Jump to content

I Want More Depth In Community Warfare


151 replies to this topic

#1 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,618 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 02 April 2015 - 09:01 AM

(by collecting some of my thoughts in one place ... and so I apologize in advance to all those who have seen these before Posted Image)

And we can start with this ...

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

Posted Image


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:

Posted Image

Posted Image

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

Posted Image

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.


The above already provide the following:
  • The directed graphs give players a better feeling of having campaigns because they actually do have them.
  • There can be several different campaign types and sizes.
  • If the CW planetary interface would allow it, factions can decide when and where to allocate their scarce resources (e.g. send only 3 crack 12-mans to defend a1, b1, and c1 in the first graph).
  • Factions can coordinate their units to successfully stall or even halt the enemy's invasion using less resources.
  • Factions can divert their forces to other "campaigns" that require them.
  • Ceasefire periods are not required (!!!).


New Edit: 2015-12-22

I want Clan and IS formations, not this vanilla 12 vs. 12 crap.

I want Clans cluster vs IS Battalion:
  • Clan Cluster
    • 10 players
    • 2 Binaries
    • 2-Mech 130-ton maximum drop deck per player
    • no minimum weight
  • IS Battalion
    • 12 players
    • 3 Companies
    • 3-Mech 170-ton maximum drop deck per player
    • no minimum weight

Edited by Mystere, 22 December 2015 - 09:02 AM.


#2 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,618 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 02 April 2015 - 09:04 AM

I also want more game modes ...

For example, consider two complementary and co-dependent game "modes":
  • Search and Destroy
  • Resistance
Let us then have a map whose characteristics are as follows:
  • large-scale urban
  • lots of skyscrapers (damaged or otherwise)
  • lots of long and narrow streets
  • lots of places to hide and ambush
  • EMF-noisy environment
Let us then set up these two game "modes" as follows:
  • "Search and Destroy" requires a "special forces" team to mop up the remnants of a defeated enemy discovered hiding in a large city.
    • tailored for groups, but anyone is allowed to join
  • "Resistance" requires a team of hardened and veteran freedom fighters to repel the enemy.
    • tailored for solo players and small groups (2-4) only
  • The "Search and Destroy" team is possibly larger (more players, higher tonnage and/or larger drop deck).
  • The "Resistance" team is possibly smaller (less players, lower tonnage, and/or smaller drop desk),
  • The "Search and Destroy" team needs to clear the city of the enemy (kill them all).
  • The "Resistance" team merely needs to survive.
  • Time limit is (for argument's sake) 45 minutes.
It's not your regular Skirmish mode, obviously.


Here's another example:
  • Escort
  • Ambush
I leave how to construct the scenario to you. :D

Have a very good weekend.

#3 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,618 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 02 April 2015 - 09:41 AM

And here's another addition to "variety" ...

Make some planets more important than others by at least making them give additional turrets and/or give those same turrets as well as generators more "health".

Better yet, group adjacent planets into clusters and give each cluster different defensive benefits.

#4 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 02 April 2015 - 01:14 PM

http://wiki.tripwire...player_Campaign

We should have this overall design per planet, Including the combat power. This style of campaign is done until the planet is conquered this it'll go into a "locked/owned" status for "x" period of time, where X could be 1 cycle of ceasefire, or 48 hours real time.

Effectively it's what Mystere has, but a bit more free-form with the users fighting on the planet determining their course of action and consuming the global resource of the combat power on the planet. This would go back to having some sort of dynamic BV value for mechs to determine how combat power is evaluated or used as a "health" indicator per side combating on that planet. Multiple territories could be in a combat state at once, but it'd take multiple forces to unlock them.

#5 Lord0fHats

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 619 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 01:30 PM

I'm honestly completely baffled as to why the CW over map currently functions the way it does.

#6 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,486 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 02 April 2015 - 02:11 PM

View PostMystere, on 02 April 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

Time limit is (for argument's sake) 45 minutes.


How about 15 minutes, for actually sane people. But even then, there's the issue of it simply becoming mech-hide-and-seek ... basically the same as a match of skirmish in the solo queue when the last guy alive goes and shuts down in the corner. Not sure how to get around this under than giving the "survivors" an objective to complete. Here's a proposal:

8v5 scouting vs. seek and destroy
  • Team of eight must destroy all five enemy mech units
  • OR prevent any surviving enemy units from achieving their scouting objective.
  • Team of five must scout all waypoints.
  • At least one mech that has scouted all waypoints must survive in order to win the match.
  • Any mech that reaches all waypoints but dies, does not count for a win.
  • Any mech that survives but did not cover all waypoints, does not count for the win.
  • The scouting team's waypoint locations are selected at random.
  • The waypoint locations are not revealed to the seeking and destroy team.

Quote

Here's another example:
  • Escort
  • Ambush


Escort/ambush is kinda hard to do. You need maps specifically designed with that game mode in mind, so it would require a lot of extra effort on PGI's end. If you're interested in trying it out, however, my unit has experimented with doing escort missions, we could possibly try it again and bring you along. =]

How we tried it was: one player on one team was designated as the VIP/MVP/commander/target. The VIP had to reach a designated location to win the mission. The other team simply had to destroy the VIP to win the mission.

#7 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,618 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 02 April 2015 - 02:56 PM

View PostMirkk Defwode, on 02 April 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

http://wiki.tripwire...player_Campaign

We should have this overall design per planet, Including the combat power. This style of campaign is done until the planet is conquered this it'll go into a "locked/owned" status for "x" period of time, where X could be 1 cycle of ceasefire, or 48 hours real time.

Effectively it's what Mystere has, but a bit more free-form with the users fighting on the planet determining their course of action and consuming the global resource of the combat power on the planet. This would go back to having some sort of dynamic BV value for mechs to determine how combat power is evaluated or used as a "health" indicator per side combating on that planet. Multiple territories could be in a combat state at once, but it'd take multiple forces to unlock them.


See, it's not even rocket science. Someone has already done this or something similar. ;)

Having said that, I too would love a free-form campaign. That would be absolutely fantastic. Unfortunately, that requires a whole lot more effort, especially the building of really huge maps. On the other hand, my suggestion, if reduced to its basic form, is nothing more than a simple state transition diagram (something every Computer Science graduate worthy of their degree should have in their "toolbox"):
  • Each node is just a location (i.e. a game map)
  • Game mode is determined by where the transition into the node came from.
As an example, take this diagram:


Posted Image
  • Each node is a location on a planet.
  • Location 3 is a beachhead mission. If the invaders lose, then the invasion is cancelled.
  • Locations 1, 4, and 5 involve skirmishes.
    • If the invaders lose on 1 and 5, the defenders get to counterattack 3.
    • If the invaders lose at 4, they are pushed back to 5.
  • Nodes 2 and 6 are assaults.
    • While 6 is still in defenders' hands, they get to skirmish on 4 and counterattack on 2.
  • Location 7 requires a successful recon mission, before assaults on 2 and 8 are allowed.
  • Node 8 is an assault on the capital city.
    • Invaders take the planet if they win here.
    • Defenders get to counterattack at 6 while they hold the capital.
    • Defenders get to skirmish at 7, and if successful, push the invaders back to 1.
That is just one way of configuring a campaign using the very simple graph above.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2015 - 03:17 PM.


#8 Molossian Dog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 02:58 PM

I appreciate what you are saying, but...

Depth is lostech.


Posted Image

Edited by Molossian Dog, 02 April 2015 - 03:05 PM.


#9 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,618 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 02 April 2015 - 03:08 PM

View PostLord0fHats, on 02 April 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

I'm honestly completely baffled as to why the CW over map currently functions the way it does.


It was easy to implement. It's also much much better than a scheme that simply uses the win/loss ratio to determine planet ownership. That would have been really terrible.

View PostMolossian Dog, on 02 April 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

I appreciate what you are saying, but...

Depth is lostech.


Posted Image


So true. And I blame this:

Posted Image

#10 Molossian Dog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 03:13 PM

All being said and done, I blame customer behaviour.



Posted Image

#11 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 10,364 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 09:06 PM

unfortunately this ^ is what i expect out of pgi. so i dont exactly think we will get it. i want battle simulation but no matter what pgi does it feels like game. in all the war movies ive watched, never once did blowing up a series of generators resulted in victory.

i generally like the idea. it would allow the use of existing maps and modes. so there is potential for asset reuse. new modes and maps for those could be brought in later.

i like the idea that not every planet is going to be an epic battle. elite teams might go for the harder won worlds and the lesser units for the smaller ones. pugs will be doing the second line garrison duty like intercepting recon units. so it kind of creates a place for everyone in cw.

#12 Summon3r

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,289 posts
  • Locationowning in sommet non meta

Posted 02 April 2015 - 09:23 PM

View PostLordNothing, on 02 April 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

unfortunately this ^ is what i expect out of pgi. so i dont exactly think we will get it. i want battle simulation but no matter what pgi does it feels like game. in all the war movies ive watched, never once did blowing up a series of generators resulted in victory.

i generally like the idea. it would allow the use of existing maps and modes. so there is potential for asset reuse. new modes and maps for those could be brought in later.

i like the idea that not every planet is going to be an epic battle. elite teams might go for the harder won worlds and the lesser units for the smaller ones. pugs will be doing the second line garrison duty like intercepting recon units. so it kind of creates a place for everyone in cw.


agree, though i personally think the CW maps are atrocious in every respect. some people may dislike Alpine but i personally think it is the best map in the game, yea maybe some changes are required but make it bigger allow battles to actually be dynamic instead of static.... the arcade style maps that force the same general battles over and over is getting so old.

need more game types as OP has discussed and battlefields that allow a battle to move

#13 Chocowolf Sradac

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 306 posts
  • LocationStar Colonel, Clan Wolf, 4th Wolf guard, Alpha Galaxy

Posted 02 April 2015 - 11:38 PM

View PostSummon3r, on 02 April 2015 - 09:23 PM, said:


agree, though i personally think the CW maps are atrocious in every respect. some people may dislike Alpine but i personally think it is the best map in the game, yea maybe some changes are required but make it bigger allow battles to actually be dynamic instead of static.... the arcade style maps that force the same general battles over and over is getting so old.

need more game types as OP has discussed and battlefields that allow a battle to move


I agree the maps are way to small and setup poorly to play the way PGI intended when they announced Community warefare but in fact they are playing the exact opposite not to mention it's the same battles over and over again with very little change and all because of map design

#14 Molossian Dog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 11:41 PM

View PostTarogato, on 02 April 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

...How we tried it was: one player on one team was designated as the VIP/MVP/commander/target. The VIP had to reach a designated location to win the mission. The other team simply had to destroy the VIP to win the mission.

Hey, we did the same! I actually used something similar as a training exercise for our unit.

Well, we had a "cargo" player piloting a trial Banshee. He was not allowed to use his weapons, he had to stay on roads or pavement all the time and he had to pass certain waypoints on Crimson Straight. First I wanted to introduce a time limit but then that would have required lots of experimenting to make it possible, but stil challanging. So instead we made the rule that he wasn´t allowed o stop. His team could choose the route for him, but no stopping. Without that it quickly degenerated into a seek&destroy mission by the escorting team.

We also gave the escorts slight numerical superiority. On the other hand the defenders were given two minutes to get into position first.

I mostly piloted the cargo, but I still have got to say it was way more fun than one of PGI´s "missions".

#15 GroovYChickeN

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 209 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 06:15 AM

View PostMolossian Dog, on 02 April 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

I appreciate what you are saying, but...

Depth is lostech.


Posted Image


I logged in just to like this post.

#16 PappySmurf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 842 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 06:26 AM

Mystere the problem with CW is it has really 1 game mode (seek & destroy destruction) no matter how you slice up the pie its still the same same old pie game after boring game with the same objectives over and over again. It really is amazing the groups left playing have not received permanent brain damage from MWO game play.

CW and MWO in general need new game modes and CW needs to be more objective based than attack or defend mode which just results in a 12v12 destruction mode anyways.How about attrition with re-spawn or like Hawkens siege or missile modes? I could make a list but I doubt MWO will change and so many are bored to death with the game and overall game modes .

Edited by PappySmurf, 03 April 2015 - 06:26 AM.


#17 mekabuser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,846 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 07:01 AM

yeah what we have now is .. idk .. words fail me.

#18 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,618 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 03 April 2015 - 09:53 AM

View PostPappySmurf, on 03 April 2015 - 06:26 AM, said:

Mystere the problem with CW is it has really 1 game mode (seek & destroy destruction) no matter how you slice up the pie its still the same same old pie game after boring game with the same objectives over and over again. It really is amazing the groups left playing have not received permanent brain damage from MWO game play.

CW and MWO in general need new game modes and CW needs to be more objective based than attack or defend mode which just results in a 12v12 destruction mode anyways.How about attrition with re-spawn or like Hawkens siege or missile modes? I could make a list but I doubt MWO will change and so many are bored to death with the game and overall game modes .


That's what posts 2,3, and 7 are for.

#19 Firelizard

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 606 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 10:40 AM

Speaking of Alpine...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt Alpine supposed to be the prototype for CW maps? That being the reason why it is both so feggin massive, and asymetrical?

The base by Mt Murder supposed to be the defended objective, and the attackers were suppose to move over the hills or lowlands to attack.

Any idea why the change in attitude? Or am I just remembering wrong?

Edited by Firelizard, 03 April 2015 - 10:41 AM.


#20 Impossible Wasabi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • 462 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 11:32 AM

Please, anything to make CW a mode that sort of feels like a war is being fought (ala Battleground Europe/WW2OL).





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users