207 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED] I have provided exactly what is wrong with the OP's ideas. As stated by the OP every mechanic can and will be abused, thus it's obvious that it's easier to abuse mechanics that one has suggested. The system would be a disaster as it is designed to allow large groups to dominate it. All the other fluff is there to try to deflect the obvious thrust. Allowing large groups to stomp others and generally act like bullies is poor design. If said group has that reputation, then that argues that one should carefully examine the source.
Clearly some folks like a challenge, some are just bullies and no amount of words will wash away actions.Who's actually going to come out and say they want to bully smaller groups around? Of course people will argue they want "fair" fights and "challenge".
The real key is that people, and not just players know where this comes from and how many grains of salt one should use in examining it. If this is so inconsequential and misguided why is it continually attacked? If you believe your reputation is fine then just ignore these posts and let the logic of your arguments speak for themselves. Isn't that how the forums are supposed to work? [REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 20 August 2012 - 10:52 AM.
Removed quote of deleted content and other accusatory sentences

[AmnesiaLab]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

If you believe your reputation is fine then just ignore these posts and let the logic of your arguments speak for themselves. Isn't that how the forums are supposed to work?

Well, considering the OP has more than 120 likes, I would say the logic of the OP has spoken for itself.

As for the guild size thing, what does it really matter if actual matches are 8v8, or 12v12? That keeps one large force from using sheer weight of numbers to steamroll another. It sounds like you want a cap on guild size to exclude goons from the game, but that isn't what would happen. They'd still come out in the same numbers as they always do. They would just have a network of alliances.

[Aaoogaa]

Good posts. The only issue I can see is that MWO will not be only merc corps but will include the IS states. A merc company would never be able to hold a conquered planet. They would not have the man power or resources to control the population. If a merc company were to grow to powerful the heads of the actual major powers would have them destroyed. The merc corps could never hold and control land without consent from the governments surrounding them. That being said. I agree with your post. My thoughts.

Fighting for the houses should be "safer". Repair costs should be included, but there should be less overall reward or slower reward progression as the house takes most of what is won but keeps you in fighting shape. Promotion comes with victory and faction rewards come with promotion. The warrior will be allowed to be more aggressive because the house will take care of them as long as they win. Geared more toward the casual gamer.

Merc corps rewards should be quicker but more costly to replace. Repair costs should be higher beyond salvage (bidding should include the option to have salvage). Operating costs will be higher. You will need to either hitch a ride or save up to purchase operation cost savers. A merc owned drop ship would lower drop costs. A merc owned jump ship would lower transport costs and allow for more contracts to be bid on. Having these would raise overall operation costs but allow the corp to be more active and greatly increase overall income. After a certain point merc corps costs should increase dramatically...a lance of mercs can operate out of a bar and might have very few support staff but have to hire a drop ship and be at the mercy of houses for jump ship access. A company would have a headquarters and more staff thus costing more and more. This would naturally limit merc corp size but still allow for the highly successful and active corp. to grow rather large. The more hardcore player would gravitate toward this area. No guts no glory.

The casual gamers would always have a home with their IS house. A casual guild could operate there with less worry about overhead and enjoy the game for the fun of it. While the hardcore would be drawn more toward the greater personal reward and recognition for growing and maintaining a merc corp. Both could be successful in the amount of time they invest.

It all breaks down to the IS houses will always rule (well until the clans arrive). No merc corp is going to take over the universe. The merc corps have their place in the grand scheme of things and should be rewarded for taking the risk with personal glory and fame.

When a merc corps takes a planet for a house the planet will belong to the house not the merc corp. The merc corp will get paid, pack up, and leave for another job. I am not sure why people keep thinking the merc corps will ever hold territory. Outter planets might take 100s of victories to take but as you move further into a territory and the house focuses it forces you might need 1000s of victories over the other faction to claim the planet. To take it back they might only need 100s. So while you are sleeping your faction might lose out and the map will be back to where you started the next day.

Edited by Aaoogaa, 20 August 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[RG Notch]

AmnesiaLab, on 20 August 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Well, considering the OP has more than 120 likes, I would say the logic of the OP has spoken for itself.

As for the guild size thing, what does it really matter if actual matches are 8v8, or 12v12? That keeps one large force from using sheer weight of numbers to steamroll another. It sounds like you want a cap on guild size to exclude goons from the game, but that isn't what would happen. They'd still come out in the same numbers as they always do. They would just have a network of alliances.

Obviously many of those likes are simply guild members rendering them meaningless. If they are forced to split into many groups so be it. Clearly they see this as an issue or they wouldn't be posting about it and bringing out the troops to like it and bump it. A network of alliances is clearly is more difficult to manage or else they would be for a hard limit. If nothing can be done to stop large groups than the system in itself will be a failure and might as well be scrapped. I understand that some people want to be bullies, or at least a member of a bully organization or else guilds like this wouldn't exist. I also understand that others are happy enough to have some crumbs to pick over as the suggested system would allow. I prefer a system where no large group can by dint of numbers alone dominate it. I don't have a good alternative, but that doesn't stop me from believing these ideas are not good for the whole of the game.

[Gwaihir]

Before you go too far off the deep end, remember that this entire post (and the one before it) was discussing mechanics for Merc companies, not house units. Goons are primarily (Some prefer Steiner and Marik) rolling as a Liao unit when the game launches, not a merc corp.
Also, if you followed the parts about power projection from the OP, and the proposed lockdown mechanics, both of those provide more of an advantage to numerous smaller corps in alliances along a shared border, as opposed to the one goon megacorp that you're convinced is just waiting to bulldoze across the periphery. While there are a lot of us, we're still a small fraction of the total active player population, and the game hasn't even launched or done significant advertising yet. We're only a drop in the bucket of F2P hordes that the game is likely (hopefully) to attract.

[fil5000]

It's also not helping your argument to throw around emotive terms like "bullying" - there's some actual points being articulated in your replies now which is fair enough as it all fosters discussion, but do stop trying to characterise 160,000 people as game breaking thugs.

[StormFist]

If a group has more numbers why shouldn't they be allowed to do better? Obviously they shouldn't be able to completely dominate the game, but PringlesPCant has addressed your concern in Lesson #2 Part #1, which you might try rereading

[Agamemnon78]

I´m a father and a husband. I have to work for my daily meal.
But I love gaming and I´d love to play MW:O actively over a large timespan.

So my proposals to prevent bornouts and an overwhelming impact of large clans:

1. Take some more "Tabletop-Mechanics" into acount.
Divide the timeline in "rounds" of 7 days duration.
Every clan gets 2-4 "points of movement" in each round (example). Stays to decide, wether PoM are simply possible battles, or if to divide in movement and battles.
Clans with 8 to 40 members get 2 points, 41 to 100 3points and so on. But cap it.
2. Once a planet gets attacked, the two involved clans decide about the time of the battle (in a time-zone related corridor). The battle for a planet or province can only be fought once in a week, but consists of several matches. The losing player has the "right" to try to regain it (but that has to wait a week). That try can only be made once.
3. to prevent large clans to be overwhelmingly powerful, consider this: Theres a max "army-size" of 12. those 12 mechs battle for the province. Reinforcements from the clan could only be sent in the next week. Think of it as independent TaskForces.
And let the costs for the movement of large armies (if the concept of only 12 wont fit) virtually explode. So large wealthy clans can risk it and stage a large assault, but that drains their purse significantly. Or they can try and stage a smaller assault at a target in the vicinity for less cost.
4. Give the clans some opportunities for "raids" in backwater-planets or so, for salvage and the occasional random goodie. to bridge the gap between battles (if theres a need for it).
5. Combine it with Tournaments, the clans can compete in, and everybody should have something to play in...

I know, quite some random bones to gnaw at, but just stretch the battle-phases into longer "rounds", to give us the opportunity to enjoy the game for quite a long time.
Embed the clan warfare into a more strategically timetable. Just consider the times for space-travel (warp or whatsoever in mind). A major battel every 24h is absurd and wont fit into the Battletech fluff either.
Put some minor battles on route to the capital, let there be some 2-3 days between clan-clashes. Fill the gaps with tournaments and raids for those who wish to do so....

So i say it again:
I do not want to burn out and start to hate the game, for then I´ll quit. It´s as simple as that.
The average Battletech fan is between 27 and 40 years old and has a real life. The amount of players actually plaing MEchwarrior wont be as huge as in WoW, WoT or whatsoever, cause its a tactical simulation of bipedal tanks. So it needs experience and tactical planning to win. Not the usual grinding and gathering of nice Traits and Specials which go BOOM.

Give us a game we still love to play after 4 months and we will be with you for years to come.

Deliver it as a oppressive game which isnt a "game" after all, but where you are forced to play every night, you will soon be alone on your servers. Mobilize the Battletech community and do not throw them in the furnace for nothing.

Cheers! :-)

[Nekki Basara]

Actually from the perspective of the Word of Lowtax a smaller number of members per alliance is beneficial as it gives all our big fish a small pond to be king of and avoids ego-bumping disagreements causing goon meltdown. Really the OP is a discussion of how a low member limit is a discouragement to the "casual" gamer and a benefit to those units with highly-compartmentalised C3 structures (IE: goons, look at EvE before the advent of that skill that let all goons mob up in one super-group).

At base level, the larger member limit prevents the "whole-team must be A-team" mentality, where a unit refuses casual or low-leveled players because they can't contribute at the macro scale according to the current metagame as well as an idealised perfect player, be it from time, mech garage or skill that prevents this contribution. Where the choices for membership are limited, the successful leader will have to limit membership to the best they can attract and not waste slots with users that need carrying.

[AmnesiaLab]

Nekki Basara, on 20 August 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

At base level, the larger member limit prevents the "whole-team must be A-team" mentality, where a unit refuses casual or low-leveled players because they can't contribute at the macro scale according to the current metagame as well as an idealised perfect player, be it from time, mech garage or skill that prevents this contribution. Where the choices for membership are limited, the successful leader will have to limit membership to the best they can attract and not waste slots with users that need carrying.

Exactly. That's what I'm worried about. I'm starting a highly demanding program at university in a week, and I'm not going to have the time to devote to a game that would be required for guild membership if the member limit is low. I'm one of those players who would fall to the wayside because my real life is just too busy right now. I bought a Founders pack so I could play the game while I had time, and because the format of the game seemed to be such that I could jump on and play for a little while without having to endure a huge timesink to be a viable player. If the CW format means you have to be omgsuperelite to actually get into a guild (or at least a guild that isn't just a whipping boy for all the other guilds), then you're going to lose players like me who can't handle that sort of time demand.

Burnout issues are also key. If I have to be able to play every day, I'm just not viable as a guild member. Most of us have real lives. Don't punish your subscriber base. When a game becomes a chore, your player base dries up quickly.

Edited by AmnesiaLab, 20 August 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[RG Notch]

So people want to just be nominal parts of a big group? So instead of not getting into a guild you are simply proud to be a non contributing member? I guess since the WoT model allows chits for simply being a member that is the contribution people want to make? To be there to give the rest of the guild another chit to move on the map? This laughable idea that a huge guild will actually utilize any member that wouldn't make the cut in a smaller guild is silly. Of course the huge guild wants lots of members to have options, but do you think they will actually utilize said "sub optimal" members?
I get it people don't want the game to over take their lives, how does being a non active member in a guild help? Seriously, huge guilds will still discriminate who they actually use in any action that matters. All you are providing them is more chits to move around and an emergency plan if the top tier is not available? How does that really benefit the member? Obviously it helps the huge clan but still marginalizes the "lesser" player. Then again I guess some people want to simply be an extraneous part of a winner than to have a system where all can have fun and be integral.
If the limit was a help to huge guilds why are so many of them for no limits?

[Nekki Basara]

You're completely ignoring how irrelevant the existance of chits was to the WoT model after your unit hit six players, IE: the number of viable teams you can field from the roster of a full 100 player unit. Sure there's some use of chits for subterfuge and sneaky "one MS-1 shows up to take a territory" moves, but in practice this works about 0% of the time. The real issue is the time sink in the game, which MWO has bypassed in one way by avoiding the murderous grind to "Tier 10 mechs" and as yet unaddressed in terms of "must be on at 7PM <awkward timezone> to participate", which you're also ignoring. A larger player pool prevents burnout, and not every player has to be the ideal player just to mitigate the chance of player burnout at critical moments.

As simply as I can put it: a burden shared is a burden halved.

Regarding limits being beneficial to huge units: the point isn't that the limit helps a large unit so much as the limit is less detrimental to large units than small units when certain things are taken into account. At best a small limit of, hypothetically, 12 members imposes a single layer of organisational complexity to a unit such as the Word of Lowtax. It has taken me about five seconds to work out how it would turn into an unholy shell-game of unit hopping so as to add another level of confusion as to who and what we'd actually be fielding on any given day in any given area. Furthermore, we've already planned for it and actually have several sub-factions operating as coherent units simply because some people are all serious all the time while others want to run around SQUAWKing with flamers and even more just "want to drivan mek whatever" which lets us conveniently pidgeonhole our members into playstyles so that one can join a group and be reasonably sure one will mesh well. The worst thing that happens is that the various units have to read the clubhouse forums and coordinate actions as a whole, which... is already happening.

Really, when you get right down to it any artificial limitation on association will just be bypassed in an organic fashion using methods not accounted for in the game and not controlable whatsoever therein, so PGI may as well limit the damage done to the casual player instead of crusading to prevent the monsters under the bed ganging up on the comparatively few hardcore players.

[Gwaihir]

This falls in to the classic, and thoroughly beaten to death WoW forums arguments covering casual vs hardcore players, complete with the same mistakes and fallacies. There's a difference between a hardcore player that is both good skill wise, and can dedicate set blocks of time to fighting over some planet, someone that is perfectly adequate skill wise, but that cannot necessarily commit blocks of time every night, and someone that is just plain bad at mechs.

In any group, no matter the size, there are always differences in the skill levels of the players involved- From the most bleeding edge wow raid group to the most months behind casual raiders (To continue the wow analogy). Sometimes the differences are even pretty significant, but even in the top groups that's not as big a deal as you might think. The far more important aspect is that people play in these big social groups, because they enjoy *socializing* with the people in said group, and in this case, blasting apart giant robots with the people in said group. In an uncapped group, who cares if a dude can only show up on weekends, if he's a riot to play with? Someone with limited time like that won't be there every day fighting to control planets, but the social bonds that knit groups together are *absolutely critical* to the health of online communities. WoW forgot that point, to it's detriment, and I would hate to see this game make the same mistake.

Long after the core gameplay itself might stop being totally enjoyable on it's own merits, people will continue to play if they have a good social group around to play with. Without friends left playing a game, it's far, far easier to just put it aside and never look back.

I can't overemphasize the parts about burnout that Nekki Basara posted above enough. From your own posting history this is obviously a wasted effort, but I'm posting more :words: anyhow because even though it doesn't get through your head, other people will hopefully see it as well.

[RG Notch]

Nekki Basara, on 20 August 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

You're completely ignoring how irrelevant the existance of chits was to the WoT model after your unit hit six players, IE: the number of viable teams you can field from the roster of a full 100 player unit. Sure there's some use of chits for subterfuge and sneaky "one MS-1 shows up to take a territory" moves, but in practice this works about 0% of the time. The real issue is the time sink in the game, which MWO has bypassed in one way by avoiding the murderous grind to "Tier 10 mechs" and as yet unaddressed in terms of "must be on at 7PM <awkward timezone> to participate", which you're also ignoring. A larger player pool prevents burnout, and not every player has to be the ideal player just to mitigate the chance of player burnout at critical moments.

As simply as I can put it: a burden shared is a burden halved.

Regarding limits being beneficial to huge units: the point isn't that the limit helps a large unit so much as the limit is less detrimental to large units than small units when certain things are taken into account. At best a small limit of, hypothetically, 12 members imposes a single layer of organisational complexity to a unit such as the Word of Lowtax. It has taken me about five seconds to work out how it would turn into an unholy shell-game of unit hopping so as to add another level of confusion as to who and what we'd actually be fielding on any given day in any given area. Furthermore, we've already planned for it and actually have several sub-factions operating as coherent units simply because some people are all serious all the time while others want to run around SQUAWKing with flamers and even more just "want to drivan mek whatever" which lets us conveniently pidgeonhole our members into playstyles so that one can join a group and be reasonably sure one will mesh well. The worst thing that happens is that the various units have to read the clubhouse forums and coordinate actions as a whole, which... is already happening.

Really, when you get right down to it any artificial limitation on association will just be bypassed in an organic fashion using methods not accounted for in the game and not controlable whatsoever therein, so PGI may as well limit the damage done to the casual player instead of crusading to prevent the monsters under the bed ganging up on the comparatively few hardcore players.

So I'm still not getting it, if the limit is a benefit to such huge groups why would a huge group support no limits? You can spin and spin all you like and maybe you legitimately mean it, but I find it dubious. The constant refrain that it is actually beneficial to huge groups rings untrue to me. If you already have it worked out then why argue for it? You can say it's about being "fair" or what not but nothing I have ever seen would lead me to believe that is the foremost thought of an organization with the reputation your group has.
I'm sure it's all slander and lies and jealousy or something that paints such groups in so poor a light, then I read some posts from said group members and realize where there's smoke there's fire.
Besides it's not simply me who holds these ideas, so I'm less than worried about how it will be treated. All the likes and bumps in the world will be unlikely to sway those who have made up their minds as to what the aims of certain groups are in this game. And I'm not simply talking about the player base as we know who makes the final decisions on these matters.

[AmnesiaLab]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

So people want to just be nominal parts of a big group? So instead of not getting into a guild you are simply proud to be a non contributing member? I guess since the WoT model allows chits for simply being a member that is the contribution people want to make? To be there to give the rest of the guild another chit to move on the map? This laughable idea that a huge guild will actually utilize any member that wouldn't make the cut in a smaller guild is silly. Of course the huge guild wants lots of members to have options, but do you think they will actually utilize said "sub optimal" members?
I get it people don't want the game to over take their lives, how does being a non active member in a guild help? Seriously, huge guilds will still discriminate who they actually use in any action that matters. All you are providing them is more chits to move around and an emergency plan if the top tier is not available? How does that really benefit the member? Obviously it helps the huge clan but still marginalizes the "lesser" player. Then again I guess some people want to simply be an extraneous part of a winner than to have a system where all can have fun and be integral.
If the limit was a help to huge guilds why are so many of them for no limits?

I never said I have any intention of being a non-active member. Just because my time is limited doesn't mean I intend to freeload and just ride along with a guild. What you're talking about is exactly what I'm worried about: That I will be considered an inactive player simply because I can't log on every single day and devote hours on end to the game. Your answer is that all casual players are just completely screwed. That's exactly what the OP was concerned with. I may be a casual player, but I intend to keep a premium account to make the most of my time when I do play. That's a steady revenue stream. If I am marginalized to the point where I cannot contribute to the game, I'll just quit playing.

There should be a place in community warfare that doesn't require a huge timesink. That's not to say I can't be on at a certain time to help my team with a fight; it's just going to have to work with my schedule. If my choices are between large guilds being major forces and small guilds denying casual gamers the opportunity to take part in one of the most important aspects of the game, I'll take large guilds any day of the week.

[Nekki Basara]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

So I'm still not getting it, if the limit is a benefit to such huge groups why would a huge group support no limits? You can spin and spin all you like and maybe you legitimately mean it, but I find it dubious. The constant refrain that it is actually beneficial to huge groups rings untrue to me. If you already have it worked out then why argue for it? You can say it's about being "fair" or what not but nothing I have ever seen would lead me to believe that is the foremost thought of an organization with the reputation your group has.
I'm sure it's all slander and lies and jealousy or something that paints such groups in so poor a light, then I read some posts from said group members and realize where there's smoke there's fire.
Besides it's not simply me who holds these ideas, so I'm less than worried about how it will be treated. All the likes and bumps in the world will be unlikely to sway those who have made up their minds as to what the aims of certain groups are in this game. And I'm not simply talking about the player base as we know who makes the final decisions on these matters.

You're not getting it because you don't want to get it, you need Goons to be the monster under the bed for whatever reason you've got.

Sure you can ignore how we actually want a game that we can enjoy playing for a long time, or you can keep posting hints as to how we're not liked by mysterious higher powers which will prevent any action being taken on our suggestions or anything else you want but then I put this to you:

In the board game Risk, an advance is made by massing a blob, pushing in a direction and then leaving one single man behind to claim the territory. What is to stop "us" (or any other large group) doing the same in multiple directions by forming a new unit with all but one member of the old for each new push? If so, clearly the small member limit situation benefits us more, and you should be arguing in favour of the large-to-no member limit, because we've clearly got an agenda and are using reverse psychology to make the devs build the game to advantages we alone possess but are refusing to tell anyone about because we're evil.

Or something.

AmnesiaLab, on 20 August 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

If I am marginalized to the point where I cannot contribute to the game, I'll just quit playing.

Most importantly, you'll stop paying and without you paying or the other players having you to compete against... who is paying the bills?

[RG Notch]

Nekki Basara, on 20 August 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

You're not getting it because you don't want to get it, you need Goons to be the monster under the bed for whatever reason you've got.

Sure you can ignore how we actually want a game that we can enjoy playing for a long time, or you can keep posting hints as to how we're not liked by mysterious higher powers which will prevent any action being taken on our suggestions or anything else you want but then I put this to you:

In the board game Risk, an advance is made by massing a blob, pushing in a direction and then leaving one single man behind to claim the territory. What is to stop "us" (or any other large group) doing the same in multiple directions by forming a new unit with all but one member of the old for each new push? If so, clearly the small member limit situation benefits us more, and you should be arguing in favour of the large-to-no member limit, because we've clearly got an agenda and are using reverse psychology to make the devs build the game to advantages we alone possess but are refusing to tell anyone about because we're evil.

Or something.

Most importantly, you'll stop paying and without you paying or the other players having you to compete against... who is paying the bills?

It's simple how you stop a Risk style game, you don't have a risk style map. Wow that took a lot of thought.
So being marginalized by being a dunsul in a huge clan is acceptable? I guess people have different definitions of what being marginalized is. Me I feel being either part of a smaller clan that has to play in the lil clan area is being marginalized. To me being one of thousands in a huge clan where I don't actually get to do anything unless the top tier guys aren't available is being marginalized. And if I feel marginalized I will stop playing as well. It's not only the huge clans and the casuals you seem so falsely concerned with who will stop playing and paying.

[Nekki Basara]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

It's simple how you stop a Risk style game, you don't have a risk style map. Wow that took a lot of thought.
So being marginalized by being a dunsul in a huge clan is acceptable? I guess people have different definitions of what being marginalized is. Me I feel being either part of a smaller clan that has to play in the lil clan area is being marginalized. To me being one of thousands in a huge clan where I don't actually get to do anything unless the top tier guys aren't available is being marginalized. And if I feel marginalized I will stop playing as well. It's not only the huge clans and the casuals you seem so falsely concerned with who will stop playing and paying.

Please describe a map which has discrete areas of engagement that does not fit into the umbrella description of "Risk style". I don't know what a "dunsul" is and neither does google, please explain. Furthermore, you've gone down the slippery slope on a strawman and fallen right off the end. At no point did anyone advocate a MINIMUM size for a unit, but you have gone and suggested that you will be forced into a large clan via some implied means. Poor form on a number of counts. Please continue to be hysterical and sarcastic though, it's working wonders on my thought processes.

Edited by miSs, 20 August 2012 - 03:13 PM.
erased deleted quote.

[fil5000]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

It's simple how you stop a Risk style game, you don't have a risk style map. Wow that took a lot of thought.
So being marginalized by being a dunsul in a huge clan is acceptable? I guess people have different definitions of what being marginalized is. Me I feel being either part of a smaller clan that has to play in the lil clan area is being marginalized. To me being one of thousands in a huge clan where I don't actually get to do anything unless the top tier guys aren't available is being marginalized. And if I feel marginalized I will stop playing as well. It's not only the huge clans and the casuals you seem so falsely concerned with who will stop playing and paying.

Condescension and sarcasm aside, it's a fair point that balancing the game for both types of player is an issue. I don't know if PGI thinks that the merc/house unit thing is going to make that distinction or if there's some other balance element that is going to do it.

Also, no-one is "falsely" concerned with anything, it's a discussion thread to get viewpoints over to the developers - you clearly have concerns about the stuff pringles has proposed and you're airing those views, continually chucking around emotive language is only ever going to undermine your point.

[Gwaihir]

I would actually guess that the developers envision house warfare as more of a domain for true casual players and lone wolves, where you can just align with a house, and hit "launch," either solo or with a small group of buddies to be thrown in to random missions that will provide a global buff or bonus to house X in some minor way. You don't have to worry about the outside infrastructure of a merc company, or focusing on certain contracts or plantary objectives, you should just be able to hop in and go shoot stuff. The houses with their much larger populations just seem like the better environment to support that type of not necessarily focused play, although we know that houses will be in the business of taking planets as well.

With a setup like that, I would think that more hardcore types would naturally be drawn to potentially more regimented merc companies, but that's just speculation at this point. Neither does that get around the need for healthy company sizes to mitigate issues like attendance and burnout.