128 replies to this topic

[Prussian Havoc]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

I think it may be a matter of semantics based upon association. MercStar, QQ, 228, Rem, ACES and CI are all well known jumpers back and forth between the fronts, so they all tend to get lumped in with each other, whether they should be or not on any specific topic.

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!

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 29 January 2015 - 04:54 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

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/

[Banditman]

I didn't see anything in that proposal that were punishment / reprisal tools granted to players. I see systematic (read: server side) consequences and reprisals, but nothing being put in the hands of players.

[Mott]

Meh, none of the faction-hopping affects me in any way.

Our unit - while admittedly not enamored with CW and not dropping in it for the last week or two - took an FRR contract (reupped twice) and have battled only vs the clans so far.

We did alright when all the top units were clanners... and did only slightly better when half of said top units flocked to the IS and became - essentially - our allies.

The flip flopping doesn't bother me at all, especially when compared to all the other failures in CW right now.

Edit to add:
Also, we're just 1 month into CW... it stands to reason that the most meta units, the ones that absolutely love playing the games within the game, would be jumping around for a bit to see how both sides of the new game mode play. They want to make informed decisions before deciding to settle in any one place.

Edited by Mott, 28 January 2015 - 11:25 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

I'm gonna admit I kneejerked a bit there. I see a lot of these threads. I still think those propositions are heavy-handed, though. A 5-day reduction on rewards will make 7-day contracts worthless. The LP bonus for longer contracts is already designed as a sort of inverse penalty to units who choose to take shorter contracts.

Likewise, I don't think anyone cares about unit tags on planets outside of bragging rights. Are faction units upset because they don't have their names on planets? Would removing tags from units that leave a faction really influence decision-making? I don't know.

Moreover, Merc faction swapping is fairly important in maintaining the balance in CW. If you took only the house units for each of the factions and threw them at each other, you'd have clearly superior and clearly inferior houses from day 1. The bigger would get bigger and the smaller would get smaller, until they're reduced to their capitol world. Merc mobility allows for PGI to dynamically increase/decrease the overall fighting strength of various factions in order to maintain a more balanced world map and keep factions from either expanding or deflating indefinitely.

I don't believe this is behavior that should be discouraged.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 28 January 2015 - 11:29 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Banditman, on 28 January 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

I didn't see anything in that proposal that were punishment / reprisal tools granted to players. I see systematic (read: server side) consequences and reprisals, but nothing being put in the hands of players.

Under repercussions, many faction loyalists are pushing for an in-game method of creating treaties, cease fires, etc. because at the moment, as a member of another unit I am under no obligation to uphold a treaty set forth by the leadership of another unit. To think I should is rather petty, especially since I wasn't included in the process and decision making.

If Loyalist units wanted their mercs to "behave" better, then they should treat their mercs better by including us in decision making, diplomacy, and strategy.

Look at how the FRR and Marik treat their mercs. They respect us and include us in all their grand strategies.

Now look at Clans Wolf and Smoke Jag, they shat all over their mercs. Look at what it got them, an Exodus of players.

[Banditman]

I understand what some people are pushing for. What I'm saying is that in this particular proposal, I didn't see anything of that sort. Mercs are broken right now, even as a Merc I think this is the case. I am not especially worried about it at this point, as the beta tag is still firmly affixed to CW. I do think that some dialog with PGI and some communication as to their thinking would go a long way toward alleviating some of the budding concerns in the community.

[Nightmare1]

So...you would restrict Pirates?

Dude, there are several Merc Units here that are Pirate based with their own lore and everything. You can't just say, "Penalize them."

Also, all your complaints would be resolved if PGI were to implement Merc, Loyalist, and Clan Life like they originally stated was their intention back during Ekyman's CW Launch vid two years ago.

Finally, this is a game. There are many Units here (mine included) that are playing this for fun and to get away from RL politics and stress. We don't really want to sit back and go, "Oh, wait a minute, if we change Factions now that our month-long contract is up, are we going to upset everyone in the other Units? Maybe we should sit down and talk this out before doing so. Maybe we should allow ourselves to be sanctioned for such a hideous desire!"

Seriously, Mercs are Mercs. They are supposed to change Factions. That is to be expected. There are, in lore, several Merc Units that were game changers who switched between Factions, altering entire conflicts. What we see in CW is just a reflection of this, but in a fairly spontaneous, video game environment.

I know that, for my Unit, we don't care about the IS and Clan politics. We take a contract a month at a time and then change up when the contract expires. We're not too concerned about pleasing everyone and are here for fun. Wanting to penalize us for that is incredibly OCD of you.

[Peter2000]

This is, bluntly put, a terrible idea, and amounts to nothing less than discrimination against players who don't fit your mold of picking a faction and staying glued to it.

So not only do mercs get a lower LP income rate, they also don't get to play CW AT ALL for 2 days after picking up a new contract, they don't keep tags for longer than their contract, decreased income, etc. For what heinous crime? Doing what Merc units are supposed to do - look at the map, look at the rewards, and pick a new contract when the current one expires.

I don't mind making Merc play different from what it is now and giving more flavor to it, but this is insane, and just punishes Mercs.

[Noesis]

Pirates may be more nomadic in nature and relying on black market economies as opposed to being concerned with sticking flags in planets. They could even be free roaming individuals capable of choosing with more freedoms where they wish to move and would not be concerned with being limited to one planet or having the more involved economical concerns associated with it.

Raids and sabotage, paid or not by other parties be they factional employers, Mercs or otherwise would then be more involved with attacking infrastructure and taking various tech or items away as booty to then either enact supply for themselves or to sell and trade in black market dealings. This would make the concept of sabotage and mixtech more relevant to the Bandit/Pirate game style.

The counter offset to this gameplay style is the absence of long term economical or payment benefits for the contracts and so the freedoms associated not realising more rewards over time. But this then removing any aspect of political or loyalty concerns (vis a vis Geography or planets). This would then be more aligned with lore and the playstyle elements afforded to these kinds of groups.

There could be a whole new area of game play styles for CW that as part of raids and sabotage could then impact the infrastructure, economy or effect the other game play styles based on these scenarios enacted by Bandit/Pirates. However these forms of game modes would not effect the normal process of planetary conquest directly as per the stick flag in planet process.

The ability to pay pirates a notional fee but not in the same rewards as Mercenary contracts could then help to cause sabotage to your opponent’s war efforts.

Game modes for CW could involve drops associated with:

• Sabotage of defence points (e.g. weaker turrets for temporary period or token use).
  
• Sabotage of defensive generators (e.g. cause weaker generators for temporary period or token use).
  
• Sabotage of hangers (reduces defenders drop limits for temp period or token use).
  
• Recon Tech (aware of drop details on initial drop screen).
  
• Steal Tech (Reduction to some Black Market values for Pirate group costs temporarily for specific tech associated with any planetary factories)
  
• Intercept intel or steal intel (Allow force of map type to be used by either party, token use)

The above are examples of the kinds of game modes bandits/pirate could be engaged with where the token use applied due to their drop effects where successful could be a one off effect applied by an "employer" if not for a temporary period due to more free associations.

Edited by Noesis, 28 January 2015 - 01:26 PM.

[Cimarb]

"Mercs are mercs, and they are supposed to change faction" is a very narrow minded viewpoint. Clans do not have mercs. They do not accept them. They do not acknowledge them. They do not allow them.

Yes, mercenaries in the Inner Sphere did change factions, amongst the Houses, but they did not do so without repercussions. You have obviously not read any of the novels/history about the Wolf's Dragoons, for example. Changing factions is a HUGE deal, especially when you change between warring factions. In CW, though? "Meh, who cares"...that is just dumb.

I want everyone to be able to have fun, but there is a saying, "your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins", and I think that is very fitting here. You have the right to have fun, but it ends where you are stopping me from having fun.

CW is supposed to be for the people that care about the lore and a persistent universe, NOT the people that just want to play whatever they feel like that day, and for whoever they feel like that day. If you want to do that, you have the standard game modes to do so in.

[Peter2000]

@ Cimarb and Prussian.

I don't mind diplomacy and rules. What I do mind is a few people on perma-contracts looking down their noses at everyone else, and decreeing that only they have the TRUE AUTHORITY to grace us by offering us contracts.

LOL WTF. You're on a contract with the PGI faction NPC. You aren't an employer. Get over yourselves, or give me 100,000,000 C-Bills/month.

Edited by Peter2000, 28 January 2015 - 01:33 PM.

[Cimarb]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

This is, bluntly put, a terrible idea, and amounts to nothing less than discrimination against players who don't fit your mold of picking a faction and staying glued to it.

So not only do mercs get a lower LP income rate, they also don't get to play CW AT ALL for 2 days after picking up a new contract, they don't keep tags for longer than their contract, decreased income, etc. For what heinous crime? Doing what Merc units are supposed to do - look at the map, look at the rewards, and pick a new contract when the current one expires.

I don't mind making Merc play different from what it is now and giving more flavor to it, but this is insane, and just punishes Mercs.

I do not agree with the "no CW for x days", but I do think that tags should be removed from your old faction when you change.

More importantly, a Merc unit should be handled differently than a loyalist unit, but that is a huge topic...

Btw, he is not saying the tags only last as long as the contract. He is saying they are removed if you switch faction. If you reup your contract with the same faction, or even possibly with an "allied" faction (say any Clan, or any House, or just Davion-Steiner, etc.), you should still keep your tags, imo.

[Cimarb]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

@ Cimarb and Prussian.

I don't mind diplomacy and rules. What I do mind is a few people on perma-contracts looking down their noses at everyone else, and decreeing that only they have the TRUE AUTHORITY to grace us by offering us contracts.

LOL WTF. You're on a contract with the PGI faction NPC. You aren't an employer. Get over yourselves, or give me 100,000,000 C-Bills/month.

And I mind someone with no loyalty acting as if they are the most important person, looking down his nose at the people that DO have loyalties. I am not looking down on anyone, and do not want to pay anyone, or get paid myself, in spheroid money regardless.

Take off your Merc-colored glasses and stop trying to make this an argument. I am just suggesting things that "I" think would help CW, according to the lore that makes this game actually matter.

[Kjudoon]

I support the idea of creating a new tier of unit: Pirates. Once Rearm and Repair and other logisticial tools show up much of this could be controlled through very high risk/reward methods.

Loyalists: Low risk/reward and costs
Mercenaries: Moderate risk/reward and costs
Pirates: High risk/reward and costs

Freedom isn't free and isn't without consequences.

PGI provide such an option.

[CyclonerM]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

CW is supposed to be for the people that care about the lore and a persistent universe, NOT the people that just want to play whatever they feel like that day, and for whoever they feel like that day. If you want to do that, you have the standard game modes to do so in.

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

And I mind someone with no loyalty acting as if they are the most important person, looking down his nose at the people that DO have loyalties. I am not looking down on anyone, and do not want to pay anyone, or get paid myself, in spheroid money regardless.

I do not have anything else to add.

[Vlad Ward]

Even if you want to try to play the Lore and Diplomacy cards, you're still missing the obvious gameplay benefits to Mercs hopping around.

Two weeks ago, Clan Smoke Jaguar was reduced to a handful of core worlds after being nearly completely devoured by Clan Ghost Bear. PGI offered double contract bonuses to any Mercs willing to fight under their flag.

Today, Clan Smoke Jaguar has more total planets than Clan Ghost Bear. In response to this, PGI has removed their contract boost. QQ has already left CSJ, and I'd imagine 228 will be leaving in a couple days at most. Will this bring Clan Smoke Jaguar back into line with its competition (ie, Clan Ghost Bear)? Probably.

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

Edited by Vlad Ward, 28 January 2015 - 01:49 PM.

[Peter2000]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

And I mind someone with no loyalty acting as if they are the most important person, looking down his nose at the people that DO have loyalties. I am not looking down on anyone, and do not want to pay anyone, or get paid myself, in spheroid money regardless.

Take off your Merc-colored glasses and stop trying to make this an argument. I am just suggesting things that "I" think would help CW, according to the lore that makes this game actually matter.

Bullshit. This is an argument, and has been for the past few weeks. There are a small minority of players (obviously including you, as well as key members of CGB and CSJ leadership, based on threads in those forums) that think that they have the God-given right to tell others how they ought to play the game: where they get to fight, when they get to switch to another faction, the penalties terrible traitorous mercs should suffer if they ever displease you in any way, etc. CSJ perm-con units don't have to open a front with CGB if they don't want to, but if I try to (because there is literally nowhere else to drop) and I get called names for it, I'm damn well going to tell them to **** off. I'm trying to play the game, and they don't have any moral authority over me.

Giving players non-voluntary power over other players in this sense is a TERRIBLE idea.

Mercs do leave and take new contracts. This is simplified and accellerated because IT IS A VIDEO GAME NOT A REAL-LIFE MILITARY ENLISTMENT. And as Vlad pointed out, our movements are actually key to preserving any semblance of balance of the star map.

When people stop proposing that Mercs get perma-screwed on a 3-times-a-day basis, I'll stop being defensive.

Edited by Peter2000, 28 January 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[Cimarb]

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

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

I agree mercs are necessary. I am not arguing that one bit. I can even stomach having "mercs" on both sides, to a point, even though they do not belong in the Clans any more than the cbill itself does.

What I do not agree with is having a mercenary unit on both sides of the same battle front, with planets in their name on both sides, and zero penalties for doing so. Do you really think a traitor to House Davion would still have "holdings" on Davion planets while they were working for House Kurita, killing Davion pilots?...really, seriously, does that make a lick of sense to you?

I do not completely agree with Prussian's OP, just to be clear. I do not think there should be a lockout. I DO think tags should be wiped and loyalty points should be lessened, though.

Let us work on a compromise solution, instead of throwing insults and arguing over semantics (not you specifically - just in general).

[Noesis]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

Giving players non-voluntary power over other players in this sense is a TERRIBLE idea.

Totally agree as this could be so easily open to abuse.