And the campaign played very differently, because my needs differed during the campaign. Rare weapons both from shops and item drops. In 1.1 I'm nearing the end of a campaign using the new difficulty settings: Hard missions, stingy cash and stingy salvage from missions, 8 parts to salvage a mech, salvaged mechs are unequipped, and very slow XP gain. So I thought it was mostly a waste of effort giving the player the opportunity to choose, because mathematically speaking there was a clear optimal strategy. Using default settings the game is so generous in general - and even more so with the huge payouts from story missions thrown in, in case anybody ever managed to get low on funds - that the negotiating system was mostly irrelevant to my campaign: just max salvage all the time and never look back. (I may post this idea in its own thread, for feedback and perhaps more visibility.) So not having pre-mission negotiation is just off on many levels. Even if a contract is 'take what you want after', the contract is in place before the mission. (It would also solve the issue of optional objectives being better if you prioritize C-bills.)įinally, I would like to point out that I don't think pre-mission negotiation to be necessarily a good mechanic-I think it is necessary.

Do one better and tie the optional mission objectives into these points as well (1 per objective), and now those objectives can net you salvage rather than money, if you prefer. You'll just pay for your flexibility.Īnd for those who lament that reputation isn't useful enough, tie it into this new slider by removing its current benefits (more money), and saying that each level of rep gives you one free post-mission allocation point. Now, those who want more of a Time and Materials contract, rather than a Fixed-Price contract, can do so. in short, add more points to the sliders.) Now, I think I would want a more granular system than we have now if this was implemented (basically, get more points to distribute in the negotiation, but they are each worth less. You can allocate this to any of the other settings (i.e., C-Bills, Salvage, or rep), but the trick here is that each 'point' of post-mission allocation costs 2 pre-mission points. However, to discuss ways of improving the negotiation system, my brother (who is more implementation-based while I am more idea-based) suggested a way to implement post-mission negotiation: it's a part of pre-mission negotiation.īasically, add another slider/component to the negotiation: post-mission allocation. Interestingly, as others have commented, there are ways around endless storage of 'worthless loot'. Other than improving the value of reputation (which would be an excellent candidate for expansion content), I don't think I would change the mechanics of negotiations. The defaults are a bit easy for my taste, but that is what the 1.1 difficulty options are for. I like the OP's suggestion, but I also like the current negotiation system. It is useful, but not really essential and easily overlooked. I would like to see more effects or at least more obvious effects from reputation.

I have finished Smithon and am just getting past the hump where I have to invest a lot into getting the Argo in decent shape. With salvaged mechs coming without equipped gear I have had to buy heat sinks. With no rare salvage I have to buy any improved weapons that I can find, which can cost half a month's salary (or more). I find the game much more interesting and I am regularly taking C-Bill rewards. I am playing with Hard opposition, No Rare Salvage, Unequipped Mechs, 3 pieces to complete a mech, Stingy Salvage, Normal C-Bill Payments, and a couple other of the difficulty options.

Contract wars client forum