60 replies to this topic

[Murphy7]

Quote

Hmm that is such a close score. I wonder how much newer players taking their 1-2 chassis into the games (most likely IS ) skewed the results. Yet PGI is considering further Clan ST nerfs and IS drop tonnage increases?? Are those even still on the table?

Interesting conjecture - but I would rather know the rate of Trial mech usage on both sides during this event as opposed to non-event CW matches. Fighting for the IS, I saw a lot of unfortunate Clan trials in use, which made for a lot of short duration LRM spam amongst other less viable strategies.

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 01 April 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

How would you manage this with an automated system that can handle the scale of MW:O as an MMO?

Plus, on the surface this sounds startlingly like what we already have now: planetary ticker => a graph of 'actions and counter-actions' (invade vs. defend); different game modes => invasion & counter-attack (which, both need work, and there's room for more variety, I'm just sayin' the intent is already there).

Grynos, on 02 April 2015 - 12:26 AM, said:

How so, seems pretty simple to me. You win , you get a territory. You lose, you lose a territory. Defending/Attacking/Counterattacking would basically be the same as it is currently ( The first group of players in queue determine what game mode it is ) the difference would be a successful defense or an unsuccessful counter attack would actually change the state of the battle on which it was fought. Which currently it does not.

You're both looking at things from the viewpoint of only 2 games modes: Attack and Counterattack. But, if game modes were expanded to include (for example):

• Escort <-> Ambush
  
• Raid <-> Recon
  
• Search and Destroy <-> Resistance
  
• Delaying actions
  
• Beachheads

you can use those to build campaigns (where a "campaign" can initially be equivalent to a planetary invasion). And each "campaign" does not even have to be very complex. Just represent is as a bidirectional graph whose nodes are those same game modes.

PGI can even go the extra mile and superimpose that graph onto a campaign map.

But right now, CW is just shallow, a mere skeleton.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2015 - 06:41 AM.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

You're both looking at things from the viewpoint of only 2 games modes: Attack and Counterattack. But, if game modes were expanded to include (for example):

• Escort <-> Ambush
  
• Raid <-> Recon
  
• Search and Destroy <-> Resistance
  
• Delaying actions
  
• Beachheads

you can use those to build campaigns (where a "campaign" can initially be equivalent to a planetary invasion). And each "campaign" does not even have to be very complex. Just represent is as a bidirectional graph whose nodes are those same game modes.


PGI can even go the extra mile and superimpose that graph onto a campaign map.

But right now, CW is just shallow, a mere skeleton.

You would need drastically larger maps, far different from what we've seen, with multiple 'sections' (akin to maps on MW:4's campaign modes, where parts of the map would be reused for consecutive missions), in order to pull this off, if I'm correctly interpreting what you're envisioning here.

Otherwise the end result is functionally the exact same as the system we have now, just with prettier names and labeling.

Edited by Telmasa, 02 April 2015 - 07:33 AM.

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 02 April 2015 - 07:33 AM, said:

You would need drastically larger maps, far different from what we've seen, with multiple 'sections' (akin to maps on MW:4's campaign modes, where parts of the map would be reused for consecutive missions), in order to pull this off, if I'm correctly interpreting what you're envisioning here.

Otherwise the end result is functionally the exact same as the system we have now, just with prettier names and labeling.

Take the following (shamelessly taken) graph (and while ignoring the text around it):




Imagine that the central node is the capital city, the nodes attached to it as major cities or installations, and the outer nodes as lesser cities and/or installations. Also, assume we are stuck with just "Attack" and "Counterattack" game modes:

• To capture a major city or installation, the invading force first has to capture all the outer territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the major cities) on those outer territories they have already captured.
  
• To capture the capital, the invading force has to first capture all the major territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the capital) on those major cities/installations.

Note that the above is just a rough draft and as such needs refinement.



Now imagine if not all planets are alike, meaning some are much more valuable than others. Then the "campaign" for that planet can look like:





Alternatively, the campaign for "minor" planets can look like this:



with 3 as the "Beachhead" and 8 as the capital city.

It has a little more depth than the "take 8 and be done" "campaign" we have now.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2015 - 08:48 AM.

[Grynos]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

Take the following (shamelessly taken) graph (and while ignoring the text around it):




Imagine that the central node is the capital city, the nodes attached to it as major cities or installations, and the outer nodes as lesser cities and/or installations. Also, assume we are stuck with just &quot;Attack&quot; and &quot;Counterattack&quot; game modes:

• To capture a major city or installation, the invading force first has to capture all the outer territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the major cities) on those outer territories they have already captured.
  
• To capture the capital, the invading force has to first capture all the major territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the capital) on those major cities/installations.

Note that the above is just a rough draft and as such needs refinement.



Now imagine if not all planets are alike, meaning some are much more valuable than others. Then the &quot;campaign&quot; for that planet can look like:





Alternatively, the campaign for &quot;minor&quot; planets can look like this:



with 3 as the &quot;Beachhead&quot; and 8 as the capital city.

It has a little more depth than the &quot;take 8 and be done&quot; &quot;campaign&quot; we have now.

With my suggestion it doesn't matter if there are 2 game modes or 10 or even a 100 for that matter. The whole attacking/defending is just semantics for the game mode and which side of the map you start on, so in that respect with the system I proposed it would be easier to implement new game mode types into CW. What you are proposing for in the grand scheme of things for CW would mean that PGI would have to basically start from scratch again ( which isn't going to happen ) and while I like some of your ideas, those would be easier to do as a New game mode type in the current system than changing the system altogether. There still are no planetary rewards for factions yet, no added bonuses for loyalist units, all things PGI will have to work long and hard to try to accomplish.

The planet has sections, if you want to you or PGI could name a section of that planet a Main city name, town name, etc. It doesn't matter, it is still a section of the planet.

Edited by Grynos, 02 April 2015 - 10:32 AM.

[Mystere]

Grynos, on 02 April 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

With my suggestion it doesn't matter if there are 2 game modes or 10 or even a 100 for that matter. The whole attacking/defending is just semantics for the game mode and which side of the map you start on, so in that respect with the system I proposed it would be easier to implement new game mode types into CW. What you are proposing for in the grand scheme of things for CW would mean that PGI would have to basically start from scratch again ( which isn't going to happen ) and while I like some of your ideas, those would be easier to do as a New game mode type in the current system than changing the system altogether. There still are no planetary rewards for factions yet, no added bonuses for loyalist units, all things PGI will have to work long and hard to try to accomplish.

PGI does not have to start from scratch. They just have to replace their highly abstract "15 territories" with a directed graph of "XXX territories". And instead of displaying their color-coded 15-position dial, they would just(*) instead replace it with a color-coded representation of that same directed graph.

That last part is just(+) an exercise in data visualization.


*: I don't know how they designed and developed CW.
+: This part I know well.

[C E Dwyer]

bottom line is, CW is a beta, you always reset when a beta goes live

[Grynos]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

PGI does not have to start from scratch. They just have to replace their highly abstract &quot;15 territories&quot; with a directed graph of &quot;XXX territories&quot;. And instead of displaying their color-coded 15-position dial, they would just(*) instead replace it with a color-coded representation of that same directed graph.

That last part is just(+) an exercise in data visualization.


*: I don't know how they designed and developed CW.
+: This part I know well.

What difference does it make?? All it is doing is showing you the stats for a given planet. What I think you are suggesting is giving the players the ability to choose where they go, which is not going to happen. PGI needs to be able to let their algorithm dictate that. If players had the ability to choose which section of a planet or which planet to go to it would create a situation later on ( when planetary rewards are put it ) of complete and utter chaos.

Edited by Grynos, 02 April 2015 - 10:47 AM.

[Mystere]

Grynos, on 02 April 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

What difference does it make?? All it is doing is showing you the stats for a given planet.

They are as follows:

• The directed graph gives players a better feeling of having a campaign because they actually have one.
  
• There can be several campaign types and sizes (i.e. differently sized and configured directed graphs).
  
• If the CW planetary interface would allow it, factions can decide when and where to allocate their forces (e.g. send only 3 crack 12-mans to defend a1, b1, and c1 in my first graph).
  
• More coordination between units of a faction will be required.

There are a lot more. But these four would suffice.

And that is only with the two game modes we have today.

If I can find a suitable diagram on the interweb, I'll place another example, but with more possible game modes, here.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2015 - 10:53 AM.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

Take the following (shamelessly taken) graph (and while ignoring the text around it):




Imagine that the central node is the capital city, the nodes attached to it as major cities or installations, and the outer nodes as lesser cities and/or installations. Also, assume we are stuck with just "Attack" and "Counterattack" game modes:

• To capture a major city or installation, the invading force first has to capture all the outer territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the major cities) on those outer territories they have already captured.
  
• To capture the capital, the invading force has to first capture all the major territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the capital) on those major cities/installations.

Note that the above is just a rough draft and as such needs refinement.




Now imagine if not all planets are alike, meaning some are much more valuable than others. Then the "campaign" for that planet can look like:





Alternatively, the campaign for "minor" planets can look like this:



with 3 as the "Beachhead" and 8 as the capital city.

It has a little more depth than the "take 8 and be done" "campaign" we have now.

While the idea does sound like an improvement, PGI is most likely not going that route of complexity, unfortunately.

[Texas Merc]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

Take the following (shamelessly taken) graph (and while ignoring the text around it):




Imagine that the central node is the capital city, the nodes attached to it as major cities or installations, and the outer nodes as lesser cities and/or installations. Also, assume we are stuck with just "Attack" and "Counterattack" game modes:

• To capture a major city or installation, the invading force first has to capture all the outer territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the major cities) on those outer territories they have already captured.
  
• To capture the capital, the invading force has to first capture all the major territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the capital) on those major cities/installations.

Note that the above is just a rough draft and as such needs refinement.




Now imagine if not all planets are alike, meaning some are much more valuable than others. Then the "campaign" for that planet can look like:





Alternatively, the campaign for "minor" planets can look like this:



with 3 as the "Beachhead" and 8 as the capital city.

It has a little more depth than the "take 8 and be done" "campaign" we have now.

PGI can't do this unfortunately. You see that is a 3 Napkin Design as opposed to PGI's 1 Napkin design currently in use.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 02 April 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

While the idea does sound like an improvement, PGI is most likely not going that route of complexity, unfortunately.

That's entirely their choice.

But I will make a bold statement. If PGI had factored their design and code well, implementing the above should mostly be an exercise in adding new features.

Texas Merc, on 02 April 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

PGI can't do this unfortunately. You see that is a 3 Napkin Design as opposed to PGI's 1 Napkin design currently in use.

You insult me. I did not use any napkins to do this.

By the way, if people want to further discuss or comment on my ideas presented above, please go here instead.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2015 - 11:20 AM.

[Strykewolf]

It's nothing that wasn't noticed when the clans overran the FRR. There were many a night where our teams would win 80-100% of our fights, and still lose the planet. We chalked it up to just being outnumbered.

[Grynos]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

They are as follows:

• The directed graph gives players a better feeling of having a campaign because they actually have one.
  
• There can be several campaign types and sizes (i.e. differently sized and configured directed graphs).
  
• If the CW planetary interface would allow it, factions can decide when and where to allocate their forces (e.g. send only 3 crack 12-mans to defend a1, b1, and c1 in my first graph).
  
• More coordination between units of a faction will be required.

There are a lot more. But these four would suffice.

And that is only with the two game modes we have today.

If I can find a suitable diagram on the interweb, I'll place another example, but with more possible game modes, here.

Ok I'll reply point by point.

Point 1. Would mean that PGI would have to change the planetary interface completely. I highly doubt PGI will do so.

Point 2. While I am not opposed to planets having differing amounts of territories, it would create a logistical nightmare for the algorithm overall, which would mean a complete overhaul of that system which I doubt PGI would do.

Point 3. There is no way that PGI is going to allow players to dictate what places they attack. PGI needs to maintain that overall control , otherwise there would be complete game modes that the players could and would intentionally avoid. Like defending on Sulfurous Rift.

Point 4. Is already happening in CW already, or at least is with the better factions.

[HC Harlequin]

["You're both looking at things from the viewpoint of only 2 games modes: Attack and Counterattack. But, if game modes were expanded to include (for example):

• Escort <-> Ambush
  
• Raid <-> Recon
  
• Search and Destroy <-> Resistance
  
• Delaying actions
  
• Beachheads

you can use those to build campaigns (where a "campaign" can initially be equivalent to a planetary invasion). And each "campaign" does not even have to be very complex. Just represent is as a bidirectional graph whose nodes are those same game modes.
"]

I copied this before I continued to read the post. It got worse. With respect, you guys aren't making sense. Mechs are still cavalry. You don't take anything with cavalry. You have to have infantry to do that. The current implementation isn't an attack, counterattack or defense. What we are doing is merely a battalion sized raid to destroy planetside defenses that are capable of destroying follow-on battle drops of infantry forces that are capable of actually taking and holding planetary infrastructure. The same thing with the counter-attack. It's still just a small unit action to clear out the elements that are preventing your follow-on infantry with supplemental technical support elements from re-establishing the global defense capability. This means the battlefield is still developing. The combat is 3 dimensional. Who would waste time putting ground units down like mechs and infantry to conduct a battle when they can just drop a battle barge worth of planetary artillery from space.

Same thing with recon. Who would waste time sending in even 1 mech when you could have a small dismounted recon team get the same intel and/or just have a medium displacement cruiser do a fly by look down from planetary orbit.

These combat actions have only one purpose which is to assist in the effort to establish or maintain ownership of the airspace to facilitate follow-on ground forces deployment/engagements.

The only time the above list of combat actions would even apply would be if neither side can establish ownership of the airspace and therefore have to conduct ongoing/maturing battlefield combat actions against a relatively equal 2 dimensionally capable force, or the higher echelon command doesn't want to waste the resources necessary to do so.

Establish a bridgehead. I suppose that would be a usable one. But again, only on a piece of terrain with the level of infrastructure capable of supporting the reception of follow on forces. And those follow on forces would need to be transported in a construct that is only capable of landing on that ONE single spaceport. And said infrastructure would have to be SO delicate or sacred that higher echelon command doesn't want to damage it with global barrages.

I mean... delaying actions? Retrograde ...to where? If they already own the sky where are you going to retrograde to? Dwarf mines? Search and destroy I could maybe see but only if there isn't enough air power effort available to do a fly-by look see, and even then it would be a mop-up mission.

I guess there is a time and a place but really, nobody does force on force engagements unless they absolutely cannot avoid it by any other means.

[Tarl Cabot]

PGI could also show the total percentage of battles won for a planet.

Even though PGI has shown the percentage of battles won/lost, just base wise, how did that reflect, percentage-wise, for each planet after the various ceasefires? I ask this cause there were times when either a defender or attacker were in queue when a planet was owned by them by a huge majority 90%.

[Mystere]

Grynos, on 02 April 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Point 1. Would mean that PGI would have to change the planetary interface completely. I highly doubt PGI will do so.

If you take a closer look at the current planetary interface, you will hopefully notice that it is not much further than a shell. Some things are still not implemented yet.

Grynos, on 02 April 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Point 2. While I am not opposed to planets having differing amounts of territories, it would create a logistical nightmare for the algorithm overall, which would mean a complete overhaul of that system which I doubt PGI would do.

Again, if PGI had factored their design and code well, implementing the above should mostly be an exercise in adding new features (with the same previous caveats as before).

Also, the "algorithm" in my suggestion is nothing much more than a simple state transition diagram. Any software developer worth their salary should have that in their "toolbox".

Besides, even if PGI decides not to have different territory counts per planet, just taking the basic idea already adds more depth than the current "take 8 for the win" scheme we have now.

Grynos, on 02 April 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Point 3. There is no way that PGI is going to allow players to dictate what places they attack. PGI needs to maintain that overall control , otherwise there would be complete game modes that the players could and would intentionally avoid. Like defending on Sulfurous Rift.

Well, if any faction chooses not to defend their territory, then they deserve to be reduced to a single dot on the map.

Grynos, on 02 April 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Point 4. Is already happening in CW already, or at least is with the better factions.

Well, better coordination will be required if factions want to be able to attack and defend planets more efficiently. In addition, smaller factions will now be able to better allocate their scarce resources.

For example, in my first diagram above, factions will just have to send their best units to a1, b1, and c1, cede the outer areas, and hope for the best.

Currently, smaller factions will lose by ghost drops if overwhelmed.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

Take the following (shamelessly taken) graph (and while ignoring the text around it):
... (snipped for space saving)

My point still stands: functionally speaking this changes absolutely nothing about how the game is played out. All you're changing is how the more-or-less automated internals are displayed.

In order for it to have any tangible difference to a player playing the game, you need to be able to see & experience what's going on - going through the current CW maps through the current system, or through your system, would appear exactly the same way ingame. At most it might change how commanders squabble about winning or losing planets, but without any tangible reward to individual players for winning or losing a planet, who really is going to care except those who choose to care?

What I'm seeing is the same maps played the same way they are now, all that really changes to the average player is how it's being displayed in a prettier, flashier manner. It just wouldn't matter to me at all unless it was changing how I play the game.

You need big, dynamic, and open maps designed around the idea you have in mind (like smaller objectives lying some distance away from a larger, central objective - take your graphs, for instance, and imagine imposing it onto a physical ingame map), in order for it to matter.

edit: I noticed you acknowledged the need for a map in your new thread, I missed the link you posted earlier.

Edited by Telmasa, 03 April 2015 - 02:10 PM.

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 03 April 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

My point still stands: functionally speaking this changes absolutely nothing about how the game is played out. All you're changing is how the more-or-less automated internals are displayed.

In order for it to have any tangible difference to a player playing the game, you need to be able to see & experience what's going on - going through the current CW maps through the current system, or through your system, would appear exactly the same way ingame. At most it might change how commanders squabble about winning or losing planets, but without any tangible reward to individual players for winning or losing a planet, who really is going to care except those who choose to care?

What I'm seeing is the same maps played the same way they are now, all that really changes to the average player is how it's being displayed in a prettier, flashier manner. It just wouldn't matter to me at all unless it was changing how I play the game.

You need big, dynamic, and open maps designed around the idea you have in mind (like smaller objectives lying some distance away from a larger, central objective - take your graphs, for instance, and imagine imposing it onto a physical ingame map), in order for it to matter.

edit: I noticed you acknowledged the need for a map in your new thread, I missed the link you posted earlier.

Read again. It's not just for looks. I think you missed the strategic aspects (i.e. factions, especially the smaller ones, can now allocate their best but limited units more efficiently), which I am more concerned with at the moment.

Edited by Mystere, 03 April 2015 - 03:42 PM.

[Telmasa]

I was going to just strikethrough my post, but tried making it smaller font instead. As long as the ingame experience reflects what is going on with all the external graphs & strategic aspects, then it's good - cause then it all means something.

Edited by Telmasa, 03 April 2015 - 08:05 PM.