Idea: Fodder
|
Jety Posted May 5, 2009, 5:22 pm |
It would be cool if there was a subset of your gangers that were just fodder. You could call them freelance mercenaries, rogues, or whatever. The idea behind these gangers is that you KNOW from the very moment you get them, you're going to lose them. Even if they don't die a glorious death in combat, they will get restless and quit your gang after 6 months.
Other than that they would train up like normal gang members. Joining stats could be an average of the skill levels of all your regular gangers. So advanced players get to hire advanced fodder. The virtue of this idea is creating a mechanism whereby people aren't so terrified of losing gang members. To increase the willingness to pvp. But also so that sam could implement arbitrary and brutal thing like logging in to find that 3 of your guys were killed last night in a bar brawl. It's a way to bring more death and mayhem to the world without all the usual player whining. Just an undeveloped idea..... |
||
|
*Lugal* Posted May 5, 2009, 5:59 pm |
I just keep some character slots tagged as expendable, and use 'em for town events.
When they go down I just grab a new one, not worrying about recruiting someone good. If the new recruit happens to have impressive stats, I'll switch them out with an older, less appealing character. The new guy joins a regular crew, and the old guy joins the expendables. Collectively, I call them the "Liaison Detail" 
|
||
|
Jety Posted May 5, 2009, 6:29 pm |
Right, I'm sure everyone has this, but these guys hire on as skilled gangers (some decent reflection of how skilled your overall gang is) making them actually useful for things like (and specifically aimed at) camp warfare. The have a high contract rate, so they are also a money sink. | ||
|
Mad Mike Posted May 5, 2009, 6:43 pm |
that is an idea there... we dont have to level them up, they are that way anyway. they could be under an expensive contract if we keep them too long... similar to how people will hire out their mechanics to camps... only issue here is they have a chance to get killed | ||
|
darthspanky Posted May 5, 2009, 7:16 pm |
what about gangs who built up there leader to get extra guys, perhaps the number of guys you can hire depends on yer leader score. otherwise rich players can just hire them without any good leadership score. | ||
|
*Longo* Posted May 5, 2009, 7:24 pm |
I think this is a good idea. Very pro pvp | ||
|
Serephe Posted May 5, 2009, 7:24 pm |
I disapprove of this idea. All my gangers are expendable. They could die any race, any scout, or even of old age. Doesn't matter if they have 20 trucking skill or 300+ guns, 300+ scouting and 600+ leadership.
The wastelands are a hostile place to live. Keep them that way. 
|
||
|
Jety Posted May 5, 2009, 7:33 pm |
I <3 Serephe.
But for everyone else, there's mercenaries. |
||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted May 5, 2009, 8:19 pm |
Didn't want to be the first one to jump in with a negative...
I agree that this is more of a way to run your gang and not that extras are needed. JL |
||
|
*sam* Posted May 5, 2009, 8:55 pm |
Jety has written some more detailed info on this in a PM to me. I can definitely see the merits in the idea, but as I said to him the key thing really is whether the community agrees to the basic concept rather than the detail.
Do we want expendable/non-core/mercenary characters? If yes, I can see this as a good money-sink too: mercenaries have high salaries and contracts that need to be renegotiated in a competitive environment, i.e. other players can out-bid you and steal them from your roster. If no, it's probably not worth fleshing out. |
||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted May 5, 2009, 9:02 pm |
At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, if you, Sam, see the merits, then I have to back up and say I'd be willing to look at it rather than say no up front.
That being said, though, the best part I can see is being "out bid" by another player. Makes it a resource and not just part of your gang... JL |
||
|
Jety Posted May 5, 2009, 9:04 pm |
From Sam
This would be a cool level of depth and dimension as well. But fundamentally the concern I'm trying to address is player's unwillingness to PvP. Losing skilled gangers is a huge disincentive. PvPing with new recruits is... well boring. You might as well duel with stock cars in an arena. I agree wholeheartedly with Serephe that every player should be willing to dive in and sacrifice their gangers when the call arises. But realistically, after training a ganger for 12 months, who the hell wants to just toss it away like nothing. The real thrust of this idea is to give players the tools to wreck mayhem upon each other without losing tens or hundred of hours of invested time. That's the root of the idea, but taking it and running with it there are all sorts of cool things that could be implemented that really just need expendable gangers. Suicide missions, bar brawls, the much discussed idea of taking hostages, etc.... |
||
|
*sam* Posted May 5, 2009, 9:04 pm |
I wasn't trying to make a pitch for or against, I was really just saying I can see that his argument has merit.
I could probably be convinced either way, plus I'm not a very active player myself so my grasp of the subtelties is probably weaker than many of yours. So it's really not about what my opinion is, it's what the majority of the community thinks. |
||
|
Parapsycho Posted May 5, 2009, 9:06 pm |
I dont really like the 'bidding' idea. It makes sense from a roleplaying standpoint, but what would keep a more wealthy gang from just stealing my mercenaries out of spite?
Perhaps, the willingness of the mercenary to stay could be based on overall gang morale. If it gets too low, they start looking elsewhere. At that point, maybe they demand a higher salary, and you can choose whether or not to give them what they want. Edit: In general, I like the idea of mercenaries. They would be nice to take out on ped scouts.
|
||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted May 5, 2009, 9:13 pm |
[quote=Jety]fundamentally the concern I'm trying to address is player's unwillingness to PvP. Losing skilled gangers is a huge disincentive. PvPing with new recruits is... well boring. You might as well duel with stock cars in an arena.[/quote]
What's to keep someone from saying "I paid good money for these guys! I need to scout with them to recoup my investment..." Bottom line, if PvP is your goal, I commend you, but I don't think tweaking the mechanics of the game to suit PvP are the answer. (yes, I agree with the camp changes and Sam's attempt to give a REASON to PvP - but this doesn't give a reason, it just addresses a reason you would normally NOT do it) Now, that being said, I'm not out to lose my high skilled gunners either, but I'm looking forward to the day that I won't know when I go out scouting or on an escort if I'll run into another human or not... I know some are against it, but I'm beginning to sense the excitement it can bring. Sorry - tangent there...
JL |
||
|
ISHOULDCOCO Posted May 5, 2009, 9:29 pm |
I like the idea
Either pre-skill them up to 50% ofyou average character skills orjust for them. Great money sink -solves PVP Non camp owners have something to spend money on COCO |
||
|
Marrkos Posted May 5, 2009, 9:35 pm |
Wouldn't this upset the current camp fame paradigm if gangs can just throw skilled fodder into the Camp War Grinder, rather than risking their 'real' assets?
|
||
|
Jety Posted May 5, 2009, 10:03 pm |
I get the feeling that many aspects of camp fame aren't set in stone yet. I believe in the original camp fame post, sam said he was still looking for ideas to tie into the idea of camp fame. So it should be pretty easy for something like this to play nicely with what's already going on.
Also, since you pay money for these mercenaries, they are very much "real assets". I do definitely think some checks need to be in place to prevent the richest of the rich from profiting off a new system. I'm hoping this would be more of an equalizer than rich-getting-richer type deal. |
||
|
Whiskey Posted May 5, 2009, 10:11 pm |
Why not just let us buy gangers like we buy vehicles? Go to the market and pick a skill 150 gunner with sniper, rapid shot, rocketeer specialims. The system calculates the value and gives you a character meeting your requirements and bills you for their exorbitant weekly salary plus maybe paying a one-time finder fee to Dexter. Not everything is available in the market at any given time. Same with characters. Just because you want a Lvl3 Laser spec with 300+ skill and 90 speed doesn't mean one is available.
Create individual reps for characters. Positive rep characters are known to honor their contracts and not take bribes to change employers. Negative rep characters are known to be unreliable and will jump ship to whoever can pay the most. When we go to Dexter's to buy a character, some of the ones we are offered may be low or negative rep characters from other gangs. Recruiter spec for the leader improves the chance of getting the gangers you want. Motivator spec for the leader improves retention of hired guns. |
||
|
Mad Mike Posted May 5, 2009, 10:12 pm |
after careful thought I think the idea isnt good.
When PvP hits the highest skilled characters will start to get killed and the playing field will level itself out. by having our characters at risk we will learn how to keep our most prized gangers safe and know which characters are expendable. On a side note I think one thing that would quell the issue of losing high skill characters would be the skills from PvP are huge, 10+ points per encounter... this makes sense. we already get higher skill p[oints for fighting in tough areas like BL, I think we would get even more benefit from PvPing cuz the other side should be harder to fight against. If our characters learn fast in combat we wont mind losuing a ganger every 4th or 5th fight cuz after that they will have high skills. example. large gunner starts at 20. first fight 10 point second fight 10 points third fight 10 points now they are a 50 large gunner... if they get killed in the fourth battle we didnt lose much because he rose to 50 in a week or two. this will also enhance PvP cuz if a gang member can gain as high as 12 points in gunnery per fight, then the incentive to PvP is all that much more. Someone decent at PvP will not lose gang members every fight, lose a character every couple of fights..... back to the thread idea. I have to say no, we have other ways to make PvP better. And that way is to make PvP a no brainer as far as incentives to that anyone not doing PvP can see that doing PvP is wayy better |
||
|
*sam* Posted May 5, 2009, 10:36 pm |
Interesting concept, would need very careful development to avoid exploits though |
||
|
Serephe Posted May 5, 2009, 11:30 pm |
For risk free PvP we have DW:Tactical.
That said, if mercenaries are implemented I think they should have some... negative consequences in their use. Perhaps your regular gang members aren't too fond of sharing camp with a bunch of money hungry men who'd just as soon shoot them instead? I still say I'm against the idea, but if its done well I'd remain happy. I just like the feeling when you lose a gang member you've been training for months and months... a true loss. Not many games make me feel that.
|
||
|
Jety Posted May 5, 2009, 11:35 pm |
Soul crushing defeat doesn't retail well :P | ||
|
darthspanky Posted May 5, 2009, 11:38 pm |
i kinda dont like it im maxed at 55 gangers and takes about 50 skill in ldr to get a new one, if others can build em up faster that wont help me, my guys are mostly all high level or maxed out. if others can build up to where im at in a short time it cheapens characters imo, perhaps instead allow for players to buy characters on auctions from time to time. or let us sell one of our maxed out guys to another gang, im good at training up guys can get a scout to 120 in 3 weeks easy a gunner to 100 in 3 weeks now. we dont need increase in skill imo. but allow for players to buy there guys at auction instead of choosing one at random at the bar? perhaps hero points could be used for theese bids? | ||
|
Serephe Posted May 6, 2009, 12:04 am |
Well when you put it that way... 
|
||
|
Speed_Melon Posted May 6, 2009, 12:19 am |
I like the idea Jety, I had thrown the idea of a "B" squad or "Farm" team, but never really fleshed it out. Characters that you could designate with a flag for PVP and in town events. Perhaps they would skill up maybe 1/4 of the rate and for a sum of money you could move them up to your "A" team when an "A" team character is killed. | ||
|
4saken Posted May 6, 2009, 2:13 am |
i am and have always been in favor of the ability to hire mercenaries but i haven't put much thought into the unintended consequences of such a thing.
mercs have advantages. 1) expendable, 2) can be a huge money sink at higher levels 3) can give a lower level gang the ability to hire (at a price) a skilled ganger to fill a needed role (i would imagine merc scouts would be very expensive but if you really need one the option would exist) in order to prevent abuses, whatever those might be, i think that you shouldnt be able to get too many of them (maybe 3-4 per gang?). i don't see how 3 extra gangers will break anything. also i like the idea of being able to hire fodder. for the same $1000 i would spend on a new ganger let me hire a temp newbie who would only stay for a week, or a day, or maybe just for a single event. the main use for this would be to be able to hire a guy for a one-off town event in a town where you can't spare anyone, but they could also be used to fill in vacant spots in a scout when you're short-handed. i also like the idea of extra skill gains for PvP (and for having the testicular fortitude to fight from cycles, once implemented). against NPCs you might have a 10:1 or better win ratio. against a human player, it is probably closer to 50/50. however, every PvP does not have to end in character death so something is needed to balance this out to prevent abuse. i'd be very happy to see a PvP system which did neither encouraged nor prevented character death. in a situation where the win/loss is a meaningful objective (like a camp or town defense) that would be fine but we dont want people gaining mad skills just from meeting outside the SS gates and plinking into each others armor for a little bit. at the same time we dont want people to feel they are being forced to fight to the death. how did this thread get to be about PvP? anyway... we need a reasonable PvP incentive that is not simple to abuse. one idea would be to have whatever PvP incentive for "random" fights be scaled based on the number of players on your side. a grand melee with 4 gangs per side should net a huge bonus, while 1 vs 1 fights not so much. game reason: it's much less likely to be abused when more people are involved. you might be able to get another person to agree to throw a fight to let you gain whatever benefit, but even with a 2 vs 2 you would now need to convince 3 other people to cheat. not likely to begin with and also probably not worth the risk. RP reason for more gain with multiple gangs: super-high risk, huge opportunity for fame and showing off, have to be at your best, learning more from others, etc. ok i dunn typed enough now. |
||
|
Mad Mike Posted May 6, 2009, 4:09 am |
Time after Time I see the same argument against PvP; Loss of high skilled characters we have spent months to get where they are. Even I have said it a couple of times.
in PvP we are bound to lose characters any way you look at it. through targeting one vehicle to kill whomever is in it we can chop down the other side character by character. this can be solved by all those interested in PvP will have skills gained quickly. the harder the NPC gang the more skill gained fighting it. The toughest fight will be PvP so why not reward accordingly? When fighting NPCs the current system remains. If we could skill up a character quickly through PvP we would not worry about losing them. someone will be PvP king and not lose characters often, but WILL lose some. If we can say , yes you will lose that 100 gunner. the person may not want to PvP like we currently have it. If we say you can train up another 100 gunner in 2 weeks instead of 3 to 4 through PvP combat there is incentive to then PvP. The second argument is the rewards to PvP are too low. Being able to get a character up to 200 skill through PvP in 3 weeks would make me think about it. third argument using low level characters isnt very fun. I agree. so make it those low level characters gain up really fast making the fight better. being able to say that 20 level large gunner will be 100 large gunner in 4 fights PvP would want to make me PvP. Of course there has to very careful system setup to make sure it isnt exploited. be real easy for two or three players to PvP and purposely not kill each other characters to make them have 300 skill and then turn on other players. I HATE the fact people exploit and makes developers put in safeguards against it. games have been ruined by cheaters. darkwind is small enough (but growing quickly) to handle it but someday it will be impossible without an oppressive developer. |
||
|
Fealty Lost Posted May 6, 2009, 4:34 am |
Why do we PvP in the first place? Bragging rights? Damaged psyches? Plunder?
Whatever your reason, it's all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Then it's a whine and bitch session about how someone cheated, the CR wasn't right...blah blah blah. The whole idea behind the DW world is that loss is a real consequence...ready for this young'uns...OF YOUR ACTIONS. I know that's something that's missing in society anymore, but it's one of the big attractions of the game to me. Now, hey, PvP's no problem, I'll just hire some dummies (who obviously don't mind dieing for cash they'll never get to spend) and everything's great! So, you slaughter my MPCs, I slaughter your MPCs...and...oh, wait, couldn't we just have done this on DW:Tactical? Why, you're right, sure we could have! How silly do we look? Don't give in Sam. Without the loss, it ain't DW anymore. If someone's too chicken-chit to take the loss, then stay on the porch. If you really want to PvP, then you should have to committ a squad to doing just that. You set them up BEFOREHAND, set them out looking for the enemy and then it's not a given you find them, but odds based on several factors, which I won't go into, this is already past the ADD guys span. You can't choose a loadout once you see the other guy's set up, you have to decide before even finding them. If he brought more, doom on you. Other way around...bummer. Shouldn't have pissed the other guy off. DW: Tactical. If you PvP to say "I won, ain't I great?" ...use this. If you PvP because you want to crush someone else's hard work and efforts...seek help, you have issues. But the game allows for both, so PvP openly, or use DW:Tactical. Anything else is wimping down the game. |
||
|
Jety Posted May 6, 2009, 6:57 am |
I appreciate the philosophical discourse on the matter, but we're addressing a very real and pressing issue. In two days (give or take) a camp war system is going live. This system not only REQUIRES PvP for camps to function correctly, but it requires PvP where skilled gangers and/or rare cars are sacrificed. Given the guidelines that sam has laid out, I fear that there is a real risk of the whole system failing.
The reason is that the output of even the most badass camp doesn't even begin to compare to the value of a single high level ganger, or a rare chassis like a osprey (I know they aren't that rare, but camps sure can't make them). Unless the fruits of a PvP camp war are a massive increase in output of rare items, the PvP camp war system simply won't work. You're asking players to trade skilled gangers and fancy cars for the ability to make one or two rare items per month. So the options are 1)massively increase the output of camps till losing a 300 gunner seems worthwhile or 2) decrease the losses associated with PvP until the losses seem worth the ability to make a buzzer every 25 days. In any event, please stay on topic. This thread wasn't intended to be philisophical in nature. It proposed a reasonable and practical solution to what I think might be impending PvP vapor lock. edit: Mike's proposition is a good one, but I think it would require much much more effort to implement correctly and could potentially have much wider reaching and unforeseen consequences than the merc solution. Especially given that the real boogeyman of any PvP system will be players cooperatively abusing PvP features for their own gains. Rapid PvP training *seems* like a huge invitation for abuse. As a game developer, an ounce of prevention in this department is always worth much more than a pund of cure. |
||
|
*Longo* Posted May 6, 2009, 9:12 am |
Nothing for nothing, but why should I risk a 300 lg gunner in a pvp? For braggin rights? I got 30+ buzzers, more than anyone in the game...would I risk one for pvp? Not unless I knew I would win. Even less if I had to risk my hard earned gangers.
I wont risk my good gear or my good guys in PVP. Plain and simple. In pvp your gonna get my maxed guys at 99 or 100 skill driving apaches with 2x HMGs. And unless your one of maybe 4-5 gangs, your gonna lose to me. I know the terrain better than most players. I know when to fire and not to. Most of my guys have super high courage, so even if you breach me and see blue text, my guys are gonna laugh at you and still shoot back. So give yourself a chance for Gods sake and let me hire some pansy's to drive my cars and give you a chance. Otherwise, dont waste your time and attack me or my allies, cause your just gonna die a slow death... |
||
|
*goat starer* Posted May 6, 2009, 9:30 am |
not from me won't. i will be sending buzzers with 200+ gunners. Please feel free to send your maxed guys to the slaughter. |
||
|
*sam* Posted May 6, 2009, 10:03 am |
This may be true; we'll wait and see. The idea of camp pvp is, of course, that it *will* become worthwhile without unbalancing play for those that don't want to do it. So further incentives, such as more rapid skill gains in pvp combats, may be required down the line. We'll take it slow though, we'll discuss it etc. when we see what the new camp pvp brings.... |
||
|
darthspanky Posted May 6, 2009, 10:41 am |
heck id be happy if i could earn 1 point every scout instead of every 4 scouts.
|