35 replies to this topic

[Pale Rider 010]

The reward for taking a planet should be that you are now being rewarded for holding it. If there is incentive to defend and hold, then that will incentivise taking it for yourself.

Fighting for a house should have the same reward as fighting for a merc company, the difference between the two should be primarily what their goals are. Steiner wants to hold Steiner territory, while a merc company wants to hold whatever world they've been hired to hold.

As for rewards, they should all be in C-bills, and C-bills should be able to buy everything.

[Cruxshadow]

The reward for working for a House or a Merch company should be the same as long as the up keep costs are the same.
The reward for taking a planet should be at least two times as much because it is always harder to be on the assault than on the defense. There should have been a c-bill and lost tech option.

[Threat Doc]

Christopher Dayson, on 06 May 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I agree with this in general, but, I do think that as long as people have access to say, a centurion for example then lost mechs should be lost, especially if there is salvage in the game. It creates a real money sink which may be necessary depending on how much repairs cost and the like.

So, do you mean everyone keeps their basic 'Mech, and any other 'Mechs they've managed to purchase or loss'able?

Quote

In theme, Mechwarriors get disposessed all the time. Maybe doesn't even have to be a Commando, maybe it's a 40 tonner, or a 60 tonner, who knows. There's just so much more adrenaline when there's a real sense of risk and loss involved.

Yes, assuming you meant that additional 'Mechs would be able to be lost to combat, I'm pretty sure my first 'Mech, and that of many others, will likely turn out to not be their favorites, so the possibility of losing a favorite non-original 'Mech will, indeed, cause adrenaline opportunities, perhaps even getting people to fight the way it was described in the first box-set rule book.

Quote

Going to miss that. I'm also a little worried that since we never lose mechs that we're going to end up with billions of c-bills eventually which... is kinda bad for private citizens. Breaks things.

I'm hoping, and thinking, the economy will be better thought-out than that.

Kasiagora, on 06 May 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

A mercenary might not have anything provided for him except what can be afforded by his company's communal coffers in the event of emergency. What he gets, however, is high pay when it's there, salvage rights, and the freedom to choose his contracts and employers to an extent. The rewards may be high, but the risk is greater too.

I don't know if there will be communal coffers or not, a sort of merc unit bank, or even a merc unit 'Mech stable, though I'm actually hoping for both, so I will be able to keep my people in 'Mechs for that limited-respawn game type Russ was talking about from GDC. High pay doesn't exist for mercs, really, and I honestly hope it doesn't, because there will be tons of mercenaries who will come into units, make their bones, and then go begin their own merc units. Perhaps there will be mechanisms in place to not, necessarily, prevent that, but make it so multiple sub-elements can continue to participate in the same unit, keeping cohesion. If there is salvage in the game at all, and I'm pretty sure that, at this time, there is not, units will need to be able to have chances to grow, even if they lose, so I hope there's a way for both sides to obtain salvage to do so.

Togg Bott, on 06 May 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

on the point of money for holding a planet. lets say x planet is supposed to generate y income. well when you first take the planet, there is going to be confusion, anarchy and general resentment to "YET ANOTHER" goverening body. so income at first may only be 50% of y. hold the planet a week and maybe it goes to 70% of y.... so on and so on with the largest rewards to those that can continue to hold the planet .

I had forgotten about this altogether... the devs did say something about Mercs taking from a planetary economy while they hold it; I just don't know how that's going to work, so we'll have to wait and see.

Judochop, on 07 May 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Naturally the bids, at least for Mercs, should be set by whoever assigns the battle, and there should be some variety.

I believe the game itself will generate the contracts, not any live soul, but don't completely quote me on that.

Quote

One mission may pay out in C-bills, another may not have a cash reward but will give exclusive salvage rights, meaning you will end up with some of the enemy's equipment which is then split among the surviving team. You could also have a raw XP bonus instead, like doing a job "pro bono" but with an incentive to take the mission. Perhaps there could also be a "loyalty bonus" for completing a series of missions for one house.

My hope is they actually do contracting a little better than MechWarrior's 2 and 4: Mercenaries did it, perhaps even sticking to the elements for contracting from Mercs Handbook, either one with contracting in it will do.

Quote

House units should be paid in C-bills based on mission difficulty and importance, but not as much as an identical merc squad. Some salvage at the end of every mission as well, but again, not as much as a merc unit that gets paid in salvage. Payouts increase with rank (ie. your level). Basically give the House units a little bit of everything, instead of a lot of one or the other. This seems rather believable given the differences in structure between hired guns and standing militias, and it also creates a gameplay choice. Do you take increased risk vs. reward as a merc, or do you take slower, steadier gains as a member of a Great House?

You bring up some really great points, here, and I hope we get a satisfactory answer.

[AlanEsh]

Can you add "equal" to both Questions #1 and #2?

I don't see any reason to differentiate rewards for mercs and house units, as I don't anticipate operating costs for either being higher than the other. Other than the dev's saying something along the lines of "If you're House X, then mechs from House X will be cheaper for you than mechs from House Y", I don't recall any differences in costs.

/edit -- and I'm pretty sure the devs said rewards are cbills, no salvage, but I can't find where that was said.

Edited by Angelicon, 07 May 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Well, if the economy is built correctly, then operating costs for mercenaries will have to be the equivalent of total shouldered costs for Houses, at their various scales. In other words, a House has to deal with production costs, general and battle maintenance costs, POL and ammo costs, transport, insurance, medical and dental, and general pay; I'm sure there are a few more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head, right now. For a House it's a whole lot easier, because they have populations and companies paying taxes, and it's much easier to fund any war effort. Now, the war effort is budgeted from the top-down, and the end-user, the MechWarrior, really never has to see any of that, they simply have to prosecute their part of any war they get into.

Now, let's take a look at the mercenary commander, and those under his/her command. All of what I mentioned above is shouldered, without any help from a nascent population, by the mercenary commander. The commander gets the money, does the budgeting, budgets for repairs, ammo, fuel, other POL, sundries, and everything necessary for their tiny army to march, including paying his people properly and, if the MechWarrior's aren't paid properly, that commander doesn't have the option of slapping their wrist or throwing them in the stockade if they up and leave, like a House leader does. The loss of a MechWarrior means the loss of money potential through contract completion. This is especially true for a unit that is taking it to the limit every time, risks everything on each mission, and are generally specialized soldiers, better than the typical MechWarrior so, a merc unit HAS to be paid much more money for their services, even though in BattleTech it really doesn't turn out to be that much more and, I suspect, in MWO, it won't turn out to be that much more than normal soldiers, either.

Now, back to the real-world and this game, I don't believe the devs are going to go to that much trouble to make sure we have that immersive an experience. Still, because of the reasons I listed, above, contracts should pay a good deal more for mercs, and house troops should get standard pay, if they are paid at all.

[Judochop]

Kay Wolf, on 07 May 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Well, if the economy is built correctly, then operating costs for mercenaries will have to be the equivalent of total shouldered costs for Houses, at their various scales. In other words, a House has to deal with production costs, general and battle maintenance costs, POL and ammo costs, transport, insurance, medical and dental, and general pay; I'm sure there are a few more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head, right now. For a House it's a whole lot easier, because they have populations and companies paying taxes, and it's much easier to fund any war effort. Now, the war effort is budgeted from the top-down, and the end-user, the MechWarrior, really never has to see any of that, they simply have to prosecute their part of any war they get into.

Now, let's take a look at the mercenary commander, and those under his/her command. All of what I mentioned above is shouldered, without any help from a nascent population, by the mercenary commander. The commander gets the money, does the budgeting, budgets for repairs, ammo, fuel, other POL, sundries, and everything necessary for their tiny army to march, including paying his people properly and, if the MechWarrior's aren't paid properly, that commander doesn't have the option of slapping their wrist or throwing them in the stockade if they up and leave, like a House leader does. The loss of a MechWarrior means the loss of money potential through contract completion. This is especially true for a unit that is taking it to the limit every time, risks everything on each mission, and are generally specialized soldiers, better than the typical MechWarrior so, a merc unit HAS to be paid much more money for their services, even though in BattleTech it really doesn't turn out to be that much more and, I suspect, in MWO, it won't turn out to be that much more than normal soldiers, either.

Now, back to the real-world and this game, I don't believe the devs are going to go to that much trouble to make sure we have that immersive an experience. Still, because of the reasons I listed, above, contracts should pay a good deal more for mercs, and house troops should get standard pay, if they are paid at all.

While you make a valid point and I agree with you, I just want to point out that not every merc unit in BTech has no support structure. Some merc units are so powerful that they control an entire planet, the populations of which support, produce for, and offer up a stream of new recruits. Examples include Northwind (Northwind Highlanders) and Arc-Royal (Kell Hounds). Arc-Royal even has a prestigious military academy and brings in hundreds of mechwarriors every year to be trained by, and eventually fight for, the Kell Hounds.

[Threat Doc]

Judochop, on 07 May 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

While you make a valid point and I agree with you, I just want to point out that not every merc unit in BTech has no support structure. Some merc units are so powerful that they control an entire planet, the populations of which support, produce for, and offer up a stream of new recruits. Examples include Northwind (Northwind Highlanders) and Arc-Royal (Kell Hounds). Arc-Royal even has a prestigious military academy and brings in hundreds of mechwarriors every year to be trained by, and eventually fight for, the Kell Hounds.

Yes, but please allow me to point out that NONE of those will be a viable player-controlled option in the game at launch. So, EVERY player-run/owned mercenary unit that will be playing WILL begin the game with NO support structure. So, I'm COUNTING on things being very difficult when I'm finally able to break out my merc unit and get it moving. Hopefully, by that time, I will be able to afford an adequate computer AND have the time to get the funding I need to set my unit up.

[Kanatta Jing]

Well maybe every planet will be a hill and every House and Mercenary Company will strive to grasp just one and then struggle to hold onto it.

It also raises the question of how often you will be able to fight. Because the defending company might not always be available. Maybe the planet just can't be contested till a timer runs down, so the defending company can make an appointment.

And surely not all worlds will be worth the same.

[Threat Doc]

Kanatta, that's something I honestly hadn't thought about. Having a run-down timer isn't a bad idea, but I would love it if that run-down timer didn't begin until defending forces were down to three or fewer folks on-line at the time. Then, email could go out to the unit CO and/or XO, or whomever is set up to receiver it, and something could be done at that time to get a game scheduled. What would be cool is if, in the headquarters, there were a way for the attacker to set up three times, with a 12-hour minimum before the first choice would be allowed, or more if they wish, for the defender to be able to look at, get an estimate from their people to see who could be on-line at that time, and select one time from the three to be able to fight.

If no answer is given within a maximum time limit of 24 hours by the defenders, pre-PvE the attacker would own the planet and/or complete the mission, and post-PvE -if that ever happens PDGLIH?- they would have to fight a token defending force to take it.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 07 May 2012 - 02:44 PM.

[Kanatta Jing]

Or a Different Company belonging to the same house could defend that world instead, essentially stealing the world from their allies and sparking rivalries.

But such a system would put a lot of demand on Lone Wolves to fill the ranks with grist even if they aren't especially co-ordinated in their efforts.

[Solis Obscuri]

Why should either option pay "more"? I'd expect mercs and house units might be paid differently (Mercs might get more C-Bills, House might get direct subsidie of equipment, etc.), but I wouldn't expect either to pay more; nor would I expect attackers or defenders to get a disproportionate reward.

[Kanatta Jing]

Solis Obscuri, on 07 May 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Why should either option pay "more"? I'd expect mercs and house units might be paid differently (Mercs might get more C-Bills, House might get direct subsidie of equipment, etc.), but I wouldn't expect either to pay more; nor would I expect attackers or defenders to get a disproportionate reward.

If the reward is different then one will be better then the other. Increased House discounts doesn't directly equal C-bills because of it's bias.

Deciding on which side of the line to deliberately error is a game design choice.

If Attackers get more reward then Defenders then the best and most organized groups will rampage during their daily play window. Making the map change rapidly on a daily basis.

If Defending pays more then the best and most organized groups will claim their hill and defend it from all comers. This makes the map change only on a slow weekly basis, allowing companies to get attached to their properties.

Again, how much Chaos and how much Order do we want in the game?

[Threat Doc]

Solis... do you have any special skills?

Do you expect to be paid for those skills if you take on a job that requires them?

Mercenaries have one special skill, in particular, among others, and that is they stay when everyone else runs. If there is going to be an economy at all, and the devs have already said there will be one, Mercs who don't stay, will not complete their contract, more than likely, and thus will either not be paid at all, or will be paid a drop-dead fee, and the contract will be counted as a failure. If you understand how contracting works in the tabletop, and you understand that the devs have expressed quite frequently that they're remaining as close as possible to the tabletop, you'll also understand that failure at a contract is not a good thing. Thus, specialized skills and problems with failure, equal higher pay for mercs.

[Solis Obscuri]

Kay Wolf, on 07 May 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Solis... do you have any special skills?

Do you expect to be paid for those skills if you take on a job that requires them?

Mercenaries have one special skill, in particular, among others, and that is they stay when everyone else runs. If there is going to be an economy at all, and the devs have already said there will be one, Mercs who don't stay, will not complete their contract, more than likely, and thus will either not be paid at all, or will be paid a drop-dead fee, and the contract will be counted as a failure. If you understand how contracting works in the tabletop, and you understand that the devs have expressed quite frequently that they're remaining as close as possible to the tabletop, you'll also understand that failure at a contract is not a good thing. Thus, specialized skills and problems with failure, equal higher pay for mercs.

I think you have "Mercenaries" confused with "idiots".

[Kanatta Jing]

Solis Obscuri, on 07 May 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I think you have "Mercenaries" confused with "idiots".

Soon you will realize, perhaps to late, that the two words are interchangeable at least half the time.

[Threat Doc]

It's not a matter of being idiots, rather it's a matter of being better than the typical House soldier, and being required to prove it. I have a feeling, since you're so adamant that mercs are not paid more than Housies, that you're going to find out the difference, and the reasons, on your own when the game begins. In the meantime, I disagree with you, and you disagree with me, so I'm going to leave it alone.