0
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
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.
