Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Sometimes I sniff my sisters panties.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2013-09-26, 11:53 PM | [Ignore Me] #76 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
And that Reddit post seems to push the issue that you should not be using non outfit based members as team members. Though it is written rather oddly and I would like if Torkz could clarify the issue further. |
|||
|
2013-09-26, 11:53 PM | [Ignore Me] #77 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
hon·or·a·ble ˈänərəbəl/Submit adjective 1. bringing or worthy of honor. synonyms: honest, moral, ethical, principled, righteous, right-minded; antonyms: crooked, deplorable Some people will do anything to win, and they just hope we are better than that. Sad thing is , most are not. Friendly words of advice....You should lead by example.You have a good thing going over there ,and if you keep it up your going to lose it. Last edited by Rumblepit; 2013-09-27 at 12:00 AM. |
|||
|
2013-09-26, 11:59 PM | [Ignore Me] #79 | ||
Private
|
Co-founder of TGWW here. I just read through most of this, and I want to clear up a few things. The people that are being referred to over and over as "ringers" or whatever (corewin, naterian, arcfault, thundahawk, rudelord) are HARDLY new to TGWW. Most of them stick to a different faction for whatever reason, but they all fly with TGWW any time they play vanu, and we fly with their respective outfits (QRY for NC, or whatever TE's air wing was called for TR...rarely flew over there). arcfault was with/a part of TGWW almost from the start, but he flew on his TR most of the time when we got going, so his VS character just never joined our outfit. Corewin*, Nate*, Thunda, and Rude are all NC characters, and we fly with them as QRY on NC. Thunda's VS character has been in TGWW for some time now, and i think rude's has as well. Corewin has flown with us many times on VS, and his alt has been in our outfit for at least 4 months, maybe longer (I remember inviting him myself after he switched from his NC to his VS to fly with us after getting dalton'd one too many times.)
*used to be TR with TE Long story short, is we didn't have a perfect "label" to go under, but this group of pilots has been an "outfit" for over 9 months now. Last edited by retrogreq; 2013-09-27 at 12:02 AM. |
||
|
2013-09-27, 12:07 AM | [Ignore Me] #80 | |||
Private
|
But for RCCC and this developing environment, I'll just quote Phrygen of BWC, who stated it quite well: "I think its important for everyone to remember these are just scrim games, and whats most important is testing how competitive or structured PS2 battles will play out. Anyone who has done a scrim on test server knows how awkward it can be at times. Being overly judgmental of outfits and players is not healthy for the overall goal of competitive PS2, but again if we consider the long run, there are very significant issues that will need to be addressed and resolved in order for PS2 MLG to be viable, let alone successful." Personally, if I played against you on 5 different teams, I wouldn't have any issue with that. I know my personal situation, I routinely play every faction. I would not consider it out of the realm of possibility that I would play in a scrim match for a different faction, with a different outfit and the same people. Very few of the top tier pilots on Mattherson have any faction loyalty at all. Mostly all of us want to play competitively. We don't know exactly where we would land if we had to pick a single faction or outfit permanently, and until then, we're just sticking together, playing in the outfits we're in. I don't see why so many people get hung up on the faction loyalty thing. It serves no purpose other than tying you down and preventing you from being flexible and finding the best fit for you. I can guarantee if all the people I always play with did that, a third of us at most would be playing together, if that. Most of us would probably have quit the game if not for this group. Anyways, I'm ranting. This will all get further clarified, to a T. Some people will be happy with the ruling, hopefully most, and inevitably some people will be bent out of shape about it. So it goes. |
|||
|
2013-09-27, 12:10 AM | [Ignore Me] #81 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
I think you guys just set a president for CC. Server vs Server everyone is invited since we have all played together at some point since launch. That is in the spirit of the rule right? Last edited by Rumblepit; 2013-09-27 at 12:16 AM. |
|||
|
2013-09-27, 12:17 AM | [Ignore Me] #82 | |||
Private
|
|
|||
|
2013-09-27, 12:20 AM | [Ignore Me] #83 | ||
Private
|
Like always when it comes to rules and laws and how people interpret them it's never the same and as a result our two outfits interpreted the specific rule in question in two completely different ways. From this point forward MERC will have it's in house counsel go over all rules with the match officials so that the word cheater need not ever be used and in fact as of this post we are asking AGN whether it be Torkz, Hamma, Noxx, or Derringer to come into this very thread and clarify it for everyone to read and to also update the community clash rules so that this issue never need be discussed again.
Please do not quote a reddit post from three days ago as we are both in disagreement as to what that means. We are asking that the officials from AGN come into this thread and set the record straight now as to what it means to be a full time member of an outfit. The pilots that you regularly play with and were brought into TGWW and who did a phenominal job; can they play with ANY other outfit besides TGWW? Whatever the AGN officials come up with stands and this ends here and now and forever. MERCS would like to thank TXR for inviting us to the match and thank NNG / TGWW for the good fight and of course thank the AGN team for putting all of this together. |
||
|
2013-09-27, 12:23 AM | [Ignore Me] #84 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
Ahhhh I understand, because you guys all over the place ,unorganized and playing different factions in different outfits its ok. Hey spirit of the rule right? |
|||
|
2013-09-27, 12:25 AM | [Ignore Me] #85 | ||
Private
|
I only quoted it because it has been the only feedback on the subject from a member of the RCCC staff. I've got no qualms with them getting knee deep into this little fiasco and setting the record straight, once and for all.
This issue needed to be ironed out sooner or later, as it is only a matter of time that it happens again. (we were already in talks with an NC infantry outfit on pairing up with them on our NC alts, to do another round of RCCC) RCCC is great. I love this shit. I want as much of it as I can. If they want to deem that I'm only allowed to play for one outfit, fine. As I read it, they were much more generic about the requirement. I welcome some clarification, so I can at least know who I should be doing further recruitment for and training with. Edit: Hopefully I've clarified all I need to. I look forward to hearing more on this from the RC staff, so I don't ever have to listen to butthurt whiners like Rumblepit again. Seriously dude, it's ok. Going to step away from this thread, this forum warrior-ing across 3 websites is getting exhausting. Last edited by TorinPS; 2013-09-27 at 12:29 AM. |
||
|
2013-09-27, 12:29 AM | [Ignore Me] #86 | |||
Private
|
This, and what Jax said. I think he hit the nail on the head, because I would see no reason why most of our TGWW guys couldn't work with QRY if they did one of these. Some clarification is needed, methinks. |
|||
|
2013-09-27, 12:37 AM | [Ignore Me] #87 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
I have heard it all in this thread now. What players from other outfits and factions???? They been in our outfit for along time!!! We only added them 24 hrs ago to avoid drama!!! We are in different outfits but we have been playing with them for 9 months!!!! We misunderstood the rules!!! Did I forget any? Read the rules again, and think about what the honor system is. As for RCCC ...Its easy to make rules,but upholding them is the hard part.If you plan to continue these events you need to be able to manage them. As of now the rules mean nothing to these people. like they said its not mlg ,and this kind of thing will happen over and over again until it is addressed. Last edited by Rumblepit; 2013-09-27 at 12:58 AM. |
|||
|
2013-09-27, 12:40 AM | [Ignore Me] #88 | ||||
Private
|
Last edited by TorinPS; 2013-09-27 at 12:46 AM. |
||||
|
2013-09-27, 12:43 AM | [Ignore Me] #89 | |||
Private
|
I'm having a lot of trouble deciding whether your Last edited by Selentic; 2013-09-27 at 12:47 AM. |
|||
|
2013-09-27, 12:53 AM | [Ignore Me] #90 | ||
Private
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, a break in your internet argument here please.
NON PAID SPOKESMAN ALERT: I used to be in Mercs but had to take a break from the game when I was attacked by a horse on my farm and lost the use of my right hand. Just saying in the mindset of transparency, they booted me about a month or so ago I think for non activity. BACK TO THE POST I see this thread spiraling out of control, kind of like the plot line of The Little Mermaid 2 You had a princess and a prince, trying to protect their daughter from the second cousin twice removed of the villain from the first movie. Everyone is all up in each others face, you have a retarded seagull and McFish sandwich teaming up with an angry crab to do side quests, plenty of musical numbers and a thrilling conclusion brought to a conclusion in classic Disney straight to movie style in where the daughter is finally allowed to make her own decision about her future and she decides to become a mermaid , like her mother before her. I see two sides of an argument here yelling screaming etc about a game. Two sides, the game Folks, the game here, is the daughter from the Little Mermaid. We all want the best for our daughter (IE the game hence we support a clearly fashion challenged Smedly at SOE Live) but instead of helping the game progress, IE have FUN at the game, we are here arguing back and forth. You all take a step back from the edge of the ocean here and start enjoying this game again. And now back to your regularly scheduled troll v troll argument. Last edited by Shortwave; 2013-09-27 at 12:54 AM. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|