429 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

So how about allowing all faction loyalists to participate in all events and earn 100% LP (as spies or whatever), and after rank 20 start earning rewards from rank 1 again without limit?

(they'd still keep rank 20 title, only the rewards restart from 1)

[-Spectre]

Nightbird, on 28 May 2019 - 11:53 AM, said:

So how about allowing all faction loyalists to participate in all events and earn 100% LP (as spies or whatever), and after rank 20 start earning rewards from rank 1 again without limit?

(they'd still keep rank 20 title, only the rewards restart from 1)

Something similar to this is what we are working towards in this thread.
I do like the idea of earning the rewards again, as one possibility. There are problems with it, as with any system, but it is simple and would do something to address the maxing out concerns.

[dario03]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 11:45 AM, said:

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.

Because I'm trying to solve the games issues. My suggestions don't remove loyalty like the current system does, actually it makes it easier to be loyal. And we don't have to call mercs and loyalists anything, just don't have labels in game.

[OldSchoolCav]

This has grown to be entirely too complicated. So please read my slightly-less-too-complicated proposal below. I think that we can all agree that:

1) The purpose for all players for FP is to play a mode that is 4 drops of 12 mechs per side. This adds a dimension of strategery that can not be found in QP. It may be that some players also enjoy only shooting clanners or vice versa. Fine.
2) Fewer matches = BAD.
3) Removing Loyalists from the queue or forcing players into more than 2 buckets = Fewer matches = BAD.
4) Everyone loves to be recognized and rewarded for their grind.

Let's separate the concepts of your (or your unit's) current contract holder and the side you drop for in each FP Conflict. Let's call your current contract holder you SmC (Signs my Checks). This is the picture that shows up next to your name in the forums and in the queue. This is the thing that determines what level of loyalty reward you have earned. This can be to one of the houses or clans or to Merc. For some of you, this is that smudgy tattoo you find yourself having to explain everytime you take off your shirt.

Revamp the loyalty levels for specific houses or clans so that rewards for levels 1 - 5 include 2 mechbays and GXP. These levels are accessible to everyone and facilitate the grind to enable people to bring a diverse selection of skilled mechs to FP. Then create levels 6 - X that are available only to people pledged to that SmC that each require 110 - 125% of the previous level and rotate through worthless stuff (cockpit items) + cool stuff (Mechbays, Drop decks, clan or house-specific patterns or colors) so players who really love Davion can forever accrue Davion levels.

For SmC Mercs, add 2 scouting Dropdecks and 6 Invasion Dropdecks into the mix, so they can keep a set of IS decks and a set of Clan decks ready.

For each FP Conflict/Phase, SmC mercs or groups of mercs who do not select a faction (remember, this is a side of a conflict) are used by the MM as follows: at the end of each MM period (2 minutes?) if the maximum number of matches that can be made by having a merc or mercs change sides is greater than the number of matches that can be made without changing mercs, then maximize the number of matches formed by switching them. When used in this fashion, they get a huge merc LP bonus - maybe 200%. Otherwise, they count like everyone else. Allow them to opt out, especially if grouped with non-mercs.

For everyone else for each FP Conflict/Phase they pick a side to fight for. They get paid LP for their SmC at 100% just for being involved (thanks for playing FP!!!). They get paid LP for the faction they fight for at 25% until they achieve level 5, then 0% thereafter, unless the faction they fight for in that conflict is their SmC.

Make changing SmCs hard. Not permanent. Pay everyone lots of C-bills and XP for faction - like 2x as much as an equivalent time investment/match score in QP.

Let's reduce the bar for entry to FP by making the lower level grinds more rewarding. Let's encourage loyalists to play and let Mercs switch sides mid-phase to ensure we maximize the number of matches.

Edited by OldSchoolCav, 28 May 2019 - 12:27 PM.

[Battlepickle]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 11:45 AM, said:

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.

Respectfully that's a bit of an elitist position to be taking. Anyone who's investing time to respond to this thread would be more accurately categorized as those who are already loyalists.. and those who don't/didn't see the right incentives to become a loyalist.

As such both sides opinions should be viewed as valid contributions to the debate. Likewise discussing a solution for loyalists in the absence of understanding how it will interact with merc's and freelancers is at a much greater risk of feeling like a cobbled together series of mini-games rather than one coherent faction play experience. Think about designing a new engine for a car and pretending like you don't need to establish spec's for the transmission or tires to handle that kind of power - Sure you can hit the gas and hope it all works together...

There's a fundamental question that appears many thread contributors are avoiding in their suggestions... and that is 'why are other people not choosing to be a loyalist?' Addressing that question will go a long way towards understanding out what incentivizes current and potential loyalists. If a solution arises that has players flocking to be a loyalist and play faction over other merc/freelancer and/or quick play modes - other concerns such as queue times would likely be implicitly addressed.

[Paul Inouye]

Seeing a common thread in some of the responses here that I'd like to clarify something...

This discussion is about a system that allows Loyalists to stay with a Faction and earn LP without being locked out (as the current system is doing). The Faction swapping has nothing to do with the queue/match maker... it's about being able to change Factions or not and how LP is gained while being able to take part in all Conflicts like Mercs and Freelancers can.

I'm not saying addressing the queue and match maker is off the table.. just that this is about the Loyalist Role/Activity in FP.

[Usagiyama Shugo]

I apologize now if someone already addressed this, but someone forgot to ask the most important question before this new Faction Play system got implemented. What about all the players who have NO, ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA, NOT EVEN IF YOU PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD AND PULLED THE TRIGGER interest in playing in an IS vs. IS or Clan vs. Clan conflict? Are we just boned until PGI decides to change the conflict? How long do we have to wait for a conflict that we would be interested in participating in to come around? What are we supposed to do in the mean time? What about all the players who don't even own Clan or IS mechs? Are we once boned and twice shafted?

It seems to me that if you want more people participating in FP, limiting their choice to what ever conflict you decide to do at the time or kick rocks, is NOT the way to go. Seriously what mechwarrior universe has only ONE conflict going on at a time. If you want to talk about lore there where hundreds of conflicts occurring all over the mechwarrior universe at any given moment. Which is what made the Merc profession so enticing and lucrative.

Rant over, time to go kick rocks...

[-Spectre]

Battlepickle, on 28 May 2019 - 02:52 PM, said:

Respectfully that's a bit of an elitist position to be taking. Anyone who's investing time to respond to this thread would be more accurately categorized as those who are already loyalists.. and those who don't/didn't see the right incentives to become a loyalist.

As such both sides opinions should be viewed as valid contributions to the debate. Likewise discussing a solution for loyalists in the absence of understanding how it will interact with merc's and freelancers is at a much greater risk of feeling like a cobbled together series of mini-games rather than one coherent faction play experience. Think about designing a new engine for a car and pretending like you don't need to establish spec's for the transmission or tires to handle that kind of power - Sure you can hit the gas and hope it all works together...

There's a fundamental question that appears many thread contributors are avoiding in their suggestions... and that is 'why are other people not choosing to be a loyalist?' Addressing that question will go a long way towards understanding out what incentivizes current and potential loyalists. If a solution arises that has players flocking to be a loyalist and play faction over other merc/freelancer and/or quick play modes - other concerns such as queue times would likely be implicitly addressed.

I realized as I wrote that that it might come across a bit caustic, and I don't want it to be taken that way, but the fact remains that a lot of the feedback on this thread shows a basic lack of understanding of the loyalist mindset. To your point that everyone here is a loyalist, I would have to objectively disagree. I know several of the people conversing in this thread, either because I play with them or because I play against them regularly, or both, and I know that not all of them are loyalists (hence the both bit). My mindset in writing that post is that I see people making suggestions that would tick loyalists (including myself) off almost as much as this latest patch, and I am afraid of their suggestions being taken, and loyalists getting screwed over yet again. We have taken a lot (a LOT--almost as much as Clan tech in general ) of hits over the course of the various FP updates, and now that the devs are finally listening to us, I want to make sure they don't get the wrong ideas of what loyalists want.

I totally get your car analogy there, and in my breakdown I did address how things would/could affect mercenaries, and I mostly tried to either keep things the same, or give them more free stuff than they get now, but where it came to specifics of how a system could be applied to mercenaries, I gave general suggestions and left them open to discussion, citing the fact that I am not a merc. So I at least tried to address both sides of the issue--the fact that I am not a merc and don't know what is best for them, and the fact that loyalist changes will affect them to an extent. If you read my post and think I failed in either aspect of that, please let me know, because I would love to work together with mercs to hammer out something we can both agree on. And I would honestly just love feedback in general on my proposed system, because it was such a big post I think it's scaring people away from reading it.

Finally, at least for me, the reason I am not addressing why people aren't becoming loyalists is because, historically, we have had the opposite problem: too many people becoming loyalists in name, without any intention of actually being loyal. I would rather scare off the fake loyalists than attract more of them. Hence trying to come up with some sort of penalty for breaking loyalty. Now, if we could come up with a system that could attract more true loyalists, I am all for that.

I hope I didn't come off as elitist that time. I just really care about the topic at hand, and want to see the best solution possible for all parties, and us loyalists are a bit distrusting at this point, like a shelter dog that came from a bad home.

[-Spectre]

Paul Inouye, on 28 May 2019 - 03:37 PM, said:

Seeing a common thread in some of the responses here that I'd like to clarify something...

This discussion is about a system that allows Loyalists to stay with a Faction and earn LP without being locked out (as the current system is doing). The Faction swapping has nothing to do with the queue/match maker... it's about being able to change Factions or not and how LP is gained while being able to take part in all Conflicts like Mercs and Freelancers can.

I'm not saying addressing the queue and match maker is off the table.. just that this is about the Loyalist Role/Activity in FP.

Lol thanks for the backup Paul
And thanks for being focused on the issue at hand. It's reassuring as a loyalist to see you listening to us and making sure we can still play without abandoning our loyalty (see my shelter dog comment above).

[SeventhSL]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 03:47 PM, said:

Lol thanks for the backup Paul
And thanks for being focused on the issue at hand. It's reassuring as a loyalist to see you listening to us and making sure we can still play without abandoning our loyalty (see my shelter dog comment above).

I second this.

[dario03]

Paul Inouye, on 28 May 2019 - 03:37 PM, said:

Seeing a common thread in some of the responses here that I'd like to clarify something...

This discussion is about a system that allows Loyalists to stay with a Faction and earn LP without being locked out (as the current system is doing). The Faction swapping has nothing to do with the queue/match maker... it's about being able to change Factions or not and how LP is gained while being able to take part in all Conflicts like Mercs and Freelancers can.

I'm not saying addressing the queue and match maker is off the table.. just that this is about the Loyalist Role/Activity in FP.

Let them stay in their faction but assist whatever faction makes sense, or make the conflicts multiple factions. Earn LP at the same rate as everybody. When they max out at level 20 start the rewards over. Everybody can be in all conflicts and rewards don't push players into being stuck with something they might not want later on.

[shaytalis]

Some desires I'm seeing from various posts as it relates to Loyalty / LP:

1) Every player should always be able to play FP at any given time without losing LP in their chosen faction.
2) Players should have reasonably frequent opportunities to play FP and gain LP in their chosen faction.
3) Players who choose to play less in order to RP their Faction loyalty (will only play for their chosen faction) are allowed to, but this isn't a requirement.
4) Players should be able to occasionally play for any Faction (even an enemy Faction) without completely leaving their chosen Faction [I want to play with my IS friends today without leaving Jade Falcon].
5) Playing beyond level 20 in a Faction should continue to grant rewards of some kind.
6) New Players should have plenty of time to determine a Faction in the early game without being locked in too early.
7) Players should be able to change Faction Loyalty on a more substantial basis, but this should have a cost associated with it.
8) Players should not be able to change Faction Loyalty.
9) Players want their chosen Faction to be displayed as their Icon, not the faction they happen to be fighting for today.

**EDIT:** Three tangential but related topics coming up frequently in this thread are:
10) Some players want to fight in IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan conflicts.
11) Some players want to fight only as Clan, some players want to fight only as IS.
12) Some players want to be able to fill queues as a Freelancer while still being a Mercenary, so long as they don't care which side they are on.

There are some suggestions that have been made which when combined make these desires somewhat compatible. The hardest is perhaps:

1) Every player should always be able to play FP at any given time without losing LP in their chosen faction.

The issue here is "What if IS vs IS occurs? What will the Clans do?" The answer for me: Base LP upon who I fight for and who I fight against:

• Fight for Ally vs an Ally: No LP change (but this should never happen, since they are allies).
  
• Fight for Ally vs an Enemy: + LP
  
• Fight for Enemy vs an Enemy: Either no LP change or + LP (could happen if there are two IS factions, for instance, and I am Clan). Philosophically, you are stepping into a conflict between two of your enemies and just trying to make some money / learn their strengths and weaknesses on the battlefield. You go Freelance Merc or Contract Merc for this conflict. We could justify a +LP here for the fact that you're learning about your enemies for your faction in this conflict, in addition to showing them up on the battlefield.
  
• Fight for Enemy vs an Ally: - LP (but I could choose to fight for my Ally in this case, so this was my choice)

With the above setup, you would only lose LP in a conflict where you could have fought for an Ally and chose to fight for an Enemy. Therefore there is never a case where a player is forced to lose LP if they want to play.






2) is addressed by the above as well given that there are really two cases you'll be presented with: i) Two enemies are fighting eachother, I can't gain LP. or ii) An ally and enemy are fighting, I can gain LP. So 50% of conflicts should offer the opportunity to earn LP.

3) is addressed in that players can always choose to skip out on Faction play unless their Faction is directly represented. It would mean that they play significantly less, but this is their choice rather than inflicted upon them by the system etc. Furthermore, you could always choose to fight for any enemy (joining your IS friend) when the Conflict is between two enemies--thereby losing no LP at all.

4) is a addressed if "Fight for Enemy vs an Ally" results in lost LP rather than ejection from the Faction.




I've seen some good suggestions for 5, 6, and 7 as well.

For 5) we've suggested a couple of basic options:

• Annual award for loyalty that year, such as earning the Loyalty Mech for that year.
  
• Loop the rewards currently associated with rank achievements so that they are repeatable forever within the same faction.

Either of which seems reasonable. Other options could be considered of course.





For 6) we've suggested that you should be able to earn LP for all factions up to level 5, but then must commit to level up beyond that point.

For 7) we've suggested a few different types of costs, such as losing all your LP in the faction you are leaving, losing a portion of your LP (more if you are going from Clan to IS or vice versa), or simply paying a C-Bill fine. This obviously comes into conflict with desire 8), so we would have to choose one of the two. From what I have seen so far in this thread, there's a stronger support for 7) than 8).

For 9), this is a cosmetic thing but should be taken into account when addressing the above. A Jade Falcon player does not want to have a Nova Cat icon.




Note: This last part gets into Queue Time and Mercs, which is not the intended topic of this thread, but it is related.

For 10) and 11), these two desires are in direct conflict and we have three options as I see it:

• Do not allow IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan conflicts to occur. Cost: Players who want these conflicts will miss out on a desired aspect of the game altogether. They get to fight in such conflicts 0% of the time. Pros: Best queue times so long as the player population remains the same.
  
• Allow IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan conflicts to occur. Costs: Players who will only fight as Clan / IS will have to sit out of these conflicts. Increased wait time due to a lower population pool. Pros: Players who will only fight as Clan / IS will still get to fight in 75% of conflicts.
  
• Allow IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan, but have two conflicts running simultaneously at all times. Allow a choice between the two. At least one of these two conflicts must be Clan vs IS so that everyone can play. Cost: Increased wait times for the queue when the population is small, as there are now two buckets instead of just one. Need a larger FP population to sustain this. Pros: Once the FP population is large enough to support 2 buckets, this becomes the best solution since everyone gets to play more of what they want to play.

The weakest option to me is removing IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan conflicts altogether, since the population who likes these conflicts would never get to enjoy them at all. It's the only option that completely removes a fun aspect of the game.


The second-best option, and best in the short term while the population is small: Allow IS vs IS / Clan vs Clan conflicts with only one bucket. Good since 75% of the time everyone still is able to play in each Conflict. There will be 25% of conflicts where a Clan-only or IS-only player has to sit out, but they will still get to play the majority of the time.

The best option in the long term: Two buckets. I would use promotions like Events to spur short term FP growth and get the population where it needs to be to support the 2 bucket approach. And, of course, make FP a fun thing that people will want to keep coming back to once they try out the new system.


For 12), I have recommended the following small change to the existing 3 options:

• Replace "Freelancer" with "Mercenary Freelancer": Earn 150% C-Bill bonus as a Merc in addition the the small XP boost. Fills whichever bucket they need to.
  
• Replace "Mercenary" with "Mercenary Contractor": Earn 100% C-Bill bonus as a Merc and 100% LP. Must choose a side, for which you earn the LP.

• Keep "Loyalist" as-is: Earn 150% LP. Much choose a side, for which you earn the LP with a bonus.

Notably, this change only modifies the reward payouts for the three existing options and their descriptions. This change could really help the queue times in the short term while making larger updates.




I like this change because, arguably, Freelancer is the unsung hero of Matchmaking currently. These folks are helping to stabilize the queue by filling slots without care for the reward. They should be rewarded. Furthermore, it makes sense for a Mercenary Freelancer who can fight for the highest bidder to get a bigger C-bill payoff.




EDIT: Fixed the 5) for Paul.

Edited by shaytalis, 28 May 2019 - 08:19 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

shaytalis, on 28 May 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

<snip>

You have NO idea how much you triggered my OCD by putting number 5 out of order with everything else. My shoulders are so tense right now it's not funny!

[shaytalis]

Paul Inouye, on 28 May 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

You have NO idea how much you triggered my OCD by putting number 5 out of order with everything else. My shoulders are so tense right now it's not funny!

Hhehehehehe I thought about fixing it.

EDIT: There you go.

Edited by shaytalis, 28 May 2019 - 05:54 PM.

[Usagiyama Shugo]

shaytalis, on 28 May 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

3) is addressed in that players can always choose to skip out on Faction play unless their Faction is directly represented. It would mean that they play significantly less, but this is their choice rather than inflicted upon them by the system etc. Furthermore, you could always choose to fight for any enemy (joining your IS friend) when the Conflict is between two enemies--thereby losing no LP at all.

I realize that you are still working on your post and that these are just some suggestions however I have, as I stated in my previous post, some serious qualms with this type of approach. I'm in a strictly IS loyal Merc unit. (Yes that is a thing) I don't own any clan mechs and, as it stands, have no intention of ever doing so. I'm certain I am not alone in this sentiment and that there are other players (loyalist, mercs, freelancers) who are IS or Clan loyal and have no intention of ever changing. It's seems to me that what you have suggested here is that I and those players similar to me are either stuck playing what ever conflict happens to be going on at the time or be stuck in QP hell for however many weeks/months it takes for a conflict that we would like to participate in comes around. I realize that I am probably talking about a minority of the player base here but still that's going to get real boring real fast. As it stands I can't even go on a quick scouting mission as a change of pace, how long do you really expect people to play a boring game?

[shaytalis]

Usagiyama Shugo, on 28 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

I realize that you are still working on your post and that these are just some suggestions however I have, as I stated in my previous post, some serious qualms with this type of approach. I'm in a strictly IS loyal Merc unit. (Yes that is a thing) I don't own any clan mechs and, as it stands, have no intention of ever doing so. I'm certain I am not alone in this sentiment and that there are other players (loyalist, mercs, freelancers) who are IS or Clan loyal and have no intention of ever changing. It's seems to me that what you have suggested here is that I and those players similar to me are either stuck playing what ever conflict happens to be going on at the time or be stuck in QP hell for however many weeks/months it takes for a conflict that we would like to participate in comes around. I realize that I am probably talking about a minority of the player base here but still that's going to get real boring real fast. As it stands I can't even go on a quick scouting mission as a change of pace, how long do you really expect people to play a boring game?

I think that yes, one of the costs of allowing IS vs IS conflicts to occur is that people who refuse to use IS mechs will not be involved in that conflict. I will add this as another desire on the post and address there the conflict between the two, but essentially we have to choose between:

10) Some players want to fight in IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan conflicts.
11) Some players want to fight only as Clan, some players want to fight only as IS.

I'll update my post with these two.


EDIT: Updated my post.
EDIT EDIT: Added a little more detail to point out associated costs with the three options I'm considering.

Usagiyama Shugo, on 28 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

As it stands I can't even go on a quick scouting mission as a change of pace, how long do you really expect people to play a boring game?

If you read through what I added to the post, keeping the queue time low vs. having options for everyone is a really tough balancing act. I think that the best approach is to allow a little more options rather than narrowing things too sharply. It means needing a larger FP population to support, but it's better for long-term growth. The critical point is getting more of the existing population to get into FP so that 2 buckets are sustainable. That means making FP more fun, which is again the goal of all of this.

Admittedly this thread is supposed to be about LP rewards / Loyalty and not queue times--that's actually why I didn't discuss these two points originally. But it is hard to separate in some places as we can see here.

Edited by shaytalis, 28 May 2019 - 06:19 PM.

[Navid A1]

Just wanted to point out the number 1 issue with FP that is being completely ignored



THIS is a problem when people can't switch factions when they want:




THIS is what happens:








But sure... we should talk about LP and rewards... sure, right... while FP is dying!

[shaytalis]

Navid A1, on 28 May 2019 - 06:30 PM, said:

THIS is a problem when people can't switch factions when they want:

I'll add this to the list in just a minute, gotta drive home real quick.

EDIT: Updated my post with your concern and my suggestion for addressing it.

Edited by shaytalis, 28 May 2019 - 06:50 PM.

[SilentScreamer]

Paul Inouye, on 28 May 2019 - 03:37 PM, said:

Seeing a common thread in some of the responses here that I'd like to clarify something...

This discussion is about a system that allows Loyalists to stay with a Faction and earn LP without being locked out (as the current system is doing). The Faction swapping has nothing to do with the queue/match maker... it's about being able to change Factions or not and how LP is gained while being able to take part in all Conflicts like Mercs and Freelancers can.

I'm not saying addressing the queue and match maker is off the table.. just that this is about the Loyalist Role/Activity in FP.

In respects to Loyalist, I think it should be an extremely strong comitment, but without nailing down some of the other components of Faction Play, it is difficult to decide what to suggest for Loyalists.

My opinion on Loyalist/Mercenary/Freelancer:

Loyalists : players or units who are FANATICS. Loyal to death.
- Selected in FP menu and permenant until broken.
- Excluded from FP for 1 week if broken.
- If Conflict is specific to their Faction, they queue normally
- Can join any Conflict via Call to Arms. Any LPs earned automatically converted to their Loyalty Faction at 1 to 1.

Mercenaries : just want to fight and earn rewards, do not care who they fight.
- Career choosen from FP menu, but like current Freelancer, has no Faction affliation.
- No faction affliliation means no loyalty breakage penalties.
- Earns Loyalty points in whatever Faction put out the Call to Arms.
- Unique Career ability of Mercenaries to convert each Faction Loyalty Points to Mercenary Points.
- Joins each match via Call to Arms. This ensures better queue balance, since mercs would be distributed equaly on both sides of a Conflict if needed, or the underpopulated side in most cases.

Freelancer : everyone else, default for new players to FP.
- same as currently implemented. No affliation and waits for Call to Arms.
- earns full loyalty points in whatever Faction put out the Call to Arms.


Loyalty Points as a new Currency with infinite acculmulation rather than a table with limited rewards. This idea has been batted back and forth, probably since CW Phase 2.
1) Limited rewards were one major reason large teams rotated Factions. LP Currency lacks that limit.

2) Maximizing LP earnings per match under your proposed system requires Loyalist Status. Under my proposed changes to career, everone earns full LP each match, eliminating the need to switch loyalty to maximize earnings.

3) What you should be able to buy with LPs is any reward on the tables now.Mercenaries are probably not interested in Faction Fluff items like Rank Titles, Banners and Warhorns. Mercs likely want free mechbays, c-bills, XP, and MC. Most Loyalists probably want choice of all the rewards. Freelancers are probably too new or too seasoned to care about rewards.

4) Since new players should be rewarded and mechbays are important - Add new Achievements for Faction Play to mimic the "easy to earn" faction level 2 mechbay reward. Mechbay LP price would likely be closer to the LP needed for at least rank 6, not rank 2.

That's my thoughts.

Edited by SilentScreamer, 28 May 2019 - 08:43 PM.

[-Spectre]

Navid A1, on 28 May 2019 - 06:30 PM, said:

<snip>

Those concerns ARE being addressed. Just not here, since this thread is focused on loyalists.