Jump to content

Cw: Too Little, Too Late


23 replies to this topic

#1 BearFlag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 374 posts

Posted 17 May 2015 - 06:57 PM

Community Warfare: Too Little, Too Late

No, I don't mean PGI's CW is too little, too late. What I mean is that suggestions here are probably too late to affect the future of the game given that development committments that have already been made. Still, it's hard not to dream of a greater MWO.

WARNING: INCOMING LONG POST

This thread is seeking a creative brainstorm, not flames. And its primary focus is CW, and to a lesser extent, campaign, role play and immersion. Some of the ideas are mine, some are ideas I came up with only to find in research have been suggested by others earlier, and some are other's ideas. In reading many threads, I did not diligently note which idea belongs to whom. So if I leave out your name, feel free to pipe up and take credit.

I'm also not going to detail the many complaints about CW. There are many threads with many valid criticisms of CW in its current state.


MAP DYNAMISM
------------

There has been a clamour for maps to be more alive and supposedly Cryengine supports this. Unfortunately, much of the hubbub has centered on destructible terrain which is perhaps the least important. Other factors that directly govern game play are much more critical to CW.

(Similar idea by PaladinCrow
http://mwomercs.com/...to-improvement/
)

Variable and programatically removable exclusion zones (ie out of bounds). The OOB overlay need not be the same for both sides. Spawn camping could be addressed through such a mechanism though the details of such a mechanism need to be thought out.

Removable OOB sub-sections could be conditioned on some task. On a long attack map, for example, the more remote portions are not "opened" until the nearer portions are captured and secured.

Another aspect of map dynamism (also mentioned by PaladinCrow) would be variable, programmatic or even selectable drop points. This too could factor into a spawn camping solution.

Another useful form of map flexibility would be programmed or randomized objective locations (bases, resource collectors, whatever). I suggested in another thread that we could get a lot more mileage out of the massive Alpine Peaks if there were six possible base locations/drop points (three opposable) separated by roughly sixty degrees. The Hill of Death would be irrelevant in 2/3 of the Alpine drops. Fighters would be compelled to use more of the map.

COMMUNITY WARFARE - or maps, maps, maps
------------------

Let me start with a pet peeve. I don't like the term "Community Warfare." What the heck is "community warfare?" My first thought is of two irate neighbors having water hose wars over a property-line hedge. Shouldn't it be "Planetary Warfare" or just "Faction War?" OK, back to purpose.

CW has earned some praise because everyone knows that's where the game must go in the long term. But CW, as is, has birthed a tsunami of criticism. I'm going to focus here on a subset of those complaints. Specifically, the same repetitive objective on the same repetitive choke point style map yielding the same repetitive 2X bloodbath (96 mechs in 30 minutes vs. 24 mechs in 15).

The problem is even deeper than that however. The CW maps are themed on various environments. Very pretty. But these bear no relation to the stages of conquering a planet! They are, essentially, the same maps, with the same objectives with different colors. The progress of planetary control on the pre-drop screen is represented by a semi-circle, piano keyboard. Not very compelling.

The partial solution to CW monotony is to create a planetary map with nodes on it that reflect a stage of battle, of conquest, with maps to suit. Yet, to avoid massive complexity, it should be simple and schematic.

A concentric model seems appropriate - and here it is. This map has similarities with Mystere's node map idea:
http://mwomercs.com/...57#entry4335157

Posted Image

THE SCHEMATIC AND POSSIBLE ASSOCIATED MAPS
------------------------------------------

As can be seen the schematic representation of the planet actually looks kinda like a planet. More importantly it gives us concentric rings that have a sensible purpose. It also provides a simple, at-a-glance view of where the battles are happening and what progress has been made in taking/defending the world.

The current CW maps make no sense to me. They are all themed on an environment type rather than a phase in the campaign to take a planet. This approach suggests an eventual remedy.

1. The orbital defense would be the first attacked during an invasion. Not all of them need be taken right away for landings to commence. Each one is connected to two possible landing sites and to two other orbital positions. Maps for this ring could be HPG-like platforms or barren natural satellites with - this would be a good place for it - an orbital canon. However, it may be preferrable to have the orbital sections controlled strictly through fleet actions rather than mech battles. More later...

2. Invasions of this sort historically do not drop right on Berlin or Tokyo. Landing sites are usually weakly defended areas where a bridgehead can be established and supplied. So the maps would likely be wilderness areas - deserts, mountains. Both sides would be shuttling mechs to contested the area. However, one fun idea is a "D-Day" map where the approach is to a weak coastal position. Ideally, the defenders would be almost in place at the beginning so they can see the spectacle. The attacking drop ships swoop in offshore, disgorge their mechs which promptly sink beneath the waves. Here, presumably, they would not be spottable, targetable or subject to fire. Under water they group up and choose their line of attack. A minute or two later they emerge dramatically from the ocean, lasers blazing.

3,4. The "spokes" of the model represent advance through hinterlands to close on the planet's major objectives. If a small number of 'provinces' are desired they may be represented by one or two. I prefer, however, to simulate planet size in the number of spokes used which could range from 3 to possibly 10. Size can further be imparted using a chosen number of 'dots' in the incremental approach. These represent progress towards a main objective and provide a 'big' area where see-saw battles can rage. The incremental spokes have other advantages that will be seen later. The maps for the spokes could be just about anything. We'll come back to this when I talk about integrating existing 12v12 maps.

5. It is not the Citadel, but the Ramparts that represent the capture of major objectives. Perhaps it's a major city, an industrial complex, a critical resource area or maybe a noble palace. Here, the attacker probably doesn't get a 'balanced' fight. These are strongly defended. They might be protected by a wall and gates of the sort we've come to know. The number of major objectives is counted by the number of spokes - each with its separate line of approach.

6. If the Citadel is taken, then all the major objectives have been taken because an attack on the Citadel is not allowed until all the Rampart/Objective sections have been captured. It stands in as 'control' of the planet. If taken the attacker becomes the owner and defender (even though battles may still be raging). The original defender is now the attacker. The type of map and battle to be used is up for grabs. Maybe it's just a 12v12 quick battle to get it over with. Maybe it's a big 24v24 fight or a 48v48/4 CW battle. Because it is symbolic it's hard to decide what it should look like. Ideas?

SIMPLE SUPPLY
-------------

Having a rudimentary planet map along with distinct lines of advance allows us to introduce some equally rudimentary supply rules. If one side controls all of the orbital positions, they have blockaded the planet and the other side cannot engage in offensive operations until they've recovered at least one orbital position. They cannot attack/counter-attack (exceptions!). Even this simple arrangement introduces the idea of two offensive "directions". If the the defender is cut off he can still counter-attack ~from the outside~, against an orbital position but can't counter-attack on the planet surface (from the inside).

At present there is no mechanism in the game that says a group of inbound warriors is on the planet (and possibly forbidden to attack with supply rules) or arriving from off planet to break the blockade. Something for the future. But the idea of on-planet and from off-planet operations is introduced.

The 'no offensive' rule is very simple. Other supply penalties are possible. Ideas?

CRAZY SUPPLY
------------

The arrangement of the schematic map with separate lines of advance makes sense (IMO). An assault on a planet is going to go after the major objectives but it can't land directly on them due to heavy defenses. They would land safely in range of the objective, set up base and supply and then drive on the goal. But a planet is big and probably has several major objectives widely separated. In other words, these important objectives would be distinct 'campaigns' on the planet with one having little effect on another. Hence the spoke and rampart configuration.

If we extend the idea of supply a bit further, it's possible for the attacker to come in hot and heavy, secure a couple of orbital positions and a bridgehead and begin advancing down the spoke towards that objective. What if counter-attacks take an orbital position and the bridgehead? Now the spoke force is cut off! On a hotly contested planet, the situation could become chaotic with both sides having areas in an out-of-supply status. War is not known for its orderliness.

MAP AND IDEA INTEGRATION
------------------------

I neglected to specify what a hinterland/spoke map might look like in a full 48v48/4 battle. A long and narrow map seems most appropriate, but not so narrow as to contain artificial choke points. Perhaps a 1.5 km by 3 or 4 km would suit. The attacker would have one or two bases on his end of the map and defender would have three arranged in depth on his end. A completely successful attacker would gain three points of incremental advance along the spoke. The defender could gain one or two (regardless of supply status) if he prevails.

It is at this point we can insert one of the open map modes into CW - namely Assault (Base Capture). The attacker or counter-attacker must be in supply and this mode is only usable on a spoke. The attacker is initiating a 12v12 attack to gain one dot of incremental advance and risking the loss of one dot.

The 12v12 "Conquest" (Resource) mode can also be integrated by drawing on our supply rules. The supply rules are ultimately a little involved but not greatly complex. Here I'm going to simplify a bit. If one or both sides have map elements that are out of supply, a resource raid (ie "Conquest") may be selected by the system or the players (preferrably by the players). A successful raid will give the victor one Resource Point (RP) on-planet. RP's can be accumulated on the planet. Areas that are cut off and otherwise forbidden from initiating offense can attack by expending RP's. A 12v12 Assault can be launched on a spoke for one RP. A major 48v48/4 offensive from an isolated pocket costs three RP's. Of course, attacking from any where while in supply doesn't cost any RP's ... or should it???? Ideas?

I've no ideas yet for integrating a "Skirmish" mode game.

EXPANDING THE GALAXY - ECONOMY
------------------------------

It would be easy to get carried away and begin designing an intricate economy(difficult to program, difficult to balance). We'll follow KISS here for a starter economy.

1) Give the major factions actual fleets. My understanding of the lore is limited but I believe there were no capital ships at this point (c. 3050). Transports, dropships, heavy dropships and smallish fighter carriers was about it. And even these were not often risked in pitched fleet battles.

Still, these ships would have to be committed to planet battles and loss or destruction is possible and REAL. Lost or damaged ships have to be replaced/repaired at great cost to the faction. Maintenance is another reasonable expense.

2) Planets generate tax income in c-Bills. Planets can be damaged in battle. Simple approach: zero percent damage, 100% income. 30% damage, 70% income. Planets recover slowly from war damage. Some balance would have to be found to avoid having factions become hyper-rich or the galaxy becoming severely impoverished due to war damage. Planets may also produce RP's (see below).

3) Mechwarriors have to be paid out of faction coffers. Wars are expensive.

4) The role of our generic "Resource Points" could be greatly expanded. Perhaps they play a larger role in planet battles and also are needed for ship construction. If they have a bigger role in battle, they would need to be purchased, confiscated or captured and transported to the war zone. A defending planet may have a stockpile but the attacker has to bring his. The 12v12 "Conquest" would represent swiping an RP from the other guys or the raiding of a production site. There should be some kind of market in RP's.

(BTW, what are the interstellar travel times in BT??)

IMMERSION
---------

There are a lot of good ideas for immersion in other threads. Just search 'immersion'. I'm going restrict myself to what has already been offered here.

A more refined planet battle model helps but is really just the beginning.

With a very basic economy in place, you can start to talk about rich merc groups spending their money somewhere. Maybe dropships. Maybe a base. If they have their own dropships they might strip their insignia and a take a privateering contract against unofficial enemies. They'd lose loyalty points with the victim faction but they'd get to keep any cash and RP's they take. Ship damage/loss is REAL. Their ships and/or base would likely be bounty targets. These ideas require much more thought.

What could individual players spend money on??

LORE
----
I'm no lorehead. It's B-grade scifi but fun to consult for context. Nevertheless, once the game "starts" a new timeline is opened and post 3050 lore goes out the window. Let the game take NEW directions, make new stories.

Edited by BearFlag, 17 May 2015 - 07:12 PM.


#2 Gut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 373 posts
  • LocationNear Dallas, TX

Posted 18 May 2015 - 01:44 AM

Whut? People were making these suggestions 3 years ago, before knowing what the game was even, people were dreaming big. Take a listen to the very first few ngng podcasts for instance...

#3 Apnu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,083 posts
  • LocationMidWest

Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:01 AM

There's a lot of different ways to get there, but I think PGI needs to rethink its core idea of CW.

First off CW should be a true pillar of the game, not a game mode. So we should stop thinking of CW a "that Invasion mode, with Counter Attack and some future 4v4 Scouting mode" We should have all of our game modes affecting the IS Map in some way.

What I mean by affecting the map, I mean they should be increasing the coffers of the factions, they should be earning perks for the faction and the players (win lots of Conquest, maybe a discount in the store for 30 minutes, for example). These modes should be opening up new attack lanes, and flipping planets.

All the games should point towards the IS map in some way, the players should be looking at the map, thinking about the map, and invested in the map. Russ has said, rightly, "We have the best story telling device in video games, the frigging Map" So use it!

The first step is to get away from the idea that CW should be its own private space for the exclusive use of the "hardcore" player. This only divides the player base and makes for more "buckets" that Russ laments about frequently. Forget buckets! Simplify the game!

Combine the queues, and make the IS Map the central focus when the player logs in. More players playing on the map and changing it adds instant depth and satisfies the desires of the various types of players in MWO. "Hardcore" comp players would still have Invasion mode and we should have ways for them to find other "hardcore" units to challenge. Casual players would still have Assault, Conquest and Skirmish for quick games. Have one planet, Solaris, be where all the weird tech builds go and those players can have fun with that.

#4 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:25 AM

PGI has already made statements that they think MWO is a 'complicated' game. They want to keep everything very simple- including game modes I guess. So while the forums keep begging for things like real, hard choices in mechlab and strategic depth in CW it seems PGI doesn't think we can handle it.

#5 Gut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 373 posts
  • LocationNear Dallas, TX

Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:29 AM

Team death match + team death match with respawns is not complicated to the end user.

#6 Moldur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:48 AM

View PostDavers, on 18 May 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

PGI has already made statements that they think MWO is a 'complicated' game. They want to keep everything very simple- including game modes I guess. So while the forums keep begging for things like real, hard choices in mechlab and strategic depth in CW it seems PGI doesn't think we can handle it.


With all these ideas floating around, virtually all of which are better than anything PGI has come up with for CW, sometimes I think they're either stubborn or they just can't code their way out of a box. :mellow:

#7 Tyler Valentine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Corporal
  • 1,472 posts
  • LocationChandler, Arizona

Posted 18 May 2015 - 01:16 PM

It is frustrating seeing all these awesome posts on the forum (amazing job BearFlag) and having the feeling that they are falling on deaf ears. PGI PLEASE READ AND IMPLEMENT THESE IDEAS!

Interstellar travel times according to lore:
Jumpships can travel up to 30LY per jump and take from 5-14 days to recharge their drives for the next jump, depending on the amount of radiation coming from the system's star. Technically jumpships can jump twice using backup batteries but it is incredibly risky due to the fact that a mis-jump means you are stranded wherever you end up. Typically the practice is only utilized in extreme circumstances.

My little idea for immersion:
A Comstar news-feed in the mechlab or at the starmap. it could give a few random news stories (a la the original mechwarrior) every day (duke so and so has deployed forces in the skye march in direct contradiction to melissa steiner's orders bla bla bla) as well as update players on new 'mech and technology roll outs in a fun immersive way (the capellan confederation is experimenting with a new myomer technology that could drastically increase the speed of current battlemech designs...). It would give the sense that our MWO universe is a living breathing place and, with a simple date/time feature, keep us all informed as to exactly what freakin' year it is :P

Edited by Tyler Valentine, 18 May 2015 - 01:17 PM.


#8 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 02:12 PM

turning planets into concentric rings and a huge mess of connected map nodes isnt going to save CW...

if PGI wants to save CW they need to make CW the ONLY gamemode. Incorporate all the other gamemodes/maps into CW and force players to participate in CW.

additionally rewards need to be higher for small groups and solo players as an incentive to get pugstomped... if pugstomping is going to be a thing at least reward the losing team enough to make getting stomped worth their while.

#9 Gut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 373 posts
  • LocationNear Dallas, TX

Posted 18 May 2015 - 02:24 PM

View PostKhobai, on 18 May 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:


additionally rewards need to be higher for small groups and solo players as an incentive to get pugstomped... if pugstomping is going to be a thing at least reward the losing team enough to make getting stomped worth their while.


I'm of the opposite opinion, and I'll quote myself from another thread here:

"It makes sense that all mechwarriors should belong to a unit, whether it be based on lore, competition, or otherwise. This is not a single player game."

Edited by Gut, 18 May 2015 - 02:24 PM.


#10 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 18 May 2015 - 02:54 PM

This is the real problem with CW.

#11 Ace Selin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 18 May 2015 - 03:18 PM

OP some great ideas but as it stands i think CW is dead. Its a wasteland, where almost no one plays anymore. I'm in a unit and have had 3-4 fights in the last 20 hours of CW game time, the rest were ghost drops. CW needs some serious changes / incentives to have any chance of going forward.

#12 BearFlag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 374 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 04:07 PM

If it's true that PGI thinks the game is (too?) complicated now, then I see little prospect of meaningful, much less immersive, CW.

It's too bad. There are a lot of good ideas in the forums.

#13 LordKnightFandragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 05:17 PM

Whats going on with the CW map? The sooo OP clan mechs have not even gotten off their start point since the restart.....

But the CLans are geting nerfs tomorrow to their 2 best mechs.....

#14 Astrocanis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 642 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 07:21 PM

View PostKhobai, on 18 May 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

if PGI wants to save CW they need to make CW the ONLY gamemode. Incorporate all the other gamemodes/maps into CW and force players to participate in CW.
additionally rewards need to be higher for small groups and solo players as an incentive to get pugstomped... if pugstomping is going to be a thing at least reward the losing team enough to make getting stomped worth their while.

Thanks. I'll pass on the "only game mode" combined with "make it worth their while to get stomped." I'm sure the game will survive without me. But in combination with a thousand other "mes", I'm not sure that's true.And I will not, I'm sorry, have fun any way I want to as long as it's your way. Period.

#15 Ace Selin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 18 May 2015 - 09:08 PM

View PostLordKnightFandragon, on 18 May 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

Whats going on with the CW map? The sooo OP clan mechs have not even gotten off their start point since the restart.....

But the CLans are geting nerfs tomorrow to their 2 best mechs.....

LOL you have really don't have a clue. Clan mechs were nerfed with good reason.

Clans are outnumbered 10 -1 that is why Clans are losing worlds and by that i mean 100 Clanners versus 1000 IS players total it would appear like by the numbers im seeing in CW.

#16 Connor Sellock

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 89 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 10:00 PM

View PostAstrocanis, on 18 May 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

Thanks. I'll pass on the "only game mode" combined with "make it worth their while to get stomped." I'm sure the game will survive without me. But in combination with a thousand other "mes", I'm not sure that's true.And I will not, I'm sorry, have fun any way I want to as long as it's your way. Period.


Gamers come and go.

Any which way you want to look at it PGI has ALWAYS had its work cut out for it.

First it was with that Albatross of a Publisher - IGP, hug around its neck.

Now it is with MWO-gamer-burnout.

Personally, I hope PGI finally cracks the code and keeps this lone remaining BattleTech game tracking toward Launch.

It won't be my dollars that put it over the top, this I know.

But I remain willing to invest in PGI, not so much for what it has produced thus far, but for the potential in CW Phase 3, 4 and 5.

And I will continue to invest dollars in MC and packages as we track toward Steam Release and beyond.

How can we possibly have a good BattleTech game tomorrow if we won't work with PGI-level Developers today?

The more toxic elements of our BattleTech Community (all those disaffected but unfortunately very vocal Minorities) have poisoned the BattleTech "well" and there will NOT ever be a large Developer willing to pick up the MechWarrior franchise. Those of us willing to be realistic, know this to be true. I favor working with Russ and crew to incrementally move MWO,CW toward a game I like.

And I like the PGI vision for MWO at Steam Launch (PvE, Mechlab 2.0, and working toward Solaris) which should be Win/Win/Win all the way around.

#17 Romeo Deluxe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 449 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 18 May 2015 - 10:44 PM

View PostLordKnightFandragon, on 18 May 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

Whats going on with the CW map? The sooo OP clan mechs have not even gotten off their start point since the restart.....

But the CLans are geting nerfs tomorrow to their 2 best mechs.....

Reported - hijacking thread

#18 Caustic Canid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 256 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 10:47 PM

View PostGut, on 18 May 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:


I'm of the opposite opinion, and I'll quote myself from another thread here:

"It makes sense that all mechwarriors should belong to a unit, whether it be based on lore, competition, or otherwise. This is not a single player game."


I used to play with friends. Then they all left to play games which were actually fun.

Funny. If it's not single player, why can I drop solo?

#19 anonymous161

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 1,267 posts
  • LocationIowa

Posted 18 May 2015 - 10:53 PM

Connor I'm so happy you have money to burn man. Good for you "hugs"

I on the other hand rather put my hard earned money when it comes to video games towards something with real value something that will last me a lot longer than until contract ends...

Gamers these days just dont get it anymore.

#20 LordKnightFandragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 18 May 2015 - 11:02 PM

View PostAce Selin, on 18 May 2015 - 09:08 PM, said:

LOL you have really don't have a clue. Clan mechs were nerfed with good reason.

Clans are outnumbered 10 -1 that is why Clans are losing worlds and by that i mean 100 Clanners versus 1000 IS players total it would appear like by the numbers im seeing in CW.



Lol, no, I really didnt have a clue, thats why im asking...derp. :rolleyes:

But then the next question, is why they out numbered so badly? Is it they are so unappealing and not so OP overall that the current clan players are just swapping over to the IS? Is the IS really the good faction and everyone and their cat is moving over?

CUz, I mean, if Clans were as OP as forumside claims, you would think the IS would be split up between CJF/CW/CGB/CSJ, as most players swap to Clan, not IS....

I get the start up cost of Clans is higher, but still....

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 18 May 2015 - 11:04 PM.






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users