128 replies to this topic

[Lawrence Elsa]

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

Mercs are necessary. Mercs switching houses on a short-term basis is necessary.

Isn't this actually a bad thing?
Shouldn't mercs be more of a helping hand or a slight tip of power balance rather than the deciding factor between an entire faction dying or being the most powerful?
Perhaps the problem lies with the orchard, not the apple.

[Vlad Ward]

Lawrence Elsa, on 29 January 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Isn't this actually a bad thing?
Shouldn't mercs be more of a helping hand or a slight tip of power balance rather than the deciding factor between an entire faction dying or being the most powerful?
Perhaps the problem lies with the orchard, not the apple.

Should Faction units be stronger, bigger, and more active than Mercs as a whole? Some people think so.

Is there a way to force people to play as/in faction units? Nope. They already have a massive LP boost (that comes with massive c-bill rewards and other perks). If that isn't incentive enough for people to play permcon, I don't know if anything else they add will be.

If you're a faction player and you want to reduce your faction's reliance on mercs, you can only do one thing: Play more.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 29 January 2015 - 05:15 PM.

[Drunk Canuck]

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

There have already been several 20+ page threads relating to this issue, including the one in the CSJ forums. The most basic summary of the results of all of them is that there is an inherent divide between players who want to tell other people what to do and players who don't want to be told what to do by other players.

There are several, very significant problems with any sort of punishment tools being awarded to players. I don't want to rehash all of them if I don't have to. In general, I think everything that could be said on this topic was already said in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...spoof-accounts/

Thank you! There is nothing more that really needs to be said on this topic because it has been discussed at length.

My whole stance is that CW is designed for independent units to think on their own. It seems that the issue of mercenaries stems from the Clans more then it does from Inner Sphere factions, that much has been obvious by the number of posts from Clan unit leaders and loyalists on the subject over the last couple of weeks. I will ask this though, because it is important, not only to me, but to a lot of people who play this game.

Who are you as a unit leader or faction loyalist, to tell other people how they should play this game? This is a video game, no one should be forced to follow the whims of another group(s) within a faction. Every unit is free to do what they choose, who they align with and who they attack.

Also, it is physically impossible to break CW in any sense. This is a game, and it is warfare dictated by the community as a whole, people should be doing what they want and fighting where and who they want. I am sure PGI has designed the game with Clan infighting in mind and there is nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with the Inner Sphere houses fighting, however neither helps the goals of the respective major faction that is Clans vs IS.

Lawrence Elsa, on 29 January 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Isn't this actually a bad thing?
Shouldn't mercs be more of a helping hand or a slight tip of power balance rather than the deciding factor between an entire faction dying or being the most powerful?
Perhaps the problem lies with the orchard, not the apple.

I would 100% agree with you if CW wasn't purely a numbers game in order to conquer planets. I hope that they eventually add in mercenary contracts, however I know that to make mercenaries more useful, there has to be balance in the factions so that merc groups can help tip the conquest of a planet in favor of the faction the represent.

Edited by Drunk Canuck, 29 January 2015 - 05:45 PM.

[Von Blumen]

Peter2000, on 29 January 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

As a counter example: 228th.

We experience the "queue freeze" effect as much as you guys. That's why we pushed so hard to open up a Ghost Bear front when things slow down. We want to be able to play CW, and a single front staffed purely by IS randoms shoring up Kurita's almost non-existent defense simply isn't very much meat.

Also, we aren't the strongest (and taking the lion's share of planets) because we have tons of numbers. There's a few CSJ perm-con units that have a larger, or at least similarly sized CW contingent as we do. We rarely have more than a single 12-man running CW, if that. We just literally win 99.9% of our matches, and tend to do it in about 15-20 minutes without rushing or cutting corners.



Exactly. Wrote mine before I saw this, but I think we're saying the same thing. If the permcon units performed better than the mercs, they'd get the tags. If they don't, it's because that merc group did the heavy lifting.

Also, I'm not sure how he thinks that mercs picking up planets for a faction (and leaving their tags there - oh no!) is detrimental to that faction.

Right, so I take it you don't read, so I won't address the planet issue again for the 1000th time. Seriously go back and see what I am saying about planets and what they can mean for end game for units. If you have other issues, we can speak to them on TS. StranaMechty is available and JGx has an embassy for 228, ask Baulbasuar for the info. We can discuss it like men, over TS and not epeen it out on the forum. The other night when we dropped together, in TS, none of this posturing was present, and perhaps you are getting the wrong impression. The same goes for Vlad, I will gladly speak to both of you and possibly clear up the air, as the BS sometimes gets a little too thick (on both sides). I will be on tonight around midnight (and every night).

I think we can all agree that there is some underlying issues on both sides that need to be addressed. Hopefully PGI will listen to both arguments and come up with a compromise. Drunk Canuck is right (as are several others) this issue is a dead horse that has been beaten into the ground.

Edited by Von Blumen, 29 January 2015 - 06:08 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

Except this is literally PGI's primary/only way to maintain some semblance of overall faction balance...(snip)...

In Beta, the #Market4Mercenaries and the binary levers of C-bills and Loyalty points are the ONLY ways for PGI to attempt to shift Mercenaries... But it simply isn't enough for PGI to work with and in the end it doesn't work.

A base 1-week contract gives 50k C-bills per match win and a fully maxed contract bonus goves 100k C-bills... that is ONLY a difference of 50k C-bills when the match earning are easily 600k on average. A net 50k increase is simply not enough compensation to effectively shift the Mercenary Market more than 5 to 10% at most.

Let's look at some of the most successful Mercenary Units, the ones who "TAG" the most planets, they do NOT chase C-bills Bonuses and indeed spend less than 10% of their time in factions with maxed Contract Bonuses..

How many times has CI and MERCSTAR served in CJF and Liao?

INTERNAL AGENDAS move the Mercenary Market. Bonuses are simply a convenient smoke screen to be used when coming into a weakened Faction and pursue facets if INTERNAL AGENDAS, like tagging the most planets in a given contract term.

Now don't get me wrong, Factions and Units should have INTERNAL AGENDAS, but without controlling mechanisms (Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repurcussions) you end up with one Unit SUPPOSEDLY managing the Adminatration of 32 worlds across five Factions. That is simply wrong, no Unit could administer such a disparate collection of non-contiguous worlds, thus soon recouping the expected Planetsry Logistics Benefits from ANY Faction except the one Faction that Unit currently belongs too.

It is as simple as that.

Peter2000, on 29 January 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

As a counter example: 228th. We experience the "queue freeze" effect as much as you guys. That's why we pushed so hard to open up a Ghost Bear front when things slow down...(snip)...Also, we aren't the strongest (and taking the lion's share of planets) because we have tons of numbers. There's a few CSJ perm-con units that have a larger, or at least similarly sized CW contingent as we do. We rarely have more than a single 12-man running CW, if that. We just literally win 99.9% of our matches, and tend to do it in about 15-20 minutes without rushing or cutting ...(snip)...

Game Changers.


Wolf's Dragoons was a MAJOR game-changer.

Northwind Highlanders was a lesser game-changer.

I contend that in your example 228 is as effective a game changer as these examples from Lore.

BUT when the Dragoons of Lore switched contracts, they did NOT retain bases, land, worlds within the Factions they left.

Quiaff?

Game Changers make MWO CW more authenticly BattleTech-like. Trying to justify a Unit being able to administer dozens of worlds across a half dozen Facions (thus being in-line for all those dozens of upcoming Planetary Logitics Benfits, just can not be done. A Unit's administrative operations are limited to just one Faction, thus only deriving benefits fromFaction-specific worlds.


I think this impact is largely because we are in a Beta that offers up ONLY TAGS as a stat to measure the martial prowess of Mercenary Units. We need more sabermetrics (http://en.m.wikipedi...ki/Sabermetrics): and you offer up an excellent one - let there be not just a TAG Leaderboard, but PGI should offer up API data on:

Unit Overall Win %

Unit Attack Win %

Unit Defend Win %

Unit Counterattack Win%

Unit Hold a Win %

Aggregate Sector Preservations (winning a Defense or Hold Action)

Aggregate Sector Acquisitions (winning Attacks and Counterattacks)


A break down of Unit Action, is it really (25% Attacks / 25% Defends / 25% Counterattacks / 25% Hold Actions) or does a Unit manage its actions to get more Attacks/Counterattacks (GAINING SECTORS) or is a Unit famous for Defend/Holdings Actions (PRESERVING SECTORS)?

Just like we figured out the even/odd - Vault/Rift Mechanism, there is a very simple Mechanism to determine with vey high likelyihood just what type of match a Uit will get.

If Attackers greatly outnumber Defenders, the Atackers have the initiative thus all new matches are Attacks for the Attackers.

If Defenders greatly outnumber Attackers, the Attackers do NOT have the initiative thus all new matches are Hold actions for the Attacker. (Caveat here is that there needs to be enough sectors for the Attacker teams to actually Hold from within. Once all sectors the Attacker occupies are filled with a Hold, each additional match will of necessity be Attack missions.

When the Attacker and Defender Queues are fluctuating back and forth as to who had the most in their respective queues, there is no real initiative and it will come down to the instant of match culmination as to whether it is an Attack or Hold for the Attacker.

So while not perfect, the above is an excellent means by which a Unit can angle toward more SECTOR ACQUISITIONS or more SECTOR PRESERVATIONS.


BOTTOM LINE - is that currently Planet TAGs is a solitary measure of Unit martial prowess, we need more and better ways to distinguish between Units that excel across distinctive metrics. I also believe special contract benefits and bonuses should go to those Units in the TOP THIRD of certain metrics - SECTOR PRESERVATIONS and SECTOR ACQUISITIONS for two excellent examples that would better objectify a Unit's Value than simply TAGs that could be win with an attack of 200 "win counters" but then lost to another unit's defense of that world with only a dozen "win counters."

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 29 January 2015 - 07:08 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Deathlike, on 29 January 2015 - 04:56 PM, said:

...(snip)...I will agree that removing that unit flag from a planet should happen once they change factions

...(snip)...

Any time where choices are removed, the reluctance in full dedication exists to a degree, and while I don't think anyone wants to be a deserter by nature... the lock-in nature of a perma-contract causes the perma-faction units to be stale/stagnant in numbers and hurts CW as a whole.

Agreed.

On the first count completely.

On the second count with surprised concern. Keeping a Faction player base active, immersed, constantly focused on the nest goal is a foundational aspect of Faction/Community vitality.

You are right more work needs to be done by PGI and that more suggestions, proofs and analysis needs to be offered up for from contributors as to how PGI can best afford continual means to keep player factions for becoming eventual stale/stagnant collections of dozens of Khans and alternately Marshall's of the Army (or whatever title a level 20 Inner Sphere gamer receives!)

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 29 January 2015 - 06:23 PM.

[Peter2000]

IF (big if, tbh) the "tagging" of planets ever gets to the point where it is actual ownership with economic consequences, there's certainly going to have to be a reassessment of how they are acquired at all (for example, it will be impractical for any unit to hold to many planets): a true re-work to take the economic consequences into account and may require resetting all tags. This may or may not include re-assigning holdings when a unit changes its loyalty. But right now the tags have little value except designating who was most crucial in the conquest/defense.

For now it's just feels like an unnecessary slap in the face from perm-con units who wish they had that recognition without earning it.

[Von Blumen]

Peter2000, on 29 January 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

IF (big if, tbh) the "tagging" of planets ever gets to the point where it is actual ownership with economic consequences, there's certainly going to have to be a reassessment of how they are acquired at all (for example, it will be impractical for any unit to hold to many planets): a true re-work to take the economic consequences into account and may require resetting all tags. This may or may not include re-assigning holdings when a unit changes its loyalty. But right now the tags have little value except designating who was most crucial in the conquest/defense.

For now it's just feels like an unnecessary slap in the face from perm-con units who wish they had that recognition without earning it.

Agreed.

Although if the planets were to revert back to the faction after the merc unit leaves, I would not suggest that they turn over to permcon, perhaps just go neutral or stay in merc hands (just "grayed" out if you will) and only be active if that merc unit comes back to the faction.

You make a very valid point though.

Edited by Von Blumen, 29 January 2015 - 06:56 PM.

[Drunk Canuck]

Von Blumen, on 29 January 2015 - 06:54 PM, said:

Agreed.

Although if the planets were to revert back, I would not suggest that they turn over to permcon, perhaps just go neutral or stay in merc hands (just "grayed" out if you will) and only be active if that merc unit comes back to the faction.

You make a very valid point though.

I agree with the idea as well. Having planets flip to neutral would certainly impact the progression of some units.

[Noesis]

It depends if economical benefits from planets however will be identified to the faction. With perhaps an slight improvement due to the holding unit/alliance.

MERCs from lore where hired by the houses to take planets (either on their own or in addtion with other MERCs or loyalist factional units) who would then cede the planets back to the house as part of that contractual arrangement, though of course for a hefty fee and perhaps some booty in the process.

The economical benefits from planets may then extend to all factional pilots associated opposed to just the unit or alliance holding the planet. Hence why geographically/politically the planets are recognised as being related to a faction and that these things are achieved as a part of factional efforts.

So having planets turn neutral (no unit tag) on change of faction but owned still by the faction would retain these benefits to the faction. Especially if combined a number of units and pugs where involved in the capturing of a planet. But one unit being recognised as the most contributive factor.

Whatever slight additional benefits as a top up to the factional benefits for "tagging" a planet might then afford some benefit.

Though again the economical benefits could also be related both as a applied combination of loyaty point ranks and factional planets that combine to see if various qualifications to benefits from planets exist and at various levels or tiers.

Edited by Noesis, 29 January 2015 - 07:15 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Personally, I would be all for aggressively pursuing the designation as Unit with the most Aggregate (NOT percentage) Sector Acquisitions (non-Ghost Drop).

Such a Leaderboard could be quite a determining factor to identify the SINGLE. most impactful Unit in the game.

"Win Counters" is all we have currently, so it kind of goads many to focus on it.

Give us more and better metrics/indicators of a truly dominant Unit and focus, intent and pursuit of that new and better Leaderboard/Metric will follow of its own course.

[Prussian Havoc]

Planetary Logistics Benefits should be cosmetic.

1-Planet = a "Planet Conquer" Battle Decal for all Unit members.

3 Planets = a "Planet Overlord" Battle Decal for all Unit Members.

6 Planets = a "Enemy PWN'ed" Battle Decal for all Unit Members.

10 Planets = a "Faction Elite Unit" skin (yes, this will be Digital Artist time intensive BUT we are paying money in and it is not unreasonable to expect PGI to pump up the Digital Artist Staff or Computing Power or both.)

In this fashion, there are real tangible "results" in a Unit's hands with the first planet taken, culminating in an Elite Faction Pattern ONLY available to the most production oriented Units.

[Noesis]

Economic beneifts from planets could be savings on tech based on the production capabiltiies.

E.g.

Capture a specfic planet and be tier 5 on the factional loyalty ranks might give you a 10% saving on a mech or weapon purchase based on specific production factories on the planet.

Same as above but tier 10 in ranks gain a 15% saving.

Tag the planet an additional 5% saving ...

and so on.

(Numbers above are arbitary)

Edited by Noesis, 29 January 2015 - 07:28 PM.

[Serpent 6]

This topic is beyond lame. This should have been best put in a Clan forum.

Edited by Serpent 6, 29 January 2015 - 07:46 PM.

[Feaad]

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

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.

Prussian,

How does limiting the CW experience for Mercenaries make it more enjoyable for them?

Should we take it the other way and limit the numbers of Clan pilots per drop? Should the weight limits for Clans be 100-180 instead of 160-240? Would that make it more enjoyable for IS groups?

Should we place limits on RP players only?

Starting a thread on how to limit one supset of players is completely opposite of making it Enjoyable for All.

I'm really curious how you justify the thought.

[StonedDead]

Interesting discussions. I'm in the middle somewhere.I don't think mercs should be penalized for switching factions as long as they complete their contracts. Not completing and switching factions, yes, but more severe than they are now. If they implement logistics, then maybe it will balance it's self out without stiffer penalty, but maybe not, these are things that will need adjustment as more stuff comes into CW.

Our (very small) group has completed 3 Davion contracts, and are considering a switch, or not, to see what is going on with other factions. But then again, with just a couple of us online sometimes, we don't play a lot of CW anyways. I usually stick to planetside or war thunder because pug life is boring after several years of the same thing(including closed beta). The game is not fun enough to continue to play all the time like I used too. A better, fleshed out CW would bring a lot of interest back(or roughly a hundred new regular drop maps, with invisible walls removed of course). Hell, the only reason I still play is that every once in a while, I get into a truly epic battle that makes up for all the boring ones. Well, and I play a little better than I used to, sometimes.

On pirates, love the idea. Saw some great ideas on how to implement them too. Would work good for smaller units too.

Edited by Zekester81, 29 January 2015 - 08:51 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Feaad, on 29 January 2015 - 08:04 PM, said:

Prussian,

How does limiting the CW experience for Mercenaries make it more enjoyable for them?

Should we take it the other way and limit the numbers of Clan pilots per drop? Should the weight limits for Clans be 100-180 instead of 160-240? Would that make it more enjoyable for IS groups?

Should we place limits on RP players only?

Starting a thread on how to limit one supset of players is completely opposite of making it Enjoyable for All.

I'm really curious how you justify the thought.

It is a dual edged question of Balance and Immersion.

If one wants complete freedom, one should go Public Queue.

PGI has remained vey adamant that CW will be "hard mode," oriented toward 12-man Teams, working toward CW Phase 3 (with the expected introduction of Unit Logistics, Planetary TAG Benefits, Unit Transportation costs, etc) in other words a TRUE BEAR to balance across all factions.

Currently the Roles and Functions of Mercenaries are IMO out of tolerance with regard to game-balancing IF PGI is looking to craft a BattleTech-like gaming experience.

Now... if PGI were intent on crafting a game mode where one Faction has INVASIVE and DUPLICITOUSLY DISRUPTIVE forum and in-game capabilities then the current evolution of our BETA could be judged MISSION COMPLETE.

I look on the forums and it appears (now that QQ has returned to CJF) their duplicitous false flag posts to http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4106926 can EASILY be seen for what it is in truth. But consider that at the time we ALL had CSJ tags and to a third party (the bulk of my target audience for that thread being CGB gamers for one example) Karpundir's post specifically (and his QQ compadres in general) ALL looked like direct forum CSJ provocation of CGB.

My recommendation is that we have a small Contract-Icon added to the lower right corner corner of Old Faction-specific Icons.

Yes, the coding would be difficult but would only apply to a majority subset of gamers who choose duration-contracts. PERMCON Units could retain just a single Icon.

+1 for your suggestion to offset Clan tonnages vice Inner Sphere tonnages.

THAT is #PureGenius!!!

I fully embrace that being done.

I would have preferred 10 v 12 as the optimum solution and FULLY aligned with lore, but I understand the PGI's cost/benefit analysis could not support it at this time.

BUT your suggestion to basically "UNHINGE" tonnages per Factions is absolutely the precise idea I had intended this thread to generate. Effectively it'll become a 10 v 12 match as giving up 20 or so Clan tons per Clan gamer will result in a net Inner Sphere tonnage advantage of 240-tons (4 less Vultures or 2 less Warhawks / 2 less Kit Foxes.

As the matches progress tonnage handicaps can be increased or decreased, thus the current over-reliance on Quirks (and the second order effect of an explosion of the Thundebolt-9S could be ameliorated to a great deal.)

Think of it... Inner Sphere Mech Decks might soon have a chance to diversify again.

Lots of excellent second and third order effects here.

You good sir, may have come up with an idea PGI will now seize upon.

+1 indeed.

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 29 January 2015 - 10:50 PM.

[Feaad]

Prussian Havoc, on 29 January 2015 - 10:15 PM, said:

It is a dual edged question of Balance and Immersion.

If one wants complete freedom, one should go Public Queue.

PGI has remained vey adamant that CW will be "hard mode," oriented toward 12-man Teams, working toward CW Phase 3 (with the expected introduction of Unit Logistics, Planetary TAG Benefits, Unit Transportation costs, etc) in other words a TRUE BEAR to balance across all factions.

Currently the Roles and Functions of Mercenaries are IMO out of tolerance with regard to game-balancing IF PGI is looking to craft a BattleTech-like gaming experience.

Now... if PGI were intent on crafting a game mode where one Faction has INVASIVE and DUPLICITOUSLY DISRUPTIVE forum and in-game capabilities then the current evolution of our BETA could be judged MISSION COMPLETE.

I look on the forums and it appears (now that QQ has returned to CJF) their duplicitous false flag posts to http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4106926 can EASILY be seen for what it is in truth. But consider that at the time we ALL had CSJ tags and to a third party (the bulk of my target audience for that thread being CGB gamers for one example) Karpundir's post specifically (and his QQ compadres in general) ALL looked like direct forum CSJ provocation of CGB.

My recommendation is that we have a small Contract-Icon added to the lower right corner corner of Old Faction-specific Icons.

Yes, the coding would be difficult but would only apply to a majority subset of gamers who choose duration-contracts. PERMCON Units could retain just a single Icon.

+1 for your suggestion to offset Clan tonnages vice Inner Sphere tonnages.

THAT is #PureGenius!!!

I fully embrace that being done.

I would have prefers 10 v 12 as the optimum solution and FULLY aligned with lore, but I understand the PGI's cost/benefit analysis could not support it at this time.

BUT your suggestion to basically "UNHINGE" tonnages per Factions is absolutely the precise idea I had intended this thread to generate.

You good sir, may have come up with an idea PGI will now seize upon.

+1 indeed.

I appreciate the +1's.

I also read the link and may've taken a different perspective on yours. You want to RP and have worked with other units to create a ceasefire to focus on an objective. Mercs decided to create their own objective and focus on it (which didn't work). Both are similar, even if the ideas oppose each other. Isn't that was COMMUNITY Warfare is about? Your alliance and the Mercs objectives opposed each other and one came out on top. That tells me CW from a strategic perspective is working (tactical still has issues, which is where my thoughts on restricting tonnages comes in.....side note: I don't have an answer for light rushes or zerging).

A couple quick questions on the subject you linked. (I've ignored the S^&* talking)

1. Before you started the post, did the actions really matter?
2. Why were they're actions worse than the alliances? Alliances which effect gameplay change how others are allowed to play.
3. Your first post covered it well, but also left the door open for S^&*-talking and trolling. (I get the RP, and I don't want to change the way you post as a whole, but Trolling bugs the crap out of me) Would it be prudent to start similar (possibly inflamatory) posts with your intent to RP?
4. Both sides of the conversation had more than their fair share of dumb-ass Trolls. Is it beneficial to give it more play time by reposting it?

I'm enjoying the conversation.

[Prussian Havoc]

Feaad, on 29 January 2015 - 11:11 PM, said:

Alpha) ...(snip)... Isn't that was COMMUNITY Warfare is about? Your alliance and the Mercs objectives opposed each other and one came out on top. That tells me CW from a strategic perspective is working (tactical still has issues, which is where my thoughts on restricting tonnages comes in.....

Bravo) side note: I don't have an answer for light rushes or zerging).

...(snip)...

1. Before you started the post, did the actions really matter?
2. Why were they're actions worse than the alliances? Alliances which effect gameplay change how others are allowed to play.
3. Your first post covered it well, but also left the door open for S^&*-talking and trolling. (I get the RP, and I don't want to change the way you post as a whole, but Trolling bugs the crap out of me) Would it be prudent to start similar (possibly inflamatory) posts with your intent to RP?
4. Both sides of the conversation had more than their fair share of dumb-ass Trolls. Is it beneficial to give it more play time by reposting it?

I'm enjoying the conversation.

Sir,

I am enjoying the conversation too.


As to your points:

Alpha) Partially. THAT is what CW is all about, but there needs to be "enough grist for the mill." BALANCED and COUNTERBALANCED Game mechanics need to be able to craft the necessary DIALECT for immersive and sufficiently BattleTech-like gaming experiences to BOTH compel Lore-purists and #OriginalFounders to return/reinvest as well as provide all the necessary #GatewayExperiences to both hook and compel investment of non-Lore Twitch gamers.

Bravo) While not perfect, the best answer I have heard is the "Star Wars: Return of the Jedi" (SW:RotJ) theory. Have there be a "Conquest-like" requirement directly behind the Gun genny AFTER the three small gennies are down. Lights could NEVER both rush the three gennies, then camp OMEGA to have "MechWarriors" dismount and physically unlock the last measure of protection for the Gun genny a say the duration of the original Conquest points not the current much quicker Conquest point capture times.

1). Yes. Soloists and Small Groups (READ: non-Smoke Jaguar Alliance collaborating membership) were being increasingly "led astray" by the Merc-fueled Queues against CGB. My OP at the link had these Soloist and Small Groups as the secondary audience AFTER CGB leadership and gamers.

2). Not "better v worse" so much as "duplicitous v honorable" But I agree that "one man'a freedom-fighter is another's terrorists" thus a good case can be made that the Inner Sphere is only resorting to valid asymmetric tactics BOTH in-game AND on the forums. It is a matter of perspective, I suppose. BUT my overriding goal since day three and the realization of how challenged CSJ's small (but very Community/TeamSpeak oriented) population was, has been to work toward the "Long Game" through a heavy reliance on displays of personal Honor AND an ever-present emphasis on RRMR - Recruiting of new-to-MWO Solos/Small Groups, Retention of all Smoke Jaguars (once you go Jag, you never go back!) and Mercenary Relations (open dialogue, with the upfront caveat that we Smoke Jaguars realize MWO gamers want to BOTH get their "Inner Sphere ON" AND the able for a week or so at a time, "Get their Clan ON." I have ALWAYS maintained that his was reasonable and that CSJ would remain open to be that reciprocal Clan Faction that UNDERSTOOD that particular Mercenary Corps Unit imperative. Also Mercenary Relations is BEST EXEMPLIFIED by DERP, who went from one contract to a longer contract to a PERMCON with CSJ... their example is what I hope becomes a model for CSJ Mercenary Relations. And if anyone wants to ask a DERP'er why a they decided to homestead,just ask MICKEY Knoxx.

3). Prior to my military retirement I worked for 4-combat tours with foreign nationals in a multinational, disparate, aggregation of Units with a supposed Unity of Action.... (sounds familiar to an MWO gamer, doesn't it!?!) I found that you need to have an element of Controversiality to a topic in order to polarize the respective audiences and generate real, substantive debate, discussion and dialogue. If you go a "softer" route, reaching consensus or solving/resolving ANYTHING never really gains traction. In the end I guess it is personal preference... but is a personal preference that has gained results in the past.

4) The ebbs and flows, whims and whimsy of forums are both mercurial and ephemeral. You mine "productively" while you have it in front of you... just like I am trying to do with this comprehensive response to your Smurf account, Sir...

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 30 January 2015 - 01:09 AM.

[Noesis]

Overall I would like to commend Prussian as the OP in maintaining a useful and involved debate that seems to have achieved the aims of collecting a wide source of thought on the participation of neutral parties (MERCs, Bandits and soloists) and how they relate to factions in the state of MWO's CW atm.