34 replies to this topic

[HARDKOR]

The only faction right now IS mercs. Your loyalties are your own. There are no official faction units.

[Crockdaddy]

Rouken, on 11 February 2015 - 12:42 AM, said:

Well that is my point. If the new Star League cannot keep its members from fighting when mercs stir up trouble, then how do they expect to keep everyone in the fight against the Clans?

Except the new Star League was largely built by MERC units. At the initial meeting I am fairly sure the MERCs voting inside the Star League strongly outnumbered Loyalists. Hence my "MERC - Star League" title. It isn't a Star League per say made of Great Houses for truly in this game there are only "Great MERC Units" which have sway amongst the inner sphere and clans. Heck, I think even CGBI joined one of the MERC units recently...

[BIoB]

Unfortunately this website is called Mwo: Mercs not Mwo: Factions, so us loyalists players cant have to many complaints, at least at this early stage of community warfare.

I can't really blame people for joining merc companies at this stage of the beta, it rewards you greatly for hoping from faction to faction, although I personally feel that the merc life is a bit of an empty experience bar getting your tag on planets.

I dont dislike merc companies completely although we at Marik have a slight multiple sclerosis problem at the moment, we do have have two (at least) highly loyal merc organisations, BWC and the Seraphim, who im sure we're all greatly appreciative to.
The sooner you guys are home the better !!!

This is community warfare and whether you like to admit it or not, its us loyalist players who make it what it is, it would be nice to be rewarded for our dedication to a cause rather then just pride in our faction.

Edited by Irish BoB, 11 February 2015 - 08:02 AM.

[Crockdaddy]

Irish BoB,

I don't blame the players for being MERCS. NS is technically a MERC in that we run off the 30 day contract. We just choose due to over 10 years of association to be part of HK. I recognize this is BETA and I know I have more patience than most for this game. Just I think it is a valid concern and I was wondering what others thoughts were.

I would have loved say SwK to have stayed in Davion to be the bulwark Davion unit and other MERC units whom seemed firmly entrenched but suddenly changed once the actual game mechanics became obvious.

It is what it is I guess but it kinda takes some of the fun away. Hating on Davions was fun. Fighting Smoke Jag (just the jags and not the MERCs) was fun. Getting blown up by MERC Smoke Jag sucked and now seeing first hand how many (NOT ALL) MERCs act towards House Units isn't fun ... even when they are sorta helping us and their own agenda. Whatever that agenda may be.

[Noesis]

CrockdaddyAoD, on 11 February 2015 - 07:26 AM, said:

Except the new Star League was largely built by MERC units. At the initial meeting I am fairly sure the MERCs voting inside the Star League strongly outnumbered Loyalists. Hence my "MERC - Star League" title. It isn't a Star League per say made of Great Houses for truly in this game there are only "Great MERC Units" which have sway amongst the inner sphere and clans. Heck, I think even CGBI joined one of the MERC units recently...

The first Whitting Conference took place in 3058 on Tharkad at the insistence of Archon-Prince Victor. The five Great Houses were called together to form a new Star League and Star League Defense Force by the signing of the Star League Constitution on November 21st. The goal of this new Star League was to permanently end the threat posed by the Clans. As a direct result, at the conference the decision to do the seemingly impossible was reached - to destroy a Clan outright. Task Force Serpent became the code name of the operation to annihilate Clan Smoke Jaguar and take the fight directly to the Clans. Sun-Tzu Liao of the Capellan Confederation was elected as First Lord.


http://www.sarna.net...k_Force_Serpent

http://www.sarna.net...eration_Bulldog

http://www.sarna.net...ration_Bird_Dog

MERCs where a part of that arrangement but the politics of the Star League was following the direction of the factional houses. Also you will notice a significant contribution from the Factional military forces as aprt of the nSLDF initial operations against CSJ. This also including some Clan elements, most noticeably CNC.

---

But this is MWO where history is being rewritten on a daily basis.

Edited by Noesis, 11 February 2015 - 08:22 AM.

[Crockdaddy]

Noesis, on 11 February 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

The first Whitting Conference took place in 3058 on Tharkad at the insistence of Archon-Prince Victor. The five Great Houses were called together to form a new Star League and Star League Defense Force by the signing of the Star League Constitution on November 21st. The goal of this new Star League was to permanently end the threat posed by the Clans. As a direct result, at the conference the decision to do the seemingly impossible was reached - to destroy a Clan outright. Task Force Serpent became the code name of the operation to annihilate Clan Smoke Jaguar and take the fight directly to the Clans. Sun-Tzu Liao of the Capellan Confederation was elected as First Lord.


http://www.sarna.net...k_Force_Serpent

http://www.sarna.net...eration_Bulldog

http://www.sarna.net...ration_Bird_Dog

MERCs where a part of that arrangement but the politics of the Star League was following the direction of the factional houses. Also you will notice a significant contribution from the Factional military forces as aprt of the nSLDF initial operations against CSJ. This also including some Clan elements, most noticeably CNC.

---

But this is MWO where history is being rewritten on a daily basis.

I am aware that MERCs were always part of the equation. What is obvious is the Houses and Clans largely don't matter at all whatsoever in MWO. The MERCs do. We could go MERC tomorrow if NS wants. WE can go play with our clan mechs too. We can head to CGB like two of the massive MERC cartels favor and we too can then attack wherever we like. To this point we have resisted the "easy route" and tried to help HK become stronger as a whole. I am just surprised so many are cool with letting their identity get consumed in the great MERC borg and am legitimately wondering what other House / Clan loyalists think on the topic. I miss seeing all the many competitive units which used to be separate on the Mercenary Star TS. They just the most obvious example of course.

Edited by CrockdaddyAoD, 11 February 2015 - 10:07 AM.

[wanderer]

Honestly, units have no real penalty to hopping whenever and where-ever they like. This means that House loyalty really doesn't mean jack, only "who are the big guys going to contract with next"?

Rewards should increase with loyalty point ranks- a merc unit that up and drops to a new side every week should be sitting there getting baseline contracts, while the guys who stick it out for the long run are getting increasingly better C-bills per fight as they're considered more "reliable" and hence worth throwing all the money at as their LP rank goes up. Say, 15% every 4 ranks- so a rank 20 is making 175% what a rank 1 is.

You leave? Loyalty points drop to zero (or worse). You want higher rank achievements, you earn those loyalty points again. And you're at baseline payouts again for your new faction.

Flipping from Clan to IS should be an even bigger penalty- as in starting in -negative- LP.

Flip-flopping should have consequences. Loyalty should be very, very much the best policy.

[Noesis]

I agree that loyalty to a a faction could improve bonus payments associated with a faction and should be an incentive to improve payments for MERCs.

House factions or MERC groups already loyal with permanent contracts already get the best bonuses with LP due to these arrangements. Whereas a temporary contract does not improve loyalty at the same rate.

I disagree that flip/flopping should acrue severe penalties since this does not recognise the neutral arrangement of MERC units being able to chase various differing contracts based on the commercial realites of MRBC contracts. However in the instance of perhaps a MERC unit showing an aggressive action to a faction then perhaps in this instance then the penalties apply and the loss of loyalty then becomes relevant as it then recognised as a disloyal action against a specific faction.

The penalties however in terms of loyalty as a loss of status then perhaps having some impact to incentivised bonus ammounts to base contracts. But in essence wouldn't factional leaders want to try an incentivise the more efficient MERC companies to work for them by paying the best to do the job. This since the performance of MERC companies and those reputations afforded to them getting the job done can also be important to the faction. In which case recognising and paying for competent MERC units with added incentive that you need a task done is also a part of the commercial realities of using MRBC contracts by factions.

Also there needs to be a process that supports MERC units from manipulation if they are locked into arrangements due to factional bonuses. Take the situation where a long standing MERC unit in a faction has a faltering relationship with that employer due to their politics or otherwise. What is then there to protect the interests of the MERC unit if the entire mechanisms are simply engineered to encourage permanent factional associations.

Also stability with factions then being the presumed way that MWO would play, does not then offer the use of MERCs as the more fluid instigator of warfare that you can change with C-Bills. It then does not allow for instability to occur and the efforts of factional houses or their interests are then seen as more important.

I would much prefer that factional houses and MERC units be treated as two seperate animals and that having a permanent factional relationship would provide much more interesting loyalty bonuses but also have interlinking economical possibilities. Whereas MERC units would then be more about chasing the C-Bill in the MRBC contract and less associated to the loyalty bonus ladder but in turn perhaps then not getting the same loyaty related economical benefits as factional players. Factional loyalty could then still have some bonus associated payment for maintaining loyalty levels.

If then logistical elements come into effect as a result of this it may then imply that those units who choose the more loyal path with permanent contracts may then find cheaper running costs than the MERCs as they would be more better associated with factional economies to help sustain them. But those MERCs who work more independant of loyalties would then have to pay more for their logistical upkeep and relate to perfoming well with MRBC contracts to do well here. The more efficient MERC companies then surviving better than others in this dog eat dog scenario. I would see the capability to survice with these logistical contraints to be valid and maintainable but that successful MERC companies and loyalists would then fare better.

A consideration as to whether larger units would have greater logistical concerns of if these need to remain linear is still open to issue. This since it should more be a measure of performance than volume for MERCs that should improve their payment as they can then show efficiencies with their own actions. This however might be an unsavoury element for player communities however as it would tend to promote elitist and exclusive policies. So still sitting on the fence as to whether performance related pay with MERC efficiencies with their own operations should be relevant to their pay structure.

[Mangonel TwoSix]

wanderer, on 11 February 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

Honestly, units have no real penalty to hopping whenever and where-ever they like. This means that House loyalty really doesn't mean jack, only "who are the big guys going to contract with next"?

Rewards should increase with loyalty point ranks- a merc unit that up and drops to a new side every week should be sitting there getting baseline contracts, while the guys who stick it out for the long run are getting increasingly better C-bills per fight as they're considered more "reliable" and hence worth throwing all the money at as their LP rank goes up. Say, 15% every 4 ranks- so a rank 20 is making 175% what a rank 1 is.

You leave? Loyalty points drop to zero (or worse). You want higher rank achievements, you earn those loyalty points again. And you're at baseline payouts again for your new faction.

Flipping from Clan to IS should be an even bigger penalty- as in starting in -negative- LP.

Flip-flopping should have consequences. Loyalty should be very, very much the best policy.

wanderer hits on a great point here. The longer you stay with a faction should mean something, maybe you should get a increased bonus for playing for a Faction the longer you are with them. That way "Loyalists" get an added bonus for staying loyal.

I would like to see Merc Units able to negotiate contract amounts. I just don't know how to do that. Who gets to negotiate on the part of the Factions? Maybe you have the unit leader for each unit get a vote for that faction if they put in X number of months with the house, so they get a vote for their 'stake' in the house? But that opens up a whole new can of worms. How long does a vote last? ect. ect. Issues could be tied up for days or weeks.

But also keep in mind we WANT mercs to move around. That is really the only way to balance the game. You need relatively equal numbers, so PGI increases the "demand" on one side to move the player "supply".

And speaking to the OP, don't look the Merc gifthorse in the mouth. Merc Unit contributions are not of any less value than those from the loyalist units. Take a page out of Marik's book and welcome the merc units while you have them. We really enjoyed coordinating with the Marik, and followed the factions "orders" even if it was not in our best intrests (such as only attack and do not defend, even though planets with the BWC tag were being successfully attacked) Now I can see having a grievance if a unit is not following the faction strategy, but again that gets us back to the point of how can this be regulated.

[Necromantion]

A fantastic suggestion that may ease some of the tensions over merc relations and the nSL, have a read:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4186102

[Jakob Knight]

Necromantion, on 11 February 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

A fantastic suggestion that may ease some of the tensions over merc relations and the nSL, have a read:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4186102

I don't know about it easing tensions, but I do note the proposal begins by stating it would help mercenaries and loyalists alike, yet by the end, you see that only the loyalists benefit from it. It seems the mercenaries were left out somewhere along the way, so I don't see it helping much.

The real problem is that the devs look at CW as something that can't be put into the hands of players, as they are just kids who want to blow things up, and adding too much choice would confuse and frustrate them. Now, granted, the conduct of some on the forums doesn't exactly fill one with confidence this isn't the case, but there are enough people asking for alot more that I think this attitude, along with one that believes the game must be playable and appealing to elementary school children as well as adults, is wrong. At the same time, this -is- beta, and they'd done a good job at a trial version. Now, it needs to be polished and refined.

As long as players demand the freedom to play whatever side they want, whenever the fancy strikes them, and to be able to hop onto whichever faction lets them avoid the downsides they want to avoid, there will be no real way of addressing the root cause of the OP. Players, by nature, don't want to be locked into their decisions when they can avoid it, don't want to be told where they have to align themselves due to population levels, and to be honest about it, all players play for are the same things mercenaries fight for. C-bills, rewards, and profit. This is because players are only seeing the game as a video game, where status and accomplishment are rated by the toys they can show off or the money they have accumulated.

Thus, it is hardly surprising that the vast majority of players take the role as, and act accordingly as, mercenaries. Simply put, because they -are- mercenaries. The number of players of this game who play because they believe in a faction's philosophy or to protect the fictional populations of the nations they serve are almost non-existent (and that can't really be surprising, given that no effort has been made to actually make the player care about such things by the devs within the game), and the most important thing to most players is 'how much am I getting for this battle, and what is in it for me?'.

My own proposal would be to focus, therefore, on this aspect if one wants to differentiate between the mercenary and loyalist forces out there while also enhancing the lore-based assumptions about each. I would change the rewards system such that only Loyalist (i.e. Units that enter into a permanent contract with one of the powers in the game) would receive 'loyalty points' and loyalty rewards. This to reflect the fact that all they receive and use is from their patron power as part of the military supply system of that nation. In counterbalance, Loyalist units would only receive a flat c-bill payment at the end of each CW battle, the wages of a soldier in the service of their country. This payment would be a minimal amount needed to cover expendables and still give a reason to fight.

In contrast, mercenary units would receive equivalent tiers of increasing bonuses to c-bill earnings for CW battles, as well as a reward system similar to what we have now that would provide payment based on battlefield performance. Mercenary units would be free to move from power to power, but would never earn loyalty points (any bonuses that would apply to loyalty points being applied to the progression in the mercenary c-bill bonus tier system) or loyalty rewards unless they became a loyalist unit.

In this way, loyalist units would receive unique rewards for being loyalists (which could include a target voting privilege similar to that proposed in the linked post), while mercenaries would receive what matters to mercenaries....more money and freedom.


Anyway, as long as CW is being targeted at being all-inclusive to all desires and all levels of play skill, I doubt we'll see such a complex system. Keeping everyone the same and treating them as video gamers instead of serious players will most likely encourage the devs to keep it in its current form.

My two cents.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 11 February 2015 - 03:09 PM.

[Slapshot]

The way mercenaries are integrated into CW kills immersion for me. I could rationalize clan mercs in my mind as some home clan force or something but the fact that a merc unit can sign on with us in Smoke Jaguar and cut through IS terriotory like a knife then flip flop on over to the opposing side without any repercussion is crazy.

I know this is a lore based parallel situation but imagine the wolfs dragoons signing a contract with the clan invaders trying to obliterate everything the IS is and then asking Victor Davion for a contract because their bored.

Edited by Slapshot, 11 February 2015 - 03:24 PM.

[Chef Kerensky]

HARDKOR, on 11 February 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

The only faction right now IS mercs. Your loyalties are your own. There are no official faction units.

Well, seeing as how PGI seems adamant about not allowing people to actually call themselves House or Clan units, it only makes sense that someone take up the role. Otherwise the entirety of CW would start to resemble a revolving door (as if it doesn't already)

[HARDKOR]

ChefGerstmann, on 11 February 2015 - 03:58 PM, said:

Well, seeing as how PGI seems adamant about not allowing people to actually call themselves House or Clan units, it only makes sense that someone take up the role. Otherwise the entirety of CW would start to resemble a revolving door (as if it doesn't already)

Actually, it makes sense to me that noone should think they are the faction, speak for the faction, or are anything but a temp.