126 replies to this topic

[Volthorne]

3Xtr3m3, on 13 May 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

As to your second point, we have not seen how the contracts work.
Who says that as a Merc, I can take a company of 12 Mechs to a battle, have them all destroyed, and make enough from the contract to cover losses, repairs, ammo, etc.? If you have seen that stated by the Devs. please post a link to that page, because I have not seen it.

Actually, contracts are simply the extension of obtaining Loyalty Points with factions, they have little impact on other rewards, afaik (stated here). But the Devs have explicitly stated that you will ALWAYS earn just enough to get your 'mech to a functional state (Can't seem to find where. I know it's out there though).

3Xtr3m3, on 13 May 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

I disagree with Above Poster.
As I originally posted, I think the longstanding teams who have worked together on other games have an almost unsurmountable advantage over 12 strangers who never met or chatted before.
The Stop/Loss Clause could be an in game logical CANONICAL way to balance first time teammates against extablished teams.

I get where you're coming from. I do. It's still an unfair advantage any way you look at it. Best way to show how?

Imagine you're playing with your 12 best buds as a Merc Corp. You've decimated the enemy team, who happen to be Cappies. All they've got left is 1 Jenner, with all his weapon systems blown off, and one more solid hit to would blow him away. Your team has taken minimal casualties. The only problem is, the sneaky Jenner pilot has managed to escape you. You're hunting around when suddenly, a massive thud craters your 'mech and.... "GAME OVER". The match ends and Cappies have won. Why? That Jenner managed to DFA you, bringing your total losses up to 30%. Doesn't matter that he would have gotten blown away by your buddy in the Atlas right next to you, because a gimped, almost destroyed Jenner, the last surviving Cappy on the planet, managed to DFA ONE 'mech, forcing your allies to instantly withdraw.

SENSE PLEASE?!?!?!

[3Xtr3m3]

Exactly
That is exactly the point the novel "Patriot's Stand" illustrated.
A merc fights for the almighty C-bill.
A House fighter is fighing for their life and the quality of that life.
Using your example, the cappie defender did mnage to pull out a win, but at what C-bill cost?
It may take a few more battles for them to recoup he cost of the win in your example.

Whereas, the Merc Corp who basically whipped the cappies up one side and down the other,
TECHNICALLY lost the match, the Stop/Loss Clause pulls the plug on the battle when their is no longer a profit in it. Insuring that after the battle, the Mercs have no less than what they entered the battle with.

This perfectly illustrates the difference between a Warrior For Hire and A Patriot.

The question is...do we want this in this game?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

3Xtr3m3, on 14 May 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Exactly
That is exactly the point the novel "Patriot's Stand" illustrated.
A merc fights for the almighty C-bill.
A House fighter is fighing for their life and the quality of that life.
Using your example, the cappie defender did mnage to pull out a win, but at what C-bill cost?
It may take a few more battles for them to recoup he cost of the win in your example.

Whereas, the Merc Corp who basically whipped the cappies up one side and down the other,
TECHNICALLY lost the match, the Stop/Loss Clause pulls the plug on the battle when their is no longer a profit in it. Insuring that after the battle, the Mercs have no less than what they entered the battle with.

This perfectly illustrates the difference between a Warrior For Hire and A Patriot.

The question is...do we want this in this game?

I don't think your quite understanding, it makes no sense.

To re-use Volthorne's example above, that one last jenner that just DFA'd 1 mech for the win, would have got blown away by the remaining merc forces, securing the planet/resource/whatever they are there for.

Completion of the contract will more than make up for losses/damage through hard cash and salvage, realistically in cannon the only time a merc would lose money would be on an unsuccessful op.

And 8 mechs running away from 1 remaining dead weight is not a realistic conclusion.

[3Xtr3m3]

That would be, where the decision to overturn, in the field, the Stop/Loss Clause would come in.

A Commander, in the field, who reaches the 30% of Battle Value loss, may be alerted to the reaching of the threshhold and offered the option of quitting the match, or continuing it.

Or maybe it would take a unanamous team vote.

Or maybe it would be up to the OTHER Team....


Picturing the Jenner pilot saying "Come back here you, Chickens!!"

[ManDaisy]

This could easily be solved with an additional amendment.

If Loses >= 30% Then
---- If Your_Loss / Their_Loss >= 50% Then
----------Quit
-----Else
--------Game On

[Sarriss]

I like the idea, but I think in order for it to be even considered it would have to be so voluntary that I doubt it would be used enough to justify putting it in, in the first place. Bottom line is, you make enough to repair and fight again, so why not go down trying to take as many with you and bump up how much you earned before you died.

From a role playing idea, sure, it's great, but from a functionality perspective, I think it is either turned down 99% of the time or not used on the majority of contracts.

I think a very real scenario is, you hit your 30% stop/loss clause in the first 2 minutes because scouts get themselves killed, or some guy in an Atlas feels invincible and gets smoked by 3-4 mechs. A good team, could be down 3-4 guys early and still win. Not every merc corps is going to be full of veteran players who've played with the same guys for years. I've joined a merc corps with guys I've never played with, and won't until the release of MW:O so I might be one of those guys down in 3 minutes. Yes, merc corps may have an advantage because 10/12 guys they know, but as far as I recall, merc corps get lone wolves too.

So to sum up, good idea, unlikely to be implemented, likely won't be missed.

[Xaks]

Here's the thing.

First off, "Battle Value" is an asstastic metric to use to assess the 'worth' of a combat unit. It is worse than meaningless, since simple meaninglessness has no negative to go with its lack of positive.

Using a percentage of an arbitrary number that has nothing to do at all with the task at hand to determine 'success' smacks of politics, not combat. You win, or you do not. You accomplish your task, or you do not.

Furthermore, the 'winner' would be the side that zergs the most alpha damage in the opening seconds of the match. Period. Pretty much exactly the opposite of everything they're trying to accomplish.

I'll not go any further.

But you see the point. It is good to think aloud, to have discussion, and see where everyone else is. Bravo.

But this is a really, really bad idea for the game.

[Carl Wrede]

Very bad idea.

[Sarriss]

Xaks, on 14 May 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Here's the thing.

First off, "Battle Value" is an asstastic metric to use to assess the 'worth' of a combat unit. It is worse than meaningless, since simple meaninglessness has no negative to go with its lack of positive.

Using a percentage of an arbitrary number that has nothing to do at all with the task at hand to determine 'success' smacks of politics, not combat. You win, or you do not. You accomplish your task, or you do not.

Furthermore, the 'winner' would be the side that zergs the most alpha damage in the opening seconds of the match. Period. Pretty much exactly the opposite of everything they're trying to accomplish.

I'll not go any further.

But you see the point. It is good to think aloud, to have discussion, and see where everyone else is. Bravo.

But this is a really, really bad idea for the game.

Agreed.

[Haakon Valravn]

I think there should be the occasional battle that has victory conditions based on not taking a certain level of casualties. At random, more or less. Once the level of casualties is sustained, the mission objective becomes to retreat.

And here is why:

In real life, remembering this is supposed to be a sim, most battles are manuevering, some shooting, one side or the other takes a couple of casualties and then retreats. That is, most of the time. The battle may be a feint or a reconnaissance in force. The point is not to destroy the enemy force, it is to preserve your own command.
It adds a further tactical situation that needs to be handled as a team with everyone doing their part, the withdrawl. It takes skill and a steady hand to keep a retreat from turning into a rout. Once one team is defeated and needs to retreat, the support units fallback while the brawlers tangle with advance enemy forces, then the brawlers fall back while the scouts paint them for support, the commander calls for an arty-deployed smoke screen and then they withdraw (or some other variation thereof). Instead of, for instance, the entire team turning their backs to the enemy, opening themselves up to all sorts of unpleasantness.

Obviously, some combats are to the death. And sometimes a fight to the death for one side is simply a fight to draw some blood for the other.

Interestingly, this makes it possible, but unlikely, for both sides to complete their objectives, for instance:
Side A is making a push for objective 1, held by Side B. Side B is under orders to hold the objective at all cost. Side A's attack, on the other hand, is simply a feint. Their objective is to inflict as many casualties on Side B as possible, on the out-of-game strategic-level, forcing B's command to move more of their forces to 1, opening up objectives 2 and 3 to the real push. A needs to remain combat effective to keep forces pinned at 1, though. So the objectives would look like this:
A: Neutralize 33%+ of B's forces in vicinity of 1. Maintain 66%+ combat effectiveness.
B: Hold 1 at all cost. Drive back any enemy push on 1.

So, A and B can both succeed. Now, obviously B's objective is much easier to succeed at, as A's mission is not to (as B believes) take 1. On the other hand, if A succeeds, B's strategic position is somewhat compromised. This can be complicated for A by restricting their support options, as they are needed for the pushes on 2 and 3, where B would be rolling in support, because of the value of 1. Or perhaps have A open with a lot of support to give their push the appearance of a major push, while B's support options are fewer because B's support is covering all three objectives, but then shifts as the seriousness of B's defensive predictament becomes known. A, on the other hand, gets less support as the battle progresses, representing a shifting of their support to the pushes on 2 and 3. Tie this into a couple other simultaneous games representing the pushes on 2 and 3 (with a fourth battle where B is attempting a counter driving at 4), all occuring on the same planet, and the whole thing becomes (IMHO) deeper and more fun, without overly complicating the game's design.

In any case, it shakes things up from the typical capture the flag/team deathmatch shennanigans and everybody gets to shoot at things and kill them. So even if the objectives are not fair, at least they are fun! Or at least I think they would be.

[MaddMaxx]

An apology if I missed it but I was under the Impression that Mercs would fight Mercs, on behalf of Houses? The ranks of Merc Corps short of pilots would be filled with LW's.

Under that game plan, how will Mercs fight Houses exactly? And if the above is true, then doing it for Merc on Merc or House vs House battles would seem to diminish the over-all aspect of the game. Fight battles to gain ground (planets) and to that end, kill ALL the opposing forces.

[Fetladral]

Volthorne, on 13 May 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Two reasons this is a terrible idea:

1) It gives house/lone wolf players and unfair advantage.

2) You will NEVER be "losing" C-Bills. You will always earn enough to make minimum repairs. Hence, a Stop/Loss clause is a waste of time/resources.

The devs confirmed somewhere (don't remember where exactly one of the blogs) that minimum repairs are free. So a player will always make some money it will never be negative because I am assuming that earning money/xp is based on both damage and kills. You get x amount for amount of damage you do and actual kills are just bonus money/xp. So other than the green team going against an elite team the "profit" part of this clause is rather pointless.

[McQueen]

MaddMaxx, on 14 May 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

An apology if I missed it but I was under the Impression that Mercs would fight Mercs, on behalf of Houses? The ranks of Merc Corps short of pilots would be filled with LW's.

Under that game plan, how will Mercs fight Houses exactly? And if the above is true, then doing it for Merc on Merc or House vs House battles would seem to diminish the over-all aspect of the game. Fight battles to gain ground (planets) and to that end, kill ALL the opposing forces.

Max is right. Go back and look at the first blog. Merc fight other merc for border worlds. House units fight other House units for a different set of worlds.

[Insidious Johnson]

I see it as potentially a great balance idea. Most of the talent pool I've taken a census of will be going merc ( and not happy about changing names in more than a few cases ). I see a long streak of lopsided wins from those groups in the future. Remember, these are 100% player run and controlled. Not anyone can get in. Your skills will have to develop to an expected level of play or pull off enough rust to pass muster. They will be extremely selective since the record will show a slew of wins and demand will be high.

Out of hand, people are rejecting the idea as unfair to mercs. Quite the opposite might be true in this case though. This is one potential mechanic to level the playing field. Of course, this policy would be waived when facing Clans, since they'll hunt mercs fight or not. I ask that you remember your position on this after you experience it for yourself.

[Thorn Hallis]

3Xtr3m3, on 13 May 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

It gives Lone Wolves and House Faction players, not in a tight team, a chance.

Will they even play against each other?

3Xtr3m3, on 13 May 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

But Mercs are supposed to be the Elite.
If you are not Elite enough to win that convincingly, then maybe a House Unit is where you should be.

I'm pretty sure there will be faction units that can beat every elite merc out there every day, twice on sundays.

Edited by Thorn Hallis, 14 May 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[wwiiogre]

No and hell no. The thing about mercenaries is we have our own sense of stop/loss. The gist I get from the op is that its not fair in a sim/war game if one side works closer together and trains and is better, so in your mind there needs to be an artificial win for anyone facing Mercs. Sorry, not only is that not fair and purposefully designed to punish only mercs who play together. What is to stop House or Lone Wolf players to practice together then drop as a team in the match/maker. Thus giving them an unfair advantage that they could then take out on Mercs, who have a stop/loss artificial automatic lose button.

Sorry again no and hell no. This isn't the NFL where parity and crappyness is rewarded. This is the big leagues, learn, get better, train with buddies or die trying to keep up. Or like in the Premier League in England get relegated to the next lower division.

This whole low self esteem crarp is out of hand, you don't get a participation ribbon in life. You don't get rewarded for not being good enough. Rewards are for those who earn them, and usually that means the hard way. Practice, training, dedication, communication, team work. MWO appears to be a game that is based on all of the above, and should reward any who work hard enough to win. There should not be an EASY button or a game mechanic so poor players can feel good about themselves because they don't work hard enough to win.

None of us know how this game is going to work, yet already there is whinging about its not fair Mercs are gonna own us. Really? I know nothing about this game other than what I have read here. Granted I am a scouring website troll for info here. But that is once again hard work, takes effort, but in the end all I am is guessing on what may come in MWO. I have joined a group of other people who also appear to me to like to work hard/play hard have fun but do so in a professional teamwork based environment. If I were you I would look for the same thing if you think it will give you or your buddies and advantage.

Good Luck

Chris

[Moosehead]

DV^McKenna, on 14 May 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

I
And 8 mechs running away from 1 remaining dead weight is not a realistic conclusion.

Like how the Imperial Japanese fleet with the Yamato, the biggest battleship ever built, and 3 other battleships -RAN AWAY- from the sinking remains of the USN Taffy 3's sinking Destroyers and burning Escort Carriers?

Sometime the Strategic balance outweighs the Tactical

[wwiiogre]

Which was a morale based decision and lack of intel problem. Meaning morale is handled by the players in the match. Not an arbitrary 30% you lose button.

Chris

[Moosehead]

McQueen, on 14 May 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Max is right. Go back and look at the first blog. Merc fight other merc for border worlds. House units fight other House units for a different set of worlds.

It would be more like the Italian Mercs during the Renaissance. Condottiere didn't fight to annihilation when fighting other Companies..

Showy, near-bloodless battles was the thing. Prisoners were more valuable than a dead enemy, They didn't hate each other, that was bad for business

[Moosehead]

wwiiogre, on 14 May 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Which was a morale based decision and lack of intel problem. Meaning morale is handled by the players in the match. Not an arbitrary 30% you lose button.

Chris

Exactly. the Commanding Officer made that call. The various Ships Captains knew the USN beaches were open, defeat from jaws of victory.

But that Commanding Officer isn't a PC, but NPC. That is the contract system at work. if the contract says, must exit map edge East with *** BV, and your are short from dicking around with a blocking force, the mission is blown.