157 replies to this topic

[Mordin Ashe]

Kain Thul, on 05 February 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

Pretty sure Elissa has always been Ghost Bear. It is Ferris, Outpost, and Skallevol we still need to take back. I would like Elissa as well though.

Sure, Ferris, Outpost, Skallevol, Elissa... New Bergen, Hermagor, New Oslo, Dawn... you just want everything, do you not, dezgra?

[Ax2Grind]

Mordin Ashe, on 05 February 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

Sure, Ferris, Outpost, Skallevol, Elissa... New Bergen, Hermagor, New Oslo, Dawn... you just want everything, do you not, dezgra?

It's all there for the taking...if they can take it.

[RJF Grimuar]

Caught in a dirty intercourse with mercenaries bears called someone dezgra ?

[Alexander Steel]

RJFGrimuar, on 05 February 2015 - 01:49 AM, said:

Caught in a dirty intercourse with mercenaries bears called someone dezgra ?

You may not have noticed this but...

1. In this game all units are Mercs.
2. In this game the clans have no problem using Mercs.

Don't hate the player... hate the game.

[CyclonerM]

Alexander Steel, on 05 February 2015 - 04:08 AM, said:

1. In this game all units are Mercs.

But depending on their actions, even if they are technically mercs, we can easily distinguish loyalist/regular units, mercenaries and pirates..

[Noesis]

CyclonerM, on 05 February 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

But depending on their actions, even if they are technically mercs, we can easily distinguish loyalist/regular units, mercenaries and pirates..

I have to agree, factional allegiances do not help to distinguish parties who consider themselves of a more neutral affiliation.

Even if the mechanics themselves are yet to have any better recognistion and purpose for neutral parties vis a vis MRBC and Bandit/pirate play, even the ability to see or distinguish between who are neutral types and who are loyalist parties in player units would help with diplomatic concerns.

Question, how would you then want to indicate lone wolves who then perhaps have loyalist interests? I guess those really would need to also be shown as lone wolves, as a neutral affiliation, since they have not associated to a player unit with a touman and have permanent loyalist concerns or again would you vary the assocations based on their contractual selections?

This then perhaps requiring two factional indicators as opposed to just 1 so you can determine efforts on the borders where multiple factions can co-operate with defense situations. So one indicator would then be needed for the current contract's faction despite term and the second being associated for the type of unit/player.

Thus would it then be more simplified to only allow the recognition of loyalist units as those player units and players who have shown a permanent contract. All other "temporary" affiliations then having to elect a MERC, Bandit/Pirate or Lone Wolf relationship with their gameplay?

Edited by Noesis, 05 February 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[ApolloKaras]

Noesis, on 05 February 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

I have to agree, factional allegiances do not help to distinguish parties who consider themselves of a more neutral affiliation.

Even if the mechanics themselves are yet to have any better recognistion and purpose for neutral parties vis a vis MRBC and Bandit/pirate play, even the ability to see or distinguish between who are neutral types and who are loyalist parties in player units would help with diplomatic concerns.

Question, how would you then want to indicate lone wolves who then perhaps have loyalist interests? I guess those really would need to also be shown as lone wolves, as a neutral affiliation, since they have not associated to a player unit with a touman and have permanent loyalist concerns or again would you vary the assocations based on their contractual selections?

This then perhaps requiring two factional indicators as opposed to just 1 so you can determine efforts on the borders where multiple factions can co-operate with defense situations. So one indicator would then be needed for the current contract's faction despite term and the second being associated for the type of unit/player.

Thus would it then be more simplified to only allow the recognition of loyalist units as those player units and players who have shown a permanent contract. All other "temporary" affiliations then having to elect a MERC, Bandit/Pirate or Lone Wolf relationship with their gameplay?

Could base it off faction rank maybe. Or just make it simple add a superscript M in the faction icon to anyone taking less than a "Pledge of Loyalty".

Edited by Saxie, 05 February 2015 - 07:35 AM.

[Noesis]

Saxie, on 05 February 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

Could base it off faction rank maybe. Or just make it simple add a superscript M in the faction icon to anyone taking less than a "Pledge of Loyalty".

Makes sense, though I think the distinction for bandits/pirates may be useful for all concerned, even if on occasion Bandits and Pirates actions may not be so dissimilar from MERCs anyhow with their actions.

In some sense the very idea of not being able to do "black bag" or "false flag" ops is not something I agree with as players should be investing effort into intelligence to understand their enemies. But if it reduces the amount of "whining" on the forums that there is on this matter, I'm kind of happy to make this compromise atm.

The superscript or subscript idea to denote MERCS - "M", Bandit/Pirates - "B" or "P" (there can be a distinction here for some), "L" for Lone wolf?

Alternatively you could just use a "T" to denote a temporaty contract from a permanent one.

[Kain Demos]

Mordin Ashe, on 05 February 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

Sure, Ferris, Outpost, Skallevol, Elissa... New Bergen, Hermagor, New Oslo, Dawn... you just want everything, do you not, dezgra?

If I had my way we would not stop fighting you until you look like the FRR is going to in about a week, whether it took 2 months or a year. I am but one guy in a faction though so ultimately what I would like matters not.

Edited by Kain Thul, 05 February 2015 - 08:10 AM.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

So much hate Kain. It is just a game. CW attacks massivly CGB. I m not intrested in your reasons. Get out. Close the door. See you on the battelfield. Freeborn Dezgra...

[Kain Demos]

Marc von der Heide, on 05 February 2015 - 08:19 AM, said:

So much hate Kain. It is just a game. CW attacks massivly CGB. I m not intrested in your reasons. Get out. Close the door. See you on the battelfield. Freeborn Dezgra...

You are right, it is just a game. I do not see where "hate" comes into play. I would never "hate" anyone/anything within a game. I am all about sending messages though and I would like to send one to every faction in CW that pretending to be our friend while repeatedly putting a knife in our back has consequences.

[CyclonerM]

Noesis, on 05 February 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Question, how would you then want to indicate lone wolves who then perhaps have loyalist interests? I guess those really would need to also be shown as lone wolves, as a neutral affiliation, since they have not associated to a player unit with a touman and have permanent loyalist concerns or again would you vary the assocations based on their contractual selections?

Thus would it then be more simplified to only allow the recognition of loyalist units as those player units and players who have shown a permanent contract. All other "temporary" affiliations then having to elect a MERC, Bandit/Pirate or Lone Wolf relationship with their gameplay?

Well, aside from gameplay consideration (actual pirate gameplay would need a LOT of thought and balancing imho), i think i would do it like this:

-Loyalist Unit: (but i would prefer "regular" as these units are part of the regular army/Touman of a faction): the units that have a permanent contract to the faction, pledging loyalty to it and basically being absorbed into the armed forces of such faction. I think that these permanent contracts should not be breakable at all, either you serve your House/Clan with loyalty or you have to disband the unit and create another one with a different name..
Of course, units could also change their status from merc to Loyalist (example being McCarron's Armored Chivalry , an ultra-loyal merc unit that was later absorbed into the armed forces of the CC).

-Mercenary Unit: these units are pretty well distinct from pirates. I strongly think there should be a overhaul of the merc syttem, but if we had not to change much of the current system, i would just designate as Merc Unit those merc units that serve with loyalty and efficiency their employer. A reputation system would be needed though: if enough unit leaders give them a negative reputation, the mercs cannot fight for that faction anymore until its unit leaders do not change their rating; if they break more than X contracts, get too much of a negative reputation or both, they are forced to go rogue because very few would hire them.

-Pirates: they are those merc units that get too much of a low reputation and/or break too many contracts, as i said above. They cannot join a faction or get contracts and be paid by their faction; they do not have loyalty rewards as well. So how they actually operate in-game? As i said, it requires thought.

-Lone Wolves: well, i consider them more or less loyal mercs, and this is what they are supposed to be accoding to PGI. As for units, their actions, attitude and words would earn them a different classification: casual merc, loyal merc, or even lone Clan warrior (which is actually weird, because Clans do not have lone wolves as they are meant in MWO ..).

Marc von der Heide, on 05 February 2015 - 08:19 AM, said:

So much hate Kain. It is just a game. CW attacks massivly CGB. I m not intrested in your reasons. Get out. Close the door. See you on the battelfield. Freeborn Dezgra...

CGB mercs, with some actual CGB support, have been attacking us since the start of CW.. We were too focused on our duty of returning to Terra to bother with you, but now that the algorythm is not giving us ant IS target, we have to choose between CJF and CGB, and the choice is pretty easy. Besides, i am still waiting for the day when Ferris will be contested again. We are starting to repay our debt

Edited by CyclonerM, 05 February 2015 - 10:03 AM.

[Alexander Steel]

I'm sort of surprised. I guess Clan Wolf wasn't joking when they said the Ghost Bears weren't going to roll them.

[CyclonerM]

Alexander Steel, on 05 February 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

I'm sort of surprised. I guess Clan Wolf wasn't joking when they said the Ghost Bears weren't going to roll them.

Indeed. The Jan 20th patch did wonders!

[Kain Demos]

Alexander Steel, on 05 February 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

I'm sort of surprised. I guess Clan Wolf wasn't joking when they said the Ghost Bears weren't going to roll them.

I will bet you are. I remember you were still saying that they would bend us over even after we took 4 worlds from them at the outset of our offensive.

Edited by Kain Thul, 05 February 2015 - 01:16 PM.

[Davers]

Kain Thul, on 05 February 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

I will bet you are. I remember you were still saying that they would bend us over even after we took 4 worlds from them at the outset of our offensive.

To be fair, he was hardly the only one who held that opinion. I believe the general consensus was that CW was in for a world of hurt. But, you guys may have a little Kerensky in you after all.

Edited by Davers, 05 February 2015 - 01:43 PM.

[Kain Demos]

Davers, on 05 February 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

To be fair, he was hardly the only one who held that opinion. I believe the general consensus was that CW was in for a world of hurt. But, you guys may have a little Kerensky in you after all.

And yet, no one of consequence, outsiders all with absolutely no clear picture of what was really going on.

Looking at these threads it appears Ghost Bear is fresh out of allies and will soon be fighting on quite a few fronts:

http://mwomercs.com/...28#entry4168728

http://mwomercs.com/...t-of-tanh-linh/

[Bregor Edain]

More chances for good fights so I see no problem there. Even if we where to lose some planets, we can get them back and have fun doing so.