8 replies to this topic

[JHackworth]

This has probably been suggested before but I find the current contract mechanic clumsy and not conducive to the RP aspect of the game.

My suggestion is to revisit the original design plan, that pilots should choose to be a House loyalist, Merc or Lone Wolf.

Individual players or units can choose to join a House, but these aren't contracts--they don't expire. Players and units can choose to refaction for a fix cost and grace period; maybe a penalty of LP loss; but they gain a loyalist bonus to LP available only to loyalists and access to loyalist specific functions, for example, sponsoring merc units.

Mercs are subject to contracts, and only IS houses issue contracts. This fixes the CI, faux-bear...ahem...issue that the Ghost Teddys are experiencing. Mercs also have access to a contracts market where loyalist house units can create contracts on the open market for additional "security contractors" in addition to the standard 'basic' House contracts that are currently in the game.Yes, this means unit wallets. Mercs can break contracts subject to terms/cost stipulated in their contract. There's the standard cancellation penalty for standard contracts and custom/market contracts are player driven.

Lone Wolves
...are basically single player merc corporations. The share most of the mechanics of Mercs except they don't have their own unit identity and no unit wallet.

Edited by JHackworth, 31 December 2014 - 01:55 PM.

[Karl Marlow]

I think the mechanic we have now is fine. It might be nice to have a little symbol in the lower right hand corner of the faction flag that indicates a person is not in a permenant contract.

[Threat Doc]

PGI needs to get into the books -especially Mercs Handbook and MH: 3055- and find out how Community Warfare really needs to be done. If they're going to have their logo, with the words "A BattleTech Game" beneath it, and they want to live up to the moniker of "A thinking man's game", they're going to have to impress me with Phase Three.

I understand the purpose behind simplifying the game so the lame-brained can understand it and be able to participate in the higher-level parts of it, but stop. Those same lame-brains need to be twitch-fighting for units whose leaders are capable of understanding what those higher-level mechanics entail. The unit management system -which should be the hardest for mercenaries to deal with, in accordance with the above-listed books-, as well as the contracting, strategic operational planning, and objective-based warfare management should be a game within the game... something that should NEVER affect anyone who simply wants to run a 'Mech in the game, except for the mission assignments available to them to execute.

Make it so unit leaders, and/or their appointed representatives, select the type of mission to be undertaken (reconnaissance, intelligence recording/theft, objective-based smaller missions, skirmishes, assaults, resource gathering, and have the percentage of the planet taken by an attacker adjusted by these missions, but also have the defender nullify some of what gains were made with a home-field advantage based on what's been built up on a defended world. The effort of taking a world needs to be one that takes some time, requires planning, effort, and decent execution.

Build an application, tied to a database, whether in these forums or in the Faction portion of the interface, where unit leaders can list whether their unit is House, Clan, Duchy (St. Ives and FRR), Periphery holding, Pirate Group, or Mercenary (and, some of these tags would actually combine). On top of that, they can select certain items from menu's, such as whether they're Europe, Asia, or Micronesia only, across multiple continents, or world wide, what typical play times for the commander are, if a unit is religiously based, a heavy to light MilSim, hippy, loosey-goosey, etc. There are a lot of things that could be placed here. Then, a commander can write up statements of requirements or responsibilities, of privileges, and give a general outline of the type of unit they are, in their own words. Then, when a player comes in to register -and this could be offered to everyone who has ever registered with MWO, as well- they answer a few questions about the type of unit they're looking to participate in, and the database/app matches them with the best unit they match, and give a list of nine other units they may not quite match with once they've read everything written by the unit commander. If they find a unit they like in that list, they can send mail directly to the unit commander with their interest in joining the unit; what takes place from there determines if that player gets picked up, or goes back to the drawing board.

Also, I absolutely agree with the OP that only mercenaries should be able to negotiate contracts, and then only with Inner Sphere entities, including other huge canon and non-canon mercenary units. I feel like PGI are doing everything but paying attention to the lore on this, and I am so very much hoping I'm wrong.

[JHackworth]

CW should evolve to be mission oriented warfare rather than a series of assault and defend exchanges. Imagine if we had different mission types, search and destroy, assault, escort, cargo run and a contract/rewards system based on those. EVE's mission system wasn't too bad, just dispense with the "agents" mechanic.

[Ogunn]

I do not agree that Mercs should be a seperate faction. I do agree that mercs should not be able to work for clan factions. I do believe mercs should get treated differently from loyalists. For instance I think mercs should have special game modes and or contracts available only to them. For instance Sabatoage, IE blow up a bridge, or weapons manfucaturing facility or, Rescue Missions, rescue nobles trying to flee a world under seige, rescue a high value person from a prison complex. etc. I think PGI is suffering from trying to please everyone all the time. By doing this they are alienating and possibly losing the group that wants a more emmersive and strategy oriented game.

[JHackworth]

I think the term 'Faction' is overloaded here. I really just mean Mercs should one of three distinct character 'classes'--i.e you choose to be a "merc", a "faction loyalist" or a "lone wolf"

[Dragon Fetladral]

I think one should be a Clan Loyalist or a Merc, a Clanner or a House unit member, or a lone wolf.

I do not believe people should be able to bounce from Clan to IS and vice versa so easily as it completely breaks the immersive factor in the game.

I get people moving IS to IS relatively easily and can see Clan Loyalists doing the same, but for someone to go IS to Clan is highly unlikely and really just breaks what little of the lore value this game tenuously clings to.

See my sig for more.

[Threat Doc]

Ogunn, on 31 December 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

I do not agree that Mercs should be a seperate faction.

You do realize it's a single faction for all Merc units to fit under, and then services are hired out to the House's, right?

Quote

I think PGI is suffering from trying to please everyone all the time. By doing this they are alienating and possibly losing the group that wants a more emmersive and strategy oriented game.

I think PGI are suffering from lack-of-following-the-original-plan-itis. They chose a course, they need to stick with it until they are done, instead of, like you said, trying to make everyone happy because, you're absolutely right, they ARE alienating -not risking- and losing the group that would keep them flush with cash and work to bring new people into the game FOR THEM, by trying to cater to those of less-refined sense.

Dragon Fetladral, on 31 December 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

I think one should be a Clan Loyalist or a Merc, a Clanner or a House unit member, or a lone wolf.

I do not believe people should be able to bounce from Clan to IS and vice versa so easily as it completely breaks the immersive factor in the game.

Yes... absolutely... what PGI originally planned and are not, at this point, reassuring anyone that is what they intend to execute.

Quote

I get people moving IS to IS relatively easily and can see Clan Loyalists doing the same

(the needle scratches off the record); no Clanners are loyal to their Clan and no other. The Clans don't have mercs or bouncers, unless they are bondsmen from other Clans -I could see a program like that, where someone parlay's to become a bondsman of a Clan other than their own favored one.

Quote

but for someone to go IS to Clan is highly unlikely and really just breaks what little of the lore value this game tenuously clings to.

Thank you for stating this. It's not like it's not stated enough, but you've really hit on the three words that should have been in primary use all this time.

[Threat Doc]

I go back, now, and read my own words, and then I think about what was spoken at the past three town-hall meetings, and I feel broken. Russ, Paul, and Bryan NEVER had love for BattleTech, they are liars and haters of anything that was good, anything they said they were GOING to do, and my spirit is pretty low because of their lies. I uninstalled the game three days ago, and now I think I will be leaving this forum.