57 replies to this topic

[Prussian Havoc]

Noesis, on 20 February 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

...(snip)...Yes, you could enter into relations now with other units and alliances now and no I'm not saying that you shouldn't explore these options in the "interim" of other developments, largely because I expect like players so consistantly prove to be very creative in using the mechanics to their best effect anyhow. But please don't dictate to others any intentional motivations from your perspective Prussian about how I'm proposing what should be done, that is just manipulating what I haven't said.

...(snip)...

I will also offer a personal perspective on perhaps the immaturity shown by MWO players to the process of diplomacy and inter related functions anyhow and that it would perhaps simply be folly for PGI to give players any more responsibility in helping to formulate the greater picture of politics for CW. For me it has had and expect it will simply continue to despoil that experience of MWO and will expect it to simply continue to fall short of expectations due to player attitudes with the game anyhow.

Friend Noesis, please accept my apology.
I meant you and your position no disrespect.
I simply failed to follow your premise to its conclusion.

In any debate, restating your counterpart's position so as to ensure clear understanding is RIGHT and PROPER.

Likewise, intentionally misstating your counterpart's position so as to gain temporary advantage is just so much DIRTY POOL.

I assure you, I was only qualifying my post given what I thought was at the heart of your previous post.


Moving on to more substantive items:

Please refer to (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4217521) as one example of "Out-of-the-Box" (i.e. non-PGI coded option) thinking with respect to inter-Factional and intra-Clans Unit-based political option sets.

All true MWO Mercenary Corps Units will entertain offers of compensation above and beyond what PGI has currently hardwired into the Community Warfare Contracting System. This proves to be of mutual benefit and advantage of nearly all parties (excepting of course other Factions vying in similar manner for a Mercenary's Services but failing to outbid the winner.)

There should be a extra-MWO:CW MARKET for honorable and exceptional Mercenaries. The Unit in the link above has thus far set the standard for honorable and exceptional performance of a Factional contract that includes a Loyalist-paid "Up-Front" Bonus. Future offers will offer half "Up-Front" with the remainder upon satisfactory Contract completion.

JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE...

My simple act of offering half a Bonus "Up-Front" and the remainder upon completion of the contract, ALL OF A SUDDEN creates an admittedly minor Mercenary Corps Unit ACCOUNTABILITY mechanism.

It is true that said Mercenary Commander could choose to BREACH said contract early or perform actions while under contract that contravene the PM agreement with the Bonus-paying Loyalist BUT as it is possible to gain Bonuses over and above PGI-mandated incentives, the Mercenary Corps Unit that might be inclined to breach a contract, would soon see its MARKET-based opportunities for future Bonuses dry up as word circulates among Loyalists in a position to pay future Bonuses.

And finally it is expected that if the above practice becomes more prevalent (as it just might do once I "Tweet" all this out later tonight) PGI will take notice and if they find it in keeping with their plans for Phase 3 development, we just might see a "Mercenary Marketplace" (or differently-named but same in) functionality added into Community Warfare Phase 3. Having a common "in-game Tab" to go to in order to be able to evaluate Mercenary Corps Contract Histories would be well worth my "MC-purchasable / PGI-provided" decision to spend MC in order to have access to such a "Tab's" functionality.

Yes. I would pay MC to be able to review Mercenary Corps Unit contracting history. This "Tab" would replicate the "word on the streets" with respect to the Unit in question. My MC would in effect be the money I, as a Loyalist, pay in bribes to better position myself during future contract Bonus negotiations.


BREAK BREAK BREAK


Noesis, the above is just one example of what is possible if one goes "All In" during our shared Beta experience.

PGI may scoff at the above suggestion and 999 out of every 1000 similar ideas, but those one, two or fourteen Suggested Features that PGI finds of value and can feasibly be included in Community Warfare Phase 3 will enrich the subsequent gaming experience for all of us.


BREAK BREAK BREAK


And finally, as to your comments about "gamer immaturity negatively impacting CW diplomacy(paraphrased)" as well as my own stated purpose of introducing ACCOUNTABILITY into MWO CW thus negatively impacting those currently running roughshod with their UNCONSTRAINED and UNRESTRAINED individual and aggregate Unit behavior...

MechWarrior Online CommunityWarfare is not for the ANARCHISTIC (as a rule.)

You want ZERO accountability? - Go play in the Public Queues. One match or a dozen later you can get on with your day.

The COMMUNITY in CW should be ALL ABOUT structured underpinnings of Factional-interaction sufficient to realize a BattleTech-like experience.

And I can prove my point with one simple link and a solitary question: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4153665

Whenever in ALL of BattleTech Lore did one Mercenary Group seize the "Instruments of Statecraft" within a Leading Faction, such that it dictated Faction policy to sidelined Clan Loyalist as directly as is accomplished in the above thread (and then executed the threat in the field) AGAINST A LEADING PEER-FACTION?




The answer to that is NEVER in ALL of BattleTech lore is there such a precinct. Not even Wolf's Dragoons was able to usurp a Faction's power base in such a manner.

Thus its is my supposition that Mercenary Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144456) need to be put into the game well prior to Phase 3 so that we may proof them and ensure they do not overly harm the size and vitality of the player base.

Again no offense was or is intended, friend Noesis.
Please let me know if there are any questions.

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 20 February 2015 - 05:25 PM.

[Roadbeer]

stratagos, on 13 February 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

*scratches head*

Are the tags on the worlds taken by Marik associated with the nSL?

If not, it would seem that certain members of this forum might be accused of... inaccuracies in their reporting.

Tell us the truth. Was the dropship you were in really shot down, or was it the one *next* to you?

Well played.

[Prussian Havoc]

Roadbeer, on 20 February 2015 - 10:59 PM, said:

stratagos, on 13 February 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

*scratches head*

Are the tags on the worlds taken by Marik associated with the nSL?

If not, it would seem that certain members of this forum might be accused of... inaccuracies in their reporting.

Tell us the truth. Was the dropship you were in really shot down, or was it the one *next* to you?

Well played.

Yes, Brian Williams is a clear example of Mass-Media feeding on one of its own though not necessarily worthy of our attempts at humor.

Having served 42-months in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can attest to the Open-Source-reported-fact that VIP Journalists and their crews are separated on each of routinely two transportation helicopters (commonly called RW A/C for rotary-wing aircraft) when moving between base camps. This practice is in part very purposeful and intended to NOT put into jeopardy the entire VIP party should mechanical problem or enemy fire down one of the RW A/C.

However when one RW A/C is grounded as a result of Enemy Fire, there is a great deal of truth to the fact that the VIP can stated that "We" took Enemy Fire and were forced to land since the remaining fully functional RW A/C does NOT abandon the grounded RW A/C. As is available in Open Source, the crews and passengers from BOTH RW A/C can either cross-level ALL pax onto the functional A/C, destructing the non-mission-capable A/C or the much, much more likely option of a nearby ground Quick Reaction Force (perhaps with a second set of RW A/C) is sent to the hard landing area to secure and evacuate all pax to safety.

Unfortunately it is a facet of human nature to put one's self in the center of such experiences. When this happens a very valid "'We' were shot at and the A/C 'I' was in was had to land" is very liable over time to change into "'I' was shot at and 'my' A/C was grounded."

It is NOT right... but it is clearly understandable and just a facet of human nature In my opinion.

Do I (as a retired career US Army officer) hold Brian Williams as egregiously culpable in a lie intended to advance his self interest?

No. No I do not. He is simply as human as ALL the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who have similarly found themselves relating Wartime incidents to friends and family and perhaps embellishing a fact or two.

It is simple human nature.


Though NOTHING could have saved Brian William's from being put on hiatus from his news anchor job.

Whereas American Society condones its veterans to tell the occasionally embellished "War Story" the Press and Network Management just can not condone the appearance of a Network Anchor having usurped a Wartime incident for his own benefit for so very many years.


BREAK BREAK BREAK


Neither of you were looking for such a response to your comments. But this event has long been one I have clarified for my own friends and family...

...and since it is nearly 6:00am and my "Repair Tool Scan" is STILL running, I felt the need to share it will any viewers who may choose to read it.

I trust I have not wasted too much of your time, thank you for reading this post all the way to its conclusion.

[Ax2Grind]

Prussian Havoc, on 20 February 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

And I can prove my point with one simple link and a solitary question: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4153665

Whenever in ALL of BattleTech Lore did one Mercenary Group seize the "Instruments of Statecraft" within a Leading Faction, such that it dictated Faction policy to sidelined Clan Loyalist as directly as is accomplished in the above thread (and then executed the threat in the field) AGAINST A LEADING PEER-FACTION?

The answer to that is NEVER in ALL of BattleTech lore is there such a precinct. Not even Wolf's Dragoons was able to usurp a Faction's power base in such a manner.

That post doesn't prove your point. And I don't say that to take away at all from your proposed ideas about implementing merc contracts or adding depth into CW. However the post you refer to speaks to actions that were performed in lock-step by a faction, not one group within that faction, even if one group was willing to take the heat for it and was into announcing it's perspective and intent.

It is also important to consider that any Unit, no matter how much or little they move around the map currently, is as much a loyalist as any other when they are in that faction. No one was sidelined who choose to be considered part of the CGB Faction Leadership, and the only reason MS seems to dominate CGB politics is because so many folks from CGB quit playing CW around the New Year. That IS push against the clans broke the spirit of many a gamer in CW and CGB, if the long wait times did not. If a faction(s) becomes a ghost town during any time zone it is no surprise that an active group of decent size will become it's rudder, whether or not it jumps contracts.

The real issue with player politics that your linked post could demonstrate, is the possibility of few units becoming the primary guiding force when active populations are low between two factions. That doesn't mean more depth and real differentiation isn't welcome. I would love for their to be real loyalist factions and real merc factions, and maybe even pirate factions...lots of great possibilities and various mechanics to operate them all. RP is great, but if your actually considering how the political mechanics should look, its important to see events for what they are, not pretend to make them something they were not for the sake of making a point. "MS were mercs and took over and dictated policy to two clan loyalist factions" did not happen. Tony tried to RP it up, when communicating to a faction that LOVES to RP, this is very true. But no matter how you want to spin it the fact is that MS was as much a loyalist as anyone else during that time...if you can write a formal declaration of war after communicating with other "heads of state units" why can't we? Because we currently use an LP penalty system to also play IS mechs? The only thing that makes us more merc than you is the fact that we use the label. Everyone playing is just as much of a merc, or a loyalist currently. So yes, more depth please, but using current politics as a guide for the future is a flawed concept. We are all the same in terms of the game mechanics no matter how we RP it.

Edited by Ax2Grind, 21 February 2015 - 03:48 AM.

[Prussian Havoc]

Ax2Grind, on 21 February 2015 - 03:46 AM, said:

1). That post doesn't prove your point. And I don't say that to take away at all from your proposed ideas about implementing merc contracts or adding depth into CW. However the post you refer to speaks to actions that were performed in lock-step by a faction, not one group within that faction, even if one group was willing to take the heat for it and was into announcing it's perspective and intent...(snip)...

2). RP is great, but if your actually considering how the political mechanics should look, its important to see events for what they are, not pretend to make them something they were not for the sake of making a point. "MS were mercs and took over and dictated policy to two clan loyalist factions" did not happen. Tony tried to RP it up, when communicating to a faction that LOVES to RP, this is very true.

3). But no matter how you want to spin it the fact is that MS was as much a loyalist as anyone else during that time...if you can write a formal declaration of war after communicating with other "heads of state units" why can't we?...(snip)...

4). Everyone playing is just as much of a merc, or a loyalist currently. So yes, more depth please, but using current politics as a guide for the future is a flawed concept. We are all the same in terms of the game mechanics no matter how we RP it.

Excellent points, thank you for taking the time to put this together.

Please permit me to line up 4 points with 4 counterpoints.

1). Let us review the opening and closing of the OP in question:

"I am writing this to inform those who are interested, that the -MS- led war of aggression against Clan Wolf is now over." - Usurpation of the Instruments of Statecraft is begins right there and proceeds for the next 899-words. Only those who categorically and obstinately refuse to acknowledge a CONTRACT'S establishment of an EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relationship could possibly read these first 23-words and the subsequent 899-words and NOT conclude the author abrogates the EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relationship and breaches ANY contract, basically putting his unit squarely in a category akin to "Somali Warlord."

I contend that even though NO single gamer (at least until we realize an ilKhan or First Lord of the Star League) nor one Unit alone constitute an EMPLOYER, instead it is the clear AGGREGATE intent as expressed in these forums of the PERMCON (not TEMPCON) Units that ALREADY constitute the express "Will of each Faction" wrt to what are accepted forms and norms of action for a Unit or Soloist.

Mercenary ACCOUNTABILITY http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144456 (if PGI had seen fit to write ANY into the game coding) should have compelled (NOT forced) a Mercenary to observe the forms and norms of its EMPLOYER or see said Mercenaries Reputation plummet to the point where they are considered Pirates (no physical base/sector/planet) or Bandits (Unit possessing a base/sector/planet.) and just as a Mercenary can fall to lawlessness for a time, so should it be possible through subsequent (and resultant lower pay) loyal service to rise back to the ranks of Mercenaries once again.

Yes, CGB's "Instruments of Statecraft" were indeed usurped by -MS-, complicity of less than a handful of CGB leadership does NOT constitute an EMPLOYEE abrogating CGB Faction Sovereignty. Because regardless how long and hard you campaign that is PRECISELY what occurs very clearly in the post quoted here.

"But on a brighter note, MS is done attacking Wolf. We have achieved our goals. And we are also willing to let Wolf take a few of our planets in order to get back the IS lanes they need to feed their people. (Salmon for everyone?) We look forward to our future with Wolf, and look forward to any Wolf responses from anyone other than the most despised fool."

The granting of "Concessions of War" as well as vilifying a Trothkin Clan Galaxy Commander are both further proof's of MERCENARY POWER FOR LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY run amok.

While I am sure some few would like to argue against me about this the VAST majority of gamers/viewers of this thread are mature, reasonable, and well read adults... it is clear just how far PGI must come in order to bring a proper TEMPCON / PERMCON balance to CW.


2). For the above stated reasons Mercs CLEARLY usurped CGB Sovereignty and Instruments of Statecraft. It really is incontrovertible.

Though Mercenaries and Mercenary-favoring PERMCONS will try to argue it further, in the instance quoted above (as backed up by personal testimonials from CGB Seniors) PGI has a CASE-STUDY in why and how CW is currently and severely unbalanced between TEMPCON AND PERMCON.


3). There is RIGHTLY a world of difference between a PERMCON and a TEMPCON - this too is incontrovertible to the vast majority of our gamers and viewers. Without a PERMCON's willingness to build castles of treaties, agreements and trade (goodness how I hope PGI gets its act together with Logistics! NOTHING drives WAR like trade, resource temptation and expansionistic hunger. PGI has all the "Drivers of Conflict" they will ever need depending on how a planet's #Value files either Unit or Faction Coffers - yes, Fsctions should have coffers if only to backstop Unit spending on defensive improvements on decisive worlds along critical borders) the Mercenary would have no real objective when he fights an enemy of his EMPLOYER.

IMO PGI needs to empower PERMCONS to structure and build the Factions Infrastructure and establish/maintain the Sovereign Instruments of Statecraft which will basically set conditions for all planetary battles. Some planets SHOULD be richer prizes than others, SOME should have minimal riches but be central hubs of trade and commerce thus the loss of this world would strip a flat % way from the losing Faction. In these ways or others PERMCONS should be empowered to BUILD the nodes and linkages that TEMPCONS' primary mission is to either defend or seize.

There really SHOULD be DIFFERENTIATION between PERMCON AND TEMPCON gamers. Since ANY gamer (with only a day or two wait) can swing between one or the other, ALL MWO gamers will have a better, richer, more immersive game experience because of PERMCON AND TEMPCON DIFFERENTIATION.


4). Pleas note 3). above. Having no DIFFERENTIATION between PERMCONS and TEMPCONS devalues, degrades and denigrates what could very well develop into an extremely entertaining... indeed enthralling (and very open to all manner of monetization by PGI ) gaming experience IF the very real DIALECTIC (the tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements) between PERMCON AND TEMOCON is solidified, refined and enhanced.

If PERMCON (aka LOYALIST) game play develops into exactly the same game play as TEMPCON (aka Mercenary) game play, we all lose in my opinion.


As ever, I look forward to all comments, criticisms and questions.

[Ax2Grind]

If you refuse to separate out the RP from the actual mechanics in a discussion about future mechanics I guess you'll have a never ending font of fool proof arguments...you failed to mention how the dark energy turbodrives that feed your planet have a side effect of causing dissension in the minds of all those around you, or that CGB has been taken over by the Borg who had gotten tired of picking on a different franchise. Guess we can just make up whatever we want...

What you seem to miss is that I support the inclusion of greater depth and true faction differentiation. You argue as if I don't which is either a mistake or an attempt to put me in the "opposite camp" so that you can be lazy and rehash the same arguments over again. Perhaps you are simply trolling me, which would be a shame as I earnestly thought discussion on this topic would be something of interest to you. But the link you pointed too still has no merit for that discussion beyond its RP implications.

In other words...

#1 - Your trying to make RP about mechanics, but it's currently not. That post is nothing but one faction unit talking to another faction as can be found throughout the forums. Now if MS was truly a "Merc" unit and the folks in CW and CGB were truly "Permacon" then sure, you would maybe have some kind of argument...but they aren't. Every unit engaged in that fight/discussion was as much loyalist/merc/permacon as the next. Any rights you argue one group should have had, therefor should be maintained by all currently. You continue to disregard this basic mechanic to focus on RP. In terms of visualizing a future idea, I can see how you help frame a possible problem to avoid, but in terms of being accurate, you are not.

#2 Therefore this point you try to make is invalid. The RP is not a mechanic. There is no such thing as permacon versus tempcon currently.

#3 Whether or not we would both like to see differentiation in types of loyalty, there is not. So while you argue that it is rightly a difference you want to see... that difference currently doesn't exist except in our own minds. No matter how much you wish to inject RP at this point it will not change that simple fact.

#4 As already noted in my first post, please pay attention to the fact that I agree about adding more depth and differentiation, yet my wishes, nor yours, change the fact that the current mechanics lump everyone together as 1 singular type with three contract time limits. That is the extent of the current system.

Bearing this in mind, as someone who supports most of your ideas about adding depth in CW, I continue to suggest that you refrain from misconstruing and misrepresenting RP moments from our current CW to construct the CW mechanics of the future. Accuracy and truthfulness are much better tools when constructing and debating mechanics then flights of fancy. My apologies if I misunderstood that your current intent is all about the RP...I could have sworn that you were discussing game mechanics, and if I am wrong about that then, my bad, and "Whatever you say Khan Prussian Havok. May the Greater Smoke Alliance Always Prosper."

[Prussian Havoc]

In these posts I am not "story telling" or "RP", I am exploring the ways and means to refine the game so very many of us clearly enjoy. I would hope you and many others join is in this.

I am glad I could set that straight, thank you.

Some of my points are clearly illuminated by the forum posts of others. THiS does NOT degrade my ascertain that ACCOUNTABILITY of Mercenaries (TEMPCON) is currently unworn straitened

Loyalists (PERMCON) need to be a separate and distinct "option sets" from Mercenaries (TEMPCON) "option sets" in order for realize any real depth of gameplay or an immersive Lore-based, gaming experience






...but NOTHING I have yet found demonstrates

[Ax2Grind]

Prussian Havoc, on 22 February 2015 - 10:55 PM, said:

Loyalists (PERMCON) need to be a separate and distinct "option sets" from Mercenaries (TEMPCON) "option sets" in order for realize any real depth of gameplay or an immersive Lore-based, gaming experience

Of course they do...and that is a thought that we both share.

[Prussian Havoc]

Ax2Grind, on 23 February 2015 - 12:32 AM, said:

Of course they do...and that is a thought that we both share.

Excellent!

Common ground.

I do apologize for the miscommunications that led to frustration on both our ends.

And to be clear, I want to see ACCOUNTABILITY checks and balances arrayed within gameplay/coding for both TEMPCON AND PERMCON. And while I am clearly on record trying to reign in gamer expectations with respect to TEMPCON (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144456) I will begin to give similar thought to the PERMCON Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions required to best enable/empower/define/make-distinct PERMCON (Loyalist) gamer "option sets: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4226851

Moving forward there are uncounted possibilities to refine our incomparable BattleTech Gaming Simulator into a top-notch Comprehensive BattleTech Gaming Experience.

I look forward to responding to your comments in a timely manner.

[Onionbird]

Prussian Havoc, on 23 February 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

Excellent!

Common ground.

I do apologize for the miscommunications that led to frustration on both our ends.

And to be clear, I want to see ACCOUNTABILITY checks and balances arrayed within gameplay/coding for both TEMPCON AND PERMCON. And while I am clearly on record trying to reign in gamer expectations with respect to TEMPCON (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4144456) I will begin to give similar thought to the PERMCON Constraints, Restraints, Consequences and Repercussions required to best enable/empower/define/make-distinct PERMCON (Loyalist) gamer "option sets: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4226851

Moving forward there are uncounted possibilities to refine our incomparable BattleTech Gaming Simulator into a top-notch Comprehensive BattleTech Gaming Experience.

I look forward to responding to your comments in a timely manner.

dog, do you have a gofundme for the keyboards you wear out talking about fake video game politics?

[Sprouticus]

Onionbird, on 23 February 2015 - 06:27 AM, said:

dog, do you have a gofundme for the keyboards you wear out talking about fake video game politics?

Says the guy who likes his own posts.....

[Onionbird]

To quote NKVA most valued agent YCSLiesmith: If i didn't like my own posts I wouldn't make them.

Die, clanner.

[Harvey Batchall Kerensky at Law]

This thread reads like it should be buried in some weird scifi infowars.com forum

[Prussian Havoc]

<----- This Icon (Kurita for 24hs on 01MAR) happens when you travel abroad to visit Units, make performance-based, contractual bonus clause payments and visit your Alternate Account. Besides... if there is ONE thing that beats FRR Tukayyidian Mead, it is drinking saki while watching the Cherry Blossoms fall in Imperial City Luthien!

MadWOPR, on 28 February 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

This thread reads like it should be buried in some weird scifi infowars.com forum

"Messaging" to multiple audiences is one use of a thread, this is true.

[Richter Kerensky]

What the hell is this thread.

[Prussian Havoc]

Richter Kerensky, on 01 March 2015 - 11:47 PM, said:

What the hell is this thread.

(As a "truth in advertising caveat" please understand I am a Clan Smoke Jaguar gamer currently serving the final hours of an enforced 24-hour PGI-delay when breaking a residual contract after having briefly joined a HK unit.)

On 11FEB, when this thread's Original Post (OP) was written:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4187050

...there was substantial angst, concern and frustration with the very recent establishment of the new Star League by House Marik. In the days immediately following the establishment of Star League, Marik apparently violated its own Marik-new-Star-League "soft Peace":

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4192852

But I do suppose there is a need to change the Title and OP in order to bring this threat current with the developing situation in vicinity of Terra. This I shall do today.

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 02 March 2015 - 07:26 AM.

[Molossian Dog]

Sorry Prussian, I do not really want to read your posts.

Format them like an adult and I might try again.

[Prussian Havoc]

Molossian Dog, on 02 March 2015 - 07:26 AM, said:

Sorry Prussian, I do not really want to read your posts.

Format them like an adult and I might try again.

Why devolve to immature insults?

You are normally a very articulate contributor to my OPs.

Edited by Prussian Havoc, 02 March 2015 - 07:27 AM.