The TL:DR version (apologies it's late and I haven't figured out how to do "spoilers" on this forum)
·
All game modes should be incorporated into “Community Warfare”
·
Solo / Group players should be able to choose which queue they play in:o 4 vs. 4 solo only
o 4 vs. 4 mixed solo/group (1 – 4 players in a group)
o 12 vs. 12 with a max group size of 8 (1 – 8 players in a group)
o “Standard” Community Warfare drop with any combination of group size. (1 – 12 players in a group)
·
Game mode – assault, conquest, skirmish, counter attack, attack – should be determined by the game as is necessary for the stage of the planetary conflict.
·
Loyalist players and Units should have an emphasis placed on increased Loyalty Point rewards, perhaps with a separate Loyalty Reward Tree.
·
Mercenary Units / Lone Wolf players should have an emphasis placed on CBill earnings on a match per match basis, with bonuses paid for longer contracts.
·
Loyalist players and Units should earn a territorial reward, by means of a “pot” determined by the amount of planets or planetary value held by their chosen House.
·
Military High Command (PGI controlled) for each House designates Attack / Defend lanes for Loyalist players and Units.
·
MRBC Contract Board generates individual contracts based on planets under attack; these can have increased / decreased rewards depending on population of given Factions in contest of the planet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I replied to a thread on the which I initially wrote off as another solo player whining that he had been stomped by a large premade group in CW and that he should either accept that CW is engineered for just such premade groups or he should find a way to up his game to be able to compete in the “big kids pool” environment of CW if he chose to play solo there.
However it then got me thinking, what could be done to “include” as much of the player base (the Community) into the Community Warfare section of the game? In turn providing a good amount of depth to the whole game and hopefully a more involving aspect to the MechWarrior experience.
At present the solo and group queues are simply meaningless beyond grinding for CBills and XP, they have no real impact on the “Meta” game that I feel should be the REAL reason for playing with gigantic walking avatars of war. The Battletech universe has as much depth and character as anything JRR Tolkien envisioned and has the potential to give us a hugely diverse and rewarding background to immerse ourselves into.
I touched on my belief that EVERY game played in the online lobbies (with the exception of Private lobbies) should affect the Universe we are fighting in, each game should contribute to the overall Community Warfare map and each player should feel engaged and essential to the success of their chosen Faction. Therefore there would be no Solo/Public queues, only Community Warfare and the combat missions attached to the various planets, how this would affect the overall conquest or defence of the planet I have not worked out and would require a programmer/developer to figure out the technical aspects.
Each game mode and map has the potential to be used for niches in the CW experience; for example the Conquest mechanic has many possible applications, while the full game mode could easily be “tweaked” to accommodate a scouting role in Community Warfare. To expand further on this it could be possible to allocate certain team size caps to certain mission types, giving solo players (and new players) somewhere to get their feet wet and learn the ropes.
Contracts (game modes) available to Solo players, this could encompass Lone Wolves also
· Solo only - 4 ‘Mech small scale combat and scouting missions, Skirmish and Conquest on the smaller maps such as River City, Forest Colony and Canyon Network.
Lower flat rates for LP and CBill payments, with higher modifiers for team based in-game actions to emphasis the lower risk involved but encourage engagement and teamwork.
· Small group and Solo – same as above but with slightly better rewards, encourages Lance sized groups to play and co-ordinate. Possibly with the DropShip reinforcements added and min/max tonnage limit.
Use current rates for LP and CBill payments for game win/loss and in-game actions, this is the introduction to the “Big Leagues”; overall the payments should be slightly higher [5%] than the solo only queue.
· Up to Demi-Company sized groups (max group size 8) in Company (12 ‘Mechs) combat operations – Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes).
LP/CBill payments set higher again [5%] with high modifiers for combat based in-game actions to reward combat and co-ordinated gameplay.
Contracts (game modes) available to groups
2 - 4 players
· Skirmish and Conquest in the Small Group/Solo queue
LP/CBill rewards for completion of the contract should be [5-10%] higher than the Solo player rewards, reflecting the higher risk/reward factor for Groups entering into battle with an unknown players alongside them. Modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.
2-12 players (inclusive of group sizes 2 – 4)
· Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes)
LP/CBill rewards [10-15%] for completion of contract/mission higher than Solo player, modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.
I believe this would make only 8 queues, 4 for attacking a planet and 4 for defending, multiplied by how ever many planets are up for contention. Therefore wait times
should be much lower since every player is included in the Community Warfare experience but still has the choice of what level they wish to play at;
· The soloist can stick to the smaller scale engagements but still feel as though they are contributing and will likely be earning slightly more CBills than they presently do in the Solo queues, while earning LP to go toward the Faction based rewards.
NB – as a side note this particular queue could be broken down further to allow for new players to the game, perhaps having a separate queue mechanic to keep the “Cadets” from facing seasoned Veterans until they have their 25 battles under their Neurohelmets. As well as giving them the flexibility to venture into Company (12 ‘Mech) group queues if they so desire.
· The smaller Units have the choice of where and how they commit their time and energy; while either giving themselves an opportunity of fighting on equal terms with an opponent or taking the chance of going into a Company drop against a possibly larger grouped enemy team. CBill and LP earnings will be on par with current levels, perhaps slightly higher.
· Likewise the larger Units can choose how to use their forces, engage in the smaller scale fights and perhaps help to tip the balance on the planet or fully commit to Company sized engagements in the hope of overwhelming their opponents attack/defence.
One thing that was mentioned was the ability for players to simply jump in and play a random game without worrying about the tactical consequences, a “throw away” game mode not unlike what unfortunately makes up the majority of the gameplay at present.
Further down the road of development it may be good to have something like a Solaris, 1 vs.1 up to 8 vs.8 game mode; something there has been a large calling for over the years. This could provide the side show games for some stress relief if required but I think the layout above would provide enough variety to cater for everyone’s taste.
The remaining question would be; what percentage does each game mode attribute to the overall defence/conquest of a planet? This I would leave to the developers, as it would undoubtedly require many tweaks to get the right ratio.
It may even be that, given the possible implementation of logistics and economy in the long run, different game modes (missions) could have different consequences on different planets. This would have to be something for future discussion and exploration but I do feel the above layout provides some flexibility to the developers to explore this option.
The next question would be; how does which Faction a player chooses affect Contracts and what rewards are available from them?
The easiest answer for the developers at this stage would be to scrap the Mercenary / Lone Wolf Factions and simply have players choose between Clan and House. This may cause a bit on an upset but it would eliminate a whole quagmire of programming issues.
However…..
I believe there could be some difference in how a Loyalist is rewarded versus a Mercenary or Lone Wolf and below I have outlined an idea I came up with. Essentially it revolves around boosts to either LP or CBill rewards, the Loyalists (House/Clan players) are rewarded for their loyalty by increased LP rewards (or perhaps even have a separate LP rewards tree with shorter gaps or higher rewards per level/more levels). Mercs/Lone Wolves are rewarded through increased CBill income but lower LP rewards or it might even be regulated by having a separate LP “tree” for the Mercs/Lone Wolves with slightly longer LP gaps between rewards or lower rewards per level.
Loyalists are essentially the line Units of the main Factions, honour and loyalty bound to the chosen House or Clan. As such they do not have the freedom to attack planets at will and are subject to the desires and strategic whims of their Liege Lord or Khan. However their emphasis would be in the ability to take planets in stewardship for their Houses, gaining rewards based on ownership and therefore boosting CBill earnings by implementation of bonuses per planet owned. This could be given as a Faction wide payment, the more planets a Faction holds the larger the “pot” and therefore the larger a share goes to the individual players, therefore making it fairer on the smaller units that stand less of a chance in “tagging” planets.
However Mercenaries and Lone Wolves would “survive” financially by taking salvage and contract completion bonuses, therefore the emphasis for this group would be on completion of missions and ‘Mech kills.
How would Contracts (games) be generated and how would it be possible to differentiate between the types available to players.
Here is an example that I thought up;
The House Liao CCAF High Command (controlled by PGI’s in-game algorithm) generates an “Attack” combat action against a planet on the House Davion border, which shows in the normal way on the Faction screen for the Loyalist units. In turn it also generates a series of
Solo, Small Group, Demi-Company and Company (as listed above) “attack” and “defence” contracts for this planet on an “MRBC Contracts Board” for use by all Lone Wolf players and Mercenary Units. These would not be based on the game “mode” (attack, counter attack, etc.) but as a broad based contract for combat operations in support of one House or the other; thus adding a little “unknown” element to the drops and hopefully forcing a little diversity into players’ drop decks.
This would be where Lone Wolves and Mercenary Units would be able to choose the length of their contracts;
· Single drop – [0%] LP boost – [1%] CBill boost
· 1 day defence/attack – [1%] LP boost – [2%] CBill boost
· 3 day defence/attack – [2%] LP boost – [4%] CBill boost
· 7 day defence/attack – [5%] LP boost – [7.5%] CBill boost
· 14 day defence/attack – [7.5%] LP boost – [15%] CBill boost
Loyalist Units are already receiving a 15% boost on LP rewards, the above incremental increase in LP rewards will not allow the Lone Wolves / Mercenary Units to earn as much LP as the Loyalists but the CBill rewards would plateau at 15%, therefore giving an emphasis to the “soldier-for-hire” choice of Lone Wolves and Mercenaries.
Now obviously the Lone Wolves and Mercenaries are unable to hold (or “tag”) the planet, this would be done by the most successful Loyalist unit; so their “reward” for fighting for Liao will come from the drop by drop bonuses. The Loyalist units will earn less in the short term but the rewards will even out or possibly be higher with successfully capturing a world; the emphasis for them being taking territory for their chosen House.
I am not mathematically minded, therefore it would take someone else to fully work out the figures but I think by now you get my idea (hopefully).
9
) idea for the attack mode ...
