164 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

HarlekinEO, on 30 January 2015 - 05:09 AM, said:

When it becomes more profitable being a Merc then playing in a house unit, then almost everyone (besides the roleplayers) will become a Merc unit.
Even the fact, the Merc units are currently larger then house units is embarrassing.

If you want a better payment, then house units (which is quite logical), then House units need access to House Tech (prototype Mechs, higher Technology (DHS instead SHS, Light PPC etcpp). But due to the current business concept of PGI, this wont happen.

mercs = higher rewards, but no planets beign tagable

So only faction units can get their tags on planets.


and since c-bills and loyalitipoins aren't that appealing, except maybe for some mercs, the visual epeen are a mottivation to choose a faction over a merc.


but then as I said, this is only working if the rewards for the mercs is what their motivation is. Which for many may not be the case.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 29 January 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:

If Mercenaries and Daggerstars are switchable factions for those units...then why not? Just LP rewards would remain separated by factions as now.

So, I'm a confused. You're ok with Clans hiring mercs as long as they are called Daggerstars?

Edited by Dracol, 30 January 2015 - 06:11 AM.

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 30 January 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

So, I'm a confused. You're ok with Clans hiring mercs as long as they are called Daggerstars?

Only because of the implementation of Daggerstars in this game.

If/when they add more clans, I would look at doing something different, however, at this point, there are many players that would like to support clans though their clan of choice is not represented as an option.

So, at this point in time, yes, I would be ok with some kind of similar system in place for clans using clan loyalists. Considering the depth and complexity of having 2 separate systems for Clans and IS in this game, it may ultimately be a sacrifice that would have to be made to accommodate all. It is not something I am happy about, but I realize that better options are non-existent for the daggerstars (homeless clan loyalists) aside from taking up residence in one of the big 4.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 30 January 2015 - 06:32 AM, said:

-snip-

Ok... here is were I got confused on your position.

Your response to Alexander Steel's post: "So yeah. You couldn't be a merc for a clan and then later an IS power."

was: "If Mercenaries and Daggerstars are switchable factions for those units...then why not? Just LP rewards would remain separated by factions as now. "

The "then why not?" led me to believe you are in support of the mercs working for clan and then later an IS power. This correct or incorrect? I was under the impression you would be against a unit being able to play Clan one week and IS the next week, right?

Edited by Dracol, 30 January 2015 - 06:46 AM.

[Gyrok]

Ok, for clarification:

In this system you would have basically 2 mercenary factions:

Mercs and Clan Loyalists.

Clan Loyalists can only take Clan bids and Mercs only IS contracts.

You can choose between these 2 factions, how long you have to remain one or the other could be any length of time I suppose. I have not really proposed rules for limitations on being able to jump back and forth to this point. I think 1 week is too short, personally, with the current system in place in CW now (read: none)...however, a week may be fine if such a system as I described was implemented using generic and unit contracts with the rules I put forth governing that.

Of course, LP for separate factions earned by mercs/daggerstars (davion points only davion, CJF only CJF, etc.) stays in that faction pool, and loyalty bonuses could make mercs that stay on longer terms very lucrative for them.

Edited by Gyrok, 30 January 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 30 January 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

Ok, for clarification:

In this system you would have basically 2 mercenary factions:

Mercs and Clan Loyalists.

Clan Loyalists can only take Clan bids and Mercs only IS contracts.

You can choose between these 2 factions, how long you have to remain one or the other could be any length of time I suppose. I have not really proposed rules for limitations on being able to jump back and forth to this point. I think 1 week is too short, personally, with the current system in place in CW now (read: none)...however, a week may be fine if such a system as I described was implemented using generic and unit contracts with the rules I put forth governing that.

Of course, LP for separate factions earned by mercs/daggerstars (davion points only davion, CJF only CJF, etc.) stays in that faction pool, and loyalty bonuses could make mercs that stay on longer terms very lucrative for them.

Now in your system, in theory, could no-name Bear unit hire a Daggerstar to attack Clan Wolf? Even if major units within Bear and Wolf agreed to a ceasefire?

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 30 January 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:

Now in your system, in theory, could no-name Bear unit hire a Daggerstar to attack Clan Wolf? Even if major units within Bear and Wolf agreed to a ceasefire?

Theoretically, if the unit leader met the minimum criteria to place a contract. However, if Wolf and GB are in a ceasefire, it would be an open declaration of war...considering there would be no "rogues" attacking, the contract would have been placed by a GB unit....

EDIT: It may seem very similar to what we have now, and for some parts it would be...however, there is a culpable trail of responsibility for actions. Additionally, when a House/Clan unit places a contract, only those Mercs who can view those contracts can see it. So, house units cannot see what other houses/clans are contracting/bidding for units to do. So, you would have some subterfuge built into it as well...though while you are contracted, your in game tag should show the unit you are fighting for at that point...much as though it does now when you take a faction contract.

Edited by Gyrok, 30 January 2015 - 10:02 AM.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 30 January 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

Theoretically, if the unit leader met the minimum criteria to place a contract. However, if Wolf and GB are in a ceasefire, it would be an open declaration of war...considering there would be no "rogues" attacking, the contract would have been placed by a GB unit....

EDIT: It may seem very similar to what we have now, and for some parts it would be...however, there is a culpable trail of responsibility for actions. Additionally, when a House/Clan unit places a contract, only those Mercs who can view those contracts can see it. So, house units cannot see what other houses/clans are contracting/bidding for units to do. So, you would have some subterfuge built into it as well...though while you are contracted, your in game tag should show the unit you are fighting for at that point...much as though it does now when you take a faction contract.

So, the ability for a unit to work with another unit under the table is what you wish removed from MWO? All politics should be in the open and no clandestine operations performed?

[Gyrok]

No...I think you misinterpret.

Units can work under the table, but factions cannot deny responsibility. See the subtle difference there?

Essentially, unknown unit A in GB contracts daggerstar group B to attack CSJ for example. The actual unit placing the bid may never be known unless they claim responsibility. However GB cannot claim it was not someone in GB placing the bid.

Edited by Gyrok, 30 January 2015 - 12:32 PM.

[Dracol]

Gyrok, on 30 January 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

No...I think you misinterpret.

Units can work under the table, but factions cannot deny responsibility. See the subtle difference there?

Essentially, unknown unit A in GB contracts daggerstar group B to attack CSJ for example. The actual unit placing the bid may never be known unless they claim responsibility. However GB cannot claim it was not someone in GB placing the bid.

But. all units that were part of the ceasefire could deny responsibility, could they not? Could not a none vocal Ghost Bear unit place a contract out against Wolf? Not all units within a faction will be in communication with all others.

Your system would allow an attacked faction say "Hey, you over there, our units agreed to not attack your units, why are we being attacked?" And the answer can still be "We don't know. A unit that was not part of the agreement put out a contract for Daggerstars, sorry."

[Gyrok]

Dracol, on 30 January 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

But. all units that were part of the ceasefire could deny responsibility, could they not? Could not a none vocal Ghost Bear unit place a contract out against Wolf? Not all units within a faction will be in communication with all others.

Your system would allow an attacked faction say "Hey, you over there, our units agreed to not attack your units, why are we being attacked?" And the answer can still be "We don't know. A unit that was not part of the agreement put out a contract for Daggerstars, sorry."

Well, seeing as only the leader of a permanently aligned group with faction rank of X, etc. can place a contract, odds are, at some point...someone knows what happened...

That, or some equally enterprising daggerstars could say..."I saw that it was actually...GB group A that did it...screenshots or it did not happen right?"


EDIT: Actually...in a moment of brilliance, I realized, you just let the attackers take the planet and check the tags on the planet since mercenary tags would not be the possessor, but instead the hiring faction. Issue solved.

Edited by Gyrok, 30 January 2015 - 03:25 PM.

[Alexander Steel]

I'm really confused. If "Daggerstars" act like mercs, function like mercs, work like mercs, and for every way other than the name ARE mercs.. just call them Mercs. No need to have different names for stuff just because of... reasons.

[Gyrok]

Because Daggerstars are *ALREADY* an in game faction...that is why...(the clan loyalist symbol, check your forum profile to see what I mean...there are lone wolves, mercenaries, and clan loyalists)

Edited by Gyrok, 30 January 2015 - 04:36 PM.

[Alexander Steel]

I see Lone Wolf, Mercs, House and Clan Symbols... nothing called "Dagger Star".

[Gyrok]

It is the Clan Loyalist faction, they are referred to as Dagger Stars because that is what the icon is...

[Vassago Rain]

Clan loyalists no longer exist. You also can't be a merc corp anymore. It's house, clan, or lone wolf now.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vassago Rain, on 30 January 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

Clan loyalists no longer exist. You also can't be a merc corp anymore. It's house, clan, or lone wolf now.

An over simplification Vass. The Mercs are working for the Houses who are active. The Loyalty is where the money is... As should be for true Mercs.

Alexander Steel, on 30 January 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

I'm really confused. If "Daggerstars" act like mercs, function like mercs, work like mercs, and for every way other than the name ARE mercs.. just call them Mercs. No need to have different names for stuff just because of... reasons.

So then no reason for RadarDERP, LuRMs and other things we change the name for?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 31 January 2015 - 06:58 AM.

[Alexander Steel]

Those things have consistent names in the game.

Example: Clan LRMs are different than IS LRMs so they have different names. They have different weights for the launchers, they have different firing modes, spew vrs stream, and they have different effects when under min range. No damage vs sliding scale damage. Therefor CLRM and LRM for IS make sense to have different names.

Example 2: Cockpits all have the same weight, the same function, the same location, the same critical spaces. Getting hit there does the same thing to both Clan and IS versions, as such we don't need to have a "Clan Cockpit" and an "IS Cockpit". They are the same thing, function the same so they have the same name.

"Dagger Stars" function the exact same as Mercs, they have no differences that would need to make them have different names.

[Gyrok]

Alexander Steel, on 31 January 2015 - 10:06 AM, said:

Those things have consistent names in the game.

Example: Clan LRMs are different than IS LRMs so they have different names. They have different weights for the launchers, they have different firing modes, spew vrs stream, and they have different effects when under min range. No damage vs sliding scale damage. Therefor CLRM and LRM for IS make sense to have different names.

Example 2: Cockpits all have the same weight, the same function, the same location, the same critical spaces. Getting hit there does the same thing to both Clan and IS versions, as such we don't need to have a "Clan Cockpit" and an "IS Cockpit". They are the same thing, function the same so they have the same name.

"Dagger Stars" function the exact same as Mercs, they have no differences that would need to make them have different names.

They are Clan Loyalists.

Clan Loyalists are not called mercenaries, and function completely differently once the other clans come into play in the later timelines.

Edited by Gyrok, 31 January 2015 - 05:14 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Gyrok, on 31 January 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

They are Clan Loyalists.

Clan Loyalists are not called mercenaries, and function completely differently once the other clans come into play in the later timelines.

We're not likely to see further clans, and clan loyalists, during the brief period where that was actually a faction pick, operated the exact same way as IS merc corps.

So there was no real reason to have them. Yes, your roleplaying demands that mercs be renamed to clan loyalists, but that's about it.