Merc killing their contract needs to not be possible

Feedback/Suggestions
#1

Have a game, we have numbers as unseen. My merc votes against me (like me personally) twice. Executes me, we lose the game. So does he because he can’t get a 2nd contract soon enough.

Here is an idea. A merc should NEVER be able to vote against their contract. If they want to accuse, they can’t accuse their contract. They can’t vote to execute their contract.

It only makes sense, really. As it is, what I’ve been seeing of late is:
Merc gets 1st contract. Demands 1st contract’s role. If it is evil, he buses them and gets a 2nd contract on Prince or someone similar.

It’s silly that a merc who kills themselves if their contract dies and goes so far as to kill people who merely accuse their contract… can kill their contract. They can out them, vote them up, and vote for execution and just get another one.

It doesn’t address the issue of making the first contract appealing to the merc, but at least it fits the lore and common sense better.

3 Likes
#3

I’m pretty sure he knows how the rules work, he’s talking about mechanically they shouldn’t even have the option to vote exe or accuse their target.

#4

I just woke up from a nap ill reread XD

#5

I think that this is going in exactly the wrong direction; in fact, on thinking about it, I think the mercenary’s goal should be reworded (and the attendant rules changed) to overtly allow a mercenary to betray their first contract, when they believe it would give them a better chance of winning with their second one.

I explained why in more detail in my other post, but basically, it would both add more tactical depth and would be more thematically appropriate. A mercenary is, by definition, someone who serves the highest bidder - not someone who is deeply loyal to a cause the way BD, Cult, or Unseen are.

1 Like
#6

Yes, mechanically.

Except they literally kill themselves when they fail. That isn’t a highest bidder mentality. Now if we want to change the mercenary company kills them or something, then maybe. But as it is I’ve been seeing most mercs bus their contract so make the “bad guys” lose.

There already is almost zero incentive to keep that first contract alive. They should be loyal to their contract, it’s obviously the intent behind the class. The only reason they really get a 2nd contract is to keep them from losing too easily when he randomly dies n2 or something.

1 Like
#7

Except they literally kill themselves when they fail. That isn’t a highest bidder mentality.

Based on the wording, they kill themselves because they are no longer able to get a job. The wording on the ability is literally because you can no longer find work. Not because they care about the individual people they’re contracted to.

There already is almost zero incentive to keep that first contract alive. They should be loyal to their contract, it’s obviously the intent behind the class

I’m not sure I agree. Betraying your first contract means you’ll lose for sure if your second one dies, so it’s a choice with significant risks to the Mercenary. And I’m not sure whether it’s the intent behind the class, but either way, it doesn’t really matter - classes change constantly and sometimes dramatically. We should be focused on what leads to better gameplay.

I think we get better gameplay if mercenaries are allowed to make that decision.

#8

No, because then there’s no reason to protect your first contact

1 Like
#9

Eh, maybe.

I can see it either way, but the meta for mercs since I’ve played has been: “guard n1 to prove role, then dont guard anymore so you have guards for the contract that matters.”

I mean if they want to go heavy into that already existing meta, that’s fine, but I’d much rather there be more incentive to protect the first guy. I mean… who the hell would hire you in the real world?

“Yeah, I was Jeff’s body guard.”
“Jeff was brutally murdered last night.”
“Sure was, which means I’m available!”
“Yeah… I’m not paying for your ‘protection’, thanks.”

#10

Well, betraying your first contract has the risk that then you’re completely dependent on your second one - if they die, it’s GG.

#11

But as @Bart_Auringer says, you suck as a guard if you just let the first guy die. I always guarded my target until I was out of guards as merc myself

#12

Sure, but you just get the Prince or someone important that’s already going to be protected.

Hell, I’ve seen a games where the following happened:
Prince jails Merc early.
Asks who merc’s contract is.
Merc tells Prince contract.
Prince has contract executed by the court and claims merc’s contract for himself.

#13

I can see it either way, but the meta for mercs since I’ve played has been: “guard n1 to prove role, then dont guard anymore so you have guards for the contract that matters.”

Well, you know, when you don’t guard, you can die!

#14

Sure, but you probably wont and even if you do that isn’t a loss necessarily.

Better to have that first dude die so you can get a Prince or Hunter or something everyone is protecting/can protect itself.

I mean there is a whole camp of Merc players that lives by the mentality of: “Never guard the first contract unless you have to in order to prove your role. Save all the guards for the 2nd guy.”

It also allows you to swap to the winning team late game and you can still luck into a win even if you die n1.