MRP Overhaul

[shrimp 764]

It's that time again!

Preface:

Hey everyone, I'm shrimps. For those of you who are new or too old to remember me, I'm an old MRP player. I founded the modern RU and all that fun stuff. One thing I'm pretty well known for is suggestions, and that brings us here. Recently, a certain individual on the forums brought up the topic of roleplay in MRP and what can be done to improve it. If you'd like to read that post, you can find it here. One of the primary things I've sought to accomplish in this community during my time as a faction leader, staff, or otherwise was to improve the state of RP, and like I said on the aforementioned thread, it's very difficult to do in one swift movement. These things take time. In the interest of an attempt to gradually increase the tangible RP functionality of the server, I've come up with a brief but fairly groundbreaking course of action after discussing a bit with Garnet and resurrecting my creative abilities. I'll do my best to thoroughly explain the processes and their effects here. I would also like to ask that if you are going to provide a response to the suggestion or any specific part of it, please make sure you read said parts completely, thanks. 

 

Part I: The Overhaul

As the title suggests, this is going to be a bit on the experimental side as far as any changes go. Take everything with a grain of salt. Frankly, I'm a bit out of the loop when it comes to the server, but I've got a pretty good idea of the current state from Garnet and others. That being said, the goal here is to insert a dynamic into the server to break up the monotony, as it a common complaint between wars and what not. Having the ability to spice things up and create a near infinite number of unique interactions between the various groups at play at any given time is the foundation of solid RP, even at the lowest level. This brings me to my next, and probably most controversial point.



Group 4 Securicor, also known as G4S.

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

In order to have a functional money based entity to work properly on the server, same major modifications are due to the economy. I personally think there are a number of ways to go about this and I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks, but the method I came up with is as follows.

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 in 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. 

I'd like to reiterate I'm very open to alternative ideas to this layout of financial logistics, so please, read over this and respond accordingly.

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. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the current iteration of the map Garnet prepared to suggest a viable option, and I'm open to suggestions. 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.

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.

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.

Regarding the classes themselves, I will make no recommendation on playermodels, however I will recommend a 4 class system that pertains to the ranking structure, allowing for further specialization within the faction itself by way of the gear vendor. 

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 a all-around useful, compact firearm that can be a tool in nearly any operation alongside specialized gear. The selections are as follows:

G4S : Director
Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90)
Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m)
Additional Gear: weapon_crowbar

G4S : Commander
Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90)
Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m)
Additional Gear: cw_flash_grenade, cw_smoke_grenade

G4S : Operative
Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90)
Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m)
Additional Gear: cw_smoke_grenade

G4S : Mercenary
Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90)
Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m)


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 compliment 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. I really don't know where to start with playermodels. I'll take suggestions on it for sure, but the easy way out is always CS professional models. 

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 layout 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 staff unless asked. That being said, I myself am making no bid to participate in this faction in any way. I have nothing to gain from this, and would merely like to see a level of RP be formally introduced to the server and executed properly. 

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask, because I probably forgot something.

Thanks,
shrimps.
 

Edited November 13, 2019 by shrimpus

[Kendal 450]

This is actually a really impressive idea and the perfect medium that I've been looking for in terms of having more IC events to join in on for GG MRP.

Most of the RP that we have on the server comes down to Raids, Kidnaps, and Tryouts. As i'm sure was probably brought up in the original RP suggestion thread Aparh made.

However, given that the server isn't itself very RP oriented, I think it's a tough task to try and appoint really anyone as the leader of the faction based off of RP. 

However, I could suggest that the leader could be someone with previous faction leadership experience (soc preferably.) They also shouldn't be someone that a faction was or is inactive under. If G4S was to go Inactive, that essentially kills the main RP element that you're suggesting.

• If you're pushing for Activity and Professionalism, I recommend Jim Trash as he is literally known as the Savior of GRU. However i'm not sure if Jim is up to lead another faction.

So far I can only think of him, I'll try to get to know other previous/current faction leaders and add here what I know. 
 

On the flip side of things, the faction leader could also be someone who hasn't led, but has a desire to and has the brains to do it. I'll also be keeping an eye out on officers of factions that might fit perfect for the role of leader in this new faction.

[Kendal 450]

(removed)

Edited November 12, 2019 by Milton
Double post?

[shrimp 764]

58 minutes ago, Jackal said:

finding a suitable leader.

Like I said, whoever is chosen should be pretty intelligent and creative, as well as capable of RP. It's pretty simple criteria that can be somewhat hard to come across. As it stands, according to Phantom, those types of people on the server now are few and far between. That being said, I'm fairly confident that simply the prospect of this being added has already grabbed the attention of some older, much more experienced retired players.

Edited November 12, 2019 by shrimpus

[Vizii 566]

So i have a question, What would happen to the current faction leaders and soc factions as a whole? I like the ideas shown in the post but what would be changing to the soc factions and leaders

[shrimp 764]

Just now, ViziiVfx said:

what would be changing to the soc factions and leaders

Nothing, actually. The only things you would have to consider differently as leaders is the budget and how you plan to use it, which requires you simply just meet with the other subfac leaders in your faction. 

[Kendal 450]

9 minutes ago, shimps said:

Nothing, actually. The only things you would have to consider differently as leaders is the budget and how you plan to use it, which requires you simply just meet with the other subfac leaders in your faction. 

So for the Budget, would that come directly from the Faction leader's in game money count? Or is there a separate budget that is predetermined that each country will have?

And if it's predetermined, could the officers/faction leaders use their own money to add to the budget?

Edited November 12, 2019 by Milton

[shrimp 764]

Just now, Milton said:

So for the Budget, would that come directly from the Faction leader's in game money count? Or is there a separate budget that is predetermined that each country will have?

So each country would have their own budget. The budget is an independent quantity that can be accessed by officers via a command that would open up a menu that displays the budget and subsequent options to utilize the budgets, ideally. Upon addition, each country would be granted an equal amount, and RU & US would constantly gain money to use with G4S after each war.

[shrimp 764]

2 minutes ago, Milton said:

And if it's predetermined, could the officers/faction leaders use their own money to add to the budget?

No, not likely. For one, the values present in the budget will be on a much different scale than the money used in game. A player adding to the budget would hardly make a dent, nor would it even be possible. This is prevent the likelihood of staff being able to spawn money and influence the budgets. 

[Kendal 450]

5 minutes ago, shimps said:

So each country would have their own budget. The budget is an independent quantity that can be accessed by officers via a command that would open up a menu that displays the budget and subsequent options to utilize the budgets, ideally. Upon addition, each country would be granted an equal amount, and RU & US would constantly gain money to use with G4S after each war.

So the budget that either country has could be used to hire G4S services for use. And it can only be gained through winning wars? Or is it passively gained? A mix of both? And could the budget be spent on out of war events? For example RU paying G4S to raid US pre/post-war.

5 minutes ago, shimps said:

No, not likely. For one, the values present in the budget will be on a much different scale than the money used in game. A player adding to the budget would hardly make a dent, nor would it even be possible. This is prevent the likelihood of staff being able to spawn money and influence the budgets. 

This is good. There are some people in the server that have pretty big amounts of money saved up. Such as Godfather who has close to 2 million now. My main concern was that the money people like that have could be used to give one country a huge edge over another in war through use of G4S services. It'd be great to see a healthy balance and that US couldn't basically own G4S for an entire day.

[shrimp 764]

2 minutes ago, Milton said:

passively gained? A mix of both? And could the budget be spent on out of war events? For example RU paying G4S to raid US pre/post-war.

Let's hit each base. Money is added to the nation budgets after each war. The amount added  is calculated by the amount of players on and a win or loss, losers earning slightly more. Nations can then use their budgets at any given time to employ G4S to do whatever they want.

[Kendal 450]

1 minute ago, shimps said:

Let's hit each base. Money is added to the nation budgets after each war. The amount added  is calculated by the amount of players on and a win or loss, losers earning slightly more. Nations can then use their budgets at any given time to employ G4S to do whatever they want.

That clears that question up for me, sorry if I have A LOT, but I'm trying to wrap my head around everything before I add any suggestions that might alternate the way you have envisioned the G4S.

11 hours ago, shimps said:

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. 

I'd like to reiterate I'm very open to alternative ideas to this layout of financial logistics, so please, read over this and respond accordingly.

 

This kind of ties in to my question about how money is earned for each country. I am wondering if after every war, each base faction as well as subfaction (GRU, Marsoc, GB, PDSS) get a cut of the money earned? And what kind of precautions could be put into place to ensure that one side isn't constantly being able to make use of G4S for every war?

I know that the budget of either side would have to be carefully examined to make sure that they don't overspend, but with the right people and spending G4S could be overused by one side.

And how would the G4S be balanced in terms of their capabilities with any amount of money given to them? Would their be Tiers with the weapons/perks they could buy for each life? And it goes without saying that we should try and work out the strength of the weapons they can get (what I mean by that is make sure lower cost weapons/perks act as such).

[shrimp 764]

4 minutes ago, Milton said:

subfaction

Subfactions would not have individual budgets. I think a proper way to do it would be to place control of the budget in the base factions (Army, 2GA.) from which allied subfactions could make requests to utilize the budget to employ G4S for various activities.

7 minutes ago, Milton said:

precautions

G4S can charge whatever they want for services, and even more as the complexity or difficulty of a job increases. This would make a faction repeatedly hiring for things like entire fireteams very difficult, as it would rapidly exhaust their budget. This forces a realistic cooldown on each side.

10 minutes ago, Milton said:

balanced in terms of their capabilities with any amount of money

The equipment G4S would have access to on their end would be highly specialized to carry out certain tasks (Things like flashbangs, mines, precision rifles, etc) and these items would be single-life, and come at a hefty premium via the G4S budget. The directors of G4S would control the types of gear being issued, so that no unnecessary gear is being purchased and money is wasted. The quality of weaponry, as is standard for a high caliber PMC, will be top notch.

[Kendal 450]

1 minute ago, shimps said:

Subfactions would not have individual budgets. I think a proper way to do it would be to place control of the budget in the base factions (Army, 2GA.) from which allied subfactions could make requests to utilize the budget to employ G4S for various activities.

G4S can charge whatever they want for services, and even more as the complexity or difficulty of a job increases. This would make a faction repeatedly hiring for things like entire fireteams very difficult, as it would rapidly exhaust their budget. This forces a realistic cooldown on each side.

The equipment G4S would have access to on their end would be highly specialized to carry out certain tasks (Things like flashbangs, mines, precision rifles, etc) and these items would be single-life, and come at a hefty premium via the G4S budget. The directors of G4S would control the types of gear being issued, so that no unnecessary gear is being purchased and money is wasted. The quality of weaponry, as is standard for a high caliber PMC, will be top notch.

What would G4S do if they aren't employed though? How would they maintain a level of satisfaction while playing the server if they had to sit out a couple of wars because nobody decided to hire them? 

Also I'd like to know If we could get some PM's going on the forums, TS, or wherever else because I do have a couple of questions regarding G4S that i'd prefer to bring to you personally rather than the Forums.

[shrimp 764]

4 minutes ago, Milton said:

What would G4S do if they aren't employed though?

So, this goes back to the competency of the leader. Establishing Passive RP is one of the main goals of this suggestion. If the people selected for G4S can't fulfill that, they shouldn't be there. 

 

5 minutes ago, Milton said:

PM's

Go ahead, my inbox is always open.