429 replies to this topic

[shaytalis]

I'm going to take a break from the thread for awhile because I've been posting too much, but three things:

1) The goal should be a better FP and a better MWO, not status quo. The whole idea was to make something better.

2) So far we've only heard from 73 people + Paul. There are a lot of folks out there who should chime in and lend your thoughts to this! 73 of 25000 players (jarl's list) isn't nearly a representative sample! (Here's a quick little web app if you wanna see what we might be looking for there, but at least like 350 people or so: https://www.checkmar...ize-calculator/ )

3) If you've already posted over 10 times in this thread, take a break with me.

Edited by shaytalis, 28 May 2019 - 02:03 AM.

[Cato Zilks]

-Spectre, on 27 May 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

"allowing loyalists of the same faction to pick whichever side of a conflict like freelancers"...Where are you getting that? The point is set alliances between specific factions, and whatever conflict is going on, your alliance will determine which side you are fighting on.

Go back to the OP and read what Paul actually says:

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

The green squares represent a Loyalist Player playing for their pledged Faction. That player will earn 100% LP while playing during that time. The yellow squares represent LP gains when fighting during a conflict that an ally is involved in at a 60% rate. The orange squares represent Factions the player would not fight for as they are part of the opposing alliance. (Remember, allied Factions will never war with each other. This means there's never a case in this scenario of not being able to accumulate LP)

Paul is not saying all loyalist members of Alliance 1 will automatically be forced to fight on the team of their allied faction. To the contrary, Paul wants to provide carrots for fighting on the side of the alliance (60% LP) and no carrots for fighting against the alliance (0% LP). So we could see faction loyalists on both sides of a conflict. ****, a Steiner loyalist could pick to fight for CJF against Steiner, they just would not gain any LP (and would use clan mechs). Paul is making factions meaningless tags that are filled with players who can just pick whatever side they want for a given conflict.

This makes us all freelancers who get LP in different ways.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 28 May 2019 - 02:16 AM.

[Dajegas]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 05:04 PM, said:

Ok... Revision 3.

Talking with an engineer about other stuff.. this came up in conversation and addresses the 'take the stick out of the equation and keep the carrot' feedback.

1) You can pledge loyalty on a Trial basis to anyone.
- You can swap Faction loyalty any time you feel like.
- You earn LP at 100% of normal rate while in Trial.
- You earn LP at 140% of normal rate if you pledge permanent.

How about that?

Why not make LPs time related?
You pledge loyalty to a faction, you gain 80% of the LP for the first 2 months. Then it slowly goes up. Make it so that after e.g. 3 years you gain 200% LP. If then you "desert" and pledge loyalty to another faction, you start over (less LP but gain all rewards again). Like this people can max out Faction rewards faster, which means a level 30 (or even further) would be good to have.

Mercs keep their own reward progression.

Edited by Dajegas, 28 May 2019 - 02:28 AM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

The6thMessenger, on 26 May 2019 - 08:47 PM, said:

Honestly, Role-Playing to me should be something we do personally, than forced upon us by the game.

I think it would be good to make Loyalist be less restricting than it is currently, to just make LP equal across the board regardless if you are in the right Clan, or the wrong Clan during a conflict. It's also good extend to allow Loyal Clans to play as IS, but with reduced LP rewards. This should make getting games a bit easier.

Seconded!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 26 May 2019 - 02:56 AM, said:

yeah.. right. I would follow that up with a "lol", if it weren't so smack-in-the-face unfunny.
how many times were those voices not heard, with full intent?
as if it were different this time..

Come on, Urbphael. Don't be like that

[BSK]

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

- This is a big change and will require quite a bit of development time to implement.

CanChangeFaction = false;

There, that's 50% the code you need to make, then add the existing benefits of contracts and you are done.

If you want to make Faction Play relevant again, how about you make units relevant first? The current state of unit management is nowhere near usable. The MOTD doesn't work 80% of the times, there is no clickable link to the units discord or teamspeak, there is no warning that it costs the unit 12.000.000 to take members back if they leave for another faction because of an event, there are no monthly rewards, no monthly fees, no training schedules, no usable friend list.

Oh you think I could do that all externally? Yeah I need so much time to explain all the current bugs that I do not care about the rest anymore. I got a life, a job and a family. Things need to work in this game.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

[color=orange]Let's Do This[/color]

• remove the fee to accept unit members ( I have wasted more than 500.000.000 on this, and I am done)
  
• clickable link to the unit's discord/ teamspeak
  
• messages pop up
  
• invites pop up
  
• explanation pop ups for people returning to the game
  
• game mechanics in the wiki (tell me without looking it up how exactly to get a "hit and run" ..)
  
• api to externalize match results ingame with 1 click
  
• why is the MOTD next to the LEAVE UNIT button?
  
• give us randomised drop points on the maps
  
• buy yourself a rubber duck and explain every aspect of the game to it

https://en.wikipedia..._duck_debugging

[50 50]

The wheel might be a bit broken but it doesn't need to be re-invented.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

1) Choosing a Faction for Loyalty.
1.1) If a player chooses to be a Loyalist to a Faction, this selection should be persistent to the player's profile.
1.2) The selection of Faction will be done on the Faction Details (will need to rename this tab) pages which display information about all the factions available.

Why go to all this trouble when the functionality was already attached to the units.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

[color=orange]2) Earning Loyalty Points (LP) After Pledging Loyalty[/color]
2.1) Faction players will earn LP in the same manner as previously with additional bonuses.

Dangling extra candy is merely a distraction if the system does not work.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

3) Expanding LP Gains Outside of the Player's Faction's Conflicts
3.1) The Alliances
- The Inner Sphere Factions will be split into two Alliances.

So the idea here is instead of the one Inner Sphere side we had with the one bucket in Phase 4, there are now two.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

- While alliances are not strictly lore,

So why do it. Is that not the opposite of what was discussed in the intro and goes against point 1.1 as the factions are part of an alliance and therefore will not have the focus on their faction in the majority of events.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

for game purposes and keeping queue buckets to a minimum,

Clarify this point as if this suggests that faction play is going to be broken up into more than one bucket to allow all the alliances to fight at the same time, there is an immediate problem.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

3.1.1) IS Alliance 1
3.1.2) IS Alliance 2
3.1.3) Clan Alliance 1
3.1.4) Clan Alliance 2

Lets be clear here that under no condition in the suggested change will any of the factions in one of these alliances be able to fight each other.
There will never be a situation where it will be "Liao vs Marik" or "Jade Falcon vs Smoke Jaguar". I hope everyone is understanding that as it is spelled out in this next bit:

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

3.2) How LP is rewarded when a Conflict is in play that does not include the player's pledged Faction.
- The Alliances outlined above will never be in a Conflict within themselves. (e.g. Steiner will never be in a Conflict with FRR)

Meaning that if the only players that are online belong to both Steiner and the FRR, one lot of you will have to jump to the other side of the fence to allow a match and in the case of loyalists, well, you are out of luck there. You are not prevented from swapping sides but that is the point of this whole discussion isn't it? To represent your side in Faction Play? This goes against point 1.1

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

3.2.1) Case 1 - Steiner vs Marik
3.2.2) Case 2 - Kurita vs Clan Ghost Bear

So as a fanatical loyalist to say Liao in both of these examples and Marik in Case 1 and Kurita in Case 2 can go and rot, my only choice would be to jump to the opposite side if I wanted to stick the knife in or not participate at all and therefore earn no loyalty because of the alliance setup.
Again, goes against point 1.1

We actually had a pretty good reputation system at the start from memory where there was a varying degree of loss of reputation when we fought against particular factions.
Alliances get broken.
If we would truly like this system to cater for loyalists there needs to be a better and more engaging system for the players to get behind.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

[color=orange]4) The Big Problem Areas[/color]
4.1) The Faction Selection for Loyalist is currently permanent in this proposed system.

Reinventing the wheel and moving the idea of the loyalist to the player account seems completely unnecessary given the function was there on the units and players can drop in and out of units as they please.
The hard core loyalists would remain regardless and it's their faction they want to have in the headlines 24/7.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

4.2) When it comes to Section 3 above, there's a big blocker in place.
- If the Conflict is an IS vs IS Conflict, there is NO way that Clan Loyalists can earn LP.
- If the Conflict is Clan vs Clan, the same thing happens on the other side, meaning IS Loyalists cannot earn LP.
- One suggestion made internally was to just provide a base LP payout when these situations arise. For example, if the Conflict is IS vs IS and a Clan Loyalist plays in the Conflict, they will still earn a 25% LP gain from their Faction for doing so even though it contradicts the idea of a hard core Loyalist.

Does this not contradict the initial statement and ultimate goal of ensuring that: loyalists should not have to switch factions to play FP (see comment below in 5 )

The suggestion of alliances is a nice idea but as pointed out in your own document, it does not work as it fails to address the primary issue that loyalists will not change faction

Dangling shiny LP rewards and discussing what to do about them is merely a distraction at this point until the underlying issue of addressing: How to get loyalists playing for their faction and only their faction 24/7 has not been resolved.

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

5) Let's Do This
The main takeaways from this post are as follows:
- We want to make sure that Loyalists do not have to switch Factions to participate in FP
- We want to make LP gains consistent for all Factions.
- This design spec has NOT been through a tech review so there's no guarantees that everything is technically possible.
- This is a big change and will require quite a bit of development time to implement.
- This is not a straight up "this is happening and it's the only way", but it's the strongest candidate that some of you have already touched on in previous comments/suggestions as well. Strongest doesn't mean best/only plan.. it means it fits the majority of criteria with a give/take approach.

This is the FIRST post of a discussion that will be followed just like the other discussions we've had previously. I want to take the same tone as last time and keep it a discussion and not a corporate refined response system.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this spec and trying to finalize something soon so development can start on it ASAP.

-Paul

If there is a second completely different design document, please forward that in a second forum post for comparison.

Edited by 50 50, 28 May 2019 - 03:29 AM.

[Appogee]

Cato Zilks, on 27 May 2019 - 03:57 AM, said:

Loretardery is not why all of us argue for more rigid loyalty. I see it as the best way to bring about balance and it has the added benefit of drawing many of the loretards back in to fill the queues. We need matches but we also need to draw in the old salty playerbase that pays for Battletech related things. I want better matches and I want the largest playerbase possible because it allows the small developer that makes this game I enjoy have a larger budget to improve this game that I enjoy. That means better accommodating people who really want to talk about which novel is their favorite, and shifting the gamemode back towards something that makes them excited.

Fair enough.

Incidentally, I am one of those people.

[Grus]

All a lot of us Loyalists want it to be loyal to our desired faction and still be able to drop in FW and not be penalized for it. Looks like we are heading in that direction.

[dario03]

Van mw, on 28 May 2019 - 01:49 AM, said:

Because loyalists see fun in different things than mercs? So if you are not a fanatical loyalist you are not "in theirs shoes"? Removing the parts those are interesting for the loyalists probably will make them play less, as I see. Is that a gameplay wise approach?

The most current revision just makes it so you just get extra LP for pledging permanent. So its not really different fun ways, its just better rewards for loyalists. Which goes back to what I said earlier, if they are fanatical loyalist why do they need extra pay to do what they are fanatical about? Why bother with complicated uneven reward systems that force players into choses when we could just remove the downsides of being loyal and remove the downside of acting like a merc by removing those labels in game. Want to be loyal? Then be loyal by not switching, prove that you are fanatical and not just looking for faster rewards. Want to be a merc? Then be a merc by switching whenever you want so we can get games during times of uneven population distributions. No matter what you do you earn FP points at the same rate. Earn rewards in that like you do in factions, when max rank is reached the rewards start over.

[Hierarch]

Make the star map matter again. It needs to be more interesting then just an mc generator.

[GoodTry]

This is a really complicated solution. Why not just make loyalty points accrue no matter what the conflict is?

I'm also not getting the point of not allowing people to drop as IS vs. Clan depending on the queue. Isn't it best to make sure drops are happening?

Seriously, this whole thing seems totally misguided. In my ideal world, each player would be able to make both Clan and IS drop decks at the same time, click a "play faction play" button, and get into a match quickly. They'll be either clan or IS depending on which queue has space. Done. What is so hard about that?

(FWIW, I would do Solaris the same way. Each player sets up whatever Solaris divs/sponsors/mechs they want, and they click a "Play Solaris" button. Then they're matched with the closest ELO player who also has a mech/sponsor ready in a compatible division.)

[-Spectre]

dario03, on 27 May 2019 - 09:39 PM, said:

If players are so fanatical though then why do they need extra rewards for being a loyalist? If staying pledged to one faction at all times is an option and rewards were set up so they can keep earning as much as someone that moves around, shouldn't that be enough for them to just stay loyal on their own? The people that really really want to be loyal can just not switch even if it is always an option, and the players that want matches can.

Personally, I don't need extra rewards for being a loyalist. I am fine maxing out at 20 as it is and sitting on it. I would be perfectly happy. But not everyone is, and they are asking for an ability to continue earning loyalty points after they have maxed out. I think that is a reasonable request, so I am trying to accommodate them by providing the possibility of switching. But I also want it to not be completely possible to switch whenever you want, because the way it has been, the top 5 positions on the Loyalist unit leaderboards at any given time have been merc units. Mercenaries have been using the loyalist function to be mercenaries, and that is simply not right, not the intention, etc. Loyalty should be designed so that only a player who actually intends to be loyal will pledge loyalty, rather than pledging and breaking every week. So what I am working for is a system that both allows people to get out when they reach the top and discourages people from using it as a merc contract.

Cato Zilks, on 28 May 2019 - 02:16 AM, said:

Go back to the OP and read what Paul actually says:

Paul is not saying all loyalist members of Alliance 1 will automatically be forced to fight on the team of their allied faction. To the contrary, Paul wants to provide carrots for fighting on the side of the alliance (60% LP) and no carrots for fighting against the alliance (0% LP). So we could see faction loyalists on both sides of a conflict. ****, a Steiner loyalist could pick to fight for CJF against Steiner, they just would not gain any LP (and would use clan mechs). Paul is making factions meaningless tags that are filled with players who can just pick whatever side they want for a given conflict.

This makes us all freelancers who get LP in different ways.

I have read the OP very thoroughly, and wrote 5,000 words on a point-by-point basis on page 2, if you want to read that. If you read a little further, he says, with color emphasis I might add, "[color=orange]In the following tables, all indicated LP gains are for the Faction Player's pledged Faction only. (If you are a Ghost Bear Loyalist, all tables are indicating LP gains from Ghost Bear.)[/color]" He also says, at another point, "The Faction Selection for Loyalist is currently permanent in this proposed system."I believe he makes it fairly clear that you pledge loyalty to a set faction, and then when your allies are fighting, you can fight to assist them (specifically assisting your allies, not being allowed to fight for just anyone), without changing which faction you are pledged to. As a Ghost Bear, if I fight to help Clan Wolf on the IS front, I will still show up as a Ghost Bear, I will still gain loyalty points as a Ghost Bear, and I will still be a Ghost Bear. I will simply be assisting my fellow Clan in their battle, while maintaining my own identity.

GoodTry, on 28 May 2019 - 07:25 AM, said:

This is a really complicated solution. Why not just make loyalty points accrue no matter what the conflict is?

I'm also not getting the point of not allowing people to drop as IS vs. Clan depending on the queue. Isn't it best to make sure drops are happening?

Seriously, this whole thing seems totally misguided. In my ideal world, each player would be able to make both Clan and IS drop decks at the same time, click a "play faction play" button, and get into a match quickly. They'll be either clan or IS depending on which queue has space. Done. What is so hard about that?

(FWIW, I would do Solaris the same way. Each player sets up whatever Solaris divs/sponsors/mechs they want, and they click a "Play Solaris" button. Then they're matched with the closest ELO player who also has a mech/sponsor ready in a compatible division.)

Because the point of Faction Play is the Factions. It is the reason it exists, and it is in the name. Take away the ability to chose who you are fighting for, and it is no longer Faction Play. If you want a click and play mode, that is what Quick Play is there for, but Faction Play is for Playing a Faction.

[GoodTry]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 08:10 AM, said:

Because the point of Faction Play is the Factions. It is the reason it exists, and it is in the name. Take away the ability to chose who you are fighting for, and it is no longer Faction Play. If you want a click and play mode, that is what Quick Play is there for, but Faction Play is for Playing a Faction.

People who want to play for a specific faction should still be able to join it and just load up an appropriate drop deck. Others should be able to play for any faction.

If you don't do something like that, soon the population will be so low that no one is playing faction play at all. Why exclude people or make it harder than it needs to be?

[Hierarch]

I think the game play of faction would be cool if loyalist inner sphere units got a slight bump in tonnage for their drop deck merc units get the choice in loading their drop deck with both clan and sphere decks and clan loyalists lose a little tonnage but get 1 of every consumable free.

[-Spectre]

GoodTry, on 28 May 2019 - 08:39 AM, said:

People who want to play for a specific faction should still be able to join it and just load up an appropriate drop deck. Others should be able to play for any faction.

If you don't do something like that, soon the population will be so low that no one is playing faction play at all. Why exclude people or make it harder than it needs to be?

100% agree. That is why we have the system of Loyalists, Mercs, and Freelancers. Loyalists get to join a faction and fight for it through thick and thin, Mercs get to fight for specific factions of their choosing, but can switch factions whenever they want, and Freelancers can fight for whoever needs their services (I'm not entirely sure how the freelancer bit works, as I was already in a unit when the freelancer position became a thing, but I think I got the jist of it there). I'm not trying to exclude anyone, I am just trying to specifically not exclude the Loyalists.

Hierarch, on 28 May 2019 - 08:45 AM, said:

I think the game play of faction would be cool if loyalist inner sphere units got a slight bump in tonnage for their drop deck merc units get the choice in loading their drop deck with both clan and sphere decks and clan loyalists lose a little tonnage but get 1 of every consumable free.

I think this is a really cool idea. I would still prefer Clanners get 10 players per team rather than 12, instead of getting a tonnage penalty, but I understand that that would most likely require extensive re-coding that is not reasonable at this point. My only gripe about your system is that things like UAVs and artillery are dezgra, so they wouldn't make sense to give to the Clans as their perk. Maybe set the tonnages equal (or give Clan a tad extra) and give IS the free consumables? Since IS was much more combined-arms focused than Clan. We could also use that idea to give faction flavor, since, for instance, Hell's Horses (not in the game) and Ghost Bear were the most combined-arms friendly of the Clans, so they could get a free UAV or something. But faction-by-faction tweaking isn't really what we're here for, your suggestion just got me thinking

Really interesting idea; I would love to see it fleshed out a bit more.

[dario03]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 08:10 AM, said:

Personally, I don't need extra rewards for being a loyalist. I am fine maxing out at 20 as it is and sitting on it. I would be perfectly happy. But not everyone is, and they are asking for an ability to continue earning loyalty points after they have maxed out. I think that is a reasonable request, so I am trying to accommodate them by providing the possibility of switching. But I also want it to not be completely possible to switch whenever you want, because the way it has been, the top 5 positions on the Loyalist unit leaderboards at any given time have been merc units. Mercenaries have been using the loyalist function to be mercenaries, and that is simply not right, not the intention, etc. Loyalty should be designed so that only a player who actually intends to be loyal will pledge loyalty, rather than pledging and breaking every week. So what I am working for is a system that both allows people to get out when they reach the top and discourages people from using it as a merc contract.

Simple fix, don't have loyalist leaderboards just have a leaderboard. Could even have a spot that shows how long you have been with a faction. Or go ahead and have a loyalist leaderboard that you automatically show up on if you have been with one faction for a long time.

Quote

Because the point of Faction Play is the Factions. It is the reason it exists, and it is in the name. Take away the ability to chose who you are fighting for, and it is no longer Faction Play. If you want a click and play mode, that is what Quick Play is there for, but Faction Play is for Playing a Faction.

Could always just change the name back to Community Warfare. Also there are more differences compared to QP, like drop deck respawn play and maps.

Edited by dario03, 28 May 2019 - 09:37 AM.

[-Spectre]

dario03, on 28 May 2019 - 09:36 AM, said:

Simple fix, don't have loyalist leaderboards just have a leaderboard. Could even have a spot that shows how long you have been with a faction. Or go ahead and have a loyalist leaderboard that you automatically show up on if you have been with one faction for a long time.

The leaderboards thing is the symptom, not the problem. The problem is people using the loyalist name without intending to be loyalist. People were gaming the system, so we are working towards making the system less gameable. Obviously no system will be perfect, but there are a lot of simple-to-code solutions on the table that will make the system significantly better. Removing the leaderboards will just hide the symptom without solving the problem. You can take the thermometer out of your mouth, but you still have the flu.

Quote

Could always just change the name back to Community Warfare. Also there are more differences compared to QP, like drop deck respawn play and maps.

The system was named after the design, not designed after the name. Changing the name wouldn't change the intent. And even changing it back to the old name still indicates the idea that the mode is focused on community, not quick games. And yes, there are other differences between FP and QP, but if you just want quick games, FP isn't quick in any sense of the word, unless you are looking at scouting, and even then by its very nature it is less quick than QP for less action per match.

All this is not to say that I don't care about getting games--I very much like to actually get to play--just that getting rid of the community/faction aspect for the sake of quick games is not an option here.

Edited by -Spectre, 28 May 2019 - 10:52 AM.

[dario03]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 10:50 AM, said:

The leaderboards thing is the symptom, not the problem. The problem is people using the loyalist name without intending to be loyalist. People were gaming the system, so we are working towards making the system less gameable. Obviously no system will be perfect, but there are a lot of simple-to-code solutions on the table that will make the system significantly better. Removing the leaderboards will just hide the symptom without solving the problem. You can take the thermometer out of your mouth, but you still have the flu.


The system was named after the design, not designed after the name. Changing the name wouldn't change the intent. And even changing it back to the old name still indicates the idea that the mode is focused on community, not quick games. And yes, there are other differences between FP and QP, but if you just want quick games, FP isn't quick in any sense of the word, unless you are looking at scouting, and even then by its very nature it is less quick than QP for less action per match.

All this is not to say that I don't care about getting games--I very much like to actually get to play--just that getting rid of the community/faction aspect for the sake of quick games is not an option here.

Remove the flu by removing the in game loyalist/merc system. Why does the game need systems to keep loyalist loyal? Again, if they want to be loyal then they can be loyal. Leaderboards, LP bonuses, limited contracts, none of that is needed. Just keep everything open choice with equal rewards and be done with it. If a player wants to be loyal then nothing would stop them from doing so.

Edited by dario03, 28 May 2019 - 11:30 AM.

[MiZia]

Well, if i recall right, initially there was the idea that if u maxed out all Factions u could join a separate Faction (dont remember right how tha name was, maybe Wolf Dragoneers, wanst it?)
Now that idea was trashed long ago, but how would u get in that Faction if u where not able to swap?

And still, at the daytime i play i still need the ability to swap just to get a game. If im in the wrong one (like today) ill just wait for hours to get a single game.

[-Spectre]

dario03, on 28 May 2019 - 11:29 AM, said:

Remove the flu by removing the in game loyalist/merc system. Why does the game need systems to keep loyalist loyal? Again, if they want to be loyal then they can be loyal. Leaderboards, LP bonuses, limited contracts, none of that is needed. Just keep everything open choice with equal rewards and be done with it. If a player wants to be loyal then nothing would stop them from doing so.

You are curing a broken bone with amputation there. The intent of the system is a good one, and makes a lot of people happy when it works. We just need to make it work. This thread is not about whether loyalty should be a thing, but how to make it work. Remember what happened last week when they took loyalty away?

Loyalists don't want to be loyal mercs. They want to be different because they are different. Just like mercs want to be able to be called mercs. Calling mercs and loyalists the same thing is not going to make anyone happy.

This goes back to the idea that the people responding here are split between those who understand loyalists and those who don't. If you aren't a loyalist, and don't understand how they think, why are you trying to solve their problems? In my breakdown of the system on page 2, I did not pretend to know what is best for Mercs, because I do not fully understand that mentality. We don't want amputation, we want disinfectant.