10 replies to this topic

[CocoaJin]

PGI and fellow MechWarriors, I'm concerned CW will be singularly focused on capturing as the sole strategy for progressing and waging war in the Inner Sphere. My desire is to see a more diverse, but interdependent system of waging war. Ideally, diversity in how we wage war helps to insure no one style or faction has a inherent advantage, nor can you afford to just pour all focus and resources into just one course of action.

As of now, the only strategic pathway we have is capturing. I'd like to suggest the addition of a logistics strategic pathway that requires no captures, but directly impacts capturing.

The idea is to provide an engagement experience different from the current capture matches, with the hope that it would encourage inherent advantageous(tactics, mechs, mech classes) that are different than those inherent in capture matches. Success in the logistic engagements would directly affect capture matches by impacting the available tonnage a player of the affected faction can bring to capture matches globally or locally within the vicinity of the logistics engagements.

Now you may notice I'm not using "matches" with respect to logistics...this is one key aspect intended to set it apart from capturing. Logistics wouldn't be a typical match, but instead an open and semi-persistent engagement. Planets along the war front(this could include actual contested planets under attack) would have either individual or regional logistic engagement maps. These maps would have a facility(s) that represents supply for its respective planet and/or region.

Player will need to protect or damage the facility in a protracted, open engagement...this means no start timers, no match end timers, no fixed spawn points. Damage done to the facility reduces the available drop tonnage the defending faction can us for the respective planet's or regional's capture matches. The facility would have a auto-repair feature that would require a sustained campaign on both sides to attack and defend. This can very well allow for this map to remain open 24hrs a day for as long as the frontline makes it relevant. As the front moves, old logistic engagements drop out and brand new ones with fully repaired facilities come up.

Now, depending on how many logistic maps are live for a planet and/or region, the amount of tonnage decrease per level of facility damage can be varied. I doubt there will need to be a max decrease cap, it should be easy enough to insure no faction could see a drop of more than 25-30% in tonnage decrease for the affected planet or region, even if every affecting facility was reduced indefinitely to 0%...which would be extremely difficult to do, and easily discouraged through game mechanics.

Edit: Facility damage can also increase the re-enforcemeat timer for the planet's and/or region's capture matches.

As an open engagement, all players(solo or teamed) can readily feel they are contributing toward their faction's CW goals. Now, it is important that entry, death and re-spawn be carefully considered. I'd like to see the number of players active on the map be reduced to 4v4 or 5v5. Mechs chosen for capture drops wouldn't be available for logistic drops. Entry spawns can have several locations and be protected to discourage spawn camping. You get one life, when you die a re-enforcement timer counts down to when a replacement player can drop in. No repairs, so if you are crippled after holding off multiple waves, it might be best to exit/retreat from the match so a replacement can fill your slot. No re-spawns, you can wait for a free slot to open on that map again, or go looking for another logistics map to join.

If the demand for these logistic engagements are high, there could be dozens of them opened for a planet or region. As demands ebbs and flows through out the day, the number of these maps open can increase or decrease as required. As more maps come on line, the impact of facility damage on drop tonnage would decrease.

Lastly, I'd like to see the diversity of waging war not end here. There is room to discuss supply interdiction through space lanes. Political/population manipulation to sew unrest or rally grassroots resistance as background game mechanics within a larger planetary population simulation that affects bonuses/de-buffs to certain aspects of planetary capture. Like rallying a population to your cause could grant your faction an extra capture token upon your first successful match win for the planet, etc, etc...but this is for another post...maybe even in this thread if deemed appropriate.

Edited by CocoaJin, 28 October 2014 - 05:26 PM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Just briefly skimmed your post, but logistics are something they intend to tackle at a later time, first they want to get it where we can take planets.

Edited by Rouken, 28 October 2014 - 10:02 AM.

[Bill Lumbar]

I like your Ideas, and they are very interesting. Real content, real depth is what will be needed to make CW a huge hit, and fun to be involved in.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute and all putting your ideas out here. :-)

[CocoaJin]

Well, even with a planned logistics component to CW, I feel it's important that it not be just more of the same experience. My proposal seeks to create a separate experience, one which encourages other niches, builds, chassises, tactics, etc in order to exploit this strategic area of operation. I hope PGI sees the benefit in this and seeks to do the same with their development of CW.

[Koniving]

CocoaJin, on 28 October 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

I read through the post and I really like it. However, this style of thing (reminiscent of Arma and/or Planetside 2), is not something that is within this developer's ability to do.

I'm personally keeping a copy of the ideas you have to hopefully one day implement them in a BT online game of some sort.

Though, that said... There are aspects of your concept can be implemented for other ways. Not the way you want, but in other ways that can be done. For example objectives to destroy things rather than capture. Objectives and thusly missions that are designed to impair an enemy's abilities rather than simply "take and control" things.

Allow me to give some real lore Battletech examples.

During the Succession Wars, the last known Narc Missile Beacon Factory was destroyed in the year 2792. The weapon had become Lost Tech for several centuries, the weapon system only able to be repaired but when destroyed, was unreplaceable. This severely crippled a weapon system that was, at the time, a largely Draconis Combine advantage. This allowed Davions to make strong headway, and because the Kuritans were being pushed back, the Capellan Confederation, too, was largely overwhelmed by FedCom forces.

In our current time period, if the game was truly lore friendly, ECM in the field would be a majority Liao advantage, making up for its severe lack of assault and and limited heavy class battlemechs. Thus, a mission could be set to not capture but destroy factories in an attempt to wipe out the technology completely or at least temporarily. With a repair and rearm system which Paul has stated they genuinely planning to revisit after CW is established, the inability to replace ECM technology would leave the Liao in this example only the ability to repair what they have, and ideally there's a difference between repairing a damaged device and replacing a destroyed one.

So there is that. Obviously, that's an example from BT, then another in how it could be done in MWO.

A campaign mission to attack facilities on a planet known for producing ammunition, or a facility with parts for energy weapons, or a planet that produces dropships or jumpjets could be used to hinder a force's ability to resupply or respond to attacks, or the weight limits they can use.

See "What 3/3/3/3 cost us" for a Planet-scale CW concept. I think you will like it.

[Rebas Kradd]

OP is basically suggesting a new gamemode. Coulda made that clearer from the beginning.

We'd have to hear from PGI on how feasible one permanent-state map is, let alone dozens of them. It sounds like one of those "gamer's dream" features that just isn't possible in real life.

Much of the rest of what you suggest has been deferred for Phase 3 of CW.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

CW needs to be more than just seasons

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

well considering these are the guys that did the multiplayer component of dnf, and that our current game modes are red box, red boxes, and nascar, I honestly wouldn't expect too much. At least this way if something neat does happen you'll be surprised instead of being tired from waiting.

[CocoaJin]

Koniving, on 28 October 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

I read through the post and I really like it. However, this style of thing (reminiscent of Arma and/or Planetside 2), is not something that is within this developer's ability to do.

I'm personally keeping a copy of the ideas you have to hopefully one day implement them in a BT online game of some sort.

Though, that said... There are aspects of your concept can be implemented for other ways. Not the way you want, but in other ways that can be done. For example objectives to destroy things rather than capture. Objectives and thusly missions that are designed to impair an enemy's abilities rather than simply "take and control" things.

Allow me to give some real lore Battletech examples.

During the Succession Wars, the last known Narc Missile Beacon Factory was destroyed in the year 2792. The weapon had become Lost Tech for several centuries, the weapon system only able to be repaired but when destroyed, was unreplaceable. This severely crippled a weapon system that was, at the time, a largely Draconis Combine advantage. This allowed Davions to make strong headway, and because the Kuritans were being pushed back, the Capellan Confederation, too, was largely overwhelmed by FedCom forces.

In our current time period, if the game was truly lore friendly, ECM in the field would be a majority Liao advantage, making up for its severe lack of assault and and limited heavy class battlemechs. Thus, a mission could be set to not capture but destroy factories in an attempt to wipe out the technology completely or at least temporarily. With a repair and rearm system which Paul has stated they genuinely planning to revisit after CW is established, the inability to replace ECM technology would leave the Liao in this example only the ability to repair what they have, and ideally there's a difference between repairing a damaged device and replacing a destroyed one.

So there is that. Obviously, that's an example from BT, then another in how it could be done in MWO.

A campaign mission to attack facilities on a planet known for producing ammunition, or a facility with parts for energy weapons, or a planet that produces dropships or jumpjets could be used to hinder a force's ability to resupply or respond to attacks, or the weight limits they can use.

See "What 3/3/3/3 cost us" for a Planet-scale CW concept. I think you will like it.

I like this, I also believe it could easily fit into my proposal to add more variety to the idea.

You do realize, this at least the 2nd idea of mine you've stored away . Keep me updated

[Koniving]

CocoaJin, on 28 October 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

I like this, I also believe it could easily fit into my proposal to add more variety to the idea.

You do realize, this at least the 2nd idea of mine you've stored away . Keep me updated

Will do, and yes I did believe the name was familiar (though I don't think I would have realized it until the day I started digging out ideas).

On a side note, I finally got my hands on a Centurion and Atlas model that doesn't crash my computer when I try to separate it into the smaller pieces. This, combined with an assortment of skeletons I made out of boredom (Mech with Humanoid legs and various arms, Mech with true-to-lore Blackhawk, Jenner/Locust/Catapult style bodies, and sometime soon 4 legged mech skeletons), I'm hoping to sometime over the next year, produce a series of cinematics depicting what I wish MWO was (which would also be the sort of BT game I'd like to make if it ever becomes possible), as well as doing some 3D awesomesauce homages to some megamek battles (makes good practice and a prime example of breaking TT down into real time without losing anything in the translation; where PGI lost everything in the translation, rendering so many BT systems worthless to include stock mechs).

[CocoaJin]

Koniving, on 28 October 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

Will do, and yes I did believe the name was familiar (though I don't think I would have realized it until the day I started digging out ideas).

On a side note, I finally got my hands on a Centurion and Atlas model that doesn't crash my computer when I try to separate it into the smaller pieces. This, combined with an assortment of skeletons I made out of boredom (Mech with Humanoid legs and various arms, Mech with true-to-lore Blackhawk, Jenner/Locust/Catapult style bodies, and sometime soon 4 legged mech skeletons), I'm hoping to sometime over the next year, produce a series of cinematics depicting what I wish MWO was (which would also be the sort of BT game I'd like to make if it ever becomes possible), as well as doing some 3D awesomesauce homages to some megamek battles (makes good practice and a prime example of breaking TT down into real time without losing anything in the translation; where PGI lost everything in the translation, rendering so many BT systems worthless to include stock mechs).

Can't wait to see it.