126 replies to this topic

[3Xtr3m3]

Kanatta Jing, on 14 May 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

I would like to be able to fit a Mercenary lance into a House Company to make sure the numbers are met for a battle.

Agreed.
Nubnub's Stats showed there was only a very few who have dedicated themselves to House Laio, why not allow them to hire the best of hte Merc Corps when House Marik, Davion, Steiner, and Kurita come calling.

But why should it be to the end?
Can House Laio hire Mercs to defend territory to the Stop/Loss limit.
House Laio gets decent TEAMS to defend their turf and the Merc Corp team can successfully fullfill the contract (even if they lost)
Win/Win.

[3Xtr3m3]

Insidious Johnson, on 14 May 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

I know where you are coming from Chris, I do. What the OP is proposing is a slaughter rule that will help with new player retention and game longevity. I'm at a gut check "no, hell no" level on this or being told what to do with my spare time in general. But think CYA... can't say now that we never offered this voluntarily ;P. What would be good is for these terms to be NEGOTIABLE between teams. Offering incentives in a buyers market is typically a good approach. Basically they come together on an agreement of what they think the winning odds are for each team. Why not allow C-bill wagering as well?

I really like "the slaughter rule".
Say me and my new team take a contract.
We find ourselves on the opposing side of someone like Chris.
"Oh man we are so ......."
Now what do we do?
Rage quite?
Fight a hopeless battle putting our Mechs at risk of being obliterated and in need of massive repairs?
With a Stop/Loss we can say " Yea, Chris you da Man. Now let us take our toys home in one Piece. "
And we can say we tried and lost.

Probably not all I want to say on that, but you get the idea.

Chris,
Quote, "Insidious, the casual player should be playing Drop Ship Mode, not meta game in the IS. So if they want to swim in the open water, they better beware of sharks"

So let me buy some iron pants and "Shark Insurance"

[3Xtr3m3]

MaddMaxx, on 14 May 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

That was a tactical withdrawal. It had nothing to do with running away. Although they did learn that the Battleship was obsolete at that point in the timeline.

A 30% loss clause would be abused the same as a Retreat feature. Once a Player took a Gauss slug, and knew the exact repair cost to replace the lost armor/actuator/weapon, from even that one hit, they would simply Retreat forcing their mates to do the same or die.

Doesn't sound like FUN gameplay to me.

Agreed that this is something that could be abused IF INACTED BADLY. Though your example puzzles me, If the player who took the Gaus slug retreats from the battle before his commander says to do so, he is guilty of a lot of things.

[Volthorne]

3Xtr3m3, on 14 May 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

So let me buy some iron pants and "Shark Insurance"

You realize those iron pants are going to end up drowning you with their weight (like you could even swim with them on in the first place), yes? And if you ditch them, your legs are free game for the sharks. In the ocean, you sink or swim. If you want "easy mode" survival (read: Stop/Loss Clause you want to wave about like a flag), go play in the kiddie pool.

[3Xtr3m3]

Moosehead, on 14 May 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Oh, I'd agree that would result with a lot of Rage off that.

But there needs to be some mechanic to get Mercenaries to act like canon Mercs.

Sticks and carrots.


House units, as I see it, are more likely to fight to bitter end, since if they were following order and got thumped, they would get re-equipped from House Stocks.

Mercenary units tend to only have C-Bills

But if the two Mercenary groups put a rider in the contract to allow a deathmatch, so be it.

Agreed,
If you have been playing Stop/Loss Contracts and the next match your commander says is "All Or Nothing" That would get my blood pumping.

[3Xtr3m3]

Volthorne, on 14 May 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

You realize those iron pants are going to end up drowning you with their weight (like you could even swim with them on in the first place), yes? And if you ditch them, your legs are free game for the sharks. In the ocean, you sink or swim. If you want "easy mode" survival (read: Stop/Loss Clause you want to wave about like a flag), go play in the kiddie pool.

I am not waving a flag saying "Give Me This"
I am saying "Lets talk about it and give the devs some ideas of what we want"
You say " H... NO! "
Some don't even want to discuss it.

So if it ends up in the game AND YOU REALLY DON'T LIKE IT .....

Who is to blame the guy who wanted to talk about it?
Or the ones who did not want to discuss it.

BTW if it does end up being implemented
DON'T BLAME ME
I just started the post. I did not design the game.

[Jack Corban]

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

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.

NO!

[3Xtr3m3]

Back on topic.

In Clan Societies, the Top Warrior is the Khan.
But every Clan has a Loremaster, or Oathmaster or Master Merchant, or Chief Mystic, and on and on..

Mercenary Corporations have their Commander, the Top Dog, The Alpha Male, Be it Wolf, or McCleod, or Kell, Hannson, and on and on,
They also have someone off to the side guiding which contracts to take and where do we go and what do we do.

They are called ACCOUNTANTS.
If you are not turning a profit, then what are you doing?
Stop/Loss is Insurance that we come out with no LESS than we went in with.
And if we do our job right and fight well, we come out with MORE.

Jack Corban, on 14 May 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

NO!

Believe it or not, but I appreciate your opinion too.
It is every bit as important as mine or anyone elses.
Thank you

[Jack Corban]

Let me ask you a question. Are u serious about all this ? Go back to what ever hole you crawled out of with these Ideas and be gone.

A Stoploss clause is discussed if its a risky contract and only if Mercs want to insure them selfes to be able to disengage under non profitable circumstances. But they do it to safe their own Arses not to make winning against them easier.So your idea is BS.

Best regards,

Jack Corban

[3Xtr3m3]

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.
Expanding on this part, What should the rewards be for a Merc Corp fighting under a Stop/Loss Clause who Win?
Chris and Teammates take on an equal opposing team and manage to soundly defeat said opposing team with less than a 30% loss on Chris' team? At the very least it should be let known they won under it. They destroyed an opposing team 100%, while suffering less than 30%. That is an impressive achievement and deserves to be recognized game wise. IMHO.

[FinnMcKool]

Hes a Comstar Agent there is no other explanation ! Prosperity Park ! We need you now!

[3Xtr3m3]

Jack Corban, on 14 May 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Let me ask you a question. Are u serious about all this ?

Yes, I am serious about discussing this and getting the Devs info on our preferences and ideas about it.
No I do not want a bad situation forced on me or anyone else.
Any other Questions I can answer for you?

[Volthorne]

3Xtr3m3, on 14 May 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

BTW if it does end up being implemented
DON'T BLAME ME
I just started the post. I did not design the game.

So you bring up this terrible idea, which no one was even remotely thinking about implementing - much less discussing - and then ask us to NOT blame you if it DOES get implemented?

...

(REMOVED)

Edited by Mason Grimm, 15 May 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[kidney stones]

r u fing nuts hell i will play a house but this is so fing wrong that it anit funny. if u r that bad of a player quit

[3Xtr3m3]

Volthorne, on 14 May 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

So you bring up this terrible idea, which no one was even remotely thinking about implementing - much less discussing - and then ask us to NOT blame you if it DOES get implemented?

Blame Paul, Bryan, Garth, whoever codes the software. not me.

[3Xtr3m3]

Have a little faith in the Game Developers, If it is truly a horrid idea, it will not be in the game.

[wwiiogre]

I have always been for a retreat option, which means your teammates may bail on you cause they took to much damage. But I would have that as a player choice not a game enforced switch or line. Which means real morale plays into the choice, real ideas about cost. What get my mech blown up for some random players. Hell no.

But the Devs have said you get less if you don't finish a match. So do you save money by leaving early, play on for the possible better payday? Etc, etc. I like those options to be in the game and thus more choices and more possibilities come into play. I would also love to see battlefield ammo reloads using the strict tabletop rules. Oh and you have to buy your ammo before the game and place it somewhere with a crew to load it for you. Wonder how much that costs. Bet I can blow your ammo up when you shut down your mech so they can load it. Or even better just kill your mech and steal your ammo.

Chris

[3Xtr3m3]

I like choices and possibilities too.
Thanks Chris

[wwiiogre]

Why would our Merc Corps ever take a stop/loss contract? It makes no sense, not even for a big payday would I ever take one. Nothing is free and letting poor players have an EASY button is a bad call. You are penalizing good players so you can coddle poor players. There is drop ship mode, go train there then come play later. Or better yet, do what I did and research the merc corps, look which ones will help new players learn. Learn which ones are using good tactics, even before the game starts because they are already training on MW4 free or Living Legends, etc.

Don't just whinge about it being unfair and you need an EASY button cause life is full of lemons and you don't know how to make lemonade.

Really, No Merc Corps is going to take a contract that lets them lose at a 30% loss ratio. None, None and None. Only new players would take such a contract that allows them to get out before the heat is on. And still somehow cover their pride and honor and rating to the Merc Review Board.

Chris

[Volthorne]

3Xtr3m3, on 14 May 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Blame Paul, Bryan, Garth, whoever codes the software. not me.

Because they totally would have thought about this without you starting the thread.

3Xtr3m3, on 14 May 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Have a little faith in the Game Developers, If it is truly a horrid idea, it will not be in the game.

I have full faith that the Devs will most definitely not be implementing this incredibly dumb and pointless idea. If it were up to you... not so much.

Edited by Volthorne, 14 May 2012 - 06:13 PM.