Winning and Losing: The Musical

[George Reisman]

ITT: Here-say Heresy.

That is what objectives are for George. Measurable victory.

Ffff that shit. Measure victory through blood.

[Teron Gray]

Yesterday we had a few combat ops at home and abroad I was personally a part of.

39th engaged us in a training exercise, I believe. We began with our initial light munitions, nigh the entire line armed with rifles and smgs. About half of our opponents had miniguns as force equalizers. Our organization was sharp, we applied suppressive fire and held out fairly well. As 39th escalated to armor and air assets, defense in turn responded with AT weapons, and Nemesis. We had a few moments where the line was breached only for people to maneuver in and push back. Ultimately our friends, while they tried valiantly, failed to make any gains.

Many battles at home go this way, with escalation in arms directly responsive to enemy deployments. Could we have stuck with only light arms? With the tank and mech, sure, it would've been tougher but we would've been fine. Air always warrants a dedicated AA response. We have the means to counter the enemy, and they will be used.

Offensives go similar, or we have some fights we know will be fierce. Case in point, our Raid on Chaos. Like AN, they don't hold back and use everything from the start. We had air up from the get go, a tank not far behind. All objectives were captured after some intense combat and we were declared victorious, with the final battle being solely in the hands of infantry.

Our deployment was more heavy-handed than most but the scenario warranted it. We can push right up to the line, but that is the point in the sense. Rules are 'you can go this far' then you can go that far, use all of that allowance if it is necessary and don't be afraid to do so.

With the Lonewolves... They had exceeded their time to attack, and refused to withdraw when requested. Until an EM was available 'GTFOverkill' was employed. Should we really pummel Lonewolves so viciously? In most scenarios no, but when you have a tired and annoyed defense at 4am, it makes dealing with twits who won't leave so you can sleep a bit more tolerable to kill for the 200th time when you do it with gross firepower.

[Guest Ruin Nefarious]

@ Tsume. Equal respect due to you.

Often, your attempts to speak on TS3 turn into overly winded explanations that far exceed the situation. Thus, resulting in calls for pertinence because you have an incessant need to over explain and hammer the nail in until you are certain your point is made. You mention bringing it up to raid leads and higher ups: so let’s see the complaints and evidence to support the complaints.

What’s this about excuses of “they don’t call us on it?” If this is occurring, where is the documentation on it? Who is guilty of this, then?

“They are doing it.” Same question. Spare rare circumstance where authorization for unusual force is permitted to deal with extreme events. You yourself just brought up the possessed tank thing. Did I condone it? No. You did it at your own volition and we never fielded it. We dealt with the Chaos tank with concentrated firepower.

We do follow their rules and carry forth victories. You can’t say that we’re flagrantly abusing things with loopholes and no one has noticed. That’s absurd.

Regarding your raid privileges. The ARK raid was not authorized appropriately and was way outside of your league. We’d just had a nasty incident with them and somehow you got tangled up in to leading another. The raid was an utter failure. Not because you “refused to break their rules.” Because you were ill prepared to deal with the shit they were throwing at us. Their gear and use of said gear (at that time) is (was) abusive beyond all normal standards. You are missing a lot of the back elements to the story and are painting us in a piss poor light because of it. ARK had a “they’re a big group, we can treat them like shit” mentality at that time. They did shit like spawn camp us with auto-killing turrets. At one point in the battle, they had more turrets deployed than members.

They were smug because the night before we counter-raided them and dominated the points under my lead, within their rules, using proper tactics. You went back and got your ass handed to you. So yeah, they were all smiles. You didn’t get in any real sense of trouble, but you are right, you wouldn’t be allowed to attack them again. Not because you lost, but because you didn’t have the talents at that time to make it happen.

You and any raid leader is expected to seek victory, without exception. That means expending all of your legal options, without exception. Because we don’t go waving our guns around like a bunch of lone wolfers. We are the pinnacle of combat performance, thus I expect nothing less in every deployment.

I /lead/ the ARK raid you are talking about at the end. They treated us like shit. Utter shit.

Our defense numbers haven’t fluctuated significantly in over a year. So obviously that isn’t a problem.

[Tsume Xiao]

TLDR~

Then why are you wasting space posting a useless response?

Read it or not that is your choice, but sitting there and posting the fact that you did not read someone else post is pointless and childish.

Do us all a favor next time and just don't post.

Yesterday we had a few combat ops at home and abroad I was personally a part of.

39th engaged us in a training exercise, I believe. We began with our initial light munitions, nigh the entire line armed with rifles and smgs. About half of our opponents had miniguns as force equalizers. Our organization was sharp, we applied suppressive fire and held out fairly well. As 39th escalated to armor and air assets, defense in turn responded with AT weapons, and Nemesis. We had a few moments where the line was breached only for people to maneuver in and push back. Ultimately our friends, while they tried valiantly, failed to make any gains.

Many battles at home go this way, with escalation in arms directly responsive to enemy deployments. Could we have stuck with only light arms? With the tank and mech, sure, it would've been tougher but we would've been fine. Air always warrants a dedicated AA response. We have the means to counter the enemy, and they will be used.

We must have been watching different combat situations....

1. SMG's and Assault rifles to start with...

No. Several personnel deployed with semi-automatic shotguns, a few of whom were standing at the edge of the redzone immediately dumping entire magazines with little care. Due to their position, these rounds were also making it to the edge of the spawn.

2. Suppressive Fire

This implies controlled firing specifically to suppress the enemy. Pissing out bullets in every direction and purposely maneuvering to shoot at hostile targets the instant they leave spawn is not suppressive, it's quite honestly pathetic and reflects terribly on us as a group. I was listening in on 39th Teamspeak, and quite frankly I'm rather disappointed in the fact that most of their comments were absolutely true.

3. Armor

39th Never deployed armor. They attempted to but it did not rez and they abandoned it. The one time they attempted to rez it, it was shot before it could by Ordo member. The 39th Personnel who attempted to rez the vehicle tried to rez the sit prim approximately 3 meters in front of the orange gate because they did not think the vehicle could make it through the force field. There was absolutely no reson ordo personnel to engage into what is considered the spawn area.

On the topic of Aircraft, you are right. Aircraft can only really be fought with AA measures specifically designed for that purpose.

4. Light Arms

There was never a need for us to have escalated. We out numbered them over 3:1 and there was no imminent threat of losing ground.

[Mark Karlfeldt]

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.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFVratN53wc

[Tsume Xiao]

@ Tsume. Equal respect due to you.

Often, your attempts to speak on TS3 turn into overly winded explanations that far exceed the situation. Thus, resulting in calls for pertinence because you have an incessant need to over explain and hammer the nail in until you are certain your point is made.

Yes, I know., and I'm working on that.

What irritates me is when the people who suddenly call for pertinence are themselves often are going on about useless and unrelated topics.

Regarding your raid privileges. The ARK raid was not authorized appropriately and was way outside of your league. We’d just had a nasty incident with them and somehow you got tangled up in to leading another. The raid was an utter failure. ...

You went back and got your ass handed to you.

You didn’t get in any real sense of trouble, but you are right, you wouldn’t be allowed to attack them again.

The ARK raid was authorized without knowing that the target had been updated class wise. THat was determined after the fact to have been miscommunication/boards not updated.

I didn't know the prior incidents, so I appoligize for the harshness. From my closed perspective it seemed like the response was overkill, due in part t not knowing the prior events.

I didn't think losing by one point was an "utter failure" or "getting your ass handed to you". :<

I could understand not being allowed to lead a raid back to ARK, but I was told that I wasnt allowed to lead any raids for a while.

I guess I look back at Ordo so harshly because I want us to be seen as the standard for the community. It frustrates me to hear other groups talking about us doing things we should be above doing.

***EDIT***

@Mark

Lol. Banana Fan. <3

[George Reisman]

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?

I think you took a little liberty and expanded on what I said. I'm not a proponent of having "tanks and aircraft parked outside enemy spawns, splattering them the moment they try to exit." I suppose mentioning the AN could give that impression at first, but no, I'm not advocating that. If the enemy wants to escalate to that level of severeness, then by all means, I'd oblige them. I'd go all William Tecumseh Sherman on their asses, baby.

[Guest Ruin Nefarious]

Why shouldn’t we escalate force if the enemy are taking an objective? It makes every military sense to do so. It is not unnecessary. It’s combat. It’s entirely within the OIC’s right to give that order.

Name instances in which we’re using “overpowering force” that isn’t militarily applicable (ex: dealing with AN). You’re more than able to disagree, but the point of battle /is/ to achieve victory. Winning is the objective. Having fun in the duration of the fight is great, but objectively, victory is the goal. We don’t practice, enforce ART materials, and have regimented routines to simply “have fun.” We do it to be victorious. I wouldn’t have any interest in combat if my every interaction resulted in going “well we did good guys, but we didn’t win! At least it was a good fight!” No. Homie don’t play that. Go big or go home.

Your job is to judge the quality of our gear. I wouldn’t tell you how to script a gun. And I’d expect not to be told how to lead my combat forces when there is an inherent misunderstanding to the necessity of force in battle.

I do not see people’s replies as anything suggesting you should leave, nor do I fault anyone for having a dissenting opinion to my own. I do not mind you bringing this up, at all. The only part that bothers me is painting the Ordo in a bad light and the sense of moral panic that is tied to it. I understand your intent is only good, regardless.

[Agares Tretiak]

I do not oppose objective systems, as a concept. For instance, I'm helping 39th develop a pretty well balanced, dynamic objective system that will encourage attackers to think flexibly and consider different methods of approaching the ultimate objective. The base layout, itself, while a giant castle, is designed to have disadvantages for the defenders, as well as the attackers.

Properly done, an objective system is awesome and fun. That's much the same for any sort of military base design in Second Life.

Poorly done, it's a nightmare.

Sadly, the majority of the community cannot be relied upon to create a balanced objective system in their sim, and most will simply use objectives as a window dressing to Ffff over attackers utterly. Those that might intend to make a fair base, simply do not have the perspective or possibly the experience to do so. A balanced base design takes a lot of effort and thought, and it's not easy even then, to achieve.

As to losing and winning, I hate losing. I really do. It's something so abhorrent to me that the mere thought of failure can send me into conniption fits, when it comes to something I have direct control over. But there always rational limitations on most situations, and victory and defeat are some of those. We should play to win...but have the grace and good sense to know if we've been brought into a situation where victory is not attainable within the rational limitations of our own principles and standards.

If you're losing a fight, examine why, make a note of it, postulate what could be done in the future to avoid it, and move forward, striving to do better with the lessons you've learned. Losing a fight doesn't mean you've walked away empty handed. A failure can also teach you a lot, and I doubt anyone in the Ordo's officer corps would disagree on that point.

If you want an example of people who cannot accept losing, under any circumstances, you need look no further than Exterminatus Footman.

[Kishoshima Dragonash]

I hate to break it to you Mark.. but I DO listen. See that lil title in my groups that says "CURIA CONSUL?" That's exactly why it exists.. it's my job to listen. You, of all people, should know that I listen given our interactions over the last year or so. There are three sides to every story.. yours, theirs and what really happened. One of the jobs of the BC is to watch everything that goes on and keep track of where everyone is, what they're doing and why they're doing it. This is where experience as a battlefield commander comes into play, yet again.. if you took out more raids, controlled more squads.. youd see that the vast majority of what goes on ISNT bullshit. We do what we do and we stay within the rules.. as I said before.. if OUR rules are more strict than theirs, we follow ours, if THEIRS are more strict than ours, we follow theirs, plain and simple.

I'm not calling you to the carpet, I'm not admonishing you for not taking out raids, god knows Ive only taken out a handful myself.. but Ive also got 10 years of RL military experience (which includes leading foot and mobile patrols with a squad) and the same types of things apply in RL that apply here in SL. All I'm asking you to do is get behind the wheel more, lead a few more raids and actually be the guy who's ass is on the line if someone Ffffs up, and then you can come back here and talk about it. Up until that point, you're going to be seen as a crusading blow hard who wants to stir up shit, rather than a voice of experience.. and I dont want to see that happen.

[Dibs Taov]

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with the following:

Why shouldn’t we escalate force if the enemy are taking an objective? It makes every military sense to do so. It is not unnecessary. It’s combat. It’s entirely within the OIC’s right to give that order.

Sure, it makes sense from a military sense, but does it still make sense if we're being outplayed at our own game? Does it still make sense to resort to more force if whoever is currently in charge of defense is losing the battle on a tactical level? I don't think so, and a blanket statement like this can validate unnecessary escalations of force in almost any situation where we're faced with losing in the slightest. An enemy force taking objectives does not always translate into them having a stronger loadout than ours, it can just as well translate in a temporary lapse in our defender's strength, which can easily be picked up again without bigger guns, or even a fundamental flaw in how the defense is being handled, and the enemy capitalizing on that. It does not always advocate more force.

If this was a RL situation, I would more than agree with you, but the simple fact remains that it's not a RL situation, and everyone is here to compete on what should be a level playing field. (Obviously it's not a level playing field, but we shouldn't be purposefully slanting it in our favor just because they're outperforming us. Keep in mind I'm arguing with a respectable combat zone in mind, not when the enemy is using spamtastic bullshit weaponry, and I believe Mark is arguing from the same perspective.)

Name instances in which we’re using “overpowering force” that isn’t militarily applicable (ex: dealing with AN). You’re more than able to disagree, but the point of battle /is/ to achieve victory. Winning is the objective. Having fun in the duration of the fight is great, but objectively, victory is the goal. We don’t practice, enforce ART materials, and have regimented routines to simply “have fun.” We do it to be victorious. I wouldn’t have any interest in combat if my every interaction resulted in going “well we did good guys, but we didn’t win! At least it was a good fight!” No. Homie don’t play that. Go big or go home.

Your job is to judge the quality of our gear. I wouldn’t tell you how to script a gun. And I’d expect not to be told how to lead my combat forces when there is an inherent misunderstanding to the necessity of force in battle.

I feel we're starting to venture into discussion of opinions and personal experiences here; Some people play to win, and others play to have fun, and consider winning a bonus. Neither is better than the other per-se, because the latter can very easily be just as skilled and driven as the former, but they walk away with a different experience. When we start discussing which of the two is better, we're venturing in very dangerous territory, discussion-wise. You're saying you wouldn't be interested in combat if you lost every time, and that, from my perspective, is understandable.(I'm fiercely competitive in almost everything I do, ask Sam.) But there are people who feel differently, and who will gladly concede a fight, if it results in higher spirits all around. Both have their merits.

Almost everything you say above are your personal opinions on the subject. Your position obviously gives more weight to your opinions, as you are in a position to enforce them. But that doesn't mean that everyone will agree with them, and if a "Go big or go home" mindset were to become enforced, people that prefer a more laid-back approach will start to leave, or try to avoid drawing attention. Key here would be staying on the middle ground, and leaving it at that. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but trying to put them up for discussion is the worst thing to do here.

I'm pretty sure Ordo already is on the middle ground, rewarding those that press themselves to perform to their limits and beyond more than those that do not.

And in response to the last line, I feel that there isn't so much a misunderstanding, but a disagreement of opinions. And while I also play to win, I disagree with whipping out bigger guns when you can't beat your enemy on otherwise equal ground, unless everything else is in order and it really is the only resort we have to balance out the playing field. Keywords being "balance out".

I've spent way too much time on this, time to get back to work.

[Phares Sarjeant]

Two issues here and they should both be given weight.

1) Winning- "I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed." George S. Patton.

2) Ensuring that in SL there are enough combatants around that still want to play with you. Hence all the ROE's, sim rules, banned weapons etc.. Not saying we're perfect on this, but a lot of getting this correct is just growing and learning.

Improvements are always important to consider. Their can be over-analysis though as well. For example in Morgan Straits(Napoleanic era) some scripters are proponents of making the guns totally innacurate with 20 sec reload, etc, etc. The problem is that SL itself can become the dictator of what really happens. The folks that went this extreme ended up losing their members and buyers to more fun, less rules oriented requirement. The point is that too strict adherence to any course of action can result also in folks simply going elsewhere to get their Rx of mayhem in. (not against fairness here, just over-analyzing and over-implementing complications that take away from the fun.)

I'd say that as long as both sides of the argument are clearly seen then one obvious metric to go off is the percentage of the military community that still plays with us and adjust accordingly. We want the maximum opportunities available to show our dominance in..:) So if suddenly we start getting blockaded it would be a pretty clear sign something needs to change, and we need to re-check our compass. As always the golden rule appears to fit well. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Phares Sarjeant

[Aryte]

@ Dibs. The difference being, my opinion sets the regulation and vision of the Ordo, and has, since 2006. It's been my regulation and vision since then that we are here to obtain victories in battle. You're welcome to dissent from that opinion and it won't offend me to do so, but at the end of the day, my opinion has been interwoven into the fabric of the group for five years now. In short, if you aren't willing to tow that line, you shouldn't lead raids.

[Ron Bleac]

In the immortal words of Sean Connery.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5GtohtRYU&feature=related

[George Reisman]

"Go big or go home"

I AGREE WITH DIBS. GO BIG OR GO HOME.

[Guest Ruin Nefarious]

I said that, George. GG.

[Tsukiyomi Yuhara]

I tend to lean towards what Dibs said. A lot of the 'misunderstanding' seems to be a issue of pride or morals. Can someone really say what morals are correct? Yes, the victor can. Winners write history.

Though I have a sense of pride, and my own set of morals, I joined Ordo and took up the duty of following Aryte's word. Beyond my pride, my morals, his word. If your pride interferes with your duty to uphold the defense of Titan, which do you think you should abandon first? Yes, this is a game, and giving up 'who you are' for a game is seemingly silly. However who YOU are is seemingly overshadowed by who WE are. As far as I know, we were told "Don't lose."

I hope most of us would agree, we would jump into hell for a good fight for the Ordo. I don't mean some cheesy Hell-themed sim with a military. I mean like going to fight AN, knowing their underhanded tactics. Fighting Chaos knowing the nukes come out the second you make more than 4m of progress. Fighting Erebus, with all of their 'trolling'.

On a note: "Go big or go home." doesn't sound quite right. I'd much prefer to say "Dominate, so we can go home."

[Guest Ruin Nefarious]

Last night we engaged Chaos, opting to go at it with standard loadouts. Within fifteen minutes, Chaos was deploying everything they could find. Tanks that filtered damage to the extreme of being invulnerable, nuclear explosives, automated turrets. It got to the point where Dark Sleepur was just chain sending us home so he could try to black screen us in their hub. We broke out. Using our issued gear. Tanks, aircraft, mechs. We used /overwhelming force/, all within the regulation of the sim, to overcome downright distasteful events. We did so at such an effectiveness that Chaos closed their sim.

If victory was not the expectation, the raid leader could've pulled out and went "we did our best, they cheated like jerks." Instead, he, within all legal means, kept going, expended all his options, and brought us home a victory worthy of its own merit. The act of fighting in that battle wasn't "fun." We were being griefed, for all intensive purposes. The sense of elation and satisfaction that came with the victory at the end? Priceless. It made every moment worth it. I expect and pursue victory conditions from all raids for that very reason: try your hardest, bring excellence to the field, bring excellence home with you.

[Trinity Heckroth]

try your hardest, bring excellence to the field, bring excellence home with you.

[Kishoshima Dragonash]

OK.. since this is such a hot button issue, I will propose the following (even though it should be happening in the FIRST place):

IF there's a question as to the legitimacy, legality etc in the Use of Force authorized by -any- OIC, the following actions -must- occur.

1) Notate the incident.

This means time, date, place, witnesses, what was going on, the orders being given at the time etc.

2) Photographic evidence

This means send me pictures of what happened along with the above and an explanation of what Im seeing.. INCLUDE THE MINIMAP.

3) If you have the ability, FRAPS the event for review in lieu of photographs but still provide the above

4) DO NOT QUESTION THE ORDERS OF THE OIC. You will follow -all- orders given by -any- OIC whether you agree with them or not(unless they are flat out totally 100% definitely illegal. IE 'ok Ffff this place.. nuke it') This doesnt mean you cant ask for clarification..this means dont argue.

5) Dont send me anything that's happened in the last 6 mos.. This is going from this point forward, so that all the evidence is fresh, all the events are fresh in everyone's mind, and I know I can get hold of anyone I need to.

Treat this like a CIR, get all the same information. If things are as bad as what's being claimed.. then Curia needs to be involved rather than you guys sitting on it and grumbling. This is -exactly- what Curia exists for. Use the system to solve the problems rather than being passive aggressive about it and letting everything out when someone bring it up in a thread. Time to start being proactive and using the systems in place to solve the problems rather than letting it eat at you and make you angry.

[Marc Gravois]

While what I have to say doesn't talk much about gear, i feel it addresses the same problems Mark is talking about.

NUMBERS

I would have to say the biggest complaint I heard from those outside of ordo was never much about our use of gear, but rather the numbers we deployed. Before the advent of ratio rules (which I am sad to see are even necessary) the ordo would regularly fight sims with a numbers advantage and not only that, would often reinforce with more if they were loosing. While I'd like to say this is getting better, its only really because of the aforementioned ratio rules, which we stick to (because we do stick to the rules). But as the last few raids to chaos have shown, our desire to use overwhelming numbers force enemies not only to implement these ratio rules, but to design their Sims with (nigh) impossible objectives.

Now as for Titan, our home sim, I am the most gravely disappointed in the behaviour of defending OICs. Two trainings that I have been on have been interupted from calls from the OIC wanting more people on the line due to "enemy raid". Which usually ended up with 3-5 people agaisnt what became 15-20 defenders. Our objectives are quite fair, and when we have even numbers (when we train/ART) it is very common for the attacker to actually claim all the points. I am proud of this, actually possible objectives. However i believe I will never see these objectives actually ever captured by an enemy due to our lack of respect for being fair in our own sim in regaurds to numbers.

Since when do you 20 players on a football team all take the field at once? or 10 basketball players on one side? When you join a FPS server you cant join another side if it has more players than the others, why should we allow this at titan?

We are infinitely more fair on raids than we are in our own sim, I'd rather have 3 people with pistols than 1 person with a mini gun, bodies are worth far more than the gear they hold (not talking about tanks/planes yet) especially when medic tps are involved. I was very excited to see that chronus was actually going to be a "fair" sim with a 10v10 system, and equally disappointed when the project fell through.

I have never enjoyed a full scale raid on titan as much as the trainings I have had on it (even after loosing). We basically flood our sim with 30+ people whenever a 10-15 person raid comes to titan. Not only does this mean the enemy wont ever gain a foot hold, but that the whole time we fight through lag and bullet queing. This makes defending boring and static as we basicaly sit in courtyard, ne road and sw road and slaughter them as they come out of the spawn. I'd much more enjoy actually loosing points and have the actual stress and eventual VICTORY of recapturing them. By limiting the numbers we deploy on defense not only would we increase our own fun of defending, but we would encourage more people to actually attack titan.

One of my favorite policies from Ark was that they would actually kick AFK/idling members off the sim when an enemy came because in their rules, the attacker could bring as many people as we had on base, even AFK people. Obviously I don't think this policy would fly in titan because 50% of people are usually idling on titan at any time (doing paperwork/playing games etc) But It emphasizes our lack of thought of numbers into our idea of "fairness" in combat.

One of the most ubiquitous comments I see here is that ordo are "the best trained troops" but if we need 20 of them to defend agaisnt 5, how can you really believe in them as such?

But all of this aside is ATTITUDE and our general combat culture.

Many people in the Ordo let their emotions during combat get the best of them, it is very very VERY noticeable in the tone of voice of the OIC of defence or offence, people get on edge, they get frustrated. It also influencing their decisions. For this reason I believe that NO OIC nor raid leader ever be able to engage in combat during the fight. Leaders who are not in direct fighting will be less affected by the stresses of combat (ie: being shot over and over by the invincible tank), will be able to better communicate with the opposing side over any issues (such as the invincible tank) and will be more likely to make fair decisions in regard to troop deployment and gear choices.

As a soldier in the ordo, the most demoralizing thing by far is to see the commander stressed out, the commander's emotions are transferred to his troops and completely sets the tone for the engagement. If the commander is able to be more laid back (out of battle) he can act as a counterbalance to the normal stresses of combat and create a strong pillar of stability which increases both the moral and fun of combat. But if he himself is subject to these stresses, it can completely suck the fun out of things.

I fear being chosen for writing a combat report after returning from a raid in which we did not complete the main objective, because I feel like we've actually been defeated, not because we didn't do our best, or that the enemy was playing unfair, but because the commander usually has demanded victory over fun, concentrating only on that last objective, rather than how well we were doing given the situation.

I feel like going into a sim with an emphasis on having fun, rather than claiming absolute and final victory, would defiantly make combat alot more enjoyable. (likely for the other side as well)

I feel like I've tried to make too many points here rather scatteringly (likely with poor grammar and such) but hopefully something will be understood.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Marc Gravois

[Guest Afevis]

Having a large number of members on OUR sim is kind of hard to avoid when our group has over 300 members. I don't think that we should start taking a large step and start KICKING people off our sim if they are AFK, that's just going a bit overboard, imho. Limiting how many of our own members on our sim is kind of silly as well, and would probably end up with people getting upset because they weren't on the list of people chosen to defend.

[Reinhardt]

Marc.. first point.. we use numbers when attacking groups like Chaos.. becuase their griefy weaponry means numbers are ALL we have agianst them. When you get down to it, Chaos prove that numbers are not enough to GUARANTEE a win, as many times, their griefy weaponry prevents us from taking more than one point.

Second, rarely do we send out a raid where we are not out numbered by defenders or reinforcements they call in. Period.

Third.. again.. to tactical advantages. Why would we not try and have a tactical advantage so long as it is within the rules? Are we TRYING to lose but not be obvious? Sure hten we can keep our numbers less than the enemy. BUT if we are trying to win, which in any game, should be your secondary goal (primary goal being fun), then we need to ensure we have the means to overcome any potential thing they throw at us. In terms of military combat, sports, or even gaming in general, this is just smart play.

I see you counting our 15 defenders the same as outsiders do, and not as we do. 15 defenders, each assigned to 1 of 3 areas. Meaning an enemy attack will only face 5 defenders at a time IF we're lucky. BUT this is an advantage we have given attackers in our sim design. IF we had designed our sim with one path of attack, then yes, they would be facing 15 defenders and it would be what people claim. BUT no, our sim design is set up to favor the attackers, spreading our defenses out thin, while allowing the enemy to focus on one area of attack. Why do we win, when our defenses are spread thin like this even if the enemy focuses on one area? Simple. Our training and our tactics. We have mastered the elastic defense... as those 5 defenders in one area are whittled down by the sustained attack on them, they fall back, giving the opponent ground. Meanwhile those who died there, are brought back, and reinforcements come from other areas to now flank the attackers moving through our territory. Again, this is smart tactics in military endeavours, in sports, and in games where hte secondary objective is to win.

If we begin dictating "oh we have X people for defense, no one else can defend" we will see Ordo membership begin to dwindle, becuase people will have nothing to do. Are our members to be penalized becuase Ordo is larger than any other military? No. Other sims, when the sim comes under attack, everyone there defends. We have the same reality. This is fair for all. Ordo, and its members, should not be penalized with defense caps, becuase we have been successful enough to outnumber any militaries. But why do we out number them? Is it just our success? No. They suffer from "too many chiefs, not enough indians" syndrome. By making SO many small groups rather than fewer larger groups, they have spread their numbers thin, meaning they will never match our numbers. But becuase of this, they complain when attacking us, that we dont lower ourselves to their level. In numbers and often behaviour.

THAT said.. I do agree.. we need to STOP idling on Titan. People need to get the hell off Titan if they are idling, or focused on paperwork. We need to make it so that everyone, attackers and defenders, can have a clear indication of how many people are available for defense. Too often, we have people asking "okay who is alive for defense?" becuase so many peopel were idling we couldnt tell.

As for your comments on attitude.. I'd recomend taking ART. As I recomend it to all of Ordo. The ART courses may seem to focus on communication, coordination, and escelation... BUT those then begin to affect other aspects of you, most importantly is attitude about combat and opponents.

[George Reisman]

Since when do you 20 players on a football team all take the field at once? or 10 basketball players on one side? When you join a FPS server you cant join another side if it has more players than the others, why should we allow this at titan?

I hate to break this to you, but this isn't some FPS game you get off the shelf, and it sure as Ffff isn't some physical sport. This is Second Life, and this is Titan. Titan is my home. If I attacked CO with 7 guys and they have 16, I'm not going to ask them to pull their guys off the line just so it will be fair. If I was going to do that, I might as well ask them for a nice cup of tea and a crumpet. I wouldn't ask it of them, and they should ask it of us. Ratio rules are silly and ratios that limit the number of defenders you can have on the field, even more so. This isn't the Merczateers.

Let me put it this way: You live in a house with your 5 family members. 3 robbers enter your house. Are you going to tell two of your family not to do anything, because it wouldn't be fair to the robbers? No, I'd think not.

[Guest Ruin Nefarious]

The Merczateers did the limiting defense # thing with poor effect. Otherwise, everything Reinhardt says.

And ditto on George: SL isn't an FPS. I stop playing FPS's after I hit level 50 prestige 1900 and get tired of the game mechanics.

I've been doing SL for six years, because it isn't an FPS and had dynamic elements. If I wanted to play an FPS, I'd reinstall MW2.