164 replies to this topic

[Mogney]

Mercs currently do have a reason, its called loyalty points, but I agree that being a merc unit should feel differently than being a house unit.

Here are my suggestions.
All units must declare as either house or merc. If you are house you sign a perm contract.

For merc units you cannot simply sign a contract with anybody you want. A simple AI negotiatior will be developed that will make offers from the various houses to the teams. The offers may vary in terms of cbill rewards, loyalty point rewards, and term (contract length)

A note on contract term, the faction will be negotating this in their best interest, a low cost contract the faction will want a longer term, for a high cost contract they will want a shorter term.

It is also possible that a faction may offer the unit multiple contracts to choose from, where the three factors vary a bit between the offers. This way a merc unit can choose to focus on pay, loyalty, or pick the contract term they want.

Here are some ideas for factors that would contribue to how good of a contract they will offer. All houses will make an offer, but some of those offers might be really bad.

1. Need: A faction with a relatively low number of active house units and contracted merc units is more inclined to hire folks and to pay more. The most popular faction should be paying peanuts compared to the least popular.

2. Loyalty: A faction is more inclined to hire a unit that has loyalty to that faction or its allied faction, less inclined for a unit that has loyalty to an opposing faction. (here is where it might make sense to take a terrible offer, just to work on that loyalty point issue that is bringing you down with the faction you want to work for)

3. Success: A faction will offer more for a unit that has a great win/loss record in CW, (will probably need to set a threshhold, it only counts as a unit drop if there are 8+ unit members in the drop). This would simulate the houses having a bidding war for a top team. A unit with little to no history should get lowballed a bit by all of the factions.

4. Faction situation: This is sort of like need, but less associated with the number of units, and more associated with the number of planets the faction owns in relation to where they started, a faction that is consistently losing may be a bit more desperate than one that is consistently growing in size.

5. Time served: Similar to loyatly, but if a merc unit has worked for the same faction for several consecutive contracts, there should be a _slight_ boost to remaining with that faction.

Making a system like this will make mercs feel really differently than house units. A house unit is going to have a consistent relationship with their faction with good rewards. I would say probably around the 80% mark of how good a contract can get if everything lines up perfectly for a merc unit. Wherase a merc units pay is going to fluctuate considerably based on a variety of factors. Yes a merc unit can make more than a house unit in the ideal situation, but that situation should take work and success to achieve. But when that contract comes up for renewal, things might be different as the circumstances of that faction may have changed.

Mercs should be following the money, and should be paid based on need and success. And the idea that every merc unit should be paid exactly the same as every other merc unit in that faction is just silly.

Edit: Breaking a contract should result in a pretty stiff loyalty point hit, that will make the next contract offered by that faction pretty awful.

Edited by Mogney, 28 January 2015 - 12:58 PM.

[Gyrok]

What about a system where unit leaders can dictate contract terms.

Say house liao wants help fighting davion, though, only davion. Then merc unit A can take the contract, however, when they pull up the faction map, only targets that follow the contract are actionable.

This could also have an accelerator feature with X% of victory giving bonuses for money. Possibly a scenario where mercs have the option to take contracts based on reward bonuses or bonus schedules.

There would have to be a way for units to partially fund these contracts. Maybe pay a % of the bonus from coffers.

You could also have it without the target restrictions, though that would require some sort of recourse for units that breach contract.

The system could also allow a contract against multiple factions...etc.

[Peter2000]

Gyrok, on 28 January 2015 - 01:03 PM, said:

What about a system where unit leaders can dictate contract terms.

Who are the leaders within a faction, though? Whoever wins the "I AM ROLEPLAY" ****-waving contest? Thanks, don't want them dictating when/how I can play. Pass.

[SerEdvard]

I think what it basically boils down to is that there should be separate contract/reward structure for house/clan members and merc units. This already sort of exists for loyalty points, in that the amountof the loyalt point rewards is scaled by contract length, but I think this needs to be expanded into cbill rewards also.

For example, cbill awards could vary planet-to-planet. House/clan members could get a generous, flat rate , but merc rewards have a small base rate that increases as the number of enemy controlled territories on that planet goes up.

[Gyrok]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Who are the leaders within a faction, though? Whoever wins the "I AM ROLEPLAY" ****-waving contest? Thanks, don't want them dictating when/how I can play. Pass.

Those unit leaders could meet certain criteria first. The contract, also, does not have to be taken. If someone puts out a contract and, say, a week passes with no action, it is stricken and a new one may be placed in a queue, or the old contract edited.

[Harathan]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Who are the leaders within a faction, though? Whoever wins the "I AM ROLEPLAY" ****-waving contest? Thanks, don't want them dictating when/how I can play. Pass.

He said "Unit Leaders". Try reading the post again, you clearly didn't understand it.

The leader of a unit gets to pick what contract they take, from a selection of possible offers. Possible offers including "must only attack X faction" or "must only engage in Attack drops" or "can do whatever they want".

Focused contracts get more cash and LP, loose contracts get less cash and LP.

Edited by Harathan, 28 January 2015 - 01:23 PM.

[Alexander Steel]

Gyrok, on 28 January 2015 - 01:03 PM, said:

What about a system where unit leaders can dictate contract terms.

Say house liao wants help fighting davion, though, only davion. Then merc unit A can take the contract, however, when they pull up the faction map, only targets that follow the contract are actionable.

This could also have an accelerator feature with X% of victory giving bonuses for money. Possibly a scenario where mercs have the option to take contracts based on reward bonuses or bonus schedules.

There would have to be a way for units to partially fund these contracts. Maybe pay a % of the bonus from coffers.

You could also have it without the target restrictions, though that would require some sort of recourse for units that breach contract.

The system could also allow a contract against multiple factions...etc.

As much as I don't like the idea of house units being able to prevent merc units from attacking who they want, a part of me can't wait for the day a rogue house unit puts a bounty on a "friendly" faction's worlds and the forum blows up in huge drama as everybody blames each other for the attack.

[Big Tin Man]

A big picture vision for CW:

1. Permanent contracts become the 'house' units. These house units have their coffers funded by the faction's military expense budget (function of overall faction territory held and unit size vs. # of perm. unit members), but do not receive any c-bill bonus for a win or loss, as controlling territory should be bonus enough. The house unit coffers are then used to issue contracts to merc groups, as issued by the house unit leaders. Probably need to make contract issuing a LV 10+ ability in order to keep people from spamming accounts and creating 1 person perm. units.

2. Contracts issued by house units are limited in supply and scope, and are paid from the unit's coffers. Example: my house unit could issue three 14 day contracts to solely attack Kurita for a merc unit with group size of 25-50, with victories paying out at 100k cbills per mechwarrior, 5 million bonus to the merc unit coffers per planet taken with their tag on it, and a termination clause if they earn over 100 million c-bills before the 14 days are up (i.e. they broke the bank). Further you could add an 'average loyalty point' requirement for their members or cannot have taken a ____ faction contract in the last XX days, to keep the mercs who were just fighting us from switching sides when a contract is issued to stop them. Once the merc units took the contracts, they're gone. To keep mercs circulating, there would be an always available base contract similar to what currently exists (with same weak payout) but it does not escalate. If the house units refuse to spend their coffer funds while their faction dies, that's their call.

3. Logistics and planetary repair/reparations would need to be fully implemented for this to work and maintain balance, to keep the strong from getting stronger. There would need to be a throttle built into the military expense budget to keep a faction from wiping the maps. Whether that is that taken planets are a cost to the overall faction military budget until they are held for a week, distance from the capital diminishes value of planet, or losing territory triggers the house leaders to increase military spending in a frantic short term effort to stem the tide, IDK. Logistics would be necessary to keep the merc unit's coffers in check as well.

4. There would need to be further balancing and control on what the house unit coffers can be spent on. There would need to be a salary for the unit members, upgrades to turrets, dropship weapons, etc. This would take some more thinking to prevent abuse. Perhaps the unit could buy mechs as dropship specific mechs owned by the unit, but this would likely be very complex to implement.

[Big Tin Man]

Alexander Steel, on 28 January 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

As much as I don't like the idea of house units being able to prevent merc units from attacking who they want, a part of me can't wait for the day a rogue house unit puts a bounty on a "friendly" faction's worlds and the forum blows up in huge drama as everybody blames each other for the attack.

That could be easily stated in the terms of the contract, and by making the merc contracts open for the house units to see (employment roll)

"House unit ______ is issuing a contract for a merc unit to attack ______

blah blah blah contract

Signed,

______________

Leader of house unit _______"


Could be very entertaining drama.

[Kain Demos]

Peter2000, on 28 January 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Who are the leaders within a faction, though? Whoever wins the "I AM ROLEPLAY" ****-waving contest? Thanks, don't want them dictating when/how I can play. Pass.

They wouldn't dictate anything. YOu don't like them, don't take their contract. There would be many to choose from in a system like that.

[Gyrok]

Alexander Steel, on 28 January 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

As much as I don't like the idea of house units being able to prevent merc units from attacking who they want, a part of me can't wait for the day a rogue house unit puts a bounty on a "friendly" faction's worlds and the forum blows up in huge drama as everybody blames each other for the attack.

Yes, all out war would erupt.

[Big Tin Man]

Gyrok, on 28 January 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

Yes, all out war would erupt.

(isn't that the idea?)

[Aries 127]

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

This is essentially the faction bank solution. Faction Unit A puts 10 million c-bills in, Merc Unit B takes 100 million c-bills out.

This sort of c-bill generation seems like it would be very easy to abuse.

I agree with your sentiment. I think that if this type of solution were used, PGI would have to keep a close eye on the percentages that "Banks" would invest into a unit contract to discourage exploitation of the system... and then cross your fingers and hope for a successful economy that doesn't get broken.

[Mogney]

Totally opposed to players offering contracts. Contracts should be offered by the house nobles. I.e. The game itself. No added drama please.

[Joe Mallad]

Vlad Ward, on 28 January 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

That has come up a few times in various threads and even a quick glance at the numbers involved can easily demonstrate that there is no viable way for House units to be able to afford the kind of prices that Merc units should be charging.

People tend to look at MW2: Mercs and see 1.5 million c-bill contracts for a planet defense and think that's a reasonable price to pay for mercs in MWO. The reality is that even a single 12-man running a low average of 500k a match is bringing in 6 million unit c-bills a game, which can easily hit 60-100 million c-bills in a single night's planet defense. Compared to that, 1.5 million c-bills is peanuts.

true but whatever a player run unit was to pay out in a contract t get a Merc unit to come play for that faction, is just that... A payout to come play. That money would be transferred from coffer to coffer and the Merc units can use that for travel expenses and so on. Because we know that's coming. As for the mercs themselves, getting payed out, we are all still making money in matchs for whatever we do in a match that has nothing to do with our contracts.

[Bront]

See, right now I think Loyalist units are getting screwed. Loyalty points don't do much, a permanent contract is just that, permanent, players who leave the unit get penalized even if they move to another loyalist unit, and they can't follow the money, so they're at the whim of other merc units as to how much they get paid (IE, when merc units leave, they get paid more).

Personally, I think contract values and win values should be based on need. IE factions that are winning pay a baseline, while factions that are losing start paying more depending on how many planets they loose. Faction size goals should also take into account how many attack corridors they have going at once. Steiner and Kurita need more people than Laio,

[Joe Mallad]

Mogney, on 28 January 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Totally opposed to players offering contracts. Contracts should be offered by the house nobles. I.e. The game itself. No added drama please.

fine, than the system needs to be more robust and needs to be able to recognize when it should or can pay out more when or if needed and should be able to recognize when there are to many Merc units fighting for an one house and adjust contracts and bonuses on its own, without PGI having to do it all the time to force people to move to where the help is needed.

The current system now is broken and when one house is really needing Merc help and player base is down, PGI raises the contract pay out and almost everyone shifts and balance is still not right.

Bront, on 28 January 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

See, right now I think Loyalist units are getting screwed. Loyalty points don't do much, a permanent contract is just that, permanent, players who leave the unit get penalized even if they move to another loyalist unit, and they can't follow the money, so they're at the whim of other merc units as to how much they get paid (IE, when merc units leave, they get paid more).

Personally, I think contract values and win values should be based on need. IE factions that are winning pay a baseline, while factions that are losing start paying more depending on how many planets they loose. Faction size goals should also take into account how many attack corridors they have going at once. Steiner and Kurita need more people than Laio,

agreed. But as I said, PGI needs to put a system into lace that does this on its own.

[Drunk Canuck]

Russ Bullock, on 28 January 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Well this is unfair I simply stated that is what I have to use at the moment. We will review this thread and others like it for discussion in our Friday design meeting - no doubt were looking to add features.

Mind the loyalists Russ, they seem to be of the opinion that they can control what mercenaries should and shouldn't do in game. They seem to also believe that any unit that joins their faction, should be following the whims of the other units within the faction (though more specifically loyalists). I experienced this toxic behavior from some of the loyalist units in Clan Smoke Jaguar when my now former unit decided to attack Clan Ghost Bear from CSJ space a couple of weeks ago. We obviously had a reason for doing so, and we did not expect to see open hostility and bashing from people we don't play with, nor had we contacted them about our intentions prior to switching contracts. Sure, it was a bad move on our part, but we didn't deserve the way some people treated us for what was our own decision, and we really didn't want to waste time pug stomping Kurita some more since they seem to have enough issues without us bugging them.

[sabujo]

I subscribe to some of the good ideas that were already posted here so I am sorry if I am repeating something, but here's the backbone of my vision for the economy of CW:

• Loyalists (faction aligned/perma contract) and Mercs are two different games with different rules, perks and cons
  
• Only loyalists can put their tags on planets and get benefit from that
  
• Planets generate c-bills for that unit coffers at each ceasefire
  
• Loyalists put up contracts for a specific planet, letting mercs to bid on that. Units with altruistic players (more coffer donations) gain an advantage as they can pay more to mercs.
  
• Mercs get c-bills (for coffer and for players) according to what loyalists pay plus a flat rate
  
• Mercs also get achievements or history record for their deeds. This history allows loyalists to chose one merc unit over the rest.
  
• Planets give loyalists special prices on mechs, weapons, modules, etc. This benefit can be extended to a contracted merc if it is part of the contract.

Now, on a more future phase, coffer c-bills could be used in the following process:

• CW Maps have hardpoints. Those hardpoints can be filled with turrets, barriers, traps, etc...
  
• The unit that has the planet may invest on it's defense, buying or upgrading that defense. Make it better turrets, generators that are more robust, etc. Money invested on defense is money that does not go to merc contracts.
  
• Map upgrades are bought and remain there until planet flips (meaning everything was destroyed and needs to be rebuilt).
  
• Mercs can use coffer c-bills to re-fit their dropships, upgrading them or access different kinds of battle enhancements.

How about that?

[STEF_]

I started this account for Clan invasion.... and chose "Kerensky" to follow the path of Natasha.....

MERC!
NOW!

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 28 January 2015 - 01:57 PM.