128 replies to this topic

[Rabbit Blacksun]

So far it has been an interesting read to point out a few things over all...

1. I think the 2 day cool down was for "breaking" contract. which if you broke a contract in real life would be a bit more strict.

2. Clan lances did have a different amount of people I think it was 4 clan mechs to a lance vs the IS lance of 5 mechs per lance. which would have solved the initial balance issue that PGI and the player base was complaining about during clan wave 1.

3. I hate your triple PPC thunderbolt builds ...

4. I fully support that merc units can and will move around. Its a given 1 day they might be Steiner and the next week they might be kurita thats merc life.

5. Carry on

[Banditman]

Clans generally worked in "Stars" of five mechs. IS units worked in "Lances" of four. In the lore of the universe, it was generally expected that the clans simply went about things much differently than the IS. Clans tended to "underbid" each other for the right to fight on a planet, usually coming in with far fewer numbers than their IS counterparts.

Anyway, that's all not really relevant to CW and MWO.

Right now, I really think there need to be more incentives to fight for the less successful factions. If you want to tag planets, you are crazy to go fight for that faction. The LP gains are nice, but they don't pay off in ways that the average player really cares about. The contract CBills aren't nearly enough to attract those chasing cash. There is no carrot to encourage balancing the map right now, nor is there a stick to dissuade unbalancing the map. That might work ok in a true sandbox game, MWO just isn't that.

Until there are sticks and carrots in place to properly balance Mercs, CW will have problems. There are a lot of good ideas in this thread. Hopefully PGI will take notice. More importantly, hopefully they'll tell us what they are thinking. I don't think anyone feels like the current state of CW is really conducive to long term success.

[Juvat]

One thing to keep in mind is that the players do not control the factions... even though there are some who feel that they do. Once this misunderstanding is addressed then reexamine what these "rogue" units or however you want to refer to them as act in-game. If a faction, controlled by PGI, gives a target and a unit decides to act on it, other players cannot get upset because there are people who are here simply to play a game and could care less about any diplomacy going on. While I can appreciate that aspect personally please understand my last point here... it's not to be smug or anything. It's to state a truth. Anyways just wanted to state that in case it hadn't already been. See you on the (Beta) battlefield MechWarriors!

[Harathan]

Juvat, on 30 January 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

One thing to keep in mind is that the players do not control the factions... even though there are some who feel that they do. Once this misunderstanding is addressed then reexamine what these "rogue" units or however you want to refer to them as act in-game. If a faction, controlled by PGI, gives a target and a unit decides to act on it, other players cannot get upset because there are people who are here simply to play a game and could care less about any diplomacy going on. While I can appreciate that aspect personally please understand my last point here... it's not to be smug or anything. It's to state a truth. Anyways just wanted to state that in case it hadn't already been. See you on the (Beta) battlefield MechWarriors!

The misunderstanding is, I think, yours. Generally, player-controlled Factions is not what is being advocated. Likewise, the idea that PGI is controlling the Factions is equally incorrect. Right now, Factions do not exist an an entity; they are colored areas on a map, with battles defined by a completely automated algorithm that takes no account the strategic overview.

What is most often being advocated is that Factions need to exist as an entity, which means giving them direction. Ideas put forward include PGI actively GMing, permanent contract House units having voting powers, and others. The closest to "player run Factions" is the latter, but the idea is not to have a single unit controlling everything the Faction does; the idea is to allow House units to represent the Faction they have chosen to represent, and let Mercs do their thing by taking the contracts they like. The tl:dr is, Mercs shouldn't be dictating what a Faction does (which is the case right now for many Factions), the Faction should be dictating what the Faction does and since Mercs can move around so easily they never have to take a contract they don't like.

As a merc unit, there shouldn't be a problem with this; if for example Davion house units voted to ceasefire against Steiner and you want to fight Steiner, take a contract with someone else - FRR, Kurita or Marik, in this example. Limits to the number of ceasefires a Faction can engage in are obvious. As a Merc, you have that luxury of moving around and finding the contracts you like, the House units can't do that.

As a House unit, you're already invested enough that you get your vote and if it doesn't go your way, thats fine. Nobody goes permanent contract House unit just for the lulz.

Edited by Harathan, 30 January 2015 - 08:55 AM.

[Livewyr]

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.

[stratagos]

Vlad Ward, on 29 January 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

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.

So, carry harder?

[Dracol]

Prussian Havoc, on 29 January 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

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.

When did tags mean ownership by a unit? Don't they represent the unit that had the most players participate in wins when defending/attacking a planet?

I mean, if a unit tag actually meant the unit "owned it" or was responsible for it in some way, it would be pretty annoying to so easily lose that control. One attack on it with different unit defending it and winning is enough to switch a planet's unit tag. If no other enemies attack that planet, the original "owners" would have 0 ability to retain control.

Are a lot of these discussions we've been having over tags putting more into a tag than just an award of recognition for participation?

Personally, I view the tags CI has as advertisements for hiring our services. We currently are recognized on the faction map with helping Clans and Houses capture or defend 13 planets.

Edited by Dracol, 30 January 2015 - 11:34 AM.

[Cimarb]

Dracol, on 30 January 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

When did tags mean ownership by a unit? Don't they represent the unit that had the most players participate in wins when defending/attacking a planet?

I mean, if a unit tag actually meant the unit "owned it" or was responsible for it in some way, it would be pretty annoying to so easily lose that control. One attack on it with different unit defending it and winning is enough to switch a planet's unit tag. If no other enemies attack that planet, the original "owners" would have 0 ability to retain control.

Are a lot of these discussions we've been having over tags putting more into a tag than just an award of recognition for participation?

Personally, I view the tags CI has as advertisements for hiring our services. We currently are recognized on the faction map with helping Clans and Houses capture or defend 13 planets.

Tags have replaced KDR as the keynote bragging right of players. Instead of touting their KDR, they now say, "we are the coolest (whatever), because we have x number of planets". They are taking ownership of it, which means they feel they own it. Since they feel they own it, others consider it owned, and that means, in Digitalese, that they own it.

In counter, if the tags do not mean anything, why does it matter if they are lost when a unit switches factions? They should not care, right?

[Juvat]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 08:53 AM, said:

The misunderstanding is, I think, yours. Generally, player-controlled Factions is not what is being advocated. Likewise, the idea that PGI is controlling the Factions is equally incorrect. Right now, Factions do not exist an an entity; they are colored areas on a map, with battles defined by a completely automated algorithm that takes no account the strategic overview.

What is most often being advocated is that Factions need to exist as an entity, which means giving them direction. Ideas put forward include PGI actively GMing, permanent contract House units having voting powers, and others. The closest to "player run Factions" is the latter, but the idea is not to have a single unit controlling everything the Faction does; the idea is to allow House units to represent the Faction they have chosen to represent, and let Mercs do their thing by taking the contracts they like. The tl:dr is, Mercs shouldn't be dictating what a Faction does (which is the case right now for many Factions), the Faction should be dictating what the Faction does and since Mercs can move around so easily they never have to take a contract they don't like.

As a merc unit, there shouldn't be a problem with this; if for example Davion house units voted to ceasefire against Steiner and you want to fight Steiner, take a contract with someone else - FRR, Kurita or Marik, in this example. Limits to the number of ceasefires a Faction can engage in are obvious. As a Merc, you have that luxury of moving around and finding the contracts you like, the House units can't do that.

As a House unit, you're already invested enough that you get your vote and if it doesn't go your way, thats fine. Nobody goes permanent contract House unit just for the lulz.

I'm not misunderstanding anything imo. I have seen on numerous forums that there are units who are seeking the ability to speak for their faction which is, based upon target designations, dictated by PGI who does indeed control what comes up for attack. Thus PGI does control the factions. Granted I have only been involved with CW for a week now as I was on a 2-month vacation and have only my limited experience and what I have seen on the forums to go off of. Mercs should act as you say... with the ability to choose where they go and what they do. That is the essence of being a Merc: if you don't like what your current employer is offering take your services elsewhere. But I digress and freely admit there is a lot of work to make CW more robust than it currently is. I agree with your TL:DR statement though

[Harathan]

It comes down to this:

Should Merc units be able to dictate how House units play? No, of course not.

Should House units be able to dictate how Merc units play? No, of course not.

Do Mercs represent a Faction? No, they're Mercs, their loyalty is to CBills.

Do House units represent a Faction? Not currently, but they should.

If House units were allowed to vote on the direction of their Faction, would it negatively affect Mercs? I don't believe so, or only very very little; the Mercs can go wherever they like to get a contract they like, at worst if a Faction voted for a ceasefire that a currently contracted Merc didn't like, the Merc would have to break, or work out the remaining, contract. Maybe that isn't a bad thing, maybe Mercs *should* be looking before they leap.

At any rate, the positives of allowing House units to be House units, and allowing Mercs to be Mercs, vastly outweigh any negatives.

[Vlad Ward]

Yes, because the 11th Airborne Division has a major impact on American foreign policy.

House Units are comprised of soldiers, not politicians.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 30 January 2015 - 01:23 PM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 08:53 AM, said:

The misunderstanding is, I think, yours. Generally, player-controlled Factions is not what is being advocated. Likewise, the idea that PGI is controlling the Factions is equally incorrect. Right now, Factions do not exist an an entity; they are colored areas on a map, with battles defined by a completely automated algorithm that takes no account the strategic overview.

What is most often being advocated is that Factions need to exist as an entity, which means giving them direction. Ideas put forward include PGI actively GMing, permanent contract House units having voting powers, and others. The closest to "player run Factions" is the latter, but the idea is not to have a single unit controlling everything the Faction does; the idea is to allow House units to represent the Faction they have chosen to represent, and let Mercs do their thing by taking the contracts they like. The tl:dr is, Mercs shouldn't be dictating what a Faction does (which is the case right now for many Factions), the Faction should be dictating what the Faction does and since Mercs can move around so easily they never have to take a contract they don't like.

As a merc unit, there shouldn't be a problem with this; if for example Davion house units voted to ceasefire against Steiner and you want to fight Steiner, take a contract with someone else - FRR, Kurita or Marik, in this example. Limits to the number of ceasefires a Faction can engage in are obvious. As a Merc, you have that luxury of moving around and finding the contracts you like, the House units can't do that.

As a House unit, you're already invested enough that you get your vote and if it doesn't go your way, thats fine. Nobody goes permanent contract House unit just for the lulz.

Yes, precisely.
And well worth quoting in it's entirety!

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

...(snip)...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.
...(snip)...
Player driven consequences for player driven actions.

Good points... AND if House Units had sole access to Planetary TAG'ing, the residual Planetary Logistics Benefits (principally C-bills could go into a "Faction Fund" where loyalists Units get a vote (based on amount of contributed Faction Fund C-bills; iow-more planets = more Faction Fund contribution = more say in how that Fund is used: "letting" of contracts that Mercs make counteroffensive on, etc; or even the planetary Defence Upgrades referred to below. It is ONLY responsible Factoon gaming to be principly responsible for your Faction's Defence after all.

Quaff?

Dracol, on 30 January 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

When did tags mean ownership by a unit? ...(snip)...

Simple.

PGI has already indicated that the Unit that TAGs a planet will in CW Phase 3 have the option to invest Unit Fund in order to upgrade Turret Health, Strength, Number of Turrets, as well as the number of Hull-defilade fighting positions, Barrier Walls etc.

Now for a crucial example - why in "all that is good Under Kerensky" would a Mercenary Corps Unit that is about to jump from CSJ to Kurita, would that Mercenary Corps Unit invest in that border to planets Defense when the Unit will soon be across the border and trying to retake that same planet FOR

A good case could be made that the opportunisticly intelligent Mercenary Corps Unit CDR would use as a SALES POINT that he could personally assure that select border worlds (that his Unit TAG'ed would remain UN-UPGRADED.

Now THAT is a problem.

The upgrading of World Defenses should be in the hands of LOYALIST Units. Now don't get me wrong loyal, term-base contracted Mercenary Corps Units should be able to donate funds to the Faction Fund for Planetary Defense but there is just too much chance a short-term Mercenary Cottps Unit could sow vulnerabilities through out a Factions Core and border worlds if Mercenaries are allowed to keep planets TAG'ed once they leave a faction.

Great question, thank you.

I am sure many views can now see the inherent flaw in leaving Faction World Defence Upgrade capabilities in the hands of a Mercenary Corp Unit that has moved across the border and now is in the employ of you Principle Enemy and thus liable to now EXPLOIT world left in peril.

Quiaff?

[Prussian Havoc]

Vlad Ward, on 30 January 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

Yes, because the 11th Airborne Division has a major impact on American foreign policy.

Let's take a look at that (and I assume you mean the 82nd AIrborne Division), LOYALISTS are the only PERMANENT CONSTITUENCIES of a Faction. As such, yes, it makes compete sense for a FACTION's COMPLETE CONSTITUENCY to exercise COMPLETE POWER over the future course the Faction takes.

If Mercenary Corps Units want a vote...

...(wait for it)...


...they can raise the level of their game and take a PERMCON with a Faction.

Until they do take a PERMCON there should be little surprise that the temp-hire Units can only exercise limited say in Faction direction and course of action.



I mean no disrespect to ANY gamer who prefers rhe freedom of the Mercenary Life. But that Freedom comes at a price - less say/ability to drive Faction affaires of State. It should come as no surprise that a FACTION's CONSTITUENCY should exercise primary say in that Faction's affairs of State.

Quiaff?

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 30 January 2015 - 01:38 PM.

[Cimarb]

Vlad Ward, on 30 January 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

Yes, because the 11th Airborne Division has a major impact on American foreign policy.

House Units are comprised of soldiers, not politicians.

He could have also meant 101st...

Regardless, yes, the commanders of the Division do have a major impact on American foreign policy, because they are the ones in the foreign campaigns influencing things and enacting that policy. They do report back to their superiors, and if they fail in their jobs, they are fired (or worse).

The hire up on rank the soldier is, the less soldier and more politician they become. Remember, the top is the Commander in Chief, and he is also the President.

Mercenaries are not hired by the Army, btw.

Maybe if Loyalist factions had an actual benefit worth the dedication, and mercenaries were rewarded/punished based upon their loyalty, there would be more loyalists, and less mercenaries, like there should be.

[Vlad Ward]

That's not the point. Battletech Soldiers don't get to vote on who makes peace treaties with who. Mad Max Liao and Hanse Davion get to decide who's at war, and the Blue Star Irregulars are not Hanse Davion.

I was under the impression that people joined Faction units because they wanted to swear undying loyalty to some banner or other, and follow the decisions of that banner no matter how batshit insane they are (Hi Liao).

If you want a say in what you or your allies do, go merc.

As far as my interpretation of the lore is concerned, all these faction units trying to declare ceasefires on their own are guilty of treason - desertion at best.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 30 January 2015 - 01:51 PM.

[Noesis]

Prussian Havoc, on 30 January 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

I mean no disrespect to ANY gamer who prefers rhe freedom of the Mercenary Life. But that Freedom comes at a price - less say/ability to drive Faction affaires of State. It should come as no surprise that a FACTION's CONSTITUENCY should exercise primary say in that Faction's affairs of State.

Quiaff?

Well unless of course the Mercenary force is used to enact a coup and usurp the existing military control through manipulation in a combined operation with other intelligence agencies as one example. But of course you get to disavow the idea of the black bag operations existing I guess?

In the absence of a mechanism for an intelligence or covert layer however it only allows for player imagination and social interaction at the present time to try to enact anything along these lines. This also largely something that PGI will be unable to ever fully control either, and yet the success of various campaigns despite mechanics can so readily be effected by these factors. In fact for those units currently ignoring the varous levels of meta play including diplomacy they are perhaps at a disadvantage to others in not wanting to engage in a dialouge that then might help to determine the outcome of events (including loyal factional elements) well before the Drops ships enter the atmosphere.

This is also evident where some factions have been shown to be better at the "social" elements of this game. And has had a significant impact to the map and player populations as a result of public pressure and actions being manipluated and changed by these factors.

In fact Prussian you have claimed that dialouge on the CSJ forum has enabled various changes to MERC presence in the CSJ corridor, so you are fully aware of the potential impact of this process to the MWO meta game that has been enacted by factional elements. Business is business, but guess what people prefer to still be liked.

What will be interesting with any form of player feedback or bonuses based on MERC use with any forthcoming MRBC system and the idea of factional economies remaining a part of the factional bonuses is how much of a need various factions might need MERCs to help tip the scales to help achieve their efforts. And those factions now who are posturing to control and belittle the need for these things now might then take a more dislike to these elements but then simply end up dimishing their own capabilities in the process as they effectively then make themselves a less than desirable employer.

Some factions are better at the diplomacy game than others, some embrace it and then do well with the MERC factions. Others cry foul or spend energies trying to have PGI correct potential deficiancies in this area as a result.


#More bubblewrap needed to coddle pilots from all the realities of warfare.

or

#DiplomacyIsOP I just want to shoot stuff and cant think about other things at the same time.


Whatever happened to MWO being the "thinking persons shooter"?


---

Having said that I do recognise that CW is not perfect and the relationships between MERC and factions needs to be reviewed. As the precidents of the game need to be better followed. This since the perceived actions or precidents used to enact MERCs as they operate in the game is also dependant on a more significant factional population to maintain the more effective control of their affairs.

Aslong as MERCs freedoms are not taken away in the process as per the other precidents from battletech at the same time then it gives credance to the logical arguments as to why people perceive how things should operate.

Question is how closely PGI will follow the precidents to make this a fun game involving choice for "ALL" and not just one area of player options.

[Harathan]

Vlad Ward, on 30 January 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

That's not the point. Battletech Soldiers don't get to vote on who makes peace treaties with who. Mad Max Liao and Hanse Davion get to decide who's at war, and the Blue Star Irregulars are not Hanse Davion.

I was under the impression that people joined Faction units because they wanted to swear undying loyalty to some banner or other, and follow the decisions of that banner no matter how batshit insane they are (Hi Liao).

If you want a say in what you or your allies do, go merc.

As far as my interpretation of the lore is concerned, all these faction units trying to declare ceasefires on their own are guilty of treason - desertion at best.

And yet none of your points are compelling arguments against what I suggested; you're merely countering with "just because".

How, in any way, shape, or form, would what I suggested drastically alter the way the majority of people, including you, already play the game? Mercs would still Merc, House units get the Faction politics they want, there'd be less stepping on toes, less aggro. There's no reason all sides couldn't be happy with this arrangement.

Edited by Harathan, 30 January 2015 - 02:29 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

Whatever happened to MWO being the "thinking persons shooter"?

Shot and left for dead by knuckle dragging gamer thugs who aggrivated their carpal tunnel and asthma.

[Vlad Ward]

Harathan, on 30 January 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

And yet none of your points are compelling arguments against what I suggested; you're merely countering with "just because".

How, in any way, shape, or form, would what I suggested drastically alter the way the majority of people, including you, already play the game? Mercs would still Merc, House units get the Faction politics they want.

Because the only thing that will come out from your "Faction politics" is fewer fights to be had for everyone else. It's not like there are NPC ceasefires in place right now for the Factions to nullify in order to open more fronts. All you can do is close fronts and reduce other people's play options.

[hybrid black]

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!

but there are no alliances and treaties for factions, only units with in a faction have them what gives someone like you for example the right to say a faction can not attack someone else. because your loyal? or want to RP more then someone else? you loyalist all think you control your faction when really you have no power and should not, your in a unit in a faction if anything the people not in a unit and are in a faction are really the people playing for that faction you play for your tags they play for there faction.

Edited by hybrid black, 30 January 2015 - 04:05 PM.