472 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Grynos, on 07 January 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

Lol I think he has me on ignore, might want to tell him it was the Idiot's idea lol.

I don't have you on ignore.

However when someone stops being an idiot, flaming and tossing insults about, and actually gets interested in conducting an real conversation, I'm all for participating in the discussion.

The moment someone stops being an idiot and starts being constructive, I tune them back in...

[Vas79]

Assign each planet a number of "tickets" that represent the amount of mechs that the attacking team and the defending team have at the start of the overall fight for the planet. For this example I'll use 100. (In reality the number would be higher)

Team A attacks team B on the planet and wins the match through a rush where they lose 24 mechs and the defending team loses 15. The ticket count on the planet adjusts accordingly for each faction attacking and defending. If at any point a faction runs out of tickets the planet goes to cool down, or if the attacking faction captures all 15 zones.

Basically each ticket would represent a mech that can be present on the planet during the entire fight for the planet. Neither faction would be allowed to exceed the maximum ticket count for the planet. It also would give the attacking faction incentive to fight, and it makes zerging where you lose more mechs then the defending team a high risk high payout tactic.

[Dimento Graven]

Vas79, on 07 January 2015 - 11:19 AM, said:

Assign each planet a number of "tickets" that represent the amount of mechs that the attacking team and the defending team have at the start of the overall fight for the planet. For this example I'll use 100. (In reality the number would be higher)

Team A attacks team B on the planet and wins the match through a rush where they lose 24 mechs and the defending team loses 15. The ticket count on the planet adjusts accordingly for each faction attacking and defending. If at any point a faction runs out of tickets the planet goes to cool down, or if the attacking faction captures all 15 zones.

Basically each ticket would represent a mech that can be present on the planet during the entire fight for the planet. Neither faction would be allowed to exceed the maximum ticket count for the planet. It also would give the attacking faction incentive to fight, and it makes zerging where you lose more mechs then the defending team a high risk high payout tactic.

And your saying that a turret run would result in the attacking team losing all 48 of their tickets for that match because the enemy team didn't show up, or am I misunderstanding (just want to make sure I'm gettin' it the way you intend it, not making crap up through ignorance -- I sometimes do that).

[Alexander Steel]

It sounds to me you lose a ticket when you lose a mech. So if you lose 48 mechs on a turret run you are bad at this game and should feel bad.

That said I really like the idea because you can then make some world's really hard to defend and others hard to take. Like the world's around your capital might even have +20% or so defender advantage while the world's in BFE for your faction might have -10% Defender disadvantage.

[Vas79]

Not the full 48 but a portion of them. That way they are paying a price for the win and the defenders may have a chance to make the ground up by not having to take the zone back. In addition with it make it so last 2 or 3 zones need to be fought over for the planet.

These are all just half formed thoughts coming to me as we talk about this so feel free to poke holes in them or prod at them.

[Kjudoon]

Vas79, on 07 January 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

What if each planet worked on a ticket system, each faction attacking and defending only had so many tickets per planet. Each mech death in match would represent one ticket lost. Once a faction's ticket count reached zero the planet would flip or you could take the planet by winning the zones by wiping out Omega.

Tie the ghost drops into the on planet ticket count, get your free win but lose half of the tickets participating in the drop. To go with an individual planet cool down they would need to allow more then one attack/defense on the borders to allow for more population playing then what a planet has allowances for.

It might also encourage attackers to fight more if they are having an issue winning zones, just wipe the enemy ticket count out.

I like it but this is now Phase 3 Logistics. This means it's a campaign metagame that must be layered on top of CW for it to actually work. What we have is 'advanced MWO' now. Now with respawn and bigger maps... marginally bigger. Still no consequence, strategy or fixes for major issues that cannot be addressed till PGI develops the new "MechCommander" level of this game that deals with the movement of assets, costs of winning or losing planets, battles and mechs as well as outfitting bases with all those wonderful C-Bills many of us gave up to support units now unable to do a darn thing with them.

[Dimento Graven]

Vas79, on 07 January 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

Not the full 48 but a portion of them. That way they are paying a price for the win and the defenders may have a chance to make the ground up by not having to take the zone back. In addition with it make it so last 2 or 3 zones need to be fought over for the planet.

These are all just half formed thoughts coming to me as we talk about this so feel free to poke holes in them or prod at them.

Again, something I'd be willing to try, but I see an exploit where the opposing team can just not defend 'hard' until the attacking force runs out of tickets on the turret runs.

What I DO like about this solution very much is that I can see it encouraging more of a brawl and discouraging the zerg rush, where, typically, the zerging force loses 25 to 50 percent of their force attacking generators.

[Grynos]

The problem Vas is you are tacking on another system, to a system that still needs to be tweaked in multiple ways. I am pretty sure that PGI has all their manpower working on stuff for the first system. To add the workload and implementation of the additional system would take so much time that CW might not recover from it. PGI needs to think of easy solutions by a programming/code standpoint that they can put into CW in a relatively quick matter of time.

[Dimento Graven]

Kjudoon, on 07 January 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

I like it but this is now Phase 3 Logistics. This means it's a campaign metagame that must be layered on top of CW for it to actually work. What we have is 'advanced MWO' now. Now with respawn and bigger maps... marginally bigger. Still no consequence, strategy or fixes for major issues that cannot be addressed till PGI develops the new "MechCommander" level of this game that deals with the movement of assets, costs of winning or losing planets, battles and mechs as well as outfitting bases with all those wonderful C-Bills many of us gave up to support units now unable to do a darn thing with them.

I'm not sure that's true though. If PGI doesn't address how planets are won and lost BEFORE addressing the logistical consequences, it's probable that the win/loss problem would be that much more exacerbated and worse cause an even higher level of attrition amongst the CW crowd.

Nah, let's nail down how we want planets to be won/lost, then worry about the benefits awarded and costs required...

[Vas79]

Grynos,

That could be true, but I think that this is the best time to look to tweak things. As well to be clear I have no background or experience in computer programming so I have no idea what kind of work it would take to implement an idea like I suggested.

[Tiger 6]

There's been so many good ideas in the last few hours that I think we need a summary sheet
At least its restored my faith in the idea that I'm not alone in a game full of poop flinging monkeys

Edited by Tiger 6, 07 January 2015 - 01:16 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Tiger 6, on 07 January 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

There's been so many god ideas in the last few hours that I think we need a summary sheet
At least its restored my faith in the idea that I'm not alone in a game full of poop flinging monkeys

Oh no, we're still poop flinging monkeys, but we probably need more fiber as we've run out of poop...

[Kjudoon]

Dimento Graven, on 07 January 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

I'm not sure that's true though. If PGI doesn't address how planets are won and lost BEFORE addressing the logistical consequences, it's probable that the win/loss problem would be that much more exacerbated and worse cause an even higher level of attrition amongst the CW crowd.

Nah, let's nail down how we want planets to be won/lost, then worry about the benefits awarded and costs required...

This I can go with. I still stand that this game needs to have it's pace slowed, but the impact from all time zones increased

I still like my 'boxing round' theory.



Planets take 3 days to take, (71 Hours with 1 hour for Ceasefire)
Each planet has it's attack territories set by importance and size once logistics gets inolved but set at a base 15.
Every hour, a territory yields a 'victory token' (creating a pool of 1065 tokens for 15 territories)
The faction that holds 533 tokens at the end of the 3 day period take the planet. (this would change with more or fewer territories)

Tokens are won by the faction that wins the most contested battles in that hour.
- If no side attacks that territory, the owner gains the victory token by apathy (this starts with the original faction owner)
- If no one defends, ghost drop occurs and the side that then has the most ghost drops that hour take the token and become the owner, eliminating the 'apathy defense'
- Ghost drops count as 25% a normal victory if contested drops are done on this territory that hour.


What this does is slows down the pace and prevents burnout that I am currently seeing and hearing from units who have large memberships who can only participate 1-2 days a week or for limited times that are not during the Hot Zone of the current set up.

Right now the map is too fluid, but also is too narrowly focused. Slowing the pace down, would allow for more maps to end up being able to be fought over. Now, if you don't pile on to one planet, you lose it via ghost drops. This way, 3 hours would not be a huge turning point unless there has been activity throughout the entire day, and time gives the victory and not a direct 1 to 1 ratio by battles fought.

Large population still has an advantage but it is more or less buffered so it is harder to exploit population without losing all of it's benefit. Combined with the high fluidity of the map where you can lose a significant chunk of territory while you are unable to play (this game shouldn't be targeted only at children, the disabled and unemployed who can play constantly, not criticizing, just pointing it out).

It provides for future 'garrison duty' ideas of guarding a territory if you allow units to choose which territory to attack, and be rewarded with C-bills and LPs for holding a territory without matches, stuck in queue. It wouldn't pay much but some reward for time is better than nothing.

Edited by Kjudoon, 07 January 2015 - 12:11 PM.

[Vas79]

I would still rather see individual planets go on cool down on their own without a global cease fire. I'm in Western Canada and I have a rather fluid work schedule so I'd like to know that if I'm dropping in a non prime time slot that my time spent is CW is doing more then just lining my space bank account.

I'd also like to see a "front" that wasn't just a narrow thrust after each conquest, I understand that you moving planet to planet but not all advances are done in a narrow fashion, it exposes your flanks to counter attack and runs the risk of your lead elements being cut off.

[Dimento Graven]

Vas79, on 07 January 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

I would still rather see individual planets go on cool down on their own without a global cease fire. I'm in Western Canada and I have a rather fluid work schedule so I'd like to know that if I'm dropping in a non prime time slot that my time spent is CW is doing more then just lining my space bank account.

I'd also like to see a "front" that wasn't just a narrow thrust after each conquest, I understand that you moving planet to planet but not all advances are done in a narrow fashion, it exposes your flanks to counter attack and runs the risk of your lead elements being cut off.

Yeah I'm kind of leaning towards the idea of a planet's "cool down" starting 24 hours after the first attack on it.

Actually combining several of the ideas here I'd like to see the following:

First each planet is connected to others via jump paths. That's a simple thing, a simple database on the back end can list the paths from each planet to the next (important for later stages of 'strategery' and so on).

Each planet has its own "cool down" 24 hours after the first attack on each. Planet A is open from 6:30am-6:30am CST as the first attack on it was at 6:30am. Planet B is open from 9:05pm-9:05pm CST as the first attack on it was at 9:05pm, and so on and so forth. Adding to a more dynamic and persistent 'feel' to the game, making sure that all 'prime times' are important and can have a REAL effect on a planet's status.

A planet is won by a particular faction if the total number of victories on the planet by any particular side exceeds 50%. If a faction has more than 75% the victories on a given planet, they own it out right for... 48 hours (not sure on this think on it), where no opposing faction can attack that planet. This should address some of the turret run issues that has initially raised concerns, as well as allowing again for keeping the map as dynamic as possible.

A planet can be totally cut off from attack by an opposing faction if all the planets along its jump path are also captured by the same faction. Allows for map progression and adds more 'strategery' to the game.

Turret runs, when they occur result in a specific game mode of 'turret mania' where 250+ turrets are between you and the generators, have fun trying to kill them all in time.

A planet's capture window can be extended 15 minutes for every 5 (or whatever number works out) non-turret run victories an attacking force gains (allowing for more time to capture a planet), but only if the attacking faction has more than 30% but less than 50% of the victories on the planet thus, increasing the value of victories in both attackers and defenders and a partial implementation of the 'ticket' system mentioned earlier, as well as a means to 'extend' the time it takes to capture a planet, without necessarily making it 3 day slog. This also does several other things, any planet that's being rushed by an attacker with overwhelming force will get the planet within the normal shorter window, likewise, a planet being defended well will only be open during the normal shorter window as well, however a planet where both attacker and defender are somewhere near equally matched, the window is extended... Heck you could have situations where planets never go into 'cease fire' mode because it is being constantly attacked and defended and both sides are somewhat evenly matched. Kind of like what we'd expect in a 'real' situation.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 07 January 2015 - 02:24 PM.

[Tiger 6]

OK, so cut and pasted a wall of text of what I thought were the most important points, complaints, and ideas - now how to condense that down to something post-able that will be read by the devs?

Edit: I just saw Russ' latest command chair post go up, we should have a read and think about how it meshes with today's discussions.

Key points are changes to cease fire windows (will be 3, at 8 hour intervals), and the counter attack game is being looked at to be changed to "A Sort of Skirmish / Assault feeling" - which on the face of it might be a game mode that Pugs can win more easily than the current meat grinder?

Edited by Tiger 6, 07 January 2015 - 04:29 PM.

[BlakeAteIt]

Wow, that three window setup is pretty much perfect. Between that, faction grouping, and the improved calls to arms (which I hadn't really thought of), that actually seems like a way better setup.

[MischiefSC]

Rock solid idea - only change I would make is the lockout only goes 8 hours. That way you are functionally involving all 3 timezones. So if we "take" a world in NA primetime its the euro teams that will keep/lose it and the aussie/pacific teams who will carry it from that.

Make the lockout windows 8 hours but the full cycle 32 hours - so you finish what you start.

Otherwise I think this idea is more complex but overall a better, more engaging experience for every size of faction.

[Cael Voltek]

While the 8 hour window is a good start, I'm not sure it's going to accomplish what really needs to get updated: A dynamic, evolving front that can be attacked when needed. Even so, with 8 hour windows, the idea stated here still works.

I thought I would try to sum up Vas' post using his tickets system combined with the zones.

Using the existing zone system is necessary because it allows the system to keep track of the state (attack or counter attack) of the zones. With this system, an attacker would only be able to capture up to 75% of the zones (11) available. The last 4 zones would need to be actual battles for the planet to go to 100% (if all other attacks and counter-attack defenses are successful as well). If that occurs, the planet automatically enters ceasefire. Going back the other way, the defender can only auto-win counter-attacks down to 25% of the zones (4) available. Again, the last 4 zones need to be successfully counter-attacked to bring the zones down to 0% (if all other counter-attacks AND defenses are successful). If that occurs, the planet automatically enters ceasefire.

Think of the tickets as the resources needed to attack/defend the planet. To make the explanation as simple as possible, lets say 1 ticket = 1 mech. For every mech lost, 1 ticket is lost. Each planet has its own ticket count for attacker and defender. These numbers can be adjusted per planet based on planet type. Heavily industrialized or populated, the defense would get more tickets as these planets would certainly have access to larger garrisons. Barren rocks, even numbers. Once all tickets are lost (or less then 12 are remaining), all resources are lost for that queue. The planet enters cool down and the zones counted. Any remaining tickets are counted towards zones remaining either way. To do this, a zone requires X number of tickets to change it. If enough tickets remain, zone can be flipped (there are resources and no one to oppose them). This could potentially mean a planet not at the > 50% mark could still flip if the attackers had enough tickets. Once this is done, the planet either flips or stays as it does now.

Tags are calculated the same way.

Another add in could be any remaining tickets could be converted to C-Bills and paid to the units that were successful in capturing/defending a planet.

We feel a system like this helps the auto-win situation as well as not penalizing those teams that are putting in a large amount of effort but walk away with nothing to show for it.

[Kjudoon]

I obviously did not understand any of this cooldown stuff cause I did not see any of that in russ' announcement. Link? Regardless, anything that speeds up the pace of the gamee as this seems to I'm against. So I need help understanding where you guys are getting this info or plan. I'm not seeing it.