78 replies to this topic

[Xetelian]

Mercs work FOR an established faction. They are NOT an established faction...

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 24 December 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

What we have now is "CW 1.0". I would expect before mid-2015 to see a big chunk of "2.0" with their first pass at logistics. Depending on how that goes, CW 3.0 might get on the drawing board for perhaps Q1/2016 is my uninformed conjecture. And perhaps we'll have some real depth in 3.0 that I have been dreaming about since EGA-MPBT died and the EA MPBT project was canceled...

I hope you're right. Expectation management is becoming something of an expert skill, these days, with MWO.

Nightmare1, thanks for the video... I'm not going to watch it all for the umpteenth time, because then I guess I'll expect too much. I'm tired of trying to wait, tired of trying to be okay with the things we get, when it's so far behind the original time-line as to be laughable. Russ needs to speak more clearly.

[Novakaine]

Mer·ce·nar·y

ˈmərsəˌnerē/

adjective
1. (of a person or their behavior) primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics.
"she's nothing but a mercenary little gold digger"

• 
  synonyms: money-oriented, grasping, greedy, acquisitive, avaricious, covetous,bribable, venal, materialistic;
  
  informalmoney-grubbing
  "mercenary self-interest"
  
• 
  1. A professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
  synonyms: soldier of fortune, professional soldier, hired soldier, gunman;
  
  
• 
  
  Cutting and pasting is horrible.

Edited by Novakaine, 24 December 2014 - 03:46 PM.

[MechaBattler]

What they should do. Is make it possible to create a periphery faction if your unit has the right achievement, a lot of C-bills, and rep up with the faction on which the periphery you want is located. Then you have to push in from that periphery. But also the number of periphery planets should be limited, so if another unit decides to challenge you for, and it's your only planet, you can lose your periphery faction status.

This means you are NOT a mercenary group anymore. You've ascended, or descending depending on how you look at it, to a different status.

Edited by MechaBattler, 24 December 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Kyrie]

Just after Clans were released, I conjectured that the only real revenue path left open to the game developers was to invest significantly in CW; leveraging CW as a long-term source of recurring revenues. The Clan sales were, clearly, the last really big hit in terms of one-time revenues this game was likely to achieve. There is no "great new content" that can be added to the game except, perhaps, in the form of CW. That is, in terms of the content-production-revenue model that PGI has adopted: new mechs = massive revenue boosts. The unique nature of Clan Tech and the interest it spurred is not going to be duplicated again.

With the plan to release MWO on Steam, I am torn between great optimism and worry about the future of the game. I believe it would be fair to conjecture that MWO has attracted as much of the "native fan base" as can be expected. The people who know about BT have been exposed to MWO for quite a while now and, unfortunately, it is not realistic to expect to grow that market segment much further in terms of new-user-revenues. The Steam release, from a business and marketing perspective, is PGI's last big chance to get a lot of new players into the game. The worry I have is that since we have probably maxed out on BT-fan exposure, what is left is trying to bring new people into the game; bringing in people who might not care at all for the complexities we hardcore fans really want.

The current fashion in F2P games that are trying to be MMOs is to appeal to as casual an audience as possible. The model that I see most often is a marketing-driven high-churn one: get as many new users as possible to try the game instead of focusing on player retention. PGI has not really followed this model, they have been focusing their revenue generation on retaining customers by their new-content-revenue model alluded to earlier.

The real concern that I have for the future of CW, and thus our hardcore passion for the game itself, is implicitly stated in Russ' announcement of CW.

Taken from the post Russ made announcing CW (http://mwomercs.com/...46#entry3983946) :

Quote

[color=#00FFFF]This phase 2 release of CW is certainly not the absolute end game product that fulfills every desire of the hard core Battletech player, but I don't want to minimize it either, it's truly a game changer. MechWarrior players have never been able to experience anything like this before. That comment is not meant to take away from MPBT: 3025 that product has my full respect but it was around for a very short window and only playable by a small amount of players who were willing to pay by the hour. Within Community Warfare I anticipate we will see hundreds if not thousands of matches played every day within this concept of fighting for the great factions of the inner sphere with planets changing possession and the map reflecting that.[/color]

Russ acknowledges MPBT, but he is also implicitly drawing distinctions that have several implications for our CW desires. I will now engage in wild conjecture and speculation:

1) PGI is attempting to keep CW as simple as possible to appeal to as wide a market as possible. It is logically easier to develop and maintain a simple CW mode rather than something as complicated as MPBT was.
2) Attempting to do something that approaches MPBT's complexity has several issues with scaling; implementing MPBT mechanics in PGI's post-Steam-release crowd of non-lore players could be quite a challenge.
3) Appealing to the Steam casual player thus limits the potential for complexity in CW.

All that being said, I am optimistic that we will see "more" to CW. But I am fairly certain we aren't getting all we had back in 1992, or in EA's aborted 3025 reboot. ;-)

[Jack Corban]

Kay Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 07:10 PM, said:

If you don't understand the BattleTech universe, and you don't understand what it takes to build a unit from scratch, then you are incapable of understanding what it is I'm talking about. I've been around since 1984 in BattleTech, and my mercenary unit has existed since mid-late 1985 on the tabletop and late 1997 in the computer games played online. Of course, for those who've not put very much work into their units, who are just collections of players in the game, and little more, if anything, then you wouldn't understand the labor of love this has been. If your only concern for the game universe resides, at present, in the combat simulator of this game, then it's not possible for you to understand what I'm talking about; if you have little or no history in the game universe, then you just don't know, period.

Dude if you knew anything about the Battletech Lore you'd know that mercs never owned their own part of the IS Map. They allways traveled from one gig to another. Thats What mercs do, they are guns for hire.

[Creovex]

Jack Corban, on 25 December 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

Dude if you knew anything about the Battletech Lore you'd know that mercs never owned their own part of the IS Map. They allways traveled from one gig to another. Thats What mercs do, they are guns for hire.

We have tried to convey that over and over but someone.... not to be named... wants to turn Mercs into a their own faction, with his own logo, that can take over the whole map and calm his near 40 year quest to dominate in BT....

Edited by Creovex, 25 December 2014 - 05:10 PM.

[Ace Selin]

Merc units work fine in CW. They fight for an establisehd House, that pays for their services. They get favour from Houses they fight for and disdain/disadvantage from Houses they fight against.

[Nightmare1]

I don't think the issue is so much that the Mercs should be their own faction on par with the IS Houses, but rather that Mercs don't really exist. Case in point, I wanted to be a Merc Pilot, but am forced to play as a Steiner pilot because PGI has not implemented Merc Life into the game.

If any of you would watch the CW Explanation Video quoted below, I think you would understand the frustration Merc Pilots are feeling:

Nightmare1, on 24 December 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Simply put, players were expecting something more from CW than what we are seeing, with three distinct "lives." Each of the three lives corresponded to Clans, IS, and Mercs. Instead, we simply have Faction Pilots who sign a lifetime contract, and Faction pilots who do not sign a lifetime contract. The immersion and "life" promised in the video is not present.

Now, all that being said, we are in the Beta for CW. Given PGI's track record over the last year, and their recent press releases stating that they will continue moving forward to develop and refine CW, I am confident that something similar to the video description will eventually be obtained. It has to be, otherwise the novelty of CW will wear off soon and the player population will start to drop off over time.

To sum up, when I hear discussion about Mercs as a Faction, there seems to frequently be a bit of a misunderstanding. I just want to point out that most Merc Pilots I see advocating for Mercs to be recognized as a Faction, are not picketing for them to be implemented in the manner of Davior or Clan Wolf, but merely as a third party system with it's own rewards. Rather than "Steiner Rank 1" or "Clan Jade Falcon Rank 10," they would have a "Wolf's Dragoons" or "Black Thornes" or "Crazy Eights" ranking system (Wolf's Dragoons was referenced in the video). Essentially, being a Clanner, IS Loyalist, or Merc would provide its own unique rewards, pros, and cons. Mercs would continue to work for the various Factions of the IS and Clans, but would be recognized as a third kind of party affiliation and play style.

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 25 December 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

The real concern that I have for the future of CW, and thus our hardcore passion for the game itself, is implicitly stated in Russ' announcement of CW.

Russ acknowledges MPBT, but he is also implicitly drawing distinctions that have several implications for our CW desires. I will now engage in wild conjecture and speculation:

All that being said, I am optimistic that we will see "more" to CW. But I am fairly certain we aren't getting all we had back in 1992, or in EA's aborted 3025 reboot. ;-)

My question is this... games are supposed to be challenging -not to the point of anger, but challenging nonetheless-, so why in the hell is PGI worried about making Unit Management challenging, it should be... Mercenary Unit Management should be really difficult, indeed, so you don't have over 2,500 distinct mercenary units in the game, for pete's sake. Those who are elite on the battlefield get to be elite, there, and no one gets to touch them. Those with the proper logistical and management skills should get to do so outside the battlefield, and have it affect how things work on the battlefield, what worlds are contracted for attack or defense, for objective-based warfare, etc. Anyone who isn't into the management aspects never has to deal with them, as it is... why should it be any different for a very robust version -more than what was explained to us in that video- of Merc Unit Management? Let those who are elite on the battlefield, be elite, those who lead well on the battlefield, lead, and those who can perform the logistical necessities of keeping on a unit together outside the battlefield, do so.

Jack Corban, on 25 December 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

Dude if you knew anything about the Battletech Lore you'd know that mercs never owned their own part of the IS Map. They allways traveled from one gig to another. Thats What mercs do, they are guns for hire.

And... wrong again... I think you'd better read up. Northwind was given to the Northwind Highlanders -not as a preserve to manage, but as a home, as it belongs to NWH- to get them away from House Liao. Outreach was a very important world, unbeknownst to Hanse Davion, when he gave it to Wolf's Dragoons. The Kell Hounds were give guard of the entirety of the Lyon's Thumb by Katrina Steiner before she died, and that's several planets. Mercenaries not only are granted tracts of land for their work for the realm, but are granted entire planets to rule.

However, all of you seem to miss what it was I was trying to say... and you keep trying to shove it into the conversation, ignorantly I might add; I am not advocating for individuals to own any territory or put up their own little fiefdom's, nor am I advocating for mercenary units to have the same type of authority, or ability to seize anything like the House's or the Clan's do, but I'm also saying that mercenary units should not be required to grab onto a new set of apron strings every seven, fourteen, or twenty-eight days, nor to permanently ally themselves with a house. Do you think the Kell Hounds or the Grey Death Legion wouldn't leave the House to which they have some modicum of loyalty if the House began to treat them poorly, and/or there was a better opportunity away from that House?

Oh, and Mercs DO NOT FIGHT FOR THE CLANS, period!!! PGI has this all fracked up, and even the Clans are complaining about it. They want their master race without Inner Sphere interference.

So, for the love of Mike, get your bloody story straight; especially you, Crevice, you're the most ignorant of the bunch.

Nightmare1, on 25 December 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

I don't think the issue is so much that the Mercs should be their own faction on par with the IS Houses, but rather that Mercs don't really exist. Case in point, I wanted to be a Merc Pilot, but am forced to play as a Steiner pilot because PGI has not implemented Merc Life into the game.

To sum up, when I hear discussion about Mercs as a Faction, there seems to frequently be a bit of a misunderstanding. I just want to point out that most Merc Pilots I see advocating for Mercs to be recognized as a Faction, are not picketing for them to be implemented in the manner of Davior or Clan Wolf, but merely as a third party system with it's own rewards. Rather than "Steiner Rank 1" or "Clan Jade Falcon Rank 10," they would have a "Wolf's Dragoons" or "Black Thornes" or "Crazy Eights" ranking system (Wolf's Dragoons was referenced in the video). Essentially, being a Clanner, IS Loyalist, or Merc would provide its own unique rewards, pros, and cons. Mercs would continue to work for the various Factions of the IS and Clans, but would be recognized as a third kind of party affiliation and play style.

There you go... that's what I'm most interested in. I want to make the destiny of my Merc unit possible, the identity of my merc unit unique among merc unit's, House's, and Clan's, Periphery and Pirate state's, and the St. Ives Compact and Free Rasalhague Republic. Right now, as PGI have it, there is NO uniqueness among merc units, we are simply hammers to be set against everything else.

My mercenary unit has a long story to it, something I worked VERY hard to build out of the legitimate works FASA Corporation, Wizkids, Topps, Fantasy Productions, and now Catalyst Game Labs, from all of the following sources...

BIBLOIOGRAPHY
Some elements of this book may be found in previous BattleTech sourcebooks:
General
1630 – The Star League – © 1988 FASA Corporation
1634 – NAIS Military Atlas Volume I: The Fourth Succession War, August 3028 to January 3029 – © 1988 FASA Corporation
1635 – NAIS Military Atlas Volume II: The Fourth Succession War, January 3029 to January 3030 – © 1989 FASA Corporation
1639 – 20 Year Update – © 1989 FASA Corporation
1688 – Chaos March – © 1995 FASA Corporation
1724 – Inner Sphere – © 2000 FASA Corporation
10974 – FedCom Civil War – © 2002 FanPro, LLC
35014 – Classic BattleTech Historical, War of 3039 – © 2005 FanPro, LLC
Clan Books
1645 – Invading Clans – © 1994 FASA Corporation
1709 – The Clans: Warriors of Kerensky – © 1999 FASA Corporation
House Books
1620 – House Kurita: The Draconis Combine – © 1987 FASA Corporation
1621 – House Steiner: The Lyran Commonwealth – © 1987 FASA Corporation
1622 – House Marik: The Free World’s League – © 1988 FASA Corporation
1623 – House Davion: The Federated Suns – © 1988 FASA Corporation
1624 – House Liao: The Capellan Confederation – © 1988 FASA Corporation
1698 – Field Manual: Draconis Combine – © 1996 FASA Corporation
1699 – Field Manual: Free World’s League – © 1997 FASA Corporation
1717 – Field Manual: Capellan Confederation – © 2000 FASA Corporation
1719 – Field Manual: Federated Suns – © 2000 FASA Corporation
1720 – Field Manual: Lyran Alliance – © 2000 FASA Corporation
MechWarrior
1607 – MechWarrior: The BattleTech Role-Playing Game – © 1986 FASA Corporation
1641 – MechWarrior 2^nd Edition: The BattleTech Role-Playing Game – © 1991 FASA Corporation
1671 – MechWarrior Companion – © 1995 FASA Corporation
1715 – MechWarrior 3^rd Edition: The BattleTech Role-Playing Game – © 1999 FASA Corporation
10975 – Classic BattleTech Companion – © 2003 FanPro, LLC
35030 – Classic BattleTech RPG – © 2006 FanPro, LLC
Mercenaries
1606 – Foxes Teeth: The Exploits of McKinnon’s Raiders – © 1984 FASA Corporation
1616 – Mercenary’s Handbook – © 1987 FASA Corporation
1631 – Wolf’s Dragoons – © 1989 FASA Corporation
1670 – Mercenary’s Handbook: 3055 – © 1993 FASA Corporation
1701 – Field Manual: Mercenaries – © 1997 FASA Corporation
35016 – Mercenary’s Supplemental – © 2004-5 FanPro, LLC
35025 – Mercenary’s Supplemental II – © 2005 FanPro, LLC
Periphery
1629 – The Periphery – © 1988 FASA Corporation
Technical Readouts
1619 – DropShips and JumpShips – © 1988 FASA Corporation
8603 – BattleTech Technical Readout 3025 – © 1986 FASA Corporation
8606 – BattleTech Technical Readout 3026 – © 1987 FASA Corporation
8613 – BattleTech Technical Readout 2750 – © 1989 FASA Corporation
8614 – BattleTech Technical Readout 3050 – © 1996 FASA Corporation
Web Sites (in order of importance)
Classic BattleTech (http://www.classicbattletech.com)
Inner Sphere Cartography Society (http://iscs.teamspam.net)
Inner Sphere Atlas (http://isatlas.teamspam.net)
BattleTech Wiki (http://www.sarna.net)
Armageddon Unlimited (http://www.wolvesau.net/AU)

I simply want to be able to showcase the things I've done, to have that uniqueness and richness available for those who wouldn't mind actually reading it. Many of you in this thread would deny me that right, deny me the possibility. Well, I hope Kyrie and Nightmare1 are absolutely right, and all of the rest of you who doubt or naysay are made to suck it.

Time to start my movie... have a good night.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 25 December 2014 - 09:52 PM, said:

My question is this... games are supposed to be challenging -not to the point of anger, but challenging nonetheless-, so why in the hell is PGI worried about making Unit Management challenging, it should be... Mercenary Unit Management should be really difficult, indeed, so you don't have over 2,500 distinct mercenary units in the game, for pete's sake. Those who are elite on the battlefield get to be elite, there, and no one gets to touch them. Those with the proper logistical and management skills should get to do so outside the battlefield, and have it affect how things work on the battlefield, what worlds are contracted for attack or defense, for objective-based warfare, etc. Anyone who isn't into the management aspects never has to deal with them, as it is... why should it be any different for a very robust version -more than what was explained to us in that video- of Merc Unit Management? Let those who are elite on the battlefield, be elite, those who lead well on the battlefield, lead, and those who can perform the logistical necessities of keeping on a unit together outside the battlefield, do so.

The question you raised is perfectly logical, if we start from the premise of making an awesome game in the form of an art-project or to appeal to a very specific niche with a proven market. The waters become muddied when attempting to build a game that is generating a good return-on-investment. Permit me to put on my arm-char game-designer and amateur business analyst hat and elaborate on my previous post.

At whatever period of the accounting cycle you wish to start from, there will be a fundamental bit of math that will boil down to:
[Revenues] minus [Expenses]. In PGI's case the most significant expense has to be their staff, followed by data-center costs and lastly things like rent, utilities, insurance and so on. There is a further complication in regards to MWO: money invested into further development of MWO runs a few uncontrollable risks such as whether they will be able to renew their license to continue operating MWO. The business reality might then become an analysis along the lines of:

1) How much development can I afford to put into CW in light of: age of the game, licensing, and market appeal (market segment).
2) From a game design perspective, at what point does making awesome/cool CW features detract from revenues by driving people away from CW by making it too complicated?
3) How does CW fit into the monetizaton strategy? How do I recover my development costs for CW?
4) When do I reach the point of diminishing returns, when does focusing development on CW detract from overall revenues by ignoring the casual market?

As has been revealed in a few previous occasions by Russ, IGP was the stopping force that had held back CW for an extended period of time. When performing an analysis such as the one I suggest, IGP decided it clearly was not worth spending money on CW for a variety of reasons we can speculate on. As a player, I certainly resent the fact that they did not forge ahead with CW back in early 2013; as a dispassionate observer I can understand the concerns behind their choice.

PGI is, at this stage, threading the needle. I will conjecture the following, for the sake of discussion:

1) MWO has a declining user-base
2) Realistically speaking, the upcoming focus on Steam release is the key for MWO surviving up to the next license renewal period
3) All development must, rationally, focus on obtaining success in the Steam release.

The question then becomes: How does CW fit into the Steam release?

PGI has to make a very calculated decision in how to position MWO and CW within the Steam market. Steam games in the F2P segment, IMHO, share this characteristic: very high churn (players coming and going). The trend in recent MMO design, again IMHO, has been favoring simplification -- appealing to the casual market. High churn must be accommodated by a "lack of complexity" in order to keep revenues flowing; the Steam marketing platform permits extension of the game's longevity. Steam takes 30% off the top; Steam basically becomes your main marketing and advertising line-item.

Taking all of this into account, it is perhaps difficult for PGI to invest significant resources into making a complex CW system until significant design work and analysis is done to answer the questions I am suggesting in this thread ...

I feel certain that there are adequate answers to permit a complex CW system within the horribly casual Steam-market. But caution and concern by PGI is perfectly warranted -- it is a significant business risk.

[MoonfireSpam]

Unless you can elaborate on how these logistics will improve or impact gameplay from a Mech Sim POV there's not that much to discuss beyond semantics.

If all you want is a trophy wall or something then fair enough.

If you want lore behind your own merc unit based on CW battles, there's blogs and websites, would be nice for it to be displayed in game, but reviewing user submitted written content is a ballache I don't think anyone that works in games wants.

Some in game units are already kinda famous just for being good, I guess in the same vein as the "Great Merc Units".

Edited by MoonfireSpam, 26 December 2014 - 12:48 AM.

[PeRRaKo]

I'm with Kay on this one. What they promised us and what they gave us are two very different things.
What we have now is a minimally viable product. Beta, yeah, I know that excuse already.

Mercs were supposed to be able to fight for and own periphery planets, manage logistics, economy, jumpships, dropships, etc.
What we have now? Just a "point and click" on a fancy map to fight a repetitive game mode.

CW has a HUGE potential, check the NBT League Rules for example. I'm not asking for ALL that, but something in-between. And don't go the route "It's too hard!". I know that for PGI anything decent seems to be too hard, but it's not, really, they just need to be willing to do a good job. After all they are video games developers aren't they?

That being said, they began working on CW just a couple months ago (after they've been lying to our faces for years) so it's not that bad as long as they continue to develop the current CW and adding functionalities and stuff and diversify the things to do. Maybe in another six months we will have a great CW.
But until they do, the current CW is kind of "meh".

EDIT: typos

Edited by PeRRaKo, 27 December 2014 - 06:18 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, I understand what you, and also my former compatriot in AU are getting at, I've always understood it, but I'm afraid I'm still in the camp that PGI said certain things were going to get done, and those things should get done. Here's to HOPING they actually will; and, yes, I expect them to figure out how to make it work. There have been times in my life where I have not been able to do things I said I would do, at that time, but I have always accomplished what I said I was going to do, and I figured out how to make it happen if I found myself short on resources, and have defended, where necessary, the work I had accomplished.

Going back to what Russ expressed in the latest Town Hall, I really do hope he simply mis-spoke. While I don't believe in the side that says "Not One Penny Extra/More" until these things are done -I purchase what I can afford when I can afford it, and if I want it-, like much of this community, I am reticent to spend money until these things are done. Russ also said they're working more on retention than turn-over (what you have termed "churn", Kyrie), it's obvious he's not happy about having to use Steam, and if the former is true and they want to ensure long-term customers, they need to get these things together they said they would do. I have said it many times, before, have had dozens of likes, as far as I know, each time about supporting this game until the servers burn out, hundreds of dollars worth just from me for nothing that I would be able to take with me in the end, if PGI would simply do what they said -notice, again, I have not said promised- they would. I know for a fact I'm not the only one who would, but right now none of us can support this game in great measure because it's already a shadow of what it was supposed to be. Why invest the money if we've not had the things we were told we would have, and the game is going downhill as a result?

Here's what else I would do... and it would be difficult for me to do (trust and money), but I would... if PGI would lay out a solid time-line to accomplish the things they've said they wanted to do from the September 2013 game launch video to the most recent Community Warfare postings, and did actually PROMISE to accomplish them within the remainder of this fiscal year (late-September 2014 to early-October 2015), giving benchmark ranges, not solid dates, I would pledge to spend more money on this game in support of that effort. However, those things NEED to be done, and allowing merc units to have an IDENTITY, not just a tag in-game, is already an important part of that mix. I would also put the promise post link all over the various accounts I have to support Armageddon Unlimited, in support of PGI, in an attempt to get others to come to this site and put their money toward a product many among the BattleTech and MechWarrior community are now loathe to support. Notice I didn't say anything about refunds, I didn't say anything about how much PGI was supposed to promise -though it would have to be significant to get others more involved-, just an outline of the things they will accomplish during the remainder of the fiscal year, and if they made the most honest effort possible, communicated about why anything on that list couldn't be accomplished and didn't cry about inequities, they would keep all of that money.

How's that for a risk, PGI?

[Creovex]

Kay Wolf, on 26 December 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

Here's what else I would do... and it would be difficult for me to do (trust and money), but I would... if PGI would lay out a solid time-line to accomplish the things they've said they wanted to do from the September 2013 game launch video to the most recent Community Warfare postings, and did actually PROMISE to accomplish them within the remainder of this fiscal year (late-September 2014 to early-October 2015), giving benchmark ranges, not solid dates, I would pledge to spend more money on this game in support of that effort. However, those things NEED to be done, and allowing merc units to have an IDENTITY, not just a tag in-game, is already an important part of that mix. I would also put the promise post link all over the various accounts I have to support Armageddon Unlimited, in support of PGI, in an attempt to get others to come to this site and put their money toward a product many among the BattleTech and MechWarrior community are now loathe to support. Notice I didn't say anything about refunds, I didn't say anything about how much PGI was supposed to promise -though it would have to be significant to get others more involved-, just an outline of the things they will accomplish during the remainder of the fiscal year, and if they made the most honest effort possible, communicated about why anything on that list couldn't be accomplished and didn't cry about inequities, they would keep all of that money.

How's that for a risk, PGI?

If PGI doesn't waste time and resources on your "own personal crusade" , they get my money. See how that works

Lets be honest here Kay, you are promising an exhausted resource (BT/Mechwarrior communities members) and most of them are burnt and not coming back regardless of your reputation or where you post it. That market is exhausted, the game has been around long enough that only people who jump into it WITHOUT past knowledge will help it grow. Truthfully, PGI needs to tap into the CoD / BF4 market. PGI was smart to not put MWO on Steam till now. Hawken and Titanfall have crumbled and their are gamers out there who can be picked up.... There is future revenue but they need to forget about your Merc quest and get the "new player experience", the "new player queues" and some of the player retaining elements going.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 26 December 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

Kyrie, I understand what you, and also my former compatriot in AU are getting at, I've always understood it, but I'm afraid I'm still in the camp that PGI said certain things were going to get done, and those things should get done. Here's to HOPING they actually will; and, yes, I expect them to figure out how to make it work. There have been times in my life where I have not been able to do things I said I would do, at that time, but I have always accomplished what I said I was going to do, and I figured out how to make it happen if I found myself short on resources, and have defended, where necessary, the work I had accomplished.

Going back to what Russ expressed in the latest Town Hall, I really do hope he simply mis-spoke. While I don't believe in the side that says "Not One Penny Extra/More" until these things are done -I purchase what I can afford when I can afford it, and if I want it-, like much of this community, I am reticent to spend money until these things are done. Russ also said they're working more on retention than turn-over (what you have termed "churn", Kyrie), it's obvious he's not happy about having to use Steam, and if the former is true and they want to ensure long-term customers, they need to get these things together they said they would do. I have said it many times, before, have had dozens of likes, as far as I know, each time about supporting this game until the servers burn out, hundreds of dollars worth just from me for nothing that I would be able to take with me in the end, if PGI would simply do what they said -notice, again, I have not said promised- they would. I know for a fact I'm not the only one who would, but right now none of us can support this game in great measure because it's already a shadow of what it was supposed to be. Why invest the money if we've not had the things we were told we would have, and the game is going downhill as a result?

Here's what else I would do... and it would be difficult for me to do (trust and money), but I would... if PGI would lay out a solid time-line to accomplish the things they've said they wanted to do from the September 2013 game launch video to the most recent Community Warfare postings, and did actually PROMISE to accomplish them within the remainder of this fiscal year (late-September 2014 to early-October 2015), giving benchmark ranges, not solid dates, I would pledge to spend more money on this game in support of that effort. However, those things NEED to be done, and allowing merc units to have an IDENTITY, not just a tag in-game, is already an important part of that mix. I would also put the promise post link all over the various accounts I have to support Armageddon Unlimited, in support of PGI, in an attempt to get others to come to this site and put their money toward a product many among the BattleTech and MechWarrior community are now loathe to support. Notice I didn't say anything about refunds, I didn't say anything about how much PGI was supposed to promise -though it would have to be significant to get others more involved-, just an outline of the things they will accomplish during the remainder of the fiscal year, and if they made the most honest effort possible, communicated about why anything on that list couldn't be accomplished and didn't cry about inequities, they would keep all of that money.

How's that for a risk, PGI?

I'll go one further, Kay. If PGI were to start a kickstarter type deal now for CW 3.0, with hardcore logistics, unit identity, house military command structures and units I would gladly become a Legendary Founder again for it. :-)

[Threat Doc]

I would do that, AND continue to support on a bi-weekly or monthly basis. I would actually put my money where my mouth is. I already have been, with purchasing MC for conversion and buying my Hellslinger, but as I am getting back to a regular life, that will become more...

[Nightmare1]

I just hope the CW that eventually comes into being will closely resemble that promised in the vid. If so, then CW will truly be epic!

...I also could really go for those contracts they discussed! It'd be hilarious if I could put out a bounty on someone I know, lol.

[Rebas Kradd]

Kay Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 07:10 PM, said:

If you don't understand the BattleTech universe, and you don't understand what it takes to build a unit from scratch, then you are incapable of understanding what it is I'm talking about. I've been around since 1984 in BattleTech, and my mercenary unit has existed since mid-late 1985 on the tabletop and late 1997 in the computer games played online. Of course, for those who've not put very much work into their units, who are just collections of players in the game, and little more, if anything, then you wouldn't understand the labor of love this has been. If your only concern for the game universe resides, at present, in the combat simulator of this game, then it's not possible for you to understand what I'm talking about; if you have little or no history in the game universe, then you just don't know, period.

Get off your high horse. None of what you've just said is a trump card for disqualifying people from the argument, as much as you'd like it to be.

I get your loyalty to the IP and roleplaying, but you are notorious for recommending things that are impractical for a video game. You have to consider that that's what this is. That's just the harsh reality of things.