128 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

Bullshit. This is an argument, and has been for the past few weeks.

Calm down. Take a breath. Discuss, instead of rant. Everything will be ok...

Noesis, on 28 January 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

Totally agree as this could be so easily open to abuse.

Just for the record, I am not advocating for any sort of player control over other players.

[Noesis]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

Just for the record, I am not advocating for any sort of player control over other players.

My comment wasn't a critique of your posting Cimarb, I was generally agreeing with the statement as proposed by peter2000. And it is something that the developers will be aware of in the chaos of modern gaming.

Hence I guess why MWO is not a sandbox game.

[Kjudoon]

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

Even if you want to try to play the Lore and Diplomacy cards, you're still missing the obvious gameplay benefits to Mercs hopping around.

Two weeks ago, Clan Smoke Jaguar was reduced to a handful of core worlds after being nearly completely devoured by Clan Ghost Bear. PGI offered double contract bonuses to any Mercs willing to fight under their flag.

Today, Clan Smoke Jaguar has more total planets than Clan Ghost Bear. In response to this, PGI has removed their contract boost. QQ has already left CSJ, and I'd imagine 228 will be leaving in a couple days at most. Will this bring Clan Smoke Jaguar back into line with its competition (ie, Clan Ghost Bear)? Probably.

Mercs are necessary. Mercs switching houses on a short-term basis is necessary.

Yes, this is understood and generally accepted. The problem comes in when we've been seeing repeated accusations of Mercs running False Flag operations. Again, accepted, but factions generally would not allow mercs who betray them to either stay or come back. Sooner or later, the choices for contracts run out as all the factions shun them, forcing them to be pirates.

"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all. This job goes south, there well may not be another. So here is us, on the raggedy edge. Don't push me, and I won't push you. Dong le ma?" Captain Mal Reynolds

This quote needs to be etched in the minds of every faction hopper. You only have so many hops when you act badly before you run out of room or places to hop to.

[Cimarb]

Noesis, on 28 January 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

My comment wasn't a critique of your posting Cimarb, I was generally agreeing with the statement as proposed by peter2000. And it is something that the developers will be aware of in the chaos of modern gaming.

Hence I guess why MWO is not a sandbox game.

I get that, but I just want to make clear where I differ from Prussian. I am only staying my own viewpoint and opinions, not his. I agree with some things he says, and some with you, and some with Vlad, and even some with Peter, etc.

Kjudoon, on 28 January 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

Yes, this is understood and generally accepted. The problem comes in when we've been seeing repeated accusations of Mercs running False Flag operations. Again, accepted, but factions generally would not allow mercs who betray them to either stay or come back. Sooner or later, the choices for contracts run out as all the factions shun them, forcing them to be pirates.

"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all. This job goes south, there well may not be another. So here is us, on the raggedy edge. Don't push me, and I won't push you. Dong le ma?" Captain Mal Reynolds

This quote needs to be etched in the minds of every faction hopper. You only have so many hops when you act badly before you run out of room or places to hop to.

Exactly. Hop all you want, as long as you accept the consequences of doing that, which should be dependent on what you are hopping to/from and how often.

For instance, you may be able to quit your existing job and work for a rival company, but do you think your previous employer is going to want to rehire you? Possibly, but if you do it a month later - again - do you think they will? Highly unlikely.

[Kjudoon]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

I get that, but I just want to make clear where I differ from Prussian. I am only staying my own viewpoint and opinions, not his. I agree with some things he says, and some with you, and some with Vlad, and even some with Peter, etc.


Exactly. Hop all you want, as long as you accept the consequences of doing that, which should be dependent on what you are hopping to/from and how often.

For instance, you may be able to quit your existing job and work for a rival company, but do you think your previous employer is going to want to rehire you? Possibly, but if you do it a month later - again - do you think they will? Highly unlikely.

Tada! GMTA.

But... and you watch... there are people who refuse to accept, and vehemently oppose a need for consequences for their actions. I suspect they weren't spanked enough as a child.

[Noesis]

Kjudoon, on 28 January 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

This quote needs to be etched in the minds of every faction hopper. You only have so many hops when you act badly before you run out of room or places to hop to.

I think factions should be able to "influence" rewards and bonus payements based on good service. But ultimately factions should not have the power to comletely remove contractual options or "control" other players. Its should be by a process of effecting incentives not removal of options.

[Peter2000]

Of course they'll rehire you... because you're crucial to the war effort, and haven't broken your word. You stuck out your fixed-length contract, and then took a different one once you fulfilled the current one's terms. Nothing personal.

Will they pay you a signing bonus? No. Will they welcome contract-length-abiding guns-for-hire? Sure.

Regarding planet "ownership", once we get to the point where that actually has some mechanics behind it we may want to look at more closely (as you suggest Cimarb), but how to handle it will largely depend on the way PGI rewards (or doesn't) ownership. For now, where it's just a tag of who most recently was most instrumental in securing that planet, there's no reason for the tag to go away.

Edited by Peter2000, 28 January 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Forgiveness would happen over extended contract periods. Say 56 days.

Individuals could leave the group and receive grace, but units who continually act badly should ultimately be forced to disband.

Yes I know what I did there.

[Noesis]

I would laso generally be concerned with removing options for relationships to break down as this could simply be a part of the social or diplomatic process.

To think that everything will remain rosey between two player groups or factions is also a skewed perspective.

E.g. what happens if two loyalist faction units do in fact want to enact aggressive politics with each other or even perhaps factional warfare. This "option" should not be removed as a choice. Equally the same concerns then apply in the same context to actually allow for instability to occur.

[Nightmare1]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

"Mercs are mercs, and they are supposed to change faction" is a very narrow minded viewpoint. Clans do not have mercs. They do not accept them. They do not acknowledge them. They do not allow them.

I realize that. I was speaking about Mercs in general. As an IS player, my thoughts were trending towards the IS rather than the Clans.

Clan Mercs was a pretty strange development to me but, short of allowing players to have multiple profiles like in STO, it makes sense from a practical standpoint.

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Yes, mercenaries in the Inner Sphere did change factions, amongst the Houses, but they did not do so without repercussions. You have obviously not read any of the novels/history about the Wolf's Dragoons, for example. Changing factions is a HUGE deal, especially when you change between warring factions. In CW, though? "Meh, who cares"...that is just dumb.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions. Indeed, we already have a form of that in lost LP. What I'm saying is that we do not need severe reprecussions. In short, the "Loyalist" players should not be allowed to penalize the Merc Players simply because the "Loyalist" players are so OCD that they can't stand the irregularity of the Merc Playstyle. Also, they should not erase Units simply because they don't like said Units' Lores (i.e. - Pirates).

As far as novels go, I've actually read most of BT and even wrote a fan-fiction book and short story series to go along with it. I'm quite familiar with the lore, thank you very much. This is a video game though, and certain common-sense allowances must be made to let the game function properly so that players can have fun and PGI can make money.

"Meh, who cares" is the Beta CW and exists because there is no Loyalist, Clan, or Merc Life like what was originally advertised in the CW Launch Trailer two years ago. If those were to be incorporated, then CW would become self-balancing.

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

I want everyone to be able to have fun, but there is a saying, "your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins", and I think that is very fitting here. You have the right to have fun, but it ends where you are stopping me from having fun.

Dude, it's a game. Get over yourself. If what you say holds true, then me killing you on the battlefield would constitute a violation of your principle. Games are meant to be fun, but that there must also be a losing party. You can't win every time and you can't force the outcomes to match your desires all the time. In short, the world does not revolve around you.

I say, if you're so OCD and arrogant that you have to try to micro-manage this game and denigrate anyone who does not heel to your philosophy, that you should get out the video game entirely.

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

CW is supposed to be for the people that care about the lore and a persistent universe, NOT the people that just want to play whatever they feel like that day, and for whoever they feel like that day. If you want to do that, you have the standard game modes to do so in.

Standard Game Modes are for Pugs. CW is for Units. Casual Units are just as welcome to the CW table as anyone else. I daresay that Steiner owes my Unit much for planetary defenses this past month; we do well at that. Soon, Liao shall owe the same debt.

The bottomline is that this is Beta. Chill out and wait for PGI to add more content. Don't be so Elitist that you try to drive away the already small CW player base simply because you want your Happy Meal and you want it now.

Noesis, on 28 January 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

laso

Lassos are OP and need to be nerfed!

[Noesis]

Nightmare1, on 28 January 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

Lassos are OP and need to be nerfed!

lol, sorry, keyboards are too nerfed, I really could do with a neurohelmet to keep up with my own train of thought sometimes.

Kickstarter anyone?

[Nightmare1]

ROFL

[Repasy Cooper]

+1

I think this makes sense because Merc behaviour has been pissing everyone off lately. In a more realistic scenario, Merc units that piss everyone off would be labeled rogue and hunted down to the last man by all factions and 'honorable' mercenaries. But the game currently has no incentive for mercenaries to NOT go rogue, like for example being excommunicated from every faction.

On the matter of a new 'pirate' faction, I think this would be cool, but has to be implemented carefully. What happens if majority of players go pirate? Total anarchy, faction borders become meaningless.

If pirates got implemented I suggest the following:

• If a unit switches factions too often w/o completing contracts, or attempts to leave a faction after declaring total loyalty, the unit is labeled rogue/dark caste.
  
• Pirate units may attack any faction territory/pirate unit territory so long as it borders uncontested territory (outer rim).
  
• Pirate units may not support each other's assaults or defenses.
  
• Individual pugs cannot go rogue, they must be part of a pirate unit.
  
• Pirate units may only use the tech (IS/Clan) of the faction they last left. Rogue uses IStech, Dark Caste uses Clantech.
  
• If a pirate unit claims a system of the opposite tech, the unit may use BOTH techs so long as they hold onto those opposite tech world.
  
• Pirate units may branch out their territory into the outer rim by 'purchasing' unoccupied systems. They cannot branch out to these systems by attacking. This limits all but the strongest, wealthiest pirate units from expanding to these faction-less planets.
  
• Pirates get no loyalty ranks, as they are not part of any faction.
  
• Pirate units gain piratism ranks, similar to faction loyalties except toned down substantially.
  
• Once a unit goes rogue, it can NEVER change its status back. If the players in the unit don't want to be rogue anymore, they have to disband from the unit, and that unit name/tag can never be reused to form a new unit.
  
• Factions may attack ANY planet that was stolen from them by a rogue unit at ANY time. Factions have no limit as to how many attack corridors they can have against pirate systems.
  
• Factions cannot expand into the outer rim by attacking pirate planets that were originally unoccupied and bought by a rogue unit.
  
• IS factions can help other IS factions when defending against pirates, and Clans can help out other Clans when defending against pirates. Attacking a pirate planet can only be done by bordering factions. If more than one faction can attack a pirate planet, the faction that contributes the most to the successful assault gains control of the planet at the ceasefire.
  
• Rogue unit members get a 'Pirate Faction' & 'Dark Caste' insignia, respectively, in place of the standard Merc insignia (something appropriate such as skull & bones/distorted camoran star).
  
• Rogue territory appears as grey w/ crimson borders. Dark Caste territory appears as grey w/ navy borders.
  
• Rogue units limited on drop loadouts. (Either lower max tonnage, or mech perks disabled, or limit so that no individual can bring doubles of a chassis. To be clear, the CHASSIS, not the variant. This would simulate the low-tech, 'motley crew'-like composition of pirate bands.)
  
• Faction/Mercenary players get 2x Loyalty points for successfully beating pirate forces in a match.

With these guidelines in place, it would prevent pirates from completely taking over community warfare, but also provide a challenge for units that want to beat the odds for bragging rights! It should be extremely difficult for units to hold onto large amounts of territory.

Edited by Repasy, 28 January 2015 - 02:56 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Great points one and all, thank you for constructive contributions to this thread.

What these first respondents provided represents an excellent cross-section of our own discussions on this topic.

Please bare with me as I respond to each in turn:

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

There have already been several 20+ page threads relating to this issue...(snip)...

Vlad, what I offer is not just identification of problems and frictions but some real concrete suggestions that would IMHO improve CW gameplay. I intend to expand, adjust my OP based on the debate here, but ALWAYS with an eye towards offering concrete recommendations, ideas and suggestions that SOLVE PROBLEMS not just restate the obvious.

If gamers do not want a viable "BattleTech-flavored" framework in which to game MWO , just then the Public Queues are ideal for them.

To me CW needs to be more than an Eve-like free for all.

LET GAMERS GAME... but within a "Community" framework of minimally invasive Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions. IMO there exists an overriding need for mature dialogue on this issue in an effort to provide PGI the grist with which to refine CW Beta into as real an interactive "BattleTech-like" MWO game mode (CW being one of four currently) as is possible.

It is my fervent belief that if PGI gets CW Launch #JustRight, that concerns over PGI's continued solvency will ameliorate to large degree. (BACKGROUND: I am a Legendary Founder of MechWarrior: Tactics amd am well versed in buying into a game which has its servers turned off and be left with no recourse despite IGP taking Founder money all the way up to the servers being shuttered.)

MW:O is a truly great BattleTech-like combat simulator.

I would give my time and effort in this thread to foster the generation, refinement and recommendation of Community-sourced CW fixes, changes, and content identification/valuation/player-contribution (READ: STEAM WORKSHOP)


Yeah Vlad, it is an ambitious intent, but if I do not at least try to help PGI identify how best to craft a viable, economically successful MWO CW mode, then I will have no one to blame but myself if it fails or turns into a decidedly un-BattleTech-like, Twitch-gamer-centric, inconsequential flash in the MMO pan.

We have a chance to contribute to a better MWO CW, I intend to make the most of this opportunity between now and CW Phase 3 and beyond.

It might be an idea of your's Vlad that PGI seizes upon to significantly tweak MWO CW. Contribute it here or at the VERY informative link you provided. It matters not, just as long as it is posted to the forums and available for PGI's consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Banditman, on 28 January 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

I didn't see anything in that proposal that were punishment / reprisal tools granted to players. I see systematic (read: server side) consequences and reprisals, but nothing being put in the hands of players.

And that was my intent, I hope to accentuate ways and means of realizing a foundational set of organization dynamics and mechanisms into which we can all better enjoy a truly incredible BattleTech-like combat simulator.

IMO Unit actions should have both beneficial counteractions (already in game with contract c-bill and loyalty point bonuses, the fact there is zero Rearm and Refit costs and zero Transportation costs between drops, ect) and realistic detrimental consequences (to include what I describe in the OP)

Now if we all were just to want a game that "gives everyone a gold star" at the end of a match, GREAT! We already have Public Queue Drops of Eternal Deathmatches. Have at it, good gaming and have fun.

But CW is meant to occur within an actual framework where individual 30-minute matches drive Factional acquit ions of entire planets within setting where many hundreds of planets could be "in play" if CW Beta were to last long enough.

I trust some would agree with me on this and would contribute their comments to this thread.

Thank you for your comments.

Mott, on 28 January 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

...(snip)...The flip flopping doesn't bother me at all, especially when compared to all the other failures in CW right now.

Edit to add:
Also, we're just 1 month into CW... it stands to reason that the most meta units, the ones that absolutely love playing the games within the game, would be jumping around for a bit to see how both sides of the new game mode play. They want to make informed decisions before deciding to settle in any one place.

Yes, our Beta needs a lot of player input to assist PGI in crafting the next Phase and any future content additions (maps, Mechs, eras shifts, ect)

Informed decisions are ALWAYS preferable, I am advocating her for a BattleTech-like environment that includes a variable framework for both beneficial and detrimental outcomes to Unit choices, decisions and actions. IMO that was always meant to be a foundational aspect of the CW "hard mode" of MWO.

Thank you for your comments.

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 28 January 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Under repercussions, many faction loyalists are pushing for an in-game method of creating treaties, cease fires, etc. because at the moment, as a member of another unit I am under no obligation to uphold a treaty set forth by the leadership of another unit....(snip)...Now look at Clans Wolf and Smoke Jag, they shat all over their mercs. Look at what it got them, an Exodus of players.

EXACTLY. Gamers should be able to game how they choose and I am NOT advocating to take away ANY gamers right to game however they chose.

What I am saying is that if a Unit proves to be duplicitous, break contracts wantonly, continuously disregards EMPLOYER preferences, takes contract reimbursement without the slightest regard to the EMPLOYER's situation, etc - then that Unit should be increasingly recognized for what it has chosen to be a pirate or bandit Unit, and not one that can post to the forums as if it were a loyal member of any Faction they choose.

UNITS SHOULD REAP WHAT THEY SOW. (IMO)

As too Clan Smoke Jaguar's track record with Mercenaries, I ask anyone who has concerns to find out for yourselves. Pleas see the CSJ Unit pages available here: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4030452

Don't trust to the "role-played" denigration of ANY Faction. Don't take slander as truth. Contact Unit representatives with a Faction already to get the #RealDeal

Remember, as we help PGI to refine and improve CW, it becomes a deeper and more robust gaming experience.

For example, when looking for employment in the #RealWorld would someone want to work somewhere (READ: take a contract) somewhere you had zero idea as to worker conditions? No, of course not. Anyone would look for a current or past employee for which to get a word-of-mouth idea as to the #RealDeal. I would recommend that as MWO CW approaches Phase Three it really should be a consideration for Units looking for a different situation to do some research first.

IMO this level and depth of immersive CW experience will improve gameplay, attract more returning #OriginalMWOgamers, retain more gamers and provide a unique marketing angle when MWO goes to Steam release in the Spring/Summer timeframe.

Nightmare1, on 28 January 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

So...you would restrict Pirates?...(snip)...Seriously, Mercs are Mercs. They are supposed to change Factions...(snip)...We're not too concerned about pleasing everyone and are here for fun. Wanting to penalize us for that is incredibly OCD of you.

On the contrary I advocate for the establishment and embellishment to a True Pirate and Bandit option for ALL gamers to embrace or not... as they individually so choose.

I am championing the creation of disparate, individualistic Minor Factions that would enrich MWO CW in aggregate,

By formally recognizing and providing an Icon/Faction for Pirates and Bandits - a Unit or Individual could choose it on their own, or if over and extended period of time a Unit proves itself worthy of designation as a Pirate or Bandit / alternately a Unit breaks so many tenants of the MRBC that it EARNS the designation of Pirate or Bandit by continually breaking faith with EMPLOYERS then said Unit should be appropriately labeled for all to recognize.

Of course a gamer that leaves said Unit receives a compete amnesty and a clean slate so as to dive back into the immersive MWO CW experience once again.



Please consider...



A UNIT SHOULD SAFEGUARD ITS REPUTATION... a failing of CW currently is that no actions [whether it be COMPLETE observance of employer/Faction intent OR complete repudiation of any semblance of good faith execution of contract (violations of an EMPLOYER's peace agreements for example)] serve as a basis to provide lasting Record of Service background on a Unit.

A true Mercenary Unit knows that a reputation for solid performance within contract stipulations is the ONLY way to ensure future contracts.

I advocate for a measure of Unit accountability.

For example 228 has performed heroic and near meticulously contract-precise service while under a Clan Smoke Jaguar contract IMO. Sure there was some miscommunication and false initial reporting implicating 228 in duplicitous behavior.

But on the whole 228 has been a very model of superior 2-week contract performance.

I only wish it had been in my capability to vote on a contract BONUS for 228.

While it is a pittance I have 100m c-bills that I would contribute toward this Contract - Recognition of Superior Performance (especially if PGI added matching funds!!!!!!!)



Just consider that for a minute...



Both beneficial and detrimental outcomes should be possible under CW, with it all dependent on Unit actions and NEVER role-playing.

The faction that is most inclusive, provides dynamic purpose, direction and motivation and is most successful at Recruiting, Retention and Mercenary Relations SHOULD be in position to compel the best CW outcomes.


And finally I thank you for your comments.

[Nightmare1]

Prussian Havoc, on 28 January 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

On the contrary I advocate for the establishment and embellishment to a True Pirate and Bandit option for ALL gamers to embrace or not... as they individually so choose.

I am championing the creation of disparate, individualistic Minor Factions that would enrich MWO CW in aggregate,

By formally recognizing and providing an Icon/Faction for Pirates and Bandits - a Unit or Individual could choose it on their own, or if over and extended period of time a Unit proves itself worthy of designation as a Pirate or Bandit / alternately a Unit breaks so many tenants of the MRBC that it EARNS the designation of Pirate or Bandit by continually breaking faith with EMPLOYERS then said Unit should be appropriately labeled for all to recognize.

Of course a gamer that leaves said Unit receives a compete amnesty and a clean slate so as to dive back into the immersive MWO CW experience once again.

Ah, I must've misread your post then.

Frankly, I'd bite that! It sounds great!

Prussian Havoc, on 28 January 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

UNIT SHOULD SAFEGUARD ITS REPUTATION... a failing of CW currently is that no actions [whether it be COMPLETE observance of employer/Faction intent OR complete repudiation of any semblance of good faith execution of contract (violations of an EMPLOYER's peace agreements for example)] serve as a basis to provide lasting Record of Service background on a Unit.

A true Mercenary Unit knows that a reputation for solid performance within contract stipulations is the ONLY way to ensure future contracts.

I advocate for a measure of Unit accountability.

For example 228 has performed heroic and near meticulously contract-precise service while under a Clan Smoke Jaguar contract IMO. Sure there was some miscommunication and false initial reporting implicating 228 in duplicitous behavior.

But on the whole 228 has been a very model of superior 2-week contract performance.

I only wish it had been in my capability to vote on a contract BONUS for 228.

While it is a pittance I have 100m c-bills that I would contribute toward this Contract - Recognition of Superior Performance (especially if PGI added matching funds!!!!!!!)

Just consider that for a minute...

Both beneficial and detrimental outcomes should be possible under CW, with it all dependent on Unit actions and NEVER role-playing.

The faction that is most inclusive, provides dynamic purpose, direction and motivation and is most successful at Recruiting, Retention and Mercenary Relations SHOULD be in position to compel the best CW outcomes.

And finally I thank you for your comments.

Yeah, all that was mentioned in Brian Ekyman's Launch Vid two years ago. There was even going to be a bounty system for Units and even pilots! That would've been sweet!

Frankly, all that sounds good to me. Originally, it was my understanding that Loyalists would receive better perks than Mercs, but would need to hire Mercs to help them defend their Factions. For Mercs, this was going to be offset by the fact that they would not be constricted to one Faction; something very nice since Mechs were originally intended to be restricted by Faction for the Loyalist and Clan pilots.

CW will prove to be pretty cool in the long run, I think. Right now, it's just Beta, so there's a lot of room for improvement. I think that's what a lot of the pilots are forgetting.

Good job with the thread.

[Prussian Havoc]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

This is, bluntly put, a terrible idea, and amounts to nothing less than discrimination against players who don't fit your mold of picking a faction and staying glued to it...(snip)...I don't mind making Merc play different from what it is now and giving more flavor to it, but this is insane, and just punishes Mercs.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for GAMERS to limit the gaming opportunities of other gamers, I am advocating for Units "reaping what they sow."

If it is discretion, peace-breaking, suropticiously attacking allies or innocent third parties, then Pirate and Bandit TAGs are both accurate and GIVEN UNIT BEHAVIOR OVER AND EXTEND PERIOD warranted and PGI should be the Officiating Party.

Let Factions provide input on a Mercenary Units contract performance. And like I added in my post above, Factions should be able to donate toward a specific Mercenary Corp Unit's Unit Fund. I have 100m c-bills right here in game that I would transfer now to 228 if only PGI were to allow me to do. (I just ask for a "Comments" field to be added so that I could annotated WHY I donated the money to your Unit fund.

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

...(snip)...I want everyone to be able to have fun, but there is a saying, "your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins", and I think that is very fitting here. You have the right to have fun, but it ends where you are stopping me from having fun.

CW is supposed to be for the people that care about the lore and a persistent universe, NOT the people that just want to play whatever they feel like that day, and for whoever they feel like that day. If you want to do that, you have the standard game modes to do so in.

Agreed on just about every point that matters, I agree with you.

As to the 2-Day hiatus from CW... hey, this is an open forum, ALL portions need to be considered and discussed.

I personally would NEVER advocate for GAMER ability to limit the gaming opportunity of their fellow gamers, nor would I want to see ANY hiatus inflicted on ANY gamer. But both are legitimate suggestions that now had some small measure of discussion. Both are found wanting IMO and I hope through my comments and so very many others, that PGI will #ReadAndHeed thus ensure neither make their way to CW Phase 3. Just to clarify, I do NOT want Gamers to decide and implement these Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions - all roles and functions need to remain squarely with PGI employees.

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

Even if you want to try to play the Lore and Diplomacy cards, you're still missing the obvious gameplay benefits to Mercs hopping...(snip)...

I have long contributed to the forums and twitter that the #MarketDynamics of Mercenaries being able to move between Factions will improve the game through contract term differences giving PGI a means to bolster flagging efforts.

Yes, MWO CW Market Dynamics are clearly a game mechanism that contributes toward a better gaming experience.

If anything PGI should go further and add more options, sources of remuneration and even the ability for Units to pick and choose contract terms: for example IMO a Unit Commander should be able to #ZeroOut Loyalty Points thus getting a two-percent bonus to C-bill generation for every 10-percentage points of "opted out" Loyalty Point Bonus. In this example a Permanent Contract Loyalist Unit could get an ADDITIONAL 10% C-bill Bonus if it chose to opt out of ANY Loyalty Point Bonuses. Again this is just one idea, there are easily dozens of more ideas all tied to the upcoming Unit Logistics facet of MWO CW.

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

...(snip)...Just for the record, I am not advocating for any sort of player control over other players.

I completely agree. If there is one more sure way to hobble and limit the potential of MWO it would be "player control over other players."

All authority begins and ends with PGI. If the PGI intent is still to provide a near-persistent BattleTech-like immersive gaming experience with MWO CW / "Hard Mode" then PGI need to both source the funds necessary to maintain PGI and build into the game the necessary Community Overwatch and Faction Accountably mechanisms. Yes, there will need to be people in the loop. No algorithm will do this for PGI. If gamers turn in a Mercenary Review and Bonding Commission report on a given Mercenary Corps Unit, then a person should be in the loop when it comes to PGI putting just one vote into the greater context of ALL potential votes on that same Unit.

Just as I started this thread including the quite that "Flamers will flame" the same holds true for any Mercenary contract performance feedback. A man in the loop is the surest way to ensure actual ACCOUNTABILITY in CW.

If gamers want unconstrained gameplay, they can find that in the Public Queues.

Kjudoon, on 28 January 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

Yes, this is understood and generally accepted. The problem comes in when we've been seeing repeated accusations of Mercs running False Flag operations. Again, accepted, but factions generally would not allow mercs who betray them to either stay or come back. Sooner or later, the choices for contracts run out as all the factions shun them, forcing them to be pirates.

"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all. This job goes south, there well may not be another. So here is us, on the raggedy edge. Don't push me, and I won't push you. Dong le ma?" Captain Mal Reynolds

This quote needs to be etched in the minds of every faction hopper. You only have so many hops when you act badly before you run out of room or places to hop to.

Excellent points one and all. I like how you put this, so much better than I was able to.

+1

Nightmare1, on 28 January 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Ah, I must've misread your post then...(snip)...Frankly, all that sounds good to me. Originally, it was my understanding that Loyalists would receive better perks than Mercs, but would need to hire Mercs to help them defend their Factions. For Mercs, this was going to be offset by the fact that they would not be constricted to one Faction; something very nice since Mechs were originally intended to be restricted by Faction for the Loyalist and Clan pilots.

CW will prove to be pretty cool in the long run, I think. Right now, it's just Beta, so there's a lot of room for improvement. I think that's what a lot of the pilots are forgetting.

Good job with the thread.

Thank you.

I hope that together we can mine sufficient contributions that PGI manages to craft an increasingly better CW mode.

I deeply enjoy what we have and am thankful for ALL the constructive comments thus far provided.

Thank you again.

[Banditman]

I like the idea of consequence for faction hoppers, but additionally, I would also like to see bonuses for better service. Carrot and stick sort of thing.

For instance, if a Merc unit gives good service for an extended period of time without jumping around, perhaps their contract should pay more - and I'm not talking worthless loyalty points - cold hard CBills.

[Nightmare1]

Banditman, on 28 January 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

I like the idea of consequence for faction hoppers, but additionally, I would also like to see bonuses for better service. Carrot and stick sort of thing.

For instance, if a Merc unit gives good service for an extended period of time without jumping around, perhaps their contract should pay more - and I'm not talking worthless loyalty points - cold hard CBills.

I could go for that.

Edit: Mercs are mercs and will jump Factions. That's their version of gameplay in CW, so penalizing them for not being a Loyalist is silly. Offering additional rewards like what Banditman mentioned is a nice idea that encourages rather than penalizes.

Spitballing here:
Perhaps something like 25% bonus C-bills if you renew a month contract with another month contract. For every month afterwards, you get another 25% C-bills until you hit 100% in the fifth month. After the fifth month, you lose the bonus. That would encourage Merc Units to stick around for long periods of time, while preventing Loyalist-Units-in-Mercs-Clothing from abusing the incentives system.

Feel free to mess around with my numbers. I'm just throwing them out to generate some discussion.

Edited by Nightmare1, 28 January 2015 - 04:30 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Banditman, on 28 January 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

I like the idea of consequence for faction hoppers, but additionally, I would also like to see bonuses for better service. Carrot and stick sort of thing.

For instance, if a Merc unit gives good service for an extended period of time without jumping around, perhaps their contract should pay more - and I'm not talking worthless loyalty points - cold hard CBills.

Most definitely, superior contract performance should trigger Bonus Clauses. Just like I as a Loyalist should have the right to contribute my 100m C-bills to 228's Unit Coffer, there should be this and other means of recognizing and encouraging Superior Contract Performance, Nothing game-breaking but impactful none the less.

[Peter2000]

Prussian, here is the issue: practically speaking, how do you distinguish between gamers and factions and units within the faction? The latter two categories are entirely composed of individuals from the former. Giving them any power over gamers inherently involves giving gamers unvoluntary power over other gamers.

Moreover, the "factions" I would argue do not exist in the monolithic sense you seem to see them as. Units may perm-con onto a faction, but that doesn't mean that they speak for the faction; just their unit, which has chosen to affiliate with the faction.

Prussian Havoc, on 28 January 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

Most definitely, superior contract performance should trigger Bonus Clauses. Just like I as a Loyalist should have the right to contribute my 100m C-bills to 228's Unit Coffer, there should be this and other means of recognizing and encouraging Superior Contract Performance, Nothing game-breaking but impactful none the less.

I appreciate the sentiment, but what I mean is this: you are not the person who pays me. Even if you were able to distribute a voluntary bonus, the vast majority of C-Bills will ultimately come from PGI paying me for in-drop actions, whether directly (money in game for kills, assists, etc.) or after the fact (money/lp bonuses for winning the fight). Thus PGI (or a PGI-controlled NPC) is the employer and we are all working for them, as equals, regardless of contract length.

Edited by Peter2000, 28 January 2015 - 05:25 PM.