32 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Having listened to, and watched, the Launch Event in San Francisco, my primary goal to hear what was coming for the game, and about when, I have some questions about some things I heard. I know all of this remains in development, planning the best possible, which is why I want to get my two cents in here, now. The intent is to be as positive as possible.

CONTRACTS
Bryan expressed that contracting in the game is likely to be robust, but he only listed three types of contracts…

• Planetary Assault – to come last in the staged release of CW

• Skirmish – Little fights, and

• Bounty – Where someone can put out a contract on an individual or unit.

[/list]
I guess the first question I have revolves around how this can be considered a robust system? How many of the contract/mission types from the Mercenary’s Handbook can be fit into these three categories?

• Planetary Assault
  
  • Defensive Campaign
    
  • Reconnaissance - This was used to effect in the BattleTech Universe League, as part of the means by which a planet could be captured, granting a certain percentage of capture. My recommendation would be that, if there are going to be multiple objectives, a recon be allowed for each objective. This should be something covert, basically; your opposition knows you’re dirt-side, but they don’t know where. The idea to a recon should be something where the element performing the recon should move about without detection, as much as possible. The objectives they achieve are getting close to certain important/designated locations, wait a minute for a scan to complete, or run up to a building, avoiding any patrols, to scan-copy intel from your opponent. Alternately, recon could be used, proactively, to pull OpFor away from an area so it can be secured/captured.

• Skirmish
  
  • Extraction - This could be completed by two means, defeating or outmaneuvering the opposition, and then elements need to remain in place for a certain amount of time before the extraction is complete, whether for a helicopter or for someone to climb a ’Mech up to a jump seat.
    
  • Guerrilla Warfare - ‘Nuff said, hehe.
    
  • Objective Raid - This could be CTF/B or Conquest, but should really include objectives above and beyond these two game types.
    
  • Reconnaissance - As with Planetary Assault, but not quite as in-depth. In this case, it might be one or two missions to secure intel that will allow attacking forces something of an upper hand, perhaps loadouts of the defending team, etc.
    
  • Relief Duty - It’s up to the contracted merc corps to pull enemy forces away from another merc corps, the idea being to give the other merc corps something of a respite. This would be an excellent way to put down some manner of temporary assistance document, perhaps even open up reputation between the two elements.
    
  • Retainer/Short Notice Force – A means of having a merc corps available as a rapid reaction element, to perform anything the employer sets for them in the contract.

• Bounty
  
  • Diversion - This should involve objectives other than CTF/B or Conquest.
    
  • Pirate Hunting
    
  • Retainer/Short Notice Force – In this scenario, the merc corps would act as close back-up for a house or merc element attempting to find/kill a bad guy or unit.

• Other – These don’t belong anywhere in the game, and hopefully there is a reason why attached.
  
  • Cadre Duty - Not appropriate or realistic for a ‘Mech combat simulator.
    
  • Garrison Duty - Same as Cadre. This is handled in the game, anyway, not by contract, but by capturing resources on a planet and defending it against potential comers.
    
  • General/Open Contract – This sort of contract can actually fit in any of the other categories, as it covers a broad range of everything.
    
  • Riot Duty - This is more about populace pacification than ’Mech-on-’Mech goodness, and so it’s not really appropriate. Unless, of course, it’s about putting down a militia that’s either gotten out of control, or that a planetary governor wants done away with.
    
  • Security Duty - This is more about patrolling a world and keeping various portions, whether political, civilian, or military safe from potential marauding bands. This is more like a short garrison assignment, but with patrols.

Though a great many mission types can fit under each of these "contract types", will there actually be anything as robust in the game as what I've outlined above? Please, let there be, because I would love to play in that more robust universe, please? I know contracting is not going to be perfect to tabletop, and I wouldn't expect it to be; however, having only three contract types, where there are fourteen base types to consider, seems like an awful waste of space.

See the Compiled Mission Types Catalog, v.3, for more information on what I'm talking about. This explains so much more than I am able in this short thread.

Discuss?

[Kyrie]

The contract system outlined at present in tonight's presentation is quite simple -- I feel it correlates directly to the limited game modes that we have at present, and the limited modes that are being planned.

The more complicated the contract mission, the more complicated the game modes become. Nonetheless, I would love to play those different mission types you outlined.

There may be room for further development along the lines of a General Contract (outlining perhaps the number of missions to be won as an abstract quantity with rate of pay and bonuses) and specific Missions played as part of the fulfillment of the contract. For instance, the Merc Leaders sign a General Contract, each individual member accepts particular missions within the GC....

Edited by Kyrie, 26 September 2013 - 10:00 PM.

[Threat Doc]

I also believe it would be really cool to have all of these game modes, even if only "eventually". I think my greatest concern is whether these are even on the developers minds; I know they have a {Scrap}-ton on their plates, right now, but it never hurts to ask.

[Zyllos]

Ya, that is a good way to view it, Kyrie.

Once the overall system is in place, more complicated and detailed systems can go in. It's just the original data, plugins, and conditions need to be set in stone first before building onto them.

The problem is how long will this take...

[Tannhauser Gate]

There’s no doubt it will take months to implement and come in layers of imbalanced systems after each layer is considered balanced. (We will continue to be beta testers for every new feature.) “Robust contract system” is vague so I who knows but I am glad to have one in the works. Whatever it is, this will not be a process for the impatient player or for people who don’t like to be beta testers. PGI needs to be ready for the constant player backlash as they roll out imbalanced layers into the game environment. Some players will not be happy “paying for the new imbalanced buggy features”. Contracts will be no different.

Contracts will take a couple of years to mature into the vision most players want.

[Threat Doc]

I SOOOOO want to be positive for this game. I'm really digging deep here, PGI. Throw us a virtual bone, please?

[Sandpit]

Kay Wolf, on 27 September 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

I SOOOOO want to be positive for this game. I'm really digging deep here, PGI. Throw us a virtual bone, please?

If past performance is any indication I doubt we here anything substantial any time soon. It's sad because this single feature will, in the eyes of many, make or break the game and whether it has long term viability

[Tannhauser Gate]

Sandpit, on 27 September 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

If past performance is any indication I doubt we here anything substantial any time soon. It's sad because this single feature will, in the eyes of many, make or break the game and whether it has long term viability

People said that about hardpoints, then ECM, then jumpjets, then double heat sinks, then 3PV, and other stuff. Arguably, they got everything right except 3PV (which, imo, needs more tweaking toward gimped training view). That said, I too have had my ups and downs with MWO but really I think they are on track to making a badazz game even more cool even if its "late, delayed, or imbalanced" when it comes out. That's how this game is designed to go. imo, MWO is already better than the other MW titles albeit lacking maps. It will be a great MW game.

[Sephlock]

Bounty is going to lead to epic griefing and things will get so bad it should be removed, but instead they'll experiment with tweaks like a cap on the number of bounties that can be placed on someone within a given timeframe.

I'm calling it now.

-edit-

In fact, I'm betting there will be epic goon bounties on Paul week 1, if not day 1.

Edited by Sephlock, 28 September 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Sephlock, I cannot disagree with you. I think it's going to get so ridiculously out of hand. When I first heard about the bounty, my face dropped... I normally have to take some time to process news I'm given. However, in that case, I knew it was going to be bad straight out of the chute. Bad bad idea, and I think that was actually about the time I decided not to purchase Phoenix and Sabre that night.

[Kyrie]

The bounty idea is pretty bad when implemented against people directly as a "revenge" scheme. However, I would be all in favor of high-ranked loyalists being able to issue special contracts focusing on key planets, key territories and key objectives.

[Sandpit]

LakeDaemon, on 27 September 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

People said that about hardpoints, then ECM, then jumpjets, then double heat sinks, then 3PV, and other stuff. Arguably, they got everything right except 3PV (which, imo, needs more tweaking toward gimped training view). That said, I too have had my ups and downs with MWO but really I think they are on track to making a badazz game even more cool even if its "late, delayed, or imbalanced" when it comes out. That's how this game is designed to go. imo, MWO is already better than the other MW titles albeit lacking maps. It will be a great MW game.

This isn't a feature that affects a balancing issue. This feature has that ability because this is the only thing that gives you something to do beyond just grind endless matches for more money for that new much. Eventually people run out of hang space and max out the number of mechs they are willing to grind for. Without CW you have endless cycle of deathmatches basically which means you have black ops mwo style except black ops has a story for you to involve yourself in as well and has a well-known AAA budget and marketing department

[Threat Doc]

If PGI develops the game with honest-to-goodness command aspects, rather than simply allowing the tools who can shoot the best and spend the most time in-game to move into command positions, then you'll see more mature individuals in positions of authority. If we see more mature individuals making it into positions of authority, then I could agree with Kyrie's statement. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, because it would require out of the box thought to develop it. With regards to how this game has been built so far, the combat aspects at least, our hosts have done a fantastic job; however, if it were to take some manner of background -non-visible- requirement, such as aspects of command, there's not a chance in hell, I'm afraid.

[Sandpit]

Kay Wolf, on 28 September 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

If PGI develops the game with honest-to-goodness command aspects, rather than simply allowing the tools who can shoot the best and spend the most time in-game to move into command positions, then you'll see more mature individuals in positions of authority. If we see more mature individuals making it into positions of authority, then I could agree with Kyrie's statement. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, because it would require out of the box thought to develop it. With regards to how this game has been built so far, the combat aspects at least, our hosts have done a fantastic job; however, if it were to take some manner of background -non-visible- requirement, such as aspects of command, there's not a chance in hell, I'm afraid.

Which is the opinion shared by many at this point. They released an unfinished product and the reviews are selecting that at the moment. Even if reviews are revised later after new content is added(hopefully) and keep their deadline for once, that's 6 months of those reviews sitting there for potential customers to read

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 28 September 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

If PGI develops the game with honest-to-goodness command aspects, rather than simply allowing the tools who can shoot the best and spend the most time in-game to move into command positions, then you'll see more mature individuals in positions of authority. If we see more mature individuals making it into positions of authority, then I could agree with Kyrie's statement. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, because it would require out of the box thought to develop it. With regards to how this game has been built so far, the combat aspects at least, our hosts have done a fantastic job; however, if it were to take some manner of background -non-visible- requirement, such as aspects of command, there's not a chance in hell, I'm afraid.

It is coming, one way or another. First, mercs will have command authority within their own unit. Given that it has been announced that merc units will not be limited in size.... :-)

Secondly, the ability to create faction-loyalist units within the House structure has also been promised.

[Henree]

salvage?

[Tannhauser Gate]

Unfinished game? Sorry, perhaps you haven't been paying attention. The plan all along was to make the game in stages rather than building all of it at once. They build the core game with very limited content focusing on getting the combat right.. which they have for the most part. After the core game was solid (not bug free but solid) then they intended "launch" the game as a minimum viable product. They estimated it would be mid to late summer 2013 and here we are. That's been the vision of MWO since at least early 2010. It was never supposed to the a completed game this point. Now you could argue this is not a good way to develop and launch a game and many players would agree with you. It is what it is but what it isn't a game in distress on the brink of failure. The vision for MWO is still the same and it will come layers over time.

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 28 September 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

It is coming, one way or another. First, mercs will have command authority within their own unit. Given that it has been announced that merc units will not be limited in size.... :-)

Secondly, the ability to create faction-loyalist units within the House structure has also been promised.

I think we can agree, though, without mature individuals in charge, it won't matter if the bounty system is restricted to higher echelons of units.

Henri Schoots, on 28 September 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

salvage?

The repair/rearm system is gone, and according to Bryan, not very likely to make a return, so that also leaves out a salvage system, I think.

LakeDaemon, on 28 September 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Unfinished game? After the core game was solid (not bug free but solid) then they intended "launch" the game as a minimum viable product. They estimated it would be mid to late summer 2013 and here we are. It was never supposed to the a completed game this point. It is what it is but what it isn't a game in distress on the brink of failure. The vision for MWO is still the same and it will come layers over time.

Okay, this is all great, and I agree with you the game isn't going away anytime soon. What I don't agree with is your MVP statement... they were not going to launch this game without the four design pillars in place and at least MVP-able. I've been here since they launched on Facebook on October 30th; I put up my Facebook page on the very same day, within ten minutes of them setting up theirs. I've read almost everything -I can't say everything, because I've ready every thread PGI has started, thus far, but not everything else- on the forums, so I know what the game is supposed to be, and it's supposed to be further along than this.

Now, for the combat engine, for the grindy game, you're right, it's there, and it is almost exactly the vision I have any time I think about BattleTech being played in a video game. It's a lot closer than MechWarrior 3 ever was -no other MechWarrior or MechAssault game even comes remotely close-, and for that I'm grateful. However, this game is not where PGI said it would be.

I am, at this point, and it's one of the reasons I've posted this thread, vacillating over whether I will get my Merc Unit up and running or not. Thus far, I'm not terribly impressed with what I've seen, and especially with what I've heard over the past two weeks.

Do I believe the game is doomed? Well, that would depend on the consumers of the game, now wouldn't it? The consumers need to be satisfied, right? Thus far, it seems the grind of the game is holding sway. If the present consumers, whom PGI have shifted to making the game for, that's right, I said shifted, get bored with the grind, they're going to go away.

I've suggested this, before, and I still agree with it... if PGI will shift BACK to making this game for the veteran's and BattleTech/ MechWarrior enthusiasts, those of us whom they often praise the passion of, they will have a player base for a long time to come, an income -they will never go hungry- for as long as they can keep the servers running. Unfortunately, with the introduction of several things they said they wouldn't put into the game (3PV, Coolant, etc.), they have spoken loudly and clear that they are not interested in keeping this game running; have now told us they're not interested in making the kind of game this SHOULD be, and then allowing us, the player base, the veterans, to bring in, grow, and indoctrinate the community.

So, though I understand this game is not doomed to fail... it should be noted that I also believe this game is not doomed to fail, RIGHT NOW. I want MWO to succeed so powerfully, but as long as the community is being ignored, and the game is shifting development to kowtow to the temporary audience... well, you come to your own conclusion. The writing is on the wall; now, will they white-wash that wall and get back on track, or do they continue to put the writing there?

[Johnny Z]

The Op said Pirate! A Sub Faction hunted by all and of course able to raid all. For the Mechwarrior Online player seeking the ultimate challenge. With the explicit rule of no complaining on the forums

Edited by Johnny Z, 28 September 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 28 September 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

I think we can agree, though, without mature individuals in charge, it won't matter if the bounty system is restricted to higher echelons of units.

I was not clear in what I was proposing, my apologies. First, instead of it being a bounty system, I am proposing that high ranked players be allowed to offer strategic contracts with their own money (in the case of senior mercs) or with another form of currency for loyalists. An example of a strategic contract would be: Attack X, Defend Y, Scout Z. X, Y , and Z would be locations in the InnerSphere. Depending on how the conquest system is implemented, this could be a specific planet or, if such a level of granularity exists a location within the planet (i.e., as in MPBT 3025's hex conquest system proposed in the design doc).

This would accomplish a few key game objectives:

1) Allow for voluntary cooperative coordination, simplifying the coordination process by letting people announce rewards and targets
2) Allow for the grind to be meaningful. "Oh look, I ground up my rank and I am powerful enough to help set the agenda for my House.". As an example, assuming a rank system along the lines of (Recruit, Private, Sgt, Master Sgt, Lt, Captain, Major, LtCol, Col, Maj Gen, Lt Gen), I would make the first "strategic" contract offer available at Colonel rank.

The power and importance of the contracts would be upgraded with reach rank.