128 replies to this topic

[Von Blumen]

First and foremost, CSJ asked every merc unit to play along with the community in CSJ and when we were rebuffed by the arguments that "we mercs will do as we want," CSJ basically said fine, we will not support you and boom....flame war erupts and now we have several threads going over the same topic and heated debates over and over. Can we all just agree to step back for a minute and understand that 1. This is beta and 2. There is a problem here that has polarized the community at large. Cooler heads and constructive critism will prevail (but this is an internet forum on a gaming site, what am I thinking...)

Look at it this way, if a person joined your unit and every time you had an organized drop, that person did their own thing and disobeyed the DC, repeatedly, more than likely that person would be booted out of your unit. No one here in an organized competitive or casual group, is going to tolerate that kind of repeated behavior. It will cause drama, fractures, and will lead people to leave the unit or disrespect the DC. Same rules apply here, only on a much grander scale. Several units came together and agreed to focus on one goal, several more came in and said "the hell with that, this is what we do, this is how we play." And I concede the fact that there is no commander or leader for a faction, or group that leads, or has the power to "kick" a unit, and that is actually a good thing. But every action has a reaction and consequences should arise.

I am all for units playing how they want actually, but this is where the drama arises, and rightly so. It is a game, but it is human nature and people on both sides spent lots of money and time in the game and want to play this game their way. The problem is that both communities want freedom to play the game, neither side is willing to concede, flamers add fuel to the fire (on both sides) and now we have this.

CSJ was doing more than fine before 228, QQ, and REM joined up. We were the second largest clan (in terms of planets captured) and we were making great headway south. CGB relationship with us was nonthreatening and their was mutual understanding between the clans that the drive was south. We are still driving south, relations are still good with CGB, for the most part, and now we are the largest clan faction. CSJ will continue to fight after mercs leave, and the ebb and flow of the game will continue. But to claim that every Merc has left CSJ because we are "merc haters" is wrong. Certain groups left because of the drama that, to be honest, was caused by neither side seeing eye to eye. What is going to cause other groups to leave is our suddenly inflated numbers from groups like 228, deemed it necessary to Nerf any and all CSJ bonuses. Dramatic issues aside, PGI cannot justify giving a clan with inflated numbers and now the largest "empire" a bonus. So with incentives gone and massive drama to boot, some units left, others came back, and yet others will soon leave. It happens. To say everyone is leaving CSJ or that these units were CSJ's saviors is a fallacy, plain and simple.

The issue almost everyone is having, in every faction is merc movement and contracts. Players should not have control over other players, plain and simple. Punishments (such as no pay) are also too harsh. However incentives and repercussions should be enacted. Merc units should have to pay a price for jumping around (losing claimed planets is the most fair) however they should get incentives for superior play (cbills/LP bonuses). LastKhan has some interesting ideas here: http://mwomercs.com/...s/page__st__240 (sorry on my phone, scroll down to see his points).

Mercs need to have incentives, more so then they have now, but they also must have a penalty as well, something that will let mercs "play as they want" but also something that can "appease the faction"... Note I said faction, not player base.

Edited by Von Blumen, 28 January 2015 - 05:54 PM.

[Bad Katz]

Just a reminder, that as a pirate unit, we were forced to pick an allegiance tag. I am not going to make this unwanted tag force me to drift from the lore the Original Box set down which included pirates (way before clans were even thought of). Repercussions will just encourage me to fight the system all the harder, and hopefully encourage PGI to create the tag for pirates which should have been in place with mercs and lone wolfs at the beginning of the game. So if you see the Brethren, just remember you're fighting an independent unit, not a house or merc unit, and we shall raid where we please. Take all you can, give nothing back!

Edited by Killian Hook, 28 January 2015 - 06:16 PM.

[HARDKOR]

I like the bandit idea if you make it be for pirates instead. I know for a fact our unit would love to have a home planet and do raids from it.

[Lord Curmudgeon]

Something else to remember, the House loyalist Units do not make the contracts, they have no say as to which systems come up for attack, they have no control over other units. They can choose to support or deny support to the merc unit in its attacks but that is the end of it. They can, and should, open the lines of communication to any merc units coming through, but if they are told that the merc unit is going to do what its going to do, well so be it. The only treaties in game currently are between units not houses.

PGI is setting the planets to attack and within those constraints we will all operate, regardless of the wishes of the other units.

If any of this changes in the future then we will play within the rules of the game, not some arbitrary rules set by other gamers.

As for the merc units swapping factions, it is absolutely crucial for the survival of some of these factions.

I for one would enjoy having a pirate faction, that is the form of unit I chose to join and am hoping that PGI implements some day.

[Cimarb]

Banditman, on 28 January 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

I like the idea of consequence for faction hoppers, but additionally, I would also like to see bonuses for better service. Carrot and stick sort of thing.

For instance, if a Merc unit gives good service for an extended period of time without jumping around, perhaps their contract should pay more - and I'm not talking worthless loyalty points - cold hard CBills.

Nightmare1, on 28 January 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

I could go for that.

Edit: Mercs are mercs and will jump Factions. That's their version of gameplay in CW, so penalizing them for not being a Loyalist is silly. Offering additional rewards like what Banditman mentioned is a nice idea that encourages rather than penalizes.

Spitballing here:
Perhaps something like 25% bonus C-bills if you renew a month contract with another month contract. For every month afterwards, you get another 25% C-bills until you hit 100% in the fifth month. After the fifth month, you lose the bonus. That would encourage Merc Units to stick around for long periods of time, while preventing Loyalist-Units-in-Mercs-Clothing from abusing the incentives system.

Feel free to mess around with my numbers. I'm just throwing them out to generate some discussion.

I totally support that. Regardless of the individual contact length, if you have been with the same faction for that long, you should be getting those rewards.

So, for example, if you are on a week-by-week contract, you should get the reward for that "level" of committment until you have been with the faction for a month. From then on, as long as you renew your contract, you should get the reward for monthly contracts. Once you have stayed with that faction for six months (or a year, or whatever), you should then be getting the same rewards as a permanent contract.

Mercs should be rewarded for loyalty, and penalized for disloyalty.

Lord Curmudgeon, on 28 January 2015 - 06:33 PM, said:

I for one would enjoy having a pirate faction, that is the form of unit I chose to join and am hoping that PGI implements some day.

That is exactly what Prussian (the OP) is talking about. If you want that, support it instead of arguing against other things.

[Von Blumen]

You are correct Lord, 100%. However, the issue still arises, what is a proper penalty?

Everyone claimed Clan weapons were too strong when they first came out (some say still are, but not here to debate that) and yes, they were powerful. Time to kill was decreased and players in all mechs were dying far too quickly from overpowered clan weapons. PGI came in and nerfed the clan weapons, time to kill increased and while the problem was not solved entirely, it was addressed.

Merc units are the same thing right now in CW. The powerful weapon that 1. Holds the most planets, 2. Sways the game from one side to another, 3. Has no consequences for their actions, be it good or bad. If this situation was over an in game weapon, the boards would be lit up, more so than they are now.

Mercs should be able to switch sides. They should be able to switch factions. They should be able to play how they want, but they also should have tighter contracts with penalties for leaving. MS is leading right now with captured planets, 228 is not far behind them. Just using 228 as an example, they took 10 or 11 worlds for CSJ. When they leave, they shall retain these worlds. Right now, nothing is attached to these worlds, but once something is, is it right for a unit to retain control over a world in a faction they no longer serve? (Honestly asking this question) I don't believe so and they should lose these 11 or so worlds with their tags. Should they be told were to attack? Diplomatically yes, but gameplay wise they should be able to do as they please. If they do a good job for the faction, then the faction should pay them greater incentives (not faction players).

Something needs to be done to curtail units from jumping around easily. Not saying to stop it entirely and no solution will be perfect, but contracts should be a bit more binding and harder to break and units should suffer a penalty (loss of planets) for jumping around the map. A consequence, not a hinderence.

[Nightmare1]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

Mercs should be rewarded for loyalty, and penalized for disloyalty.

Sure, just so long as the "Loyalist" lore-lovers keep in mind that Mercs are in it more for fun than role play, and so long as such things are reasonable.

Frankly, I think losing your LP is a substantial penalty for changing Factions and find it very hurtful. That's why my Unit has only changed Factions once.

[Cimarb]

Nightmare1, on 28 January 2015 - 06:58 PM, said:

Sure, just so long as the "Loyalist" lore-lovers keep in mind that Mercs are in it more for fun than role play, and so long as such things are reasonable.

Frankly, I think losing your LP is a substantial penalty for changing Factions and find it very hurtful. That's why my Unit has only changed Factions once.

I am not role-playing. If I was, I would not be talking to you politely, if at all, as you are a pirate, which is even more dezgra than a mercenary, which is pretty bad itself. I am just trying to get a game that holds as close to lore as possible, while still being fun and enjoyable for the maximum number of people.

All I am saying is that mercenaries should be rewarded with more loyalty points (and money) the more loyal they are, and on the flip side they should be penalized the more UNloyal they are. I think that is pretty easy to understand, and we all should agree on that.

In addition, I am saying that, if you switch factions, you should lose the tags on your former faction, as you CHOSE to give up that faction. Why should you care what tag is on it, as you are not part of that faction anymore?...

[Nightmare1]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

I am not role-playing. If I was, I would not be talking to you politely, if at all, as you are a pirate, which is even more dezgra than a mercenary, which is pretty bad itself. I am just trying to get a game that holds as close to lore as possible, while still being fun and enjoyable for the maximum number of people.

All I am saying is that mercenaries should be rewarded with more loyalty points (and money) the more loyal they are, and on the flip side they should be penalized the more UNloyal they are. I think that is pretty easy to understand, and we all should agree on that.

In addition, I am saying that, if you switch factions, you should lose the tags on your former faction, as you CHOSE to give up that faction. Why should you care what tag is on it, as you are not part of that faction anymore?...

Generally I agree.

However, you can't penalize Mercs heavily since there would not be an incentive to play as them then. I understand what you are saying about there not being a lot of downsides to playing Merc atm. Frankly, I think the LP hits are bad enough, but I see the problem represented by the hardcore Units like the 228. I think that once planetary ownership is worth something though, those wildcard Units will start settling down a bit. Especially if planetary control is linked to Faction membership.

I know, I know; Mercs aren't supposed to have planets! Some things will just have to bend a bit to make the game playable though.

Now, if we could get that Merc Life, Loyalist Life, and Clan Life, along with Faction restrictions on BattleMechs, and the special Unit status like Donegal Guads, Wolf's Dragoons, etc., then we could really get this wagon rolling!

[Vlad Ward]

Von Blumen, on 28 January 2015 - 06:52 PM, said:

Something needs to be done to curtail units from jumping around easily.

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

Kurita getting smashed? Find some way to send Merc units to Kurita.

Davion growing too big? Find some way to get Merc units to break contract with Davion.

This is how CW management works. Making it harder or less attractive to change factions actively damages their ability to balance the map.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 28 January 2015 - 07:23 PM.

[Cimarb]

Nightmare1, on 28 January 2015 - 07:18 PM, said:

Generally I agree.

However, you can't penalize Mercs heavily since there would not be an incentive to play as them then. I understand what you are saying about there not being a lot of downsides to playing Merc atm. Frankly, I think the LP hits are bad enough, but I see the problem represented by the hardcore Units like the 228. I think that once planetary ownership is worth something though, those wildcard Units will start settling down a bit. Especially if planetary control is linked to Faction membership.

I know, I know; Mercs aren't supposed to have planets! Some things will just have to bend a bit to make the game playable though.

Now, if we could get that Merc Life, Loyalist Life, and Clan Life, along with Faction restrictions on BattleMechs, and the special Unit status like Donegal Guads, Wolf's Dragoons, etc., then we could really get this wagon rolling!

Totally agree with you. I do not want to penalize them too much. Shoot, all I really want is for them to lose their tags on previous factions, lol...well, and have a better method of rewarding/penalizing them based upon loyalty, but that is a wash since I want both a penalty AND a bonus.

[Von Blumen]

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.

Kurita getting smashed? Find some way to send Merc units to Kurita.

Davion growing too big? Find some way to get Merc units to break contract with Davion.

This is how CW management works. Making it harder or less attractive to change factions actively damages their ability to balance the map.

I don't disagree with you. In fact I wholely support that argument. What I am saying in both posts, is that units should not have their cake and eat it too (always hated that expression, who would not eat their own cake?). As it is, right now, merc units are the only way to win the end game, if the end game is measured by territory taken (per unit). This gives mercs/pirates/lone wolves, what have you a distinct and unfair advantage, as they can bounce around the map and take territory, leave and still retain territory. This hurts the end game. Merc units should have some weight to their decision. So again, using CSJ as an example, your unit takes 10 worlds for us but you don't like the faction for whatever reason. You know that if you leave, you will be losing 10 worlds, but if you stay and maybe make some diplomatic (play player politics) maybe you can gain a few more worlds and possibly have an affect on the end game.

The way it is set up now, worlds have no bonuses attached to them (they are simply nameplates) and if you leave, their is no weight to your decision, you can come and go as you please. I am not against it, I just think that a stronger system of rewards/benefits vs repercussions/penalties needs to be in place to entice or dissuade merc units. As it stands now mercs have too great an advantage with little to no consequence.

And again, this should be in no way, shape or form player controlled, that is just not an idea that will work. It should strictly be faction side NPC.

Edited by Von Blumen, 28 January 2015 - 08:21 PM.

[Repasy Cooper]

Prussian Havoc, on 28 January 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

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.)

I feelz for ya man... I bought into that Legendary Founders Package too. I gotta say, of all the crash-n-burns I've seen in video game history, that one was LEGENDARY. Still, probably not as bad as Command&Conquer 4 (lets turn a base-building rts into a non-base-building rts w/ unit caps and NO TIBERIUM TO MINE. wha?!?), but all the same it hurt so bad because BATTLETECHONLINEOMFGJIZZINMYPANTS I just about $#@% my pants when I heard about it!... I try to forget, but sometimes I still have nightmares about it lol! It's like a bad dream I can't wake up from. Ugly as **** robots w/ asymmetrical unbalanced bodies chase me and attempt to pull me back into unity-browser purgatory...

I sure hope that never happens to this game. I've already spent a large sum here and I think it was worth it! They're doing some legendary work.

[Banditman]

Frankly, what is even worse is that the current system actually encourages units to bounce to the winning side! That's a terrible way to go about balancing a game.

You see, in order to hold on to a planet tagged by your group, the faction you are fighting for has to be pushing forward. If your faction is losing, and you want planets tagged in your name, the only sensible thing to do is switch to the side that's winning so your tagged planets aren't immediately lost.

This is a pretty big problem with the current system, in addition to the numerous other problems that have been pointed out in this thread.

I do hope we can continue to have a civilized discussion about these problems, because this has really been a breath of fresh air in the CW discussions.

[Volkodav]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

Prussian, here is the issue: practically speaking, how do you distinguish between gamers and factions and units within the faction? The latter two categories are entirely composed of individuals from the former. Giving them any power over gamers inherently involves giving gamers unvoluntary power over other gamers.

Moreover, the "factions" I would argue do not exist in the monolithic sense you seem to see them as. Units may perm-con onto a faction, but that doesn't mean that they speak for the faction; just their unit, which has chosen to affiliate with the faction.



I appreciate the sentiment, but what I mean is this: you are not the person who pays me. Even if you were able to distribute a voluntary bonus, the vast majority of C-Bills will ultimately come from PGI paying me for in-drop actions, whether directly (money in game for kills, assists, etc.) or after the fact (money/lp bonuses for winning the fight). Thus PGI (or a PGI-controlled NPC) is the employer and we are all working for them, as equals, regardless of contract length.

Just be a bit RP, please). This is important in this game mode, which we all have been waiting for.

[Vlad Ward]

Von Blumen, on 28 January 2015 - 08:18 PM, said:

I don't disagree with you. In fact I wholely support that argument. What I am saying in both posts, is that units should not have their cake and eat it too (always hated that expression, who would not eat their own cake?). As it is, right now, merc units are the only way to win the end game, if the end game is measured by territory taken (per unit). This gives mercs/pirates/lone wolves, what have you a distinct and unfair advantage, as they can bounce around the map and take territory, leave and still retain territory. This hurts the end game. Merc units should have some weight to their decision. So again, using CSJ as an example, your unit takes 10 worlds for us but you don't like the faction for whatever reason. You know that if you leave, you will be losing 10 worlds, but if you stay and maybe make some diplomatic (play player politics) maybe you can gain a few more worlds and possibly have an affect on the end game.

The way it is set up now, worlds have no bonuses attached to them (they are simply nameplates) and if you leave, their is no weight to your decision, you can come and go as you please. I am not against it, I just think that a stronger system of rewards/benefits vs repercussions/penalties needs to be in place to entice or dissuade merc units. As it stands now mercs have too great an advantage with little to no consequence.

And again, this should be in no way, shape or form player controlled, that is just not an idea that will work. It should strictly be faction side NPC.

This isn't a result of Merc units being able to bounce around. This is a result of the fact that all of the strongest units in the game are Mercenaries.

In an ideal world, Merc units would be a supplement to a Faction's fighting force. They would be able to take planets, sure, but the majority of any particular territory would be owned by the more consistent Permcon units. They're always there, after all. I can't earn worlds in CSJ space when I'm off fighting for Kurita. You don't need an in-game mechanic to do that as it should already be happening naturally. As the game is right now, you have some factions with strong/active Permcon units (eg, CSJ, AFFS), and then you have factions that rely almost entirely on Merc support to survive.

If a Merc unit is able to walk in with a 1-week or 2-week contract and sweep up 15-20 planets in a territory, then the Faction units aren't doing their jobs.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 29 January 2015 - 02:19 PM.

[Von Blumen]

Vlad Ward, on 29 January 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

This isn't a result of Merc units being able to bounce around. This is a result of the fact that all of the strongest units in the game are Mercenaries.

In an ideal world, Merc units would be a supplement to a Faction's fighting force. They would be able to take planets, sure, but the majority of any particular territory would be owned by the more consistent Permcon units. They're always there, after all. I can't earn worlds in CSJ space when I'm off fighting for Kurita. You don't need an in-game mechanic to do that as it should already be happening naturally. As the game is right now, you have some factions with strong/active Permcon units (eg, CSJ, AFFS), and then you have factions that rely almost entirely on Merc support to survive.

If a Merc unit is able to walk in with a 1-week or 2-week contract and sweep up 15-20 planets in a territory, then the Faction units aren't doing their jobs.

Not true. Merc units that can field multiple 12 man groups can and have been bombarding the que, effectively freezing others out in merc heavy factions.

You hit the nail on the head, certain merc units are the strongest ingame because they are able to field the most numbers due to large player base and the ability not to be tied to one faction. That is very appealing to a vast amount of the player base. Thereby when these merc units come in to a faction they sweep the planets, regardless of permcon status and strength. When the large merc units flood in they do not supplement the fighting force, they become the fighting force - for better or worse.

If 3 random NPC contracts were offered to every merc group, say every Monday, offering jobs with 3 different factions for different rewards (or even attack lanes with these factions...like say a contract with CSJ to attack and defend against CGB, you get bonuses for only attacking or defending CGB, you lose or break contract if you attack elsewhere). Permcon and long term merc units might even be able to vote on what contracts they can put out for their faction (contract would still be NPC generated). This is just a basic idea, one that is trying g to establish an economy, a merc guild house, and some balance. It is not perfect, but it could be a start.

The other issue you touched upon is the main problem right now with regards to planets. If you leave a faction, you cannot take planets for the faction you left, but you still retain those that you did. This gimps the faction you left and hurts the permcon units and gives mercs an unfair advantage in taking territory.

So again, merc units are big, powerful, and have the muscle to clog ques and take worlds. When they leave, they still retain those worlds. This puts anyone who signs up as permcon at a disadvantage. But to say permcon units are not doing their job, just goes to show how out of touch merc units can be, as you are not seeing the problem clearly from the other side.

Edited by Von Blumen, 29 January 2015 - 02:54 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

I think the assumption that individual Merc units have vastly more players than individual Faction units needs to go. Not every Merc Unit is Mercstar or Comstar Irregulars with 300+ players. We field maybe one full 12-man on a good day, half of which is going to be made up of people in trial mechs who haven't played since closed beta. Our average group size is 5, and we can still put our names on Kuritan planets.

Faction Units do not get a free pass because they chose permcon. The people who contribute the most to the acquisition/defense of a world get planet tags, period. If that isn't the permcons, then the permcons are doing something wrong.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 29 January 2015 - 04:33 PM.

[Peter2000]

Von Blumen, on 29 January 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

Not true. Merc units that can field multiple 12 man groups can and have been bombarding the que, effectively freezing others out in merc heavy factions.

You hit the nail on the head, certain merc units are the strongest ingame because they are able to field the most numbers due to large player base and the ability not to be tied to one faction. That is very appealing to a vast amount of the player base. Thereby when these merc units come in to a faction they sweep the planets, regardless of permcon status and strength. When the large merc units flood in they do not supplement the fighting force, they become the fighting force - for better or worse.

If 3 random NPC contracts were offered to every merc group, say every Monday, offering jobs with 3 different factions for different rewards (or even attack lanes with these factions...like say a contract with CSJ to attack and defend against CGB, you get bonuses for only attacking or defending CGB, you lose or break contract if you attack elsewhere). Permcon and long term merc units might even be able to vote on what contracts they can put out for their faction (contract would still be NPC generated). This is just a basic idea, one that is trying g to establish an economy, a merc guild house, and some balance. It is not perfect, but it could be a start.

The other issue you touched upon is the main problem right now with regards to planets. If you leave a faction, you cannot take planets for the faction you left, but you still retain those that you did. This gimps the faction you left and hurts the permcon units and gives mercs an unfair advantage in taking territory.

So again, merc units are big, powerful, and have the muscle to clog ques and take worlds. When they leave, they still retain those worlds. This puts anyone who signs up as permcon at a disadvantage. But to say permcon units are not doing their job, just goes to show how out of touch merc units can be, as you are not seeing the problem clearly from the other side.

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.

Vlad Ward, on 29 January 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

I think the assumption that individual Merc units have vastly more players than individual Faction units needs to go. Not every Merc Unit is Mercstar or Comstar Irregulars with 300+ players. We field maybe one full 12-man on a good day, half of which is going to be made up of people in trial mechs who haven't played since closed beta. Our average group size is 5, and we can still put our names on Kuritan planets.

Faction Units do not get a free pass because they chose permcon. The people who contribute the most to the acquisition/defense of a world get planet tags, period. If that isn't the permcons, then the permcons are doing something wrong.

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.

Edited by Peter2000, 29 January 2015 - 04:56 PM.

[Deathlike]

Cimarb, on 28 January 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

I am not role-playing. If I was, I would not be talking to you politely, if at all, as you are a pirate, which is even more dezgra than a mercenary, which is pretty bad itself. I am just trying to get a game that holds as close to lore as possible, while still being fun and enjoyable for the maximum number of people.

All I am saying is that mercenaries should be rewarded with more loyalty points (and money) the more loyal they are, and on the flip side they should be penalized the more UNloyal they are. I think that is pretty easy to understand, and we all should agree on that.

In addition, I am saying that, if you switch factions, you should lose the tags on your former faction, as you CHOSE to give up that faction. Why should you care what tag is on it, as you are not part of that faction anymore?...

Just for the sake of argument - changing the unit flag on a planet is not that hard to accomplish... but that requires units to attack that planet and then "reclaiming" some of the pieces. It's not that difficult to change...

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

Vlad Ward, on 29 January 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

I think the assumption that individual Merc units have vastly more players than individual Faction units needs to go. Not every Merc Unit is Mercstar or Comstar Irregulars with 300+ players. We field maybe one full 12-man on a good day, half of which is going to be made up of people in trial mechs who haven't played since closed beta. Our average group size is 5, and we can still put our names on Kuritan planets.

Faction Units do not get a free pass because they chose permcon. The people who contribute the most to the acquisition/defense of a world get planet tags, period. If that isn't the permcons, then the permcons are doing something wrong.

I think part of the problem is that Mercs have the best incentives currently in terms of their options for shorter contracts and leaving on a whim. What needs to be established that has been said before is "loyalty" to the faction that is paying it (like on retainer) to stick around longer as necessary. I assume there are Mercs in lore that are loyal to certain factions, so that kinda needs to be there would necessarily converting them into a permanent faction contact (there should be some flexibility in converting really).

On the other hand, what is probably MORE problematic is trying to get perma-unit players... as that means "sacrifice" because you give up all the other choices. Unless you are deadset on a particular faction, I believe there is a fair portion of players that would be dedicated long enough to get rank 20 (or whatever in PGI's faction rewards/achievements) and then probably move on. If a system were to allow converting 28-day contracts to perm AND vice versa, w/o initiating ridiculous penalties as currently constituted (from leaving a perma-contract), you would probably gain more people over time, and shift the population around w/o Mercs being the biggest controlling factor of a faction.

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.