66 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

With CW, we're seeing the immense boredom in many cases of looooong waits for drops.

Or being forced to ghost drop. Or not being part of a large group and damned to PUGHell as target practice for a real unit group.

Ladies and gents, we need a new contract type. Not all Battletech fights were for huge planetary assaults- some were raids, where smaller units would raid for resources, or to weaken defenses for later, more major attacks. Smaller groups = more easily filled queues, and more of what we're all here for. Blowing up giant robots.

Thus, the "raiding contract", and it's defensive equivalent, the "garrison contract".

How does this work?

1) Raid-contract maps use modified versions of the current solo/group queue maps, as these are quite large enough for the smaller scaled CW fights, require less work to get up to snuff, and in general provide more variety. Maximum time per drop is 15 minutes.

2) Raid drop decks are 75% of full drop decks- 3 'Mechs, maximum 180 tons. Four players per side. I'd -like- to see people be able to drop as 4-man groups here, since a single organized lance isn't quite as overwhelming as being able to focus 12-mans on a mob of 12. This represents a classic company vs. company scenario.

3) Raid contracts provide 5% of the control shift of a full 12-man drop (so 20 raids = 1 full 12-man), and pay 15% of the loyalty points of a full 12-man drop, 20% of the C-bills per contract. Normal play rewards remain unchanged (C-bills/xp for kills, salvage, etc. etc).

4) Raids fall under two types of "attack" - garrison reduction or resource raid.

4a) Garrison reduction requires doing sufficient damage to the defending force and/or installation. Destroying 'Mechs AND static targets (turrets, base buildings) will reduce the garrison's health bar. Likewise, destroying attacker tonnage will also reduce the raid's health bar.

Depleting the garrison results in a victory (which does not require total destruction of either, though destroying the enemy base + 50% of the defenders would suffice) for the raider force. Destroying 75% or more of the attacking force before this occurs defeats it, ending the match as well in favor of the defender.

4b) Resource raids require a "stand in square" system. Attackers must "loot" (capture) a point, then return to their dropship (a static point) and "offload" their cargo without being destroyed. Defenders will spawn from a single (well-turreted) point.

Looting is relatively fast (30 seconds, faster with cap accelerator) but once looted, a point cannot be looted again, with many points scattered in increasing density the further you travel away from the dropship (1 at closest point, then 2, 4, 8 nearest the defender spawn). Static defenses always exist near a lootable point (one turret near the 1 or 2 point distance, 2 near each of the 4 or 8 point distance). An "offload" square by the dropship takes 60 seconds to score a point, but the Dropship is well armed (and blocked off in most directions by terrain to prevent potshotting offloading 'Mechs without getting shot back). 'Mechs with loot will show a marker when targeted indicating they've got loot on board and suffer a 10% loss of speed until it's offloaded.

Six successful "loots" win the game for the raider, regardless of destroying the defending force. Destroying 75% or more of the raiding force wins the game for the garrison, or denying the attacker six successful loots before time expires (the defender has overwhelming reinforcements incoming, leaving the attacker only the 15 minute window to loot and scoot).

[EvilCow]

Interesting ideas +1

[HARDKOR]

OMG. Us pirates will do this all day and night.

DO EEETTT!!!!

[Rebas Kradd]

Great ideas in here.

I would suggest using the assault/conquest gamemodes as they are now (I can just see the lore-lovers griping about how Battlemechs weren't supposed to run around nabbing ore). Would probably also require a new matchmaker system.

But it would provide a good bridging of the gap for the two sides of MWO.

[jay35]

I think you're on to something. I definitely like the small scale (4vs4).

The only changes I would make is to up the rewards a bit since these matches could easily take up to 10 minutes, therefore they should have a minimum of 30% of the LP and c-bill rewards of the larger drops.

And for the raider game mode, you'd still have to destroy the entire opposing team, not just 75% of them as that's not really how the game works and it would seem silly if a couple bad teammates (they're pugs after all) could throw the match.

Pretty much everything else sounds great.

[wanderer]

Actually, we "lore-lovers" can point to plenty of times where 'Mechs did just that. Heck, there are frequent Periphery raids for water, never mind ores!

The reason I don't want straight up Assault/Conquest is simple: there should be more interesting and attractive reasons to play in CW matches vs, the more straightforward "instant action" of Skirmish/Assault/Conquest. Even at smaller scales, CW should take some thinking to pull off successes vs. straightforward pewpewpewOKrobotsaredeadNEXT!

Quote

The only changes I would make is to up the rewards a bit since these matches could easily take up to 10 minutes, therefore they should have a minimum of 30% of the LP and c-bill rewards of the larger drops.

And for the raider game mode, you'd still have to destroy the entire opposing team, not just 75% of them as that's not really how the game works and it would seem silly if a couple bad teammates (they're pugs after all) could throw the match.

The reasons these have the lower rewards is this: A 12-man successful defense/attack should always yield more than a 4-man raid/garrison. It also means that speedrunning raids 3x4 won't outinfluence running 12x1s. In theory, a light rush could, if they're careful get half their loot done inside of the first five minutes and already be out and running for the rest (especially under ECM) before the defense effectively forms up to get them in a resource raid. A steamroll of fast heavies and mediums could likely reduce the installation in a garrison and have most of the 'Mechs down in similar fashion (we've all seen those infamous 3 minute Skirmishes...). Rewards have to be a notch lower simply to keep a reason for 12-mans around. And remember, these are 4-mans. Bads are gonna be real obvious, real fast. Trashing 75% of the raiding force means half of your PUG was cruddy. Oh well. Easy enough to get another 4-man and if you see Pug McBadderplayer, you just drop queue and try again...there's gonna be another group along shortly at 4-per-match.

12-mans will still be able to pull the big punches and get big rewards for success, but this gives 4-man/PUGs options that still contribute without being able to zergraid vs. actual conquering for rapid control shifts.

Edited by wanderer, 08 January 2015 - 01:52 PM.

[PhilTheDestroyer]

I love this idea. It sounds like a lot of fun!

[Saladin Salazar]

+1

[Tolkien]

wanderer, on 08 January 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

With CW, we're seeing the immense boredom in many cases of looooong waits for drops.

Or being forced to ghost drop. Or not being part of a large group and damned to PUGHell as target practice for a real unit group.

Ladies and gents, we need a new contract type. Not all Battletech fights were for huge planetary assaults- some were raids, where smaller units would raid for resources, or to weaken defenses for later, more major attacks. Smaller groups = more easily filled queues, and more of what we're all here for. Blowing up giant robots.

Thus, the "raiding contract", and it's defensive equivalent, the "garrison contract".

How does this work?

1) Raid-contract maps use modified versions of the current solo/group queue maps, as these are quite large enough for the smaller scaled CW fights, require less work to get up to snuff, and in general provide more variety. Maximum time per drop is 15 minutes.

2) Raid drop decks are 75% of full drop decks- 3 'Mechs, maximum 180 tons. Four players per side. I'd -like- to see people be able to drop as 4-man groups here, since a single organized lance isn't quite as overwhelming as being able to focus 12-mans on a mob of 12. This represents a classic company vs. company scenario.

3) Raid contracts provide 5% of the control shift of a full 12-man drop (so 20 raids = 1 full 12-man), and pay 15% of the loyalty points of a full 12-man drop, 20% of the C-bills per contract. Normal play rewards remain unchanged (C-bills/xp for kills, salvage, etc. etc).

4) Raids fall under two types of "attack" - garrison reduction or resource raid.

4a) Garrison reduction requires doing sufficient damage to the defending force and/or installation. Destroying 'Mechs AND static targets (turrets, base buildings) will reduce the garrison's health bar. Likewise, destroying attacker tonnage will also reduce the raid's health bar.

Depleting the garrison results in a victory (which does not require total destruction of either, though destroying the enemy base + 50% of the defenders would suffice) for the raider force. Destroying 75% or more of the attacking force before this occurs defeats it, ending the match as well in favor of the defender.

4b) Resource raids require a "stand in square" system. Attackers must "loot" (capture) a point, then return to their dropship (a static point) and "offload" their cargo without being destroyed. Defenders will spawn from a single (well-turreted) point.

Looting is relatively fast (30 seconds, faster with cap accelerator) but once looted, a point cannot be looted again, with many points scattered in increasing density the further you travel away from the dropship (1 at closest point, then 2, 4, 8 nearest the defender spawn). Static defenses always exist near a lootable point (one turret near the 1 or 2 point distance, 2 near each of the 4 or 8 point distance). An "offload" square by the dropship takes 60 seconds to score a point, but the Dropship is well armed (and blocked off in most directions by terrain to prevent potshotting offloading 'Mechs without getting shot back). 'Mechs with loot will show a marker when targeted indicating they've got loot on board and suffer a 10% loss of speed until it's offloaded.

Six successful "loots" win the game for the raider, regardless of destroying the defending force. Destroying 75% or more of the raiding force wins the game for the garrison, or denying the attacker six successful loots before time expires (the defender has overwhelming reinforcements incoming, leaving the attacker only the 15 minute window to loot and scoot).

I don't know if I like the specific ideas you have put forth, but I like the overall direction you are pushing - Bryan told us at the launch event that 'every battle would matter' after CW launched. I assumed this meant that even with the new invasion play mode in (which is the playground of coordinated teams!) that the normal maps and game modes would be integrated in to CW in some way.

I hope they follow through on that statement and find a way to do something like what you are suggesting - integrate the old modes of play and some new ones in to CW mission modes so they aren't wasting all of their accumulated map assets, and perhaps more importantly so people who aren't in a unit can still take part in the CW universe.

Edited by Tolkien, 08 January 2015 - 02:08 PM.

[wanderer]

Let's also note that it adds another dimension to planet-taking, too.

Sure, you've got that big 12-man stomping anyone who dares fight them with PUG dregs or disorganized lance-sized units scraped into a 12-man.

But when that 12-man realizes you've instead scattered into smaller points and are furiously gnawing away at the planet with raids, do they split up and risk a larger force taking advantage to ghost drop for a big gain, or suffer the slow decline and hope their own faction's bits and pieces can counter the indirect method instead?

[Voivode]

This. Just, all of it. As interesting as your detailed ideas are (and they are interesting) I think you could boil down the essence of what you are saying to one sentence.

CW needs more than just attack/defend game mode for all or nothing assaults on planets.

[Tolkien]

Voivode, on 08 January 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

This. Just, all of it. As interesting as your detailed ideas are (and they are interesting) I think you could boil down the essence of what you are saying to one sentence.

CW needs more than just attack/defend game mode for all or nothing assaults on planets.

It also needs those 'other' game modes to allow players who are not in units to participate meaningfully in CW. Invasion mode is working well for organized 12 mans, but it's not so great for pugs - a 4 man game mode however is far easier to set up for casual players and I would love to see something like that put in to help non-unit players participate in CW (and so PGI can make use of all the maps they spent the last 3 years creating....)

Edited by Tolkien, 08 January 2015 - 02:28 PM.

[HARDKOR]

How do we upmod this? We need stuff like this, not a bunch of "balance"

[RustyBolts]

I like it. It adds new content that does not really require a lot of work from the Devs and it gives purpose to light mechs in CW which really does not exist right now outside the IS light rush on attack.

[Revis Volek]

Wouldn't this just create more queues, more matches and spread the "oh so thin" player base even thinner?

I like the idea and all but the issue we have NOW is too few players....creating more Matches and more Modes only exacerbates this problem.

I dont wait very long BTW and once Faction grouping is allowed everyone will be able to run a 12 man and the looooong waits experienced by those who dont understand the match maker should be reduced.

Edited by DarthRevis, 08 January 2015 - 02:59 PM.

[wanderer]

Not at all. There are plenty of cases as it is where we see 4 players for a faction on a planet that never hits even remotely near 12. And indeed, we see LOTS of players from factions who don't desire to go into a 12-man and realized fast that PUG vs 12-man = no fun allowed. The same equivalent of solo queue players vs. group queue ones in Assault/Conquest/Skirmish play.

This gets those players back out of the solo queue and into something meaningful in CW. They're not in CW because CW is crap for non-unit play right now, and this gives them rewards and an actual effect other than "target practice for units".

That is, they raid. Or they protect a planet from raids while large groups slug it out in 12-man fights, and people who want to drop solo/small group filler into those aren't denied access to it, either.

[ChaseThisPanic]

Hey! I love your idea! I am going to copy pasta my answer to the same problem that was pretty close to yours but also different and not as fleshed out. I love discussing different ways to do things.

Quote

This may be wildly unpopular, but I would love to see different types of missions in CW. Specifically ones with varying amounts of 'mechs. Some missions that specifically only need a lance or two. Instead of 12v12 games. Some of the smaller ones maybe not have re-spawns because they are only there to get in and then out. With different objectives. I would love for it to feel like I am playing through a campaign of MW2; in a way.
What would a planetary invasion look like in the MWO universe? Obviously warfare is so complicated that it is probably impossible to represent it in a fun way, but thinking about what it might "really be like" is a good way to brainstorm. I ramble! I really enjoy CW so far and can't wait to see more improvements!
Edit: In thinking about this further, I thought that maybe each planet could have a randomly generated "conquest tree" or "missions tree" and of course a tree to counter that tree and push any progress back. so you of course have your big 12v12 invasion battles but you also have smaller strike force type of missions on the side. Some with maybe as few as 1 or 2 mechs on each side. (That is probably ridiculous, so really just as small as one lance.) Some missions would be required to make others accessible (like acquiring a beach-head before the big invasion), and others would only make other missions easier for one side or the other (maybe take out an air force base, so no air strikes for the enemy). This would give a planetary invasion a more "campaign" type of feel and would give smaller units a way to really feel like they are contributing besides getting rolled over by 12 mans.

Edited by ChaseThisPanic, 08 January 2015 - 03:24 PM.

[Podex]

Regular maps should lead up to a full invasion. They can prod the enemy for weaknesses (skirmish), eliminate outposts (make assault more attack/defend), and like you said, raid for resources (conquest), all with varying numbers of players. Once these have been completed, then you can start the invasion by taking the canon. Take cities, plains, industrial centers, etc... The final, crushing blow before the planet is taken is to take the capital.

PGI, get on it. Make it happen. Chop chop.

[Metafox]

I like the idea of some smaller, quicker, and simpler CW game modes. PGI seems to be opposed to smaller team sizes which apparently use the same amount of server resources as larger team sizes (making smaller team sizes inefficient). That said, it would be nice if we could get 4v4 matches sometime soon.

Your ideas on the attack mode sound good and I thought of a slightly different spin on the idea:

The attack mode could be a quick 4v4 1-mech-per-player match between attackers and defenders. The success and the impact of an attack could be based on the attackers' damage done divided by damage taken, so attackers would need to stay aggressive without getting reckless. After 5 minutes, heavily-armed dropships arrive on the defenders' side and begin a sweep across the map. The attackers would have 5 minutes to launch a quick attack on the defenders, then they'd need to retreat to their side to end the match. The defenders could also have several concealed damageable structures on their side which the attackers could farm for damage in case the defenders choose to turtle.

Edited by Metafox, 08 January 2015 - 05:09 PM.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

That is a rather brilliant idea. It may need some tweaking but it would be awesome to have.