Great points one and all, thank you for constructive contributions to this thread.
What these first respondents provided represents an excellent cross-section of our own discussions on this topic.
Please bare with me as I respond to each in turn:
Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:
There have already been several 20+ page threads relating to this issue...(snip)...
Vlad, what I offer is not just identification of problems and frictions but some real concrete suggestions that would IMHO improve CW gameplay. I intend to expand, adjust my OP based on the debate here, but ALWAYS with an eye towards offering concrete recommendations, ideas and suggestions that SOLVE PROBLEMS not just restate the obvious.
If gamers do not want a viable "BattleTech-flavored" framework in which to game MWO , just then the Public Queues are ideal for them.
To me CW needs to be more than an Eve-like free for all.
LET GAMERS GAME... but within a "Community" framework of minimally invasive Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions. IMO there exists an overriding need for mature dialogue on this issue in an effort to provide PGI the grist with which to refine CW Beta into as real an interactive "BattleTech-like" MWO game mode (CW being one of four currently) as is possible.
It is my fervent belief that if PGI gets CW Launch #JustRight, that concerns over PGI's continued solvency will ameliorate to large degree. (BACKGROUND: I am a Legendary Founder of MechWarrior: Tactics amd am well versed in buying into a game which has its servers turned off and be left with no recourse despite IGP taking Founder money all the way up to the servers being shuttered.)
MW:O is a truly great BattleTech-like combat simulator.
I would give my time and effort in this thread to foster the generation, refinement and recommendation of Community-sourced CW fixes, changes, and content identification/valuation/player-contribution (READ: STEAM WORKSHOP)
Yeah Vlad, it is an ambitious intent, but if I do not at least try to help PGI identify how best to craft a viable, economically successful MWO CW mode, then I will have no one to blame but myself if it fails or turns into a decidedly un-BattleTech-like, Twitch-gamer-centric, inconsequential flash in the MMO pan.
We have a chance to contribute to a better MWO CW, I intend to make the most of this opportunity between now and CW Phase 3 and beyond.
It might be an idea of your's Vlad that PGI seizes upon to significantly tweak MWO CW. Contribute it here or at the VERY informative link you provided. It matters not, just as long as it is posted to the forums and available for PGI's consideration.
Thank you for your comments.
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.
And that was my intent, I hope to accentuate ways and means of realizing a foundational set of organization dynamics and mechanisms into which we can all better enjoy a truly incredible BattleTech-like combat simulator.
IMO Unit actions should have both beneficial counteractions (already in game with contract c-bill and loyalty point bonuses, the fact there is zero Rearm and Refit costs and zero Transportation costs between drops, ect) and realistic detrimental consequences (to include what I describe in the OP)
Now if we all were just to want a game that "gives everyone a gold star" at the end of a match, GREAT! We already have Public Queue Drops of Eternal Deathmatches. Have at it, good gaming and have fun.
But CW is meant to occur within an actual framework where individual 30-minute matches drive Factional acquit ions of entire planets within setting where many hundreds of planets could be "in play" if CW Beta were to last long enough.
I trust some would agree with me on this and would contribute their comments to this thread.
Thank you for your comments.
Mott, on 28 January 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:
...(snip)...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.
Yes, our Beta needs a lot of player input to assist PGI in crafting the next Phase and any future content additions (maps, Mechs, eras shifts, ect)
Informed decisions are ALWAYS preferable, I am advocating her for a BattleTech-like environment that includes a variable framework for both beneficial and detrimental outcomes to Unit choices, decisions and actions. IMO that was always meant to be a foundational aspect of the CW "hard mode" of MWO.
Thank you for your comments.
Lord Scarlett Johan, on 28 January 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:
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....(snip)...Now look at Clans Wolf and Smoke Jag, they shat all over their mercs. Look at what it got them, an Exodus of players.
EXACTLY. Gamers should be able to game how they choose and I am NOT advocating to take away ANY gamers right to game however they chose.
What I am saying is that if a Unit proves to be duplicitous, break contracts wantonly, continuously disregards EMPLOYER preferences, takes contract reimbursement without the slightest regard to the EMPLOYER's situation, etc - then that Unit should be increasingly recognized for what it has chosen to be a pirate or bandit Unit, and not one that can post to the forums as if it were a loyal member of any Faction they choose.
UNITS SHOULD REAP WHAT THEY SOW. (IMO)
As too Clan Smoke Jaguar's track record with Mercenaries, I ask anyone who has concerns to find out for yourselves. Pleas see the CSJ Unit pages available here:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4030452
Don't trust to the "role-played" denigration of ANY Faction. Don't take slander as truth. Contact Unit representatives with a Faction already to get the #RealDeal
Remember, as we help PGI to refine and improve CW, it becomes a deeper and more robust gaming experience.
For example, when looking for employment in the #RealWorld would someone want to work somewhere (READ: take a contract) somewhere you had zero idea as to worker conditions? No, of course not. Anyone would look for a current or past employee for which to get a word-of-mouth idea as to the #RealDeal. I would recommend that as MWO CW approaches Phase Three it really should be a consideration for Units looking for a different situation to do some research first.
IMO this level and depth of immersive CW experience will improve gameplay, attract more returning #OriginalMWOgamers, retain more gamers and provide a unique marketing angle when MWO goes to Steam release in the Spring/Summer timeframe.
Nightmare1, on 28 January 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:
So...you would restrict Pirates?...(snip)...Seriously, Mercs are Mercs. They are supposed to change Factions...(snip)...We're not too concerned about pleasing everyone and are here for fun. Wanting to penalize us for that is incredibly OCD of you.
On the contrary I advocate for the establishment and embellishment to a True Pirate and Bandit option for ALL gamers to embrace or not... as they individually so choose.
I am championing the creation of disparate, individualistic Minor Factions that would enrich MWO CW in aggregate,
By formally recognizing and providing an Icon/Faction for Pirates and Bandits - a Unit or Individual could choose it on their own, or if over and extended period of time a Unit proves itself worthy of designation as a Pirate or Bandit / alternately a Unit breaks so many tenants of the MRBC that it EARNS the designation of Pirate or Bandit by continually breaking faith with EMPLOYERS then said Unit should be appropriately labeled for all to recognize.
Of course a gamer that leaves said Unit receives a compete amnesty and a clean slate so as to dive back into the immersive MWO CW experience once again.
Please consider...
A UNIT SHOULD SAFEGUARD ITS REPUTATION... a failing of CW currently is that no actions [whether it be COMPLETE observance of employer/Faction intent OR complete repudiation of any semblance of good faith execution of contract (violations of an EMPLOYER's peace agreements for example)] serve as a basis to provide lasting Record of Service background on a Unit.
A true Mercenary Unit knows that a reputation for solid performance within contract stipulations is the ONLY way to ensure future contracts.
I advocate for a measure of Unit accountability.
For example 228 has performed heroic and near meticulously contract-precise service while under a Clan Smoke Jaguar contract IMO. Sure there was some miscommunication and false initial reporting implicating 228 in duplicitous behavior.
But on the whole 228 has been a very model of superior 2-week contract performance.
I only wish it had been in my capability to vote on a contract BONUS for 228.
While it is a pittance I have 100m c-bills that I would contribute toward this Contract - Recognition of Superior Performance (especially if PGI added matching funds!!!!!!!)
Just consider that for a minute...
Both beneficial and detrimental outcomes should be possible under CW, with it all dependent on Unit actions and NEVER role-playing.
The faction that is most inclusive, provides dynamic purpose, direction and motivation and is most successful at Recruiting, Retention and Mercenary Relations SHOULD be in position to compel the best CW outcomes.
And finally I thank you for your comments.