42 replies to this topic

[CocoaJin]

Instead, give us semi-persistent battlefields with open drops. Battles can commence with as few or as many players as demand dictates(up to max capacity), with participant numbers ebbing and flowing through out the duration of the battle. No timers, just various primary and secondary victory conditions that each side works towards until it's met, causing the battle to end.

Players can occupy and forfeit available drop slots as they see fit. If a battlefield can only handle 24 slots, 8 will be for one side, 8 for the other and 8 free-slots that can be occupied by any. This means no one side can occupy all slots in order to prevent drops by the opposition. Idle players are auto-removed, freeing up the slot for someone else.

The number of available battlefields can be adjusted for demand and population, thus allowing for battles of varying size, but not allowing for nothing but lightly populated battlefields of 1 or 2 lone-wolves or mole captures.

Victory conditions can consist of various objects that can include a combination of capture, destroy and collection objectives.

Each side will have a finite ability to drop mechs, after which no more drops can be made.

Edited by CocoaJin, 31 July 2016 - 11:21 PM.

[kesmai]

"I will ask our engineers if this is possible"
"according to our engineers this is possible"
"can't tell you when it's ready"
" we ran into serious problems, so it's abandoned"
"take a look at the video for our next mechpack"

[Thorn Hallis]

Well yes, I think that would exceed their capabilities.

[Chrithu]

Yep pretty much what most People always firgured CW/FP would be like. Won't ever happen sadly.

If it was 2012 again and they'd present a well designed plan for persistent battlefields similar to what Pnetside 2 has they could be able to get a good kickstarter rolling.

Sadly it is 2016 and between bittervets, PGI's bad reputation and the fact that a lot of People are tired of failed early Access and kickstarer Projects there is only little hope for anything done properly with MWO's CW.

I meanthere is the faint possibility that some moron with toomuch Money cold be convinced that there'money to be made by turning MWO into a proper MMO.

[Johnny Z]

This isn't a bad idea and been mentioned before in some ways. Like for disco's for example, a new player comes in.

Also here near the bottom is another alternative. Not my idea for sure. Seen someone else make a reply. Sounds good if it would work and everything.

"Static Front"

http://mwomercs.com/...e-to-see-added/

Edited by Johnny Z, 01 August 2016 - 04:00 AM.

[Dino Might]

Been posting this on all the roundtable complaint posts and ignored by all. Thanks for somehow getting the idea a response.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5314291

There is already a game that does this. Look up DCS Blue Flag campaign by Buddy Spike (user group that made it themselves) - it is everything faction warfare should have been.

Edited by Dino Might, 01 August 2016 - 04:49 AM.

[Malleus011]

That's a great idea. Those aren't welcome here, Russ already knows how to make the game and doesn't need our help.

Wanna buy a mechpack?

[Antares102]

Malleus011, on 01 August 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

Wanna buy a mechpack?

/thread

[RussianWolf]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Instead, give us semi-persistent battlefields with open drops. Battles can commence with as few or as many players as demand dictates(up to max capacity), with participant numbers ebbing and flowing through out the duration of the battle. No timers, just various primary and secondary victory conditions that each side works towards until it's met, causing the battle to end.

Players can occupy and forfeit available drop slots as they see fit. If a battlefield can only handle 24 slots, 8 will be for one side, 8 for the other and 8 free-slots that can be occupied by any. This means no one side can occupy all slots in order to prevent drops by the opposition. Idle players are auto-removed, freeing up the slot for someone else.

The number of available battlefields can be adjusted for demand and population, thus allowing for battles of varying size, but not allowing for nothing but lightly populated battlefields of 1 or 2 lone-wolves or mole captures.

Victory conditions can consist of various objects that can include a combination of capture, destroy and collection objectives.

Each side will have a finite ability to drop mechs, after which no more drops can be made.

You basically just described Mechwarrior: Living Legends

[Dino Might]

Yeah, there is definitely a way to do it. I didnt think about the MWLL comparison.

What we need us more community support and less PGI piss and moan threads that don't contribute to fleshing out the idea. If you just come in here to make a quip about the devs, you are not helping.

[Baulven]

Dino Might, on 01 August 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Yeah, there is definitely a way to do it. I didnt think about the MWLL comparison.

What we need us more community support and less PGI piss and moan threads that don't contribute to fleshing out the idea. If you just come in here to make a quip about the devs, you are not helping.

The key to a persistent game is it needs to have enough space to move around, it needs sufficient objectives to accomplish and it has to weight risk vs reward. If they did implement such a system they would need a lot of code in order to pull off resupply, repair of mechs, base assault, artillery emplacement, drop ship zone designation, and a lot of other features.

I would love to see it but it would be quite a lot of work, and it appears PGI is not willing to contemplate a shift at this stage. Unless they are onboard it's just another idea on a heap of other ideas.

[Chuck Jager]

I think WarThunder Quick play has some of this.

It is decent for players who do not have much invested into the win, and newer players do not get eaten alive as quickly by vets.

The issue is that objectives have been either too easy for meta building or just a death trap to go after with minimal reward. I do not think this ever really something that can have a good balance for.

[CocoaJin]

Chuck Jager, on 01 August 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

The issue is that objectives have been either too easy for meta building or just a death trap to go after with minimal reward. I do not think this ever really something that can have a good balance for.

Objectives can be asymmetrical, with each contributing to their respective side's victory conditions. So building a meta for one objective may very well put you at a disadvantage for the others and as a means of running interference against your opposition's objectives.





Attrition would always be a tertiary objective...simply depleting the oppositions ability to drop...but ideally this would take a long time, 100 drops per side shouldn't be unheard of. Only scouting missions to open the battlefield for attack should be significantly drop and slot limited and consisting of small opposing forces.

One side can be tasked with defending a secondary objective while the opposition is tasked to capture, destroy or recon another. Completion of these secondary objectives would trigger side specific primary objectives to achieve victory. All successful objectives would provide rewards, with victory conditions providing the most/best rewards.

Side specific objectives could be known only to the side it's designated for. This would minimize camping of objectives, it would encourage recon and probing attacks...it would provide exceptional opportunities for light mechs contributing early to information warfare.

Tertiary soft objectives(objectives that don't contribute to progressing one's side toward victory conditions), could simply be running interference against the other side's progress toward victory conditions. So disrupting your opponent's attempts to capture an objective might not further your side's progression to victory, but hampers and delays your enemy's progress, resulting in additional rewards or even bonuses for one's side toward their victory progression.

Because the match drops are not limited to a single life or a few respawns by a fixed number of combatants, steam rolling becomes less viable...especially if secondary objectives have to be maintained to keep primary objectives open/active

Edited by CocoaJin, 01 August 2016 - 01:13 PM.

[davoodoo]

I rather despise open world fpses after planetside 2, where it went something like that...

Rush quick cap and spawn camping.
or 50 guys pointed at chokepoint for 30 minutes.

Like always great concept but everytime ive seen it it fails to deliver this epic feel.

Edited by davoodoo, 01 August 2016 - 04:26 PM.

[CocoaJin]

davoodoo, on 01 August 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

I rather despise open world fpses after planetside 2, where it went something like that...

Rush quick cap and spawn camping.
or 50 guys pointed at chokepoint for 30 minutes.

Like always great concept but everytime ive seen it it fails to deliver this epic feel.

That's why we need asymetrical objectives. Symmetrical objectives inherently create camping...especially with single spawns for each side.

[Dino Might]

And not a giant choke point map. It needs to be a massive map with varying terrain and the ability to run around beyond sensor and visual range, necessitating scouting, splitting forces, and not overcomitting.

[Kyrie]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Instead, give us semi-persistent battlefields with open drops. Battles can commence with as few or as many players as demand dictates(up to max capacity), with participant numbers ebbing and flowing through out the duration of the battle. No timers, just various primary and secondary victory conditions that each side works towards until it's met, causing the battle to end.

Players can occupy and forfeit available drop slots as they see fit. If a battlefield can only handle 24 slots, 8 will be for one side, 8 for the other and 8 free-slots that can be occupied by any. This means no one side can occupy all slots in order to prevent drops by the opposition. Idle players are auto-removed, freeing up the slot for someone else.

The number of available battlefields can be adjusted for demand and population, thus allowing for battles of varying size, but not allowing for nothing but lightly populated battlefields of 1 or 2 lone-wolves or mole captures.

Victory conditions can consist of various objects that can include a combination of capture, destroy and collection objectives.

Each side will have a finite ability to drop mechs, after which no more drops can be made.

I still recall your 2012 post on the Open World concept... I found it intriguing back then as well :-)

To be honest I would like to see that type of more complex/open engagements for key capital class planets, and something a bit simpler for normal useless border-worlds.

[Lynx7725]

I'm just wondering out loud how it can be. Not too bothered if PGI don't bother.

On the FP main page, in addition to the current FP game model, we can have a number of worlds "on fire" for a set duration, say, 6 days, then the last day is spent in ceasefire. This is to allow PGI to simulate interstellar governments launching offensives while giving player groups autonomy to go for planets.

During the 6 days, on any one world we can have a persistent map, with various objectives; conquest objectives, rearm objectives, satellite uplink etc. etc. Each world should be contestable only by 2 factions.

At any time during the 6 days, people can drop in the map according to the faction they are backing, and as long as their mechs are effective, fight as long as they like on the map. Conquest Objectives add to a world counter; rearm allows you to reload on a per-second basis (i.e., you stop for 10 second, you might get 1/2 ton ammo back... my LRM boat with 11 tons of ammo will take 4 minutes to reload, ow), and possibly consumables. Satellite and Artillery objectives makes them available for X amount of time.

At the end of the period, the faction with the most Conquest resource points wins the planet and adjusts the map accordingly.

Mental image of a combined Forest/ Bog map that's big enough to support the number of players, and the constant fighting going on for a high-intensity warfare battle on it. Players would have to work together to secure re-arm points to enable continual fighting, but also work towards capturing Conquest resource points. The round-the-clock fight would mean lulls that players can take advantage of, and the nature of the frontline fight would make heavies necessary, but plenty of room for lights to succeed as raiders and cappers/ decappers.

[Mystere]

RussianWolf, on 01 August 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

You basically just described Mechwarrior: Living Legends

"NOT INVENTED HERE" syndrome.

Baulven, on 01 August 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

The key to a persistent game is it needs to have enough space to move around, it needs sufficient objectives to accomplish and it has to weight risk vs reward. If they did implement such a system they would need a lot of code in order to pull off resupply, repair of mechs, base assault, artillery emplacement, drop ship zone designation, and a lot of other features.

I would love to see it but it would be quite a lot of work, and it appears PGI is not willing to contemplate a shift at this stage. Unless they are onboard it's just another idea on a heap of other ideas.

Anything not "minimally viable" is not allowed. That would be too hard for PGI.

[Kyrie]

To reiterate, I love this idea CocoaJin. What I find really disturbing is that there are very few of us who stuck around from back in 2012 who are still proposing stuff for CW; many of us have been driven away by PGI's inattention.

I can't help but wonder how much lost revenue that represents.