164 replies to this topic

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 28 January 2015 - 10:46 PM, said:

Negative, Clans did not "work" with Wolf's Dragoons.

As of 3050, the last communications with WD were 17 years earlier in 3033. Hence, when the lost ComStar vessel was captured, Leo Showers had an easy time getting clans to invade because they did not know what was going on in the Inner Sphere anymore.

You really need to read some of this stuff.

I'm glad you brought up the details of Wolf's Dragoons. The Clans made up a force, sent it deep into IS territory with appropriate tech. Then that unit posed as a Merc unit and offered their services to the Houses to attack their neighbors.

Kinda sounds like what the IS may have done to the Clans within MWO.

I gotta point out that you glossed over my main point, which was:
"It is correct, Clan v Clan private matches were available. But, the ability to drop against the MWO population in general in a battle that pays c-bills and exp with tech restrictions is only available in Community Warfare. That experience can never be replaced with private matches.

To hold lore up as the end all be all reason to not have Clan v Clan Community Warfare conflict limits an already limited game mode."
A point that you have yet to provide a solid counter argument too.

Edited by Dracol, 29 January 2015 - 05:47 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

RG Notch, on 28 January 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

It's apparently supposed to be what a small subset of self selected people care to do.

Sounds like a government or ruling body... Doesn't it?

[RG Notch]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 January 2015 - 06:01 AM, said:

Sounds like a government or ruling body... Doesn't it?

Yes and we need another unelected one telling people what to do in games as well. I mean it's bad enough it happens in real life why add in a game that people play for fun. Oh that's right their fun should trump others. The way the system operates right now people can play their political games amongst themselves and that's cool. It shouldn't have any effect on people who don't choose to be part of their politics.

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 29 January 2015 - 05:46 AM, said:

I'm glad you brought up the details of Wolf's Dragoons. The Clans made up a force, sent it deep into IS territory with appropriate tech. Then that unit posed as a Merc unit and offered their services to the Houses to attack their neighbors.

Kinda sounds like what the IS may have done to the Clans within MWO.

I gotta point out that you glossed over my main point, which was:
"It is correct, Clan v Clan private matches were available. But, the ability to drop against the MWO population in general in a battle that pays c-bills and exp with tech restrictions is only available in Community Warfare. That experience can never be replaced with private matches.

To hold lore up as the end all be all reason to not have Clan v Clan Community Warfare conflict limits an already limited game mode."
A point that you have yet to provide a solid counter argument too.

Based on population levels alone there is no logic in it. The force that has fewer groups, and more sparsely populated groups at that, should not be infighting. "Limited game modes" have nothing to do with strategy or tactics from any stand point.

[Alexander Steel]

If they shouldn't be in-fighting because of strategy or tactics then they should choose to follow that. The game mode shouldn't be set up to prevent you from having bad tactics.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 29 January 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

Based on population levels alone there is no logic in it. The force that has fewer groups, and more sparsely populated groups at that, should not be infighting. "Limited game modes" have nothing to do with strategy or tactics from any stand point.

So, it would appear your desire for the removal of Clan v Clan Community Warfare in essence has little to do with lore, and everything to do with the inability for your faction to handle more than one front.

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 29 January 2015 - 06:43 AM, said:

So, it would appear your desire for the removal of Clan v Clan Community Warfare in essence has little to do with lore, and everything to do with the inability for your faction to handle more than one front.

Negative.

I do not wish to remove Clan versus Clan Community Warfare. I wish to be able to enforce agreed upon ceasefires through creative means.

Then, if there is a breach of ceasefire, it is the fault of the faction members, and *NOT* the mercenaries who randomly attack whatever they feel like attacking.

This would mean an open declaration of war and prevent any groups from hiding behind mercenary units as though they cannot control them.

As for mercenaries, you may or may not get Clan versus Clan combat in Community Warfare, that depends on what you are hired to do. If you do not like the contracts, then do not take them.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 29 January 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

This would mean an open declaration of war and prevent any groups from hiding behind mercenary units as though they cannot control them.

Hiding behind Merc units is a stable of Battletech lore. Called plausible deniability. Why remove that feature?

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 29 January 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:

Hiding behind Merc units is a stable of Battletech lore. Called plausible deniability. Why remove that feature?

The elite mercenary units would never do such a thing, as it could potentially damage future contracts, and could also damage their reputation dramatically.

*SOME* were duped into doing things later by houses that manipulated them, but the mercenaries themselves were not the group that decided to do it.

Essentially, to understand my point you need to read this and understand it completely:

A mercenary is hired to do a specific job, and only that job. It is not their job to make "executive decisions" or to change their orders without clearance to do so. The groups that are paying these units should be able to dictate what they are paying you to do.

If you cannot see the logic in that, I wonder how you are employed in the real world...(or maybe you are not?)

[Alexander Steel]

By the same token house military units don't get to set realm policy or decide where they go to fight. The realm/district commanders say go here and they go. The Davion Heavy Guard Commander doesn't get to wake up one morning and go.. "You know what, today I think we'll go invade Kurita."

Edited by Alexander Steel, 29 January 2015 - 07:23 AM.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 29 January 2015 - 07:04 AM, said:

A mercenary is hired to do a specific job, and only that job. It is not their job to make "executive decisions" or to change their orders without clearance to do so. The groups that are paying these units should be able to dictate what they are paying you to do.

Currently, the Faction leaders, played by NPCs, are offering contracts to attack all neighboring Clans and Houses.

From a lore perspective, this easily represents the political bickering all Houses and Clans participated in. Both on the Universal scale as well as the more local, system, or district conflicts that were the life blood of many tabletop campaigns.

[jay35]

It's always amusing to watch lore grognards arguing for things that would ruin the gameplay experience for the vast majority of the playerbase simply in order to make their own experience as overly-complicated or draconian as they want it to be. They think it perfectly reasonable to require everyone else to put up with their lore-heavy tyranny, yet are the first to claim offense when others suggest more reasonable, free (or at least freer) market approach to contracting and the mercenary player experience. Or they completely ignore the suggestions in order to continue obsessing over their own bad idea.

"B-b-but- we schimply muscht control the merschenariesch and make them do our bidding!" pffft. If that's your attitude, have fun fighting your own battles while the mercs stand to and watch your pathetic house crumble without their support.

Edited by jay35, 29 January 2015 - 08:18 AM.

[Alexander Steel]

It never ceases to amaze me how much people want to get their inner authoritarian on.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alexander Steel, on 29 January 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

It never ceases to amaze me how much people want to get their inner authoritarian on.

Really?

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 29 January 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

Currently, the Faction leaders, played by NPCs, are offering contracts to attack all neighboring Clans and Houses.

From a lore perspective, this easily represents the political bickering all Houses and Clans participated in. Both on the Universal scale as well as the more local, system, or district conflicts that were the life blood of many tabletop campaigns.

Clans do *NOT* contract mercs.

This is counter to any Lore that ever existed for CJF to provide a contract against any clan, ever.

jay35, on 29 January 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

It's always amusing to watch lore grognards arguing for things that would ruin the gameplay experience for the vast majority of the playerbase simply in order to make their own experience as overly-complicated or draconian as they want it to be. They think it perfectly reasonable to require everyone else to put up with their lore-heavy tyranny, yet are the first to claim offense when others suggest more reasonable, free (or at least freer) market approach to contracting and the mercenary player experience. Or they completely ignore the suggestions in order to continue obsessing over their own bad idea.

"B-b-but- we schimply muscht control the merschenariesch and make them do our bidding!" pffft. If that's your attitude, have fun fighting your own battles while the mercs stand to and watch your pathetic house crumble without their support.

Wolf is not crumbling in spite of the current efforts...

EDIT: Let me make this clear...

I have made several suggestions that would basically keep both sides pretty happy in my eyes being a fairly even keel between the Loyalists having complete control, and having no control. If you have not read those intelligent, well written posts, with clear breakdowns of my discussion, then you have no grounds to question what my position is on the matter. So, please, any of you, go back and read.

I am not demanding a house have total control...nor am I proposing such.

At a glance:
(1) Factions would generate generic contracts that would pay only base rate, and only pay to attack one faction bordering that faction.

(2) Units could place contracts that could be heavily incentivized in myriad ways that would make them significantly more lucrative than generic contracts. This benefits mercenaries because...well...more money. This benefits units because it makes their goals clear, and recruits help *for that purpose alone*.

(3) Mercenaries would be Inner Sphere only, Daggerstars would be clan only. If you wish to jump between those...go ahead, but the LP, etc. would not carry over from either side.

(4) A MRBC rating system could be established to rate Mercenary units via a Letter grade based on specific criteria that could not be influenced by a unit making a contract with said unit. Units could comment on a profile of the Mercenary Corps in MRBC, though the letter grade would be only performance driven based solely on contractual criteria, win rates, completed contracts, and activity.

(5) Contracts could require a unit that takes the contract to hold any Letter grade, but higher grades require higher pay.

(6) All mercenary units start as a C letter grade, and advance or regress depending on performance relative to peers and contracts.

(7) House units would earn more LP and have better/higher faction loyalty things such as specific mechs only acquired via LP from that faction at X rank.

(8) Mercs would earn less LP, and have lower faction loyalty rewards but more cbills.

Edited by Gyrok, 29 January 2015 - 09:40 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

RG Notch, on 29 January 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

Yes and we need another unelected one telling people what to do in games as well. I mean it's bad enough it happens in real life why add in a game that people play for fun. Oh that's right their fun should trump others. The way the system operates right now people can play their political games amongst themselves and that's cool. It shouldn't have any effect on people who don't choose to be part of their politics.

But it also happens in games. I didn't have a say who was the Jedi Counsel in SWTOR, Nor did I have a say in who gives my the missions in Neverwinter.

And none of the characters in the CBT universe "elected" the Major House leaders! But gosh there they are giving orders to folks who didn't have a say.

I for one would like to see some real direction to this war against the Clans.

[Alexander Steel]

Quote

Clans do *NOT* contract mercs.

This is counter to any Lore that ever existed for CJF to provide a contract against any clan, ever.

They do in this game. Just like in this game you can fight on the Davion/Liao border and then fight on the Steiner/Falcon border 30 minutes later... despite nowhere in the lore did anybody have FTL travel that fast. Or how your mech can get blown up, and then you have it again next drop. Or how one person can own 100+ mechs. Or... or... or....

The game is not trying to follow the lore, it's picking and choose whatever elements it thinks will make for a fun game and scrapping those that don't. This is a good thing.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 29 January 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

Clans do *NOT* contract mercs.

This is counter to any Lore that ever existed for CJF to provide a contract against any clan, ever.

So, what parts of lore are you willing to ignore and which parts are you not willing to ignore?

Twycross... what are your thoughts on that? Should the Clans have lost the MWO fight on that world just recently and a ceasefire between IS and Clan initiated? Because continuing to fight after Tycross goes counter to any lore that ever existed for CJF.

Edited by Dracol, 29 January 2015 - 09:57 AM.

[RG Notch]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 January 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

But it also happens in games. I didn't have a say who was the Jedi Counsel in SWTOR, Nor did I have a say in who gives my the missions in Neverwinter.

And none of the characters in the CBT universe "elected" the Major House leaders! But gosh there they are giving orders to folks who didn't have a say.

I for one would like to see some real direction to this war against the Clans.

Well speak for yourself, some of us don't need someone to tell us how to have fun. I respect the rights of others to play the way they want, I don't respect people who think they can tell others how to have their fun. If the orders come from PGI that's one thing, to have some other player, no matter how many posts he has or how many people in his unit tell others what they can and can't do is crazy talk to me. I still fail to see how they can't be content with their own player made agreements and NAPs or alliances or what have you. I refuse to believe they should have any way to enforce them on players who don't submit to them. What is so hard to grasp about that? They play the way they want, others play the way they want, win win no? Their claims to lore or what not should not trump other players choices. PGI has stated no player control of factions and this makes sense.
It seems a number of folks on both sides seem reasonable about this. The several unit players have said that they don't expect their agreements to bind no parties and many people opposed to player control are happy to allow these folks to make and keep these agreements amongst themselves. Its seems a small subset on each side, the usual lunatic fringe expects either that they can tell everyone how to play or that no one should be able to even make agreements or pacts. I'm not wasting my time on them. The reasonable choice seems to lie right where it is, units can agree amongst themselves to alliances, NAPs or what have you and there is no in game way for these to be enforced on non parties. What is the problem with that? Before anyone claims their fun is being infringed upon, why should anyone's choice of how to play trump another's? Of all people aren't you the champion of people playing the way they choose within the rules?

[Joseph Mallan]

RG Notch, on 29 January 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

Well speak for yourself, some of us don't need someone to tell us how to have fun. I respect the rights of others to play the way they want, I don't respect people who think they can tell others how to have their fun. If the orders come from PGI that's one thing, to have some other player, no matter how many posts he has or how many people in his unit tell others what they can and can't do is crazy talk to me. I still fail to see how they can't be content with their own player made agreements and NAPs or alliances or what have you. I refuse to believe they should have any way to enforce them on players who don't submit to them. What is so hard to grasp about that? They play the way they want, others play the way they want, win win no? Their claims to lore or what not should not trump other players choices. PGI has stated no player control of factions and this makes sense.
It seems a number of folks on both sides seem reasonable about this. The several unit players have said that they don't expect their agreements to bind no parties and many people opposed to player control are happy to allow these folks to make and keep these agreements amongst themselves. Its seems a small subset on each side, the usual lunatic fringe expects either that they can tell everyone how to play or that no one should be able to even make agreements or pacts. I'm not wasting my time on them. The reasonable choice seems to lie right where it is, units can agree amongst themselves to alliances, NAPs or what have you and there is no in game way for these to be enforced on non parties. What is the problem with that? Before anyone claims their fun is being infringed upon, why should anyone's choice of how to play trump another's? Of all people aren't you the champion of people playing the way they choose within the rules?

How to have fun no. Where to go to find it... A lot of games have areas to faff about and then the actual story areas. Thats all we need to have.

Comm from General Socialpants sends orders to you that your contract clause is being activated and you are being sent to Twycross to engage an unknown force. You will receive reinforcements from The Marik Militia in 3 weeks. God Speed.