Jump to content

Community Warfare (Cw) Design Proposal


8 replies to this topic

#1 Syrkres

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 488 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:52 AM

Since we really haven't heard a lot about Community Warfare (CW) other than far off deadlines I have decided to spend a few days over the holidays to put together a design for CW.

THIS IS NOT 100% Complete, but it is fairly complete and should give good base design for Faction setting, Factions, Contracts, grouping, etc.

Design Proposal:
http://www.miniworld.../CWOverview.pdf
Anyone is free to use/implement this (i.e. PGI you can use my design free of charge)

Effort: (Single developer)
  • Data Model - 2 days
    • Any tool will auto-generate the model 10 mins, an additional 2 days for cleanup.
  • Data Model Persistence - 1 month
    • Using something like JPA I would say 2 weeks, writing your own DAO impl, we will give you 4 weeks.
  • Use Cases (Business Layer) - 6 months
    • Total of 13 main use cases with some which should take a few days and others taking 3 weeks. If we round out each use case Business Layer to 2 weeks, should be average.
  • Use Cases (GUI Layer) - 6 months
    • Using Flex (since CW is almost all outside of battles, only need to concern self with end results of battle) 2 weeks for each should be more than enough to implement and test.
So we basically 13 months of effort (for a single developer). If you put 4 full time developers (1/4 of your available staff) you should be able to crank this out in 3 months, and this is not just Faction assignment, this is full CW. If you put 6 developers we should be looking at 2 months.


Yes some elements are missing, though they should be minor as I have defined all the major use cases.

If you can't develop CW in this time frame I suggest you instead implement READ-ONLY web services where the community can then implement their own.
  • Need service to check player stats
    • Battles they were in and time of each battle.
  • Need service to check result of battle a player was in.
    • This should include either a battle ID or time
    • Mech player ran for battle. Also was mech destroyed.
Thank you

Syrkres

#2 SmithMPBT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 793 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:43 AM

Very well thought out and it would be great for PGI to swallow their pride and use your layout. It won't happen though, PGI prefers awkward, backward, ill thought out layouts for everything, IE UI 2.0.

Also, it costs them 250k dollars to make a map a kid could make in his basement over the christmas break. So full implementation of CW is a 5-10 million dollar proposition in their world. Got to sell alot of gold mechs to cover that.

#3 Firewuff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,204 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:01 PM

View PostSyrkres, on 08 January 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

  • Data Model - 2 days
    • Any tool will auto-generate the model 10 mins, an additional 2 days for cleanup.


And you lost me there... any autogenerated schema will be a horrible and unwieldly thing. Trust me we were lumped with one in the product I sell and it has taken YEARS to fix it once implemented and the number of performance bottle necks has been huge. A good well crafted hand made schema will out perform a generated one any day.

Also I take issue with your EOL estimates..... they are seriously low.

#4 Syrkres

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 488 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 08:33 AM

View PostFirewuff, on 08 January 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:


And you lost me there... any autogenerated schema will be a horrible and unwieldly thing. Trust me we were lumped with one in the product I sell and it has taken YEARS to fix it once implemented and the number of performance bottle necks has been huge. A good well crafted hand made schema will out perform a generated one any day.

Also I take issue with your EOL estimates..... they are seriously low.

Well maybe should not have stated any tool, as a professional developer of move than 25 years we only use tools that work. Our tools work great and we do round trips all the time to keep our design in sync with the code. So you have have experience with a tool which doesn't work get a new tool. And as I stated nothing comes out perfect, which is why I gave 2 days for cleanup. But once you clean it up, you do a round trip and you don't have to worry about cleanup anymore (unless your adding a whole new datamodel).

Edited by Syrkres, 09 January 2014 - 08:33 AM.


#5 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 10:23 AM

I applaud your attempt to make a coherent stab at CW. Many of your ideas are good starting points.

However, I believe that one area which needs significant work is the area of planetary assaults.

Bear in mind, I didn't have time to dedicate to an in depth reading, so I may have misunderstood. Feel free to point out my errors.

It appears as though you are suggesting that a planet can be taken by accumulating some number of wins on it, although this seems to be done via PUG matchmaking. I.e. win 400 games and the planet is now yours.

This seems like the wrong approach, and seems to ignore the notion of actually defending a planet. Folks just accumulate wins, and take the planet? What about other units who are also accumulating wins? If I get 350 wins, and then you get 400, what happens to me? Do I get 50 more wins on that planet, and then now its's mine, and your effort was wasted?

What I think is missing is the notion of actually selecting a planet to fight for, and then fighting against its current owner.

Back in MW4 leagues, this is what we did... you needed to get your forces into position to take that planet via jumpships, and then asssault it. We scheduled battles on the league website, etc.

Now, in an environment like MWO, such a scheduling system won't really work.. because folks want to play all the time.

As such, I would suggest that we leverage a contract system to facilitate units paying for defense of their planet.

Here is how I would suggest it plays out when a unit attacks a planet that another unit holds. Bear in mind, this is really only focused on Merc vs. Merc combat. Given that those units are fighting for actual personal ownership, I think that it will require some slightly more time consuming mechanics, but those mechanics will also be accepted by those players:
1) Attacking unit moves forces around the galaxy via jumpships. Then it can launch attacks on its own behalf from those JS.

2) The current owner of that planet then gets right of first refusal for that battle. That is, they are notified that an attack has been launched on their planet, and they have some period of time to defend it. This period of time would be fairly short, perhaps 15 minutes? I would suggest that even when accepted, it would then go and schedule a fight for some period shortly in the future.. That way, the attackers aren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the defender. They can launch the attack, and then go fight other matches and do what they like. Then at some point in the future, the results of their attack plans are reported and things continue. Either the defender is ready to go and they drop into a matchmaking lobby, or the following happens using the contracting system.

3) In cases where the owner of a planet is not available to defend their holdings (or simply chooses not to, because maybe they are doing other junk), then the defense will fall to the contracting system. This will work as described below:
  • For a given planet, the owner can define a defensive garrison contract. This contract will be defined to have the following qualities: Payment, Required Unit Rating. The payment is self explanatory, it will define the amount of money that, upon victory, will be transferred from the contracting unit to the mercenary unit taking the contract. The required unit rating defines a minimum competency rating for a unit to be allowed to accept that contract. (More on this below) Additionally, these contract parameters could be extended to cover additional features like tonnage, to support different types of defensive (or even offensive) contracts for different purposes, but here we're focusing purely on planetary assault defenses.
  • Once a contract is posted, if a unit owning some planetary holding does not choose to defend the planet in the previously described timelimit, then the defense falls to Outreach's contracting office. The planetary defense contract is posted up onto the available job listing, and other units can choose to accept it. This would, again, go for another period of time, perhaps another 15 minutes, etc. So, at most, if someone attacks a planet to take it over, they would wait at most 30 minutes (in this case, those numbers are of course just notional) for them to get some kind of fight going.
  • A mercenary unit browsing Outreach's contract listing will see all contracts available to them. They will then be able to select whatever contract they like, and bid on it. For the next 5 minutes, other mercenary units may also bid on that contract, with the highest rated unit ultimately getting the job. Thus, units which perform better will tend to get better contracts, and units which offer better contracts will get better defenders of their holdings when they are not there to defend them themselves. This in itself would help facilitate small but highly skilled groups to still play in the game, and not get rolled over simply due to their inability to field constant defenses.. If they are good, they will earn good amounts of money, which will in turn allow them to hire good defensive forces for when they are not there.
  • If no mercenary unit accepts the contract, then the matchmaker finds some PUG group to form a defensive force. There is a good chance this will go poorly for the defenders, but that provides incentive to offer good contracts. If you offer contracts with high Merc requirements and poor pay, you will be out of luck. Other strategies might be to offer contracts with low requirements but high pay, so that even if no high skill mercs are around, some lower skilled mercs are still there to take on the job. But such decisions are left to the contracting unit.
  • (NOTE HERE... upon contemplation, it may not be necessary to bother attaching a minmum rating to a contract. All contracts could have no requirement in this regard, and we could just trust that the higher rated mercs will always go after the best pay... This may be preferable, since I can't see any real reason why I would prefer Pugs to defend my planet rather than crappy mercs...although the pug wouldn't need to be paid at all, so you may get lucky there... a point to think about)
  • Once the contract is assigned, the two teams are dropped into a matchmaking lobby. Some planetary assault sequence would take place. I'd suggest, perhaps, something akin to what we did in MW4 planetary leagues, although perhaps streamlined to take less time. I'd suggest perhaps a best of 3 or perhaps best of 5 approach, where the victor claims the planet. In the old leagues, we had a more complex system where wins effectively pushed a counter up and down a scale between 1 and 10, with 1 being forced retreat for the attackers (Defensive win with the attackers losing their PA forces) and 10 being a forced retreat for the defenders (Offensive win with defenders losing the garrison forces). But this may be too time consuming, as there were Planetary assaults in the old leagues which took many, many hours played over many many nights as brutal battles of attrition took place. For MWO, a simple best of 3 or 5 may be the best option.
Regarding the Mercenary Competency Rating:
Part of this contracting system involves rating a given mercenary unit, based upon their past performance. I would suggest that this be some measurement based upon their win percentage. Honestly, if you wanted to,you could define an Elo rank for that mercenary unit, or something like that. Ultimately though, such a rating system is required in order to enable a contractor to offer top dollar contracts specifically directed at top units, rather than having some garbage unit continually attempt high paying contracts and fail to deliver results, effectively screwing the unit offering payment.

Some things to acknowledge here:
One thing about such a system is that it's not really a trivial investment of time, if you want to play in the big leagues. In order to actually take and hold planets, we're talking about investing some non trivial time playing the game for a night... maybe an hour or two.

This certainly is not for everyone. Many players would just want to hop on and play some games... and that's fine, although this system isn't targeting those users. There are other aspects of MWO which targets them.

This system would target more serious players who are more invested in the game and its game world. And as such, the time requirements describe seem quite reasonable. For other games like EvE, combat operations are non trivial investments of time for folks. It's reasonable to say, "Hey folks, we're getting together tonight to do this, and it'll be going from X until Y on Thursday."

I think that this kind of system offers much more depth and interest for those players, than simply fighting against random folks and accumulating wins. While such a system works (kind of) in COD Ghosts, there's really no depth to it... you don't actually get any impression that you are fighting against specific units. There's no real rivalry, and there's no real battlefield being fought over. It's more like a ladder system.

So there you go, some additional thoughts for assaults and contracting.

#6 Syrkres

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 488 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 07:30 PM

Yes more depth would be nice, but.

The reason/problem I choose contracts for a group/zone of planets is in match maker. If you have a contract to fight over then a good chance there will be no one to defend or group with you.

By making it a group of planets you can match up people easier and then just have the win or loss apply to one of the planets.

The problem I see with yours is "planet ownership". PGI wants to control borders, thus if you put contract creation on the hands of players there is no way to control a factions borders. Also PGI has said they are going to control the cannon factions. With these two issues I don't see how contracts can get generated easily enough.

One thing though would be to toss out control, hand planets and such over to guilds which then control the fate of the universe, Then you run this for so long and possibly do a reset of the universe.

Otherwise you could easily have a strong group of guilds form up and take control of things.

Edited by Syrkres, 11 January 2014 - 07:32 PM.


#7 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 12 January 2014 - 03:51 AM

I thought CW was going to be more along the lines of factions defend, and attack. Mercs can only attack.

They either do it via "joining" a faction / front via a contract rate or via nominating a planet they specifically want to get for the industrial property bonus (eg, this mech chassis 10% cheaper or whatever) if they are successful.

Has this changed or have I got it around incorrectly?

#8 Noesis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,436 posts
  • LocationIn the Lab

Posted 12 January 2014 - 05:29 AM

Glanced over it. Unable to give a proper review.

It did seem to omit intelligence and counter intelligence as a potential CW resource to be utilised in the model however. And as a result didn't offer a view of how planetary and/or unit/defence strength data could be examined where effective intelligence resources could be used by both sides. If anything planetary and resource intel seemed to be very much interpreted as a given.

Adding an intelligence layer to me would help embellish CW with another needed aspect of strategy imho.

#9 Syrkres

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 488 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:54 AM

Noesis, yeah hadn't thought much on the Intelligence warefare level because of the limited game modes.

Without any other game modes, it's sort of hard to think along those lines, the only initial thoughts would be contracts where you attack a location and if you win you find out information, which could be used in other areas. Sort of like a recon lance dropping into enemy territory to scout out defensive numbers or such.

As Roland pointed out my system is based around attacking a group of planets, until we could solve the match making issue of attacking a single planet, not sure how IW could play a more important role.

One thought would be if you won an IW battle you (the faction) then gets to assign the win to a specific planet in the zone, rather than it being random. This would allow a faction to tip the win scales (assigning more wins to specific planets).

The biggest issue I see with any CW is match making, especially when you consider all borders and factions. How do you group up a match (based on ELO) when you have House Kurita fighting for a planet along it's borders and House Marik fighting a battle along it's borders and not enough other players to fill pugs... (how often have you played in 12 mans and couldn't find a single match (on any) let alone if your were targeting a single planet for a specific contract.

Also considering the other big issue, PGI wants to control borders, which means you really can't put the universe in too much of the players hands.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users