126 replies to this topic

[3Xtr3m3]

Mercenary 30% loss contract termination clause, or stop loss clause.

I think this could be a good game balancer.
Let me explain. Some Mercs have TEAM dynamics which give them an unbeatable edge.
This is definitely a team sport, but Mercs have an edge in being able to choose teammates.
They may have been playing together for years.
They have intimate knowledge of the others on their team.
From who is best in a certain role, to knowing that their teammates can stay back, not doing a lot, until it is time for them to fulfill their role.
I am thinking of those in Fire Support, or protecting the Fire Support teammates.
If all other factors of tech and money are equal, then the longstanding teams will have an unbeatable edge.
But, if they have a stop loss clause in their contracts of 30% of their Battle Value, then other teams can beat them, even if they are not a close knit team

.
Mercenary players may lose money on a contract, but the Mercenary Company has stop loss protection.
The whole purpose of a Merc Corp. is to make money.
If you go to battle and it is all or nothing, then how are you making money?
Even in the worst case scenario, you come out of the battle with the same as you went into the battle, monetarily, and you have earned XP and loyalty points.
But you have wasted time by not playing better and winning the battle.

It gives Lone Wolves and House Faction players, not in a tight team, a chance.
Instead of a fight to the death, you just have to destroy 30% of Battle Value of the opposing team.
Even if a bad team suffers a 50% or greater loss, the Merc Corp. team has to quit the field if the 30% loss level is reached. Hence, they monetarily lost more than the mercs, but they, as part of a House Unit, do not have the option of stopping the match at the point that their losses exceed the gain from the match.
So I can see a bad or new House Unit suffering a greater than 50 percent loss, but dealing a greater than 30 percent loss to the Merc Corp team, being declared the winner of the match.

The question of who you are fighting becomes more important.
If you know you are going against a House Faction Team, you know you have to beat them all.
But, do you know who you are fighting before you build mechs and launch?


I think it should be breakable, especially by clans.
The Clans hunted Mercs to extinction.
The fact that perfectly healthy warriors and machines would quit a battle that was still winnable, but at a higher cost than the contract is worth, is one of the reasons the Clans hated Mercs.
When the clans invade they hunt the Mercenaries that opposed them to the last man.
Having said that, will the Devs allow Clanners to continue the battle against Mercs. Corp wishes?


I can see a lot of downsides of fighting under this kind of restriction.
It makes a win for Mercs very hard to do. Winning a battle by destroying the complete opposite team before you suffer a 30 percent loss sounds very difficult.
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.

Can it be abused?
This could lead to opposing teams targeting inexperienced or lighter mech players.
Those who would infiltrate, and then kill teammates, could make this a very bad thing.
A team of four, eight, or twelve start a battle, one TKer kills one teammate and then is killed by the other teammates.
That team is suddenly down two members before the enemy even arrives.
Does a stop loss clause make Air and Artillery strikes too powerful?
A Commander, knowing he is facing a Merc Corp team could use a very well placed strike to end the game quickly.
Also, a bad commander who uses artillery to hit enemies, and hits some of his own, makes a win for the other team very likely under the stop loss clause.


Does a stop loss clause make Merc Corps tend towards assaults?
Knowing others are capable of a stop loss win against you, do you take bigger mechs?
I would like to hear others thoughts on this, but I don't think so.
A good team knows speed can be as useful to staying alive as armour.

Is it Canonical?
It is true to the novel "Patriots stand".
This is where the idea for this post comes from.
Though it is debatable if this is enough to make it "Canon".
Canon or not it is an idea that would balance the Meta game a little more.
Is this something for all Mercs, Faction Mercs only, or Merc Corps only? I don't know. This is one that the Devs are going to have to decide on.
Please post appropriate comments and vote on the poll.

Edited by 3Xtr3m3, 13 May 2012 - 03:59 AM.

[Pheonixwolf]

this idea is so terrible..... please take care before posting on forums next time.

Edited by Metro, 13 May 2012 - 06:08 AM.
lets not use inflammatory wording. TSK TSK

[Gun Bear]

This game is going to be 12 on 12 matches, you'd have to kill 4 'mechs to win a match while a merc company would have to kill all 12 of a House.... how about NO.

Few merc companies ever had a stop loss clause and it was an optional clause that a commander could invoke on occasion when they were sent on asuicide mission.

[3Xtr3m3]

Four Mechs is not always 30% of Battle Value

[Gun Bear]

You still overlook that a stop loss clause is optional in the MW Canon and that you'd just be handing house units the entire game on a silver platter OP, thats not fun nor fair.

[3Xtr3m3]

Gun Bear, on 13 May 2012 - 04:17 AM, said:

You still overlook that a stop loss clause is optional in the MW Canon and that you'd just be handing house units the entire game on a silver platter OP, thats not fun nor fair.

This is why I posted this with a poll. So the idea could be discussed and hopefully put in the game in a fair and intelligent way.

To balance the edge the Merc Corps have against Lone Wolves and Houses Faction Players.

Who may not be able to select who they fight with.

[Morashtak]

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.

This is the part that should be looked at later™.

In a few months we will be facing players that have dedicated hours each day to honing their skills, modifying their Mech and customizing their control scheme to optimize their game. New players with little to no previous experience will be chewed up and may not find it enjoyable to be cannon fodder. There may need to be an algorithm in place to make easy wins not as rewarding.

Have the computer match up like skill to like skill through LP matching or other stat (k/d, etc) - Easiest to do at launch, tougher as more players join in later months. Could see a Stop/Loss clause be enacted but only as a handicap to the elite team for fighting an all green team.

Could use the online backgammon method of rewarding more points for beating an elite player/team and fewer points for beating a green player/team. Could be abused by making another account after playing for a while.

And/or this could be a scenario later - Fight your way across the map and exit with no more than a X percentage loss of equipment. Fewer points for greater than X, more points for greater than X. Might take a "longer, narrower" map to even things up.

[3Xtr3m3]

Thanks For the intelligent additions.
I will monitor this for the foreseeable future and hope something good comes of it.

[3Xtr3m3]

I am particularily interested in hearing from longstnding teams, large Merc Corp leaders and ,of course, the Devs.

[Sheilei]

This is a bad idea...that's all i'll say because it ain't worth any more of my time.

[ManDaisy]

I think this will have very good potential for early merc units and those smart enough to use it to their advantage, as far as growth and acquire phase. Many are under the misinterpretation that it is to give house units an edge over mercs. To which I reply it is not, it is a method to cap losses and terminate the match early before further loses can occur as the name implies. In many situations based on the structure of merc units, its wise to have any unproven member under this restriction so that they cannot cause too much harm to the merc company by going rogue and suffering massive losses. That being said I put my vote in for contact to contract implementation, because sometimes stop losses are not appropriate.

Edited by ManDaisy, 13 May 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[3Xtr3m3]

ManDaisy, on 13 May 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

I think this will have very good potential for early merc units and those smart enough to use it to their advantage, as far as growth and acquire phase. That being said I put my vote in for contact to contract implementation, because sometimes stop losses are not appropriate.

Agreed, It is one of the resons I posted this.
New Players just getting the hang of the ins and outs of running a Corp, could use this to insure that, although, they may not make a profit, they will not go home with less than they started the battle with. Individual players in the Corp. may have to rely on payment from the corp to rebuild. After all, it is all about the almighty C-bill.

[Volthorne]

3Xtr3m3, on 13 May 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Agreed, It is one of the resons I posted this.
New Players just getting the hang of the ins and outs of running a Corp, could use this to insure that, although, they may not make a profit, they will not go home with less than they started the battle with. Individual players in the Corp. may have to rely on payment from the corp to rebuild. After all, it is all about the almighty C-bill.

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.

[3Xtr3m3]

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.

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.

Again, this is not me, trying to push this on the game.
I am trying to get a dialogue going to see if it should be in the game.
And if so, in what form, Voluntary, For Player Controlled Merc Corps., for Merc Corp. Factions, Both, or Neither. So, I appreciate relevent comments ,and of course, participation in the Poll.

Thank You

Edited by 3Xtr3m3, 13 May 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[Juiced]

I think it comes down to design. repairs/ammo should be from a design standpoint be easy to maintain on your current mech. Having enough C-bills to upgrade though...should take longer if you dont win, maybe a good while longer (say a good player can get that new weapon or equipment in a week but the bad one takes 3 weeks). A merc corps should be able to cover battle costs for however may mechs they bring without issue.

Also i do agree that this would give house factions an advantage, I mean who isnt to say the house factions arnt fielding the same long established teams that merc corps are? In the faction forums there are already guild lining up. In this case if you get to the point where a merc corp can say...ehhh we give up you win..that does give the house an advantage. Which merc corp leader isnt going to do that if it looks like they are lossing bad and wont win in order to save c-bills...the answer is almost none of them because it doesnt make good business sense.

The other reason why this wont work is that if mercs can give up, as a house player i would flat our refuse to play with a merc corp. I have no idea if they will stay and cost me the battle because they want to save a couple of c-bills, id rather go in with a team made up of my house who i know wont quit on me.

[3Xtr3m3]

Quote "The other reason why this wont work is that if mercs can give up, as a house player i would flat our refuse to play with a merc corp. I have no idea if they will stay and cost me the battle because they want to save a couple of c-bills, id rather go in with a team made up of my house who i know wont quit on me." Unquote

Which is why the Clans hunted Mercs to the last man.
Anyone who values the C-bill more than the win or the Loyaly to the planet was disgusting to them.

Edited by 3Xtr3m3, 13 May 2012 - 08:25 PM.

[Threat Doc]

I think we need to wait and see what contracting will be like in the Merc Corps HQ.

[3Xtr3m3]

Though I know the Houses may be able to field experienced teams, It is not a gaurantee, to my knowledge. Whereas with Player Controlled Factions, you know who you are fighting with.

Kay Wolf, on 13 May 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

I think we need to wait and see what contracting will be like in the Merc Corps HQ.

Agreed.
But if this is to be in the game it needs to be in from the start.

[Oswin Aurelius]

I think this is, at the very least, an interesting idea from the Battletech universe that, with enough planning and fine-tuning, could end up being a very entertaining gameplay and/or roleplaying element to Mechwarrior: Online.

To all you Negative Nancies out there, instead of just popping in and saying it's a horrible idea that should never be in the game, try to think of how you would make it better if it were included in the game, instead of just dismissing it entirely. We're trying to refine what I believe is an interesting and valid idea, so if you don't like it and don't want to help, just vote in the poll, don't waste space in the topic just saying the same thing.

[Phelan P Kell]

Sheilei, on 13 May 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

This is a bad idea...that's all i'll say because it ain't worth any more of my time.

2nd