32 replies to this topic

[ManDaisy]

It seems like the only interaction (NPC) Houses can do is war with each other. Bryans interview mentions nothing about planetary highways and open borders. Nor does it mention anything about cross fraction resource relations, trade agreements etc.

My main beef is all (NPC) factions will be one big cluster **** with no direction at all. Everyone will just attack whatever the hell is availiable and that will be the extent of (NPC) house interactions and merc houses;

MWO Devs really need to plan for community warefare, talk to some civ developers or something to make CW more then just one big meta free for all.

Players need a way or giving input....

(Loyalty points)?

To hopefully steer the great houses or else we will just end up with a dev who once in a while logs and and says ... ok hampster wheel go this way now.

We need more options in CW then just to fight!

[Chavette]

He said the mercs can point to a planet they want, and go for it.

From that I take that mercs aren't restricted to fighting alongside borders/fronts.

[Davers]

Without any in game economy or player interaction other than battles, CW will just be selecting what planet to fight for and clicking launch. I would like to think it will be at least as complicated as WWIIOnline or BT3025 with the movement of units, and dedicating resources and such, but I don't think they will do that. It's a shame that F2P seems to mean 'overly simple' when players have been crying out for depth.

[Tennex]

they can always add depth though. i just hope they arn't just being lazy and goign with the easier way rather than the right way.

[Syllogy]

Oh yes, because a 4 minute interview covered everything.

[Davers]

Syllogy, on 01 April 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Oh yes, because a 4 minute interview covered everything.

It's not the interview alone. The interview really doesn't cover any more than what was released to us over a year ago. The problem is they have never mentioned any of the mechanics of CW that suggested any real depth.

[Syllogy]

Davers, on 01 April 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

It's not the interview alone. The interview really doesn't cover any more than what was released to us over a year ago. The problem is they have never mentioned any of the mechanics of CW that suggested any real depth.

Well, let's wait for the Dev Update and see what is said before jumping to conclusions about how "simple" CW is.

[Davers]

Syllogy, on 01 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Well, let's wait for the Dev Update and see what is said before jumping to conclusions about how "simple" CW is.

Alright. But if I am right you owe me a Flea.

[Padic]

I just want to throw out that "complex" and "deep" aren't synonyms.

"Go" is an extraordinarily "simple" game that is still very "deep". Likewise, complex games can still be shallow. (I'm imagining the talent tree system from Rift, if you've played it. Lots and lots of choices, but mathematically it was pretty easy to find the best one).

It is possible for a simple implementation of CW to still offer deep gameplay.

[Davers]

Padic, on 01 April 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

I just want to throw out that "complex" and "deep" aren't synonyms.

"Go" is an extraordinarily "simple" game that is still very "deep". Likewise, complex games can still be shallow. (I'm imagining the talent tree system from Rift, if you've played it. Lots and lots of choices, but mathematically it was pretty easy to find the best one).

It is possible for a simple implementation of CW to still offer deep gameplay.

Well with the inability to change events, or even pick what planets are available to attack, I fail to see what will be complex about it.

[PANZERBUNNY]

I would expect simple % control of a planet at first, but we'd all like to see depth and detail in CW. From the start, probably not.

[Padic]

Davers, on 01 April 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

Well with the inability to change events, or even pick what planets are available to attack, I fail to see what will be complex about it.

Do you mean "deep"?

[Davers]

Padic, on 01 April 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Do you mean "deep"?

No, clicking on a choice of planets to attack will not be 'complex'. Having no say in your factions actions will make it not 'deep'.

[General Taskeen]

There should be a virtual Galactic Counsel, to discuss politics and Battle Mechs virtually, with avatars.

[Zyllos]

There was a Dev Blog from ages ago that mentioned about ways to rank up in the Major Houses and possibly steer the war. While their initial idea is ok, it is limited in scope. It could be so much more.

Going along with their idea, Great House players do not have as much control in their destiny. They are all placed into a queue and fight (basically where their commanders and generals tell them to). This is all fine. But just having a queue and playing a game without any outside influence is pretty shallow.

I would think that once House players get into the queue, random House players are placed into a lobby with the current objective is shown. This objective is based on the planet and mission objective. Different objectives would give mission parameters which effect the type of game that is played.

Some of these parameters could be tonnage limits, player limits, time limit, battlefield setting (map), objective type (game mode), and other parameters. These parameters are randomized to within the limits of the campaign for the planet. The campaign would set the overall conditions for win/loss and the available limits for randomization.

The campaign type could be Planetary Assault/Planetary Defense, Reconnaissance, and Espionage. Planetary Assault/Planetary Defense would produce medium to high tonnage, players, and time limits. The objective type would be missions that would be Assault/Conquest type maps (with an obvious attacker/defender). Reconnaissance campaign types would come before Planetary Assault campaigns. These would be medium to low tonnage, players, and time limits. Objective types would be some game mode that isn't made yet but would be tailored to light/medium mechs. Espionage campaign types would also follow something similar.

The Reconnaissance and Espionage campaign types would give bonuses for the Attack/Defense of a planet based on who wins the campaign type. These campaign types would be short in duration (maybe 24h?) and the attacker of a Reconnaissance campaign type would give some type of bonus for the attackers in Planetary Assault campaigns against the planet. The Espionage campaign type would give the attacker of a Espionage campaign type some bonus for the defenders in Planetary Defense campaigns of a planet.

Planetary Assault/Defense could be a variable length. Planetary Assault (attacker of planet) would be consider a win if the attacker wins 60% of the games after 1 week of play. Planetary Defense (defender of a planet) would be considered a win if they win 50% of their games after 1 week of play. If both sides are within the 50-60% range, the campaign is pushed another week and the defender increases their win condition by 5%. If no winner, continue another week. If no winner after 3 weeks, declare the campaign a draw.

The above will show the complexity of Community Warfare but allowing for House players to just hop into games. They do not need to worry about having to deal with logistics, other than the map parameters set up once they get into the lobby, but they still feel the complexity of the game and feel like they would be producing change in the galaxy map.

This is just some simple ideas I had for Community Warfare way back before Friends/Family Closed Beta.

[Adrian Steel]

Tennex, on 01 April 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

they can always add depth though. i just hope they arn't just being lazy and goign with the easier way rather than the right way.

Well, they added consumables, coolant and eventually 3rd person. I guess that's digging yourself pretty deep...

The way they brought coolant in right next to the hottest map they ever implemented required some pretty deep thinking too.

Yeah. They can always add depth.

Davers, on 01 April 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

It's not the interview alone. The interview really doesn't cover any more than what was released to us over a year ago. The problem is they have never mentioned any of the mechanics of CW that suggested any real depth.

Hint: there won't be any depth.

Edited by Adrian Steel, 01 April 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[Hawkeye 72]

Positive me says the amount of time that supposedly has been poured into CW will result in a fantastic system that I can waste my hours on! After all it was supposed to be pushed back so it could become the key pillar to this game. So I wait patiently for the April Creative Director Update.

Negative me says this is Chromehounds all over...

[raygun]

if CW is anything more than BT/MW skinned Global Agenda PVP map, I'll be pleasantly surprised. from what I remember (correct me if I'm wrong)there were territory hexes on the map that provide certain bonuses that we can fight over, but nothing persistent that we can "go to" or land on. Im sure there will be unlocks and mechs and equipment will have varying prices based around what territory is held and what have you. but beyond that, i dont think it will be much more complicated than that. the added twist will be when (i'm guessing) the devs and a select few will be chosen to be the first clanners and drop in on a match unexpectedly; or a group ques for a map expecting a normal set of opponents when they find themselves vs. clan mechs for the first time.

[Davers]

Zyllos, on 01 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

There was a Dev Blog from ages ago that mentioned about ways to rank up in the Major Houses and possibly steer the war. While their initial idea is ok, it is limited in scope. It could be so much more.

Going along with their idea, Great House players do not have as much control in their destiny. They are all placed into a queue and fight (basically where their commanders and generals tell them to). This is all fine. But just having a queue and playing a game without any outside influence is pretty shallow.

I would think that once House players get into the queue, random House players are placed into a lobby with the current objective is shown. This objective is based on the planet and mission objective. Different objectives would give mission parameters which effect the type of game that is played.

Some of these parameters could be tonnage limits, player limits, time limit, battlefield setting (map), objective type (game mode), and other parameters. These parameters are randomized to within the limits of the campaign for the planet. The campaign would set the overall conditions for win/loss and the available limits for randomization.

The campaign type could be Planetary Assault/Planetary Defense, Reconnaissance, and Espionage. Planetary Assault/Planetary Defense would produce medium to high tonnage, players, and time limits. The objective type would be missions that would be Assault/Conquest type maps (with an obvious attacker/defender). Reconnaissance campaign types would come before Planetary Assault campaigns. These would be medium to low tonnage, players, and time limits. Objective types would be some game mode that isn't made yet but would be tailored to light/medium mechs. Espionage campaign types would also follow something similar.

The Reconnaissance and Espionage campaign types would give bonuses for the Attack/Defense of a planet based on who wins the campaign type. These campaign types would be short in duration (maybe 24h?) and the attacker of a Reconnaissance campaign type would give some type of bonus for the attackers in Planetary Assault campaigns against the planet. The Espionage campaign type would give the attacker of a Espionage campaign type some bonus for the defenders in Planetary Defense campaigns of a planet.

Planetary Assault/Defense could be a variable length. Planetary Assault (attacker of planet) would be consider a win if the attacker wins 60% of the games after 1 week of play. Planetary Defense (defender of a planet) would be considered a win if they win 50% of their games after 1 week of play. If both sides are within the 50-60% range, the campaign is pushed another week and the defender increases their win condition by 5%. If no winner, continue another week. If no winner after 3 weeks, declare the campaign a draw.

The above will show the complexity of Community Warfare but allowing for House players to just hop into games. They do not need to worry about having to deal with logistics, other than the map parameters set up once they get into the lobby, but they still feel the complexity of the game and feel like they would be producing change in the galaxy map.

This is just some simple ideas I had for Community Warfare way back before Friends/Family Closed Beta.

Not to knock your idea, but from the player perspective this just comes across as "Ya got to play Conquest for a week." Which is exactly what I think CW will turn into. This wouldn't be horrible if I knew that the House leadership had commanded this as part of an overall strategy, like "We need to take planet x to expand our front so we can't be cut off from supply" or something. But without having things like lines of supply, it will just be jumping from one world to the next. Plus when you add in things like how the players cannot make any real changes to the setting, it just dilutes the experience.

[GutterBoy5]

Omg, the time spent in that interview couldn't cover every possible point of CW . Go & whine somewhere else.