say we can go up against multiple fleetships, AGLs and automatic weapons with Scar-Ls, that doesn't work today. The modern battlefield is a place where things such as tanks, armored fleetships, aircraft and high yield explosives are common place. We must either adapt our offensive capability to match today's standards (we don't want to play Scrabble in a Call of Duty game) or develop sufficient defensive measures to reduce our casualties, thus outpacing the enemy by bringing in a steady flow of reinforcements by manpower resupply or by starving their defenses with firepower, reducing their reinforcement output or obstructing their supply line.
Just because we pull out bigger guns or more guns doesn't mean we're the Call of Duty kid, it means we have the resources and power to outmatch an enemy that would normally outgun us, such as when attacking a dug in enemy in their own sim. There is no shame in calling in heavier ordnance onto the enemy when the situation demands it, or bringing in bombers to assault a position that is in fact, outgunned to clear the way for a ground advance.
I have never seen a commander stripped of rank or lose respect over a failed battle, unless they have committed a serious offence or have been negligent of rules, both of the enemy and our own code of conduct. I have been here close to two years now and I'm notoriously heavy handed with firepower and even criticized as "stupid" for launching full frontal assaults with tanks, infantry and aircraft when in reality: That may be the best option in some sims, such as Erebus Initiative (who are no longer with us) or Alliance Navy.
Sure, I agree entirely. We certainly do have the resources to deal with an opponent who presents a threat which would validate the escalation of force if necessary. And we should meet force with an appropriate amount of counter-force. If we encounter a similarly sized and armed force, and they escalate to vehicles or planes, we should meet that threat in kind.
It's just that nowhere in my post did I state anything against this concept. I'm not suggesting that we try to be supersoldiers. I'm trying to argue against the unnecessary escalation of force, something which does happen all too often.
I've lost count of the times I've listened to a defence commander snap because of relatively insignificant occasions, like, three enemies are garrisoning the NE objective, and they demand an immediate escalation to heavy weapons and sometimes even tanks to camp the objective to prevent them from getting back in once they're cleared out. It's not uncommon for them to continue using heavy weapons even after the immediate threat has been eliminated. I've, more than once, been the one ordered to pilot a tank to camp an objective, and it makes me wonder why I'm there when I'm leisurely picking off the guys as they trickle towards me one by one.
That's grossly unnecessary. It's simply forcing a victory. There are much better ways to manage that kind of situation that could be tried before immediately jumping to the big stick. There are various maneuvers available that we've constantly trained for. Hell, we could even leave them the hell alone. Sure, they took one objective, but they really have nowhere else to go from there - they'll get bored eventually and expose themselves, letting us fight them on more equal ground.
You lecture at a narrow view; your first point notates we escalate gear when faced with trouble. The existence of said gear is present for that purpose. We ought not have anything but handguns if, when we run in to trouble, we question ourselves on a moral dilemma if we should utilize it, lest it make us “scared of losing.” The escalation of gear and use of heavy materials is not founded simply in the “fear of losing.” It’s natural escalation of force during the commission of battle. There need not be any worry about pulling out larger guns when the presence of said guns provides a tactical advantage: that is the entire point of battle, to have the tactical advantage and to ascertain victory.
Your second point is irrelevant. We have never put our group into role by judging ourselves on how another group would act. Other groups have the manpower and gear. All groups we routinely interact with have the latter and freely employ it without shame of doing so (ex; Chaos utilizing a virtually immortal tank).
Your third point. Arms races are not pointless effort and yield progress. Everything we use is from an arms race. We all battled at once time with G36s that were freebied. No joke. The AN used plane. We developed planes. The AN developed more advanced and efficient weapons. We developed even greater weapons. Armor, attachment air craft—all born out of arms races. No one simply sat there and went “this is a good idea.” We did it out of “this will kill enemy better, it is a good idea.”
Training, certainly, impacts effectiveness. But there is no reason we should tie our hands behind our backs and avoid complimenting training with gear. We have the capability to do both: why restrict ourselves to simple means and “train better” to win? We need technology and heavy armaments to cope with the realities on the field. You can’t train to beat a tank with health regeneration that runs laps around a full fireteam dumping ammunition into it. You need the technology to destroy it.
It is not demoralizing to accept defeat. The Ordo has been bested on the field of battle and used the opportunity to learn. We aren’t immortal. We’re just damn good at what we do and we’ve a lot of practice doing it. We’ll be demoralizing ourselves if we try to take the high road and expect success from avoiding the use of force in battle, as it’d be militarily, frankly, retarded to do so.
You indicate we bend rules to claim victory, and yet I have no reports of such. I have no complaints of such. I have no details, only hearsay. If we so flagrantly abused rules to claim victory, you’d think something would come up from it. Valkeyr congratulation us and welcoming us back on every event? Chaos telling Mercz to leave so they can enjoy fighting Ordo? CO restricting Vanguard’s motions so our battle can continue? Bloody, glorious battles with AN that, although occasionally result in ban, always quickly resolve with unbans and more glorious, bloody battle? 2142, contacting us, asking if we’d like to skirmish in mixed teams with them? The enemy aren’t bitching. Are we that sneaky, then?
Loss in a raid does not result in loss of raid privileges. That has not been the case for a very long time. Cite the last time someone was punished for someone who “brought home a loss.” Failure to demonstrate capability will result in loss of privileges. If you are utilizing what you’ve been taught and carry through in a dignified manner, no raid leader would ever see punishment. Carrying through, however, includes use of our technologies within permissible bounds to seek that victory.
We aren’t throwing tantrums. And frankly, I’m insulted to have that insinuated as such. I’d imagine the folks who lead us in combat expeditions would be equally insulted, considering the effort they put forth. I remind you that our standards and strive for excellence in battle, victory or not, has been status quo for the Ordo since 2006. And it’s doing us just damn fine.
I have personally lead hundreds. /Hundreds/ of raids. There are individuals in this group who rival my numbers at this point. Don’t arm chair politic our capabilities out of concern of being portrayed negatively, when we’re not receiving anything of the short from the folks we’re bringing the rain on.
You’ve better things to do with your time than to lecture us on our combat ethos.
This has nothing to do with the appropriate response of meeting force with appropriate force - this has to do with meeting force with an overreacting, overpowering force, something I don't think is warranted in anything but a very select few cases. When the enemy pulls out a tank that soaks up damage and is using it to tear up our forces, then yes, an appropriate response is warranted. When we're hammering at their door with multiple armour pieces, pinning them in their spawn and locking them up for minutes on end - that's gone too far.
I don't agree that the entire point of battle is to win - that's half the issue I'm trying to contest. Winning is an objective, sure, but the point is to go out and have a good time, whether a victory is attained or not. So when the focus is on winning instead of the combat itself, the problem presents itself.
The part about "throwing tantrums" was a metaphor, as was the "Call of Duty kid" comparison. Not an actuality. If it was the case, I would have never joined.
My job includes the judgement of gear to categories which they belong, based on their potential to give us an advantage. That's why we have a classification system of light, medium, heavy, as well as specific categories for vehicles. But the act of putting them in these categories and imposing restrictions is becoming meaningless as I find them continuously being used in situations which do not warrant them, not by a long shot. I'd say that bringing this up is a pretty good use of my time.
Where do you pull this expertise in offensive maneuvers from? According to the records, you yourself have only led four raids this year.
Every time I've brought this up in the past, it's been met with derision and denial. Commonly, other members will flatly deny that any of this happens, or tell me to lead my own raids or be OIC more often, which is entirely missing the point.I remember the days when only Aryte could lead raids. Everybody sat around eagerly awaiting Aryte to get home and get settled so we could go out and grind 2142's face into the dirt. Or lead us in a 48 hour battle against Vanguard that was just epic. Infantry advancing under the artillery support of our Punisher mechs.
I'll be honest with my opinion here. I miss the old days. I really really do. But times change and I accept that. If you stop growing, you become stagnant. And I think Ordo's ability to adapt to the times has been it's soul reason for surviving (Aryte's leadership aside). But on the topic of winning and losing, everybody loves to win. And it sucks when assholes who don't deserve to win, like VALOR, beat you. I personally feel like it's a cosmic injustice when a group that is truly evil scores a win that they don't deserve. I really think that some people get upset that the other guys win, not that we lose.
I'm not insulted. The man is entitled to his opinion. Let's just try to keep this respectable. I don't want to get home from class tomorrow and see a flamewar.
And we actually have a good reputation in the community. It's just the people who don't like us are louder than the people who do.
Firstly, thankyou for being civil in your response.
But I don't think this is an issue of refusing to adapt to the times, on the contrary, Ordo is often on the leading edge of advances in technology and tactics. But it's the way we use this edge that concerns me. As for the "they don't deserve to win" line of thought, that's pretty much addressed in the OP - what other militaries act like and say shouldn't affect our judgement in combat. A column of tanks isn't an appropriate response to someone with a loud mouth and sand in their vag, because in the end, the fact that we're even aknowledging their whining is exactly what they want.
Interesting point of view.. i have been on the other side fighting a group like you describe here, fighting said group with inferior weapons (weapons they sold with higher scripting..lag inducing excessive scripts placed in obscure prims of their weapons that responded very poorly when being fired, having longer reload times, etc.) and a seemingly different set of rules they considered themselves to play by. We stuck it out, did our duty, and made do with what we had. Never once did we back down even after losing sometimes pretty soundly. We found a weapons scripter to make our own weapons, trained in better tactics, and turned around and knocked them out of the park.. They have since left that particular set of sims due to that loss and never fought anymore there as a group. The weapons maker they had has been rendered obsolete, and from what i've seen has no shops anywhere in those sims. Apparently the destruction of their ego was a little more than they could handle. I do not know. I could care less. Their former victories ring very hollow. For us it was very satisfying. That group stirred up drama wherever it went with accusations like what you have discussed following them around continually. So far i have not ever experienced this kind of drama in Ordo from other groups, nor have i heard any such accusations from other militaries when being at places such as New Jessie in full Ordo gear. Nor have i ever heard it from random people i meet with enemy groups listed in their profile.
In pointing to Ordo's skill, I think it's telling when Ordo can attack itself during the stress tests and capture/hold all 3 points, and a similar sized raid team from another sim is unable to.
On defences, I've seen Ordo actually scale back our weapons to mellee and muskets not really to be sporting, but it's sort of depressing killing the lonewolfer the same way who travels the same route 40x's in a row.
So i disagree. Good luck finding the group you think lives up to that standard. At some point this is WAR. If the US were to go up against its enemies with the mindset you proposed we would still have been there. Sorry guys you only get camels and clubs. Lol
Getting bored of a lonewolf isn't a reason at all to bang down the big stick. If lonewolves really are that disliked, then why don't we just outright ban lonewolf attackers like Sturmkorps do? When you're facing one guy with an assault rifle with tanks and bombers "because we're bored", then you're pretty much pissing on the idea of professionalism.
And I don't really appreciate the implication that I should leave Ordo, if that is really what you're implying. Nor do I appreciate the comparison of Ordo to a real military - that's just downright insulting to the men and women who put their real lives on the line. This is a game. We risk next to nothing when we put our virtual avatars in the line of virtual bullets.
I will speak to this point from my own experience.. Sitting in the Officer Forums and reading what goes on, the discussions that take place, the numbers of disagreements that take place... Your views are a bit skewed Mark. Aryte doesnt just up and decide to remove someone's raid authority because they -lose.- IF they get pulled at all, it's because of the actions that took place DURING the raids (Note the plural) that eventually decide whether or not someone loses the ability to lead a raid. Again, let me stress that it isnt because they lost, but because of what they did or didnt do during the raids that causes them to lose that ability.. and even then its under a lot of scrutiny and debate among the officers and Aryte before action is taken. Aryte has told us time and time and time again that he doesnt care if we lose, it's whether or not we use our heads and take advantage of the tactical situations that present themselves.
Most of what I see posted there Mark comes from a lack of access, you see things based on the information you have available to you and you draw conclusions for the rest. We dont bend our own rules, if it happens then Curia needs to be notified so it can be dealt with (cant be everywhere yanno lol). I do agree that use of force can appear excessive now and then, but when you look at the WHOLE picture, not just what you want to see, it doesnt appear that way at all.
Here is what people see when they moan and bitch about the force we decide to use.. both IN Ordo and Outside Ordo -
Three Enemies on sim, 30 Ordo on sim.
Three enemies attack, 15 ordo respond.
Three enemies do not make it beyond the warehouse corners.
Here's what's actually going on:
Three enemies on sim, 30 ordo on sim
Three enemies attack and are faced with 5 (at most) defenders per corridor.
Three enemies fail to find the chink in Ordo's armor and bitch because we curb stomped them.
Scenario number 2:
Three enemies from a known group of retards attack (Grim Troops), 30 Ordo on sim
Three enemies rush the North objective, Ordo responds by laying down layered defenses (mines, claymores etc)
Three enemies get bored and die.
THree enemies now rush to SW objective and get hit with Medium weapons (usually because the weapons these guys come out with are spam cannons and blow out the 5 defenders we have with the same amount of fire power 8 people would have)
Three enemies back and forth until they decide theyve won because they can talk the best shit, and leave.
Scenario 3:
Small 8 man raid appears using the Fragtastic lag machine spam cannons
Ordo responds by setting up reflexive and elastic defenses
8 man team gets stone walled at the warehouse because they run the same route 15000000000000 times and follow the exact same line every time.
Raid team goes home crying about how Ordo is unfair and cheats.
These are the three most common scenarios we face on Titan every day. Titan was never designed for small scale assaults, because at the time the sim was being built, we were getting hit by large assaults every few days. Lonewolves always complain about our tactics because the sim wasnt designed with them in mind, at least not to the point large scale assaults were taken into account.
So from that point of view, yes we appear to be the big bad wolf, huffing and puffing and blowing down houses.. Titan IS winnable, if you want proof take a look back at the Praetorian assaults a couple months ago. Eight Praetorians hit Titan with everything in the Ordo arsenal, and still took the objectives. If you want to win on Titan, you have to use your head and be smarter than the guy leading the defense.. plain and simple. If you know what Ordo's weaknesses are then you can steam roll the lot of us, even when we have a full compliment. The trick is figuring out what Ordo does to Ffff up.
On External Missions..IE Raids, the same tactics apply there as well. The DIFFERENCE, and this is where raid experience comes in Mark, is that we set foot on a sim, we play by our rules if our rules are more strict than theirs or we play by their rules if theirs are more strict than ours. The issue lies in the fact that the moment we step foot elsewhere, there's an immediate escallation from what we consider light to near over the top heavy within the first couple minutes. Why? Because we analyze where the enemy is and deploy our troops according to the holes we see open.. we always start out on light unless the enemy we're attacking has a history of trying to nuke us the moment we walk into the spawn. Very very VERY rarely do we ever walk into a situation pulling out the big guns the very moment we start a raid.. all our weapon choices are dependent on the actions of the enemy.
Most often than not, at least on the raids we've been on, the victories we claim are based on the goals we set for ourselves because there are a lot of sims out there that DONT have objectives. On the raids Ive lead, I know the group Im going to attack and I know that its going to be impossible to "win," based on their objective system layout and tactics, looking at the people I have with me in the raid team. I find out what gear we have available, I know the limitations imposed on said gear and the triggers that must occur before we deploy them. If I know Im not going to win the objective system, I set goals that we accomplish. If the goals I set arent met, then I take the defeat myself.. if they are, then the team gets the credit for it.
The goals that I set have a degree of difficulty based on the opponent. If its an "easy" opponent (with no objective) then the goal's just to go out and have fun. Keep things light and easy, keep the team calm, dont worry about what the other guy's doing. If we start getting pushed back then tactics change. If they start throwing out heavy weapons, then we'll bump up to medium..maybe. Most raid leaders, at least that I'm aware of, use similar tactics. It's not a matter of "win at any cost," if that IS what's going on, then its an example of bad raid leadership and leadership in general.
Once again, and I'll keep stating this - we shouldn't pay a lick of attention to the bitching and moaning of others. I sure as hell don't. Everything I've written comes from my own experiences while on raids and defences. Maybe I'm just only online when this kind of shit is happening, but I'm surely not the only one who notices it.
My problem isn't that three enemies keep running down the same path time and time again only to get mowed down. That's entirely their fault. But if we "get bored" and start hitting them with big sticks, then it becomes our fault. If enemies make it into an objective and manage to take it, without escalating their level of force - good on them. If we manage to take it back without escalating our level of force - good on us.
But when our kneejerk response to an enemy making any headway is to up the ante unnecessarily, then shame on us. And this is something that happens, and I see it all the time. Maybe you're right, and my opinions come from a lack of information, but can you really blame me when my attempts at finding out why are stymied with a more eloquent version of "shut the Ffff up" every time?
If the main issue here is that you're just not seeing any of this happen, then I'm going to start recording everything that does happen. I'm going to get proof, and I'll bring it to you.
Treaties exist for a reason, the ones that limit the technology that both sides have in their arsenal? Usually groups get mass blockaded when they go outside these existing boundaries.
If anyone remembers the teen grid, specifically the Rome and Talon wars (I wasn't there specifically, but I can tell you stories of their existence), there existed no such treaties. Pretty much they resorted to flyfighting, railgunning, and all kinds of ridiculous tactics to take home a victory. There was even a gun that was often used, I believe it was called the orbus(?) that if you shot it, it would self replicate until the sim reached it's limit and both sides were blackscreened. At that point you went home, called it a victory and celebrated. Eventually our own system of a standard RoE was made that would disallow these. I could go on about teen grid politics, and how often times the only way to "win" was to be banned from the parcel, as considered by most, but I'll save that for another time. My point is that treaties exist so that cases like these don't ever happen, or even become close to happening. With every development we make, it will still (hopefully) fall into allowed standards set by the rest of the grid.
On a sidenote; This is how I roll in every other game than Second Life.
The truth is, there is no real set standard or treaty that everyone abides by. The few rules that are universal to most groups are unspoken laws, and generally borne of the idea that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed by anyone.
As someone who averages five offensive raids a week roughly (minium is 3, maximum is 10 so far), and 2 doccumented (meaning 3 or more persons) defensive raid with uncounted undoccumented defensive raids (for lonewolfers OR defense reports simply forgotten about by the OIC) I can tell you that the point of the original post is NOT the actual attitude at the front lines.
Prehaps it DOES appear that way externaly. But hte reality isnt true at all.
I am on more offensive raids that FAIL to achieve all victory goals than a sim has, than raids where we do achieve everything. But we chose to declare a victory becuase our opponents chose to counter us with overwhelming and unreasonable force that we refuse to match. Which counts, according to doccumentation I've read, as grounds for us declaring victory. I see sims we attack where we are stuck to light or medium weapons, heavy at most, becuase if we pull out a single vehicle (even unarmored ones), a single Aegis, or hell, we begin advancing on their base, they pull out pretty much invincible, unlimited ammo, flight enabled armored mechs. As I said.. this is our NORM. I have yet to be on a raid where we have pulled out firepower that overwhelmed the opponent by sheer scripted power.
On the front lines in defenses, well it happens most often that automatic explosive weapons in enemy hands, is where most OICs begin debating an escelation to medium weapons. MOST keep us light if enemy numbers are slim in comparison to Ordo numbers. If the enemy is overwhelming a position of ours BUT using weapons we define as light, my experience on the front lines, is that we remain light. we just rebalance our forces.
From my experience.. on offensive and defensive raids... our escelation of force is done more for balance of effect, rather than a balance of firepower or size of sticks. The topic of the original post, while well worded and thought out, seems more based on public opinion of Ordo, rather than any sort of Ordo reality.
I'll state once again, none of my opinion stems from the bellyaching of others. This is all my own experience.
The picture that you paint is what I'd definitely like to see, and I'm sure it does happen. But apparently, it never does when I'm around. Perhaps I'm just a really unlucky cunt.
And that's a damn shame. I personally don't like the whole idea of objectives that must be taken in order to 'win.' I usually could care less about the objectives - when I go on an attack, I go to kill. At the risk of sounding like AN, I wish that the community would stop this trend of making impossible objectives that must be taken in order to claim "victory." Let's go back to the days of utter domination being all that was needed to claim a victory.
This attitude of "total domination" is what is causing this issue. When you have tanks and aircraft parked outside enemy spawns, splattering them the moment they try to exit, is that really victory, or is that just being a bully?
The main thing I bring away from reading these responses is that people think that I'm drawing my opinion based on the whinging we receive every time we do win. This isn't true, not by a long shot. I state time and time again that I don't care when other groups have their egos wounded, this entire thread was made only for Ordo's interest - if we continue the way we are, we could very well run out of groups to fight on good terms, or even groups to fight at all.
I care and am loyal to Ordo immeasurably - I'm not about to leave, as people keep subtly suggesting that I do. I'm arguing this because I care about the future of Ordo. Can you really fault me for that?
And since people are getting so inflamed about this all, here is a soothing video to calm your nerves.
-
> DISCLAIMER
I'm not here trying to stir drama. I just want to start a meaningful debate on our stances on interacting with the rest of the community. Any shit that goes down in posts on this thread was not my intention, nor my fault.
Have you ever been in a multiplayer game with someone who can't accept defeat? To whom, winning is the validation of their life? Do you recall them throwing a verbal tantrum when things don't go their way, when they get killed, or when their team loses? Do you remember just how annoying it is?
We've probably all experienced it at one point or another. We all click our tongues and shake our heads at this obviously immature behaviour, wondering how someone could get so worked up over a videogame. It's ridiculous, right? Winning is nice, sure, but losing isn't the end of the world. That's how the game works - sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. No biggie.
Which is why it confuses me so when so many members of the Second Life military community, both within Ordo and without, refuse to accept the idea of a defeat. And - frankly - it's easy to claim a victory whenever you want. This is Second Life, the only game balance we have is entirely voluntary and often discarded in a matter of minutes. If things don't go your way, just pull out a bigger gun. Bring in more people. There's no team autobalancing or the like. Simulator rules are often unenforced. Go nuts.
Now imagine if you could do this in every other online game. Imagine playing Call of Duty where you could whip out a tank in the middle of an infantry battle the moment things tip against you, and there was no enforcement to stop you. To a lot of people, this might actually sound appealing at first - but let's look at the varied ramifications of doing so.
Other players would be pissed off, and refuse to play with you, as they would always lose.
You'd quickly get a disliked reputation in the game's community.
Victory after victory would make victory itself hollow and worthless.
You drive other players away from the game.
These are just a few examples, but are probably the most prominent ones that come to mind in a scenario like this. In the end, the result is simply that everyone loses - everyone else loses the match, and you run out of other players to play against. And even the few matches you find become meaningless because you win every single time.
You can probably see where this is going. Let's translate this back over to Second Life, specifically, back to Ordo.
It's a cold day in hell when we accept a defeat. In fact, defeat is something reviled, failing is punished by revoking the privileges of being able to lead raids or hold OIC. You can say that it doesn't happen, but I know it does, and it concerns me deeply. When we begin to lose territory on a defence, we immediately jump to the biggest guns in our arsenal. It's not terribly uncommon to have a tank on both extremity objectives, taking out anyone who gets close, or a Thanatos strafe-bombing the roads leading to the objectives. We will often continue doing this even after the threat has been mitigated and we have things locked down again, parking the tanks or bombers there until the enemy simply gets tired of being stonewalled and leaves. And then we throw down the victory card, cheer about how skilled we are and how poor our opponents were. Even on raids, it's not uncommon for us to bend the enemy simulator's rules to secure a victory.
And doing all this has the exact same consequences as it does in any other game: it pisses off everyone else, and makes the concept of victory a tired, beaten horse. It's complained that we rarely get anyone other than lonewolves coming to attack us - well, perhaps this is why. Perhaps because the only time an enemy raid has secured victory conditions was by rushing us during early morning hours when we're understaffed, an act which we counter with outright hostility and annoyance, even though it's not unheard of for us to do the exact same thing to others.
Every time I've brought this up in the past, it's been met with derision and denial. Commonly, other members will flatly deny that any of this happens, or tell me to lead my own raids or be OIC more often, which is entirely missing the point. I think it's an issue that has been swept under the rug for too long, and needs to be put on the table for a serious, thoughtful discussion.
1. "We can't accept defeat, because if we do, other groups will jump on it as an opportunity to erode our reputation and standing."
We're Ordo. We pride ourselves on following our own standard, and we often consider ourselves above and beyond the reach of other groups. It's easy to see why: we have an enormous member count, an intricate and complex rank and command structure, we have our own established protocols and divisions, and we've followed this formula to relative success for years now. Other groups will often spring up, stay around for six months and collapse again. Not us. We've held out for a long time.
That's why we should be maintaining a standard above and independent from the rest of the community. Cheap name-calling and ego-inflating actions by others shouldn't affect our judgement and ethical guidelines. The hollering by other groups who oppose us vehemently never really bothered us before, so why should we start caring about that when it comes to offensive or defensive combat?
I'm not going to outright say that we're solely at fault for the sheer amount of hate directed at us - those who direct it at us are just as much at fault for perpetrating it, and we are still a damn sight more fair than them. But there are some things we can be doing about it, things we should be doing about it, because we're the motherFfffing Ordo and we don't need to listen to a man-child cockwaving about how they defeated us. Let them have their circlejerk. It shouldn't faze us in the slightest. If we lose, we should lose graciously, rendering their boasts hollow and worthless.
2: "Other groups would do the exact same thing if they had the manpower or gear."
We should be the forerunners of progress, not following the trend set by others. Once again, we're Ordo. We don't need to bow to pressure from others; we should be the ones who stand above the others in a sea of churning faeces and egotism. And if that means that sometimes we have to bow to a fair defeat, then it should be so. Be "the bigger man" and all that. Because in the end, if we're doing what they do, we're simply being no better than they are.
3: "We need to make our gear more powerful to meet the threats posed by other groups."
Arms races are pointless and yield nothing but wasted effort. Having been in Munitorum for as long as I have, I've gradually witnessed concerns for balance and fairness crumble in the face of an enemy military that has the bigger stick. Trying to match the gear used by enemy groups has historically resulted in nothing but a race to see who can make the bigger booms the fastest. This just destroys the point of combat entirely, as instead of fighting our battles on the field; we're fighting war in the R&D departments instead.
On top of this, we have the best training out of any military on the grid. And I say with confidence that nine times in ten, training will always trump gear.
The reason why an enemy group resorts to such bullshit is because they can't accept defeat. They're the kid who yells on the mic and throws a tantrum when they get fragged in Call of Duty. And elevating our tech to match theirs is simply validating them, and encouraging them to make an even bigger stick. See where this is going? Straight to critical mass.
There's a word for equipment that is overpowered and unfair. It's called "bullshit". And it's something we shouldn't be even entertaining the thought of doing, even for moment.
Once again, we're Ordo. We have our own Ffffin' standard. Just because we have the ability to throw down the big stick, doesn't mean we should.
4: "It's demoralizing to accept defeat."
Pulling out the stops to claim victory makes victory itself meaningless. I'll refer again to the introductory section of this thread - that in the end, being on the winning end every time inevitably causes a loss on a larger scale than just the match you're in. If we believe it's acceptable to think like this, then we're essentially becoming the ubiquitous Call of Duty kid.
Let's theorize for a moment that we go on a raid, we play fair, and we're losing. At this point, almost every raid commander would yell for a bigger stick, whether or not it violates the enemy's rules. You can't really blame them - losing a raid is frowned upon immensely, and often punished both directly with the stripping of privileges, and indirectly with a loss of respect.
Let's say that we lost because the enemy flew off the handle, they brought out every big stick they have and they rained every piece of bullshit down on our heads to maintain their superiority. Should we validate this "tactic" by meeting it in kind, or should we laugh it off and leave them to stew in their anger, knowing that we played by the rules, they didn't, and that's victory enough for us.
Now let's say that we lost to an opponent who was playing fair, by the rules and generally being fairly reasonable. Do we really want to become the kid who throws a tantrum when we lose? Or should we accept a loss, and be mature adult men who can tolerate the concept of losing. After all, there's always a next time.
So what do we do?
There's several ways to approach this. One way is to lay out more comprehensive policy regarding Ordo conduct on defensive and offensive operations, ensuring that force is met with an appropriate response, avoiding overreactions, and that we maintain our standards wherever possible. Hold training and seminars focussed on addressing this issue. Be more lenient on people who bring home a loss instead of a victory sometimes.
I'm not suggesting that we become anal about balance and fairness like our good friends the Merczateers. I'm not going to throw around terms like "game design" in a game where anyone can shoot a nuke out of their crotch and destroy several simulators.
All I'm suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, we can avoid being the Call of Duty kid.
Discuss.
-
More or less. A database that is managed by both Munitorum and Curia to keep track of item approvals would be pretty helpful though.
Speaking of, I'm in the process of writing up a set of standards for Munitorum personnel to follow in the process of approving items, to keep things to a consistent level.
-
Is everyone forgetting to actually send him episodes of FiM? Maybe contact Hasbro and ask if they can provide?
-
Article posted in OP.
-
Unix creator Dennis Ritchie dies aged 70
Mr Ritchie (middle) and Mr Thompson were awarded the US National Medal of Technology for their work on Unix
Pioneering computer scientist Dennis Ritchie has died after a long illness.
Mr Ritchie was one of the creators of the hugely influential Unix operating system and the equally pioneering C programming language.
A vast number of modern technologies depend on the work he and fellow programmers did on Unix and C in the early days of the computer revolution.
Those paying respects said he was a "titan" of the industry whose influence was largely unknown.
The first news of Mr Ritchie's death came via Rob Pike, a former colleague who worked with him at Bell Labs. Mr Ritchie's passing was then confirmed in a statement from Alcatel Lucent which now owns Bell Labs.
Jeong Kim, president of Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, said Mr Ritchie would be "greatly missed".
"He was truly an inspiration to all of us, not just for his many accomplishments, but because of who he was as a friend, an inventor, and a humble and gracious man," said Mr Kim.
Along with Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, Douglas McIlroy, and Joe Ossanna, Mr Ritchie was one of the key creators of the Unix operating system at Bell Labs during the 1960s and 70s.
Unix's influence has been felt in many ways. It established many software engineering principles that persist until today; it was the OS of choice for the internet; it kicked off the open source movement and has been translated to run on many different types of hardware.
It was also at Bell that Mr Ritchie created C, one of the most widely used programming languages in the world. It is familiar to almost every modern-day developer.
In 1999, Mr Ritchie's influence and accomplishments won official notice when he was awarded the US National Medal of Technology - the highest honour America can bestow on a technologist.
Mr Pike said that with his passing, the world had lost a "truly great mind."
Paying tribute on his blog, Google programmer Tim Bray said it was impossible to overstate the debt his profession owed to Dennis Ritchie.
"I've been living in a world he helped invent for over thirty years," he wrote.
On Twitter, developer James Grimmelman said: "Ritchie's influence rivals Jobs's; it's just less visible."
Most of you probably won't know (or care) about this man, but he was pretty much the founder of computing as we know it today, undoubtedly even more historically important than Steve Jobs.
UNIX was the forerunner of all modern operating systems. Mac OSX is based on it. Windows uses many elements of it. Linux grew from it. This man pretty much started the personal computer, by himself. And then because he wasn't already enough of a badass, he invented C, the programming language still in use today by a significant amount of software. Shit, LSL is based on C.
-
what if ordo isn't real and they just want us to think it is
I WISH I HAD NEVER BEEN OROD :(
-
When I said 'the people,' I should have clarified that you were not included in that.
:(
-
what is ordo
-
CAN I PWEASE GET OUT THIR
I'M ALERGIC TO THA SMOEK :[
-
Altus just doesn't understand friendship.
-
I wish him luck watching mlp around an fob.
What you could do is just record them as they air, and send them to him one at a time as they premiere.
You'd be suprised how laid back and accepting most soldiers are.
-
Hasbro has a history of being super awesome towards its dedicated fans. Quite a few people have gotten a lot of free MLP swag from Hasbro for things, like the guy who held a physics essay on MLP. I don't think it would be out of the question for them to mail the episodes to Priest or something.
-
Prebuilt PCs are fine for casual users. Just make sure that you reformat it the moment you plug it in, and install a fresh operating system. Prebuilt manufacturers are notorious for putting preinstalled software and spyware on their machines.
-
-
I am a bit sad that one of the major players in the early PC industry is dead, but I am rather annoyed that every article paints what was essentially a rather ruthless businessman as a "visionary" whereas Steve Wozniak barely gets a mention (if he is mentioned at all), despite the fact he kind of built the foundation of Apple itself while Jobs was merely the one who sold it (and did a bit of a piss-poor job of it at first).
When Wozniak dies, he will not be on the cover of every magazine on earth. This is sad.
-
A true TS3 story.
Blacklight: Retribution
in Gaming Discussion
Posted
Wear a fursuit,