34 replies to this topic

[WardenWolf]

Radick, on 27 June 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

I guess that a player could make the argument that they will not get to play a lot because of real life and they want to be able to play when they can. This is simple to take care of. They either play where they are, which should have plenty of fun battles too, or, they decide to go to a different front the day before. It does not take long to log in, pick a front to travel to and log out. This should not really mess up their real life. There is of course the other type of player that has all the time in the world. My advice to them would be to pick there fronts carefully, and then spend a quality amount of time at them. This would help groups become known in certain areas as already said in an earlier reply.

Think about how much you want to be in the beta, playing MWO - assuming you are not - and then tell me if you think you'd be okay with having large blocks of time like that for as long as the game is out, where you couldn't play because your character was in transit between war fronts. It sounds nice on paper, adds a small amount of realism, etc... but in today's fast-paced world it wouldn't fly with 90%+ of the playerbase (myself included, I think).

In a single-player game, where time could be sped up, maybe... but here I think we will have to sacrifice a lot of realism in order to gain mass appeal and make the game fun. What the community warfare pillar should be about is drawing players together and giving a metagame, or overarching goals for players outside of individual battles, which will keep folks playing and give rewards for factions or merc companies working well together

[CCC Dober]

Yes, essentially it's theory and may not happen at all. Still, games like WoT or Space Marine showed me that team balance is a problem that has not been sufficiently solved in all these years, although you could rightfully assume that there would be enough skill and budget available in case of Space Marine. Also, LoLs system (ELO) can easily balance individual players, but it's not able to account for the synergies of good team play and inherent numerical advantages during confrontations. This is only negated if both sides display a similar level of skill.

So yeah, chances are that team balance will become a big topic sooner or later, unless the pillar can deal with it sufficiently.

[Radick]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Think about how much you want to be in the beta, playing MWO - assuming you are not - and then tell me if you think you'd be okay with having large blocks of time like that for as long as the game is out, where you couldn't play because your character was in transit between war fronts. It sounds nice on paper, adds a small amount of realism, etc... but in today's fast-paced world it wouldn't fly with 90%+ of the playerbase (myself included, I think).

In a single-player game, where time could be sped up, maybe... but here I think we will have to sacrifice a lot of realism in order to gain mass appeal and make the game fun. What the community warfare pillar should be about is drawing players together and giving a metagame, or overarching goals for players outside of individual battles, which will keep folks playing and give rewards for factions or merc companies working well together

I already said it would suck to have a time sink. I also said it would make it more important to pick were you wanted to fight. If you actually think about which front you want to fight on and then stay their for a few days or a week, then you are not losing a lot of time traveling between worlds. You could even live without time sinks at all buy planning your travel times to fit in with times in real life that you will be doing something other than gaming.

Before you bring up the point of people who pay for premium accounts I will explain that as well. It could be as simple as premium accounts have no downtime between fronts. This way those people who want to play more during their premium time can play all the time that they paid for without any hindrance.

Radick,
<S>

[Fire for Effect]

Nice idea sounds quite reasonable in the broad perspective. Maybe there needs to be some small things ironed out but in general sounds good

[WardenWolf]

Radick, on 28 June 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Before you bring up the point of people who pay for premium accounts I will explain that as well. It could be as simple as premium accounts have no downtime between fronts. This way those people who want to play more during their premium time can play all the time that they paid for without any hindrance.

Uh oh, don't give the Devs any crazy ideas!

[Radick]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Uh oh, don't give the Devs any crazy ideas!

What is wrong with allowing premium players to move more freely? It has nothing to do with balance in the combat and allows them to play all of their premium time. It would be bad business practice to limit their playing time since they actually paid for it. It could also encourage people to pay without giving them an advantage during fights. I see nothing wrong with this, do you?

Radick,
<S>

[IceSerpent]

Just a few comments...

WardenWolf, on 25 June 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

On each border between major powers, one to three planets would be 'contested' at any given time. The number would depend on the size of the border involved.

It's better to base it on the number of players currently online, who associate with a given faction. This way a more heavily populated faction can fight more battles and you don't run in a problem with 12 players trying to defend 3 planets at once.

Quote

As battles are fought, a slider would move back and forth between the two factions involved. Once it got to a 'tipping point' of a certain number of battles won or a certain percentage of victories for a given side, then control would change hands and a different planet would be contested instead.

This is essentially how it was done in ISW (Inner Sphere Wars) and it caused an issue with neither side being able to progress, especially when "core" teams are in different timezones. I.e. one side wins a few fights, players go to bed, the other side gets their A-team online and pushes the slider back.

I think a better way of doing it is to have different planets having different number of "mechs in the garrison", which would determine how many mechs can be killed on each side. Let's say a planet has a garrison of 3 companies (36 mechs). Regardless of how many players are on each team, the planet changes hands if attackers get 36 kills and remains under the same flag (just stops being contested) if defenders get 36 kills. This works the same way whether it's lance vs. lance or company vs. company battles, just the number of matches changes.

Edit: Just thought of something - to prevent losing team from playing hide-and seek until the end of the match, the victory conditions should be to either get required number of kills (i.e. "wipe the opposing foce") or achieve the required number of objectives. Something like a planet with 3 companies in garrison also has 3 bases to capture, which work like you originally suggested (slider). The team that gets all 3 objectives in a row (pushes slider all the way) wins regardless of casualties, provided that they don't run out of mechs in the process.

Quote

- Joining a House faction would also have perks, like discounts on certain weapons or mechs perhaps. This, along with a ranking system, would be there to offset the more limited selection of battles.

The amount (and possibly type) of planets your House currently owns should also affect those perks, i.e. the more industrial words - the cheaper repairs or something like that.

Quote

- Lone wolf players would gain reputation with a faction as they fight for it, and lose reputation when they fight against it. This could have some small impact on the pay rate (houses might pay more for mercs they like).

Same should go for merc companies - even though they fight on a different set of worlds, I think those border worlds are still part of a House, so loyalty points should affect mercs' benefits.

Edited by IceSerpent, 28 June 2012 - 04:49 PM.

[WardenWolf]

Radick, on 28 June 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

What is wrong with allowing premium players to move more freely? It has nothing to do with balance in the combat and allows them to play all of their premium time. It would be bad business practice to limit their playing time since they actually paid for it. It could also encourage people to pay without giving them an advantage during fights. I see nothing wrong with this, do you?

What I said was mostly intended as a jest - but the worry would be that the devs would see a way to make anyone who wanted to be able to play easily have to pay for an account and without making the game technically pay-2-win (which they are very much against).

Personally I don't think the devs would 'punish' non-premium players like that anyway, so I was just joking - hence the at the end.

[Orkdung]

Quote

As battles are fought, a slider would move back and forth between the two factions involved. Once it got to a 'tipping point' of a certain number of battles won or a certain percentage of victories for a given side, then control would change hands and a different planet would be contested instead.

What if more than one faction is vying for the planet (I'd certainly like to see this).

And I'd also like to add, in city scapes and factory fought maps I'd like to see little faction men running around in the controlled factions colored jump suit.
You always see birds(butterflies in World of Tanks) flying around in first person shooters, why not little humans looking out a window pointing, or on a crane or what have you.. "Look!! House Kurita attacks"
Sort of Gozilla-ish.
Im not insisting on 100 little humans running around frantically, but 2-3??
In the novels and in imagery this seems to always be the case. It would certainly add to the atmosphere.

.

Edited by Orkdung, 24 July 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Deadmeat313]

There have been some good imaginative ideas posted on here so far. I think many plans underestimate the sheer number of battles that could be fought by the playerbase in a single hour.

Those who have played World of Tanks will be familiar with the screen margin listing that there are normally upwards of 300 battles running simultaneously at any time. They are max 15 minutes duration. And when killed a pilot will most likely punch out back to the hangar screen - pick another machine - and hit NEXT BATTLE!

If all of these battles are being used to determine control of contested worlds then they could conceivably change hands very quickly. For the strategic map to be meaningful, I reckon that it should take several hundred battles total to secure a world. Each victory by your faction edging the capture counter closer, and every defeat sliding it back a notch.

Also, importantly, the pilot should not have total control over which planet he fights each battle. I think you should be able to select a theatre of war - but then the game will generate a number of battles for all the participants of that theatre, allocating some as offensive and some as defensive troops on each world.

You might find yourself (if fighting in the Sarna March Theatre, Liao vs Davion) being part of an attack on Sakhalin in one battle, followed immediately by a defensive battle on Ares. Just go with the flow! Travel times need to be so arbitary as to not be there. When Sakhalin falls later that day you can still feel happy that you did your part.

Transfer to a different front could be instant - but with a 24hr cooldown to prevent you hopping again. That way you are never forced to Not Play, but are somewhat limited as to your battlefields.

These are my thoughts anyway. Feel free to disagree!

[Rhyshaelkan]

Wonder how that might work out for merc contracts too. A merc company of 12 would want to stick together. After falling in battle it would behoove them to stick around till successfully completed or all in the merc company falls. Then as a unit could move on to the next mission. However if the merc belongs to a larger unit he might plug himself into any mission by his corp waiting to roll. Lots of possibilities.

[WardenWolf]

Deadmeat313, on 25 July 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

If all of these battles are being used to determine control of contested worlds then they could conceivably change hands very quickly. For the strategic map to be meaningful, I reckon that it should take several hundred battles total to secure a world. Each victory by your faction edging the capture counter closer, and every defeat sliding it back a notch.

I agree - and I think if multiple game modes are added over time things could get even more interesting: the first X number of battles portray the initial landing, recon, and some early base caps. Then it transitions to deathmatch, fighting over resource points, and taking out specific targets. Toward the end it begins to be attack/defend and taking out political leaders on the planet (escort missions). Those are just rough ideas, but having a 'plot' to the capture of each planet would be cool

Deadmeat313, on 25 July 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Also, importantly, the pilot should not have total control over which planet he fights each battle. I think you should be able to select a theatre of war - but then the game will generate a number of battles for all the participants of that theatre, allocating some as offensive and some as defensive troops on each world.

Now here I have to disagree: I think you should be able to pick a specific planet where a battle is going on if you want, but I think there should also be options to just jump into any battle your side / merc company is involved in. This would allow those who want to be a part of a specific campaign do so, but those who care less would also have an easier and faster option to just join a battle.

Orkdung, on 24 July 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

What if more than one faction is vying for the planet (I'd certainly like to see this).

That could be interesting, but I'd like to see them get 1v1 faction combat down first. There aren't as many planets that are bordered by three factions like that... but it could be cool to add later on.

Orkdung, on 24 July 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

And I'd also like to add, in city scapes and factory fought maps I'd like to see little faction men running around in the controlled factions colored jump suit.
You always see birds(butterflies in World of Tanks) flying around in first person shooters, why not little humans looking out a window pointing, or on a crane or what have you.. "Look!! House Kurita attacks"
Sort of Gozilla-ish.

I have heard that the devs are avoiding actual, visible humans in the game (other than your own pilot). If humans are visibly pictured as being killed, it would up the games rating.

[Kyrie]

Found this thread through a link in "Ask the Devs", thanks to the OP.

The ideas here are good, but they fall too much in line with implementing house factions in a "casual" style. This is what PGI has announced to date, so my complaints are not with the OP, but with the information we have to date.

What I really want, is basically MPBT: 3025. Re-interpreted of course, making it a unique game to PGI and avoiding problems with EA. I want through-and-through faction implementation. I want regular house units with three lances each; with at least a lance leader in each lance and a unit CO. I want special elite House units with special requirements. I want a House TO&E taken from the canon, with dynamic mobilization/demobilization based on players present within the TO&E. I want to see Prefectures/PDZs, District Commands/March Commands. In other words, I want House Factions to have the potential to be hard-core.

I want grand strategy at an interplanetary level, with another layer for planetary hex based combat. After all, if this is based on BT, we have to have hexes somewhere in the game. Wouldn't be right without'm!

The problems I have with what has been released publicly about CW is that none of this is on the table really. What you have proposed does fit in perfectly with what we know of CW to date, and it ain't bad -- its just that I want "moar". I have my ideas in the thread located here; and the original MPBT: 3025 thread is located here. Some very interesting discussions on the merc side are located here, with my impassioned plea for a unified as opposed to split battle space here within that thread.

Edited by Kyrie, 20 August 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[WardenWolf]

@ Kyrie -

I am going to read through some of those links you sent - thank you! And I agree that the stuff I have suggested for the most part leans toward casual on the house side... but that is somewhat intentional. Here is my line of thinking:

1) There does need to be a place for casual players
2) The Devs have stated that they don't want to depart from canon in terms of the major territorial holdings of the houses and other large events
3) Merc companies, the 'guilds' of this game, are likely to require a fair amount of work on the part of players - not something that lends itself to more casual players
4) Lone wolf status would certainly be an option for casual players, but I don't want them to have only one option (and having a major portion of the playerbase be lone wolves doesn't really fit lore)

This leads me to think that the houses are the natural fit for casual players, but that there also needs to be some space in them for more hardcore / RP folks. To that end, I was suggesting that the upper-echelons of house players actually be able to make some impact in the game: deciding what planet to attack when the time comes, for example, and perhaps being able to make or run a few house units.

I guess that is all to say that it sounds like we have a fundamentally different approach to CW - at least for the houses - which may mean we won't really agree on how things should be done. But as I said, I will give your threads a look... maybe you can change my mind

[Uleric]

IMHO, the game universe needs to be set up like a TT universe, but in larger perportions.

Point values needs to be assigned to houses. Houses would spend those points on planet garrisions and defense. Points would accrue overtime based on the number of strategic resources the House has control of. The game should assign garrison mechs to each planet automatically dependong on the planet's resource value until player's participating are able to rank up to house leadership.

House 'players' would then decide which planets to conquer based on jump proximity. To do it right, only command ranked players should be able to call for assaults on planets. In lieu of a command ranked player controlling the action, the 'system' will determine pre-set assaults for each house on the hour. Players and their mech stables are 'outside' of the normal garrision point values. This allows player attackers and defenders to dramitically change the tide of battle for a planet by calling for more house players to join the battle.

Mercs should only be able to participate in battles for contracts they negotiate with houses, or the arena. Otherwise a Merc should be able to jump to a battlescene and play pirate. They wouldn't be fighting for a contract, and any action against a house would increase their pirate bounty. However, and mechs, parts, or resources would be pirated loot for credit/parts.

The game world could be an amazing RTS and be a sweet FP action play as well.

[Redtracer]

Ok maybe this will give a idea how this game mode could work... http://www.battlegro...ty/campaign-map
Now imagine each spot on that map being a planet controled by a house..
Now I'm not saying this is a total solution to the game mode idea, just a way of thinking it to work with house teritory conflicts and captures.. Add in Mecr contracts to hold certain area's or the whole planet, or hit and run raids ect...

[Kyrie]

WardenWolf, on 21 August 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

@ Kyrie -

I am going to read through some of those links you sent - thank you! And I agree that the stuff I have suggested for the most part leans toward casual on the house side... but that is somewhat intentional. Here is my line of thinking:

1) There does need to be a place for casual players
2) The Devs have stated that they don't want to depart from canon in terms of the major territorial holdings of the houses and other large events
3) Merc companies, the 'guilds' of this game, are likely to require a fair amount of work on the part of players - not something that lends itself to more casual players
4) Lone wolf status would certainly be an option for casual players, but I don't want them to have only one option (and having a major portion of the playerbase be lone wolves doesn't really fit lore)

This leads me to think that the houses are the natural fit for casual players, but that there also needs to be some space in them for more hardcore / RP folks. To that end, I was suggesting that the upper-echelons of house players actually be able to make some impact in the game: deciding what planet to attack when the time comes, for example, and perhaps being able to make or run a few house units.

I guess that is all to say that it sounds like we have a fundamentally different approach to CW - at least for the houses - which may mean we won't really agree on how things should be done. But as I said, I will give your threads a look... maybe you can change my mind

Casual players would actually benefit from organized factions, IMHO. To draw an example, I first got into this universe back when "free online access" was unheard of unless you lived in a university computer center. I cut my teeth on BT by playing online in a dial-up based network called "GEnie", which was really just an afterthought to General Electric's Information Services division -- a way to get some money off idle servers after 6pm eastern. The hourly access charge was at first $6/hour (50% savings off the primetime rate of 12/hour).

In this environment we had a hardcore group that *had* to be casual --- since they didn't have a budget of hundreds set aside for online entertainment. The ones who were insanely hooked on the game, who did spend this then had to take up the slack to provide leadership within the House. The casual players wanted to roleplay being IN House Kurita (insert Your Favorite House here). They just wanted to log in, run missions by shooting off AI-droid legs and logout. And still paying tons of cash for EGA quality graphics.. go figure. :-)

I feel that the people who are able to make a hard-core time commitment to filling slots in a chain of command inside a faction would yield a net-positive experience for the vast majority of House members who want to roleplay being inside the House military but without time pressure commitments of command.

The casual player has a spot in any of the House militaries -- they will drive the mechs that actually win battles and wars. I just want there to be leadership to enhance the playing experience of casual faction players.

As to your point as to what the developers have stated regarding there being no discrepancy between the "historical canon" and our online game, I feel that this is easily resolved if the developers were to change their minds. To put it somewhat crudely, I am convinced that there is more money to be made by tapping into a deep faction role-playing experience than in not doing so.

In any successful F2P game that I can imagine, there is a link between "immersion" and actual revenues. The deeper the player gets into the game, the likelier he or she is to open their pocketbooks. Without attracting prolonged attention, the chances of "conversion" are lessened dramatically, IMHO. Many players will login expecting to find a significant roleplay opportunity within the Factions. The BT canon always emphasized the factions. Creating an opportunity for deeper Faction interaction will, I feel, translate directly into more conversion opportunities for PGI.

In summary, implementing factions in depth will hold more interest than only having merc corps available for hard-core players. The key demographic for F2P revenues is often the hardcore player as opposed to the casual player (IMHO).

Edited by Kyrie, 22 August 2012 - 03:35 AM.

[Uleric]

I could see the F2P method strictly being arena matches for credits. No pilot or general xp, no faction increases, nothing. Just straight up arena pvp. Whereas, the P2P mode being everything else. That should be enough to garnish interest from newbies whom may want to convert to premium and see what the rest of the game is about. If faction play is done right, it should generate enough interest in keeping enough P2P layers running the universe.

[Kyrie]

In general, the F2P approach in the USA abhors P2W, and PGI has committed itself to this gospel at every opportunity. So, without discussing anything related to closed beta, I will predict that PGI will offer time-saving opportunities for players to earn XP, LPs, and c-bills via some form of purchases out of Real Money. This is drawn directly from what the developers themselves have said publicly so I am not exactly being clairvoyant here. :-)

This will be of benefit particularly to those who are "forced" into a casual participation due to lack of available play-time, but do want to get involved in the meta-game. It is perhaps unrealistic to expect a restriction of store items to only one aspect of the game such as an arena mode. PGI, to survive and prosper must offer "convenience" consistently across the game.

In essence, the "whales" in an F2P community subsidize the game for everyone. The key to acceptance of the PGI Store in MechWarrior lies in not breaking faith with the fundamental concept of selling only "convenience" and "aesthetics": as described by PGI themselves, something which I am quite confident PGI will succeed in. And that's my 2 c-bills on the subject. :-)

[Lord Ikka]

Love the ideas. This is the sort of thread that needs to keep going, giving the devs stuff to work with! Good work everyone.