239 replies to this topic

[Stahlseele]

TheRulesLawyer, on 09 December 2011 - 09:50 AM, said:

In a player run merc unit that everyone is on board with the leadership, I totally agree. In a house unit that I will basically have no say, absolutely not. The vast majority of players shouldn't be relegated to peon status while a few ultra hard core players get to make decisions that affect them.

Just imagine . . It's war . . And nobody comes!

[MaddMaxx]

TheRulesLawyer, on 09 December 2011 - 09:50 AM, said:

In a player run merc unit that everyone is on board with the leadership, I totally agree. In a house unit that I will basically have no say, absolutely not. The vast majority of players shouldn't be relegated to peon status while a few ultra hard core players get to make decisions that affect them.

And that one reason alone is why the Dev would never go there (I hope not at least). Imagine if the LP did such a thing. The Houses would quickly lose their membership as soon as the first D-Head got Command and then pulled his first "Mussolini" move.

That just doesn't even make sense as a method for setting up a Command structure for any group, let alone a group of strangers, save for the few who do know each other.

Anyways, here is waiting for the next Q&A so we can move on.

[Dihm]

Paul Inouye, on 08 December 2011 - 05:17 PM, said:

Basically my point is this. We haven't released all the information regarding LP. We also haven't released any information besides mile high level details on Role Warfare. In the QnA we will be addressing what LP is exactly and how it works within the game's overall design. I've seen a lot of people here think that LP is going to dictate who makes the calls on how you play. This is not the case and as I said, will be covered in the QnA.

Please everyone, I truely appreciate the passion of all of you but let's not get overheated quite yet. Wait until the QnA session before blowing your lid and if that does happen, I'll be more than happy to give you Matt N's private cell number. Again, kidding about Matt's cell number.

Let's just keep it sane and grounded for now. Otherwise I'm releasing Garth with his forum flame thrower he's been working on.

-Paul

Paul, I think part of the confusion comes from using the word "Rank", which has a very specific meaning when used in reference to military structure.

[Jack Gallows]

Dihm, on 09 December 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

Paul, I think part of the confusion comes from using the word "Rank", which has a very specific meaning when used in reference to military structure.

At least they'll be addressing it during the QnA. People tend to overreact quickly to things they don't have enough info to really comment on.

I mean, you can still voice your (not you specifically Dihrm,) opinions, but should remember that you're discussing something of limited info that has the possibility to change, so offering your insight plus alternatives is better then just berating or making noise.

[Red Beard]

Lets have a contest. Anyone who is able to wait to quibble about the LP system until the next Q n A, in which the devs have already told us that they will discuss in further detail, the LP system, gets a gold star from Paul and a signed photo of Matt Newman in his now famous hula skirt.

If you cannot wait, you accept permanent "Pony-lover" status, and you have to spend three weeks emptying Metro's "stadium buddy".

[Red Beard]

Starting.....now!

[Shadowstarr]

(This is primary focused of faction units and not mercs. but it could still apply)

I don't much consider this quibbleing just much thought on the matter.

Seen a few issues raised that i may have a possible solution. For faction units with a ridged chain of command, I don't really want the blithering hyper sugarcoated gangsta playah calling the shots for a regiment. Please please devs, do some sort of player driven promotions for command ranks. I know I'll get hell for this but I feel faction unit commanders should also have the ability to demote and/or fire subordinates. Perhaps send the player to a "reserves" type status.

Really I hope that a "house leader" type rank isn't the ultimately the end of the rank "grind." If that rank is to be held by a player and it carries any real responsibility I'd rather see someone appointed by the Dev then hope the right person (IE: not me) wins whatever race there may be to attain the title.

Depending on the depth of the strategic end, among many, many other considerations, there might be a concern that the guy who wants to be the commander role may not have a time to do get the same drops as a grunt under his / her command. I suggest a trickle up system for those in the command role:

Trickle-up Rank Points

Aside from running Combat Missions, Rank Points are also awarded through a "trickle-up" method. Commanding officers receive Rank Points depending on the effectiveness of their unit. This compensates the player for spending their time commanding their unit instead of actually running missions. It also rewards players who have a well organized, active unit.

Trickle-up Rank Points are calculated and awarded once every 24 hours of real-time and added to the player's Rank Points. Trickle-up Rank Points are awarded based on the following formula:

Trickle-up RP = (Unit Win Ratio - .3) * Multiplier

The Unit Win Ratio must greater than .3 to receive Trickle-up points. The player never receives negative Trickle-up points. The Unit Win Ratio is total missions won by all of the companies under the player's command during the last 24 hours divided by total missions during the last 24 hours. The Unit Win Ratio is zero when total missions is zero (avoid divide by zero).
The Multiplier is dependent on the player's rank.
----

If this is gonna really be a teams based deal then the leader should see some regards for his units success.

-SS

Edited by Shadowstarr, 09 December 2011 - 11:52 AM.

[Kaemon]

1. I for one, am booking my room for MW:O Con right now, just to see the Red Beard/Haeso debates IRL.

2. http://nm.merz-akade...icanhashistory/ hopefully my LP doesn't decay fast, that Lime cat grind was murder!

3. I'm not seeing the Role Warfare tie in (besides LP acquisition based on role type) to LP, and still feel like there's a lot of Community Warfare (like a book or two) we have waiting in the wings, maybe we need to extend community warfare out another month Q&A.

4. One of the hardest things in writing, is to write about something you know alot about, but trying to communicate to people who know nothing about it, mostly it revolves around the difference in perception, I think the devs did a good job of limiting the info (with a small quibble here and there about wording, but...first big release...so no worries.) or else I think our brains would've exploded.

Fortunately I know almost nothing about a lot of things, so I don't have this problem

Oh and also this: COMMUNITY WARFARE!

Edited by Kaemon, 09 December 2011 - 01:01 PM.

[TiredOne]

I only read it as 2 things a Merc. Corp. has to argue over.

#1 is their own internal rank stucture which you are free to run from military TOE, or from Gilligan to Skipper should that be your desire as stated. Internal Merc Corp ranks don't appear to translate into some game mechanic meaningful to others playing:

"Ranks are created within a Merc Corp by the Merc Corp leader. The naming of the ranks is entirely up to the Merc Corp leader who can assign Merc Corp level permissions to each rank."

#2 is which of the Boarder planet contracts they as a unit will commit to based on whats offered at their current LP level. I don't see any time when a unit member, regardless of Merc Corp rank is just pointing at the disclosed IS map & saying "We invade here, now."
Having chosen to play as a Merc Corp, you forfiet any individual LP & will have to decide which contracts via game engine offering only. After having earned a "minimum" LP level from your chosen House.

"As a Mercenary Corporation, all members’ earned loyalty points go to the Merc Corp. The Merc Corp must have a minimum amount of loyalty points with a faction before they are able to engage in planetary combat on behalf of that faction. Loyalty points also determine the type and level of contract a Merc Corp is permitted to bid on. These loyalty point restrictions mean that a Merc Corp’s membership, must remain active in order to maintain the required level of LPs."

[Kyll Long]

TiredOne, on 09 December 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

I only read it as 2 things a Merc. Corp. has to argue over.

#1 is their own internal rank stucture which you are free to run from military TOE, or from Gilligan to Skipper should that be your desire as stated. Internal Merc Corp ranks don't appear to translate into some game mechanic meaningful to others playing:

I will personally hire any unit that uses a Gilligan to Skipper rank structure for the Maskirovka. Top pay and tropical islands galore!!!

[Kaemon]

Kyll Long, on 09 December 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

I will personally hire any unit that uses a Gilligan to Skipper rank structure for the Maskirovka. Top pay and tropical islands galore!!!

I will not repeat the mistake I made a few years ago when I granted the title of Grand Masticator to one of my guild members, only to have him apparently misunderstand the meaning and throw a hissy fit on the forum.

The Ban Hammer swung mightily that day my friends, no one was spared.

[TiredOne]

HaHa, KL. I believe I would too, just to lighten it up a little prior to the death blows.
And be4 it starts, I vote Mary Ann, in Hula skirt, no sunglasses. (Hula model been found?)

[Haeso]

TheRulesLawyer, on 09 December 2011 - 09:50 AM, said:

In a player run merc unit that everyone is on board with the leadership, I totally agree. In a house unit that I will basically have no say, absolutely not. The vast majority of players shouldn't be relegated to peon status while a few ultra hard core players get to make decisions that affect them.

You would have a say equal to what you'd have in any standard military that you choose to join, there's no requirement for joining any of the house military units. Not to mention I'm not seeing anything that makes someone a Peon just because they're not at the top of the rank structure. You weren't a peon in MPBT or the MW4 leagues. MechWarriors were inherently the elite, whether you're an officer, an NCO or regular enlisted, you were still considered elite compared to everyone else.

It's not about the haves and have nots, it's about organization and efficiency, especially if they intend for logistics to matter. And quite frankly, the things you're worried about they just didn't happen. The battletech fanbase is by and large one of the most mature, none of the leagues have had more than minor issues connected to command structures. And those same command structures have added immensely to the depth and fun of the games they were connected to.

Shadowstarr, on 09 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

I know I'll get hell for this but I feel faction unit commanders should also have the ability to demote and/or fire subordinates. Perhaps send the player to a "reserves" type status.

It's worked before. I swear the majority against things like this have never played any game with meaningful ranks or a military structure that mattered.

Edited by Haeso, 09 December 2011 - 01:46 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Please do not make me come in here again. If I do, I swear to god people are gonna be crying and I don't want my mascara to run. You guys should just agree to disagree and go play a game or update your facebook... come back and talk to Randall, then sit on the edge of your seat hitting refresh waiting for QnA #2. If you behave, I'll let Matt N. answer more than 1 question.

[Red Beard]

I was just sayin...geeezz! Guy can't have a bit o' fun...?

[Todd O Connor]

On Mercs not earning loyalty points I have a book from 1985 (gasp) called The Fox's Teeth exploits of Mckinnon's Raiders where they were so successful and loyal to Hanse Davion that they earned the right to be a house unit! Is this going to be possible in the game if your merc corp shows unswerving loyalty to the house you work for. I think it would be a cool effort for your group to work towards if you were so inclined.


Todd O'Connor
11th Atrean Dragoons
FWLM
3048/10/12

[Haeso]

As the factions don't seem to be heavily influenced by the players (sadly) I doubt that's going to happen Todd, and they're not the only Merc unit like that. Not all of them become house units in title, but they're on what amounts to permanent retainer and only fight for their chosen faction. It's fairly common. (And awesome)

Edited by Haeso, 09 December 2011 - 09:33 PM.

[Blackfire1]

I have a feeling they'll go with the unit within a unit approach to these things. You'll have your giant houses and each house will have their own units (not merc) that are loyal and like to work together. Its not completely unheard of in battletech. But it would be less militaristic in the sense of a house military. That would make it so people would still follow the "LP" ranking system but those in command would only be in command of though who are willing.

Or

Add a standardized military style leadership test that needs to be taken at each rank for people who want to "command" If you can fail that test or pass it and be voted off.

[metro]

Paul Inouye, on 09 December 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

Please do not make me come in here again. If I do, I swear to god people are gonna be crying and I don't want my mascara to run. You guys should just agree to disagree and go play a game or update your facebook... come back and talk to Randall, then sit on the edge of your seat hitting refresh waiting for QnA #2. If you behave, I'll let Matt N. answer more than 1 question.

uh---ohhh....ITS AWAKE !

[Red Beard]

Yeah, I'll take the heat for that one. My less than passive nature took over for a minute. I'll tuck it back in.