8 replies to this topic

[Riddlez]

I've been reading a number a threads pertaining to Merc Corps styles -in how they are managed, how people would organize themselves and the overall goal of the group. As a whole I find there are diverse, but common themes that can be seen and want to help people find there place in the MWO community -I've never liked guilds and the like because all you see are the people that aggressively recruit and an push the popular styles of guild/merc corps management pushing away people that dislike the culture that develops around it. In order to address it, I propose one of two things:

-Request to subdivide the Merc Corps Recruiting Page into types: casual, serious, etc.

-Come up with a short hand for Merc Corps to use in their titles for a quick determination of key parameters that define them

Assume for this example that people typically decide between the following parameters:
-Management style: Hierarchical, Network or
-General Player Environment: Casual, serious or hybrid
-Time Requirement: open to scheduling, not planning at all, meticulous planning
-Overall Goal: Fame and fortune (i.e. holding a sector of space, but not necssarily competative -don't need necessarily need super hardcore people, just lots of people holding lots of planets), simple community, hardcore competition and ladder placing, open ended alliance for merc controlled space (marik style dream of mercs), Seeking domination of merc controlled space
-Special Requirments: Yes or No (i.e. if you have particular mandates for your group: being 'cool', maturity level, number of hours per week)

Then in one's Merc Corp Title you could put something like:
H-H-O/M-F&F,HC-N would be for a Hierarchical, Hybrid group that is open to scheduling games and meticulously preparing for them while gaming for fame and fortune along with hardcore competition and ladder placing with no particular requirements for who joins up. Also, this list is not comprehensive, and part of the goal of this post is to expand it as far as necessary to meet the needs of the MWO community.

The point of the title tag is not to be all encompassing, but to give a general impression without just liking or disliking the name, so that you open the thread and read in more detail. This would also make it so that people can look for alliances with similar types of Merc Corps more easily which is especially useful for network models of Merc Corps who can incorporate may nodes without having to step on each others' toes because of culture clash.

I know it may be considered complicated by some, however, if there is away to simplify the process while maintaining the same level of information communication I'm open to it. Also, if this is successful we can make a final post to summarize it all for everyone to refer to.

[John Clavell]

It might be nice to sub-divide to allow people to better refine their search for units. Right now more and more units are starting up and this will continue to rise. I would be concerned a little about this bringing segregation within the Merc Corp community however, also how do you define who is Serious or Casual? That's a view point that a team might hold regardless of their actual designation. Just some thoughts from me on this anyway.

[Viper69]

So we would need the same for every house as well. Could it be in the groups recruiting pitch?

[JFlash49]

i say yes, they need to divide it, most of these guys are looking for hardcore gamers. some of us just dont have the time anymore.

[BFett]

I understand your reason to divide the groups into categories that match the play style of the corp. Doesn't the Hiring Hall cover this issue by allowing people to say what kind of corp they want to be in?

[Riddlez]

John: I appreciate the feedback. As for your questions:

The Merc Corps is already inherently divided -as based on what people are looking for: some people will want to dominate the merc free space, some will say share it and there will basically be a Draconis ideology vs. Marik ideology going on there to gain resources or to get famous. Also, allegiances with houses will also cause competition and gang-like behaviors in regards to sniping each others worlds for the intent of pushing the houses interests.

As for casual and serious, that's actually something I was hoping for a discussion of. So far I've noticed:
want somewhere to call home, but don't want to bust my balls working for them
want hardcore gamers and recognition,
want well cooridinated groups, but no heirarchy

and stuff like that: people in between the extremes. I'm not super familiar with details, so suggestions of how to better define the two would be helpful.
________________________

Viper69: Good question and I definitely agree. However, I am focusing discussing this in the Merc Corps because I think it will become a more diverse and difficult topic, where I think the houses will end up using a subset of the ideas we come up with here. Also, keeps the faction related remarks out of the discussion.

With regards to your question: in detail I would almost expect it to be in the pitch and in more detail. However, most lone wolves or people not wanted to be stuck being a lone wolf are only able to look at the clan name and if it is a complete turn off they don't make it past the thread title when the clan might actually be a good fit, just with a ridiculous name. The advantage of the title tag is to improve outlier/new to the community participation into the Merc Corps or House Companies.
________________________

Jflash: that's exactly why I'm doing this.
________________________

Bfett: Great question. I can see your point, however it is limited to the activity of the people looking for recruits and the nature of the people looking for a group. I.e. if one were to perceive the recruitment process with two in-streams: one new recruits finding a Mech Corps that works for them and one where the Mech Corps find people waiting for contact, I am trying to improve the former. In particular, those that are looking for Mech Corps that are not of a popular structure, likely don't find it because they aren't great, strong or active recruiters either because it is in the culture they have developed in their unique Merc Corp structure (i.e. not wanting to aggressively be in people's face) or simply don't understand the benefit of advertising themselves effectively, therefore making them hard to find. Thus, I am essentially trying to make it easier for those types to find a way to filter out what they don't like so that they have a better chance at finding what they do like rather than waiting in line for someone to become interested in them.

Edited by Riddlez, 22 July 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Banditman]

I doubt that very many worthwhile units would *want* to be "classified" that way. Many of them would have a difficult time even figuring out "how" they wanted to be classified.

Before I decided to reform The Templars for MWO, I was leading a guild in EQ2 for about four years. We were typically one of the first four guilds to kill raid targets on our server. We didn't do 24 hour call lists or raid 7 days a week, but when we did raid, we got things done.

How would you classify that? Hardcore? That didn't really fit because we didn't raid 7 days a week, and we didn't have call lists. Casual? Not really . . . we killed raid targets ahead of 95% of the server. This is just one easy example.

I expect that my team here will run along those same lines. Not quite hardcore, but something more than casual. How do I "classify" that?

I understand the frustration that people searching for a team feel. However, on the other hand, I think it's important that those folks "do their homework" and learn to understand exactly what a given group represents.

From an experienced recruiters perspective, it's just as frustrating, let me tell you. Speaking only for myself, I want to get the "right" people, and I try to craft my messages to be attractive to those people who I think will "fit". But it's not easy. No two people have the same sort of needs and wants. No two people react the same to your message.

The best thing I can do is simply ask if they have questions, and hope that they respond and ask questions that are truly important to them, which will reveal the core of their needs.

All I can do is hope to get someone to open a real dialog with me so I can help them explore exactly what it is they need in a unit, and then help them discover whether that is something my unit can provide. If it is, great, I want them around. If it's not, I wish them good luck.

[ReconDoc]

Like Banditman I also have ran a gaming community for 4 years with Battlefield and CoD focus with divisions in WoT, Tribes:Ascend and now MWO. I find it easier to design squads/lances in 3 types HC (hardcore), CG (Casual Gaming), and AG(Auxiliary Gamers-those with interest in multiple games). From a recruiting standpoint its a hair-pulling experience to define and classify every gamer or try and classify every unit. You may get a HC gamer that becomes an AG after 2 weeks, yet if he/she is in a squad of HC then that squad hurts. We, at BattleBorn, use our 3 week recruitment time to allow the gamer to decide where they want to commit, and then place them appropriately. It also allows the gamer time to see if BattleBorn is a good fit for them as well. To classify your unit in just one category you limit your unit, yourself and your gamers to other possibilities.

[Riddlez]

Banditman: Thank you for your response. As one might see, I am lacking on the experience side.

Banditman, on 23 July 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

I doubt that very many worthwhile units would *want* to be "classified" that way. Many of them would have a difficult time even figuring out "how" they wanted to be classified.

That being the case, you misunderstand -slightly -what I'm aiming. Although, ideally (and as I had originally desired), one might be able to 'color' code their Merc Corp within the entire plethora of ways in which one could desire. However, as I had mentioned, it is to give people a quicker idea of, per se, "deal breakers" in the heading of the Merc Corp post for easier searching, or even in the body if you feel it obscure one's focus such that it can be searched with the tag. This, given that I have not been heavily involved in a faction/guild/merc corp, is what I was looking for. So to narrow my question, perhaps, to the community: what are some deal breakers when it comes to what you are looking for? Do you want to accomplish anything, and if so, what?

Banditman, on 23 July 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Before I decided to reform The Templars for MWO, I was leading a guild in EQ2 for about four years. We were typically one of the first four guilds to kill raid targets on our server. We didn't do 24 hour call lists or raid 7 days a week, but when we did raid, we got things done.

How would you classify that? Hardcore? That didn't really fit because we didn't raid 7 days a week, and we didn't have call lists. Casual? Not really . . . we killed raid targets ahead of 95% of the server. This is just one easy example.

I expect that my team here will run along those same lines. Not quite hardcore, but something more than casual. How do I "classify" that?

Effective and efficient; focused and determined; goal oriented and getting it done; serious. You want to succeed, but without wasting time with pointless drama and mob tactics. (Hence, why I would say that I can see why The Templars is a fitting banner to run under).

Banditman, on 23 July 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

I understand the frustration that people searching for a team feel. However, on the other hand, I think it's important that those folks "do their homework" and learn to understand exactly what a given group represents.

I totally understand that and that is exactly what I am trying to enhance. If such a title tag is successful, then it is possible that more people will inquire than would normally do so -i.e. making a passive 'advertisement' more accessible.

Banditman, on 23 July 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

From an experienced recruiters perspective, it's just as frustrating, let me tell you. Speaking only for myself, I want to get the "right" people, and I try to craft my messages to be attractive to those people who I think will "fit". But it's not easy. No two people have the same sort of needs and wants. No two people react the same to your message.

The best thing I can do is simply ask if they have questions, and hope that they respond and ask questions that are truly important to them, which will reveal the core of their needs.

All I can do is hope to get someone to open a real dialog with me so I can help them explore exactly what it is they need in a unit, and then help them discover whether that is something my unit can provide. If it is, great, I want them around. If it's not, I wish them good luck.

Same as above. My issue is a matter of throughput. Would you rather be in a position where the oddball person comes and contacts you every week and it flops 70% of the time (i.e 7 recruits every 10 weeks), or in a position of having 10 people contacting a week with a 20% success rate (i.e.20 recruits every 10 weeks)? (Obviously, retention is it's own thing in addition how many people your organization can handle for a given time frame for integration/training.) Hopefully that clarifies my objective more clearly.

________________________

ReconDoc, on 24 July 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

.... easier to design squads/lances in 3 types HC (hardcore), CG (Casual Gaming), and AG(Auxiliary Gamers-those with interest in multiple games). From a recruiting standpoint its a hair-pulling experience to define and classify every gamer or try and classify every unit. You may get a HC gamer that becomes an AG after 2 weeks, yet if he/she is in a squad of HC then that squad hurts. We, at BattleBorn, use our 3 week recruitment time to allow the gamer to decide where they want to commit, and then place them appropriately. It also allows the gamer time to see if BattleBorn is a good fit for them as well. To classify your unit in just one category you limit your unit, yourself and your gamers to other possibilities.

Your description in an interesting contrast to Banditman. As you would then say that Hardcore are for people who are consistently playing, versus those that play on an impulse. A 3 week trial is an interesting and useful mechanism to manage ADD in wannabe hardcore players, lol.

________________________

From this I would say that I it might be reasonable to say that this helped define how one might go about dividing the hardcore/casual spectrum of gamplay:
Casual -not limited to, but in general: play whenever, however and with people under the same banner for a simple sense of unity.
Serious -don't play regularly, but when you do, you do so with goal driven earnesty.
Hardcore -play regularly and seriously.
****-retentive -those hardcore gamers that aren't fun to be around.

So, does that make sense? Is it reasonable? Remember that my goal is for 'deal breakers' not and entire pitch stuffed into at title. Advantages: allows one to search/filter Merc Corps types and would be an easier way to divide the Merc Corp Postings

I.e. returning to/updating my original list of random examples:
-Management style: TBD
-General Player Environment:Level of seriousness: Casual, serious, hardcore, mixed
-Time Requirement: Absorbed into previous by definitions
-Overall Goal: TBD
-(New) Age group/maturity level?
-Time Requirments: Yes or No