Just to insert myself here...after that thread last year I played Ikari as a Mercenary Company for Yu Jing against JSA at Kurage Station...just because the idea to me just appeared to be fucking cool. Wrote a little narrative for this (usually I just sticked to reporting the battle from a player's perspective without any fluff) and is was overall quite well recieved. I really think about having a Speculo lead a squad of unsespecting humans into a deadly trap...just to have them lose the battle (or maybe win...who knows)...and then make this into a cool story. I'd say: go with whatever feels fine and have fun. Set up a nice table, field painted minis if you can, take some cool pictures and make that story work. That's what a campaign should be all about. I dislike an all too strict set of rules just because there might be subjections of cheating or manipulating the campaign. "Winning" in a campaign to me is more like creating a nice set of cool games that me and my opponents really enjoy, and that people on the console like to read as well.
I'm in complete agreement. As a matter of fact, I'll give a BR with at least an attempt at narrative a better score than a solid "just the facts, ma'am" BR because I think people trying to tie their battles into the larger story is kind of the point.
So if everyone can play any faction for any faction whats the use of the factions on the campaign? I agree that fun is important but it feels like it won't really reflect anything. So personally I don't like it but thats just my personal opinion.
I guess there is a huge difference between playing the full campaign for faction X with army Y and just throwing in one or two single games with other armies. I agree that the former shouldn't be the way to go and players should in general stick to their faction, while the latter can just be really cool as a nice variation.
If one wants to play with a different faction, then don't report the game in the campaign. Just have fun. Last week I played one game with a friend that don't want to participate in the campaign and because of that I didn't report the game, even though I won. Playing with one army and then reporting the game to score the points while using a different account... that's a new level of "gaming the system": https://asteroidblues.warconsole.com/battles/deputy_carabay-vs-boardron-1569445841#comment-33864
Why though? None of my immediate meta want to get involved in the campaign, but they are happy to play campaign missions against me. If I didn't or wasn't allowed to report those games, then I wouldn't be able to play in the campaign. :< At the end of the day, we the players, have sort of been left having to make our own narrative for this campaign given that there has been no videos or articles since the start, and I suspect the only thing that will get posted will be the announcement moving into Phase Two. To that regard, I'm not so sure that using a variation of your own name, used in a fluffy/narrative fitting manner can really be considered 'gaming the system'. Especially when the IC banter between the factions involved as been so good.
This is a fluff campaign, the important thing is the narrative that is being built and if people like it. This is no competition in the literal sense of the word, its a playground. So, for me, its not "gaming the system", its "fixing it". Why? Because a lot of people have being complaining about NA2 and how it works, that they would like to play mercs in their loved faction. Should i ban that someone wanting to play Starco in Nomads does so? No im not. It feels fluffy, its cool, and it fits. The action here is another way around, you have a narrative that has been developed between Haqq, Tohaa, Ariadna and O-12. In the end, you have Rogue Tohaa (Tohaa Sentinels), Loyalists Tohaa (Tohaa Trident), Haqquislam, AEC, O-12 and now, Ariadna O-12 Deputies. Im not going to do it myself, because i dont feel like it, as im very Ariadnan and it does not go with my commander ic feelings. But, i find it marvelous this happened, and its something we, as players, are creating, a nice narrative. And again, it feels fluffy, it feels cool, and it fits. If it has those 3 things, thats nice for me. If the platform isnt complex enough to allow this things, its nice that players find a way to do so. For me, the only rule that this should follow is that people playing like this keep the 3 games a day restriction, in any combination between acounts. If you are playing a lot, you are playing a lot, and will report 3 games anyway, that way, you are not gaming the system, as you are not scoring more points than you should. Anyway, this things always go as with alcohol, consume with moderation.
Personally I can see the reasoning behind the complaint, but anything like this should be brought to the attention of the mod team (that's @Koni @psychoticstorm @Bostria @HellLois @Caducus @gamma ray @kurrelgyre @taylor @Zergash @zlavin and TDC-Kirito who's forum handle escapes me). My own intentions were to report a few games as deputised Ariadna, since the current total of O12 models available is very low. Thinking further on it, I can actually put together a few lists with very minimal genuine (in fluff terms) O12 profiles using the O12 tab on army, since I have most of the included mercenaries, and soldiers of fortune allows me to make up the numbers. I could also use every O12 model from wildfire and mercs, but I don't think that would fit in with the theme...
Because if your oponent doesn't participate in the campaign then your report won't dbe linked with another report, and because of that it'll probably be scapped by the "AI historians" when they do their thing at the end of the campaign.
Then, why not proxy? This is encouraged by Corvus Belli and fully supported even in official ITS tournaments.
Because it looks terrible, especially in a narrative campaign. As for the linking reports, that's an additional criteria, if it was mandatory we wouldn't see many reports at all, you want to lower the accessibility level of the event to encourage participation not make it harder for people
I'm not sure that the AI Historian scraps all reports that aren't linked somehow, otherwise it would be an odd campaign result with only like... two games at the end. (Its not that low, obviously.) My understanding of the AI Historian was that it weeded out bad reps. Stuff with like; seven words and picture of an apple in them. Like its been mentioned, I just don't think it takes into account if a rep is linked or not in terms of whether or not the rep is deleted, otherwise, we'd see a lot less in the scores on the doors. Sure, it strengthens a rep, but if you have a ton of images, text and a video already, surely it wouldn't bin it just because it wasn't linked.
Besides the obvious exception of varangian guard, who're basically 45th Highlanders anyway, if we proxied Ariadna minis as O12 profiles we'd be having the same conversation under different circumstances I think. That too, and my only tag is the Anaconda, proxying that as a zeta seems sort of insulting to the zeta...
No, this conversation is about payers making secondary accounts to play with another factions and scoring points in a way that benefit the faction of the primary account. No one has problems with proxying, specially as many times is mandatory because the models don't even exist.
First off I'll say again, anything that you feel goes against the spirit of the campaign should be brought to the attention of the mod team, not the forums at large. Specifically in this instance, if we're talking purely in game terms and ignoring narrative it's hard to see how literally giving up a zone to another faction is to anyone's advantage.
While I agree, that is something that has maybe happened as a result, all be it on a minor level, I just don't think that was the intent. If the Harry lads in question were putting in three reports a day on both their accounts, then that is what that would be. That would be more shifty, but they haven't. Personally, I'm quite content that its been done for narrative reasons, and that's cool with me.
We are debating on the subject, we will make an announcement on the subject when we reach a conclusion
Thanks for weighing in @psychoticstorm we have been more or less acting on assumption and that is a very uncomfortable thing for me personally, and I imagine for many others as well
My perspective is: On a single account, you can make a narrative for pulling in another faction list. I personally have enjoyed the Yu Jing/Pano players narrative. If two seperate accounts are made, that opens a window for manipulation. Even if its not being done, the capability is still there, and that's the problem.
My friend plays JSA but will be fighting for PanO this campaign as JSA doesn't fit comfortably with mercs, especially Ikari who actively thumb their noses at JSA's concept of honor. I don't see any issue with this. It also allows for some very interesting narrative stories, like the sepsitorized forces discussed earlier. I think overall it would make things a lot more interesting.
