33 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Context:
http://mwomercs.com/...hague-diplomat/

This is petty I know, particularly given how the game rewards "mech bay tours" and all that. But every time I see an exchange like that above and notice that often times many of the folks "leading" the house, are not members of the house (at least atm), it really drives home that being a loyalist is meaningless. I mean, the fact that the person Dane appoints to represent the house is a clanner seems wrong. The fact that a unit leader, presumably loyal to the FRR who seconds this appointment also being a clanner seems wrong.

I get the whole "this is an FPS", "this game is not battletech" point of view. But we do have factions for a reason, right?

I am not taking issue with peoples choices to play different factions -that is what the game and its emphasis on mercenary style play encourages. But that encouragement in the present system seems to be at odds with the faction roles, yet with no real consequence (yes loyalists get a point bump...that does not compare to readily acquired free mech bays).

Anyway, I hope CW3 addresses this because, the current system does not encourage any sort of faction play immersion (I applaud Dane and others for their attempts at trying some in), and what little immersion there is, is utterly blown away when the so-called loyalists in your faction making decisions for your faction are all wearing the tags of your supposed enemies.

[DevlinCognito]

Alas, I can't see it happening other than wanting to see your house do well. Once you hit Level 20 Loyalty, what exactly is the point?

Personally I don't find quick play exactly exciting anymore (playing the same 10? maps over and over ad infinitum gets old) and I pretty much just play CW now, but once I hit level 20 I started to feel that was getting old too, so a change of opponents was the only way to freshen things up. I've been a Davion loyalist for nigh on 20 years, but what is the point in staying Loyalist in this game?

[nehebkau]

I think most of us will say that there should be some benefit to being a loyalist -- and that we hope it is addressed in the next CW release. Those benefits shouldn't just be to an individual but for a unit that is loyalist as well. Right now, the CW tours are just a symptom of CW lacking depth in that regard.

[Lord Creston]

Endorsed

Right now I think the hub itself means more than being in FRR. In short I don't take your criticism negative in any way and agree that being loyal should have similarly beneficial rewards per effort as not being loyal.

My unit claims FRR as its home and favorite place to be but most of our members agree that your just leaving money on the table if you don't take a tour occasionally. We also do not have a sister unit to ferry players to in order to earn their bays. We do get the benefit of the early rank 's rewards, the ability to play with the other 1/2 of our mechs, and the perspective it gives us on what works and doesn't work when fighting on either side. But I know this is a bit off topic from your post.

When cw3 rolls around we hope the benefits of being loyalist 100% make it worth the pledge.

[Sjorpha]

Many FRR hub units (including my own) are using the interval between the last tukayyid event and CW phase 3 to do a faction tour and collect the easy rewards before loyalist contracts and merc contracts are made different.

We'll see most of those units return for phase 3, I wouldn't worry about it right now.

The central requirement for a person given any kind of mandate/job/authority on the FRR hub is that they are invested in FRR as a faction and in the hub as a community, I don't see a huge problem with any of them taking a little faction tour from time to time as long as they perform the task they volunteered for well.

[Bud Crue]

Glad to see I am not alone in this. No idea how or what mechanism could be implemented to address the "staleness" of being a long term loyalist but I hope that they at least try. As it is I agree that the hub has more character flavor than the game.

[Jarl Dane]

Bud Crue, on 26 February 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

But every time I see an exchange like that above and notice that often times many of the folks "leading" the house, are not members of the house (at least atm), it really drives home that being a loyalist is meaningless...


...and what little immersion there is, is utterly blown away when the so-called loyalists in your faction making decisions for your faction are all wearing the tags of your supposed enemies.

You'll notice I am clearly in the FRR.
<---------------------------------------
=D

Lord Creston, on 26 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

Right now I think the hub itself means more than being in FRR. In short I don't take your criticism negative in any way and agree that being loyal should have similarly beneficial rewards per effort as not being loyal.

Sjorpha, on 26 February 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

The central requirement for a person given any kind of mandate/job/authority on the FRR hub is that they are invested in FRR as a faction and in the hub as a community, I don't see a huge problem with any of them taking a little faction tour from time to time as long as they perform the task they volunteered for well.

I understand your concern for CW Phase 3. I don't think you would find many who would disagree with you on that account. Right now, other then a loyalty point bonus that peters out, the only incentive to remain 'loyal' is an RP one that is external to MWO. That is dumb and bad game design.

I hope PGI will fix it. They probably will, eventually, but it might not be this pass..
However, as someone who has been firmly dedicated to the FRR long before CW launched, or there were even Clan Faction tags in game (back when lots of clanners - especially Ghost Bears - ran the FRR tag), I will say that tags and current in-game mechanics are a poor indicator of loyalty in this game to this faction and to our community.

Even if to outsiders Lord Creston looks like a Vatborn Leg-Humping furry, I know him and his unit are committed to the FRR and, I think, people who use the FRR Hub often would recognize that as well. They know that the 2323 Reggies are "one of us", despite the faction-allegiance tag next to their name.


We have no control over what happens with CW. Many factions during this current phase have pretty much stopped playing CW altogether, and despite a few of our more prestigious units being on Space Vacation, we of the FRR still fight daily. Whatever happens, I believe we've reached a point where our community transcends the narrow limits of the in-game factions.

We are the FRR and MWO's labels are merely a poor shadow to that fact.

Edited by Mech The Dane, 26 February 2016 - 03:14 PM.

[DevlinCognito]

Aye, only reason I didn't jump Factions straight after hitting Field Marshall was the folks I play with on the Davion Hub, but doing myself out of free goodies just for the sake of staying Loyalist in a round of CW that pretty much doesn't mean much at this moment just seemed.. daft.

I REALLY hope they pull something good for loyalists in the new Beta, or more and more folks will be swapping Factions making it even harder to build the 'Community' in CW.

[Javin]

Only my friends in Davion stop me from faction jumping. There is no reason to be loyal. sadly.

[Repasy Cooper]

I think the idea is that loyalists are expected to stick with their faction for the duration of a season. What they choose to do after the season makes no difference. We don't want to restrict loyalists to one faction forever, many loyalists have several favourite factions, or they just like playing as a loyalist and it does not matter which faction they pledge loyalty to.

[MovinTarget]

This is why having 2+ "characters" or pilots on an account would have been nice...

[Dan Nashe]

I would settle for it not being a punishment.

It's not easy, I get.

I would have started by capping mech bays at 10 OR awarding 2 each at ranks 15-20 and capping at 20. A loyalist shouldn't be defined as the guy who never gets more than 8-10 mech bays from cw, when a hopper gets 20-100.

The problem there is how could they chanel it without rage. Capping at 40, and adding 20 to the last 5 loyalty ranks is my best guess at a compromise, but PGI might see that as giving too much.

It's also important not to lock players to a faction. What if I make friends in another house? Want to play clan? Friends > faction.

How do you fix me having all these useless clan mechs I spent money on is another issue. If someone bought a $200 clan pack, they are going to want to use it. But I don't really want mixed tech in cw. That's a tough problem.

Season rewards would be nice. spend 10 weeks of a 12 week season in one faction, get a reward. But this all involves more free stuff. And PGI is a business.

The emphasis on mercs I think was an early mistake. The game is built on the assumption player units are mercs. I'd reverse the whole system. Being a merchant let's you change faction without penalty during a season. Being loyalist gets you rewards for planet tags, but a 6 day lockout to switch factions during season (free between seasons). Maybe free swaps first week of every season.

Mercs would make more cbills or something for winning matches for less popular factions. Less populous factions get more rewards too?

I don't know. Those are the problems I see.

The biggest problem is that loyalists are punished
Rank 20 in one faction is like 9 mechbays. That's enough lp to get you like rank 6-8 in 10 factions (and 30-40 mechbays).

The second biggest issue is the idea that good units and big units should all be mercenaries.

[GI Journalist]

DevlinCognito, on 26 February 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

Aye, only reason I didn't jump Factions straight after hitting Field Marshall was the folks I play with on the Davion Hub, but doing myself out of free goodies just for the sake of staying Loyalist in a round of CW that pretty much doesn't mean much at this moment just seemed.. daft.

Liao to the bloody, bitter end, baby!

PGI can keep its free mech bays. I have zero interest in a game that pays no attention to the rich lore and potentially immersive game play offered by the BattleTech universe. If that means that I stay in House Liao for no other reason than to keep the sweet House Liao bacon-maker emblem by my name and spend my time playing forum warrior, so be it.

That said, I would gladly sacrifice loyalist game play for a fully immersive mercenary experience. I wish players were racing to fill attacker and defender roles in generic contracts, such as Planetary Assaults, Garrison Duty and Objective Raids, not attacking specific planets. The map of the Inner Sphere ought to be used abstractly, to give context to the smaller battles, not as separate strategy game that encourages players to avoid matches instead of playing against live opponents. PGI ought to look at the BattleTech: Field Manual: Mercenaries for inspiration, not the Succession Wars board game.

Tukayyid is the only time CW is truly active. The rest of the time, we risk ghost drops against empty planets. I hate that.

By limiting the fight to specific planets with specific mercenary units assigned to specific factions, PGI has severely limited the player base. If PGI made the planetary map abstract, and focused on matching two 12-man units from any faction in "contracts" or "bids", they would ensure fast drops in CW and games against live opponents. I hope to see a complete revamp of how games are built in "Faction Play".

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

so taking FRR world as a clanner is ok for an FRR loyalist.But....Huh.....
ok.....

[WarmasterRaptor]

Maybe a distinct CW economy?

The longer you are in a faction the better you get a rebate on items/gear "locked"/Unique (through special quirks, whatever) to a faction as long as you are a part of it.
If you leave it, all those items become non-usable on any 'mechs you have them mounted on.

Also, from my POV, Loyalist should get a reward for simply showing up for a battle, especially in defense/counter-attack matchs. Of course a greater reward if they win.

Mercs/freelancers would really need to win to get any rewards at all.
Mercs/freelancers should have a "reputation" record that increase/decrease following the results of all their battles and thus defining the rewards they'll receive.

My 2 cents for whatever my ideas are worth.

[sycocys]

I'm going to go with I doubt that it will matter at all. So far the only thing he's sounded concerned about the past few town halls is rewarding merc play.

[Bud Crue]

Mask, on 26 February 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

In effort to set the record straight as far why I asked about diplomats. This was only a question, some got bent out of shape asking why I was asking about diplomats ect.. I regret kind of doing that now, I believed I was just asking a question to each house so we could talk about some things between us different communities.

In effort to save face, ultimately it isnt diplomatic relations, its saying hey I will be on this planet at this time, will you have a unit there to defend, we like good fights against unit, not just pugs, or ghost drops. The line of communication would keep us from the qwerty on forehead being bored.

Not needing trolls just others that are concerned about playing this game and having fun and keeping each of our communities engaged.

I appreciate your discussions, I might not be actively posting, but I try to keep up with what you all are saying.

Thanks,

Mask
house-marik.com

No idea who or why anyone would be upset by your question about diplomats. I merely cited your thread, and the fact that many of the folks who responded to it (and whom I know to be FRR "loyalists") were sporting tags other than the FRR. I am using this observation as a spring board to discuss, what I see as a significant flaw to the CW experience; namely the concept of faction loyalty and the current system's effective punishment for being such. I meant no disservice to your diplomatic inquiry. Just trying to see how others feel about this topic.

As for me I've always recognized that MWO offers little (actually nothing) in the way of mechanisms to encourage ANY sort of role play or personal character development (even the skills tree is mech specific...not player specific). As such, any sort of "flavor" one may want to include must be brought to the game by the individual player (see for example Dane's various videos that he has made, etc.). I just think the current system of actively encouraging what is essentially "mercenary' behavior not only ruins the potential immersive experience that each faction may have but also leads to much of the imbalance we have all seen regarding units -rather than factions- being the prime movers of the CW map. And in the end, whether you like the mercenary experience or not, I think there out to be more, much more encouragement for players to be faction loyalists; If for no other reason than for game (map) stability.

[Ivan Romatovich Kerensky]

I'd like too see faction camo patterns unlocked when loyalist, relocked when you switch. Not the ones that came with the various mech bundles, but new and distinct ones only useable as a member of a faction when loyalist. Decals or other such swag thrown in as well. This would go for merc's as well, seperate styles but the same concept. (Except merc skins and decals would carry over to whatever faction they have signed up to.)

Bring back repair costs for CW at least. Loyalist would have a lesser repair cost due too ties to Houses. Merc's would not, but would enjoy a larger cash reward for there efforts to offset the differences. You could also consider a lesser cost in mech building for faction loyalists, say 5% discount on weapons and stuff.

A merc should not enjoy the same benifits as a loyalist. And a loyalist should not have the same freedom to choose as a merc.

Planets held by a faction should matter. The less your faction owns, the higher the cost to maintain it's loyalist armys. Repair and purchase prices for mechs climb as your teritory dwindles. And funding for mercs gets less and less as the wealth of your faction gets conquered. Make some percentage industrial worlds, other's income producing worlds, and others still LP worlds. (Say the surrounding 4 or 5 to a factions home world). Regardless of what unit's tag is on it, taking and holding planets would have a faction wide meaning then.

[nehebkau]

I really think the smartest thing that PGI could do is limit the size of NON-LOYALIST units. If you really think about it, there are costs associated with having members and, at some point, those costs can get real expensive if you are trying to house an entire army -- and mobilize them / move them. It requires an entire non-military support structure not to mention a place to put them all.

Whereas a loyalist unit would have a whole planet or planets to house, feed and support them could you realistically expect a merc unit to have the same thing? What planet would like to house an entire killers-for-hire army that is larger than their own army? If you look through history, how many giant mercenary armies have there been that have had long-term cohesion?

Once you make that distinction, you then should give very different rewards to loyalist units vs merc units and those rewards should not taper off to nothingness once you reach a certain point.

[Fractis Zero]

I believe Russ answered some of these questions in a previous Town Hall. The new CW if you are a loyalist you get to choose the planets you attack. Also something about earning MC with planet tags and you lose your tags if you switch factions.

Even if the only thing they do is take away your tags when you switch factions may be a big enough deterrence to faction swap.