57 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

I would like to see higher standard pay for Loyalists as they gain rank, to reflect their position and incentivize staying with their Faction. Clans would be treated the same way.

[habu86]

B0oN, on 03 August 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Does any of you actually know how much career military up to rank Lieutenant (which is what I think would command a company of mechs) earns ?

I don´t really think its that much ...

And you guys really wanna translate that into this game ?
Well, if that notion suceeds I´m just having all the more incentive to stay a warrior of any Clan, because CASTES ^^

Well, seeing how, in most modern armies, the rank of lieutenant (or any of its close equivalents) is the lowest officer rank, no, they don't get paid very much at all, relatively speaking.

They also don't typically command companies either, but platoons or platoon-sized elements. Fun fact, a typical armored platoon (that your typical O-1 or O-2 would command) consists of 4 vehicles, give or take, so same approximate size as an IS lance or Clan star.

Another fun fact, at various points in history, mercenaries made up a significant part (often enough, they made up the bulk) of the wartime armies deployed by nation-states, especially those who had not yet achieved an economic base strong enough to support standing armies. In fact, the only way a good many pre-modern nation-states were able to field large standing armies was through a combination of (successful) expansionist initiatives and heavy taxation of vassal states and the state's population; neither of these approaches was indefinitely sustainable and almost all the nation-states attempting to do so ended up entering economic declines (often of the irreversible variety) the instant they suffered any kind of setbacks.

The problem with taking cues from either real history or BT lore in designing reward and/or restriction structures is that the incentives and situations don't translate well into a game environment. The reality is that, historically, mercenaries were very well compensated indeed, often being enticed with promises of plunder opportunities and a myriad of rewards for good performance. Even today, when PMCs are restricted to non-combat roles, they still command eye-popping sums for their services. And part of that is driven by necessity, since they have to make the money stretch between contracts. At the end of the day, viewed as a transaction, whether to hire mercenaries or raise troops is a simple rent-vs.-buy decision.

Whereas in lore, plenty of the more successful merc outfits were, at one point or the other, given cushy garrison assignments, where they just drew payment and acted as a deterrent to any would-be attackers. This was important to them because it allowed them to rebuild from devastating battles and engagements that would have otherwise caused them to fold. Never mind that it is highly doubtful that any nation state would find it financially acceptable, during peacetime, to pay the kind of premiums that maintaining a long-term, full-time mercenary presence would require. The only instances of nation-states having done anything remotely like this was with elite bodyguard units, where ruling monarchs and princes were content to pay a premium in order to maintain a foreign bodyguard that would be less vulnerable to subversion by local opposition.

Secondly, this is a game, which means that we WANT to fight. This is biggest problem with the suggestion that mercenaries be locked into certain factions for extended periods of time. If this was a real-life situation, a nice garrison contract on a sleepy backwater planet that never sees any action would be a mercenary's dream. Not having to get at shot at for your paycheck? Yes, please. But this is, in fact, a game. We login to blow stuff up in a simulated environment, and this goes double for many folks who choose to go merc, as their desire to get fights (and the rewards that go with it) outweighs their interest in any particular factions.

I think that, rather than attempting to penalize or detract from anybody's rewards, the reward structure itself needs to further diversify, with not only a much clearer distinction between loyalists for mercs, but one that is designed to reflect the unique situation of each. For example:
- Loyalist reward structure: lots of mechbays at each step of the way to allow them the capacity to quickly build up a large stable of mechs, discounts on faction-specific mechs and components, colors, patterns, warhorns, and certain cockpit items (e.g. flags, medallions, etc.), along with 4-5 ranks giving a moderate amount of MC in order to facilitate the purchase of said faction-specific pieces of flair.
- Mercenary reward structure: lots of C-bills, with extra bonuses for strong performance in battles (e.g. KMDDs, solo kills, clearing 2.5k-3k damage, etc.), the ability to drop mixed decks, 4-5 ranks giving a significant amount of MC in order to facilitate the purchase of Hero/Champion mechs and/or mechbays, and the ability to pay a penalty and instantaneously change contracts in order to encourage/facilitate bidding wars and prevent boredom

Lastly, it's probably worth pointing out that introducing repair and rearm for merc units isn't going to break up all large merc units. The only mercs that will suffer because of this are the middling ones, the guys and gals with W/L ratios at or below 1.0. The large merc units that everyone loves to hate will, by and large, be okay. The reality is that a unit that clears a 2.0-2.5 W/L ratio is probably not only successful enough to afford repair and rearm, but also get ahead. In addition to this, that tradition of success, and the camaraderie and mentality that go along with it, will serve to keep people together even in an environment of reduced rewards... at least until they get fed up with the game and quit altogether.

The mercs who will really suffer under repair and rearm are the less successful outfits, the ones that no one ever complains about because they make for easier pickings.

But hey, at least it would inject a healthy dose of realism into the game: large multi-national corporations use their resources and accumulated knowledge and influence to survive in any environment because that's what alpha predators do, elite boutique firms survive because they find good, easy-to-defend niches for themselves, state-owned companies survive because they're propped up by tax revenues, while middling corporations and small mom-and-pop stores eventually fold because, even if they don't go outright bankrupt, they simply can't generate the kind of returns that justify the capital invested in them.

Doesn't that sound like so much fun?

Edited by habu86, 03 August 2016 - 06:01 PM.

[Hotthedd]

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

Well, seeing how, in most modern armies, the rank of lieutenant (or any of its close equivalents) is the lowest officer rank, no, they don't get paid very much at all, relatively speaking.

They also don't typically command companies either, but platoons or platoon-sized elements. Fun fact, a typical armored platoon (that your typical O-1 or O-2 would command) consists of 4 vehicles, give or take, so same approximate size as an IS lance or Clan star.

Ranks in MW:O do not translate to command. It would just be based on pay grade. Another distinction is that the lowliest MechWarrior, is STILL a MechWarrior, not an infantry grunt, not a Tank commander, not an Aerospace pilot, but a MECHWARRIOR, the most elite, highly trained and sought after Warriors is the known galaxy.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

Another fun fact, at various points in history, mercenaries made up a significant part (often enough, they made up the bulk) of the wartime armies deployed by nation-states, especially those who had not yet achieved an economic base strong enough to support standing armies. In fact, the only way a good many pre-modern nation-states were able to field large standing armies was through a combination of (successful) expansionist initiatives and heavy taxation of vassal states and the state's population; neither of these approaches was indefinitely sustainable and almost all the nation-states attempting to do so ended up entering economic declines (often of the irreversible variety) the instant they suffered any kind of setbacks.

Which is basically where we are in the I.S. of 3050.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

The problem with taking cues from either real history or BT lore in designing reward and/or restriction structures is that the incentives and situations don't translate well into a game environment. The reality is that, historically, mercenaries were very well compensated indeed, often being enticed with promises of plunder opportunities and a myriad of rewards for good performance. Even today, when PMCs are restricted to non-combat roles, they still command eye-popping sums for their services. And part of that is driven by necessity, since they have to make the money stretch between contracts. At the end of the day, viewed as a transaction, whether to hire mercenaries or raise troops is a simple rent-vs.-buy decision.

What part of it doesn't translate? The game already has a mechanic that affects contract payouts due to demand. Houses with large numbers of Loyalists would not pay as much on mercenary contracts, and vice versa.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

Whereas in lore, plenty of the more successful merc outfits were, at one point or the other, given cushy garrison assignments, where they just drew payment and acted as a deterrent to any would-be attackers. This was important to them because it allowed them to rebuild from devastating battles and engagements that would have otherwise caused them to fold. Never mind that it is highly doubtful that any nation state would find it financially acceptable, during peacetime, to pay the kind of premiums that maintaining a long-term, full-time mercenary presence would require. The only instances of nation-states having done anything remotely like this was with elite bodyguard units, where ruling monarchs and princes were content to pay a premium in order to maintain a foreign bodyguard that would be less vulnerable to subversion by local opposition.

Luckily for the game, there hasn't been any peacetime for 300 years...

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

Secondly, this is a game, which means that we WANT to fight. This is biggest problem with the suggestion that mercenaries be locked into certain factions for extended periods of time. If this was a real-life situation, a nice garrison contract on a sleepy backwater planet that never sees any action would be a mercenary's dream. Not having to get at shot at for your paycheck? Yes, please. But this is, in fact, a game. We login to blow stuff up in a simulated environment, and this goes double for many folks who choose to go merc, as their desire to get fights (and the rewards that go with it) outweighs their interest in any particular factions.

Exactly. Mercenaries should be able to take on "contracts" on a planet to planet basis. Single missions, even.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

I think that, rather than attempting to penalize or detract from anybody's rewards, the reward structure itself needs to further diversify, with not only a much clearer distinction between loyalists for mercs, but one that is designed to reflect the unique situation of each. For example:
- Loyalist reward structure: lots of mechbays at each step of the way to allow them the capacity to quickly build up a large stable of mechs, discounts on faction-specific mechs and components, colors, patterns, warhorns, and certain cockpit items (e.g. flags, medallions, etc.), along with 4-5 ranks giving a moderate amount of MC in order to facilitate the purchase of said faction-specific pieces of flair.
- Mercenary reward structure: lots of C-bills, with extra bonuses for strong performance in battles (e.g. KMDDs, solo kills, clearing 2.5k-3k damage, etc.), the ability to drop mixed decks, 4-5 ranks giving a significant amount of MC in order to facilitate the purchase of Hero/Champion mechs and/or mechbays, and the ability to pay a penalty and instantaneously change contracts in order to encourage/facilitate bidding wars and prevent boredom

This sounds like a reasonable avenue for differentiation.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

Lastly, it's probably worth pointing out that introducing repair and rearm for merc units isn't going to break up all large merc units. The only mercs that will suffer because of this are the middling ones, the guys and gals with W/L ratios at or below 1.0. The large merc units that everyone loves to hate will, by and large, be okay. The reality is that a unit that clears a 2.0-2.5 W/L ratio is probably not only successful enough to afford repair and rearm, but also get ahead. In addition to this, that tradition of success, and the camaraderie and mentality that go along with it, will serve to keep people together even in an environment of reduced rewards... at least until they get fed up with the game and quit altogether.

That is why mercenary units should also have to deal with logistics costs. Larger units (i.e. more than a battalion) might have to pay a small amount of MC for rosters over that amount to reflect the upkeep costs. Those that want to stay huge will be helping fund the game, those with dead weight will trim the rosters.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

The mercs who will really suffer under repair and rearm are the less successful outfits, the ones that no one ever complains about because they make for easier pickings.

If a unit is unfortunate enough to not be able to sustain itself, there would always be the option of becoming Loyalists...

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

But hey, at least it would inject a healthy dose of realism into the game: large multi-national corporations use their resources and accumulated knowledge and influence to survive in any environment because that's what alpha predators do, elite boutique firms survive because they find good, easy-to-defend niches for themselves, state-owned companies survive because they're propped up by tax revenues, while middling corporations and small mom-and-pop stores eventually fold because, even if they don't go outright bankrupt, they simply can't generate the kind of returns that justify the capital invested in them.

Doesn't that sound like so much fun?

Yes, actually. It does.
It sounds much better than everyone getting a participation trophy for just showing up.

[habu86]

@Hotthedd - let me begin by saying thank you for reading the wall of text... I half expected everyone to give it the TL;DR treatment

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Ranks in MW:O do not translate to command. It would just be based on pay grade. Another distinction is that the lowliest MechWarrior, is STILL a MechWarrior, not an infantry grunt, not a Tank commander, not an Aerospace pilot, but a MECHWARRIOR, the most elite, highly trained and sought after Warriors is the known galaxy.

Completely agree on MechWarriors' standing in the universe. I was just giving out some information on how the command structure usually works out for mechanized and armored formations - MechWarriors are elite individuals and BattleMechs are amazing, wondrous machines, but functionally speaking, they still fulfill the role of mechanized and/or armored formations of various types. Functionally, they are much more sophisticated, capable, and bipedal tanks, IFVs, MLRSs, mobile artillery, AAA and SAM vehicles, etc. and their organization is (even in lore) similar in size and structure to their less-sophisticated, modern-day counterparts. E.g. 4-5 vehicles to a platoon, 3-4 platoons to a company, 3-4 companies to a battalion, etc.

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

What part of it doesn't translate? The game already has a mechanic that affects contract payouts due to demand. Houses with large numbers of Loyalists would not pay as much on mercenary contracts, and vice versa.

Two elements do not translate:
1.) In-game, we are currently operating in a post-scarcity economy. Earning the C-bills needed for whatever we wish is simply a matter of getting enough drops. We don't have to make decisions in an environment where consequences are permanent and irreversible. Ultimately this warps people's incentives and their decision-making processes to something other than they would be in real-life. For example: I drop with an average group from my unit and run into a KCom 12-man. At that point, given the disparity in skill between a full KCom 12-man and an average MS 12-man, the real life smart answer would be to simply withdraw from the field and avoid an unfavorable engagement. Instead, I look forward to a match that will test my abilities and provide me with valuable learning opportunities.
2.) We do not have decision-makers responsible for achieving certain objectives while balancing multiple constraints. The game mode's meta-goals are whatever we want them to be and every individual acts however they want in order to achieve these goals without any real accountability to anyone. Even if we had leaders who were accountable for results, the above-mentioned post-scarcity environment would still serve to warp their decision-making process.

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Luckily for the game, there hasn't been any peacetime for 300 years...

Certainly, but the conflicts have ebbed and flowed, and this has provided periods of respite for both house and mercenary commands. And in the context of these periods of respite, the Great Houses have time and time again given certain, favored mercenary commands what essentially amounted to milk-run contracts in order to allow them to rebuild. Wolf's Dragoons and the Eridani Light Horse are two examples that come mind right this instant, but there are others. It is, IMO, highly doubtful that a RL government would offer this level of support to a real-life PMC, due to the fact that RL economies are of the scarce-resource variety.

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Exactly. Mercenaries should be able to take on "contracts" on a planet to planet basis. Single missions, even.

Agree entirely and would love to see this happen. Mind you though, if you think that the "mercs imbalance factions" whining is bad right now, this will take it to 11. But hey, can't please everyone.

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

That is why mercenary units should also have to deal with logistics costs. Larger units (i.e. more than a battalion) might have to pay a small amount of MC for rosters over that amount to reflect the upkeep costs. Those that want to stay huge will be helping fund the game, those with dead weight will trim the rosters.

Actually, unless we're going to handwave logistic costs for small units, economic theory dictates the exact opposite. Economies of scale would make it cheaper, on a per-unit basis, to maintain and supply a larger force than a smaller one; the trick is to ensure that the entirety of the larger force is gainfully employed and there's no deadweight anywhere. Which again, ends up hurting different units in different ways. For example, MS has (at least traditionally) a significantly larger proportion of players who are invested in and regularly play CW than say, 228 or NS. This would make it relatively easier for MS to afford to pay the required upkeep. 228 or NS on the other hand might have to drop their crown jewel, MRBC Divison A comp teams (BlackWatch and NS-1) as their competitive commitments detract from their availability to farm the C-bills needed to pay the upkeep that their presence on unit rosters induces.

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

If a unit is unfortunate enough to not be able to sustain itself, there would always be the option of becoming Loyalists...

Going loyalist would certainly be an avenue to gain help in sustaining themselves, but if they chose to be mercs in the first place, I'm guessing there's a reason for that.

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Yes, actually. It does.
It sounds much better than everyone getting a participation trophy for just showing up.

Hey man, I pilot for MS. Objectively speaking, such an arrangement works in our favor. We're one of the best, if not THE best positioned to benefit from a setup where the strong outright eat the weak, as often happens in real life. I just don't think it would be a lot of fun for most other people. Read up on how the oil companies that Standard Oil put out of business liked being straight-up outmaneuvered, outcompeted, and ultimately ruined; sure, the oil industry and, by extension, the economy was better off for it, but it sure sucked for the poor ******** on the losing end. Turning the game environment into a Darwinian experience won't help break up large merc units. On the contrary, it will serve to encourage further and further consolidation of the playerbase.

Ultimately, it's worth remembering that this is just a game. We play to blow off steam and have fun. I think that a lack of any significant rewards is punishment enough for poor performance. Pilling on to that by restricting player choice isn't going to do the playerbase any favors; it'll just serve to continuously drive away the weakest x% of players. If we cannot gain more players than we drive away, then the game will ultimately wither and die.

Edited by habu86, 03 August 2016 - 11:47 PM.

[Hotthedd]

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

@Hotthedd - let me begin by saying thank you for reading the wall of text... I half expected everyone to give it the TL;DR treatment

TL;DR

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Completely agree on MechWarriors' standing in the universe. I was just giving out some information on how the command structure usually works out for mechanized and armored formations - MechWarriors are elite individuals and BattleMechs are amazing, wondrous machines, but functionally speaking, they still fulfill the role of mechanized and/or armored formations of various types. Functionally, they are much more sophisticated, capable, and bipedal tanks, IFVs, MLRSs, mobile artillery, AAA and SAM vehicles, etc. and their organization is (even in lore) similar in size and structure to their less-sophisticated, modern-day counterparts. E.g. 4-5 vehicles to a platoon, 3-4 platoons to a company, 3-4 companies to a battalion, etc.

Understood. I'm sure we agree that command structure for mercenary units is completely up to the Unit. Base pay per contract can be modified by in-game rank.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Two elements do not translate:
1.) In-game, we are currently operating in a post-scarcity economy. Earning the C-bills needed for whatever we wish is simply a matter of getting enough drops. We don't have to make decisions in an environment where consequences are permanent and irreversible. Ultimately this warps people's incentives and their decision-making processes to something other than they would be in real-life. For example: I drop with an average group from my unit and run into a KCom 12-man. At that point, given the disparity in skill between a full KCom 12-man and an average MS 12-man, the real life smart answer would be to simply withdraw from the field and avoid an unfavorable engagement. Instead, I look forward to a match that will test my abilities and provide me with valuable learning opportunities.
2.) We do not have decision-makers responsible for achieving certain objectives while balancing multiple constraints. The game mode's meta-goals are whatever we want them to be and every individual acts however they want in order to achieve these goals without any real accountability to anyone. Even if we had leaders who were accountable for results, the above-mentioned post-scarcity environment would still serve to warp their decision-making process.

1.) True, but it is a game. Therefore we play it. If there were enough players and a functioning economy I would be personally okay with a "no contest-surrender" option, but it would not be fun, and it would have to negatively effect the unit's MRBC rating.
2.) Because it is a game, and no single player is required to follow another player's orders, does not mean that ranks cannot effect payouts. The game economy does not suffer because some people are Rambos.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Certainly, but the conflicts have ebbed and flowed, and this has provided periods of respite for both house and mercenary commands. And in the context of these periods of respite, the Great Houses have time and time again given certain, favored mercenary commands what essentially amounted to milk-run contracts in order to allow them to rebuild. Wolf's Dragoons and the Eridani Light Horse are two examples that come mind right this instant, but there are others. It is, IMO, highly doubtful that a RL government would offer this level of support to a real-life PMC, due to the fact that RL economies are of the scarce-resource variety.

For game purposes, the Houses and Clans have an infinite money supply. These are the things that differ from real life. However, real life economics still work. Basic supply and demand stuff.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Agree entirely and would love to see this happen. Mind you though, if you think that the "mercs imbalance factions" whining is bad right now, this will take it to 11. But hey, can't please everyone.

Probably. But my hope would be that mercenaries would follow the money. Single time contracts and the Laffer curve would serve to make competing sides even, especially if bigger merc units needed to make enough money to cover their expenses.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Actually, unless we're going to handwave logistic costs for small units, economic theory dictates the exact opposite. Economies of scale would make it cheaper, on a per-unit basis, to maintain and supply a larger force than a smaller one; the trick is to ensure that the entirety of the larger force is gainfully employed and there's no deadweight anywhere. Which again, ends up hurting different units in different ways. For example, MS has (at least traditionally) a significantly larger proportion of players who are invested in and regularly play CW than say, 228 or NS. This would make it relatively easier for MS to afford to pay the required upkeep. 228 or NS on the other hand might have to drop their crown jewel, MRBC Divison A comp teams (BlackWatch and NS-1) as their competitive commitments detract from their availability to farm the C-bills needed to pay the upkeep that their presence on unit rosters induces.

Economy of scale means that logistics costs are cheaper per unit(mechwarrior) for the larger units, but still, as in real life, moving and maintaining more of something still costs more overall than moving less of something.
Let's say that for every contract, the logistics of transporting and maintaining 36 mechwarriors and their 'mechs is included, free of charge. Anything above that number is charged 1MC per day per mechwarrior. (numbers are completely random)
Any unit with less than 37 members pays nothing, like now.
Units with more than 36 players now need to "make their nut", the bigger the unit, the more they need to be active in FP.
I would expect that many units would begin to weed out the less active/good players, and some would simply break up into 36 man units, but continue to share a TS, etc.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Going loyalist would certainly be an avenue to gain help in sustaining themselves, but if they chose to be mercs in the first place, I'm guessing there's a reason for that.

And good luck to them. However, it is not for the weak.

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Hey man, I pilot for MS. Objectively speaking, such an arrangement works in our favor. We're one of the best, if not THE best positioned to benefit from a setup where the strong outright eat the weak, as often happens in real life. I just don't think it would be a lot of fun for most other people. Read up on how the oil companies that Standard Oil put out of business liked being straight-up outmaneuvered, outcompeted, and ultimately ruined; sure, the oil industry and, by extension, the economy was better off for it, but it sure sucked for the poor ******** on the losing end. Turning the game environment into a Darwinian experience won't help break up large merc units. On the contrary, it will serve to encourage further and further consolidation of the playerbase.

Perhaps, but think of all the MC that would have to be earned/spent for that to happen. It would help fund the game.
Personally, I believe it would give rise to some really great (legendary, even) 36 man units, with a vast majority being in the middle of the pack, and a few just for fun units. (BTW, I believe there needs to be a minimum of one lance to constitute a unit)

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Ultimately, it's worth remembering that this is just a game. We play to blow off steam and have fun. I think that a lack of any significant rewards is punishment enough for poor performance. Pilling on to that by restricting player choice isn't going to do the playerbase any favors; it'll just serve to continuously drive away the weakest x% of players. If we cannot gain more players than we drive away, then the game will ultimately wither and die.

Well said, and I don't believe my suggestions remove choices, they just make the choices tougher.

[Davegt27]

I would leave Mercs alone for right now

but focus on boosting loyalist this is for balance

also I would make everyone that plays FW join a unit of at least 12 people

if you don't have a unit you will be assigned to a unit

after rank 6 you can move
also you cant become a Merc until you reach rank 6

[habu86]

Hmm... I feel that we've somehow drifted away from discussing the merits of implementing "repair and rearm" which is, at its core, a variable cost for merc units and into the territory of "upkeep" cost, which is, fundamentally, a fixed cost. Both of these systems affect different types of units differently. I'll come back to this in a bit, but I want to expound on your compensation suggestion a bit.

I agree wholeheartedly that compensation should improve as you rank up in order to keep folks motivated through the high-level grind. Not only that, but I think that an in-game bounty system should also be implemented to reward kills and damage inflicted upon notable players and unit members (with even greater bonuses for where those two intersect). I think this would not only greatly incentivize top units to actively look for and challenge each other, but also make it worth the time and trouble for pugs or mid-table units and pilots to give everything they have against strong opposition, knowing that the rewards will justify the pain and struggle.

Hotthedd, on 04 August 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

Economy of scale means that logistics costs are cheaper per unit(mechwarrior) for the larger units, but still, as in real life, moving and maintaining more of something still costs more overall than moving less of something.
Let's say that for every contract, the logistics of transporting and maintaining 36 mechwarriors and their 'mechs is included, free of charge. Anything above that number is charged 1MC per day per mechwarrior. (numbers are completely random)
Any unit with less than 37 members pays nothing, like now.
Units with more than 36 players now need to "make their nut", the bigger the unit, the more they need to be active in FP.
I would expect that many units would begin to weed out the less active/good players, and some would simply break up into 36 man units, but continue to share a TS, etc.

This particular proposal is, fundamentally, a different, somewhat more draconian version of the current recruitment fees that we have in place. Here's why I take issue with it.

Let's say a merc unit has 100 members and they enter negotiations for a contract that will pay them to deploy 36 pilots. If they agree to that contract, then they implicitly agree that 36 pilots are all they need to successfully complete the contract and that is all that they will be inclined to deploy. If they feel they need more, they will negotiate a contract that pays for more. So what they'll do is send the 36 or however many pilots and their mechs to fulfill the contract and look for other opportunities to employ the remainder of their force.
To deploy any more forces than is absolutely necessary would be to incur additional costs (especially when they have to pay the deployment costs out of their own pocket) only to forgo revenue opportunities elsewhere. No private company that mismanages its affairs like that will live very long. Now, on the other hand, if we actually had a system in place that would allow loyalists to not only hire mercenaries to accomplish specific objectives, but specify the exact number of pilots they are willing to pay for, I think it would help inject an incredible amount of dynamism into the metagame and really take unit management, which at the moment is a generally informal and out-of-game affair, to the next level.
But that's neither here nor there; my point is that if a contract calls for a certain number of pilots and mechs, that's all that a private corporation would send. They would most definitely not pay extra costs out of pocket for no conceivable reason.

Now let's take a look at a different scenario, one somewhat closer to the current situation. Let's say that faction can only hire an entire unit at a time and will pay them entirely on the basis of their combat performance, potentially with additional salvage rights and whatnot thrown in. In this scenario, it is the unit leaders' responsibility to arrange for transport, supply, etc. In this situation, the contract becomes a letter of marque, recognizing the mercenary unit as a legitimate combatant and conferring upon them the rights, responsibilities, and protections afforded to other legitimate combatants. This is a pretty well-established mechanism, one which has often been used to engage naval privateers during the age of sail.
Now consider the example of two units looking to book passage on a JumpShip with a capacity for, let's say 500 mechwarriors and their mechs. One unit has 25 pilots (5% of the ship's capacity), while the other has 400 pilots (80% of the ship's capacity). What happens in the real world, and would most definitely hold here as well, unless we're willing actively intervene to suppress and override economic and financial mechanisms for the sake of encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors and outcomes (hello regulation, nice to meet you), is that the smaller unit would only likely be able to access retail passage rates and pay whatever the market-clearing price would be. The larger unit however, would be able to approach the JumpShip operator directly and negotiate a discounted rate in exchange for giving them all of their business. The JumpShip operator would agree because selling such a big portion of their capacity in a single transaction would allow them to not only save money on an number of acquisition- and administration-related items, but would also free up the resources that would have been otherwise dedicated to selling 400 units of capacity; these resources could then, in turn, be employed in other revenue-generating activities that might have otherwise been forgone.
Now, let's say that the two units reach the operational planet and perform exactly the same in combat. They receive the same rewards per MechWarrior deployed. However, because the larger unit was able to save money on passage, they will be able to achieve better profitability. And keep in mind that they will generally be able to keep replicating what they've done with their passage costs in other aspects of their supply chain and acquisition processes; it's simply more efficient for their vendors to sell larger quantities of goods or services in a single transaction, so they will be more inclined to offer discounts and preferential rates in order to win the larger customer's business.
And what if there wasn't enough action for all 400 MechWarriors? Unless this was a total surprise, unit leadership would simply not have deployed the entirety of the unit to the planet in the first place. If it did come as a surprise, well... such things do happen when running a business; as long as this is the exception rather than the rule, occasionally missing a revenue target won't normally spell the death of the enterprise. Especially not for a large enterprise that stands a better chance of getting access to revolvers and bridge loans.

That is what I mean when I say that we would have to seriously suspend the laws of economics in order to create a financial system that penalizes large merc units simply for being large. If the game developer decides that large merc units are bad, it's much more simple, direct, and easier to implement to simply declare that no units larger than, say 36 or 48 or whatever are allowed and set that as a hardcap. Think antitrust legislation setting a hard cap on how large of a market share an individual firm might be allowed to acquire (even this approach is actually not that simple to implement) vs. a convoluted system of taxation that seeks to "encourage" organizations to limit themselves to a certain size through a combination of indirect means and which can be actively ignored by any organization that chooses to prioritize goals other than the ones affected by the taxation mechanisms.

Hotthedd, on 04 August 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

Perhaps, but think of all the MC that would have to be earned/spent for that to happen. It would help fund the game.
Personally, I believe it would give rise to some really great (legendary, even) 36 man units, with a vast majority being in the middle of the pack, and a few just for fun units. (BTW, I believe there needs to be a minimum of one lance to constitute a unit)

I think we already have a good many "legendary" small (i.e. less than 36-man) units. SJR, EmP, Eon Synergy, 9STS, D-5, KCom, EVIL, JGx, S-RS, MJ12... how big was COMA again?. Then you've got the bigger units' dedicated, top-tier comp and/or Officer and Veteran groups... you might not realize what you've facing unless you know the individuals involved, but facing any large unit's A-Team(s) is the stuff of nightmares unless you're dropping with an A-Team of your own.

Secondly, how would this serve to fund the game? Unless we're funneling upkeep costs towards some sort of government-like structure that uses them to further enhance the game experience, provide better infrastructure/equipment, assist new players, or whatever, the same thing that happens to recruitment fees now will happen to the hard-won MC and C-bills paid for upkeep. That is to say, they'll simply disappear into a black hole for no obvious benefit to anyone. We'll end up with a mandatory grind for no clear benefit.

TL;DR

1. Repair and rearm will hurt merc units of mediocre or less skill regardless of size; lots of casual players who just wanna play a bit of Road Warrior in space will find it almost impossibly difficult to play their preferred style and, I suspect, a fair few will simply quite the game/mode.
2. Upkeep costs can be used to encourage unit size limits, but will spark tons of arguments with respect to limits, rates, etc. See real-life arguments on taxation for a taster of what might come. If we really, really want to set a limit on merc unit size, this can be achieved much more easily with a couple of lines of XML code.

Edited by habu86, 04 August 2016 - 09:28 PM.

[CMetz]

I think that the merc system needs a complete overhaul. The reality is that there is not enough differentiation between loyalist and merc to make different career paths worthwhile. I am a loyalist, and if I wasn't a lore-nerd I would be a merc in a second. My ideas for discussion are as follows:

1.) Let mercs play clan or IS equipment.
2.) Limit merc contracts to factions that need more player support. If a player or unit makes the choice to become a merc they have to go where the money is, and in reality a faction that has a large loyalist population won't need to hire them. For example: the current landscape would only have contracts posted for Liao, Marik, and CSJ.
3.) Loyalists don't pay repair/rearm. Mercs should.
4.) Mercs should receive much higher pay for successful missions. If they fail they should receive no pay at all. Loyalists get paid win or lose because they collect a salary. It needs to be a much more extreme risk/reward scenario to differentiate between merc and loyalist.
5.) Contract mercs by planet. Perhaps offer a small bond up front. Possibly institute logistics fees.

[AnTi90d]

I think R&R coupled with "no pay for losing battles" would be too heavy handed.

I'm OK with mercenaries fielding C and IS mechs in their dropdecks.. but to offset how incredibly powerful that could be, I'd say lower their dropdeck weight limit. (I feel that 225ish seems fair.)

Maybe even let freelancers have the same dropdeck freedoms with a higher weight limit.

Then each FP career path would have its own feel and flavor.

Loyalists - 250t deck, only fielding the tech of their masters
Freelancers - 250t deck, C & IS
Mercenaries - 225ish deck, C & IS

It still wouldn't solve the abysmal FP attendance numbers, though..

[Hotthedd]

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Hmm... I feel that we've somehow drifted away from discussing the merits of implementing "repair and rearm" which is, at its core, a variable cost for merc units and into the territory of "upkeep" cost, which is, fundamentally, a fixed cost. Both of these systems affect different types of units differently. I'll come back to this in a bit, but I want to expound on your compensation suggestion a bit.

We have drifted into a discussion of macroeconomics from the real 21st century earth and its application in a fictional 31st century universe. While this exercise is stimulating and good points are being made, we are now debating things that, no offense to PGI, are way over their "game economy" heads. (After 4 years, their only C-bill sinks are modules and new 'mechs)

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

I agree wholeheartedly that compensation should improve as you rank up in order to keep folks motivated through the high-level grind. Not only that, but I think that an in-game bounty system should also be implemented to reward kills and damage inflicted upon notable players and unit members (with even greater bonuses for where those two intersect). I think this would not only greatly incentivize top units to actively look for and challenge each other, but also make it worth the time and trouble for pugs or mid-table units and pilots to give everything they have against strong opposition, knowing that the rewards will justify the pain and struggle.

Intriguing. I wouldn't be against the idea, but as a game, it worries me that the game itself would be against certain players. Those top pilots would be subjected to kamikaze attacks and irrational play from their foes on a constant basis. It could get tiresome for those players no never be able to just relax and play a game. The idea would need further enhancement.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

This particular proposal is, fundamentally, a different, somewhat more draconian version of the current recruitment fees that we have in place. Here's why I take issue with it.

Let's say a merc unit has 100 members and they enter negotiations for a contract that will pay them to deploy 36 pilots. If they agree to that contract, then they implicitly agree that 36 pilots are all they need to successfully complete the contract and that is all that they will be inclined to deploy. If they feel they need more, they will negotiate a contract that pays for more. So what they'll do is send the 36 or however many pilots and their mechs to fulfill the contract and look for other opportunities to employ the remainder of their force.

Right now every contract calls for a total of 12 players. No more, no less.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

To deploy any more forces than is absolutely necessary would be to incur additional costs (especially when they have to pay the deployment costs out of their own pocket) only to forgo revenue opportunities elsewhere. No private company that mismanages its affairs like that will live very long. Now, on the other hand, if we actually had a system in place that would allow loyalists to not only hire mercenaries to accomplish specific objectives, but specify the exact number of pilots they are willing to pay for, I think it would help inject an incredible amount of dynamism into the metagame and really take unit management, which at the moment is a generally informal and out-of-game affair, to the next level.

Again, even 13 mechwarriors would qualify as "more than necessary", as no battle in MW:O has more than that number in any given battle. And in this game, large units can easily use the same pilots on several different worlds 'simultaneously' (meaning more than one planet per turn). Unit management has to stay at the unit level, I do not trust PGI with that responsibility.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

But that's neither here nor there; my point is that if a contract calls for a certain number of pilots and mechs, that's all that a private corporation would send. They would most definitely not pay extra costs out of pocket for no conceivable reason.

Then there would have to be a mechanism locking pilots to single planets. We do not have the player base for that, and solos and smaller units would leave the game with that freedom removed.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Now let's take a look at a different scenario, one somewhat closer to the current situation. Let's say that faction can only hire an entire unit at a time and will pay them entirely on the basis of their combat performance, potentially with additional salvage rights and whatnot thrown in. In this scenario, it is the unit leaders' responsibility to arrange for transport, supply, etc. In this situation, the contract becomes a letter of marque, recognizing the mercenary unit as a legitimate combatant and conferring upon them the rights, responsibilities, and protections afforded to other legitimate combatants. This is a pretty well-established mechanism, one which has often been used to engage naval privateers during the age of sail.
Now consider the example of two units looking to book passage on a JumpShip with a capacity for, let's say 500 mechwarriors and their mechs. One unit has 25 pilots (5% of the ship's capacity), while the other has 400 pilots (80% of the ship's capacity). What happens in the real world, and would most definitely hold here as well, unless we're willing actively intervene to suppress and override economic and financial mechanisms for the sake of encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors and outcomes (hello regulation, nice to meet you), is that the smaller unit would only likely be able to access retail passage rates and pay whatever the market-clearing price would be. The larger unit however, would be able to approach the JumpShip operator directly and negotiate a discounted rate in exchange for giving them all of their business. The JumpShip operator would agree because selling such a big portion of their capacity in a single transaction would allow them to not only save money on an number of acquisition- and administration-related items, but would also free up the resources that would have been otherwise dedicated to selling 400 units of capacity; these resources could then, in turn, be employed in other revenue-generating activities that might have otherwise been forgone.

There are two huge points that you are missing, one being in-universe, and one of supply and demand economics:
In the BT universe, besides the Great Houses having basically unlimited funds, Jump ships are relatively few, and they can not be replicated. The knowledge of the K/F drive has been lost for centuries (and jump ships are protected by interstellar treaty. No house will attack them.) The supply is infintesimally lower than the demand. Therefore: This is not akin to Rockeller's deal with J.P. Morgan negotiating a price deal on vastly overbuilt train routes. The jump ships do not worry about selling seats like 21st century airlines do. The seats will be full, and cutting deals does not help the jump ships in any way.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Now, let's say that the two units reach the operational planet and perform exactly the same in combat. They receive the same rewards per MechWarrior deployed. However, because the larger unit was able to save money on passage, they will be able to achieve better profitability. And keep in mind that they will generally be able to keep replicating what they've done with their passage costs in other aspects of their supply chain and acquisition processes; it's simply more efficient for their vendors to sell larger quantities of goods or services in a single transaction, so they will be more inclined to offer discounts and preferential rates in order to win the larger customer's business.

As addressed before, the jump ships have zero financial incentive. They have a virtual monopoly, a finite product, and more demand than can possibly be met. (And for game purposes the Houses have no monetary concerns whatsoever)

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

And what if there wasn't enough action for all 400 MechWarriors? Unless this was a total surprise, unit leadership would simply not have deployed the entirety of the unit to the planet in the first place. If it did come as a surprise, well... such things do happen when running a business; as long as this is the exception rather than the rule, occasionally missing a revenue target won't normally spell the death of the enterprise. Especially not for a large enterprise that stands a better chance of getting access to revolvers and bridge loans.

Revolving credit and bridge loans? Three things:
1.) We are completely out of the realm of game economics. Especially MW:O economics.
2.) Mercenary units in the BT universe have never operated on loans and credit.
3.) (Real world) All businesses are not the same. A military mercenary business is not AT&T. Expansion for a mercenary unit comes with almost guaranteed depletion and destruction, and no bank in the world is going to finance such a risk. How would that loan application interview go? I imagine something like this:
Merc: Hi, I'd like to apply for a bridge loan of $250 billion please.
Bank: Hmmm, that is a lot of money, sir. What do you need it for?
Merc: I was hoping to use the money to expand my business. We are a very reputable company, and have secured a contract with the Canadian government to expand into "new markets". All of the paperwork is in order.
Bank: I see, and what will the money be used for?
Merc: We were hoping to buy a few dozen tanks and F-22s. Luckily we have been able to negotiate very favorable rates on transport on a half-empty Canadian Navy aircraft carrier.
Bank: And what exactly would you be planning to DO with these assets?
Merc: We need them to attack, conquer, and occupy Reykavik, Iceland. Our 'market research' has determined that it is surprisingly weakly defended. Of course, we don't get paid the full amount of the contract until the local population is fully assimil..., er, um, "serviced".
Bank: Ahh. And how do you plan to secure the loan?
Merc: As you can see, the contract is for more than the loan amount, so we were hoping that that could serve as security. At least $100 billion is guaranteed, successful or not. Additionally, we would still have some of those bought assets in any case, so those undamaged tanks and jets could be collateral. And hey, we're MercStar! We're good for it.
Bank: Very well sir! Everything seems to be in order. Good luck on your business endeavor!

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

That is what I mean when I say that we would have to seriously suspend the laws of economics in order to create a financial system that penalizes large merc units simply for being large. If the game developer decides that large merc units are bad, it's much more simple, direct, and easier to implement to simply declare that no units larger than, say 36 or 48 or whatever are allowed and set that as a hardcap. Think antitrust legislation setting a hard cap on how large of a market share an individual firm might be allowed to acquire (even this approach is actually not that simple to implement) vs. a convoluted system of taxation that seeks to "encourage" organizations to limit themselves to a certain size through a combination of indirect means and which can be actively ignored by any organization that chooses to prioritize goals other than the ones affected by the taxation mechanisms.

I suppose that would work, but I personally would like to see a system where very large units are possible, if not very difficult to sustain, instead of taking possibilities away from players. There will always be work-arounds, and playing with friends should never be disallowed.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

I think we already have a good many "legendary" small (i.e. less than 36-man) units. SJR, EmP, Eon Synergy, 9STS, D-5, KCom, EVIL, JGx, S-RS, MJ12... how big was COMA again?. Then you've got the bigger units' dedicated, top-tier comp and/or Officer and Veteran groups... you might not realize what you've facing unless you know the individuals involved, but facing any large unit's A-Team(s) is the stuff of nightmares unless you're dropping with an A-Team of your own.

Okay. I would think that if one of the very large units was unable to sustain carrying so many players, that the cream would rise to the top. Players who do not contribute enough to justify their costs would have to form their own units, or go loyalist.

Unfortunately MW:O does not have the player base to balance the game if just a few units comprise a large plurality of players in FP. incentivizing (not forcing) medium sized units is actually good for the long term health of the game.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Secondly, how would this serve to fund the game? Unless we're funneling upkeep costs towards some sort of government-like structure that uses them to further enhance the game experience, provide better infrastructure/equipment, assist new players, or whatever, the same thing that happens to recruitment fees now will happen to the hard-won MC and C-bills paid for upkeep. That is to say, they'll simply disappear into a black hole for no obvious benefit to anyone. We'll end up with a mandatory grind for no clear benefit.

MC costs fund the game. Some players will buy MC to keep their spot in units that are better than they are.

habu86, on 04 August 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

TL;DR

1. Repair and rearm will hurt merc units of mediocre or less skill regardless of size; lots of casual players who just wanna play a bit of Road Warrior in space will find it almost impossibly difficult to play their preferred style and, I suspect, a fair few will simply quite the game/mode.
2. Upkeep costs can be used to encourage unit size limits, but will spark tons of arguments with respect to limits, rates, etc. See real-life arguments on taxation for a taster of what might come. If we really, really want to set a limit on merc unit size, this can be achieved much more easily with a couple of lines of XML code.

1. It is important that the rewards for FP, even after R&R, do not go negative. Higher ceiling, lower floor.
2. Of course the actual numbers may need tweaking and adjusting. It happens all of the time.
All costs are not "taxes". Any costs in the game are completely avoidable.

[habu86]

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

We have drifted into a discussion of macroeconomics from the real 21st century earth and its application in a fictional 31st century universe. While this exercise is stimulating and good points are being made, we are now debating things that, no offense to PGI, are way over their "game economy" heads. (After 4 years, their only C-bill sinks are modules and new 'mechs)

We really have, haven't we? I guess, at the end of the day, what I'm trying to say is that, while immersion is good, we're at the risk of putting the cart before the horse if we try to achieve through complicated, indirect means what could be achieved through more straightforward and simpler methods.
If the size of the units itself is a problem because, i dunno, big is bad or whatever, then just use hard limits on unit size to keep them from going outside of those bounds. That way we can focus solely on figuring out what constitute acceptable min./max. unit sizes rather than worry about unintended side effects or how people are going to game or get screwed by the system.
If the fact that too many folks play merc is an issue, then create a more distinctive game experience and reward structure for loyalists vs. mercenaries, so loyalists go loyalist for the swag and the lifestyle, rather than because they "failed" at merc-ing.
Granted, immersion may suffer somewhat as a result, but implementing piecemeal economic elements to try to poke and prod players in one direction or the other will, IMO, serve more to aggravate and aggrieve the player base.

Now that that's out of the way lol

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Intriguing. I wouldn't be against the idea, but as a game, it worries me that the game itself would be against certain players. Those top pilots would be subjected to kamikaze attacks and irrational play from their foes on a constant basis. It could get tiresome for those players no never be able to just relax and play a game. The idea would need further enhancement.

Fair point, but notable players are already targeted and paid a lot of attention to by anyone who plays CW enough to know who they are. If nothing else, I think this would help incentivize top players and units to go out of their way to hunt for each other across planets and queues, as opposed to the current situation, where any encounters are usually either accidental or set up for scrimmage purposes once in a blue moon.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Right now every contract calls for a total of 12 players. No more, no less.

Again, even 13 mechwarriors would qualify as "more than necessary", as no battle in MW:O has more than that number in any given battle. And in this game, large units can easily use the same pilots on several different worlds 'simultaneously' (meaning more than one planet per turn). Unit management has to stay at the unit level, I do not trust PGI with that responsibility.

Then there would have to be a mechanism locking pilots to single planets. We do not have the player base for that, and solos and smaller units would leave the game with that freedom removed.

Right, and this artificial count of number of mechs that can be deployed is where a game universe is different from reality, which is why I don't think we should spend too much time trying to role-play-justify game rules that would allow us to improve the experience and flow.

Still, for the sake of argument determining an adequate number of MechWarriors to contract for would be more of a metagame/strategic level consideration. Yes, only 12 pilots drop in a match. So the question becomes one of how many wedges of the map do you want to be able to contest at the same time? And while you're at it, how will you deploy the, let's say, 36 mercenaries you've just hired from Rent-a-Merc? Will they drop as 3 12-mans? Will they be split up into 6-8 mans to augment your loyalists in order to contest even more wedges at the same time with a reasonable chance of success? Or have you specifically requested 36 uber-killers that can be inserted as individual lances into loyalist drop groups and carry them to victory, 9 wedges at a time?

You are correct, however, in pointing out that we'd need a lot more facility for player-run governance and engagement. Can't leave this to PGI; if nothing else, they don't have enough resources to play GM for us. And yes, i think i'd be okay with being locked into a single planet for the attack phase if i knew i had a good chance of getting drops and a nice bonus for taking it.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

There are two huge points that you are missing, one being in-universe, and one of supply and demand economics:
In the BT universe, besides the Great Houses having basically unlimited funds, Jump ships are relatively few, and they can not be replicated. The knowledge of the K/F drive has been lost for centuries (and jump ships are protected by interstellar treaty. No house will attack them.) The supply is infintesimally lower than the demand. Therefore: This is not akin to Rockeller's deal with J.P. Morgan negotiating a price deal on vastly overbuilt train routes. The jump ships do not worry about selling seats like 21st century airlines do. The seats will be full, and cutting deals does not help the jump ships in any way.

As addressed before, the jump ships have zero financial incentive. They have a virtual monopoly, a finite product, and more demand than can possibly be met. (And for game purposes the Houses have no monetary concerns whatsoever)

A fair point that I had not considered and which, in hindsight, makes the JumpShip example poorly chosen. Still, I believe the general point stands. A larger unit will be able to deploy resources in order to achieve greater efficiency that will simply be outside of what's available to smaller units. Maybe they streamline their admin processes and require fewer man-hours per task. Or they're big enough to justify bringing certain maintenance and/or operational support functions in-house. Or heck, even if they can't necessarily strike a better deal on passage or acquisition of Mech components and advanced weapons systems, they can still try to negotiate for more ubiquitously-produced necessities such as ammo, food, uniforms, etc.
Either way, there are a good many more opportunities for a larger organization to operate more efficiently than a smaller one; they've just gotta figure out how to make sure that all those numerous assets are being used to generate the revenue they're supposed to in order to cover their costs.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Revolving credit and bridge loans? Three things:
1.) We are completely out of the realm of game economics. Especially MW:O economics.
2.) Mercenary units in the BT universe have never operated on loans and credit.
3.) (Real world) All businesses are not the same. A military mercenary business is not AT&T. Expansion for a mercenary unit comes with almost guaranteed depletion and destruction, and no bank in the world is going to finance such a risk. How would that loan application interview go? I imagine something like this:
Merc: Hi, I'd like to apply for a bridge loan of $250 billion please.
[...]
Bank: Very well sir! Everything seems to be in order. Good luck on your business endeavor!

Okay, the point that BT mercs never operate with loans or credit (not even short-term supplier credit? strains credulity a bit) is well taken, and I certainly wasn't implying we should implement this in-game (as awesome as that would be). It was more of a run-on argument than anything.

Still, as hilarious and awesome as the scenario you've depicted is, it's actually quite close to how real-life financing works in all sorts of competitive or contentious situations. Using a combination of future cash flows and underlying assets as security for a loan or a bond is a pretty ubiquitous arrangement in both LBOs and government contract bidding processes.

Admittedly, the risk involved is, in all likelihood, light years beyond what modern-day PMCs who primarily provide only logistics, training, and some very limited security might experience. Still, where there's a will there's a way. If they've figured out how to provide affordable life insurance to special forces operators, I'm sure a sufficiently ambitious banker can figure out an interest rate and hedging scheme to make loans to mercenaries work... for better or worse...

Keep in mind that many wars have actually been financed through credit, so yea...

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

I suppose that would work, but I personally would like to see a system where very large units are possible, if not very difficult to sustain, instead of taking possibilities away from players. There will always be work-arounds, and playing with friends should never be disallowed.

I appreciate the sentiment. I would be very disappointed if MercStar was forced to break up and we'd all have to go our separate ways. The unit's social aspect is what's kept me coming back to the game for the past few months.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Okay. I would think that if one of the very large units was unable to sustain carrying so many players, that the cream would rise to the top. Players who do not contribute enough to justify their costs would have to form their own units, or go loyalist.

Unfortunately MW:O does not have the player base to balance the game if just a few units comprise a large plurality of players in FP. incentivizing (not forcing) medium sized units is actually good for the long term health of the game.

I see where you're coming from, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that the benefits these top-tier players bring to large units lie beyond just having a bunch of BAMFs who can go toe-to-toe with anyone. They can also help train new players, figure out the meta and new tactics and generally help everyone around them get better. Incentivize them to leave these units for their own small elite teams and you'll likely end up with a handful of hyper-competent and active small teams surrounded by a sea of utter mediocrity that lacks the tools and guidance to systematically get better.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

MC costs fund the game. Some players will buy MC to keep their spot in units that are better than they are.

I find it a bit hard to believe that any significant number of players would be willing to spend real money just to get to drop CW while carrying a good unit tag, but... I suppose more consternation-inducing things have happened...

Edited by habu86, 05 August 2016 - 09:04 AM.

[Hotthedd]

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

We really have, haven't we? I guess, at the end of the day, what I'm trying to say is that, while immersion is good, we're at the risk of putting the cart before the horse if we try to achieve through complicated, indirect means what could be achieved through more straightforward and simpler methods.
If the size of the units itself is a problem because, i dunno, big is bad or whatever, then just use hard limits on unit size to keep them from going outside of those bounds. That way we can focus solely on figuring out what constitute acceptable min./max. unit sizes rather than worry about unintended side effects or how people are going to game or get screwed by the system.
If the fact that too many folks play merc is an issue, then create a more distinctive game experience and reward structure for loyalists vs. mercenaries, so loyalists go loyalist for the swag and the lifestyle, rather than because they "failed" at merc-ing.
Granted, immersion may suffer somewhat as a result, but implementing piecemeal economic elements to try to poke and prod players in one direction or the other will, IMO, serve more to aggravate and aggrieve the player base.

Now that that's out of the way lol

Yes, we did. And it has been a very good discussion.

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Fair point, but notable players are already targeted and paid a lot of attention to by anyone who plays CW enough to know who they are. If nothing else, I think this would help incentivize top players and units to go out of their way to hunt for each other across planets and queues, as opposed to the current situation, where any encounters are usually either accidental or set up for scrimmage purposes once in a blue moon.

like I said, I'm not against it. It just needs some fine-tuning so that the game itself isn't griefing players for being good.

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Right, and this artificial count of number of mechs that can be deployed is where a game universe is different from reality, which is why I don't think we should spend too much time trying to role-play-justify game rules that would allow us to improve the experience and flow.

If it actually would improve the experience, and is lore-friendly, why not?

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Still, for the sake of argument determining an adequate number of MechWarriors to contract for would be more of a metagame/strategic level consideration. Yes, only 12 pilots drop in a match. So the question becomes one of how many wedges of the map do you want to be able to contest at the same time? And while you're at it, how will you deploy the, let's say, 36 mercenaries you've just hired from Rent-a-Merc? Will they drop as 3 12-mans? Will they be split up into 6-8 mans to augment your loyalists in order to contest even more wedges at the same time with a reasonable chance of success? Or have you specifically requested 36 uber-killers that can be inserted as individual lances into loyalist drop groups and carry them to victory, 9 wedges at a time?

You are correct, however, in pointing out that we'd need a lot more facility for player-run governance and engagement. Can't leave this to PGI; if nothing else, they don't have enough resources to play GM for us. And yes, i think i'd be okay with being locked into a single planet for the attack phase if i knew i had a good chance of getting drops and a nice bonus for taking it.

You would be okay with being locked to one planet. I probably would as well. But we have to think of the legitimate complaints of those who wouldn't.

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

A fair point that I had not considered and which, in hindsight, makes the JumpShip example poorly chosen. Still, I believe the general point stands. A larger unit will be able to deploy resources in order to achieve greater efficiency that will simply be outside of what's available to smaller units. Maybe they streamline their admin processes and require fewer man-hours per task. Or they're big enough to justify bringing certain maintenance and/or operational support functions in-house. Or heck, even if they can't necessarily strike a better deal on passage or acquisition of Mech components and advanced weapons systems, they can still try to negotiate for more ubiquitously-produced necessities such as ammo, food, uniforms, etc.
Either way, there are a good many more opportunities for a larger organization to operate more efficiently than a smaller one; they've just gotta figure out how to make sure that all those numerous assets are being used to generate the revenue they're supposed to in order to cover their costs.

Yes, exactly. The point is that sustaining a large force is still more expensive than a smaller force, even with economy of scale. (Which is one reason in the BT universe for the constant warfare--you gotta use those troops) it is a continuous self-fulfilling cycle.

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Okay, the point that BT mercs never operate with loans or credit (not even short-term supplier credit? strains credulity a bit) is well taken, and I certainly wasn't implying we should implement this in-game (as awesome as that would be). It was more of a run-on argument than anything.

I have not read everything in the BT universe, but I cannot recall any instances of mercenary units financing their operations with loans. And yes it would be pretty awesome, but I think the reality would be that MW:O would lose most of the playerbase. PGI's new slogan could be: "MW:O. We only have 100 players, but man, they sure are well versed in macroeconomics!!"

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Still, as hilarious and awesome as the scenario you've depicted is, it's actually quite close to how real-life financing works in all sorts of competitive or contentious situations. Using a combination of future cash flows and underlying assets as security for a loan or a bond is a pretty ubiquitous arrangement in both LBOs and government contract bidding processes.

Admittedly, the risk involved is, in all likelihood, light years beyond what modern-day PMCs who primarily provide only logistics, training, and some very limited security might experience. Still, where there's a will there's a way. If they've figured out how to provide affordable life insurance to special forces operators, I'm sure a sufficiently ambitious banker can figure out an interest rate and hedging scheme to make loans to mercenaries work... for better or worse...

Keep in mind that many wars have actually been financed through credit, so yea...

The point being that although being a mercenary unit is a business, there are many differences to it than a traditional business. But I thought you might like the scenario of Canada using mercenaries to invade, I mean "provide services to" Iceland.

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

I appreciate the sentiment. I would be very disappointed if MercStar was forced to break up and we'd all have to go our separate ways. The unit's social aspect is what's kept me coming back to the game for the past few months.

That is exactly why I believe a hard cap would be a very hard sell.

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

I see where you're coming from, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that the benefits these top-tier players bring to large units lie beyond just having a bunch of BAMFs who can go toe-to-toe with anyone. They can also help train new players, figure out the meta and new tactics and generally help everyone around them get better. Incentivize them to leave these units for their own small elite teams and you'll likely end up with a handful of hyper-competent and active small teams surrounded by a sea of utter mediocrity that lacks the tools and guidance to systematically get better.

But that is exactly what the BT universe IS. The reasons you give are more than enough justification to make sure large units are possible, without being the norm.

habu86, on 05 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

I find it a bit hard to believe that any significant number of players would be willing to spend real money just to get to drop CW while carrying a good unit tag, but... I suppose more consternation-inducing things have happened...

Really? Even with the reasons you just posted above?
(Cues "Arms of an Angel" softly in the background)
Right now, hundreds of Tier 2 and Tier 3 pilots are at risk of being forced out of top units.
(Pictures of sad looking mercenaries scroll by)
For just ONE MC a day, mechwarriors like Hotthedd here can find a warm, loving shelter in a unit.
...No more wondering when his next battle will be.
...No more hoping and praying he can find a match in the solo queue.
(music rises)
That's right, for less than the price of one cup of coffee per month, we can make sure these Mechwarriors get all of the love and instruction that they need.
Won't YOU make a difference? Won't YOU be the one to give these mediocre pilots a unit to call home?
Call us at 1(800) 55TIER5 to make your donation. When you do, you will receive this "I survived the Battle of Tukkayid" T-shirt, but, most of all you will have helped these poor mechwarriors Lurm their way to a new home.

[Zolaz]

BSK, on 03 August 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

After all the threads in this subforum about FP being dead, too low populated, not having enough incentives - THAT was your idea to come up with? How many members does your unit have? Or are you a lonewolf who doesn't want to be in one?

My unit has 1 member in it, me. I used to belong to one of the largest Merc outfits, but they have pretty much stopped playing FP. However, I did not like the command decisions coming down so I left. I can only handle so many casuals and low tier pilots dropping with me. Too many casuals that cant shoot, cant follow simple directions or have decent drop decks make it too hard to carry.

The problem with FP is a lack of depth or any feeling of galactic warfare. There is very little to differentiate FP from QP. There arent any logistics or any sense of scarcity. In any Battletech or Mechwarrior campaign there was always the problem of getting the parts you needed to fix your mech.

In MWO you always make money from a match and that didnt always happen in Battletech. MWO is just Battletech light. There is little to no lore or attempt to recreate the Battletech universe beyond naming planets and making the mechs have the same name.

[Czarr]

Hey with all the retrofitted variants they have for clans, they can make it so that if you're a merc unit and you go clan, you can ONLY use the IIC mechs because you are free birth and not true born and only true born use the omnimechs. That will make the lore people happy

LOLOLOLOLO

Edited by Czarr, 05 August 2016 - 08:40 PM.

[habu86]

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

like I said, I'm not against it. It just needs some fine-tuning so that the game itself isn't griefing players for being good.

A legitimate concern. I've never heard a top-tier player complain about being designated a priority target (even though they know they are), but a fair concern all the same.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

If it actually would improve the experience, and is lore-friendly, why not?

Sure, but it should be more of an ex post factum kind of thing. Like after we figure out the right mechanics, then we figure out some fluff to improve user experience. Right now, it seems like we're a bit tied to doing things the other way around.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

You would be okay with being locked to one planet. I probably would as well. But we have to think of the legitimate complaints of those who wouldn't.

A legitimate concern.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

That is exactly why I believe a hard cap would be a very hard sell.

But that is exactly what the BT universe IS. The reasons you give are more than enough justification to make sure large units are possible, without being the norm.

Agreed, I think a hardcap would just be gratuitous and counterproductive. The BT universe lore certainly consisted of a lot a of mediocrity and a few BAMFs, but on some level, I think that's more rule of drama than realistic outcomes in a dynamic environment. The BT lore also consisted of a lot one-sided stomps which is one the biggest complaints about cw, so maybe we should be a little careful as to how much we want to draw on it.

Hotthedd, on 05 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Really? Even with the reasons you just posted above?
(Cues "Arms of an Angel" softly in the background)
Right now, hundreds of Tier 2 and Tier 3 pilots are at risk of being forced out of top units.
(Pictures of sad looking mercenaries scroll by)
For just ONE MC a day, mechwarriors like Hotthedd here can find a warm, loving shelter in a unit.
...No more wondering when his next battle will be.
...No more hoping and praying he can find a match in the solo queue.
(music rises)
That's right, for less than the price of one cup of coffee per month, we can make sure these Mechwarriors get all of the love and instruction that they need.
Won't YOU make a difference? Won't YOU be the one to give these mediocre pilots a unit to call home?
Call us at 1(800) 55TIER5 to make your donation. When you do, you will receive this "I survived the Battle of Tukkayid" T-shirt, but, most of all you will have helped these poor mechwarriors Lurm their way to a new home.

Lol that's hilarious, and certainly a viewpoint I hadn't considered. When I heard of MC purchases to fund unit memberships, I read it as "paying for friends", hence my reticence.

[Drunk Canuck]

Hotthedd, on 03 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

Yeah, I'm sure that preventing players from being in/dropping for the faction of their choice would go over really well. Problem solved.

That was sarcasm

Hey, you want to ruin my game experience, I will try and ruin yours. Faction caps are easier than unit caps anyway, because you shouldn't be dictating who plays in a unit with whom, not to mention that system would be so easily abused anyway that it wouldn't change anything. But it seems people like you don't have the foresight to see that your ideas are easily exploited.

Edited by Drunk Canuck, 07 August 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Drunk Canuck, on 07 August 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Hey, you want to ruin my game experience, I will try and ruin yours. Faction caps are easier than unit caps anyway, because you shouldn't be dictating who plays in a unit with whom, not to mention that system would be so easily abused anyway that it wouldn't change anything. But it seems people like you don't have the foresight to see that your ideas are easily exploited.

What suggestions have I made that would ruin your game experience?
If you read closely, I did acknowledge possible workarounds.

Your suggestion would not ruin my game experience, as my expectations for this game have dropped to near zero. However, your suggestion would cause a further exodus from FP, or dou you not have the foresight to see that?

[Zolaz]

habu86, on 03 August 2016 - 05:55 PM, said:

Well, seeing how, in most modern armies, the rank of lieutenant (or any of its close equivalents) is the lowest officer rank, no, they don't get paid very much at all, relatively speaking.

They also don't typically command companies either, but platoons or platoon-sized elements. Fun fact, a typical armored platoon (that your typical O-1 or O-2 would command) consists of 4 vehicles, give or take, so same approximate size as an IS lance or Clan star.

Another fun fact, at various points in history, mercenaries made up a significant part (often enough, they made up the bulk) of the wartime armies deployed by nation-states, especially those who had not yet achieved an economic base strong enough to support standing armies. In fact, the only way a good many pre-modern nation-states were able to field large standing armies was through a combination of (successful) expansionist initiatives and heavy taxation of vassal states and the state's population; neither of these approaches was indefinitely sustainable and almost all the nation-states attempting to do so ended up entering economic declines (often of the irreversible variety) the instant they suffered any kind of setbacks.

The problem with taking cues from either real history or BT lore in designing reward and/or restriction structures is that the incentives and situations don't translate well into a game environment. The reality is that, historically, mercenaries were very well compensated indeed, often being enticed with promises of plunder opportunities and a myriad of rewards for good performance. Even today, when PMCs are restricted to non-combat roles, they still command eye-popping sums for their services. And part of that is driven by necessity, since they have to make the money stretch between contracts. At the end of the day, viewed as a transaction, whether to hire mercenaries or raise troops is a simple rent-vs.-buy decision.

Whereas in lore, plenty of the more successful merc outfits were, at one point or the other, given cushy garrison assignments, where they just drew payment and acted as a deterrent to any would-be attackers. This was important to them because it allowed them to rebuild from devastating battles and engagements that would have otherwise caused them to fold. Never mind that it is highly doubtful that any nation state would find it financially acceptable, during peacetime, to pay the kind of premiums that maintaining a long-term, full-time mercenary presence would require. The only instances of nation-states having done anything remotely like this was with elite bodyguard units, where ruling monarchs and princes were content to pay a premium in order to maintain a foreign bodyguard that would be less vulnerable to subversion by local opposition.

Secondly, this is a game, which means that we WANT to fight. This is biggest problem with the suggestion that mercenaries be locked into certain factions for extended periods of time. If this was a real-life situation, a nice garrison contract on a sleepy backwater planet that never sees any action would be a mercenary's dream. Not having to get at shot at for your paycheck? Yes, please. But this is, in fact, a game. We login to blow stuff up in a simulated environment, and this goes double for many folks who choose to go merc, as their desire to get fights (and the rewards that go with it) outweighs their interest in any particular factions.

I think that, rather than attempting to penalize or detract from anybody's rewards, the reward structure itself needs to further diversify, with not only a much clearer distinction between loyalists for mercs, but one that is designed to reflect the unique situation of each. For example:
- Loyalist reward structure: lots of mechbays at each step of the way to allow them the capacity to quickly build up a large stable of mechs, discounts on faction-specific mechs and components, colors, patterns, warhorns, and certain cockpit items (e.g. flags, medallions, etc.), along with 4-5 ranks giving a moderate amount of MC in order to facilitate the purchase of said faction-specific pieces of flair.
- Mercenary reward structure: lots of C-bills, with extra bonuses for strong performance in battles (e.g. KMDDs, solo kills, clearing 2.5k-3k damage, etc.), the ability to drop mixed decks, 4-5 ranks giving a significant amount of MC in order to facilitate the purchase of Hero/Champion mechs and/or mechbays, and the ability to pay a penalty and instantaneously change contracts in order to encourage/facilitate bidding wars and prevent boredom

Lastly, it's probably worth pointing out that introducing repair and rearm for merc units isn't going to break up all large merc units. The only mercs that will suffer because of this are the middling ones, the guys and gals with W/L ratios at or below 1.0. The large merc units that everyone loves to hate will, by and large, be okay. The reality is that a unit that clears a 2.0-2.5 W/L ratio is probably not only successful enough to afford repair and rearm, but also get ahead. In addition to this, that tradition of success, and the camaraderie and mentality that go along with it, will serve to keep people together even in an environment of reduced rewards... at least until they get fed up with the game and quit altogether.

The mercs who will really suffer under repair and rearm are the less successful outfits, the ones that no one ever complains about because they make for easier pickings.

But hey, at least it would inject a healthy dose of realism into the game: large multi-national corporations use their resources and accumulated knowledge and influence to survive in any environment because that's what alpha predators do, elite boutique firms survive because they find good, easy-to-defend niches for themselves, state-owned companies survive because they're propped up by tax revenues, while middling corporations and small mom-and-pop stores eventually fold because, even if they don't go outright bankrupt, they simply can't generate the kind of returns that justify the capital invested in them.

Doesn't that sound like so much fun?

I think you should pick up the 64 or so Battletech books and read them. That way you can get the feel of world that MWO attempts to create. The Mercs in Battletech were central figures and their experience is about 180 degrees in a different direction that MWO.

If Russ was really lazy, he would hire a Lore nerd and implement as much of that as possible. Then you rub the Lore nerd and Community Manager with raw meat and throw them onto the Forums. It takes a special kind of person, like Russ, who wants to reinvent the wheel every year or so.

Edited by Zolaz, 09 August 2016 - 05:20 PM.