522 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Hotthedd, on 08 January 2016 - 05:39 AM, said:

Ideally there should be a carrot AND a stick.

Loyalists get free re-arm and repair, and deep discounts on 'Mechs produced by their faction.
Loyalists can vote on attack lanes.
Free paint in their unit's official colors, maybe even a free faction camo? free House decal?
...But they can only attack/defend in their lanes, cannot defend other faction planets.

Mercenaries must pay for re-arm and repair, and must have X loyalty with a faction to get discounts on 'Mechs.
Mercenaries can attack/defend any planet that is in play.
Mercenaries would be subject to a MRBC rating, as well as a Loyalty rating, which would affect payouts (+/-)

Probably lots of other things to be added.

I'd settle for a mechanism whereby a merc is only allowed into a faction's fights if invited (who decides attack lanes anyway?). I can't however imagine how such a mechanism could be reasonably and reliably instituted. I just think the whole: "hey lets go clan and take all the FRR worlds (or whose ever)" and then a few weeks/months later: "hey lets all go FRR and take back the worlds we just took for the clans"...rinse and repeat...that currently is the cycle of CW gameplay is pointless from the faction loyalist point of view. The fact that the merc units can make this decision without invitation or limitation makes the specific factions incidental if not irrelevant. I'd like to see that change.

[Hotthedd]

Bud Crue, on 08 January 2016 - 05:56 AM, said:

I'd settle for a mechanism whereby a merc is only allowed into a faction's fights if invited (who decides attack lanes anyway?). I can't however imagine how such a mechanism could be reasonably and reliably instituted. I just think the whole: "hey lets go clan and take all the FRR worlds (or whose ever)" and then a few weeks/months later: "hey lets all go FRR and take back the worlds we just took for the clans"...rinse and repeat...that currently is the cycle of CW gameplay is pointless from the faction loyalist point of view. The fact that the merc units can make this decision without invitation or limitation makes the specific factions incidental if not irrelevant. I'd like to see that change.

You are right, that is why the carrot/stick incentive.

If a merc, (or merc unit) fights for one side almost exclusively, or almost exclusively AGAINST one side, then their Loyalty numbers with that side drop (potentially into negative numbers). Therefore, if they switched sides, the contract would not pay very well IF they could take that contract at all. There would also be supply and demand. If one house has hundreds of loyalists fighting, there would be little demand for mercenaries, so the contract payouts would drop, and vice versa.

Really it would be better if mercenaries only took individual (per battle/campaign) contracts instead of long term contracts with the Houses. That would (with the supply/demand) enable the potential for the map to always be balanced, at least on the I.S. side of things. In a perfect world, Clans would NEVER hire mercenaries, but...game map balance, right?

[Crockdaddy]

MischiefSC, on 06 January 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

All the hyperbole aside, which is to say 99% of responses, 50 or 60 players active or more.

Any group who fills 5 drops on their own consistently is a big impact.

At best NS can during events fill 3 drops ... for a short amount of time. NS had around 45 hard core members before CW. Now even after roster pruning we have around 135 ... of which 70 play in a given month and frankly I know NS is more active than most units. Only two units I am aware of that can consistently influence the map. -MS- and 228th. Wherever they go the map changes. I also know that even they have issues filling up drops when there is not motivation / events to do so. Teams will fill up CW if planets and factions have some meaning. Frankly I am a bit surprised that both Tony and Deadfire are able to keep the flame going in CW as well as they have. I've certainly suffered from burnout myself and play only a few matches each week before I head back to gathering Dino Poop in ARK.

12DG and PHL are two other notable sizeable units which can influence the map (but win less often than -MS- or 228th.

After that maybe SWOL? But SWOL has a large contingent of casual players so often I don't notice their influence and I haven't run into their competitive group very often.

Davion had large groups but seems to have capitulated ... Laio is on the wrong side of the map for TCAF to have any long standing effect.


Really it isn't just about large MERC units. It is more about no incentives to stay loyal and follow lore. Planets have no meaning which just makes it a mech bay chase game.

I want to hate Davions again and clanners. I miss that.

/Random rambling done

MischiefSC, on 07 January 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

Not to be a a hole here but the Clan players really were total pansies about all of this. Hair flouncing, fit throwing tantrum. Clans are getting hammered because the bulk of Clan players lost their advantage, cried and ran away and are now pointing to the map and saying "See?!? This is what happens when we don't get what we want! LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO."

Let the clans burn. CJF is taking worlds against huge odds. They deserve a mountain of props for not being crying little *******. I am firmly against giving Clans anything to bribe them back from their tantrum.

However merc teams in mwo need to play Clans. That's just the realities of the game
It's not lore, but it's the reality. Any perks though? Screw that. If they can't handle playing on an even field then I'd rather the game fail than bribe them.

That is because CJF has quality groups in it holding and pushing the line. Otherwise I agree ... a whole lotta OP players from beta 1 and 2 are suffering from balance issues in the Clan side.

[Armando]

Widowmaker1981, on 08 January 2016 - 05:22 AM, said:

What incentive is there for anyone to be loyalist, other than roleplay? Mercs get the advantages of variety in mech choice.. there is no reason to choose loyalist over merc, so Mercs outnumber loyalists AND tend to be better players (its not a hard and fast rule of course, but roleplayers tend to be worse at the game than non roleplayers, because they often limit themselves in stupid ways while mech building because its 'closer to lore')

Loyalists should outnumber Mercs, because its silly otherwise.. there needs to be an incentive that causes that to happen.

Not saying everything you said isn't true...that still doesn't change the fact that RIGHT NOW, everyone has the exact same options a everyone else (it is a truly honest and level playing field). The so call 'faction loyalist' and 'lone wolves' have the same same contract options, with the exact same rewards as everyone else.

The only thing stopping Faction Loyalists from doing what the mercs are doing is the loyalist. (They CHOOSE to play the way they do).

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 09:05 AM.

[Tenzuuu]

While i agree that something should be done to stop mercs flip flopping factions super regularly. Anything like unit capping or punishing them simply because they organized well and created strong communities is silly. Its like banning Goonswarm from EvE because their empire is too successful.

[Tesunie]

Rad Hanzo, on 08 January 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

P.S.: Saying "all the big merc units don´t fight each other" is a highly distorted and quite untrue comment...

I'll just comment that (as far as my statements), you aren't necessarily "avoiding" each other, but units do tend to press the attack more than the defense. This leads to units bypassing each other, as even if on opposite sides of an engagement, each are attacking planets and not overly defending them. This just creates a system that, by normal game play behavior, makes "big bad unit" "avoid each other" "and seal club PUGs" because PUGs are more likely to defend (due to the call to arms mostly).

It is by no means the "evil premades" avoiding each other. Just, they each are doing the same action, and by doing so they miss fighting each other most times.

Even in my own unit, we tend to press an attack rather than a defense. We find it better to at least trade worlds rather than just lose a world and gain nothing. (It also tends to be easier to get your unit tags on a planet you attack, rather than one you've defended.)

[Jerry Beard]

Have to chime in here. We all know the current system is broke. We all know it will never get fixed to make everyone happy fine. My thing is that even if you know it was broke and you game the system then to me that is akin to cheating period. If you know it is wrong and you are doing it because you can get away with it, that does not make it right. Blaming everyone else for making a game that is broke for your actions is childish and downright selfish. If everyone knows it's broke should they not try and at least do their best to play by how the rules were intending things to be?? If it is broke but by doing the right thing could we not as a community make it better? Do we need rules put in place by PGI to gain balance or can we act maturely and do it ourselves by policing instead of making excuse after excuse and by placing the blame on this group or that group or PGI. You all see what is going on, yet within in the game by playing the right way you could at least bring a greater parity to it by just by doing the right thing instead of make excuses...SMH...The world today just plain sucks....

Edited by Jerry Beard, 08 January 2016 - 10:48 AM.

[Armando]

Jerry Beard, on 08 January 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

We all know it will never get fixed to make everyone happy fine. My thing is that even if you know it was broke and you game the system then to me that is akin to cheating period.

I have to disagree with this though. Playing the game as it has been designed is not cheating in any way shape or form. We are not talking about a 100 ton mech taking a ride on a 35 ton mech going 140+ KPH (which is an exploitation of the game mechanics) here.

If you want to call out PGI for poor design, I can get behind that. However, to call pilots out for cheating for taking a contract, playing that contract through to completion, then taking another contract with a different faction...is some Bull Sh!@t IMO.

Even if a pilot, or unit filled with pilots, BREAKS their contact to move to another faction, they do so at the cost of C-Bills (not to mention a temporary 'freeze' on movement put on people / units who break contract). For the 'larger' mercenary units that everyone LOVES to bag on...the cost of 'breaking contact' can be upwards of 20,000,000 per DAY (7 days left on your contract....that is a 1.4 BILLION C-Bill fine if they want to break it).

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 11:05 AM.

[Tesunie]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

I have to disagree with this though. Playing the game as it has been designed is not cheating in any way shape or form. We are not talking about a 100 ton mech taking a ride on a 35 ton mech going 140+ KPH (which is an exploitation of the game mechanics) here.

If you want to call out PGI for poor design, I can get behind that. However, to call pilots out for cheating for taking a contract, playing that contract through to completion, then taking another contract with a different faction...is some Bull Sh!@t IMO.

Even if a pilot, or unit filled with pilots, BREAKS their contact to move to another faction, they do so at the cost of C-Bills (not to mention a temporary 'freeze' on movement put on people / units who break contract). For the 'larger' mercenary units that everyone LOVES to bag on...the cost of 'breaking contact' can be upwards of 20,000,000 per DAY (7 days left on your contract....that is a 1.4 BILLION C-Bill fine if they want to break it).

If, it is not playing by the know intent of the rules, it can be seen as Exploiting, if anything. Not cheating.

However, I'd say he has a point, as much as you do. We as a community could try to play the system a bit closer to how we expect it's intent is. However, there is also nothing wrong with playing the game as intended Designed. (Edit, wrong word.)


This is like the statement "If it's broke, play it more so PGI know's it's broken and will fix it!" I disagree with that, but as you can play it, I can't blame people for using something in the game. (Recalls the Hex and Quad ERPPC Stalker days.) (Also makes me recall the time I collided with a pure Flamer and MG Jagermech, and died within seconds of seeing him despite being 100% pristine. Something wasn't right there, and if it was a known issue (only happened the once), then it shouldn't have been played. But I can't blame them for using it either.)

If it's broken, and you know it, play test it once in a while sure. Otherwise, comment on the forums or to support that this appears to be a problem and not working as intended. Then, as a community, we could stop using said build knowing it's a bit unfair.

Just because we can doesn't always mean we should. However, because we are able to means we can't blame someone for using it in the game.


I think that is the ultimate message going on here right now. Because we can, doesn't mean we should nor have to. But, we can't blame nor stop other people from doing it either.

Edited by Tesunie, 08 January 2016 - 11:14 AM.

[Armando]

Tesunie, on 08 January 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

If, it is not playing by the know intent of the rules, it can be seen as Exploiting, if anything. Not cheating.

However, I'd say he has a point, as much as you do. We as a community could try to play the system a bit closer to how we expect it's intent is. However, there is also nothing wrong with playing the game as intended Designed. (Edit, wrong word.)


This is like the statement "If it's broke, play it more so PGI know's it's broken and will fix it!" I disagree with that, but as you can play it, I can't blame people for using something in the game. (Recalls the Hex and Quad ERPPC Stalker days.) (Also makes me recall the time I collided with a pure Flamer and MG Jagermech, and died within seconds of seeing him despite being 100% pristine. Something wasn't right there, and if it was a known issue (only happened the once), then it shouldn't have been played. But I can't blame them for using it either.)

If it's broken, and you know it, play test it once in a while sure. Otherwise, comment on the forums or to support that this appears to be a problem and not working as intended. Then, as a community, we could stop using said build knowing it's a bit unfair.

Just because we can doesn't always mean we should. However, because we are able to means we can't blame someone for using it in the game.


I think that is the ultimate message going on here right now. Because we can, doesn't mean we should nor have to. But, we can't blame nor stop other people from doing it either.

Lets name the real problem here: It is not that mercenary units are to large, and it is not that they move around. The REAL problem people have is that they WIN!

No one cares about a 500 member unit that loses every match (they are out there, but no one ever talks about them because no one CARES).

No one cares about a unit that changes factions every week but still loses every match (they are out there, but no one ever talks about them because no one CARES).

The REAL issue is pilots want to win a team based game without having to work with others as a team, and get PISSED OFF when they lose to a group of pilots who are willing to take the time to find / join / work with 11 other players.

The REAL issue people have is that PGI allows people to play with their friends as a team

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 11:36 AM.

[Jerry Beard]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Lets name the real problem here: It is not that mercenary units are to large, and it is not that they move around. The REAL problem people have is that they WIN!

No one cares about a 500 member unit that loses every match (they are out there, but no one ever talks about them because no one CARES).

No one cares about a unit that changes factions every week but still loses every match (they are out there, but no one ever talks about them because no one CARES).

The REAL issue is pilots want to win a team based game without having to work with others as a team, and get PISSED OFF when they lose to a group of pilots who are willing to take the time to find / join / work with 11 other players.

The REAL issue people have is that PGI allows people to play with their friends as a team

No not at least for me the issue is integrity , yeah I know a lot of folks have problems these days with that term. Winning is fine that is why we play games but as a community when we see something is broken and not right and do nothing to correct it ourselves beyond pointing fingers and blaming everyone else for our own actions because we can get away with it then the community cease to exist and we have a mob. Rules be they written or spoken are binding in my world. Yeah I know I am old and dated yada yada. Seems to me the community has a problem with enforcing itself and then blames PGI who then makes a fix and then we cry foul because they limited us. Who is to blame?? really stop and think about it we share part of the blame for this because we cannot as a community decide to do things that benefit all instead of some. Sad really as IMO that is a page out of real life. We can try and make it better within the scope of things or we can continue to beat this thing till it goes away and we then lose a game we all obviously enjoy...Choice is yours I prefer to do thing as honorably as I can but then that's me...

Edited by Jerry Beard, 08 January 2016 - 11:59 AM.

[Tesunie]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

The REAL issue people have is that PGI allows people to play with their friends as a team

Maybe for other people, but not for me. My only grip with mercs is that they often times switch factions (no problem) and then do activities that are counter to that faction's interests. Most times, they kick a faction's ally, then leave as that "ally" attacks that faction. Typically, that same unit then attack's that "ally" from another faction (sometimes their "home" faction) while they are pursuing their former allies.

Mercs have too much control on where they will attack. They don't always work with/for the faction they are contracted with. Change this fact, and I wont care if they are large, influential and change sides. At least then they should be attacking in that faction's interests.


As examples:
- Relations between Kurita and Marik were soiled by MS when they unexpectedly and undesirably expanded the worm hole project. (Then switched back to Ghost Bear to attack Kurita while Kurita attack Marik.) Had they acted in accordance to Marik's wishes, they would have attacked Davion instead.
- What is currently happening along the Liao and Marik boarders. Despite being contacted by Loyalists of Liao, a couple of Mercs have signed up with Liao and decided to attack Marik. Liao would rather have those forces attacking Davion.
- When the Seraphim joined Kurita for a short while, we were asked to attack Smoke Jaguar when we were hired. Then, after we joined, NKVA railed into us with insults and told us to attack Marik (our home faction) and Davion (whom had also sent Mercs to help against a joint effort against CSJ), Instead of attacking our home factions, we continued with the intended plan to fend off CSJ. However, instead of going on the offense like we were intending, we instead went on the defense while Kurita attack our home factions. (We actually broke contract early and went FRR to attack Ghost Bear, who were also farther along than other clans at that time. We had a much better reception there, and stay for our full contract.)

This is some of the events I know of, where Mercs decided to go and attack whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. This is what is ultimately disruptive to CW in my opinion. Mercs have too many advantages. Being able to change sides. When in a faction, being able to determine their own targets. Being able to kick a known alliance, then being able to switch sides and take advantage of it.

[Armando]

Tesunie, on 08 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

Maybe for other people, but not for me. My only grip with mercs is that they often times switch factions (no problem) and then do activities that are counter to that faction's interests. Most times, they kick a faction's ally, then leave as that "ally" attacks that faction. Typically, that same unit then attack's that "ally" from another faction (sometimes their "home" faction) while they are pursuing their former allies.

Mercs have too much control on where they will attack. They don't always work with/for the faction they are contracted with. Change this fact, and I wont care if they are large, influential and change sides. At least then they should be attacking in that faction's interests.


As examples:
- Relations between Kurita and Marik were soiled by MS when they unexpectedly and undesirably expanded the worm hole project. (Then switched back to Ghost Bear to attack Kurita while Kurita attack Marik.) Had they acted in accordance to Marik's wishes, they would have attacked Davion instead.
- What is currently happening along the Liao and Marik boarders. Despite being contacted by Loyalists of Liao, a couple of Mercs have signed up with Liao and decided to attack Marik. Liao would rather have those forces attacking Davion.
- When the Seraphim joined Kurita for a short while, we were asked to attack Smoke Jaguar when we were hired. Then, after we joined, NKVA railed into us with insults and told us to attack Marik (our home faction) and Davion (whom had also sent Mercs to help against a joint effort against CSJ), Instead of attacking our home factions, we continued with the intended plan to fend off CSJ. However, instead of going on the offense like we were intending, we instead went on the defense while Kurita attack our home factions. (We actually broke contract early and went FRR to attack Ghost Bear, who were also farther along than other clans at that time. We had a much better reception there, and stay for our full contract.)

This is some of the events I know of, where Mercs decided to go and attack whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. This is what is ultimately disruptive to CW in my opinion. Mercs have too many advantages. Being able to change sides. When in a faction, being able to determine their own targets. Being able to kick a known alliance, then being able to switch sides and take advantage of it.

If the mercenaries don't WIN the matches...IT MAKES ZERO DIFFERENCE. They can switch Factions every day, hell every HOUR, but if they don't WIN matches NO ONE CARES, it has no effect on the map what so ever.

The real issue is THEY WIN. They beat full pug teams, they beat pug/small group teams, they beat other full 12 mans....THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM PEOPLE HAVE

[snark] The Big Bad 12-Man TEAM beat my solo a$$ into the ground, over, and over, and over, and over again. I don't want to join a team, I don't want to fight AS a team, FIX IT NOW PGI !!!! [/snark]

[snark] The Big Bad 12-Man TEAM beat my group of 8 + 4 pugs into the ground, over, and over, and over, and over again. I don't want to recruit more people, I can't lead the pugs (because they won't listen), FIX IT NOW PGI !!!! [/snark]

[snark] The Big Bad 12-Man TEAM beat my 12-man group into the ground, over, and over, and over, and over again. Even though I took the time to find and work with 11 other players I STILL LOST, FIX IT NOW PGI !!!! [/snark]

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 12:23 PM.

[Tesunie]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

If the mercenary's don't WIN the matches...IT MAKES ZERO DIFFERENCE. They can switch Factions every day, hell every HOUR, but if they don't WIN matches NO ONE CARES, it has no effect on the map what so ever.

The issue is THEY WIN, they beat full pug teams, they beat pug/small group teams, they beat other full 12 mans....THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM PEOPLE HAVE

That can also make a difference too. If a merc group joined a faction, then (might even be specifically throw their matches) losses their matches along a front, their names might not get known (as they claim no planets) but people would still care. They can cause an entire war effort to stall out by constantly losing matches (intentionally or unintentionally).

As I've stated before, I think people have more issues with Mercs deciding not just on what faction they are joining up with (and how long), nor if they win constantly. It's that they can also dictate where they are going to attack "for that faction". This has caused more grief and ruined a lot of players fun (some of us do like the diplomatic dialogue that happens between factions, and like to honor truces) than just "a large merc group being influential, winning matches, and claiming worlds under their Tag".


Of course, I'm not "everyone", but this has been the largest complaint I've seen, particularly from loyalist units about mercs. Maybe the PUG is complaining about this, but to many PUGs also complain about "evil premades", and many of them also theorize that "premades" now sync-drop into Quickplay when they see more than one of the same unit tag on a team/in a match...

[Kjudoon]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

If the mercenary's don't WIN the matches...IT MAKES ZERO DIFFERENCE. They can switch Factions every day, hell every HOUR, but if they don't WIN matches NO ONE CARES, it has no effect on the map what so ever.

The issue is THEY WIN, they beat full pug teams, they beat pug/small group teams, they beat other full 12 mans....THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

This is ethically not sound. Win or lose, doing the wrong thing is still the wrong thing. You go against what the rest of your faction that you signed on to is doing, you are not helping nor being a good team player. You are basically harming any organized effort of the faction for your own personal profit. Mercenaries don't tell their employing governments who they are going to attack and where and what they should be doing. They quickly find themselves out on their ear if they try it or worse, enemies of the state and attacked by the same military they claimed to be joining.

Consider this example: What if the Hessians tried to tell King George how he was going to run his operations in the Colonies and then if ignored or rebuffed as insolant, they decided the best use of their time would be to attack spanish forces in florida and cuba but only after committing a few attacks in the colonies in the name of Britain? Now Spain's all stirred up because the British mercenaries are attacking their colonies and make a full scale declaration of war on Britain. The Hessians say, oh heck with this, we're going to go to Africa now and fight on behalf of the Dutch leaving all this mess going on and then pretend they are still upholding their end of the bargain they struck with King George who's troubles they made worse in the face of the Napoleonic war going on at the same time.

Even if the Hessians never won a single battle or planet, THEY still kicked the hornets nest and should be rightfully subject to penalty, punishment if not destruction at the hands of both their former employers and enemies. That same principle should find its way into this game. It is both believable and practical to deal with people too accustomed to being able to act with arrogant impunity.

Now... are all mercs like this? Nope. There are several examples of this. But there is maybe around a half dozen bad actors who are able to use their size and skill to upset the game mode by playing their contracts out or selectively misbehaving for their own benefit in ways that the noble houses would end up betraying and overwhelming with massive force if necessary and leave marooned on a backwater world with an HPG interdiction and no Jumpship ever to pick them up again and let them and their equipment rot.

Now, some want to play the victim because "we're not like that"! Yes, that's true, and size isn't really the matter, it's the behavior and intent behind the use of that size that does. This is why sober heads need to lead groups while impulsive reckless ones end up leading pirate bands that are used for only the crappiest tasks that nobody wants their name on. Now that is something that really should be in the game for the bottom of the barrel trolls: piracy. You can't get a house to hire you, you gotta go pirate and take completely disavowed actions where you suffer the consequences of your actions till such time as your unit becomes 'credible' again to the MRBC and is allowed to wear the priviledge of a House color again.

CW needs to be about consequences in the end for the game to have any meaning or value at all.

[Armando]

Tesunie, on 08 January 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

Kjudoon, on 08 January 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

Make ANY CHANGE you want, and tell me the difference it makes to a group that wins 95% of their matchs? "Could" you FORCE THEM to stay one faction the entire time....SURE....but they are still going to win 95% of the matches. They are STILL going to take planets at a rate of 4 for every one the next best unit is going to take. The difference now is you have one SUPER FACTION that ALWAYS expands and NEVER loses planets.

How is having EVERY planet on the map belonging to FRR (really insert what ever faction here) going to make the game more fun??? (well, for anyone outside of FRR that is)

The only way to stop them from effecting the map is to STOP them from WINNING.

Force one of the large (WINS match after match after match) groups to break up into smaller groups, that CAN'T be in the same faction at the same time....They are still going to win drop after drop after drop (but now they can attack a faction from MULTIPLE fronts at the same time)....

Q.E.D. - You just made matters WORSE for the the faction getting attacked, because NOW instead of have one faction crushing the front of their skulls in, they get their skills crushed from the front, back, left, AND right side by MULTIPLE factions at the same time.
________________________________________

The problem is NOT with 'Big Units", the problem is NOT with "Units that move" the REAL issue is "Units that WIN".

Q.E.D. - Break a unit like 228 into 4 smaller units and 228 will now take 4x the planets they did before. Beak a unit like MS into 10 smaller units and MS will now take 10x the planets they did before.

Why, because it is NOT the 'size' of the unit, it is NOT the 'faction' the unit plays for...IT IS the '95 win out of 100 matches played' that is the root of the issues.

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 01:05 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Kjudoon, on 08 January 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

This is ethically not sound. Win or lose, doing the wrong thing is still the wrong thing. You go against what the rest of your faction that you signed on to is doing, you are not helping nor being a good team player. You are basically harming any organized effort of the faction for your own personal profit. Mercenaries don't tell their employing governments who they are going to attack and where and what they should be doing. They quickly find themselves out on their ear if they try it or worse, enemies of the state and attacked by the same military they claimed to be joining.

Consider this example: What if the Hessians tried to tell King George how he was going to run his operations in the Colonies and then if ignored or rebuffed as insolant, they decided the best use of their time would be to attack spanish forces in florida and cuba but only after committing a few attacks in the colonies in the name of Britain? Now Spain's all stirred up because the British mercenaries are attacking their colonies and make a full scale declaration of war on Britain. The Hessians say, oh heck with this, we're going to go to Africa now and fight on behalf of the Dutch leaving all this mess going on and then pretend they are still upholding their end of the bargain they struck with King George who's troubles they made worse in the face of the Napoleonic war going on at the same time.

Even if the Hessians never won a single battle or planet, THEY still kicked the hornets nest and should be rightfully subject to penalty, punishment if not destruction at the hands of both their former employers and enemies. That same principle should find its way into this game. It is both believable and practical to deal with people too accustomed to being able to act with arrogant impunity.

Now... are all mercs like this? Nope. There are several examples of this. But there is maybe around a half dozen bad actors who are able to use their size and skill to upset the game mode by playing their contracts out or selectively misbehaving for their own benefit in ways that the noble houses would end up betraying and overwhelming with massive force if necessary and leave marooned on a backwater world with an HPG interdiction and no Jumpship ever to pick them up again and let them and their equipment rot.

Now, some want to play the victim because "we're not like that"! Yes, that's true, and size isn't really the matter, it's the behavior and intent behind the use of that size that does. This is why sober heads need to lead groups while impulsive reckless ones end up leading pirate bands that are used for only the crappiest tasks that nobody wants their name on. Now that is something that really should be in the game for the bottom of the barrel trolls: piracy. You can't get a house to hire you, you gotta go pirate and take completely disavowed actions where you suffer the consequences of your actions till such time as your unit becomes 'credible' again to the MRBC and is allowed to wear the priviledge of a House color again.

CW needs to be about consequences in the end for the game to have any meaning or value at all.

Letting the loyalists vote on attack lanes solves this.

Even in your example, the analogy holds. Under the current system, a merc unit could only "kick the hornet's nest" IF that attack lane were active. Technically, if Marik is attacking Kurita in the game (Spoken agreements and truces have no enforceable effect), then the merc unit IS acting on behalf of the House.

If the Loyalists are given the vote on attack lanes, truces and agreements can be enforced by not having an attack lane.

So...How does PGI implement this feature fairly?

[Kjudoon]

Hotthedd, on 08 January 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

Letting the loyalists vote on attack lanes solves this.

Even in your example, the analogy holds. Under the current system, a merc unit could only "kick the hornet's nest" IF that attack lane were active. Technically, if Marik is attacking Kurita in the game (Spoken agreements and truces have no enforceable effect), then the merc unit IS acting on behalf of the House.

If the Loyalists are given the vote on attack lanes, truces and agreements can be enforced by not having an attack lane.

So...How does PGI implement this feature fairly?

Except there will be one attack lane per border from the sound of it, so it is still going to be possible to kick the hornet's nest.

Otherwise you'd be right.

[Hotthedd]

Kjudoon, on 08 January 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

Except there will be one attack lane per border from the sound of it, so it is still going to be possible to kick the hornet's nest.

Otherwise you'd be right.

Is that set in stone?
If so, would voting "none" on one of the borders be an option?

I hope that has not been decided already, because it seems so lazy. Much better to just have 1 or 2 attack lanes that can be ANYWHERE on the border.

[Armando]

Hotthedd, on 08 January 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

Letting the loyalists vote on attack lanes solves this.

Even in your example, the analogy holds. Under the current system, a merc unit could only "kick the hornet's nest" IF that attack lane were active. Technically, if Marik is attacking Kurita in the game (Spoken agreements and truces have no enforceable effect), then the merc unit IS acting on behalf of the House.

If the Loyalists are given the vote on attack lanes, truces and agreements can be enforced by not having an attack lane.

So...How does PGI implement this feature fairly?

Loyalist Units don't consistently agree with each other who should be attacked when, so please do tell who dictates the attack lanes???

Loyalist Faction Loan Wolves ????
Faction Loyalist Units ????

Are you going to vote? How does that even work? How often does a Faction get to vote during the day? When does the vote take place (is it ALWAYS at 21:00 EST???).

And NONE of this stops those 'Big Bad Mercenary" units from winning game, after game, after game, after game. Winners are going to WIN. Losers are going to cry, none of this changes any of that.

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 01:31 PM.