43 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Hmm, I would like to see a similar system as mentioned here. Each mission is played in stages, with each stage offering a different type of strategy and game play mode.

Taking from Kay Wolf's example of Intelligence Gathering, Reconnaissance, Objective Raids, Force Attrition, and Final Battles, each mission is broken into various stages that are interacted in different ways. When the contract is given for a particular job, the mission begins which follows a set of stages with outcomes dependent on the defenders and attackers actions. The overall stages are as follows:

Intelligence Gathering -> Reconnaissance -> Objective Raids -> Force Attrition/Final Battles -> Outcome

Each stage gives various bonus dependent on the outcome. These outcomes and bonuses are as follows:

Intelligence Gathering - Attackers and defenders spend resources on various areas in an attempt to gain intelligence of the coming battles. Some arbitrary value is given to the attacker and defender based on distance and resources available. For attackers, distance from closest friendly planet to target planet modifies the final resources available for Intelligence Gathering. For defenders, distance from center of operations. Resources can be spent by providing a percentage allocated to different areas. These areas are Espionage, Battle Field Assessment, and Movement Intelligence. Once these values are assigned by each side, they are locked in and the Intelligence Gathering stage is complete. Each section gives benefits as follows:

Espionage lowers BV values of the other side. Values could range from 0% to -4% BV.
Battle Field Assessment gives map information. Includes weather data, static environment heat, and map layout.
Movement Intelligence gives mech information from the other side. Gives 0%, 25%, and 50% of the other side's mech layout, randomly. Chassis only with default layout.

Reconnaissance - This is the first stage of combat that begins with a particular contract. Once this stage begins, the planet is open for matches to begin between the attackers and defenders. Maps/mission types are randomized to be lower tonnage and Battle Values (BV) with objectives that are reconnaissance-based like destroying or protecting a building. Each match will be tied to a specific type from the Intelligence Gathering areas of Espionage, Battle Field Assessment, or Movement Intelligence. After a number of matches are complete, which ever side received the most wins for a type gains that advantage for the Objective Raids and Force Attrition/Final Battles portions of the contract. The quality of the advantage depends on comparing the two sides values. If the winning side is within +/- 10% of the total resources between the two sides of the losing side, they gain standard advantages. If more than 10% on the winning side, they gain superior advantage and if less than -10%, no advantage. Each win at this stage gives the smallest amount of points for the Outcome stage and has a medium number of matches.

An example would be say Attacker assigned 25% Espionage (25), 25% Battle Field Assessment (25), and 50% Movement Intelligence (50) with 100 Resources and Defenders assign 75% Espionage (112.5), 5% Battle Field Assessment (7.5), and 20% Movement Intelligence (30) with 150 Resources. From the Reconnaissance stage, the Attackers won the Espionage, lost the Battle Field Assessment, but both sides tied on Movement Intelligence. The Attackers Espionage value is 25 and the Defenders is 112.5. Sense this value is way less than -10% (25 - 112.5 = -87.5 < -10% of 250 (-25)), the Attackers gain no advantage against the Defenders. On Battle Field Assessment, the Defenders value of 7.5 compared to the Attackers 25 is within +/-10% (7.5 - 25 = -17.5 > -10% and < 10%), the Defenders gain standard advantage which will include weather data and static environment heat. Sense the Attackers and Defenders tied on Movement Intelligence, their assigned values are ignored and both sides gain no advantage. After the Reconnaissance is complete, the advantages will apply to the next stages.

Objective Raids - This stage is were the majority of the matches are played out. Each match is again, randomized, and geared towards the contract type. The tonnage and BV is increased as these matches are what mostly determine which side wins. Nothing particularly special about this stage except the amount of points for wins here are their highest for the Outcome stage and who ever gains the most wins here determines which stage is next. A tie here (in wins) immediately goes to the Outcome stage.

Force Attrition/Final Battles - This stage contains a small number of matches (more than the Reconnaissance stage) and gives a small favor towards whoever won the Objective Raids stage. Force Attrition is the stage where the Defenders won the Objective Raids and the Final Battles stage is for the Attackers winning the Objective Raids. The advantage here is based on the contract type and could be superior advantage for a specific area, or maps that gives the winning side an advantage, or some other aspect. These battles worth only a medium amount of points for the Outcome stage.

Outcome - The stage is to tally the winning matches of the Reconnaissance, Objective Raids, and Force Attrition/Final Battles stages to determine if the Attackers complete the contract or the Defenders successfully repelled the Attackers.

During each stage, except the Intelligence Gathering and Outcome stages, there will be on going matches to be completed before the stage proceeds to the next. The matches are open to anyone of the Attacker contract and the Defenders planet (and allies). Individual players join up for play in the specific world and select their mech of choice until their values are below tonnage and BV for the match. The side who lost the Movement Intelligence area in the Reconnaissance stage must submit their list first to give the winner their advantage. If there was a tie on Movement Intelligence, then neither side must submit first. Each side has a X amount of time to create their team.

While looking at this, it may seem overly complicated with the various stages interacting with each other which might cause issues with finding opponents or taking too much time. But, after the initial Intelligence Gathering stage, matches will be open for the sides to participate in and each match will be randomly created with map and mission type and give the advantages to those who needed it. When starting up a match, it will give the current stage, any associated options like Reconnaissance area mission type, and contract type so players can reasonably gage how large the game will be. Once enough players join, the game will begin the countdown to create your mech lineup. Players can still join and leave at this point. In case something comes up, if one side submits with too few players, the match will cancel. When viewing the planet in which the battle is going, it will list the contract type, stage, and number of matches remaining to go to the next stage. The complete battle for the planet could easily be completed within a single day if both sides are active, but the matches need to be completed by the end of the week. I am not quite sure how to handle situations where one side decides to not play due to either losing most of their matches or issues with members being able to play. But I feel that this allows for quite a lot of variability in each contract. And I believe this should only happen in the Border Worlds where contract are assigned and bid upon. There should still be other ways to just jump into quick matches in some other meaningful way. Maybe Faction Worlds?

Either way, my $0.02...

Edited by Zyllos, 13 December 2011 - 10:20 AM.

[Threat Doc]

VYCanis, on 13 December 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

been doing some thinking, and I think i figured out how this might work without even needing any AI

High ranking players in charge of a planet can sort of customize the overall defensive elements of the planet. with whatever resources they have. None of this is represented in 3d. It is essentially a 2d planet-lab

so stuff like orbital defense, secured LZs, sensor arrays, automated defenses, force placement, etc

These defensive options stay active whether there is any actual player there or not, only going offline if there is no one paying for upkeep.

I'm liking what I'm reading, but I have a question, is this based on a budget-deficit resource system, where each side gains a certain amount of resource points to budget, and then spends them according to budget and whim? If so, I'm all for it.

Quote

An attacking commander would not know what these defenses are. So he must kinda blow cbills worth of commander assets to either neutralize or bypass the defensive stuff before successfully touching down and engaging the enemy troops. Certain aspects of this could translate into abilities or perks for either side once the fight starts depending on which commander's planning was successful.
The process can be very short and happen out of game space

See, this is what the IG portion I mentioned, above, is supposed to be about... now, paying for IG could be really expensive, and would act as the bypass you're talking about, and it may not be thoroughly reliable, either.

Quote

For example
D-planet has orbital guns,
A-send aerospace fighters to disable
D- orbital guns have AA emplacements, attack repulsed, x amount of aerospace destroyed,
A-Send HALO commando team to disable AA
D AA disabled
A send another aerospace wave to disable orbital guns
D- orbital guns disabled
A- get closer to planet, initiate scan for enemy forces
so on and so forth until the 2 forces finally meet.

Yes, and this would all be taken care of by Command resources, also, right? If so, I like it.

Quote

Ostensibly it could almost take the form of a slightly animated short multiple choice quiz. Where the defender determines which is the correct answer. and wrong answers cost you resources.

The average player only deals with the actual fighting and sees none of this aside from any bonuses or maluses they might get because of it.

But the Command & Staff of a unit or, at least, the commander, gets to play with resources and what-not, right? I'm likin' this.

Zyllos, on 13 December 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:

...

Hell yeah! I like that; it's a WHOLE lot more thought than I put into my OP. Nicely done.

[VYCanis]

Quote

I'm liking what I'm reading, but I have a question, is this based on a budget-deficit resource system, where each side gains a certain amount of resource points to budget, and then spends them according to budget and whim? If so, I'm all for it.

i'm not familiar with what such a system would look like. but i'm kinda thinking that strategic assets would be something that unit commanders have to purchase/earn and manage with various limiting factors in play.

So like you'd hire aerospace pilots and pay upkeep. Have sensor probes that you can launch, that each cost money, pay for dropshp fuel, purchase defensive systems. The amount of defensive stuff you can cram onto a planet might be limited by the defending unit's budget, loyalty rating, and the relative worth of the planet. Attackers would probably be limited by budget, loyalty rating and the type of dropship they are using.

Overall budget for that stuff could sorta be accumulating on the unit level rather than personal level, and would be up to the higher level personnel within that unit to manage it.

Edited by VYCanis, 13 December 2011 - 11:09 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Well, then that sounds good to me, and pretty much along the lines of what I was talking about in my previous post.

[MaddMaxx]

I would like to see all of this stuff as well but perhaps more application of the K.I.S.S. principle to start.

Recon - Lance drops on Contracted Planet with orders to find out (the contractor knows there is enemy forces there but not) where and what the planets currently holds in Mech assets. Completion of the Recon has the Lance run 5 pre-determined way points, in any order the Command wants, with at least 2 coming quite near the enemies main base/town/facility whatever.

The enemy does not know your there until the first way-point is breached. Then they have to scramble to find and stop the incursion or chase off the Recon group.

Win-Loss based on All Way-points reached (the Whole Lance must "touch" each Way-point for it to complete) with dust off at Nav Omicron or the enemy prevents the Full Nav run or simply destroys the Recon Lance outright.

Command can call for abort and immediate dust off, Bug Out! and gather only 25% Intel per Way point reached. Of course if one of them found the enemy Mech staging area (unknown which one or 2 it might be) bonuses would be handled at Contractors discretion.

Objectives - Self evident. Destroy or prevent destruction of said Objectives. ( can be complex Maths if desired).

Force Attrition/Final Battle - All out balls to the walls. Recon got us what we needed, or not, we take the MAX allowed Tonnage and create a lot of enemy Mech "Dust", or Not!

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 December 2011 - 11:53 AM.

[Threat Doc]

I think I see your point, Maxx, and I agree that some application of the K.I.S.S. principle would be best, but I have to admit to wanting to see more depth than, perhaps, it allows.

[Zyllos]

Also agreed on the KISS principles. But I do not feel that the presented topics here really push complexity that far. With these suggestions, I think we still capture the original intent of the developers wanting to allow players to drop into games and begin play but still have various aspects of a theater matter which produce a variety of game play opportunities.

[Threat Doc]

I think variety is the spice of life, and I'm not just saying that because someone else did, but because I know for a fact it's true. I would like variety, I would like surprise, even if it's to AUs detriment, because I believe we're going to have a strong enough team to recover from the surprise and, if not, well we probably earned what we got.

[MaddMaxx]

Kay Wolf, on 13 December 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

I think I see your point, Maxx, and I agree that some application of the K.I.S.S. principle would be best, but I have to admit to wanting to see more depth than, perhaps, it allows.

Absolutely. The application of the K.I.S.S. principle would be a "out of the gates" premise. I am sure we (as a Community) could muster some very seriously complex (and convoluted) Mission Op's if given the chance. I probably got a rather couple crazy ones myself.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 14 December 2011 - 08:45 AM.

[Omigir]

Ok, i read it and i got it. What you want to do is 'rea' and 'tactical' and 'military'. Cool i get that. I am military.

And i have done 'R2P2' rappid responce planning process. Its the marine corps cool new way to plann for an op within just a few days. the fasset i have seen it done, was 6 hours. When I get home from work, I dont have 6 hours to plann a drop. and even those 6 hrs, all assets were already on the 'drop ship' (USS Essex) so really we were already set up with packages that we could pick and pull from to do the scinaro with. And when it came to a real 'op' it would take 3 weeks to plan. I dont have enough leave on the books to take off 3 weeks to play a MMO. any MMO. If you can cut all planning down to like 30 mins between matches, that would be a little more reasonable, other wise you have the Table Top available to you still.

There is no way that more than a handfull of players would be down to do as an indepth planning process as you have outlined. Its good, and well through out, but way way way to nitch for people that want to just go out and blow **** up.

and by no means am I an arena player, i just dont have the time to settle down and do this like you are sugesting and i think most people dont.

[Threat Doc]

Omigir, your first mistake is thinking real-world. I've done that sort of planning, as well, P4T2, though on a smaller scale, for Army Aviation Maintenance, and it typically takes between 10 and 45 minutes, not hours or days or weeks. Hell, filing a flight plan for three chalks of helicopters doesn't even take as long as you're proposing. Do real-world plans take that long to execute? Yes, and it's called bureaucracy, not military leadership. In military leadership, it should take no longer than one hour to get a destination, safety protocols online, soldiers fed and geared up, order of movement, weapons and gear adjusted for best effect -eg. who needs to be in front-, and to get the formation and movement started.

In my vision, an individual commander should have as much preliminary time as they want to set up their patrol routes, outriders, LP/OPs, staging areas, temporary emplacements (generally to go with LPs/OPs), LZs, objective raids, etc. However, the maximum amount of time I am envisioning for the whole ball of wax is about 45 minutes, for those commanders who are less-inclined to deal with their resources.

Your second mistake is in the assumption that players who intend to play in Command roles and want that level of in-depth planning are, perhaps, only a handful. I think you better read around these forums a LOT more (note the post count disparity) before you make that assumption because, Marine, you and I know both know what assumption does.

[Omigir]

Kay Wolf, on 16 December 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

Omigir, your first mistake is thinking real-world. I've done that sort of planning, as well, P4T2, though on a smaller scale, for Army Aviation Maintenance, and it typically takes between 10 and 45 minutes, not hours or days or weeks. Hell, filing a flight plan for three chalks of helicopters doesn't even take as long as you're proposing. Do real-world plans take that long to execute? Yes, and it's called bureaucracy, not military leadership. In military leadership, it should take no longer than one hour to get a destination, safety protocols online, soldiers fed and geared up, order of movement, weapons and gear adjusted for best effect -eg. who needs to be in front-, and to get the formation and movement started. In my vision, an individual commander should have as much preliminary time as they want to set up their patrol routes, outriders, LP/OPs, staging areas, temporary emplacements (generally to go with LPs/OPs), LZs, objective raids, etc. However, the maximum amount of time I am envisioning for the whole ball of wax is about 45 minutes, for those commanders who are less-inclined to deal with their resources. Your second mistake is in the assumption that players who intend to play in Command roles and want that level of in-depth planning are, perhaps, only a handful. I think you better read around these forums a LOT more (note the post count disparity) before you make that assumption because, Marine, you and I know both know what assumption does.

Well, to be fair everything so far has been assumptions and 'visions' of what they want to see. Right now we dont have anything other than a few scrarce facts. Its not like im being outlandish either with my assumptions.

but to be fair, 45 minuts is a real long time for a 'commander' to get his nuts in a row, assuming he is good at what he does as well. Sure the devs could put in a allot of work and have DZ's and things like that already planned out so really all a commander has to do is use some drop down menues, but that would really require allot of preplanning for every mission contract that was put out. Maybe, eventualy there is a contract making system that they come out with where 'high rankig commanders' can basicly make compaigns, but this is still meant to be an MMO, not battlenet. Its allot of greate ideas, but i just cant see this much pre-planning being required for a singe point of action.

unless, they have a 'skip' or 'auto launch' kind of option for people that want to be commanders but dont have the experince (14 yr olds who enjoy the mechwarrior aspect but dont know jack about planning and have thier own merc unit) or those of us who dont have time to do the whole process due ton only having 2 or 3 hrs a night free and want to do more then 2 or 3 engagments while still haivng a purpose in world while not being forced to take a back seat to that player who does have more time.

Just trying to be realistic and not bring all of the table top over and loose sight on the premise is piloting a mech and being on the ground.
Maybe a 'light' version of your sugestion or a way that those arent hard on for the whole legistical support pice of being a leader/commander.

[Threat Doc]

Omigir, on 16 December 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

Well, to be fair everything so far has been assumptions and 'visions' of what they want to see. Right now we dont have anything other than a few scrarce facts. Its not like im being outlandish either with my assumptions.

You're right, and I know in the real-world it really can take that long. However, in the real-world, the military is still getting used to using computer systems for secure planning work, and a lack of training and/or experience by the upper echelons do, indeed, make it difficult to do planning in a short amount of time.

With what I've read, thus far, about the Merc Corps HQ -and, honestly, in the article it sounded like they'd built the Merc Corps HQ before even beginning on combat- it's going to be possible to do a LOT of things. In my estimation, it will be up to the field commander to ensure they get their planning and what-not out of the way as quickly as possible, or learn to drop on less than they would actually like to have in the way of prior planning.

Here's another assumption, though I hope it's true... I'm hoping units, attackers and defenders, will have a great deal to do on the SAME PLANET in order to complete any work, there, similar to the MW4: Mercenaries missions (yeah, I said it, MW4: Mercs had some of the best mission works I've seen, though they could have been a lot better) rather than being able to flit between worlds at whim. I realize there's an excitement factor for MechWarriors to be able to do just that; for those who just want to kill crap, I'll say again that a ghost system should be put in place, while allowing commanders to do the business they need to do, as well, toward contract completion.

Quote

but to be fair, 45 minuts is a real long time for a 'commander' to get his nuts in a row, assuming he is good at what he does as well.

Well, that's why I suggested that as the LONGEST time that should be required. Since everything will be taken care of within the game, that means a LOT of time that would be spent doing permutations otherwise won't be required.

Quote

Sure the devs could put in a allot of work and have DZ's and things like that already planned out so really all a commander has to do is use some drop down menues, but that would really require allot of preplanning for every mission contract that was put out. Maybe, eventualy there is a contract making system that they come out with where 'high rankig commanders' can basicly make compaigns, but this is still meant to be an MMO, not battlenet. Its allot of greate ideas, but i just cant see this much pre-planning being required for a singe point of action.

That's the goal I would love to see... strategic and tactical planning, deployments, force structures, etc.

Quote

unless, they have a 'skip' or 'auto launch' kind of option for people that want to be commanders but dont have the experince (14 yr olds who enjoy the mechwarrior aspect but dont know jack about planning and have thier own merc unit) or those of us who dont have time to do the whole process due ton only having 2 or 3 hrs a night free and want to do more then 2 or 3 engagments while still haivng a purpose in world while not being forced to take a back seat to that player who does have more time.

So, you're saying default settings that could be chosen rather than making plans? I like that.

Quote

Just trying to be realistic and not bring all of the table top over and loose sight on the premise is piloting a mech and being on the ground.

I disagree. Okay, MechWarrior has been around as JUST that for the longest time, and I've had to bring my planning to my computer, do my map work, build my forces, write OpOrds and FRAGOs and distribute them through normal email prior to game, but does that mean I now have to be left out so everyone else can just get their 'Mech on? When does my fun begin? For the record, I enjoy driving a 'Mech in-game LESS than I enjoy the strategic and logistical planning; that doesn't mean I shun 'Mech piloting, I was quite good at it at one time, but I think I've put in enough time on paper that I would like to, finally, see it in a game in the ONLY universe I actually love to play in.

Quote

Maybe a 'light' version of your sugestion or a way that those arent hard on for the whole legistical support pice of being a leader/commander.

Again, you're assuming there aren't enough folks who want to fill those roles. Even if there weren't, or there are lazy commanders, or there are inexperienced commanders, or there are those commanders who don't care about all that 'excess garbage', what about those of us who do? What if there were a Loyalty Points bonus built into the operational planning that are granted on successful execution of the operation(s) it/themselves; if you actually do some good planning and beat such and such margin, you gain more C-Bills, LPs, or whatever reputation scheme PGI goes with? That would make it a very interesting side-game for many more than just the "few" of us who love to do those sorts of things, and would involve more Command role players.

[Omigir]

Well, i do hope there is a nitch for every one. I dont have enough officer in me to do a commander roll like that. Maybe make on the ground calls or react to changes on the battlefield but I would be hard pressed for what you way. Might be part of why im struggling to see a smooth incorperation of it. That said, if this indeed excists, fly boy, I will happily be one of your pawns. (you just sound like an officer and not the kind i dislike)

As far as the first part of our little convo, yeah, MW4 did have the best missions and the worst breifings. The single player was not all that bad of a frame for a possible co-op or a defend/attack scinario. I have said it in other posts, so we are on the same page there. On that same note, there are going to be contest worlds that are faught over between houses even when the clads invade, so I think there will be allot of contracts available for those well known worlds..
the only thing is.. I dont know how a long term contract would work for defending a planet when a corp is not big enough for 24 hr ops, maybe sell contracts for time time zones. "From time zone Q-R or gmt +1 -+5 and if you happen to usualy play during those times you and your corp can pick it up and then end it if/when you know you wont be able to fill that time slot on that planet.)

I know you already covered if that corp wants to go on the offensive, but i may have missed somthing like above.. there was allot of txt to read.

To me, really MW:O is slowly going to lean more towards a mixture of everything Battletech. (not a bad thing) and there are going to be parts of MC and the TT and if it goes right, every one will have a place to enjoy.

I just had a realization. Yeah, i type in the same linier way I think. (Jarhead, what do you want?)
So basicly while your corp is defending you can be in the HQ plotting out a counter attack. that way by the time the battle of over and the ******** are running back to thier DS, you with all your commanderlike abuilitys, have worked up a drop plan on another world. In this way the brawlers and jocks wont have to wait too long to get into the shoot out.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

To attack and take a planet (even the smallest) I envisage multiple matches with different objectives. The defenders would have the "home ground" advantage, better resupply etc. What I find difficult to understand (refering to another thread) is how you can fit this in with respawning, particularly with ammo dependant mechs.

[Omigir]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 16 December 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

To attack and take a planet (even the smallest) I envisage multiple matches with different objectives. The defenders would have the "home ground" advantage, better resupply etc. What I find difficult to understand (refering to another thread) is how you can fit this in with respawning, particularly with ammo dependant mechs.

<__< The greatest minds on the forums debate this even now... we may never know...

[MaddMaxx]

The Dev use the term "Influence" as the occupational control aspect. Maybe it will take the form of "Best-of" with each Match considered a "next wave" of House or Merc Corp Mechs. Under the "Instanced" match method, once begun, it seems that all available resources would have to already be in the Instance.

The bolded part under Border Worlds would seem to indicate that some "notice" is to be given to the Occupier by the Attacker. And that is where it gets grey for myself.

Quote

"
Faction Worlds

The battle for control over faction planets is a simple war of attrition. The faction with the most influence over a particular planet occupies it. By virtue of simply competing in online matches, faction players contribute influence points to target planets.
Border Worlds

Mercenary Corporations can bid and fight for occupation rights of border worlds throughout the Inner Sphere. Merc Corps must bid on a planet’s occupation rights via a system of contracts generated by the game.
A match or series of matches are set up between the defending Merc Corp and the challenger. The victor is determined from the results of each match, and takes control of the planet. They are rewarded with an immediate contract payout, and will continue to earn rewards while they occupy the planet."

Edited by MaddMaxx, 16 December 2011 - 12:05 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 16 December 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

What I find difficult to understand (refering to another thread) is how you can fit this in with respawning, particularly with ammo dependant mechs.

In my vision, there's no respawning, there's common sense, strategy and tactics, orders go out to various elements, whether NPC or PC, and battles take place where necessary. To be honest, and forgive me if I offend anyone, but respawn is a child's game mechanic. You go out on the field of battle, throw yourself and your 'Mech into the fighting as hard as possible, no going back, no thinking, and you die... but, wait, you haven't died, you just automatically go back to your 'Mech stables, grab a new 'Mech and everything's cool, you just go out and do it all over again. Adults will take the time to think, to plan, to strategize, to train their people to use tactics, like plays in a football game, and then the sides fight, and whoever loses, loses. No going back, no suddenly popping into your 'Mech stables after a short few seconds of waiting for respawn.

I want people to have fun while thinking, while forcing themselves to use tactics, doing their best to outsmart, rather than outshoot, their opponents; the first to anger is the first to die. The team that actually acts like a team, uses strategy and tactics, and outdoes their opponents, wins as a team, even if one to a few die in the process. Respawn doesn't allow for proper team play, it's just toys in the sandbox, whoever grabs them first wins; singular, not plural.

Now, if you have to pop out of your 'Mech as it's getting burned down around you, and there are actually still 'Mechs allotted to the stables for the mission, then you need to make your way back to the 'Mech hangar, pick up your new ride, and go fight. That isn't the way it is in BattleTech, but if a force commander is smart enough to assign more 'Mechs than there are people to pilot them, and then stages them in a good place, they should be available, but the pilot has to work to get back there, no instantaneous garbage.

Again, I apologize if that offends anyone, but it's ridiculous to play all these respawn games -hence, I don't- because there's no incentive to try and keep yourself alive in the first place.

[Threat Doc]

Omigir, on 16 December 2011 - 11:36 AM, said:

Well, i do hope there is a nitch for every one. I dont have enough officer in me to do a commander roll like that. Maybe make on the ground calls or react to changes on the battlefield but I would be hard pressed for what you way. Might be part of why im struggling to see a smooth incorperation of it.

I KNOW what it LOOKS like, I could OUTLINE it, and I can now even build spreadsheets for anything that would be needed... programming it might just a hair out of my league, hehe.

Quote

That said, if this indeed excists, fly boy, I will happily be one of your pawns. (you just sound like an officer and not the kind i dislike)

tee-hee and... thank you, I'm grateful... I was encouraged to go Green to Gold by many of my NCOs, several Officers and Warrants while I was still in, but I was too busy fixing helicopters to do so. By the time I was ready to put in my application and, indeed, I did fill it out and submit it to my First Sergeant, life took a raw turn and I wound up out of the Army, family matters.

Quote

As far as the first part of our little convo, yeah, MW4 did have the best missions and the worst breifings. ...so I think there will be allot of contracts available for those well known worlds.

Man, I sure hope so.

Quote

the only thing is.. I dont know how a long term contract would work for defending a planet when a corp is not big enough for 24 hr ops, maybe sell contracts for time time zones. "From time zone Q-R or gmt +1 -+5 and if you happen to usualy play during those times you and your corp can pick it up and then end it if/when you know you wont be able to fill that time slot on that planet.)

Well, it's like I've tried to explain before, the lion's share of the Merc Corps members wouldn't have to do much, actually. They can go play in other fights for other units, if they want to. The commander(s) do the strategic moves, sets, staging, patrols, raids, etc. Anything that would be combat related would be begun by the attacking commander -even if the current attacker is the world defender- though NO combat would take place until the defending commander acknowledges the beginning of the battle, at which point the battle is set into a STANDARD 24 or 48 hour operational period. Then, as Merc Corps lances come on-line around the real-world, they can go play in the fight, whether it's once per period -whatever that nominal period is defined as; whether 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, etc. hours, or it's once, period, per lance. This is true for both sides of the fight and, if each side organizes a drop at the same time -each side would be informed when full Lances are available for play-, they actually get to face live pilots. At the end of the operational period, wins, losses, and salvage -by whatever means are developed to determine those statistics- will be determined, an overall winner and overall loser declared, and the game is considered complete. Whoever wins gets a bonus to their completion percentage, and whoever loses may, as well, but not as much. The campaign ends when one side or the other reaches 100% of operational completion.

Quote

To me, really MW:O is slowly going to lean more towards a mixture of everything Battletech. (not a bad thing) and there are going to be parts of MC and the TT and if it goes right, every one will have a place to enjoy.

THAT is my most sincere hope.

Quote

I just had a realization. Yeah, i type in the same linier way I think. (Jarhead, what do you want?)

Hey, don't put yourself, or any other Jarhead, down. Having served with them in Bosnia in '96, y'all are some of the bravest, most squared away folks I've ever met. I might still pick on you from time-to-time... you know, that inter-service rivalry thing, but I know what Marines are all about, and so I'll never be serious about anything derogatory I might say.

Quote

So basicly while your corp is defending you can be in the HQ plotting out a counter attack. that way by the time the battle of over and the ******** are running back to thier DS, you with all your commanderlike abuilitys, have worked up a drop plan on another world. In this way the brawlers and jocks wont have to wait too long to get into the shoot out.

This would be cool.

To reiterate, for anyone coming to this thread fresh, the OP, and any post I HAVE made in this thread since, are MY IDEAS, MY THOUGHTS on the future, and there have been some very good suggestions in this thread from good folk, some awesome ideas and conversation coming from them. I know, okay I have a really strong feeling, that the game is going to launch as, more or less, a combat-heavy engine with light-resource management and a Merc Corps HQ that's going to allow for force building, ranks, awards, etc, but not very useful otherwise. However, my hope is that this WILL, indeed, turn into a full BattleTech universe simulator within a couple years after launch and, eventually, a full MechWarrior MMORPG on top of that. I would LOVE to play a character during the time of the FedCom Civil War.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 16 December 2011 - 01:57 PM.

[Omigir]

as far as the inner service rilvery goes, fly boy. its one. I love it most of the time.

but im not going to lie, me and other marines, are dumb lol. I am serious. any who, shift is up and i have some stuff to do in eve tonight so im going to call it in man. I will check back on this thred for more advancments latter