[MRP] Group 4 Securicor

[Ziggy 1,353]

Preface: Hello MRP, tonight I am bringing you a suggestion that was previously suggested by @shrimp. This suggestion’s goal is to implement a third party organization and budget system to the server to help build a bigger purpose for war and further the scope of RP available. This will mostly be a copy paste, although I am going to add a few things that were missing previously, such as the budget explanation and models, while adding things explained in the response section of his suggestion. 

 

Part I: The Faction

 

 

Group 4 Securicor 

 

The modern battlefield is plagued by indirect warfare, unmanned systems, and the chaotic element known as the Private Military Contractor. G4S happens to be the largest multinational security company to date, and is headquartered in London. G4S has deployed units for a variety of operations in a number of war zones since the early 2000's all for one reason, money. As far as the effects this would have on the server, how it would be structured, and any other essential information will be discussed further below. For now I'd just like to talk about the role a mercenary corporation would have on this specific server. For starters, G4S would operate independently of either faction, bearing no favor towards the United States or Russia. As a neutral group, G4S would be able to act in whatever way benefits them the most as a small unit of professional mercenaries. Actions available to G4S Mercenaries include assassination, theft, sabotage, private security, surveillance, reconnaissance, and paramilitary operations granted the client has a proper amount of coin to warrant such actions. 

 

 

Part II: The Economy 

The original explanation for the economy part of this suggestion began as speculation, before ideas were developed as the thread lived on. I personally support the ideas created on that thread, so I will implement them in this section, as opposed to what shrimp originally wrote. 

First, establish 'budgets' for the three major factions. This will be consistent values accessible by officers of the respective elements, likely to be done by creating a UI accessible by people on an officer job via a command. Hopefully not too code heavy, and integrated enough to make it fluid. Officers would be able to transfer money to G4S for various negotiated services. If possible, the budget of each faction would be synced up to the war timer. At the conclusion of each war, the US and RU budgets would be granted a sum of money dependent on the outcome of the war with the loser being granted marginally more. This value would scale to the amount of players on at the time of distribution to reduce the effect low-pop wars have on the overall budgets. This will allow the faction on a losing streak to use their surplus budget to enlist the services of G4S and gain advantage in the next conflict or dish out some revenge to spice things up. 

This leads us to what use G4S has for the money in a server context. I think the most reasonable thing to do is create a vendor NPC for use by G4S members to acquire single life specialized equipment for operations. The more money G4S stockpiles and earns by carrying out operations successfully, the more effective they will be in future operations, and the more options they will have available. These items will come at a hefty price to balance out any chance at being used abundantly, forcing G4S to carefully plan out their operation logistics and financial state. This also opens up similar options for the two nations, as their budgets could potentially be used for alternative means. This would force each subfaction to interact with each other in order to properly distribute funds and add another element to the currently simple war scheme. 

The vendor would include items such as:

Firearms:

-FN-SCAR, Assault-Escort Contracts.

-FMG-9, Private Security on a budget

-KRISS Vector, Private Security Detail.

-L115, Economical Recon and Scouting.

-SR-338, Long-range Recon and Scouting.

-SV-98, Assassination and Precision Shooting.

-UTS-15, Close Quarters Assault.

-G3A3, Point Defense.

-AR-15 SOPMOD, General Purpose Rifle.

 

Explosives:

-Frag grenade, just in case.

-S.L.A.M Trip-mines, Breaching and Sabotage on a budget.

-IED Detonator, Assassination and Sabotage.

-Timed C4, Breaching and Mass Destruction.

-Nerve Gas, War crimes.

 

Misc:

-Harpoon, Very specific contracts.

-Fists, Interrogation. 

-Crowbar, Motivation.

-Stun Baton, Encouragement.

-M9K Knife, Infiltration

 

 

Part III: The Structure

G4S, as a neutral entity, needs its own base of operations in order to prepare for operations and meet with delegates from the warring nations to negotiate contracts. If added, the base for the current map will likely be temporary, and the addition of one to a future iteration of the map will be factored in and it will improve from there. The criteria for a temporary base are simply a small building or compound to house a meeting room and an NPC vendor. For the current map, I imagine COMMs would be the most effective HQ. 

Beyond housing needs, the chain of command for G4S from top to bottom will be as follows:

Officers:

Operations Director [ODR]

 -Faction Leader that oversees day to day operations, appoints squad leaders during mobilization, and manages the budget.

Assistant Director [ADR]

-Second only to the Director, fulfills all duties of the Director in the event of his/her absence.

Chairmen [BDR]

-Enforce the protocols established by the Directors, oversee the negotiations of contracts and interactions with foreign parties.

Commander [CDR]

-Oversee the training and deployment of units, coordinate field operations as the operations commander.

 

Enlisted:

Captain [CPT] 

-Act as operations leader in the field, report to the Commander for promotions and demotions, training, and other comments.

Lieutenants [LDR]

-Manage lower enlisted outside of operations and assist in training efforts.

Sergeants [SGR]

-Upper level foot soldiers, eligible for team leader assignments.

Corporals [CPR]

-Next in line for team leader assignment, mid level foot soldier.

Privates [PVR]

-Low level foot soldier, learning the ropes.

 

These are based off of a real ranking structure, I know what enlisted means normally. Distribution of operation equipment will be determined by rank. Higher level soldiers will be granted access to better equipment than base soldiers in operations on a basis of experience.

Class Recommendations:

For the standard secondary, I went with the currently unused SR-1M. It's a reliable shooter with a large magazine size and does very well in the covert environment, fun to RP with in my experience. For standard primaries issued to each class, the notion behind each choice is being an all-around useful, compact firearm that can be a tool in nearly any operation alongside specialized gear. The selections are as follows:

Any additional gear on the classes themselves is there for the sake of convenience due to how often added gear might be in use. The crowbar is for RP purposes, I swear. This setup allows for all classes to share a common load out and express uniformity in RP situations, which I can fully get behind. Classes are set up to complement the rank structure. Lower enlisted will have mercenary, higher enlisted will have operative. Commander and Chairmen will have Commander, and the Directors will have director. 

Models: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2598793327

 

Part IV: Roleplay Integration

The main purpose of this suggestion is to take a step towards roleplay. The members of G4S will be heavily bound by roleplay rules, specifically things like being limited to In-Character, or IC interactions only in game. For example, while in game, members of G4S will not be able to use terms like 'RDM' or things that would not exist in real life inside IC forms of communication, like local voice and comms. G4S members have to maintain character at all times, regardless of how other players act around them. This will set the tone for the baseline level of RP required to interact with G4S, and will usually be limited to the officers of the warring factions. 

 

The theory behind this is that officers will be required to act in character in order to make dealings with G4S, thus developing their sense of character. These interactions will also expose any accompanying enlisted to the standard IC interaction and further develop the tone at a slow and steady rate. Over time, this will gradually expose the server to a new baseline for roleplay, and open a variety of doors in terms of roleplay options. The management-appointed leader of G4S would be encouraged to incorporate further dynamic roleplay elements of both passive and active RP into the faction over time to expose the server to a broader and more refined level of roleplay and realism, likely improving the general atmosphere of the server. In the field, G4S members will be expected to maintain their level of roleplay as they would off the job, providing a fluid and functional experience to both the participants and the victims. 

The three faction system worked quite well in the past according to Garnet, but as stated by him, one of the three never failed to eventually die out. At the time, all three factions were warring factions and operated at an equal level. This provided an element of unpredictability to the nature of conflict, but was a struggle to maintain. In this format, a neutral group would be cultivated and maintained by management itself, ensuring that all the set precedents for RP, numbers, and structure are being met to their fullest, as well as not being a large enough group to take away from the bulk of the population on the warring sides.

 

Part V: Administrative Incorporation

The functionality of G4S relies heavily on rules. Rules that bind the members of G4S to roleplay regulations, as well as rules that lay a foundation for the activities G4S may partake in as far as things they can be contracted for, and for their pricing. The latter half of the rules pertaining to operations will have to be strict enough to avoid Officers on either side requesting ridiculous things, but lenient enough to allow for creativity and unique interactions. I will not lay out exactly what I would want the rules to be in this case because I feel that is better left to staff with a better knowledge of the server as is, but I will say this; consider the effect it has on the limitations of roleplay. 

 

As far as appointing people to lead and run this faction, I will not make any case to suggest someone, however I would advise you choose someone with an able understanding of at least medium-level RP, and a decent comprehension of the creative process, on top of being capable of the regular duties of faction leaders. If requested, I can provide recommendations, but I will leave it to Jake/Garnet unless asked. 

Feedback on the suggestion is highly encouraged! 

Edited September 11, 2021 by bishopil

[Velo 64]

+1

 

This suggestion would actually bring fourth a baseline level for RP that would genuinely give more immersion RP wise which is needed and would get players to stick around for these types of moments. 

Economy isn't the main point of this post but it would start being an actual thing instead of the only purchase being bunker decorations. This would actually start a genuine saving for money and being able to spend it on something reasonable instead of letting your money sit and not being able to spend it on something worthwhile. It'll also support people gathering up funds and buying out this faction when necessary.

Everything's considered I personally believe this suggestion would push the server in a good direction with all of the other nitty gritty faction leader choosing shit out of the way and for new players It would leave a sense of awh with them seeing mercenaries like this with a motivation of money only and whoever pays the most gets the support.

 

[PrisonNightmare 741]

Honestly I like the idea, just had a question. They are probably still going to be able to receive damage from both sides during war, seeing how they are a third side and therefore can't really benefit from friendly fire being turned off for them. If this is the case and they were to be killed by someone of the side they were bought out for, how would that be handled administrator wise? Would that count as an RDM or would there be RP consequences? I just feel bad for the poor bastards who would be in the faction who are going to get friendly fired constantly (Especially on this dark ass map lmao).

 

Honestly I could see this be more of a balancing factor as well for the weaker side, which would be a pretty great help. I also like the idea of having to negotiate with them in RP, this could be used to create a lot of cool events and moments. Each side could even get some of their members to "specialize" in negotiations to create more of an RP feeling and situation.

 

Only issue I really see is Garnet already has so much he needs to do in terms of what he has planned for MRP, and it seems like he's already spread out so thin having to develop for like eight Rust servers as well as DRP and TTT, as well as working on FiveM and reviving StarwarsRP. I just hope if this gets accepted it doesn't get forgotten about or get put on the back burner like so many things have been already.

 

Overall +1, I hope to see this implemented some time on the server.

[Pencil 767]

The concept and overall idea of a third faction I like, however I don't think G4S is the route to go. Considering we will swap to Tali soon, G4S supporting a terror organization goes against any and all of documents they have signed, such as the UN GC and the ICoC (of which they are a founder signatory).

This entire concept still works were we to make it a pmc or an unnamed guerilla group/militarized group. The actual implications of a security company working with a terrorist organization and killing U.S troops would cause large problems for it's company.

Overall, I think the economy features would bring a new wave of RP, but should be noted that it is a separate than the DarkRP base money we currently have. When shrimps originally suggested it, it was to be a combined amount in a menu and not something that was able to be dumped/transferred with the DRP money players have. Putting this here for anyone that is confused on that part.

Another thing to note is though, that if the faction is just stacked with the best players, it will cause a similar flip-flop to when we have factions like Vega swap over to US for a war and just stomp.

+1 to the idea, but -1 to the current proposed faction.

[Ziggy 1,353]

1 hour ago, Pencil said:

The concept and overall idea of a third faction I like, however I don't think G4S is the route to go. Considering we will swap to Tali soon, G4S supporting a terror organization goes against any and all of documents they have signed

All I’m going to say is PMCs don’t have a reputation for upholding promises, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t even matter. If you can find a more fitting group, link it and I can do a simple name swap. The models are perfect and aren’t specifically “G4S” models, so the faction can really be any organization that makes sense. 

[AlexConway 1,150]

I think the concept is good - the "In-Character" rules and integration will need to be tweaked for implementation; but I agree with @Pencil: +1 to the idea, but -1 to the current proposed faction.

[Horse 350]

2 hours ago, Pencil said:

+1 to the idea, but -1 to the current proposed faction.

Pencil, practically stated exactly how I feel about this suggestion. Dont think the addition of another regiment would be healthy for the server and I dont see how it could really be implemented with a big enough purpose to stay in the server and it just doesnt really seem like its needed in the suggestion. Also this could end up like 31B a be a very bad power-hungry situation with the leader of the respective regiment only accepting negotiations, deals, out of spite. (TL:DR There are more outcomes that could go down the wrong path rather than the good one with the addition of this regiment).

[PappaEric 90]

+1 - Unique idea for the server (Will update with more detail when I get off work lol)

[Ziggy 1,353]

6 hours ago, Horseyy said:

(TL:DR There are more outcomes that could go down the wrong path rather than the good one with the addition of this regiment).

This same logic can be applied to any aspect of the server. The point is that you regulate it with guidelines/expectations. 
 

For example, I could argue that the Armory NPC is bad because of the purchasable explosive that could cause more harm than good. Problem is Horse, we have rules that regulate these aspects like RDM/Mass/etc. 
 

6 hours ago, Horseyy said:

leader of the respective regiment only accepting negotiations, deals, out of spite. 

Ok, the really simple and easy solution is to remove them. 

6 hours ago, Horseyy said:

I dont see how it could really be implemented 

Please read the suggestion through and through before providing feedback. 

 

Edit: I talked with Horse on my own regarding a few of his concerns and I think it is important to relay that to everyone else. Horse was concerned about the rules surrounding the faction and I want to emphasize that should be a concern post-verdict. If we waste time now and discuss the technicalities about the faction, then this thread will devolve into a bunch of arguing about rules nobody is certain about. I want people to look at the suggestion itself and answer the question of, "Is this something I would like to see on the server?", rather than speculate about x or y scenario. I'm sure that if this is accepted, the staff team will be able to develop rules for the faction to implement the system just fine. Let's focus on what's important first and take it step by step.  

Edited September 12, 2021 by bishopil

[Sensei 20]

I'm going to keep it plain and simple. The server is called Military RolePlay for a reason but RolePlay wise it is almost, if not completely, dead. Anybody that has had interactions with me knows how RP heavy I always try to be since I just love RP scenarios that could develop a lot of cool ideas and moments on the server and the addition of this group and it being an RP solid faction could bring a much needed reinforcement to the RolePlay aspect of Military RP.

 

My main concern is the same as Pencil, but I don't think that is an issue. With a simple change on name with a more fitting one could seal the deal.

+1 on this and regardless of the outcome, I appreciate you Bishop for constantly bringing up ideas for the sake of MRP

[Mr_Fortnite 43]

+1. Whenever I played, I got made fun of for saying I would like to RP more. People said it was a semi-serious server so RP shouldn't exist. I think it would force some RP onto the player base that would be very much needed and could add something to do between wartime

[Salmon 488]

-1
I worked for G4S, they're a security agency, just bought out by Allied Universal. Idk Allied's plans for them once the merge is complete but as far as I know, Allied doesn't have PMCs and none that G4S has either.

[Pencil 767]

2 minutes ago, Salmon said:

I worked for G4S, they're a security agency, just bought out by Allied Universal. Idk Allied's plans for them once the merge is complete but as far as I know, Allied doesn't have PMCs and none that G4S has either.

G4S aside, as me and Bishop are currently working on another group for the faction to be.

As a Head Admin how do you feel that a third faction would impact the server in the way that it has been laid out via the suggestion?

[Salmon 488]

1 minute ago, Pencil said:

G4S aside, as me and Bishop are currently working on another group for the faction to be.

As a Head Admin how do you feel that a third faction would impact the server in the way that it has been laid out via the suggestion?

3rd faction as a buyable PMC group to fight for your side? No, I am not for that. Especially since the base factions are struggling with competent officers as it is. 

[Ziggy 1,353]

5 minutes ago, Salmon said:

3rd faction as a buyable PMC group to fight for your side? 

This suggestion offers much more than just that,  which you can learn more about in the different sections outlined in the post. 

 

5 minutes ago, Salmon said:

Especially since the base factions are struggling with competent officers as it is. 

 

20 hours ago, bishopil said:

In this format, a neutral group would be cultivated and maintained by management itself, ensuring that all the set precedents for RP, numbers, and structure are being met to their fullest, as well as not being a large enough group to take away from the bulk of the population on the warring sides.