128 replies to this topic

[Lawrence Elsa]

Livewyr, on 30 January 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

Solution is pretty simple:

Unit provinces (territories) all attackable by everyone.

Mercs would have the option (when joining the faction) to either get their own province to work on and expand under the umbrella of faction territory (starting from the periphery or capital world) OR they could literally be paid by another unit (out of the unit's coffers) to take or hold a planet.

You know.. Mercenary stuff.

(If they are badly behaved while holding a province.. gang up and take their province. If they are badly behaved contractor types... don't hire them.)
\
Player driven consequences for player driven actions.

THIS
THIS
A HUNDRED TIMES THIS

[Karpundir]

I have only read the first 15 or so posts on here and I can say that there is a lot of crazy talk going on. I can't even bear to read all 7 pages of this thread, so forgive me posting something that may have already been stated by someone else.

One of the points that keeps recurring in these forums is how there are not supposed to be any mercs signing on with Clan factions. Just because that was the case in lore, does not mean it will work in a niche game like MWO where limited player populations need to be fluid in order to prevent a particular faction from getting rolled over or abandoned when they start losing planets/fights.

I can tell you now that if all of the units that considered themselves mercs were to abandon every Clan faction and fought for the IS along the Clan frontier, the Clans would be seriously boned. Some of the Clan factions who have had it pretty easy with 1 clear attack lane due to ceasefires (for example, CSJ through Kurita) have been the most vocal against merc units and say that they don't need them. That is because their numbers are already bolstered by merc units who have taken longer term/repeat contracts. Take the mercs away from the Clan factions and you will see the opposite happening... a lot of whining about how PGI screwed the Clans over by not allowing mercs to sign contracts with them.

I would love to see PGI implement "mercs contract under IS only" as an experiment to see just how much it would influence the progress of CW. Hell, maybe all merc units who feel the same way I do should just collaborate (as the Clans have been doing all along) and take a 14-day contract together and support the IS houses along the Clan frontier. I foresee a change of tune in this thread should that come to pass.


Also keep in mind that many long-standing players in MWO have considerable IS Mech inventories and likely have bought Clan packages. What are they supposed to do? Shelve a whole category of Mechs? The ability to flip back and forth with IS and Clan prevents that inevitable outcry of unfairness. Had PGI had the foresight to inform all of us to make separate Clan and IS accounts, or even an alt "character" within one account (so as to share the MC, GXP, C-Bills and MechBays), then the need to flip flop as a merc wouldn't be necessary and you would likely see a lot more perma-cons/loyalists.


With regards to BT lore, PLEASE get over this obsession that it must be adhered to. PGI already said long ago that MWO's iteration of the Clan Invasion was going to be free-flowing and determined by the players (hence the TS/forum politics that have ensued). It was designed NOT to follow a particular set path other than the starting planets and loose zig-zagging toward Terra to extend the conflict. According to some Clan faction loyalists, they would prefer to choose which planets to attack (i.e. a beeline to Terra via path of least resistance). If that were the case, why even bother having as many planets as there are now on the map? Just draw a straight line from each faction to Terra and make it so that the IS houses all fight Clans and the Clans can fight other Clans (since they eventually need to step on another Clan who is in the way of conquering Terra to claim the role of Il-Khan). The lore ends with the faction names, LP titles and icons. Yep... That's it. If you want your dose of lore, pick up a BT novel or play the TT game.

Edited by Karpundir, 01 February 2015 - 03:44 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Karpundir, on 01 February 2015 - 12:21 AM, said:

I have only read the first 15 or so posts on here...(snip)...

Friend Karpundir, first let me thank you for taking a weeklong contract with Clan Smoke Jaguar two and a half weeks ago. During your time with us, I was fortunate to be invited to your TeamSpeak where we dropped, won a fair bit of matches, and even discussed MWO topics of conversation afterward.

I think you'll agree I am NOT a member of the "Clan Purists" you describe in your post - Quineg?

Feel free to check in with Deadfire, Queensblade and Peter2000 from 228, if you would like further examples from a Mercenary Corps Unit on how their Reception, Staging, Onward-movement and Integration (RSOI) is progressing under CSJ.

While there are always representative minorities, the VAST majority of CSJ Is not ONLY supportive of Mercenaries being included in Clan Factions BUT indeed are (or were before they PERMCON'ed) Mercenary Corps Units themselves -

DERP being a recently PERMCON, now-Loyalist CSJ Unit.

BSM, RDL, 228, CPC, -RW-, WRGD, SW, REM, FLJK and a number of other distinguished and well integrated Mercenary Corps Units (http://mwomercs.com/...corridor-units/)

Use the above link (to their Unit Pages/TeamSpeak) for confirmation.

"We are not the Smoke Jaguars, Lore would have you believe." - http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4146085

Just as my contribution to the Trondheim Daily: Live Report provides mute testimony of, the VAST preponderance of CSJ FULLY EMBRACE toe reality of MWO player dynamics.

The #Market for Mercenaries is vital, crucial and indeed the Life's Blood of a Faction's ability to survive past a few day's

I would not see your "test case" performed on my Faction. I would lose the ability to Faction Drop (one of the single best ways to ensure SUCCESSFUL RSOI of a Mercenary Corps Unit in the game at the moment!) alongside too many friends / fellow gaming enthusiasts from among the Units I name above / are listed at the provided CSJ Rolls of Honor site.

RSOI of a Unit is a two-sided equation.

The Unit ALWAYS gets a vote.

And as you well remember it was at this point that you and I agreed to disagree.

I still believe that -

- Working in concert with a Faction's prevailing goals, intents and Alliances SHOULD be the undergirding framework that comes to define a contracted-Mercenary's operational end-states and service rendered under that contract.

Rogues, Wild Cards, and Fifth Columnist should be codified under the Pirate and Bandit Factions (which I discuss in the OP, but are elaborated on by Mercenaries who trace their Unit lineage back to other BT gaming titles and the ability to actually embrace a Pirate/Bandit role.)

As a matter of fact I give full credit to you and QQ for being in a very central way, the genius for this very thread here as well as this one: CLAN UNITY. http://mwomercs.com/...ion-clan-unity/

In many respects, a number of us have realized a true example of #LoyalOpposition (http://en.m.wikipedi...oyal_opposition) to one another.

In this example I would contend that your Point of View represents the #SittingCabinet as I make no bones about the impact, QQ, 228, REM, MS, CI and other "#CoreComp but #StrengthThroughSuperiorNumbers" Mercenary Corps Units have on our Beta.

If not for 228, CSJ would not have the fabulous dynamic of the tandem efforts of -SA- having a #TruePeerCompetitor with which to #RaiseAllOurGames!!!


In the finest traditions of Wolf's Dragoons, the Northwind Highlanders and other Lore-based Units - 228 is a #GameChanger...

One look at the CSJ map will confirm this FACT.

In its own way, QQ is a similar but dual impactful #GameChanger...

Not only are you and yours a leading edge #WinCounter, #PlanetTAGing Mercenary Corps Unit, but in your wake throughout the Inner Sphere and Clan Space you engender such strong reactions (mine for one example) that OP's are started as a #DirectResult:

http://mwomercs.com/...ion-clan-unity/
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144456

Being just two examples that I crafted myself.

IMO PGI is handling our Beta for our MWO CW in the best fashion possible -

They set the (Beta) Stage with a great combat simulator, two maps of greatly different tactical problem sets [wide open base vice constrained base, hot vice cold, 3 greatly separate axis of approach vice 2 axis of approach that mutually support (Boreal's pass between Alpha and Beta), etc] and then let us figure out the "Community" part.

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 01 February 2015 - 08:22 AM.

[Peter2000]

#Waytoomanyhastags #seriouslyitsnottwitter

Edited by Peter2000, 01 February 2015 - 09:38 AM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Peter2000, on 01 February 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

#Waytoomanyhastags #seriouslyitsnottwitter

#sry @Peter2000 ¥meaCulpa

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 01 February 2015 - 11:20 AM.

[Prussian Havoc]

As the OP and responsible as caretaker to ensure this thread remains on topic and viable, please consider once again the OP:

Prussian Havoc, on 28 January 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

As CIMARB indicates above in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144462

- there are a set of Mercenary Corps Units that for a variety of reasons, largely "breaks" CW when it comes to contract management and contractual terms and understanding between EMPLOYER and EMPLOYED.

This potentially "Game-Breaking-Paradigm" has given rise to the term: Inner Sphere Mercenary Corps (ISMA).

"Inner Sphere Mercenary Alliance" refers to those Units who have shown the predilection to take advantage of PGI's reluctance to put into the game any real substantive Constraints, Restraints, Consequences or Repurcussions.

Constraints - external limiting factors, like a MRBC, etc.

Restraints - internal limiting factors, like a 48-hour NO CW GAMING impact when a Unit changes Factions to replicate the very, very modest impact of having to pack everyone lock, stock and barrel and move it from one faction to another, light years distant, etc.

Consequences - THE SINGLE RECOMMENDATION TO FIX MANY CW PROBLEMS - remove all Mercenary planetary TAGs once it abrogates its Unit relationship with a now-former Faction employer, etc.

Repercussions - systemic Contract controls like a penalty on contract C-bills and Loyalty Point Rewards for the first 5-days of ANY new contract, also a MRBC that will track and append a Mercenary Corps Units service record within a Faction, noting instances of gross violation of the Peace Treaties of its employer-Faction, etc.


LET THERE BE REPERCUSSIONS for basically pirate and bandit activity by our Mercenary Corp Units.

Maybe this should give rise to two new categories of gamer Unit:

Pirate - a world-less Unit up constrained by any rule or limitation, free to raid all nearby (geographic limitation) factions.

Bandits who can hold one and only one world at a time, generally along the periphery and can therefore gain all the bonuses and benefits of world-ownership but at the cost of it being vulnerable to reprisal attack by nearby factions...but just like Major Factions, these Minor Factions would have their single and solitary world held inviolate, thus like Luthien, it could never fall, only be raided (loss of a % of the Unit Fund if more than 8-sectors remain occupied by an invader after a Ceasefire for example. When Logistics hits with CW Phase 3, ANY lessening of the Unit Fund will have some (to perhaps as much as dramatic) impact on Unit capabilities.


There...


I start this thread to begin constructive dialog with Mercenary Corps Units in order that resulting comments can serve to inform and help PGI craft a better, more robust and enjoyable Community Warfare experience for us all in the near-future.

I fully expect and will largely ignore Forum Flamers who are Flaming for Flames sake alone.

But at least on a daily basis I wil do my best to caretaker this threat through a close look and fair response at any and all constructive comments.


This is a topic worthy of careful consideration and some rather passionate debate.


I look forward to see where this takes us all...
(Post 34 and 36 contain further comments from the OP: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4145267 and http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4145403)



Good luck and good gaming,

Meet you on the high (Terran) ground,

And may your Enemy's resolve fail him well before your last auto-Cannon shell slams home into the breech!

No convincing counterargument has yet been made to the effect that Mercenary Corps Units are fine just as they are currently in Beta.

It remains my firm belief that CHANGE WILL COME to Mercenary Corps Units before Community Warfare LAUNCH.

If those most to be impacted by the COMING CHANGES, want to continue to deny ANY change is needed...

...more power to them when the CHANGES TO COME bare in no form or fashion ANY of their input.

As for me, I will continue to advocate for those changes I believe will:

1. Preserve the core experience of being a BATTLETECH Mercenary (and not some multi-faction, star-spanning, planet-owning Syndicate-of-the-Irresponsible/Unaccountable. (There remains a world of difference between the two.)

2. Looks to establish a Communal Framework, in which Mercenary Corps Units are a fair and equal PART of the greater Communal Whole and NOT the single greatest determiner of success or failure. Checks and Balances need to offset and hold responsible for their ACTIONS those Mercenary Corps units who would devolve to band arty in all but name, yet still hold on to a faction Icon as if they were a Loyalist... Picture-in-Picture Icons for each Gamer in the bottom right corner (showing current contract EMPLOYER) would resolve some concerns over misrepresentation on the forums.

3. MWO:CW should be cloaked (but NOT suffocated) in BattleTech Lore. Stage setting is fine, but player driven capture of worlds should drive the Factions Axis of Advantage to a MUCH greater degree that whole Beta rush to Tharkad instead of Terra.


What are your thoughts?

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 17 February 2015 - 02:11 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Just as I advocate here for Mercenary Corps Units (TEMPCON) - Recommended Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions, I firmly believe and I strongly advocate for LOYALIST (PERMCON) - Recommended Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions.

In order to realize two, separate and distinct gamer "option sets" - TEMPCON and PERMCON must be carefully tailored so as to coalesce gamer populations around two mutually supportive and communally interactive nodes in a dialectic.

TEMPCON should be stronger, more vital and completely distinct for having its unique Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions - gamers embracive of TEMPCON should enjoy a unique gaming experience, along the lines of Lore but fully within their control to explore TEMPCON or PERMCON "option sets."

Added into the mix should be Pirates and Bandits. Pirates would not be tired down to a physical base in a Sector on a "Rogues' Planet", but be freely capable of trading their wares at such a "Rogues' Planet."

While Bandits would be based out of one or more sectors on a "Rogues' Planet" (gaining some minor C-bill generation and perhaps Equipment Discounting advantages of Sector/World ownership.)

While BOTH Pirates and Bandits would be PERMCON designations, there should be no real THRESHOLD costs associated with either transition from Pirate/Bandit to Mercenary Corps Unit (though perhaps there should be at least some amount of initial lesser pay as the Unit cleans up its reputation) or from Pirate/Bandit to Loyalist Unit (there are ALL manner of historical president for "Enemies of my Enemy" receiving reprieve and being granted immunity for past transgressions in light of current and future service.



- these are just some ideas. And I remain FIRMLY convinced that there is GREAT VALUE for PGI to mine from further codification and coalescence of these four "niches"

It is just a matter of how best to get around and past having begun MWO:CW Beta by having initially UNFETTERED Mercenary Corps Units and their now #SetInStone expectations that there should NEVER be any #TiesThatBind the CW universe together for mutual enjoyment and gaming satisfaction of ALL gamers.



It is so much easier to be in a position to "loosen the reigns" rather than PGI's current position of having to convince its Mercenary Corps gamers that SOCIETAL forms and norms to realize a true representation of BattleTech Mercenaries will now require that MWO:CW coding be refined such that Mercenary ACCOUNTABILITY will be a larger and more central aspect of our game.


I am interested in your comments and will endeavor to respond to them in a timely manner. Thank you for treading my #WallOfText all the way to its conclusion!

[Prussian Havoc]

With the conclusion of the Battle of TUKAYYID Event marking the transition from BETA Phase 1 to BETA Phase 2, a reexamination of this OP and its existing comments would be of value imo.

Please review http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4167983 in view of the just completed Event, the map reset and to better inform debate as we move toward CW Phase 3 ("Unit Logistics" and "World Valuation".)

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 01 May 2015 - 02:08 PM.

[CainenEX]

Prussian Havoc, on 28 January 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

As CIMARB indicates above in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144462

- there are a set of Mercenary Corps Units that for a variety of reasons, largely "breaks" CW when it comes to contract management and contractual terms and understanding between EMPLOYER and EMPLOYED.

This potentially "Game-Breaking-Paradigm" has given rise to the term: Inner Sphere Mercenary Corps (ISMA).

"Inner Sphere Mercenary Alliance" refers to those Units who have shown the predilection to take advantage of PGI's reluctance to put into the game any real substantive Constraints, Restraints, Consequences or Repurcussions.

Constraints - external limiting factors, like a MRBC, etc.

Restraints - internal limiting factors, like a 48-hour NO CW GAMING impact when a Unit changes Factions to replicate the very, very modest impact of having to pack everyone lock, stock and barrel and move it from one faction to another, light years distant, etc.

Consequences - THE SINGLE RECOMMENDATION TO FIX MANY CW PROBLEMS - remove all Mercenary planetary TAGs once it abrogates its Unit relationship with a now-former Faction employer, etc.

Repercussions - systemic Contract controls like a penalty on contract C-bills and Loyalty Point Rewards for the first 5-days of ANY new contract, also a MRBC that will track and append a Mercenary Corps Units service record within a Faction, noting instances of gross violation of the Peace Treaties of its employer-Faction, etc.


LET THERE BE REPERCUSSIONS for basically pirate and bandit activity by our Mercenary Corp Units.

Maybe this should give rise to two new categories of gamer Unit:

Pirate - a world-less Unit up constrained by any rule or limitation, free to raid all nearby (geographic limitation) factions.

Bandits who can hold one and only one world at a time, generally along the periphery and can therefore gain all the bonuses and benefits of world-ownership but at the cost of it being vulnerable to reprisal attack by nearby factions...but just like Major Factions, these Minor Factions would have their single and solitary world held inviolate, thus like Luthien, it could never fall, only be raided (loss of a % of the Unit Fund if more than 8-sectors remain occupied by an invader after a Ceasefire for example. When Logistics hits with CW Phase 3, ANY lessening of the Unit Fund will have some (to perhaps as much as dramatic) impact on Unit capabilities.


There...


I start this thread to begin constructive dialog with Mercenary Corps Units in order that resulting comments can serve to inform and help PGI craft a better, more robust and enjoyable Community Warfare experience for us all in the near-future.

I fully expect and will largely ignore Forum Flamers who are Flaming for Flames sake alone.

But at least on a daily basis I wil do my best to caretaker this threat through a close look and fair response at any and all constructive comments.


This is a topic worthy of careful consideration and some rather passionate debate.


I look forward to see where this takes us all...
(Post 34 and 36 contain further comments from the OP: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4145267 and http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4145403)



Good luck and good gaming,

Meet you on the high (Terran) ground,

And may your Enemy's resolve fail him well before your last auto-Cannon shell slams home into the breech!

I was unable to understand if this was a mechanics suggestion or if there needs to be some sort of new rules added to CW. I was little confused. I think there are some cool aspects to your post. You certainly introduced some cool concepts that I think, with a bit of expansion, would be awesome for the devs to read over. There would certainly be a greater social aspect to CW if a bit of (light) politics were drawn into the framework (and I emphasis the light part of politics ). Also to further expand on that idea you threw in, pirates and bandits, which can be cool but felt like there was a lack of explained mechanics. I felt that pirates should have a much greater salvage bonus and that bandits would get half world bonus and half battle salvage.

Personally I'd rather see some rewards go to permenent faction units, since they are unable to claim anything further once they reach maximum faction rank.

You are onto something cool here. Might I suggest that you refine this idea and send it to the devs? I'd be happy to contribute some insight since I myself am a game developer and simply loves this game

Edited by CainenEX, 02 May 2015 - 02:37 PM.