1089 replies to this topic

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

A quick thought about mercs/faction players.

Could the trade be in technology versus control?

Faction players get better mech and equipment but less say-so in how they use them.

Mercs do whatever they want but are more limited in technology available.

That seems to be consistent with the canon, maybe that's how they will balance things in MWO.

I'm a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.

[Dihm]

Interesting thought. The problem is, if they let people be Captains/Colonels/Whatever in the faction, they'll expect some control over their subordinates. Copy/paste of a post I just made in the Loyalty Points thread...

Dihm, on 08 December 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

So, I was just thinking about this some more...

I think I'd much prefer to see a Loyalty level instead of having LP determine Rank. You already have this in the canon as well, with certain regiments of uncertain loyalty, some are fanatical.

Loyalty levels...
Disloyal
Uncertain
blah
blah
blah
Fanatical

Fill in however many you need.

That way, you could still have it unlock benefits for you, but it doesn't give people a false sense of entitlement, and doesn't lead to rank bloat. You'd still be able to organize your unit and give it structure as the players of that unit saw fit. I guess you run into the problem of who the CO is... ugh, I don't know.

[Barantor]

I chuckle a bit to myself when folks talk about democratically voting in their commanders as I remember in my USMC days having many Sergeants and higher over me that couldn't tell the difference between their behinds and a hole in the ground. I wouldn't mind if faction ranks were determined by time in service + success rate since that is a deciding factor in the real world anyway. Yeah folks will say "I don't have that kind of time to play" and if it is such a problem then they could make or join a Merc unit associated to that faction and determine their own commanders, just like how it would work in the BT universe.

Speculation though is going to eventually run us around in circles until we know more, which is why I'm going to stop speculating for the present and just focus on re-reading the current information.

[phelanjkell]

I think you guys are misunderstanding things. From what I read is all groups will be Merc Groups, but its your AFFILIATION to a particular house that makes you different. You will be apart of a MERCENARY group played by players. So if you join/form a unit and do not like the Leadership, you can leave I am sure.

They did not say anything about you being a 'House' mechwarrior. So its not like you will have people above you who you didn't put into that position in the first place. Only exception is if you are joining a group, obviously some of those members might be idiots, but because you are the new guy... lol

Dihm, I am sure things will be more clear once we see the system in game etc.. As of right now all we have is text on a screen, no numbers, nothing so no worries.

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

Not an attack here but if everybody's a part of a mercenary group then why did they make the distinction between mercenary players and faction players?

Wouldn't mercenaries by default be working for one faction or another under contract?

[Cattra Kell]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 08 December 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

Not an attack here but if everybody's a part of a mercenary group then why did they make the distinction between mercenary players and faction players?

Wouldn't mercenaries by default be working for one faction or another under contract?

I think that Faction players would be merc units who pledge to the house rather then house warriors themselves, or that's how I see things at the moment. Its like PK said a lot is just text with now mechanics known yet.

[phelanjkell]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 08 December 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

Not an attack here but if everybody's a part of a mercenary group then why did they make the distinction between mercenary players and faction players?

Wouldn't mercenaries by default be working for one faction or another under contract?

A Mercenary without any affiliation is just that, a Mercenary. Sorta like the highest bidder, where they do not care who they work for so long as the c-bills are put into the bank!

On the flip side, there are House Mercenary units. In the novels they are used widely depending on the House/Faction. The main difference in these groups compared to regular House units is that the Mercenary group is not directly commanded by the House. They are hired on a contract for said contract specifications. They can technically break that contract, but no one would hire them after it. Also a difference is some Mercenary groups are loyal to the faction, but want to have that leeway and control that a Mercenary would give their commander.

Very good question though, but there is still more we don't know that comes out of this Wed. news release! haha

[Kaemon]

Curious as well how the loyalty point system will affect the commander role style of play. I wonder if only high level (or the highest level in your MercCorp) will be allowed to 'command' for that faction that hires you, but then you can have whomever you want command the lances?

Honestly I see the rank structure as more of a honorary title, which allows you to have some different skins/mechs, they need a way to reward time spent in game (although I'm not a fan of LP decay, as I think it serves little purpose other than punishing peeps, that's a stick...we were promised all carrots, remember?).

I suspect the decay rate to be quite low, (at low levels, at high levels I bet it's pretty severe) so everyone freaking out about it will be able to calm down.

Good luck keeping the podcast to an hour this week, that was an Atlas of info they just dropped on us.

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

Kaemon, on 08 December 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

Good luck keeping the podcast to an hour this week, that was an Atlas of info they just dropped on us.

A Stinger worth of info, an Overlord worth of speculation.

[Kudzu]

phelanjkell, on 08 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

I think you guys are misunderstanding things. From what I read is all groups will be Merc Groups, but its your AFFILIATION to a particular house that makes you different. You will be apart of a MERCENARY group played by players. So if you join/form a unit and do not like the Leadership, you can leave I am sure.

They did not say anything about you being a 'House' mechwarrior. So its not like you will have people above you who you didn't put into that position in the first place. Only exception is if you are joining a group, obviously some of those members might be idiots, but because you are the new guy... lol

I didn't read it that way at all. What I got from it:

• Three play style choices-- unaffiliated, house trooper, and merc member.
  
• Each of those choices involves an increasing level of involvement with an increasing risk/reward. Unaffiliated (lone wolf) does not play for land and is generally just for fun. House troopers play for one of the factions, can gain and lose land for the faction, and their gains and loses from land control are spread out over the entire faction. Mercs are hired by the factions, can gain and lose land, their gains and loses are directly shared within the merc corp itself.
  
• Merc corps can work for any faction and can change their affiliation, but have to build up loyalty points outside of the land exchange system before being allowed to play for their own land.

What this means is that you pick how involved you want to be within the system. Don't care about the strategic level and just want to blow stuff up? Be a lone wolf-- no risk, no reward. Want to play at the strategic level but don't have a ton of time to devote to it? Be a house trooper-- moderate risk, moderate reward as all gains and loses are spread out over the entire faction (for example, if your house gains a planet that gives an extra 10,000 c-bills per day that gain is spread out between all players in that house). Love the strategic level and really want to focus on it? Join a merc corp-- they get to directly control planets and only share that reward within themselves, but it's also a lot harder to stay in control of those planets.

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

That's how I read it as well.

[Dihm]

Kudzu, on 08 December 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

snip

That's pretty much how I read it, but with House units being more involved than a Merc one, or involved differently anyway. That could just be personal bias in the reading though.

Edited by Dihm, 08 December 2011 - 12:14 PM.

[phelanjkell]

Kudzu, on 08 December 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

I didn't read it that way at all. What I got from it:

• Three play style choices-- unaffiliated, house trooper, and merc member.
  
• Each of those choices involves an increasing level of involvement with an increasing risk/reward. Unaffiliated (lone wolf) does not play for land and is generally just for fun. House troopers play for one of the factions, can gain and lose land for the faction, and their gains and loses from land control are spread out over the entire faction. Mercs are hired by the factions, can gain and lose land, their gains and loses are directly shared within the merc corp itself.
  
• Merc corps can work for any faction and can change their affiliation, but have to build up loyalty points outside of the land exchange system before being allowed to play for their own land.

What this means is that you pick how involved you want to be within the system. Don't care about the strategic level and just want to blow stuff up? Be a lone wolf-- no risk, no reward. Want to play at the strategic level but don't have a ton of time to devote to it? Be a house trooper-- moderate risk, moderate reward as all gains and loses are spread out over the entire faction (for example, if your house gains a planet that gives an extra 10,000 c-bills per day that gain is spread out between all players in that house). Love the strategic level and really want to focus on it? Join a merc corp-- they get to directly control planets and only share that reward within themselves, but it's also a lot harder to stay in control of those planets.

Good points, will take some notes from these posts when I get home. Another thing to note, is commanders are not always the best pilots, as combat skills go. Multiple aspects define a good leader, and some may not have to do with combat at all. There are many different styles of leadership as well.

I can almost imagine a Mercenary leader in MW:O being great at logistics, tactics, battle planning etc etc... It is the pilots in the Mercenary group that are the fangs of the unit.

It will be interesting to know if they will allow contracts to occur. So said Merc group is hired to do said specifications in the contract. This would be awesome..

[S3dition]

phelanjkell, on 08 December 2011 - 12:33 PM, said:

Good points, will take some notes from these posts when I get home. Another thing to note, is commanders are not always the best pilots, as combat skills go. Multiple aspects define a good leader, and some may not have to do with combat at all. There are many different styles of leadership as well.

I can almost imagine a Mercenary leader in MW:O being great at logistics, tactics, battle planning etc etc... It is the pilots in the Mercenary group that are the fangs of the unit.

It will be interesting to know if they will allow contracts to occur. So said Merc group is hired to do said specifications in the contract. This would be awesome..

PGI also said that there would be a lot more to battle than purely grug punching your opponent with an assault mech. It stands to reason that you can gain faction through support and information warfare as well.

Maybe a command system like BF2/2142 will allow good commanders to gain a lot of faction points.

[Dihm]

Get really crazy and convoluted with it, skill with mechs gives you enlisted rank points, skill with command/IW gives you officer points, lol.

[Kudzu]

phelanjkell, on 08 December 2011 - 12:33 PM, said:

Good points, will take some notes from these posts when I get home. Another thing to note, is commanders are not always the best pilots, as combat skills go. Multiple aspects define a good leader, and some may not have to do with combat at all. There are many different styles of leadership as well.

I can almost imagine a Mercenary leader in MW:O being great at logistics, tactics, battle planning etc etc... It is the pilots in the Mercenary group that are the fangs of the unit.

Well, from what I read within the LP system ranks earned do not dictate who is "in charge" of people on the battlefield, it has a lot more to do with the strategic and non-combat elements of the game.

It seems to me that house battles will initially be dictated by the devs (The FWL will attack planets A,B,C, and D today, no other options.) but as house players rank up the people at the highest ranks might get to choose for the faction to attack planet E instead of B so that that can move on to planets X, Y, and Z that have much better rewards.

Mercs pick their own leader, who then decides the ranks and accesses granted within the merc corp. (So something like: all officers of captain rank and above can pick which planets to make bids to attack, all officers of lieutenant rank and above have access to X amount of the merc corps c-bills, etc)

Quote

It will be interesting to know if they will allow contracts to occur. So said Merc group is hired to do said specifications in the contract. This would be awesome..

I don't know if this is exactly what you wanted, but there will be contracts.

Quote

Mercenary Corporations can bid and fight for occupation rights of border worlds throughout the Inner Sphere. Merc Corps must bid on a planet’s occupation rights via a system of contracts generated by the game.

[phelanjkell]

Podcast #6 recorded, stay tuned it will be up within 24hrs.

[Seth]

I'm really looking forward to these. It's like listening to the forums without trying to keep up with how fast people fly through topics on here.

[MausGMR]

I'm interested to hear you guys discuss the implications of the dev's being in control of the 'core' worlds. Does this mean that the game is going to have more direction to it than just what the players do with their time? Is each faction going to have a house lord controlled by a dev? I think that's quite an interesting area to explore, lots of interesting things to talk about there.

[PropWash]

Listening to episode 5. On the indirect fire we implemented it 2 different ways in out BattleTech cockpits.

In BattleTech 2.5 and 3.0 you could have a single cockpit target the mechs in master mode. All other cockpits that are on the masters team would then go into slave mode and would have a blue targeting reticle indicating when the master has a target locked. Then the slaving pilots would launch the LRMs which would track to the target mech until the lock is lost. One kind of neat idea here was that when in slave mode, the slaving cockpit would lose its ability to use its radar and nav systems until the slave mode was disabled.

In BattleTech:Firestorm, our current platform that is based off of the Mech 4 engine, we have the NARC beacon that serves as a homing beacon for same-team LRMs. The beacon however can be shot off, and eventually expires. Isn't the NARC beacon in the regular release of MW4?

You guys ever consider bringing people into the podcast who have worked 'behind the scenes' on these products in the past? They might offer a lot of great material that general forum members cant.

Just food for thought.