Board 8 > Mercenaries, Draft Edition: The Sign-Up Topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

What is Mercenaries?

Mercenaries is at once a game of resource management, creativity, and charisma. Ever participated in a 'who would win in a fight?' topic? Imagine a game mixing those with grand strategy, where you hire videogame characters to fight for you. Those characters then fight the teams of your competitors, and the victor is decided by those reading along and voting. It's up to you to craft an argument as to why your team would come out on top, and win the hearts and minds of the voters.

Sounds cool! So what's this about a 'draft edition'?

Traditionally, Mercenaries has an economic side to it - you get a certain amount of gold to spend on hiring mercenaries, deciding the terrain a fight will take place in, and paying down strong characters to fight in matches where only weaker ones are allowed. This game will instead have players select mercs in a draft, snake style (that is, first to last, then last to first, then repeat), until the proper number of mercenaries have been chosen. You'll start the game with a fully-prepared army and get straight to fighting wacky battles with your fellow leaders for supremacy!

I've heard Mercenaries is a horrible project that makes everyone hate themselves, the game and life itself. Why should I sign up?

Because this game was created precisely to remove a lot of the pressures that make a normal Mercenaries game so stressful and difficult to play. In vanilla Mercs, you must win to grow your team, as your victories grant you money and experience, and winning early matters much, much more than winning late - so right when you know the least about the game, you're expected to do your absolute best or you're doomed. It's also really long. The last Mercs game lasted about a year and a half, to give you an idea. Not so with this one - Draft Mercs lets you build an army as you like it within the set size constraints, and winning will not change anything except your final spot in the rankings and possibly your qualification to the playoffs. It's also going to be short - I'll be taking eight players, and each one will face the others once in round-robin format before proceeding to a best-of-three playoffs involving the top six teams in single-elimination format. All in all, even if you keep winning, the most this game will take will be four months, a quarter of the average game's duration.
---

OK, that makes sense. So if I want to sign up, what else should I know?

To sign up, just post interest here and you'll be added to the list of potential applicants. If you want the details of the draft and subsequent game, they're as follows:

-Players will draft 11 Battle Mercenaries plus one Pure Support (noncombatant mercenary who provides abilities). They may choose additional PSes as suits them, but each will require them to sacrifice a single pick out of their battle mercs roster.
-Eight players will participate in this game. A draft will be conducted, snake style, for them to select their mercs. Sign-ups will be open for at least 48 hours (until thursday) and a max of 96 (until saturday evening).
-Gameplay will proceed in round-robin fashion, over the course of two full tier cycles (see the rules below) and one wildcard final day, with randomly determined tiers for each battle. After weeks 3 and 6 are over, players may swap out any number of picks for new ones as they like.
-Mercenaries will be chosen from this list: http://mercs2015.pbworks.com/w/page/90630326/Characters%20by%20Upkeep . There are three special exceptions: The mercenary Kha'zix is banned outright, the mercenary Slime will not have access to its Breeding ability, and the mercenary Lightning will require you to sacrifice one pick per each use of her Savior of Souls ability you wish to employ (this will be done during the draft at any point. Before you ask, no, you cannot sacrifice your PS slot to give her abilities). (Additional note: most of these mercs were owned by some player or another. While in most cases this has no effect on their writeups, if you see any instance of 'Limited Use X', it's possible that the numbers on their page won't match the numbers they should originally have, and other things may also be different too. You can review a page's history by clicking on the Page History button. Usually the first version will have the pristine page for you to look at. If something else diverges between the first page and the current version, ask me and I'll gladly point you to the version you should look at).
-After the draft, mercenary terrains will be reviewed, and starting points will be added to each and every chosen merc's terrain. Further changes may also occur, though primarily for the purpose of clarity. This is to minimize headaches down the line, particularly with very large terrains.
-We will be using the rules of Mercenaries 4 for this draft: http://mercs2015.pbworks.com/w/page/90630314/Rules. Study them well (reminder: if something is unclear, the Peacetime page probably has something to say about it) and don't be afraid to ask any questions you might have. The following exceptions are in place: Leaders won't gain infra on a win, everyone will have an income of 20GP per week (and start the first week with 20 GP as well) to make paydowns and terrain decisions with, leaders will be able to bid on attacker/defender status as desired for the first 12 hours of Results, with the player with the higher draft spot having a +3 GP bonus to their bid (and thus receiving the attacker/defender choice by default), and all EXP gains will be doubled, for 10 EXP on a loss and 20 on a win, to establish a reasonable rate of upgrade acquisition.

That's all. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask!

Player List
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

PS: While I am confident in my ability to keep the game running smoothly from week to week, I am also looking for additional admins in case my internet goes on the fritz or I need other opinions on how to handle certain rule interactions. If you wish to sign up as a game administrator, feel free to do so! All help is welcome, that's for sure.
---

I hate myself enough to be the dude.

The dude who drafts his dudes.
---

What he said. In
---

I'm in.
---

ill give this a go
---

I'm gonna play.
---

Week 41 mercs should outright be banned imo
---

greengravy294 posted...

Week 41 mercs should outright be banned imo

I would be okay w/ this
---

In. I'm excited to potentially play Mercs for the first time in over 10 years (!).
---

...20 gp/wk? For 12 mercs? Is that deliberate, or did you/I overlook something?

(Not trying to be rude; it just seems really low at first glance.)

EDIT: oh, I assume there's no upkeep, then? That's... interesting. Hmm.
---

dowolf posted...

...20 gp/wk? For 12 mercs? Is that deliberate, or did you/I overlook something?

(Not trying to be rude; it just seems really low at first glance.)

My understanding is mercs do not cost upkeep, and that GP is for terrains/misc abilities. They still have their upkeep as a way to determine tiers, slots and abilities, though.


If we were to achieve a ton of interest, would two concurrent 8 player games be feasible or reasonable? It would still be less players than a full mercs game, and theoretically you could have some players in Game1 admin in Game2. I imagine the extra work needed for two games at once isn't too much more.

Also, more fun comments adding on that: incentives for Game1 players voting in Game2 matches. Everyone hates when their opponents who have a vested interest in them winning or losing gets to have a say in the outcome of their match via voting. Maybe ban Game1 players from voting in Game1 matches but force them to vote in all (or most?) of Game2 matches to increase votals. I dunno if this is a popular suggestion or not.

For clarity's sake: on purchase in abilities now means "immediately after drafted" (as opposed to after the culmination of the entire draft round, which is probably worth mentioning even though it's kinda intuitive), right?

Just spit-balling, here on all of this.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

After weeks 3 and 6 are over, players may swap out any number of picks for new ones as they like.

What does this mean? If it means you can change mercs, how is this being implemented?
---

Oh damn, I missed this by one. I was pretty interested in trying this at some point.
---

oh shit did I already miss signups?
---

So I am not actually signing up, if people are refraining from signing up because they think I filled a spot or something >_>

I like looking at the design of Mercs from an intellectual standpoint, but actually playing in it not-so-much.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Oh damn, I missed this by one. I was pretty interested in trying this at some point.

I don't think these are first come, first serve; but I'll defer to Kanz on that
---

In if there's room still

if not I can help admin
---

I volunteer for first drop-out replacement or to help in whatever way would be most efficient.

It's not first-come first-served, yes. Anyone can be picked! I want a nice mix of newbies and old hands, if possible.

Now, let's answer some questions...

greengravy294 posted...

Week 41 mercs should outright be banned imo

Most W41 mercs are fine, honestly. If I was banning any I'd probably torch only Nilin and maybe Grigori, and...

oh wait

Banlist update: Yandere-Chan (http://mercs2015.pbworks.com/w/page/110119411/Yandere-chan) cannot use Love-Sicko if it's on recharge. Confession only allows her to trigger it multiple times if it was already not on recharge to begin with (ie it could be used twice in one week for four weeks of cooldown, but only if it was already available to begin with). Senpai~ will keep an internal counter identical to the usual PS swap timer, specific to each Senpai she chooses, meaning the same merc can only be linked to once every five weeks.

There. That catches the only other truly egregious abuse case and restores Yandere-Chan to Meisnewbie's (her build creator) intended vision. I'll ponder whether to ban Nilin or not but don't expect any other bans.

dowolf posted...

...20 gp/wk? For 12 mercs? Is that deliberate, or did you/I overlook something?

(Not trying to be rude; it just seems really low at first glance.)

EDIT: oh, I assume there's no upkeep, then? That's... interesting. Hmm.

Mercenaries will not tax you with upkeep, yes! The 20GP is what I'd call a 'stipend' independent of upkeep costs. If you want to field 11 6/weeks you'll still get 20 GP a week for paydowns and such.

If we were to achieve a ton of interest, would two concurrent 8 player games be feasible or reasonable? It would still be less players than a full mercs game, and theoretically you could have some players in Game1 admin in Game2. I imagine the extra work needed for two games at once isn't too much more.

Possibly! I don't expect we'll hit 16 signups, but we'll see if so.

For clarity's sake: on purchase in abilities now means "immediately after drafted" (as opposed to after the culmination of the entire draft round, which is probably worth mentioning even though it's kinda intuitive), right?

It's at the end of the draft. This is to ensure abiltiies like Selvaria's Lord and Archer's Master selection work as intended.

dowolf posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

After weeks 3 and 6 are over, players may swap out any number of picks for new ones as they like.

What does this mean? If it means you can change mercs, how is this being implemented?

At the end of each cycle, leaders will be given the option to swap mercs, in a second (slash third at the end of week 6) draft. Players with the highest win records will go first, with players with the lowest winrate going last. Each player may decline to participate before the draft begins, or once their next turn comes up and they're satisfied with their teams, after the draft's begun. Any mercs with EXP put into them will not have the EXP refunded if traded back into the pool, so choose wisely!

dowolf posted...

So I am not actually signing up, if people are refraining from signing up because they think I filled a spot or something >_>

I like looking at the design of Mercs from an intellectual standpoint, but actually playing in it not-so-much.

This isn't a question but you should play anyway! This version should be much more entertaining than the usual, I expect, since you can realize your team vision from the get-go.
---

I'll join if we get two games going like Boko suggested. Otherwise, I don't want to take up a slot
---

I would like to Co-Lead with someone since I will be travelling and won't be able to commit for the full game. Totally okay if that's not a possibility but thought I would put it out there!
---

I'll admin. Good practice for CE.
---

MZero11 posted...

I'll join if we get two games going like Boko suggested. Otherwise, I don't want to take up a slot

---

ScareChan posted...

MZero11 posted...

I'll join if we get two games going like Boko suggested. Otherwise, I don't want to take up a slot

---

Ill win this. Why not.
---

I think now is a good time to start discussing game1 and game2 voting rules.

Does anybody feel okay about banning leaders from voting in their own game while forcing or incentivizing voting in the concurrent game? Perhaps something like we make 17gp +1gp for each vote placed? To a max of 20. So it's not technically mandatory. The goals here and my line of thinking are to eliminate biased votes while promoting votals. Lmk
---

Boko "I don't vote in matches" United calling for mandatory votes!
---

MajinZidane posted...

I think now is a good time to start discussing game1 and game2 voting rules.

Does anybody feel okay about banning leaders from voting in their own game while forcing or incentivizing voting in the concurrent game? Perhaps something like we make 17gp +1gp for each vote placed? To a max of 20. So it's not technically mandatory. The goals here and my line of thinking are to eliminate biased votes while promoting votals. Lmk

I actually really like this idea
---

Alright what the hell i will play
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

The last Mercs game lasted about a year and a half

Now I understand.
---

bng_mmmk posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

The last Mercs game lasted about a year and a half

Now I understand.

I really enjoyed it, but I'm a guy who's seriously considering doing two draft games simultaneously so yeah, grain of salt and all that :P

But seriously, Mercs is very fun! And I think a shorter game will help show that off without souring everyone on the idea. Fingers crossed!
---

I just don't like voting because it's not really fair from my own point of view. If I have an alliance with somebody, I'm either going to vote for them if I think they win a match or abstain if I think the other player does. That's not really fair to the other player. This is the main reason I didn't vote much in Mercs 4 (and stopped voting completely after a certain point).

Also, if I really want a team to lose for strategic reasons, I can't really objectively vote in that match. It just adds an element to the game that I'm not interested in dealing with, in the interest of objectivity. I'd rather never vote than place some votes that can be seen as questionable. @FFDragon shares the same point of view as me, perhaps he can add to this.

Banning own-game voting eliminates most non-objective voting (you can still anti-vote a player you don't like or blindly vote a player you do like, I guess, and ignore the teams...), and now suddenly I'm more okay with voting.

Plus, there's a little bit of laziness involved as well, so forcing other-game voting helps votals. Nobody wants to lose a match 2-3 or 1-2, so the more votes the better imo
---

I've been campaigning for players to be barred from voting since M1.

Even if there isn't a dual game running, there really is no reason to have players voting in their own sets of matches, especially in a round robin format where you can definitely strategic vote (or non-vote as Boko pointed out) towards the end.
---

If we get 16 players (if, at the moment - we're not at quota), I'll think about doing that. Vote partisanship is kind of an issue in mercs usually, one that can't really be fixed, and I'd be curious to see if the votals would plummet or not without the interest that comes from playing in a given game. If any game is worth trying for, it's a brief one like this. I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions on this, because I'm not super committed either way beyond wanting a healthy, enjoyable game.
---

Well, we saw from the Gravy/Jeezy match that outside forces can be prone to bias as well, for one reason or another. There really isn't a great solution there, other than just trusting people to be honest and having admins cut out any biased votes. I would be interested to see, if we get two 8 person leagues, letting each league vote only on the other league's matches. There's definitely much less potential for a conflict of interest there!
---

Bump for discussion and sign ups
---

Seems kind of weird altering the terrains after mercs are chosen, as that could affect things a fair deal. "I bought Outland, a big open sniping desert!" "Well teams are starting on opposite sides of a road like they would in a Mortal Kombat fight, sucks for you"
---

I can fill out space if we need some more to hit 16 but otherwise don't care enough to take spots from people
---

There's an easy solution to the voting issue

Be like me and don't pay enough attention to what's going on around you to remember which players have which characters

Poof. No more bias.
---

Actually consider me a bit more enthused than my initial post would imply on second thought.

Still don't wanna take a spot from someone who would actually commit and get into it but feel free to punt some of the chaff to make space for me.

Also third or fourth just banning Week 41 mercs.
---

DeathChicken posted...

Seems kind of weird altering the terrains after mercs are chosen, as that could affect things a fair deal. "I bought Outland, a big open sniping desert!" "Well teams are starting on opposite sides of a road like they would in a Mortal Kombat fight, sucks for you"

Also second this.

You should just fix the ones you think are an issue beforehand. I honestly don't think there were many terrains at all that were all that terrible. (Keep in mind that I think good != needing fixing. There are just a few that are straight wonky or unclear like the F-Zero track that I'd axe)

Also we should be able to bid starting gp on our snake draft position.
---

Are there even 8 players interested at this point?

Skyridge87 posted...

Are there even 8 players interested at this point?

Easily. It's closer to 16
---

I will stress that I do not want in if we only have 8 though.
---

DeathChicken posted...

Seems kind of weird altering the terrains after mercs are chosen, as that could affect things a fair deal. "I bought Outland, a big open sniping desert!" "Well teams are starting on opposite sides of a road like they would in a Mortal Kombat fight, sucks for you"

Also second this.

You should just fix the ones you think are an issue beforehand. I honestly don't think there were many terrains at all that were all that terrible. (Keep in mind that I think good != needing fixing. There are just a few that are straight wonky or unclear like the F-Zero track that I'd axe)

Nothing really so drastic, it's more that fixing every single terrain is a huge chore that would take me a month or more, so I'm restricting it some. Basically the fixes are just going to be putting in clarifications that make some sense. To give you a couple of examples:

Shakuras, the Dark World - A volcanic hell with a breathable (if thin) atmosphere and swelteringly hot temperatures, perpetually in darkness. Attackers will start in the location of the Zerg base from the mission Drawing of the Web, while defenders will start at the center of the Telematros Plateau, but the whole world is accessible.

The Woglinde - The interior of the massive battleship cruiser. The ship is locked on autopilot, should be considered indestructible for the purposes of the fight, and access to the exterior of the ship is barred. No A.W.G.S. or any other mecha of any sort are present. Attackers will start within the hangar bay, whereas defenders will start at the main bridge.

Starting locations, really. I don't think there's any terrains that need more drastic fixes.
---

Okay. Just as long as it doesn't change the fundamental function of the terrain or change the terrain outright I'm fine with it. If you were to say make Chief's massive terrain have teams start in melee range that would be an issue, for example.

You might also want to change the template to ~Attacks~ instead of ~VS~ in the actual fight write-up to make it more clear which team is attacking and defending if you do that though.
---

Well, traditionally I always, always list the attacker first and defender second, but I agree that that's probably ideal for clarity. I'll see if I can find a way to squeeze it in without having to delete ~FIGHT!~.
---

I mean in the fight write-up not the topic title.
---

I actually do need to ask about what will be happening with buydowns/tiers and how that will work.

A lot of drafting strat will depend on it
---