34 replies to this topic

[dezgra]

Almond Brown, on 28 January 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

That would be done under a true Logistical interface. Sure you may push out as far as you want, maybe leaving a small garrison behind, but the loss of even one key Logistical, Supply and Support Planet along that route, would put a serious kink in those "long range goals".

Hopefully, in time, Logistics will be a big player in how and where Factions go and how they make sure that Supply lines, and Jump corridors are maintained. Then Mercs, and other smaller groups can be utilized by the Houses to harass and nibble on these supply lines while the House in question "pursue their long range goals".

Of course, that Sword they would wield on their behalf is also quite double edged as well.

I do agree with you fully, I am just a long range thinking optimist who most times speaks first and thinks later.
This thread has many excellent points, my favorite is the garrison requirement.

[Kjudoon]

An example of a unit very happy to have and protect a home planet without a system currently in place and would welcome it in the future.

http://mwomercs.com/...87585-asuncion/

[Kjudoon]

Almond Brown, on 28 January 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

That would be done under a true Logistical interface. Sure you may push out as far as you want, maybe leaving a small garrison behind, but the loss of even one key Logistical, Supply and Support Planet along that route, would put a serious kink in those "long range goals".

Hopefully, in time, Logistics will be a big player in how and where Factions go and how they make sure that Supply lines, and Jump corridors are maintained. Then Mercs, and other smaller groups can be utilized by the Houses to harass and nibble on these supply lines while the House in question "pursue their long range goals".

Of course, that Sword they would wield on their behalf is also quite double edged as well.

Essentially this is the difference between Merc and Faction Loyalist play.

A merc gets the ability to choose his own destiny. They can choose their contracts, choose their house... all that. They have freedom to fight for the best price and enemies they desire. The catch is they have limited resources, funds and scope of influence. They are NOT a faction unto themselves, nor a government. They must be wary the costs of war and fight on an economical basis compared to that of the great houses. They're flacks, flunks and errand boys for the Factions. This will never change.

A faction loyalist is not free. They fight who their house says to fight, paid what the house says they earn, stay where their faction says they'll stay. But... they do not have to worry about the costs of war. Their equipment gets broken, they don't dig out of pocket for it, they send the bill on up the chain of command and wait. They don't just decide to attack a location because they're bored like pirates or mercs, they play garrison duty or follow the major push. They are the will of an empire. Their long range plans can be epic or at least be part of someone else's epic plan.

Face it. You're not Hanse Davion in a cockpit. You're some poor schlub that WORKS for or pledges FEALTY to Hanse Davion. Like a conscript to Napoleon, you have your reasons to fight, but never forget your place. Not a single player is truly free to pursue dreams of empire here.

If you want to play Napoleon, I suggest Civilization V, not MWO. There is no place here for Mech Jockey Napoleons.

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 January 2015 - 01:02 PM.

[Sam Slade]

Another good point; should a merc group not require 100% faction loyalty before they are able to claim a landhold under the auspices of their employer? Sitting on 50% loyalty points and getting your name on a planet(inc. the assumed logistical benefits) doesn't seem logical. Where are the petty egotistical Barons coming in and saying "thanks for the dieing, get off my planet"?.

If we're going to make a unit defend their landhold then shouldn't that come with the 'benefit' of being a true Merc-Military Governor.

1). Ability to prevent 'enemy'(whomever they choose that to be) units from using the jump-points(if the holder has aerospace assets).

2). requirement that they MAINTAIN a 100% loyalty rating with the faction they live under(maybe loyalty should degrade over time)..

3). Requirement that the mercs take the contracts their landholder offers BEFORE they take any other contracts(obviously they cannot attack their landhold faction).

4). Requirement that the mercs garrison their planet. Secondline units but they are responsible for defending it.

Aside from that, they're mecs who act like mercs.

[RustyBolts]

@Sam. I like these ideas, but they should apply to all units not just mercs.

[Naduk]

Hate the idea of forcing people to defend
So many RL logistical issues
What happens when your unit is not online
What happens when you get attacked outside of your time zones
And other concerns already raised in posts above

I do however like the idea of planet Garrisons
Tagging a planet should require you to leave a drop deck there to defend it, this deck would need to be not made of trials and would lock those mechs for at least two ceasefire phases (unless used to defend the planet, in which case its use is required)

After owning the planet for a day or 2 those mechs would be returned to action, this would slow down major pushes by large units as their top mechs would get used up over time

This would allow defenders time to rally or pugs a chance to win
It would encourage alot more drop deck diversity

[Mangonel TwoSix]

Sam Slade, on 28 January 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

Another good point; should a merc group not require 100% faction loyalty before they are able to claim a landhold under the auspices of their employer? Sitting on 50% loyalty points and getting your name on a planet(inc. the assumed logistical benefits) doesn't seem logical. Where are the petty egotistical Barons coming in and saying "thanks for the dieing, get off my planet"?.

If we're going to make a unit defend their landhold then shouldn't that come with the 'benefit' of being a true Merc-Military Governor.

1). Ability to prevent 'enemy'(whomever they choose that to be) units from using the jump-points(if the holder has aerospace assets).

2). requirement that they MAINTAIN a 100% loyalty rating with the faction they live under(maybe loyalty should degrade over time)..

3). Requirement that the mercs take the contracts their landholder offers BEFORE they take any other contracts(obviously they cannot attack their landhold faction).

4). Requirement that the mercs garrison their planet. Secondline units but they are responsible for defending it.

Aside from that, they're mecs who act like mercs.

Where are the Barons? Probably hiding under the bed hoping the mercs that just won the planet dont throw em out

[SuomiWarder]

As noted by others, main issue is real life scheduling. In the old MW4 leagues units would agree to a time to meet and fight within the league maximum time allotment. That kind of stuff isn't going to fly in a full time MMO.

[Almond Brown]

Naduk, on 29 January 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

Hate the idea of forcing people to defend
So many RL logistical issues
What happens when your unit is not online
What happens when you get attacked outside of your time zones
And other concerns already raised in posts above

I do however like the idea of planet Garrisons
Tagging a planet should require you to leave a drop deck there to defend it, this deck would need to be not made of trials and would lock those mechs for at least two ceasefire phases (unless used to defend the planet, in which case its use is required)

After owning the planet for a day or 2 those mechs would be returned to action, this would slow down major pushes by large units as their top mechs would get used up over time

This would allow defenders time to rally or pugs a chance to win
It would encourage alot more drop deck diversity

Until Groups get Faction based Stables they can assign from a Faction Pool, players will not want to lock out Mechs for days? If they were Faction Mechs, paid for or donated by players to the Faction Pool, then Garrisons could be implemented.

The big draw back there would be, what would the garrison # limit be and then who drives those Garrison Mechs (not the Top tier for sure) when an Attack starts?

Being allowed to bring in your "BEST" 48 vs say 36 (+ the 12 Garrisoned Mechs) to the Defense, would make Garrisoning nothing more than a "paper work hassle" for whomever is tasked with looking after those Garrisons, on those planets, for those factions.

Can't really expect, even the largest House\Faction or Merc groups to Garrison (multiple planets) with a force of 48 Mechs that just sit and wait for an Attack....

[Dracol]

Aren't tags on planets an acknowledgement of the unit that had the most players participating in wins? Isn't it the faction who claims the planet, but they give a nod to XYZ unit for helping with the capture/defense the most?

RustyBolts, on 23 January 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

And part two of this would be if a Merc unit switched from say Steiner to FRR, any planets that had their unit tags on it in Steiner would disappear.

If tags are historical markers acknowledging a unit for helping a faction capture/defend a planet, why should that history be erased just because they accepted a new contract?

Edited by Dracol, 30 January 2015 - 11:50 AM.

[TheDeckardCain]

@dracol Yeah but that's hardly an incentive for one to defend a planet. I would suggest PGI put a system in place that will give an incentive to even have the planet to begin with. If they get that worked out, we wouldn't have to suggest that a unit should be forced to defend.

[RustyBolts]

Dracol, on 30 January 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Aren't tags on planets an acknowledgement of the unit that had the most players participating in wins? Isn't it the faction who claims the planet, but they give a nod to XYZ unit for helping with the capture/defense the most?


If tags are historical markers acknowledging a unit for helping a faction capture/defend a planet, why should that history be erased just because they accepted a new contract?

Simple. If you are not part of that faction anymore you have no right to the planet. The history of the planet will still showed who owned it and when, but current ownership should be limited to current faction only.

[Dracol]

RustyBolts, on 30 January 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Simple. If you are not part of that faction anymore you have no right to the planet. The history of the planet will still showed who owned it and when, but current ownership should be limited to current faction only.

Right, the faction always owns it. It just shows the UNIT that participated the most in the last engagement on that planet. The tag confers no ownership to the unit. Removing the tag would only remove acknowledgement of that units participation in a past series of attacks/defenses.

If at any point units gained benefits from a tag and no one else outside of that unit gained benefits, then a system such as you proposed would make sense.

[RustyBolts]

Dracol, on 30 January 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

Right, the faction always owns it. It just shows the UNIT that participated the most in the last engagement on that planet. The tag confers no ownership to the unit. Removing the tag would only remove acknowledgement of that units participation in a past series of attacks/defenses.

If at any point units gained benefits from a tag and no one else outside of that unit gained benefits, then a system such as you proposed would make sense.

Yes, in the current situation it does not make sense. However, if a unit were to gain an advantage from owning a planet, then yes, when they leave a faction, they lose ownership/tag of a planet.

[Dracol]

RustyBolts, on 30 January 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

Yes, in the current situation it does not make sense. However, if a unit were to gain an advantage from owning a planet, then yes, when they leave a faction, they lose ownership/tag of a planet.

That is sensible.