Contracts tied to maps poll

Got this message today.

Add KAGEHOSHI- to Friends Ignore KAGEHOSHI-

I made a poll/discussion thread about maps tied to contracts and i want some feedback from the community about how they voted on the neutral Dom issue and how they would feel about maps being tied to contracts. It may seem kind of pointless since in Zipline 24 Zipper said they can do it but they don't want to since they feel that the neutral Dom poll also reflects how the community feels about maps tied to contracts. I am certain that the neutral Dom poll doesn't reflect the community's feeling towardss maps tied to contract and made the poll as a way to change Zipper's mind to at least let us decide through a Influence MAG poll.

Anyway, here is the >>thread<<

I am not asking you to kudos me or anything, i just want your opinions. Please tell me how you voted and how you feel about maps tied to contracts.

____________________

I always thought this was how MAG was going to be played. That is until I played it.

I voted against neutrality ... but i'd be up for the guys suggestion. I'm not going to bother replying to his thread though as i just dont have time for the MAG forum boards anymore. Nor do i like being called an idiot for having an opinion, which is all that happens every time to post in there.

Allowing for tying in the maps would allow us more of a chance to get contracts and let us defend SVER and Valor maps without Vetting.

Although this sorta nulls the whole principle of Vetting to different factions, unless you're doing it for the guns.

My main reasons when i vetted was to play different maps. I couldnt care less about the guns. I prefer Ravens. Call me stupid, but i enjoy the challenge of going up agaisnt an enemy with my pebble shooter and still finishing him and his BFG shotgun with a head shot.

I voted yes for Domination Neutrality. But I dont like the idea of tying maps to contracts. I voted yes on Dom. Neutral...mainly because in a earlier Podcast, It would be a pain/hassle to come out with new maps for dom since they would have to create 3 new ones (1 for each faction). Where as if they made it neutral they can release 1+ maps at any given time. I like more maps.... I like variety. That ws the main reason I voted yes. As for thios whole Shadow war story thing... I dont feel a part of sometype of shadow war... Just that you get rewards for owning 1-2 contracts. So making Dom neutral wouldnt effect this for me at all either way.

In concept i understand what the tying maps to contracts are doing.. but what kinda discouraged me was the whole pattern he posted about whos attacking/defending and how much u would be doing so. Where he posted if u have no contracts u would attack like all the time... where as if u own 2 u defend all the time. No variety in that for me. Then the info. about getting negative rewards for owning 2 contracts to help the bad pmc with no contracts to obtain some. If whatever PMC is good, why get negative rewards.

JR2576 wrote:

In concept i understand what the tying maps to contracts are doing.. but what kinda discouraged me was the whole pattern he posted about whos attacking/defending and how much u would be doing so. Where he posted if u have no contracts u would attack like all the time... where as if u own 2 u defend all the time. No variety in that for me. Then the info. about getting negative rewards for owning 2 contracts to help the bad pmc with no contracts to obtain some. If whatever PMC is good, why get negative rewards.

I think the way it would work would be in increments of one thirds, meaning ~33.3%, seeing there are 3 contracts.

When you have no contracts, in regards to the Shadow War, you wouldnt own any base, technically. Meaning you would be attacking 100% of the time until you at least regain 1 contract. I figure the losing faction would also be able to attack the other faction holding only the 1 contract, although at a reduced rate of 33.3% chance.

EX: Raven has no contracts, SVER hold 2 and Valor 1.

Raven vs. SVER would always happen on the Raven map until they win the contract back, allowing Raven the home terrain advantage, giving them more of a chance to regaining their contracts. So 66.6% of the time they play Dom, it would be on Raven soil. SVER Dom would not be played vs. Raven until Raven wins their contract back. the other 33.3% of the time, Raven would attack Valor.

Valor vs. SVER would go like this. 33.3% of the time, they would attack SVER on Raven soil. 33.3% of the time, they would attack SVER on SVER soil. and 33.3% of the time, they would defend agaisnt either SVER or Raven on their own soil.

So SVER at this point would only be attacking 33.3% of the time, and defending 66.6% of the time on either SVER or Raven soil, vs. either Raven or Valor.

I find this to be a pretty good idea to be honest, as it gives home field advantage to the faction who lost the contract. And let's be honest, it's always easier to attack than it is to defend on Dom.

As for Neutrality ... yes it would be easier to deploy new maps on later down the road, but it's the easy way out. And honestly, i wouldnt buy a DLC with just one map in it. Like they did with interdiction and escalation, had 3 maps in em, and that was fine. They can do the same with a new map pack for Dom. Screw neutrality. And screw their lazy asses too. Get to f-ing work and make the 3 maps. I can wait a while if you need the time. Escalation has me all rilled up for now anyways.

EDIT: Didnt read the bit about the negative bonuses for the winning PMC ... and yeah ... that's retarded. The point of winning these things is to get a bonus, not a penalty. Whoever thought that up is just some poor fool who cant handle losing to SVER all the time. Let them have their perks, we can fight back on our own soil.