78 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

I am finally able to listen to the Town Hall from 12/18/14, and you were addressing mercenaries as always being tied to one of the Great House's, and that is not always true. There is a whole sub-section for mercenaries concerning objective-based warfare, contracting, and units getting involved where they are not, necessarily, contracted to be. You should really read your history concerning mercenaries.

It saddens me that you have expressed you don't see the need to separate mercs from factions, and that answer is an absolute NO-GO!

There are a few reasons...

1) mwo MERCS .com

2) Because it matters to those of us who have been running mercenary units for a while, and those of us who are expecting our identity to be viable in the BattleTech universe, and

3) There are many out there who have gone through the hard work of developing what was not available in previous games, including myself, since 1995 until now, who have sought to have that recognition of identity. This is not just about whether we align ourselves with a house or not... this is about identity.

Personally, I think it's pretty ****** that you would leave those of us who've been waiting for this not only throughout the careers we have made in our spare times with these mercenary units, but especially since the announcement was made for this game, that it was going to be massively multiplayer, since we were going to have a functional league AND a fantastic new combat simulator together. What you said in that podcast, though not pitchfork-worthy necessarily, is short-sighted and harsh, and you really need to reconsider.

Thank you.

[MischiefSC]

You have unique identities as Mercs though. You just don't get to make independent war on whole factions. I guess I'm at a loss here; are you saying you want to turn individual mercs into entire billion-population planet owning factions?

There are a number of excellent merc groups who are known, respected and valued by the factions who get them to take contracts. Not sure what you are wanting. To be complete factions on your own?

[Burktross]

I'm a bit confused too... IS wouldnt exactly open-arms someone who came from clans...

[Impyrium]

Honestly I still think that the current system represents mercs just as well as it could. I don't think mercs should ever be represented as their own factions, as only very few merc groups ever owned entire planets and those shouldn't be player controlled IMO.

That said, I'm sure there's always room for expansion and to flesh out the differences between setting up a faction unit and a merc unit, and there's plenty of opportunities in there, but I'm not a fan of them becoming separate entities on the map. Mercs always fought for a faction.

[Threat Doc]

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.

[Telmasa]

I kinda wish it would retain our "Merc Unit" thing above our names instead of going to whichever faction our contracts reside with...I'm not particularly a Steiner fanboy myself, that just happens to be the employer currently for the merc unit I belong to.


On the one hand, canonically, merc units tended to stick to contracts with particular houses; on the other, I too would like to have a means of differentiating identity between a true Steiner pureblood, and a member of a battleproven merc unit.


At the same time though, we have to avoid anything that would grant merc units unequal freedom compared to other IS units...otherwise everybody would simply join merc units, aside from those with deeply entrenched faction tendencies.

Sometimes the suggestions I see seem to make merc units look more like Pirate factions than true Mercenary units, and that's no good.

Edited by Telmasa, 20 December 2014 - 07:16 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

For the most part, in the lore, mercenary units took contracts and for their duration they were effectively "owned" by the House they contracted with. The House says jump, the mercenary unit says how high. They were independent in how they attacked, but not who or where -- that was the House's decision. Then that contract would end, and the mercenary unit would contract with a different House, becoming effectively "owned" by that House.

Even those units that owned planets only did so because the House allowed it. Their claim could be revoked at any time.

If you see your unit as a faction unto yourselves, know that the vast majority of mercenary units didn't operate that way. They simply didn't have the resources for it. And if expenses were in MW:O, none of the mercenary units in the game would be able to afford it either.

You are still Armageddon Unlimited ... you simply do the FRR's bidding (at the moment).

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 20 December 2014 - 09:02 PM.

[CocoaJin]

Bah!

[Threat Doc]

Durant Carlyle, on 20 December 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

For the most part, in the lore, mercenary units took contracts and for their duration they were effectively "owned" by the House they contracted with. The House says jump, the mercenary unit says how high.

Ahhh, HELL NO!!! Please, read through Mercenary's Handbook and Mercs Handbook: 3055. Mercs do the contract, not say how high when the House says jump, unless they were specifically under a House Liaison... that's not even REMOTELY close to lore. Even under a House Liaison, that Liaison STILL has to stick to the contract, and cannot break from it; there are MAJOR penalties to be had from ComStar and, later, the MRBC. Now, if a unit is dumb enough and can't negotiate or fulfill a contract correctly, they may end up in the hands of the House until they can pay the House back, and that's called the Company Store. Smart Commander's won't allow that to happen.

Quote

Then that contract would end, and the mercenary unit would contract with a different House, becoming effectively "owned" by that House.

Not owned, contracted, which is why a contract is negotiated. Just because I work under contract to an aircraft manufacturer, does not even remotely give them ownership of my company or me through that contract. That's NOT how contract's work.

Quote

Even those units that owned planets only did so because the House allowed it. Their claim could be revoked at any time.

No, not true. Not without legal reason or precedent. A House Lord could give a grant of land at any time, generally for actions way above and beyond the call of duty, and could not take that away. Outreach was ceded to Wolf's Dragoons by Hanse Davion, but that doesn't mean they can't work for House Liao, and still come home to Outreach at the end of a contract. They are a business, they do business, and that's that. Mercenaries today do not do that, do not have to put up with that, because they are a recognized business, not giving over ownership, but rather exchanging services for payment. Just because I go in and buy a candy bar at my local 7-11, does that give me ownership over 7-11? No, and no court in any nation would ever agree to that.

Quote

If you see your unit as a faction unto yourselves, know that the vast majority of mercenary units didn't operate that way. They simply didn't have the resources for it. And if expenses were in MW:O, none of the mercenary units in the game would be able to afford it either.

Okay, a business, then... whatever semantics you want to apply to it, that's up to you. In a game such as this, the term faction would be used to represent all manner of organizations, for the sake of ease. As for the vast majority of mercenary units not operating that way... you REALLY need to go read about mercenary units. The reason one forms or joins a mercenary unit is not only for money, it's also for general freedom to join your pals on the battlefield, to be an instrument of solving political entanglements, without becoming entangled yourself, and because you're a high-functioning combatant, if not outright elite, and your skills are going to waste in a House military.

It's pretty clear you don't understand mercenaries, let alone mercenary elements in BattleTech.

Quote

You are still Armageddon Unlimited ... you simply do the FRR's bidding (at the moment).

Yes, because the contracting system is all buggered up; if you think the contracting system, as-is, is the way it's supposed to work, you definitely have some study ahead of you.

No mercenary element can make a name for itself while inextricably tied and unable to be seen as unique from whomever their employer is. All previous leagues allowed mercenary units to be formed within those leagues, including canon units, and it was never, to the best of my knowledge, a problem anywhere else. PGI have made it a problem, and they took away the twenty year old ability to lay claim to a canon mercenary unit in a few short words, and now they're taking away the ability to have an identity at all? That's not right, and it needs to change.

[Lord Ikka]

I'm slightly confused on exactly what you want. To me, CW has everyone except permanent contracted units as mercs. You're just operating under the flag of the faction that holds your contract. What exactly do you want from PGI?

In BT- mercs generally fought for a faction. The cost of operating a mercenary unit were too staggering for any but the most wealthy of individuals or planetary leaders to independently contract with a merc unit. Now most mercs, aside from units like the Kell Hounds, Gray Death Legion, or Cabelleros which were close to House units due to lengthy contracts/ties with faction leadership, didn't identify as military members of the faction but they were listed as military assets of that faction. That's basically what is occurring in CW- you are listed as an asset for the faction you contracted to. I don't see this as a loss of unit identity, just an easy way to clarify who is working for what faction.

[Joseph Mallan]

Burktross, on 20 December 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

I'm a bit confused too... IS wouldnt exactly open-arms someone who came from clans...

UNless its in teh fiction... no they wouldn't *COUGH* Phelan's Wolves!

[Colonel Fubar]

Telmasa, on 20 December 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

I kinda wish it would retain our "Merc Unit" thing above our names instead of going to whichever faction our contracts reside with...I'm not particularly a Steiner fanboy myself, that just happens to be the employer currently for the merc unit I belong to.


On the one hand, canonically, merc units tended to stick to contracts with particular houses; on the other, I too would like to have a means of differentiating identity between a true Steiner pureblood, and a member of a battleproven merc unit.


At the same time though, we have to avoid anything that would grant merc units unequal freedom compared to other IS units...otherwise everybody would simply join merc units, aside from those with deeply entrenched faction tendencies.

Sometimes the suggestions I see seem to make merc units look more like Pirate factions than true Mercenary units, and that's no good.

I agree 100%, Merc Shield to represent Merc Units.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kay Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

I am finally able to listen to the Town Hall from 12/18/14, and you were addressing mercenaries as always being tied to one of the Great House's, and that is not always true. There is a whole sub-section for mercenaries concerning objective-based warfare, contracting, and units getting involved where they are not, necessarily, contracted to be. You should really read your history concerning mercenaries.

It saddens me that you have expressed you don't see the need to separate mercs from factions, and that answer is an absolute NO-GO!

There are a few reasons...

1) mwo MERCS .com

2) Because it matters to those of us who have been running mercenary units for a while, and those of us who are expecting our identity to be viable in the BattleTech universe, and

3) There are many out there who have gone through the hard work of developing what was not available in previous games, including myself, since 1995 until now, who have sought to have that recognition of identity. This is not just about whether we align ourselves with a house or not... this is about identity.

Personally, I think it's pretty ****** that you would leave those of us who've been waiting for this not only throughout the careers we have made in our spare times with these mercenary units, but especially since the announcement was made for this game, that it was going to be massively multiplayer, since we were going to have a functional league AND a fantastic new combat simulator together. What you said in that podcast, though not pitchfork-worthy necessarily, is short-sighted and harsh, and you really need to reconsider.

Thank you.

Mercenary
Review &
Bonding
Commission!

Outreach

[Threat Doc]

Lord Ikka, on 21 December 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

I'm slightly confused on exactly what you want. To me, CW has everyone except permanent contracted units as mercs. You're just operating under the flag of the faction that holds your contract. What exactly do you want from PGI?

In BT- mercs generally fought for a faction. The cost of operating a mercenary unit were too staggering for any but the most wealthy of individuals or planetary leaders to independently contract with a merc unit. Now most mercs, aside from units like the Kell Hounds, Gray Death Legion, or Cabelleros which were close to House units due to lengthy contracts/ties with faction leadership, didn't identify as military members of the faction but they were listed as military assets of that faction. That's basically what is occurring in CW- you are listed as an asset for the faction you contracted to. I don't see this as a loss of unit identity, just an easy way to clarify who is working for what faction.

So, what you're saying is, Mr. House Kurita, is that Mercenary Units should not have an individual identity, to be able to manage their own logistics... it's just a matter of picking which faction to go with week-after-week?

Well, I'm here to tell you that is a NO-GO! That is not half good enough. You stick with being a House Regular, if that's what you like, but that's not good enough for me.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 21 December 2014 - 07:37 PM.

[Lord Ikka]

Kay Wolf, on 21 December 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

So, what you're saying is, Mr. House Kurita, is that Mercenary Units should not have an individual identity, to be able to manage their own logistics... it's just a matter of picking which faction to go with week-after-week?

Well, I'm here to tell you that is a NO-GO! That is not half good enough. You stick with being a House Regular, if that's what you like, but that's not good enough for me.

That would be the basic principle of mercs in-game. You choose who to fight for- weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. The only units that I believe are considered "House" units would be those that choose a permanent contract.

What logistics? This game has no logistics- all players are paid personally rather than being paid by unit merit, and players purchase their own Mechs/equipment.

What individual identity are you talking about? Your unit tag is right there for all to see- if someone wonders who you are they can find out. You still haven't explained what you want from PGI beyond a vague "We're mercs and want to stay that way."

[Threat Doc]

Lord Ikka, on 21 December 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

What individual identity are you talking about? Your unit tag is right there for all to see- if someone wonders who you are they can find out. You still haven't explained what you want from PGI beyond a vague "We're mercs and want to stay that way."

Yeah, you should probably re-read, again. You didn't pick up on the nuances. Most people don't read well enough to do so, so I don't blame you.

There will be logistics in the game... ahh, who am I foolin'... a lot has been said as to what we're going to get, from Dev Blog 0 on, and since you folkers can't seem to keep from bashing a topic I hold near and dear to my heart, what's the fracking point, right?

I guess it's another loss to people who don't care about BattleTech, huh? This game continues to wade in the kiddy pool, I'm afraid, and I may have to find something else with the depth of gameplay that I actually want.

[Bhael Fire]

I'm with Russ on this one.

Mercenaries will always have a contract with one of the major houses; that's what they do. How long that contract is, depends on the merc unit and what services they agree to provide.

That doesn't mean that they will stay with the same house once their contract is up though...

[dubplate]

Kay Wolf, on 22 December 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

Yeah, you should probably re-read, again. You didn't pick up on the nuances. Most people don't read well enough to do so, so I don't blame you.

How about actually explaining it rather than talking down to people? I read it a few times and wasn't sure what you're talking about. You say you want an identity, but how do you mean? Or is this one big complaint that you can't use established mercenary unit names, so you're talking about an identity beyond MWO?

[Kyrie]

I will admit some confusion as to what is being sought after in the original post. If we start from the premise that merc units fight on behalf of a House we are sticking fairly close to my understanding of what the lore is all about. It takes a very large economic base to field mechs and mechwarriors in battle, it is not really logical to imagine a merc unit as an independent faction within CW.

With that being said, I am in favor of extensive implementation of logistics while accepting the fact this is not likely to be implemented. I would be completely in favor of mechanics from classic MPBT EGA further refined:

1) Fully implemented House structures, taking Kurita as an example: House Leader and XO, Warlords in command of Districts, Prefectures within Districts, Units within Prefectures, Lances in Units. All House Loyalists join a House unit that they are eligible to join based on standing (rank and loyalty).

2) Logistics for all Units: Mechs and pilots assigned to Lances. Lances moved from point to point to fight on targets. You fight where your Lance is located in CW. You assign the mech you are using to a Lance in order to pilot it for CW.

3) Supply Line / Repair and Rearm Logic: For CW, you have to repair your mechs and restock them. You have to plan your campaigns by stocking (in advance) parts, ammo, and supplies to repair your mechs quickly or face delays while ordering parts to be shipped to you to repair your mechs. If you are operating behind enemy lines far from your supply lines you are taking a big gamble -- have to take everything you are going to need going in or be forced to retreat from lack of war materiel.

4) Transport / Movement: Moving Lances around the map to different star systems requires use of JumpShips that are costly to rent. DropShips to attack/defend actual planets are Unit assets that can be destroyed; protecting them becomes the most important logistical requirement. Travel from point to point on a planet to conquer key objectives.

[Lord Ikka]

Since you clearly can't explain your grievance in a clear and concise manner, just fill your posts with anger and veiled insults towards those trying to understand, good luck with your crusade for...whatever it is you want. Identity I guess.