252 replies to this topic

[War Dogz]

Garth Erlam, on 08 June 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Fantastic, thank you very much for this (well thought out and written) post!

Dont fall for it is meant to farm credits by using Cartel like groups AKA NASA/Goon/etc as in WOT.Look how well that worked out on the Clan war map a dozen groups blocking access to every landing zones by using muti proxy groups in a LZ to remove any one prior to the final battle.
Which force WG to change the landing rules due to the NA server was at a impass.

Keep contract random so no group can control a area of space by puppets or Alt units.Let it be about the unit abilty and skill level and not who can form the biggest group or allys.

[Harabec Weathers]

Proteaus, on 08 June 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Then you can expect goons to be in all of the different factions, Seeing that post about goons in 0.0 in eve . If it wasnt for red alliance
the goons would still be sitting in empire space . They didnt defeat bob on the battlefield , they back doored them with a infiltrator.

Defector, not infiltrator.

Also, EVE is a game expressly with no rules* that allows and even encourages lying, stealing and "win at all costs".

MWO will not be such a "anything goes" game, so if Goons do anything against the rules, they will presumably be punished for it. Also Goons and Goonswarm are not always one in the same. Something Awful has over 160,000 registered members, and I am sure only a fraction of them are in goonswarm, hell some of them don't even play video games (though the games forum is perhaps the largest of the various topical forums).

*outside of cheating like hacking the game

Edited by Harabec Weathers, 08 June 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[geck0 icaza]

I have no real comment to add except to thank you for putting forth the good effort to improve the community in which I am a part off.

[Lipot]

This is a great post. I have had the "honour" on more then one occasion being on the receiving end of a Goon pilot's weapon in EVE, and have a couple of former Goon pilots in my corp. The potential for a huge "semi-sandbox" style of game play has always been a teaser in many of the Mechwarrior game titles. Some of the suggestions are easily seen to be done. Given the number of fringe worlds and the constant minor planet exchanges between the powers, even the odd rebellion, there can be a type of planetary conquest exchange. There has always been a minor role playing side to Battletech. Only the video games really removed that aspect. And from reading some of the developer's logs, it looks like there maybe a minor role playing aspect again. Do I think that there should be huge territory held? No. This is not EVE. If merc corps try to grab huge tracts of land, the Houses would crush them. But every merc corp has some base of operations, sometimes it is multiple planets on the fringe, others it is a bunch of warehouses on Solaris. What the OP was trying to do is well thought out and if balanced properly may even pull some of the hard core players from other online games this way. Great job on this topic.

[Draxern]

All Ops ideas might happen in the future. But honestly in Mechwarrior the focus should be on house warfare as well. One good thing about mech warrior online is matches are 12 v 12. So having 100 000 members means FA. You cannot zerg your way to victory 12 good players can defeat a swarm multiple times.

Still the game could do with some tactical expansion but it should be more focused on Houses as they play the primary role in Mechwarrior history. Other wise like creating a WW2 game and having some merc unit controlling half the world.

Why i feel the developers need to allow players to create house units and not just purely mercs.

Edited by Draxern, 08 June 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[War Dogz]

Draxern, on 08 June 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Why i feel the developers need to allow players to create house units and not just purely mercs.

If i recall they did create House units.

All you have to do is be ally to the same house with your friends and drop together into a game.So you could drop with 12 player total for a house.The major advange over a merc unit is that you can do it any time of the day.While a merc unit must set it up it seems like

Quote

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 War Dogz, 08 June 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Bring Stabity]

Draxern, on 08 June 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

All Ops ideas might happen in the future. But honestly in Mechwarrior the focus should be on house warfare as well. One good thing about mech warrior online is matches are 12 v 12. So having 100 000 members means FA. You cannot zerg your way to victory 12 good players can defeat a swarm multiple times.

Still the game could do with some tactical expansion but it should be more focused on Houses as they play the primary role in Mechwarrior history. Other wise like creating a WW2 game and having some merc unit controlling half the world.

Why i feel the developers need to allow players to create house units and not just purely mercs.

See this is my only problem with the current perception in this thread. Currently, in WoT, we have 100 guys in our clan. On average, 40-50 show up per night. We bring 15 to a battle, like everyone else. We still are one of the most dominant forces in the game. Skill should matter heavily in this game, due to the very nature of it. Hell, we perfer that skill be the limiting factor. I find in most games that we play, the skill-ceiling is far too low.

Post owns.

[Draxern]

They do have house units just not a great deal on the benefits you receive for operating in one. I remember reading something about receiving a wage based on your rank or standing and having some role in the house.

Once the clans come being part of a house unit could be extremely interesting.

[Badfinger]

War Dogz, on 08 June 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Dont fall for it is meant to farm credits by using Cartel like groups AKA NASA/Goon/etc as in WOT.Look how well that worked out on the Clan war map a dozen groups blocking access to every landing zones by using muti proxy groups in a LZ to remove any one prior to the final battle.
Which force WG to change the landing rules due to the NA server was at a impass.

Keep contract random so no group can control a area of space by puppets or Alt units.Let it be about the unit abilty and skill level and not who can form the biggest group or allys.

A valid Point!

[Draxern]

Only limit could be the fact how many contracts can the merc unit bid on or alternatively how much time does the leader wish to spend bidding on contracts rather then playing the game. Cause merc contracts in my understanding are a bidding process with all the mercs competing for the mission.

So having 50 active means you need to find 4 contracts with 2 people sitting on sidelines. The whole contract system and the fact a merc unit while being an important part of Mercwarrior they were never really the stars of the game. Most important players should always be the houses or the clans.

[Zynk]

Garth Erlam, on 08 June 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Fantastic, thank you very much for this (well thought out and written) post!

I disagree with this statement.

Please do not let goons dictate policy and rules for your game.

[Outrider01]

The Mittani, on 08 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

If you disagree with this post, you are wrong.

And yes, Goons are in MWO just as in every other game that exists. In MWO, we will initially be Liao-aligned.

^^ This guy!!!

Edited by Helmer, 08 June 2012 - 07:30 PM.
Edited for violations against the Code of Conduct.

[Alfred VonGunn]

Zynk, on 08 June 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I disagree with this statement.

Please do not let goons dictate policy and rules for your game.

I find that statement funny.. As if they are actually coding based on a single players post.. More likely is a lot of what he said is where they want to go in time. Which given many Dev comments over the last year or so is very possible..

[FullMetalBoxers]

I think just the fact that there was Goon hate in this thread at all is a pretty strong argument for the validity of the OP's points. Even though EVE and Wot are completely different kinds of games, the "lasting objectives" in each have provided incentives desirable enough to create levels of conflict over them that has now carried onto the forums of a yet another, third game.

tl;dr, Goon haters prove Goon points ITT. Also hi Pringlescan.

Edited by FullMetalBoxers, 08 June 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[Namwons]

Leave eve politics on the eve forums. I could give two craps who goon are or are not h has good points. There is a reason why eve is still online. MWO seems to be taking the best aspects of various games and cutting the out the faults.

[Supremacist]

PANZERBUNNY, on 08 June 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

Goons . goon .. GOONS, I think it's safe to say we can hold a parade that day.
Guilty by association.

Nice planet you have there, shame if it werent yours anymore. Post less

[PANZERBUNNY]

You want me to touch you where?

Not a goon. I don't play that way.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 08 June 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Tormax Liao]

I support this message.

[Kartr]

PringlesPCant, on 08 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Lesson #1 - The Spoils of War Have to be Worth Fighting For

Advice
Reward Merc Corps for controlling a border world with prizes that no one else can get in the game, not even by spending all the money in the game. There are a lot to choose from, MC, C-Bills, Loyalty Points, special defense bonuses for planets owned, a visible presence on the map, perhaps the prestige of participating as your faction champion in faction campaigns or tournaments run by the devs, special mods, special mechs, etc. As long as the rewards are worth it, the players will be more than happy to fight the entire galaxy to earn them.

Whatever the rewards are, and I agree that there need to be rewards, they cannot be any gear or equipment that can only be gained by holding certain planets. Allowing player factions to establish monopolies over in game items, is bad for the game. In EVE this might arguably work because EVE is an extremely player driven economy, where economic gaming is an integral part of the game. In MW:O the focus is on 'Mech combat and creating the ability for people to artificially influence the market will detract from that, as it can allow player groups to deprive the rest of the player base access to certain weapons, 'Mechs and technology reducing the deprived players fun.

Rewards should be things that benefit the players who earned them without penalizing those who didn't earn them. Things like a per day C-Bill payout to every Merc in the corporation that captured the planet, discounts on any 'Mechs, weapons or equipment that are produced on that planet, etc. However I should not be barred from getting 'Mechs and other equipment simply because I don't have enough time in the day to participate in the meta-game and I don't have enough friends to take your planets.

PringlesPCant, on 08 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Lesson #2 Create Richer Areas and Poorer Areas

Advice
Implement this graduated system into Merc Corp warfare. Make sure there are extremely valuable areas for the elite to fight over, but also poorer areas that prospective powers can grow in without getting curbstomped by the reigning champions every day.. This allows clans to always be fighting in the ‘goldilocks’ zone, their opponents are not too hard, but not too easy. Also make sure that the poorer areas are accessible to beginners, so that they can always get to where they need to be without having to go through a gauntlet to get there. One idea would be to make the systems on the inner side of the border worlds be less attractive compared to the worlds on the very outer edge.

Agreed 100%.

PringlesPCant, on 08 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Lesson #3 Don’t Limit Community Growth by Artificial Member Limits

Advice
Make Merc Corps have unlimited members, if you only take one thing from this thread take that. It will let communities grow to big self sustaining numbers which is a prerequisite of a healthy community warfare end game. Its these large groups that allow compelling narratives to play out, rivals banding together to face against a bigger threat or a multi-year long death struggle between hated enemies (google Band of Brothers vs Goonswarm). That’s the sort of stuff that keeps a game interesting and fresh, and if you force a community to separate that isn’t going to happen.

First thing that I'd like to point out in this section, there should be incentive for building up and teaching new players. To often "elite" people are only interested in playing with their "end game" equipment and not helping lower level allies grow.

The second thing I'd like to bring up is relative power. No single faction can be allowed to become so powerful that it is unassailable. When one faction becomes to powerful to challenge, the meta game stagnates as no one can change the status quo. There needs to be some sort of limiting factor on a player factions in-game power in order to encourage other factions to try and take what they have. Because as important as stability is, the freedom to cause change is even more important to keep the game dynamic and interesting because that's how you keep people playing and feeling good, by letting them be able to get wins.

PringlesPCant, on 08 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Lesson #4 Strike the Proper Balance between Structured and Unstructured Community Warfare

Advice
My advice for MechWarrior Online would be to strike a balance between the two. Yes warfare will be based around those structured X vs X matches but there is still a great deal of room to give players as much freedom as possible to innovate and create new tactics and strategies. If the end game is limited to ‘lets move some chips around on a map’ you will be hamstringing that. Give people incentives to spy, to form giant alliances, to do diplomacy, to take risks, to whatever. Just give them as much of a sandbox as is possible, and if you have everything in place the players will create giant digital sand castles.

I agree that WoT has a rather boring way of doing its meta game and would love to see something more interesting and dynamic. However I think there's a good deal of risk in giving people too much freedom and incentive to spy and create alliances.

This should not be a game where loosing assets on the meta-game map costs players the equivalent to thousands of real dollars. Nor should it be a game where spies have the ability to influence the outcomes to place one side or the other at a complete disadvantage.

You can't let the metagame become so drastic that you have players infiltrating other Merc' Corps and "burning them down," or have the meta game allow anyone player group to achieve a monopoly over certain tech, or have the meta cost players huge amounts of resources (real and in game). As these things can ruin the game for those on the receiving end and drive them away from the game.

PringlesPCant, on 08 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Lesson #5 Allow Players to Invest in Their Worlds

Advice

Allow Merc Corps to develop the worlds they own, so that if they take and hold a world, or a group of worlds and can invest time and treasure into it, they can have industrial and military advantages, but not overwhelmingly so. There are many ways to do this, but the specifics of it aren’t as important as giving the corps the ability to customize and develop their space so they feel invested in it and have a concrete visible goal for them to work towards and feel proud of achieving.

I don't think Merc' Corps. actually "own" any of the worlds, rather (based on dev blog 1) it sounds like players will take and hold planets for the faction that hired them. Investing in the planet becomes risky as if (when) they loose control of it they've lost all the resources they pumped into it. Personally I think the best way is simply to improve its benefits the longer it is held. That way people aren't pumping their hard earned C-bills only to see them wasted when the next group comes and kicks them off planet. Yet they have an incentive to hold that planet as long as possible.

Also there should not be any way to increase the ability to defend the planet through any sort of investment since the meta game needs other people to be able to take planets. Combat for a planet should always be about the skill of the two sides involved, not the amount of C-bills or time spent to increase the defenses. Leave any investments to simply increase the rewards that the Merc' Corps. players get from owning that planet.

PringlesPCant, on 08 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Lesson #6 Add Some Level of Stability

Advice

I’m worried about the bidding system for MWO because some ways of implementing it might end up with a chaotic changing map every single day, it all depends on how the bidding system is implemented. If you can bid for any planet at any time with no regard for space or time constraints than you will just end up with a polka dot map where corps take and lose the majority of their territory every single day. However as long as Corps are able to work together, and can expect some measure of stability everything should be fine.

The way that Dev Blog 1 describes community warfare makes it sound like that there is much, much more involved than just Merc' Corps. taking planets. Unlike WoT where you take an area in your clan's name, Merc' Corps will be taking them for factions. So most likely Merc' Corps will only be able to bid on planets within striking range of the House they're currently working for and the gain/loss of territory will be based off the factions decisions rather than those of the Merc' Corps. Though obviously if a Merc' Corps takes a planet for a certain house they've expanded that Houses ability to launch new attacks deeper into enemy space.

The bidding system makes me think most of the Merc strategy will be done at the hiring halls. How low is your Merc' Corps willing to bid to get a particular contract? Can you convince someone else to drop their bid if you promise to not bid on a planet they want to take? Which will make the alliances and spies even more important so you can figure out where your rivals are trying to go and what they're bidding so you can undercut them or go elsewhere.

PringlesPCant, on 08 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

TLDR

As a final note, my overall philosophy for community warfare can be boiled down to a simple formula. Success = Activeness of Members * Skill of Members * Skill of leadership at the game and meta game. All other things being equal, if one clan has a higher level of activeness among members it should win. If one clan has members better skilled at the game, they should win. If one clan has brilliant, charismatic and skilled leaders who lead them on and off the battlefield, who skillfully engage in the metagame, waging ‘realpolitik’ they should win. As long as you follow that formula everything should turn out fine in the end.

Ok this is something I have a huge problem with and I think is probably why so many people despise Goonswarm. Persistent online multiplayer games cannot be won! Winning assumes that their is an endstate which all players are trying to reach and the first one to arrive wins. In online persistent multiplayer games there is no endstate to reach, because these games are designed to go on indefinitely.

Rather these games give players rewards for meeting certain conditions and offer them limited victories. Taking a planet, winning a fight, acquiring level 2 gear, etc. If any players or player groups "win" then it generally makes the game less fun for everyone else since now they can't "win." Things like establishing a monopoly over a certain sort of good, being unassailable and never loosing territory, controlling most territory in the game, etc.

Any group that tries to achieve a win, and succeeds in creating some sort of unassailable power bloc must be struck down by the devs/game in order allow other players to continue to grow and achieve limited victories. Because if they do not then the players not part of the "winning" group will no longer be able to achieve limited wins and enjoy the game. So reward good and successful play, but allow no one group to become so powerful that others cannot achieve the limited wins that make the game fun.

[Stone Wall]

ive just been thinking and i agree with the investment of planets that a merc unit can control but as a safe guard planets should not change hands or be initialy captured, but rather have to be won through a series of fights on the planets surface and incorperated with a system for example if the attackers can manage to protect their landing zone then they can expand over the planet to capture key objectives but it can work vice versa as well and the attackers could be out right repeled on their inital attack.
also both attackers and defenders should need to bring a certain set amount of ammo and supplies with them to the planet (or stockpiles if defending) and during the fight for the planet only be able to restock from these stockpiles (this could inclued parts for mechs such as weapons or replacement parts).
so essential there would be a map for the planet in which the leaders of the two opposing factions choose the best place to attack or to send their troops to a location on the map it would work almost like the chip system in World of tanks except much faster paced.
you would not lose units but the territory would be captured and the chips sent back to an adjacent territory. in order to limit how fast your opponet can move there could be a time till the troops reach a location and this would give the opposing team a chance to react and respond acordingly. in the end if the invaders lose all teritory they lose the fight for the planet and vice versa.
(Note: the time limit constraint would be 5-10 min's to keep the action alive). anyway just wanted to post my thoughs and see what you guys think and please forgive and terriable grammar.

Edited by Stone Wall, 08 June 2012 - 07:52 PM.