32 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

Kyrie, on 28 September 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

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.

This is great but a constructive question, how does this work with finding matches to drop into? Or another way of posing the question I guess, how does the queue system work with this or something similar?

Edited by Johnny Z, 28 September 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 28 September 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

I was not clear in what I was proposing, my apologies.

This SORT of cleared things up for me, so thanks for that. For my part, I would love to see a system where contract-permitted players would be allowed to take a contract they've negotiated and set their entire mission, through multiple objectives, not just a series of fights for a world. The latter is still just a grind for everyone; if there's no mission to be set, strategy-wise, for the members of a Merc Corps, it is ONLY a grind, period.

Quote

This would accomplish a few key game objectives:

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.

This is actually something like I'm trying to do in AU... allowing people to build up their rank through participation, education, and fighting the game. I want people to be able to earn their levels, and I don't think CW, regardless of how robust PGI has it planned to be, is going to allow me to track, through the automated interface, what I want to track, what I think is important through my knowledge and experience. I have it set so my Lance Leaders will be able to become Drop Commanders, so they can drop with organized Lance's in official Armageddon Unlimited games; my Lance Leaders do not all have to be Officer's (thank you, TAZ). Now, that's of course not going to stop anyone from dropping in PUGs, but they won't be considered official through my tracking. Unfortunately, without being able to modify the interface to track what I want it to track, and how, I'm not going to be able to readily separate the two and will end up creating a lot more work for myself. So, the Drop Commander Certification might be little more than notional at this point.

Also, I want my Lieutenant's (O2) to be able to begin making contracts the moment they finish Contract training. At that point, they will be able to make contracts for themselves, whether of Lance's (Lieutenant and above), Company's (Captain and above), or if PGI ever gets to it, Battalion's (Major and above).

Kyrie, you sound as if you have an organizational streak in you, and will love the logistics and command side of the game if that ever happens. Me, too; I truly enjoy it.

[Threat Doc]

Johnny Z, on 28 September 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

This is great but a constructive question, how does this work with finding matches to drop into? Or another way of posing the question I guess, how does the queue system work with this or something similar?

Johnny, my take is this, when CW is fully implemented, the Matchmaker will be reserved specifically for PUGs, and specific missions will work more like the coordinated drops from the other night at the Launch Party. The Lance Leader, Company Commander, etc., will set Lance(s) and, when everyone's Ready Op on both sides -without the problems from the other night-, the teams launch into the planned/negotiated map with the planned/negotiated forces, and have at one-another. I know in the NGNG 88 Podcast, Bryan was talking about having objectives added to the game down the road, but he gave no specifics or a time-frame, so we have to use "Soon"^TM.

[Kyrie]

Johnny Z, on 28 September 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

This is great but a constructive question, how does this work with finding matches to drop into? Or another way of posing the question I guess, how does the queue system work with this or something similar?

There would have to be an interface for people to find contracts -- both system generated, negotiated contracts with the AI as well as player to player offer contracts (what I am proposing).

So lets give an example: a top level Kurita player, who happens to be a loyalist, takes a look at the map and identifies a key strategic point (call it Planet X). He wants to persuade others on the Kurita side to fight on X. So with a certain currency (an example of a more detailed system is located in the link in my signature, on page 1 of that thread) he can create what I was referring to: a strategic contract to win Y battles on Planet X. By creating this offer, it will populate Y number of individual missions in the "find a mission" interface. The limit on Y would be dependent on the rank of the player as well as the available currency he has to make the offer.

Each time a player accepts one of the Y-numbered missions, the count is reduced. If he wins the mission, he gets the reward. If he fails to win, he gets no bonus but would get whatever he earned out of the battle (as it works at present).

Under this system, offering a contract of this type would be limited by a few key factors: rank, available currency, and the fact that it is spent regardless of wins or losses by the people accepting the contract. However, it would add an element of strategy to the wild-lemming system proposed by Bryan at the launch party. The high ranking player would have help set the agenda for the House by making the right contract-offer at the right time for the right target.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 28 September 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Kyrie, you sound as if you have an organizational streak in you, and will love the logistics and command side of the game if that ever happens. Me, too; I truly enjoy it.

I began posting on CW over a year ago (see link in my sig), the topic is currently archived. I am debating whether I should try to get the topic moved over to an active part of the forum. At first I posted in ignorance of the holy MPBT-3025 design document, trying to stitch together ideas from my experience in EGA-MPBT. However, once the link to the MPBT 3025 post was pointed out to me I pretty much just began endorsing it as what I felt would be the ultimate, most awesome possible implementation of CW.

If I am reading my PGI tea-leaves correctly, their vision of CW is really more of a casual thing; this explains why Houses are basically deprecated into a very abstract of game mechanics in favor of mercs (something I find abhorrent given that BT lore emphasizes Houses over mercs). As I have posted elsewhere, I've more or less come to the "acceptance" part in the grieving process, this game will not be MPBT 3025 reboot I was drooling over when I bought Founders.

My passion for something along the lines of MPBT-3025 grew out of my childhood obsession with EGA MPBT. I served in every level of command position that game offered except lance leader (Kesmai added that towards the end of the game's life-cycle). I was a Unit CO, Prefecture CO, District CO, House XO and HL in House Kurita.

I missed out on EA's long-abandoned reboot, and never really played the Solaris version. When I discovered this site, I thought we'd be getting something equally in-depth if different. I am now fairly certain we wont.

[Johnny Z]

ui 2.0 mok up from another topic.

It has been said that the formed group would be voting on which mission/planet to take, so your saying there is a mission list that would be added to using a player rank system, spending points/currency from a faction pool of some sort. The mission list would populate all factions mission select ui? Or would the mission select ui be on the galaxy map itself?

Edited by Johnny Z, 28 September 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[Kyrie]

Johnny Z, on 28 September 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

ui 2.0 mok up from another topic.

It has been said that the formed group would be voting on which mission/planet to take, so your saying there is a mission list that would be added to using a player rank system, spending points/currency from a faction pool of some sort. The mission list would populate all factions mission select ui?

Pretty much exactly it. That is what I am suggesting -- high ranked players would be able to help direct people to the right targets via bonus incentives from these contracts.

[Johnny Z]

Getting an idea of what the galaxy map will look like would be good right about now. Can it be zoomed or rotated. Do the planets pop up and zoom in when selected.

[Tannhauser Gate]

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

et al

Well said. We diverge though at the point of what "delay and behind schedule" mean to MWO. No doubt PGI didn't anticipate having to rewrite a significant amount of the engine code. One thing they keep citing as a reason for sluggish development but do have control over is manpower. They keep saying that they are at their limits for what they can do with the manpower they have. Being behind schedule (we don't know exactly how much) apparently doesn't yet warrant a Iraqi Surge of new hires or farming out certain portions. Either way, Im still on board. As for your epic fandom, that's great. Huh, your MW fu is very strong. I can say that Ive been part of the cadre talking with Bryan on his blog way before the forums were up discussing ideas with the group and the contract idea was around even then. I registered on the first day as well, like user 400, and a closed beta player too. Ive been following PGI's development as close as I can. What I don't do however, is listen to the forums as any kind of accurate pulse of the game. After closed beta, and it was opened to people with no knowledge of PGI or MWO thus far (not to mention trolls and goons), I dismissed the forums as anything but a place for ranting. Nevertheless, PGI has momentum, they have a vision, and they have done a great job so far despite delays and having to go back on promises (e.g. 3PV and flush). I just assume delays are normal.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 28 September 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[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

I agree. PGI will be intentionally vague but I understand why they have to be. They cant reveal anything specific because it may not end up in the finished product then they would have "lied" all over again. Yes, this feature is huge and they have to get it right so they should take their time.

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 28 September 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

I am debating whether I should try to get the topic moved over to an active part of the forum.

I wouldn't even think of it, really. The plans PGI have are already well under way, and I seriously doubt they intend to listen to anything actually remotely related to BattleTech.

Quote

If I am reading my PGI tea-leaves correctly, their vision of CW is really more of a casual thing; this explains why Houses are basically deprecated into a very abstract of game mechanics in favor of mercs (something I find abhorrent given that BT lore emphasizes Houses over mercs).

Well, until someone else is able to obtain the IP, this is what we'll have. I have no doubt TPTB are pulling the strings, as usual, and PGI has little recourse other than to obey.

Quote

When I discovered this site, I thought we'd be getting something equally in-depth if different. I am now fairly certain we wont.

And that breaks my heart. I love the depth the BT universe has, and that several other folks have tried so hard in the past to emulate, but never quite caught. I would like to believe that, if this game is successful, it will lead to that in-depth universe we will be able to play. The question is... will the community have the patience to wait for it?

I think I may still have registered before you... /user/363-kay-wolf/

The question is, how many of the 362 folks before me belonged to PGI, IGP, or various investors, Microsoft, FASA Corporation, etc.?

[Johnny Z]

Kyrie, on 28 September 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Pretty much exactly it. That is what I am suggesting -- high ranked players would be able to help direct people to the right targets via bonus incentives from these contracts.

Well looking at Mechwarrior 2 from 1996 https://www.youtube....e&v=li2g-mIkX4M it would seem MW Online should upgrade from a simple list to using the galaxy map.

Which would be quite a task as it has 3000 planets. It would require multiple leves of zoom and focus.

Btw, if this is a part of ui 2.0 then i can see why it took so long to add. If it isnt well this part of faction warfare(front warfare it was called) isnt expected for another 2 to 4 months or so going on what has been said.

Edited by Johnny Z, 29 September 2013 - 04:07 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Johnny Z, on 29 September 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

Well looking at Mechwarrior 2 from 1996 https://www.youtube....e&v=li2g-mIkX4M it would seem MW Online should upgrade from a simple list to using the galaxy map.

I completely forgot to post a link to the PDF map PGI has posted on this web site, a map made for 3048, specifically for PGI, and it's sweet. I hope they do use a 3D map that allows us to plot jump points, pull up world descriptions, including economics. However, I'm very skeptical about that, at this point.

Quote

Which would be quite a task as it has 3000 planets.

2021, not including the Clan Octagon worlds, though those are not considered to be part of the Inner Sphere.

Quote

Btw, if this is a part of ui 2.0 then i can see why it took so long to add. If it isnt well this part of faction warfare(front warfare it was called) isnt expected for another 2 to 4 months or so going on what has been said.

I'm not expecting a 3D map; rather, I believe we'll see a simple 2D map with really pretty page wrapper, at least in the beginning. Keeping in-line with the idea there are enough folks who believe PGI is building up in stages, this is acceptable, as long as they keep moving forward with the entirety of the game.