287 replies to this topic

[CyclonerM]

Pariah Devalis, on 01 January 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

We can appoint a player council. Does not mean anyone needs to follow the command of said council. We need something that takes the choice away from people. IE: Locking out attacks against a given faction's holdings.

Aff, that would be among the in-game powers of these leaders. If i remember correctly, in that game i was talking about the faction leaders could, for example, declare wars and decide when to start the biggest special battles. There were some issues obviously but most of the players had to follow the orders and the decisions these leaders made, especially since with coordination and numbers wars could be won and lot of awesome rewards were a very good incentive to try to do your job.

[RustyBolts]

There must be some way to make them responsible to their faction. Maybe make them a sub unit of a permanent faction unit. That permanent unit has the authority to cancel their contract if needed. If it is canceled their unit coffers take a huge penalty

[Mystere]

Pariah Devalis, on 01 January 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

We can appoint a player council. Does not mean anyone needs to follow the command of said council. We need something that takes the choice away from people. IE: Locking out attacks against a given faction's holdings.

CyclonerM, on 01 January 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

Aff, that would be among the in-game powers of these leaders. If i remember correctly, in that game i was talking about the faction leaders could, for example, declare wars and decide when to start the biggest special battles. There were some issues obviously but most of the players had to follow the orders and the decisions these leaders made, especially since with coordination and numbers wars could be won and lot of awesome rewards were a very good incentive to try to do your job.

Edited by Mystere, 02 January 2015 - 07:49 AM.

[Noesis]

Mystere, on 02 January 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

Don't scare the children, they might find these things offensive.

Edited by Noesis, 02 January 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[LastKhan]

Mystere, on 02 January 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

Hehe looks like the middle ninja is trying to tell his buddies something but the 2 climbing are going leeroy and the other is like " Dude wut?"

I just think they have alittle to much power, they are supposed to be mercs that are under the command of the faction. Time can only tell what PGI will do. The merc contracts (the ones they talked about back in the day.) might tweak it but something else may need be done.

Edited by LastKhan, 02 January 2015 - 09:10 AM.

[Tank]

CyclonerM, on 01 January 2015 - 12:26 PM, said:

Well, now, if we had a player faction leadership feature..

Before you start telling me it will never work, well, there at least one F2P game where it works decently: Air Rivals. It is a quite cool fighter-based third-person shooter with RPG and MMORPG elements. A quite cool game, again. I used to play it for more than a year, then i was worn out by the excessive grinding (which you would expect in a korean F2P..). Its "CW" experience was very interesting: there are two factions in costant conflict, and daily events, not to mention big special events (things like destroying a capital ship..) make this war engaging and interesting. What is even more interesting, though, is that each faction has a player leadership and a voting system.

Basically, the players of each faction vote a candidate for each of three roles: President, Vice-President and a third one. They have gameplay abilities and usually had considerable power on player decisions too.

So what if our players could vote for a Khan of each Clan (it is not feasable to restrict the vote to Bloodnamed warriors sadly) and they would elect an IlKhan. They would be military leaders and judges of disputes between Clans. They might even have powers like calling for a" Trial of Absorption/Annihilation" vs an unit (maybe not a whole Clan), things like bonuses when you kill members of that unit (they could be marked for a while so they cannot just leave the unit..), with all due votes, checks and balances.

One can dream..

Rising Force Online had similar system, once a week citizens of Empires would vote for Archon, those who would get lesser votes would become officers, but it ultimately allowed strategic command of nuclear missiles and information during battle. Also Archon had a power to claim someone a traitor after a voting with officers or all people.
And game had a bloody football version for resolving disputes.

I hope MWO will fix CW in following year, so we won't look inferior to ancient Korean MMO.

[Mystere]

LastKhan, on 02 January 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

Hehe looks like the middle ninja is trying to tell his buddies something but the 2 climbing are going leeroy and the other is like " Dude wut?"

Look at the picture much more closely. The two on the wall just detonated their ordinance, the one in the middle just threw his, and the rightmost one is saying "Those politicians are so screwed.".

[LastKhan]

Heh yea, I saw the bomb on the left but still think its funny. The eyes on the guy on the far right just has that expression.

[Dracol]

LastKhan, on 02 January 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

I just think they have alittle to much power, they are supposed to be mercs that are under the command of the faction. Time can only tell what PGI will do. The merc contracts (the ones they talked about back in the day.) might tweak it but something else may need be done.

And the same could be said about player units dedicated to a clan or IS house. They're just the soldiers doing the bidding of their faction leaders and shouldn't have any ability to declare cease fires between factions.

Merc or loyalists, when you click on the faction tab, the planets the faction wants attacked are chosen for you. By making a point to not attack one of the provided planets, you are indirectly saying you do not agree with your faction leader's (PGI) choice.

[Kain Demos]

Dracol, on 02 January 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

And the same could be said about player units dedicated to a clan or IS house. They're just the soldiers doing the bidding of their faction leaders and shouldn't have any ability to declare cease fires between factions.

Merc or loyalists, when you click on the faction tab, the planets the faction wants attacked are chosen for you. By making a point to not attack one of the provided planets, you are indirectly saying you do not agree with your faction leader's (PGI) choice.

PGI does not lead any faction.

[Dracol]

Kain Thul, on 02 January 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

PGI does not lead any faction.

Um... they lead all factions. They choose who to attack. Do you have any say in which planet will be attacked next?

[Kain Demos]

Dracol, on 02 January 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

Um... they lead all factions. They choose who to attack. Do you have any say in which planet will be attacked next?

Putting an algorithm into place to ensure a slow pace is not the same thing as leading a faction.

The faction members still choose where to attack (or what not to attack) and where to defend.

Statements like this lead me to believe that much of this large scale merc trolling is a result of PGI not implementing mercs the way everyone expected.

[Dracol]

Kain Thul, on 02 January 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

Putting an algorithm into place to ensure a slow pace is not the same thing as leading a faction.

The faction members still choose where to attack (or what not to attack) and where to defend.

Statements like this lead me to believe that much of this large scale merc trolling is a result of PGI not implementing mercs the way everyone expected.

You know, "leading" may not have been the best term to describe the role PGI plays in CW. So, let me expand on my earlier statement:

From its inception, CW was created to include Clan v Clan combat as well as IS v IS combat.

After every ceasefire, the Factions put up available contracts for pilots to accept. Any pilot aligned with that faction can accept said contract to earn C-Bills and loyalty.

Units and their leaders have zero control which contracts are offered, only influence. The selection can be influenced by gaining or losing planets, which the algorithm takes into account when determining its next offering of contracts.

Every attack phase includes contracts that offer Clan v Clan, IS v IS, and Clan v IS. These contracts are offered by the faction. The faction is requesting pilots to accept these contracts.

Now, units are free to make agreements among themselves. They may even get together with the majority of units within one faction to make agreements with the majority of units within an opposing faction. This is the heart and soul of CW.

But, these are just coalitions and alliances made among the rank and file of the Houses. The Houses themselves, as evident by the contracts that they offer, continue to ask for engagements against all others. These contracts, and by extension the Factions themselves, are controlled by PGI and their algorithm.

Edited by Dracol, 02 January 2015 - 02:34 PM.

[DONTOR]

NAZGUULL, on 31 December 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

Any merc contracts for clan should only be long term or permenate. Say 3 months at the shortest.

Nah then it would be long term trolling and I'm not down with that. If it was like that though, It should say CGB merc. and not give them a fll on CGB tag and emblem, so we can tell who is false and who is a real Clan Ghost Bear member.

Actually a merc. designator for anyone changing factions should be put in the game anyways.

[Dagorlad13]

RustyBolts, on 31 December 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

So how do we fix this? I dont think letting IS have clan mechs is an answer either. Maybe force Mercs who take clan contracts are forced to take longer contracts. Right now it appears the merc units are going clan just to troll other clans.

Yes, CW is supposed to be "Hardcore Roleplaying Mode" so if any IS pilots chose to join a clan, it should be a permanent contract (bondsmen). Also, I think that if you take a permanent contract, you should not be able to break that contract without a really good, verifiable reason and an email to support (account hacked or whatever). The penalty for ending contracts early should be increased and there should be a penalty the next time you try to get a contract with the faction that you left early.

[Noesis]

Kain Thul, on 02 January 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

Statements like this lead me to believe that much of this large scale merc trolling is a result of PGI not implementing mercs the way everyone expected.

First we had Mercs should only be IS.
Then the Mercs attacked the Clans and the clans went.
Forget lore we want to be able to use Merc units.
This despite IS or other Clans not having an issue.
Then some mercs used their ability in the game to attack clans from other clans.
All of a sudden mercs again are the enemy.
People are aware of MRBC as a potential new mechanic yet to be introduced.
MERCS are just being mercs and spotting the comercial opportunities with the existing mechanics.
Quite sure this might resrict how contracts are arranged.


Question do you now want to revert all that talk about forgetting lore to restrict Mercs to IS contracts as per the MRBC traditions. This with the possibility of all the Merc corps working for the houses alongside their factional capabiltiies and the Clans not having these flexible options?

The only common denominator being when it is something that goes against Wolf interests you cry foul and dont give any credance to other peoples choice of playstyle in the process. And you wonder why perhaps Mercs attack you in game but instead now try to point the finger of blame at PGI?

Mercs will more than likley evolve with the changes I'm sure as per the future evolution of MWO, we seemed to have adapted to Beta quickly enough. But seems Clan Wolf only knows how to complain as opposed to adapt, but can't see that perhaps if they sat down and had cups of tea with people they might not have these issues in game? If you only want to work for your own interests consistantly how do you think that will encourage others to help you? Or perhaps that like the forums the game is not being built purely for Clan Wolf to enjoy?

[Gyrok]

RustyBolts, on 31 December 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

So how do we fix this? I dont think letting IS have clan mechs is an answer either. Maybe force Mercs who take clan contracts are forced to take longer contracts. Right now it appears the merc units are going clan just to troll other clans.

Minimum clan contract 30 days, other options include: permanent.

That should fix the "hopping".

[Kain Demos]

Noesis, on 02 January 2015 - 02:47 PM, said:

MERCS are just being mercs and spotting the comercial opportunities with the existing mechanics.

Clearly you have zero understanding of mercs in battletech.

Also, yes, mercs should be IS only. Their equivalent on the Clan side could be the "Clan Loyalist" faction that used to exist before CW and they can change their alignments at certain intervals like mercs can do in the IS.

Edited by Kain Thul, 02 January 2015 - 03:37 PM.

[Dracol]

Kain Thul, on 02 January 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

PGI does not lead any faction.

So, after my clarification, do you still believe PGI does not "lead" any faction?

Edited by Dracol, 02 January 2015 - 04:01 PM.

[Kain Demos]

Dracol, on 02 January 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

So, after my clarification, do you still believe PGI does not "lead" any faction?

Your post swayed me by a factor of zero.