287 replies to this topic

[CyclonerM]

Wow..3+ pages while i have turned my head the other way
As i feel this is one of the hottest issues atm, i will post some comments to several posts..

Alexander Steel, on 11 January 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

I'm quoting this because it's amusing.

Oh, it is, but think about it, it follows a similar logic of what you were saying. Aff, in MWO we do not have tools to punish rogue mercs, but i would rather not have to use them Btw, a good person should not need the risk of being arrested
to "force" him to not steal a watch, quineg? I do not steal a watch because that is not good for the community as a whole, to be really generic. Same in MWO: if i really hated the Jade Falcons and one day i thought "i would really love to take one of their planets!" i would not do it, even if there were 11 pugs waiting in the lobby, because it is not good for the faction as a whole. Sure, the risk of repercussions in my unit would not be forgotten but it would not be the only reason to have a cool head. Maybe for you i am a sheep in a Wolf clothing, but in my opinion i am a loyal Clan warrior who can set aside some of his passions to help with the goals of the Clan.

Quote

In order to unite a community you don't start out ((as people in this thread have asked for)) tools to punish people who don't agree to your community rules. If you can't see how that's a problem, then we can always go back to stealing watches.

I think the big problem is that you are confusing who is in charge. It's not the "So Called" Khan of Clan of Wolf, it's PGI. PGI sets the rules, and has vastly limited whatever power faction members have to force their will over other members of their faction.

Sort of like if somebody demanded the power to kick people from 12 man PUG drops if the rest of the people in the drop didn't follow their orders to the letter. Wait, I bet some people would like that power.

Oh, but we do not need any tool. The punishment for those people and their faction is defeat

PGI may decide the targets with its algorythms (plus the random chance of bugs..), but it is up to the players to decide which planets they want to attack, so PGI's power is kind of moot, is not it? We have the power!

And there is not even such a need for that power: usually the most annoying and troublesome pugs disconnect when they have an ego issue

Alexander Steel, on 11 January 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

Wolf is in the exact opposite boat and is the only clan in negative planets taken.

Hmmm... isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Like the Mercs and Steiners attacking planets only defended by turrets and expecting to face a challenge?
We are in negative because all the comp teams are facing few pugs and turrets.. Nothing i can do about it.

Quote

Wolf set out ((as documented here)) being unpleasant to Mercs and others who might join their faction. This caused them to be unpopular and now they are failing harder. Instead of changing their ways they want more tools to let them be even more unpleasant to people.

Considering the actions and reputations of certain merc units, i cannot say we were that wrong in my opinion. There are actually merc units i respect, an example being Tank's Liberty Guards (not sure they are actually mercs though, i think they are more like a militia). For example, a merc unit did join Clan Wolf: the Antares Scorpions. What good did they do? As far as i know (and this knowdledge is pretty limited, i admit) they mostly poked the Bears prompting a reactions from them (which is the exact same thing CI and MS have done repeatedly - that might be insanity as well if they expected to take any Wolf planet ..) instead of helping with our targets or defending our worlds from any IS counter attack

RustyBolts, on 11 January 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

Yes CGB did well the last week. That was because they did not have to deal with as many comp teams hitting them as Wolf and Faclon did.

And yes I consider it trolling when some Merc units jump back and forth trying to incite fighting between allies.

This and this.

Gyrok, on 11 January 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:

The issue lies in the fact that currently, you are not balancing, you are creating imbalances.

As it stands, when CW started out, things were reltatively well spread, with the exception of the concentration at GB. Aside from that, things were relatively good.

Now, with people constantly hopping around, imbalances flow with the movement of the mercs, and I personally would like to see a scenario like the following:


6) If you break a contract early, you may not enter a new contract until your current contract would expire, plus wait a 7 day cooling off period.

7) Breech of contract would cost the unit coffers 10 million cbills per player put into breech of contract in the unit.

This would create stability.

I love especially these two ones. However, you cannot control how many merc units join a faction, aside from increasing rewards). If 5 comp teams join a faction, the situation will be only imbalanced for a longer time with longer faction contracts.

You know what i would rather see to fix this?

Each faction can only hire X number of merc units. This number changes with the war going on: if a faction takes 3 planets in 5 days, its goverment would hire a small number of merc units; if the faction loses planets during a week, it would hire more merc units, more as the losses go on. The only issue with this system that i can think of is that a faction could be filled with 1-2-3 men units. This max number could be applied only to 50+ members units, but then bigger units could break it by dividing itself into smaller units..

Alexander Steel, on 11 January 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

However if we want to go with real battletech timelines.... enjoy 7 day recharge times on jumps, taking as many as 7 days to go from the Jump Ship to the planet surface. Fights over planets would take weeks instead of 24 hours and units would be stuck on the planet or in the dropship going to and from objectives for weeks on end without any ability to fight. Oh yeah and going from one front to the other side of your space would take weeks, months, or even a year depending on how large your faction is.

Yeah.. using battletech timelines would be a bad thing in this game. Oddly enough a unit taking a 1 week contract in this game could easily fight on as many different worlds and effect the front way more than a unit in the Lore would during the entre length of a 2-3 year contract.

I would LOVE such an accurate, big and immersive simulation of the Battletech universe! Of course, time will have to be sped up, but that is not a great issue, even Star Citizen will do it

I would really not mind having to wait some time to attack if i had a lot of activities to do on my Jumpship and if the battle was an immersive snadbox total war..

MischiefSC, on 11 January 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

Part of the issue is that there are no benefits to going House/Clan and all the benefits to going Merc. When I hit Loyalty Level 20, that's it. A Merc can get 12x the amount of rewards I can as a House Loyalist - 12x. That means that if I get 4 mech bays... a merc can get 48.

It's foolish to be anything but a merc the way they have it set up. In fact many of the 'top tier' groups like Wolves Dragoons may require you to have a certain rank in multiple factions - meaning House Units are essentially screwed, unless you want to just abandon your faction cuz PGI in general seems to want players to treat houses/factions/Clans like pairs of socks.

There are a lot of fundamental design issues here that hopefully get resolved in time.

MischiefSC, on 11 January 2015 - 10:40 PM, said:

Let's make this clear. Rotating through all the Houses and Clans would get you 12 times the rewards that a loyalist would get.

I understand what you are saying, and any advantage that PGI can give to loyalists can only make me happy (if they make sense..). However, to be really honest, i do not care so much about getting mech bays or rewards with all the factions. I would rather "loyalty point" my way trough my faction's ranks, and i look forward to more rewards as cockpit items and decals, if not skins.

Gyrok, on 11 January 2015 - 10:50 PM, said:

I do not see it that way at all...

-strong and true words-

This, this and this. This is the way to earn a greater respect from me.

[Noesis]

The regulation through MRBC would be associated with loyalty.

The more loyalty you apply to a faction the better the contracts you can pick up with them.

But to include as a feedback for an employer and as an example, if a faction were to employ a MERC group with the MRBC then they could offer a "customer satisfaction" rating so to speak about them for that contract. This likely with units of significant size say 20 or more that could then apply reviews to this vote to stop smaller units from trolling or skewing this process. I.e. you have to have sufficient representation IG for your vote to count. This would then leave an overall "star" rating for the unit.

Contracts would then be offered as a combination of loyalty and star rating, with the more lucrative contracts being excluded if loyalty is negative (until repaired) and the bonus values or ratios associated with performance (the star rating) could effect the payment value.

This would then include some contribution of loyalty for MERCs even if they were seen as neutral players. And also the star rating affords employers to be able to influence the process. But this then not affording players the control of who gets what contract which would could be easily manipulated.

Loyalty points and bonuses then are more readily earnt from those who show permanent assocaitions so the idea of MERCs having to use the temporary contracts means that they repair or earn LP so much slowly anyhow by default.

Hopefully addition salvage options could then help with gameplay here.

----

For bandits it would be even different, where loyalty isnt as important and flag planting isnt relevant. This is more to do with raids against infrastructure and sabotage concluding in changing the game play.

E.g. complete a sabotage mission and maybe the turrets are weaker, or the attacker as a slight tonnage bonus etc.

The above gameplay ideas then not influencing the conquest points but the ability to make conquest more easier. This can be offset with infrastructure being purchased being able to improve the defences and other assets to help the defenders.

E.g. Upgrade a hanger, the defender gets a slight tonnage bonus. Upgrade turrets, gates etc.

This then allowing them some unique options but that they dont receive similar economical bonuses as per factions. Also rates of pay for contracts could be less than MRBC but that salvage rights are implied from any action and that with any Black Market options these kind of Bandit units get better preferable rates to offset their assocaition with that economy as opposed to the Factional economy.

It needs to be said that Factional ownership of bandit contract needs to exclude any player recognition due to under the table dealings, should this ever be relevant.

This would afford less long term economical benefits to playing Bandits but would give them more flexible arrangements and also perhaps with the use of Mixtech as a result.

Another idea could be to limit Bandit unit sizes to a certain amount, say 50, to help with keeping things more under the radar for that unit and also to make handling of logistics and perhaps communications more awkward to do. The freedom of movement options then perhaps helping here with lighting raid options in the gameplay with smaller unit sizes.

----

Other gameplay modes could include intelligence layers or recon style missions where again when maps become more determinable and there is more game content this could then help to determine the map the game is played on. Though the objective of a recon mission I'm unsure but could be something like a 4 v 12 or a 6 v 12 and the idea being to photo or observe with a configurable button a specific objective or objectives. Where success will effect the ability to determine maps by others as bonus counters to do so. Defence of recon then removing this capability and also I would say that failure of a recon then preventing that unit to drop for a specific short period of time as a result.

-----

These then some intial ideas of how differing playstyles could in fact help to change the CW arena and be something other than sticking flags into planets.

Contracts then not player controlled but "guided" by events and player feedback. But never excluded to player groups as a result. But loyalty and good relations then offering more lucrative benefits than others.

Edited by Noesis, 12 January 2015 - 06:01 AM.

[Alexander Steel]

For those wanting this massively complex plans... keep in mind that PGI is the group that is going to try to put them together. If that doesn't scare you, you are braver than I am.

[SgtSkullShatter]

Haha ^^^

True story right there xD

[Dracol]

To those who wish to have all the Clans working together against the IS, would you want to see Clan V Clan CW conflicts removed from the game completely?

[Alexander Steel]

It really sounds like it. I mean just from watching things it sounds like the big clan units have agreed not to fight each other. Which from a strategic level of thinking makes sense, however from a fun level... not so much.

Hot IS on IS action and Dirty Clan on Clan action are in my opinion the most fun matchups because everybody is coming in with the same mechs and balances.

IS vs Clan is my least favorite, if for no other reason than one side or the other seems to constantly cry about something. I say this as having played both as Clan and as IS in these fights. Both sides seem convinced that the other side is running 100% OP unfair mechs and that's why they win or can even put up a fair fight if they lose.

[Dracol]

Alexander Steel, on 12 January 2015 - 08:02 AM, said:

It really sounds like it. I mean just from watching things it sounds like the big clan units have agreed not to fight each other. Which from a strategic level of thinking makes sense, however from a fun level... not so much.

Hot IS on IS action and Dirty Clan on Clan action are in my opinion the most fun matchups because everybody is coming in with the same mechs and balances.

Exactly, why would anyone advocate to remove 1/3 of the unique game experience CW has provided MWO?

[Joe Psycho]

Alexander Steel, on 12 January 2015 - 08:02 AM, said:

It really sounds like it. I mean just from watching things it sounds like the big clan units have agreed not to fight each other. Which from a strategic level of thinking makes sense, however from a fun level... not so much.

Hot IS on IS action and Dirty Clan on Clan action are in my opinion the most fun matchups because everybody is coming in with the same mechs and balances.

IS vs Clan is my least favorite, if for no other reason than one side or the other seems to constantly cry about something. I say this as having played both as Clan and as IS in these fights. Both sides seem convinced that the other side is running 100% OP unfair mechs and that's why they win or can even put up a fair fight if they lose.

well put.

[RustyBolts]

Noesis, on 12 January 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

The regulation through MRBC would be associated with loyalty.

The more loyalty you apply to a faction the better the contracts you can pick up with them.

But to include as a feedback for an employer and as an example, if a faction were to employ a MERC group with the MRBC then they could offer a "customer satisfaction" rating so to speak about them for that contract. This likely with units of significant size say 20 or more that could then apply reviews to this vote to stop smaller units from trolling or skewing this process. I.e. you have to have sufficient representation IG for your vote to count. This would then leave an overall "star" rating for the unit.

Contracts would then be offered as a combination of loyalty and star rating, with the more lucrative contracts being excluded if loyalty is negative (until repaired) and the bonus values or ratios associated with performance (the star rating) could effect the payment value.

This would then include some contribution of loyalty for MERCs even if they were seen as neutral players. And also the star rating affords employers to be able to influence the process. But this then not affording players the control of who gets what contract which would could be easily manipulated.

Loyalty points and bonuses then are more readily earnt from those who show permanent assocaitions so the idea of MERCs having to use the temporary contracts means that they repair or earn LP so much slowly anyhow by default.

Hopefully addition salvage options could then help with gameplay here.

----

For bandits it would be even different, where loyalty isnt as important and flag planting isnt relevant. This is more to do with raids against infrastructure and sabotage concluding in changing the game play.

E.g. complete a sabotage mission and maybe the turrets are weaker, or the attacker as a slight tonnage bonus etc.

The above gameplay ideas then not influencing the conquest points but the ability to make conquest more easier. This can be offset with infrastructure being purchased being able to improve the defences and other assets to help the defenders.

E.g. Upgrade a hanger, the defender gets a slight tonnage bonus. Upgrade turrets, gates etc.

This then allowing them some unique options but that they dont receive similar economical bonuses as per factions. Also rates of pay for contracts could be less than MRBC but that salvage rights are implied from any action and that with any Black Market options these kind of Bandit units get better preferable rates to offset their assocaition with that economy as opposed to the Factional economy.

It needs to be said that Factional ownership of bandit contract needs to exclude any player recognition due to under the table dealings, should this ever be relevant.

This would afford less long term economical benefits to playing Bandits but would give them more flexible arrangements and also perhaps with the use of Mixtech as a result.

Another idea could be to limit Bandit unit sizes to a certain amount, say 50, to help with keeping things more under the radar for that unit and also to make handling of logistics and perhaps communications more awkward to do. The freedom of movement options then perhaps helping here with lighting raid options in the gameplay with smaller unit sizes.

----

Other gameplay modes could include intelligence layers or recon style missions where again when maps become more determinable and there is more game content this could then help to determine the map the game is played on. Though the objective of a recon mission I'm unsure but could be something like a 4 v 12 or a 6 v 12 and the idea being to photo or observe with a configurable button a specific objective or objectives. Where success will effect the ability to determine maps by others as bonus counters to do so. Defence of recon then removing this capability and also I would say that failure of a recon then preventing that unit to drop for a specific short period of time as a result.

-----

These then some intial ideas of how differing playstyles could in fact help to change the CW arena and be something other than sticking flags into planets.

Contracts then not player controlled but "guided" by events and player feedback. But never excluded to player groups as a result. But loyalty and good relations then offering more lucrative benefits than others.

Alexander Steel, on 12 January 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

For those wanting this massively complex plans... keep in mind that PGI is the group that is going to try to put them together. If that doesn't scare you, you are braver than I am.

I agree with both of these. I think that would be ideal, but I also do not think that PGI has the ability to accomplish it.

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 12 January 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

To those who wish to have all the Clans working together against the IS, would you want to see Clan V Clan CW conflicts removed from the game completely?

Not sure...

Honestly, I think there should be a way for a faction to basically turn off the aggression planets with factions that have negotiated ceasefire.

Outside of the "ruling group of players...whatever they would be called" breaking the pact, or agreeing upon doing so...would it be allowed to be toggled back on.

Dracol, on 12 January 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

[/size]
Exactly, why would anyone advocate to remove 1/3 of the unique game experience CW has provided MWO?

Because we have been fighting Clan vs Clan since clan mechs dropped...perhaps? Maybe this is new for you...just like IS vs IS is old for everyone...

However, I think we should be able to completely turn off aggression planets with allies. That would prevent groups from just "stirring the pot" because they could...it would be unavailable to anyone in that faction.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 12 January 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

Outside of the "ruling group of players...whatever they would be called" breaking the pact, or agreeing upon doing so...would it be allowed to be toggled back on.

This is were I have the biggest issue. A "ruling group of players" telling everyone else associated with their House/Clan that they can not participate in one of the 3 variations of CW matches being offered.

[Gyrok]

Joe Psycho, on 12 January 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

well put.

Actually, Clans vs. Clans and IS vs. IS are the most boring...you either poke fest in clans, or you rush and brawl in IS...(or spam the bejeezus out of ERPPCs...as it were...).

Clans vs. IS are the only scenarios where you actually get diverse game play because the differences between the 2 cause groups to have to react differently...

Dracol, on 12 January 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:

This is were I have the biggest issue. A "ruling group of players" telling everyone else associated with their House/Clan that they can not participate in one of the 3 variations of CW matches being offered.

Then do not join the group if you disagree with their leadership...

Sure some factions would be less desirable because of the leadership...however, if you want to play "stir the pot" then simply go play for someone else...

This could not be simpler...

If some people leave that faction over the leadership, eventually the leadership will change due to inactivity, or what have you.

EDIT: Did you ever consider that the way you like to play the game makes other people uncomfortable? That thought perhaps ever cross your mind? Because when 2 groups make a pact, there *should* be a way to enforce it upon the entire faction. This is the very meaning of the terms "allies". As you cannot have allies if rogue units go and randomly attack them.

Edited by Gyrok, 12 January 2015 - 09:53 AM.

[Alexander Steel]

Quote

Actually, Clans vs. Clans and IS vs. IS are the most boring...you either poke fest in clans, or you rush and brawl in IS...(or spam the bejeezus out of ERPPCs...as it were...).

Clans vs. IS are the only scenarios where you actually get diverse game play because the differences between the 2 cause groups to have to react differently...

Hey if you like IS on Clan action, I'm cool with that. What happens in your battle stays in your battle, and I wouldn't do anything to try to limit your ability to Clan on IS all night long.

Just don't try to stop me from finding my Clan on Clan or IS on IS action when I'm in the mood.

Quote

Then do not join the group if you disagree with their leadership...

That's exactly what people are doing by not joining the big name clan units.

Quote

Did you ever consider that the way you like to play the game makes other people uncomfortable? That thought perhaps ever cross your mind? Because when 2 groups make a pact, there *should* be a way to enforce it upon the entire faction. This is the very meaning of the terms "allies". As you cannot have allies if rogue units go and randomly attack them.

Not at all. If the group of Clan Wolf Units you represent ((not the entire clan because you don't represent Clan Wolf)) don't want to fight a group of Jade Falcon Units ((not the entire clan because they don't represent Clan Jade Falcon)) than you guys don't have to fight and can make whatever alliances you want that effect the units who agree to follow you. However those who don't agree to follow you can do whatever they want because again, you don't represent Clan Wolf as a faction.

Now if you can show me some proof that PGI gave you control over the Wolf Faction, I'll change my thinking.

Edited by Alexander Steel, 12 January 2015 - 10:01 AM.

[PhoenixNMGLB]

Not sure what the issue is here to be honest. Are you trying to say 'if you are not a die hard supporter of my faction then don't play with us' then that's a bit harsh. As has been mentioned some people put up a lot of cash for clan tech - why should you have the authority to decide if they can use them for CW or not?

I understand you want everyone working together but pugs will be pugs

[Gyrok]

PhoenixNMGLB, on 12 January 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

Not sure what the issue is here to be honest. Are you trying to say 'if you are not a die hard supporter of my faction then don't play with us' then that's a bit harsh. As has been mentioned some people put up a lot of cash for clan tech - why should you have the authority to decide if they can use them for CW or not?

I understand you want everyone working together but pugs will be pugs

The issue is large Merc units disregarding faction allegiances and causing trouble for allies of said groups...

[PhoenixNMGLB]

Gyrok, on 12 January 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

The issue is large Merc units disregarding faction allegiances and causing trouble for allies of said groups...

This isn't a clan issue - everyone has this problem. On the whole the organised groups just ignore the actions said troublemakers. You can't force alliances on everyone and it isn't down to PGI to fix anything.

[Alexander Steel]

Gyrok, on 12 January 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

The issue is large Merc units disregarding faction allegiances and causing trouble for allies of said groups...

Not possible. Factions as a whole can't make allegiances because players don't control the factions as a whole, at most they control units inside of those factions. That isn't the same thing.

[CyclonerM]

Dracol, on 12 January 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

To those who wish to have all the Clans working together against the IS, would you want to see Clan V Clan CW conflicts removed from the game completely?

I do not wish it to be removed. I just want to wait to fight the other Clans once we have an IlClan - then i would expect a big Warden vs Crusader war, and that would be cool, quiaff? Just a matter of priority. Terra, first. Then, all the skirmishes we want.

[Alexander Steel]

CyclonerM, on 12 January 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

I do not wish it to be removed. I just want to wait to fight the other Clans once we have an IlClan - then i would expect a big Warden vs Crusader war, and that would be cool, quiaff? Just a matter of priority. Terra, first. Then, all the skirmishes we want.

That doesn't even follow the lore. The Falcons and the Wolves most certainly didn't wait until Terra was claimed before taking the knives to each other. Jade Falcon got invaded by clans from the homeworld at least 3 times.

[CyclonerM]

Alexander Steel, on 12 January 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

That doesn't even follow the lore. The Falcons and the Wolves most certainly didn't wait until Terra was claimed before taking the knives to each other. Jade Falcon got invaded by clans from the homeworld at least 3 times.

But that was after the truce - meaning that the push on Terra could not be continued for 15 years. Instead, in MWO, we have no such truce and we can push on Terra , each Clan with its own ideologic motivations

And if you are so against a pure reenactement of the invasion from the lore, why should we not try to learn from the Clan's mistakes in the lore?