Reaver Mercenary Co.

[fencore]

Certainly, it does involve us, but we're not responsible for the issues you've described. Do we take advantage of it, though? Absolutely.

We wouldn't be able to flip flop like we do if the factions didn't let us. But they do. The people we work for enable this, and so we're going to use it. We as a faction are good at hunting people. You want someone dead? We do it. They go into these agreements knowing full well that once the contract is up, if they're not still offering us a route to earn cash, they go right back on the potential targets list. They still choose to employ us.

I'm not saying the factions shouldn't enforce those consequences. Right now though, they don't. All I can really say is "don't hate the player, hate the game."

We're just playing the game the official factions allow us to play.

[SA_Scavenger]

Certainly, it does involve us, but we're not responsible for the issues you've described. Do we take advantage of it, though? Absolutely.

We wouldn't be able to flip flop like we do if the factions didn't let us. But they do. The people we work for enable this, and so we're going to use it. We as a faction are good at hunting people. You want someone dead? We do it. They go into these agreements knowing full well that once the contract is up, if they're not still offering us a route to earn cash, they go right back on the potential targets list. They still choose to employ us.

I'm not saying the factions shouldn't enforce those consequences. Right now though, they don't. All I can really say is "don't hate the player, hate the game."

We're just playing the game the official factions allow us to play.

Oh, that's fine and I don't think I am hating on anyone here. I think my comments have be rather meek. It's seeking clarification of a problem with the Reavers that has been bothering me for awhile. I just cannot wrap my head around it. If it's the game mechanics and factions are actually partaking in it, fine. However, if it's being turned into a way to hunt factions without ways, other than hiring more protection, to protect themselves in order to have something to do, then I don't think it's right.

Also, that might be Reaver mentality but it certainly ain't Merc mentality. A Merc would base their future decisions on how good an employer has been to them, not on who is willing to pay them right now. If you work for faction A and kill faction B, and then switch because faction A isn't willing to pay anymore, that's fine. However, if faction B now decides not to pay you, why would faction A want you back? You stabbed them in the back and then shot at them for payment from their enemies.

A faction would have to be seriously ignorant to rehire you. Once the payment is up, you would just be back to hunting them. Surely they would seek a Mercenary company that is more loyal, loyalty pays in the long run.

I don't know, maybe you guys just know far more than I ever could, but something doesn't sit right with me over your diplomacy.

And also please note, I realise fully why factions hire you after hunting them. It's because you have some very, very good PVP pilots. So, in that aspect it makes sense. However, RP wise, to me, it just doesn't.

---

[Jack_Henderson]

Just an example of a faction that employs Reavers although we would have good reasons not to:

IMG| pays Reavers even though they shoot our allies and work for OCs... why? Because keeping them employed and paying them is the only way of keeping them off your throats. For factions that have "soft targets" (ships that can't fight/survive) this is a good investment. It's a bit like if you bribe the school bully to beat up others... primarily to keep him from making you his target of attention. =)

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[SA_Scavenger]

Just an example of a faction that employs Reavers although we would have good reasons not to:

IMG| pays Reavers even though they shoot our allies and work for OCs... why? Because keeping them employed and paying them is the only way of keeping them off your throats. For factions that have "soft targets" (ships that can't fight/survive) this is a good investment. It's a bit like if you bribe the school bully to beat up others... primarily to keep him from making you his target of attention. =)

And Jacky boy just nailed my point home. Thanks mate. It's blackmail, pure and simple. People pay the Reavers merely so that the Reavers don't hunt them. That ain't being mercenaries, that's acting like an army.

---

[fencore]

However, if faction B now decides not to pay you, why would faction A want you back? You stabbed them in the back and then shot at them for payment from their enemies.

A faction would have to be seriously ignorant to rehire you. Once the payment is up, you would just be back to hunting them. Surely they would seek a Mercenary company that is more loyal, loyalty pays in the long run.

I wonder the same thing, to be fair. However, they do hire us back. Why? Hell if I know.

In the case of the Corsairs, for example, it wasn't "Oh, board's closed, let's vamoose." It closed once, we waited a couple months, it opened for a short time, then closed again. We waited another couple of months and the board still wasn't open again. Reavers used to be very loyal to the Empire, but when they closed that board a second time and it wasn't looking like it was going to be opened again soon, we needed to seek out more work. The Hessians, who we shot at for some time on behalf of the Corsairs, were kind enough to support us with a board after we "earned their trust" with a trial contract.

Again, the problem here doesn't stem from the Reavers directly. If anything, we're one predictable constant in the ever-changing Merc business - we go where the money is. Can't feed the family/booze addiction when you're not bringing anything in.

In this light, I do implore you to take up said diplomacy issues with the factions who employ us. Why would a faction want to employ a group of mercs likely to stab them in the back for a buck or two? I can't answer that for you, only the employers can. All I know is that if they're going to give us the opportunity to earn some money, we'll most likely take it provided it doesn't conflict with a current employer who's keeping us happy.

Addendum:

mer·ce·nar·y/ˈmərsəˌnerē/
Adjective: (of a person or their behavior) Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics.
Noun: A professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.

[SA_Scavenger]

I wonder the same thing, to be fair. However, they do hire us back. Why? Hell if I know.

In the case of the Corsairs, for example, it wasn't "Oh, board's closed, let's vamoose." It closed once, we waited a couple months, it opened for a short time, then closed again. We waited another couple of months and the board still wasn't open again. Reavers used to be very loyal to the Empire, but when they closed that board a second time and it wasn't looking like it was going to be opened again soon, we needed to seek out more work. The Hessians, who we shot at for some time on behalf of the Corsairs, were kind enough to support us with a board after we "earned their trust" with a trial contract.

Again, the problem here doesn't stem from the Reavers directly. If anything, we're one predictable constant in the ever-changing Merc business - we go where the money is. Can't feed the family/booze addiction when you're not bringing anything in.

In this light, I do implore you to take up said diplomacy issues with the factions who employ us. Why would a faction want to employ a group of mercs likely to stab them in the back for a buck or two? I can't answer that for you, only the employers can. All I know is that if they're going to give us the opportunity to earn some money, we'll most likely take it provided it doesn't conflict with a current employer who's keeping us happy.

I am willing to admit that factions do seem to do silly things but then can we please admit that at least something has to change in your diplomacy. To at least bring some clarity to what it is the Reavers actually are. I am not trying to be nasty or place people under the bus, however, there is something wrong here and there might be a possible way to sort it out. At least a compromise would stop a lot of the sort of hateful banter that happens across the forums.

Please understand, I actually enjoy the thrill of a good chase and hunt, but it's got to make sense at some point. If I hire you the one day and then you are hunting me the next, I just wouldn't hire you the day after that, if I some how survived.

---

[fencore]

Addendum:

mer·ce·nar·y/ˈmərsəˌnerē/
Adjective: (of a person or their behavior) Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics.
Noun: A professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.

We're mercenaries. We're soldiers that factions hire to fight their battles for 'em. Get enough Reavers together, yep, we're a little private army.

We fight for who pays us. Mercenaries aren't concerned with territory or control. Just money and fighting. We do the fighting for the people who pay us to.

[Diomedes]

Scavenger, I tend to agree the impact of the Reavers is far greater than it should be inRP. This is basically because of late they've had a high activity level and in game, they are just way more present than anyone else. For a faction trying to become official, this is likely a good thing.

For example, if I fly a QCP| vessel, I'm more likely to find a Reaver than a KSP, KNF or BD combined, while I'm in Kusari. Now, that reflects well on the faction but really doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

As you said, the Reavers can flip flop because the employers allow them to. Why are they allowed to? Well, because as a highly present and visible force,the Reavers are actually one of the major players in the conflicts as players see it.

InRP, no mercenary company could really begin to rival the striking power of the organized navies (include Corsairs here) and they would have to be careful of the ire of current or former employers who might decide to wipe them out.

In game, the reavers are almost always present in strength when they appear, and there's no way for an employer to truly turn their guns and eliminate the Mercs (eg. by attacking Armstrong).

So if there is an issue with the diplomacy, it's up to the employers to hire/fire the Reavers on RP decisions, not what the player-base actually sees. No major military faction should really fear a small mercenary company. Sure the potential for the mercs to create havoc is there, but should be small compared to the damage the enemy navy could do. This means for instance, the "we-won't shoot you if you hire us" shouldn't really be a huge consideration for a number of employers in Disco. But due to the actual in-game affect on players, it is.

In my mind, Disco mercs should have their place augmenting forces or operating where regular forces can't go. But I can't see a merc group displacing full military functions. However, since mercs can make money doing their job and it has more freedom that being in a navy, mercing is insanely popular compared with military populations, giving a very odd ratio of strength. Basically, this is a fact of life in disco, but everyone should still RP the militaries as the power-houses where possible.

In the end, there's not really any blame to be laid anywhere. As I see it, the diplomacy and effect of mercs is really just inherent to how Disco works. It may not always make sense, and it's up to out of context RP motivation to try and make things logical. But hey it's a game.

Finally, apologies if this is the wrong spot for this, but it seems to fit. As for feedback, this is intended both for the Reavers and their employers/enemies, and also just as a explanation of what I see.

Edit - ninja'd about 4 times if some of this no longer seems to line up well.

---

[SA_Scavenger]

We're mercenaries. We're soldiers that factions hire to fight their battles for 'em. Get enough Reavers together, yep, we're a little private army.

We fight for who pays us. Mercenaries aren't concerned with territory or control. Just money and fighting. We do the fighting for the people who pays us to.

That's all well and good, but Mercenaries choose sides. They invariably have to. They might not have morals but they have greed. And sorry to say but they realise real quick that if you turn on an employer enough. They ain't going to hire you no more. And if you shoot at them, then you are at war with them. It really is that simple. In the past, in the present and in the future. A mercenary is a person for hire. However, once they are hired, for the duration of that war they have for all intense and purposes chosen a side.

Granted there have been times when mercenaries have changed sides but it is a slow change, never straight away, that's my problem with the Reavers. Everyday you are changing your allegiances. Back and forth, back and forth. It ain't right.

---

[SA_Scavenger]

Scavenger, I tend to agree the impact of the Reavers is far greater than it should be inRP. This is basically because of late they've had a high activity level and in game, they are just way more present than anyone else. For a faction trying to become official, this is likely a good thing.

For example, if I fly a QCP| vessel, I'm more likely to find a Reaver than a KSP, KNF or BD combined, while I'm in Kusari. Now, that reflects well on the faction but really doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

As you said, the Reavers can flip flop because the employers allow them to. Why are they allowed to? Well, because as a highly present and visible force,the Reavers are actually one of the major players in the conflicts as players see it.

InRP, no mercenary company could really begin to rival the striking power of the organized navies (include Corsairs here) and they would have to be careful of the ire of current or former employers who might decide to wipe them out.

In game, the reavers are almost always present in strength when they appear, and there's no way for an employer to truly turn their guns and eliminate the Mercs (eg. by attacking Armstrong).

So if there is an issue with the diplomacy, it's up to the employers to hire/fire the Reavers on RP decisions, not what the player-base actually sees. No major military faction should really fear a small mercenary company. Sure the potential for the mercs to create havoc is there, but should be small compared to the damage the enemy navy could do. This means for instance, the "we-won't shoot you if you hire us" shouldn't really be a huge consideration for a number of employers in Disco. But due to the actual in-game affect on players, it is.

In my mind, Disco mercs should have their place augmenting forces or operating where regular forces can't go. But I can't see a merc group displacing full military functions. However, since mercs can make money doing their job and it has more freedom that being in a navy, mercing is insanely popular compared with military populations, giving a very odd ratio of strength. Basically, this is a fact of life in disco, but everyone should still RP the militaries as the power-houses where possible.

In the end, there's not really any blame to be laid anywhere. As I see it, the diplomacy and effect of mercs is really just inherent to how Disco works. It may not always make sense, and it's up to out of context RP motivation to try and make things logical. But hey it's a game.

Finally, apologies if this is the wrong spot for this, but it seems to fit. As for feedback, this is intended both for the Reavers and their employers/enemies, and also just as a explanation of what I see.

Edit - ninja'd about 4 times if some of this no longer seems to line up well.

And that is my problem. They are using an OORP strength to determine the INRP aspects of a game. And they shouldn't have that power as a mercenary company. They are good PVP pilots who log in with groups and thus seem to have the power to over throw an entire nation, company or faction. Tell me that doesn't scream WRONG to you?

---