126 replies to this topic

[Nick Makiaveli]

3Xtr3m3, on 13 May 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

As to your second point, we have not seen how the contracts work.
Who says that as a Merc, I can take a company of 12 Mechs to a battle, have them all destroyed, and make enough from the contract to cover losses, repairs, ammo, etc.? If you have seen that stated by the Devs. please post a link to that page, because I have not seen it.

The above section I've bolded and underlined is where your argument fails. YOU will not take a company into battle. Technically, the merc company won't even go into battle. It will be individuals who just happen to all belong to the same "guild".

There is no need for this, from a financial standpoint, since there is no way the merc company can go bankrupt from losses. The individuals can't even be bankrupted since your mech will always be repaired to a bare minimum. Granted this might mean you go into battle with little to nothing in the way of armor/weapons but at least then your repair bills will be light. You will thus be able to start saving for full repairs and hopefully learn while running around in tissue paper armor and carrying .22 into a artillery fight.

[Insidious Johnson]

The "No's" have it. Can't say it wasn't offered as an incentivised bridge between casual and hardcore. Next topic plz!

[Mason Grimm]

Folks, this thread is full of a lot of little barbs and jabs here and there. I've gone through and cleaned up some of the posts that I can find.

Let's keep it a little nicer shall we; even if we disagree with each others points. Save it for the battlefield or TS3

[Grithis]

Mason Grimm, on 15 May 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Folks, this thread is full of a lot of little barbs and jabs here and there. I've gone through and cleaned up some of the posts that I can find.

Let's keep it a little nicer shall we; even if we disagree with each others points. Save it for the battlefield or TS3

Agreed. While I don't like the whole stop loss clause idea, I don't see any reason for some of the personal insults I've seen on this thread. Some of the posters on this thread are the exact type of person that takes all the fun out of online gaming.

Let the man have his idea. Vote and give your 2 cents. Then.... shut the hell up and leave him alone!

[Moosehead]

Grithis, on 15 May 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Agreed. While I don't like the whole stop loss clause idea, I don't see any reason for some of the personal insults I've seen on this thread. Some of the posters on this thread are the exact type of person that takes all the fun out of online gaming.

Let the man have his idea. Vote and give your 2 cents. Then.... shut the hell up and leave him alone!

Back with MW roleplay, used to call such, umm. 'Gung Ho' players Daleks.

They would have characters with nothing but combat skills. Other skills were a waste to them

Take them out of the mech, and all there was a nasty blob with bad attitude, that couldn't do much else besides pulling a trigger and couldn't wait till they could shoot some more, with abuse to anyone who thought there was a place for roleplay. Cut into combat time

[Shephard]

What you are describing is NOT what "Stop-Loss" means.

[wwiiogre]

stop/loss is what you put in for an AI computer run enemy, not for a player run enemy. What is the point of running your own merc group if you do not get to make the call of when a contract/mission is to expensive. Especially if this is put in as an attempt to make noob/lone wolf players feel good about themselves instead of having those players playing to win and paying the cost of failure.

The original BT rules do have morale in them and they do discuss when a player/or enemy npc should retreat and or eject. What is proposed here is none of those. What is proposed here is an arbitrary win for anyone but Mercs.

Sorry, Do not like it for lots of reasons. Especially the coddling of new players/lone wolf players at the expense of any other player. Since there will be other game modes other than the metagame fighting for planets. New Players/Lone Wolf players can play that mode instead of jumping into the game mode where the sharks swim.

Chris

[3Xtr3m3]

Bolo Warden, on 15 May 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

The only time I could see this as being viable would be if a commander and his/her group were on Outreach, or similar planet for house factions, and using the training fields. This would be a group scenario imposed upon by the review board, to help evaluate companies. As the group dealt more damage while currently taking less in return, the higher the review board's scores. If you hit x%, then your team is done playing in the sandlots. At that point, a suggestion that the group should practice their skills, tactics and retry. But in the real world, I can't see how this could be useful in-game. If the commander decide to pull the plug and leave the match because things aren't going his/her way, so be it. If you and your opponent decide to call the match after one side or the other losses 30%, so be it. But to make everyone follow this type of thought (i.e. if one side loses 30% of their capability, they lose the match), I would have to strongly protest.

If PGI makes EVERYONE and EVERY BATTLE subject to the 30% Stop/Loss Clause, I would protest too.
Good thing that was NEVER stated by me.

[3Xtr3m3]

Shephard, on 17 May 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

What you are describing is NOT what "Stop-Loss" means.

I am throwing out ideas hoping for a meeting of minds on what we do want in the game.

Nick Makiaveli, on 15 May 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

There is no need for this, from a financial standpoint, since there is no way the merc company can go bankrupt from losses. The individuals can't even be bankrupted since your mech will always be repaired to a bare minimum. Granted this might mean you go into battle with little to nothing in the way of armor/weapons but at least then your repair bills will be light. You will thus be able to start saving for full repairs and hopefully learn while running around in tissue paper armor and carrying .22 into a artillery fight.

So you state Merc Corps. can not go Bankrupt. When did the Devs say that?
You add nothing to this discussion other than you do not want this for anyone.
Your message has been heard. Please ADD to a helpful discussion of Stop/Loss or start your own thread against it.

Respectfully submitted,
3Xtr3me

Insidious Johnson, on 15 May 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

The "No's" have it. Can't say it wasn't offered as an incentivised bridge between casual and hardcore. Next topic plz!

NO,
I am not done discussing it.

[3Xtr3m3]

AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL

I am proposing that MW:O establish at least four Non Player Controlled Mercenary Corporation Factions.
Just because it is the same ones in the MW4 Mercenarys game, in my example, it would be;
The Kell Hounds
Wolf's Dragoons
Northwind Highlanders
and Gray Death Legion
These would have benefis unique to each. Be it tech, Mechs, color schemes, Decals, Wallpapers, etc. etc.

I want TWO of them chosen by whatever method the devs decide, to be only able to accept Stop/Loss Clause contracts.
The players would decide which contract(s) they want to play.
The details of the contracts I leave to the Dev. But a Stop/Loss Clause is built in.
I am proposing that; at the point that the payment rendered, for even a lost battle, minus damages done to particpating players mechs, and ammo equals nothing, the match is over.

+Payment for battle participation
-Damages
-Ammo Costs
____________
$0 = End of Battle.

This is an actual proposal as opposed to all the so-called proposals, that some seem to insist that I am trying to impose on them.
This is to my mind, the absolute bare minimum.
There should be other instances, where players can decide for themselves, whether or not to take contracts with the Stop/Loss Clause in it.

Can players decide to NEVER, take a Contract like this.
Absolutely. Just don't join the two factions with must take Stop/Loss Clause Contracts.

Can players somehow NEVER GO UP AGAINST A TEAM WITH STOP/LOSS CLAUSES.
I don't know,
Should it be an option on the Contract selection screen?

Should damages to players be recompensed BEFORE anyone gets any C-bills benefits?
This should be true in 95% of the cases. Abuses of this should not be rewarded though.
Someone who backshoots his own teammates and then oveheats and blows up his own mech should face
review.


A Filter for available Contracts?
Shrugging my shoulders here.
If the Devs want to make that an option, then they will.
If they decide, you don't know if the other Team has a Stop/Loss Clause, that is their call.

What about an in the field decision to override the Stop/Loss Clause and carry the battle to a full conclusive end?
That is something I would want, but it is not included in this proposal, because it is above the bare minimum requirements that I want to see in the game for this idea.

Ask questions, add ideas, state your support, anything CONSTRUCTIVE.

Edited by 3Xtr3m3, 18 May 2012 - 02:31 PM.

[3Xtr3m3]

I think this could be the ideal situation for players who are not gung ho fully hardcore.
The new player who has never heard of MW/BT could spend a lot of time under this kind of protection.
Learning the ins and outs of the controls. Learning the lore. Deciding which teams are worthy of the new players support. Earning XP and Loyalty points (Though probably, not a lot of C-bills).

Your thoughts?

[eZZip]

3Xtr3m3, on 19 May 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

I think this could be the ideal situation for players who are not gung ho fully hardcore.

Who gives a flying **** if somebody dies in game and has to pay a fee that the devs already said is easily covered by the money you get from losing? Throw them into the fire in games with other noobs or give them a tutorial and then have them play with other noobs; there is no need for this suggestion that can impact people who aren't new.

Edited by eZZip, 19 May 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[3Xtr3m3]

Yes there is. You just don't see it.

[eZZip]

Wow, great argument there. "You're just wrong!"

What if I told you that there is no point to your suggestion and that you merely and incorrectly think that there is?

[3Xtr3m3]

Then I would say "you have made your point" move on to some other topic, nothing for you to see here.
Especially since no one can state clearly concisely why this is such a horrid idea other than "they don't like it"

[Volthorne]

3Xtr3m3, on 19 May 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Then I would say "you have made your point" move on to some other topic, nothing for you to see here.
Especially since no one can state clearly concisely why this is such a horrid idea other than "they don't like it"

PLENTY of people have stated why it shouldn't be included. I even gave you a perfectly good theoretical example of WHY. Remember that example with the 10 assorted Mercs vs 1 Jenner? Remember how you COMPLETELY IGNORED THE STUPIDITY OF THAT OUTCOME?

GG NO RE.

MODS, LOCK AND DISPOSE OF THIS THREAD. IT IS A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE.

[3Xtr3m3]

I did not ignore it, I clearly stated that your example is the difference between a Merc for Hire and a Patriot.

You have a selective memory there.

I also stated that S/LC could have an in the field ability to override the Clause. Did you even read that part?

[eZZip]

3Xtr3m3, on 19 May 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Then I would say "you have made your point" move on to some other topic, nothing for you to see here.
Especially since no one can state clearly concisely why this is such a horrid idea other than "they don't like it"

Actually, people had done so early on, but you consistently threw red herrings and said, "good discussion everyone!" without directly rebutting people. In essence, when your argument, your idea was damaged, you continued to act as though nothing happened to it in the first place.

3Xtr3m3, on 19 May 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

I also stated that S/LC could have an in the field ability to override the Clause. Did you even read that part?

Great, you want to have a poll on whether an idea should be implemented when that idea hasn't even been defined. Everytime anybody says something about it, you append another feature to the idea, and then eventually it becomes a monstrosity that is much too complex for what should be, at most, a minor part of the game.

Edited by eZZip, 19 May 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[3Xtr3m3]

Hey eZZip. Troll much?


At the point people were saying it is a horrid idea, there was no actual proposal on the thread, now there is one, Need me to repost it for you?

3Xtr3m3, on 17 May 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL

I am proposing that MW:O establish at least four Non Player Controlled Mercenary Corporation Factions.
Just because it is the same ones in the MW4 Mercenarys game, in my example, it would be;
The Kell Hounds
Wolf's Dragoons
Northwind Highlanders
and Gray Death Legion
These would have benefis unique to each. Be it tech, Mechs, color schemes, Decals, Wallpapers, etc. etc.

I want TWO of them chosen by whatever method the devs decide, to be only able to accept Stop/Loss Clause contracts.
The players would decide which contract(s) they want to play.
The details of the contracts I leave to the Dev. But a Stop/Loss Clause is built in.
I am proposing that; at the point that the payment rendered, for even a lost battle, minus damages done to particpating players mechs, and ammo equals nothing, the match is over.

+Payment for battle participation
-Damages
-Ammo Costs
____________
$0 = End of Battle.

This is an actual proposal as opposed to all the so-called proposals, that some seem to insist that I am trying to impose on them.
This is to my mind, the absolute bare minimum.
There should be other instances, where players can decide for themselves, whether or not to take contracts with the Stop/Loss Clause in it.

Can players decide to NEVER, take a Contract like this.
Absolutely. Just don't join the two factions with must take Stop/Loss Clause Contracts.

Can players somehow NEVER GO UP AGAINST A TEAM WITH STOP/LOSS CLAUSES.
I don't know,
Should it be an option on the Contract selection screen?

Should damages to players be recompensed BEFORE anyone gets any C-bills benefits?
This should be true in 95% of the cases. Abuses of this should not be rewarded though.
Someone who backshoots his own teammates and then oveheats and blows up his own mech should face
review.


A Filter for available Contracts?
Shrugging my shoulders here.
If the Devs want to make that an option, then they will.
If they decide, you don't know if the other Team has a Stop/Loss Clause, that is their call.

What about an in the field decision to override the Stop/Loss Clause and carry the battle to a full conclusive end?
That is something I would want, but it is not included in this proposal, because it is above the bare minimum requirements that I want to see in the game for this idea.

Ask questions, add ideas, state your support, anything CONSTRUCTIVE.

discuss ^^^^

[Paul Inouye]

As no-one here has seen how gameplay works out and we're not releasing information on the way faction/corp/wolf gameplay rolls out yet, this is all pure speculation as to what is "fair" and what isn't.

What this is proposing is a system where run and gunners have a chance against a well organized Merc. Corp. Maybe those run and gunners need to learn more about tactical/strategic gameplay rather than having some artificial ruling system put into place.

As per our Role Warfare and Mech Combat pillars, combat wins should be determined by player skill and what they bring to the battlefield in terms of knowing and playing their role properly.

While I cannot state officially what we have in the works, I'll just say that this system is not something that would support the player skill aspect of gameplay.

I will leave this discussion open for you folks for now but if the jabs/barbs don't stop it will be locked down like every other thread that has this type of behavior.