43 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

When Piranha Games, Inc. is finished with it’s final version of contract objectives gameplay, surely to be some time after release of the game, this is what I would LIKE to see for Conquest Mode play…

(WARNING: Wall-o-Text!)

(NOTE: Before anyone has a heart attack, this is just MY vision…)

My work here is based out of my 2^nd Edition CMTC (Compiled Mission Types Catalog), and I will be happy to email you a copy if you’ll shoot me a PM with your email address?

The general idea behind this post is to give a better sense of how I believe games should run; some of those among you will agree with me, others will be my detractors. I expect this, though I would ask you to continue to respect one another during your posting. This is not designed to be controversial, just one possible vision…

Various types of contracts should be split into various parts, to include…

• (IG) Intelligence Gathering – pre-mission purchased or sought intel on various targets or, for defenders, intel purchased from turn-coats, government officials, etc.
  
• (Rec) Reconnaissance – On-planet intel gathering by military recon forces; this can play the largest part of almost any mission.
  
• (OR) Objective Raids – Objectives are determined by the intel received by the Force Commander, from both IG and Rec. Raids and defenses are planned around these objectives, and can be the completion of a contract, or a mid-point to harry the defenders, or push back the attackers, on the march to completing a Planetary Assault or defending against the same.
  
• (FA) Force Attrition – This is where forces do nothing but beat each other into oblivion, “winning” through Charlie Sheen style strategy and tactics, thoughtless except to meet in battle and destroy each other.
  
• (Bat) Final Battles – Just what the name implies, whether a total breakthrough by the attackers and a win for them, or the defenders pushing their attackers off-world.

Each of these are set up, by contract type, to hold certain percentages each toward contract completion for attackers, and for forcing attackers to fail by hitting their full percent mark, first, forcing the attackers back from completion of their contract. Certain extraneous actions, such as hitting nominally non-strategic targets, or capturing an attacker’s recon team, etc., can adjust even full percentages down, and certainly toward completion by either side. Missions proceed until 100% of completion is reached, through various numbers of missions for all portions of contract completion.


DEFENSIVE CAMPAIGN
This obviously begins AFTER an enemy attacking force has landed and begun their attacks.

• IG – This would work to get a proper SALUTE report on the enemy and would be an ongoing process until one side or the other has won. This would account for up to 33% of the defenders percentage toward winning against the attacker.
  
• Rec – This would work hand-in-hand with IG, but only fit within that portions percentage.
  
• OR – Raiding an enemy’s landing zone, staging point, ammo and parts dump, field base, etc. would gain up to about 15%.
  
• FA – This is the best bet for the defenders, to use their knowledge of the terrain, various existing on-world sensors, any satellites remaining in orbit, recon to plan ambushes, etc. This would harness perhaps a full 75% of win for the defenders.
  
• Bat – This would take the remaining percentage of win for the defenders, if they cannot be pushed back or, at least, stopped by FA. However, this also means, unless it’s a Planetary Assault, that the defenders have come very close, indeed, to losing.

DIVERSION
This is, most typically, used to delay a force from leaving planet side to make orders given to help shore up, defend, or attack another world. Force commanders can use diversions to knock strong units out of the way by keeping them busy for some time, making it possible for contracts or orders to be carried out without the distraction of the unit under Diversion. This type of mission should be rolled in with another mission, such as some manner of OR campaign; the idea is to eliminate or disrupt the use of assets on the planet, including water plants, manufacturing facilities, starport destruction, anything to make forces remain on-planet to defend what is theirs.

EXTRACTION
This sort of mission should be a fairly short mission though, nonetheless, split into three to four parts…

• IG – Finding out where the informant, family, military officer, dignitary, experimental BattleMech or equipment, ammo, fuel, or parts cache, etc. are. Up to 20%
  
• Rec – Ensuring the “package” is where they’re supposed to be. Up to 33%
  
• OR – Diversionary raid is likely the only way to draw forces from the “package”. Up to 15%
  
• Bat – The battle to get into the facility, maintain watch on it until an extraction vehicle and/or convoy are able to come in to retrieve what they need, and then an orderly battle retreat.

GENERAL/OPEN CONTRACT
This would be the hardest type of contract to execute, because though the planet(s)/operational zone(s) would have been chosen, the contract develops as it’s completed, each new mission building on the previous mission(s).

GUERRILLA WARFARE CONTRACT
This is harassment of either defending or attacking forces, or both. Attack and fade, defend and fade, give ground, take ground, complete objectives at leisure, etc. This may fit into the Diversion contract, or Objective Raids, or may just be a series of small fights, the percentages of completion for which are managed solely by Force Attrition. However, let’s consider that both attackers and defenders are trying to play this intelligently…

• IG – With a guerrilla fight, from either or both sides, it’s intentionally true that the guerrilla force remains unidentifiable as long as possible. Either, or both, sides may continue trying to gain intelligence, though the percentage chance is very low, and doesn’t really matter, so this section would be worth, perhaps, 15% at most.
  
• Rec – Except for being used against the harassed static force, recon will do no good against guerrilla forces that are properly on the move, counting for zero percentage. Used against static forces, recon will work exceptionally well against them, and could count for up to 60% of completion.
  
• OR – These are used more for distraction and pulling defending forces away from their protection duties, counting for up to 45% of completion.
  
• FA – This mission type was made for force attrition, though normally through raiding forces during their down times, knocking out machines and infrastructure. This is where the remainder of percentage toward completion of this contract type will come in.
  
• Bat – If forces get into a large battle during a Guerrilla contract, they have failed, and it would be in the defender’s best interest to bait guerrilla forces into this.

PIRATE HUNTING

• IG – Finding the pirates. Up to 35%
  
• Rec – Verifying the pirates are where they’re supposed to be. Up to 35%
  
• OR – Baiting. Up to 10%
  
• FA and Bat – Finishing them off one force at a time, or one last major fight. Remainder of completion percentage

PLANETARY ASSAULT

• IG – Gaining the proper intel to bring forces and where best to land for the attacking force, and then free IG for the defenders on general force strengths and unit composition, though not the LZ. A defending commander would also have the right to set up their forces across various possible objectives for the attackers and begin making patrols, usually automated. This would account for a full 20% of completion for each side, and a certain amount of time would be allotted –in real-world days– for completion of as much of this percentage as possible. Understanding to the commanders would be given that without the full 20%, or more, of IG completed would make their job far more difficult
  
• Rec – Both sides would be required to perform reconnaissance, hopefully for obvious reasons. For the attacker this would count for a full 20% of their contract, and for the defender it could count for up to 35%, since the world is their home turf
  
• OR – As usual, these are diversionary in nature, though they could also pose a major part of objective completion, up to 35%, while defenders could garner a maximum of 15% as they couldn’t be everywhere all the time
  
• FA – Several smaller battles would be fought as contacts are made and recon forces lead larger ones into crossing paths, each trying to stop the other from making their objectives, or even just dismantling one another. As it is generally better for defending forces to meet attackers and attempt to break them down, or cost them parts, ammo, supplies, coolant, and more, a little bit at a time, as they work to defend so many sites, this could count for up to 45% of their completion goal
  
• Bat – Two or more major battles would be fought between larger forces to determine the final winner of the Planetary Assault, based on collected percentage thus far and what would be required to complete orders/contracts on both sides

RECONNAISSANCE
This contract/order type is NOT always for impending doom from an attacker, but may also be used to update or acquire information, to keep an eye on manufacturers, alternate forces, etc.

• IG – Because of the nature of recon contracts, IG can only count for up to 15% of contract completion
  
• Rec – This is the Big Kahuna, so-to-speak, and should consist of two or more drives toward completion/collection of the recon requirement(s), up to 85%
  
• OR – Yes, though this is reconnaissance, it may also turn out to be a necessity to collect intel, take pictures, etc., and then destroy a facility so the intel will never fall into anyone else’s hands
  
• FA or Bat – If you find yourself engaged in either of these contract completion section types, you’ve already lost the contract, and it would behoove the defenders to draw you into a trap such as this

I think most of you see what I’m getting at; the idea of performing multiple missions for various types of contracts, where it’s not always about weapons fire and knocking off armor is something that appeals to me greatly, and I know it does for some others.

I would love to hear what some of the rest of you will come up with to enhance these ideas.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 11 December 2011 - 08:52 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

nice write up Kay Wolf

[Threat Doc]

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. Anything you'd like to add, clarify, or have clarified? It'll have to wait until tomorrow during the day some time, but I will answer.

[SGT Unther]

Yeah I agree fully with this type of game play, if people want area combat tell them to go to Solaris VII and have a team or regular deathmatch. We are mercs we want real battles with salvage and big maps, not some sissy area matches. If there are any COD fanboys who want to complain, tell them to go back to their game that hasn't changes for the last 5 games.

Sort of venting there and giving my 2 cents.

Edit: Forgot to add this but I would also like to say nice write up. Hopefully the devs won't alienate the real fans with COD style gameplay.

Edited by SGT Unther, 12 December 2011 - 07:18 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Thanks, Big Sarge, I definitely appreciate the enthusiasm.

[SGT Unther]

No problem, I was just saying what I though and hoping at the same time that this doesn't turn into the failure on the same level that was duke nukem forever. I kind of stress with exams (got one today), so I though I would vent my stress in a productive direction

[VYCanis]

while i like all those things, how would one actually set some of those situations up? Like recon or guerrilla fighting? As many of them rely on forces actually being stuck on a planet and things being in semi permanent locations. It would be great to have from a singleplayer game and from a realistic logistics standpoints. And if the game played like ARMA it would be no sweat to implement. But if the game plays anything like mpbt3025, the guy defending planet A might be going off to attack planet C in under 10 minutes, then might be off to bed, how do you implement these ideas from a game design standpoint that would likely revolve around a lot of instanced fights?

I'm not knocking the idea, I'd love to have it, but I have concerns on how to actually make it work.

[Mason Grimm]

SGT Unther, on 12 December 2011 - 07:16 AM, said:

We are mercs we want real battles with salvage and big maps, not some sissy area matches.

Agree! And it's not cause you are a fellow Ontarian either!!!

[Threat Doc]

SGT Unther, on 12 December 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

No problem, I was just saying what I though and hoping at the same time that this doesn't turn into the failure on the same level that was duke nukem forever. I kind of stress with exams (got one today), so I though I would vent my stress in a productive direction

While I am going to attempt to take a wait and see stance -it's NOT easy with a property I love as much as this one- until this game launches, I have to agree to some trepidity with regards to the word "if". Until I find out either way, I will do my best to support, better than I have, our developers. With regards to your exams, I have to say better you than me; I've definitely had my fair share.

VYCanis, on 12 December 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

while i like all those things, how would one actually set some of those situations up? Like recon or guerrilla fighting? As many of them rely on forces actually being stuck on a planet and things being in semi permanent locations. It would be great to have from a singleplayer game and from a realistic logistics standpoints. And if the game played like ARMA it would be no sweat to implement. But if the game plays anything like mpbt3025, the guy defending planet A might be going off to attack planet C in under 10 minutes, then might be off to bed, how do you implement these ideas from a game design standpoint that would likely revolve around a lot of instanced fights?

I'm not knocking the idea, I'd love to have it, but I have concerns on how to actually make it work.

Here's how I see the setup...

Merc Corps A is contracted to defend the planet, so they move their forces to do so. The commander reviews the pre-set defences, sensors, and any on-planet forces, moves militia forces where they need them to be, or fits their own forces into the present rotation of militia forces. Yes, this implies there will, eventually, be AI forces of all types on various worlds, per the fluff, and they will be useful to Merc Corps commanders. The MechWarriors of this Merc Corps can then 'ghost' out to other units and play for them, if that system is allowed. However, if their primary planet -or, if a larger force, one of their planets- is under threat of attack, they need not be flitting about the universe, especially on a 1 day = 1 day system, and need to keep themselves put where they belong, period.

Merc Corps B is contracted to attack, whether for a recon, raid, or all-out Planetary Assault, Merc Corps A's planet, to land and deploy under varying levels of Gathered Intelligence and Recon work -this goes both ways, attacker and defender- and their job is to work themselves through the objectives to accomplish their contract. If members of Merc Corps A are out galavanting the universe fighting for everyone else, and not paying attention to their own holdings, they deserve to lose and take the hit.

A terrible precedent has been set in previous leagues built for the BattleTech universe, and that is the idea of jumping from planet-to-planet instantly and fighting whatever whenever, no real consequences for losses and no real bonuses for wins. MWO, in MY future vision, would have actual battles requiring strategic moves and countermoves, intel, recon, objectives, and they would be accomplished over time.

What I would like to see is each commander, whether attacker or defender, move their forces on a planetary map one time per eight or twelve hour period, in a turn-based fashion and, if there's to be a battle, when forces are close enough, one space on the map between them representing their intersection, they would be halted, NOT knowing where the other force would be, so they could each play reconnaissance to determine where the other force is and either, A) move to avoid the other force, select an ambush option (this would require the commander's to be on their best vigilance, or C) leave a call for battle with the other commander. Oh, to back up a little bit, each side would be notified when their sensors, or their recon elements, began to lose their minds, by email, twitter, Facebook, G+, etc., when the forces are separated by one space on the planetary map. And, if a recon probe is detected, the commander would be informed then, as well. Through a simple app, perhaps, the commander's could choose to freeze everything on the field at that point, or could commence recon or battle, opening the fight up for a 24- or 48-hour period -this was the idea of someone else on this forum, though I don't remember who-, allowing skirmishes and what-not to help determine an overall winner and loser, by averaging each instance of the fight.

[VYCanis]

I don't know, that system seems to hinge a lot on people treating MWO like a full time job and are always on call to do what a commander needs them to do at nearly any hour of the day.

I mean i know for a fact that i've got stuff to do in real life. I don't have time to be on call waiting for a pair of commanders to finally reach the point of battle some time after hours of planning and strategy against each other, and have that only be the beginning of some full blown campaign. Nor do i have the time to wait hours or days to move between worlds.

That whole set up sounds more the sort of the thing that would be better off saved for a long term TT campaign, A MUD type system, or singleplayer mechcommander type dealie.

Edited by VYCanis, 12 December 2011 - 12:19 PM.

[SGT Unther]

that sounds very much like mechwarrior2 mercenaries a lot of the mission especially early on in the campaign are attacks/raids to give the diplomats ammunition in the forever ongoing "peace talks" between the great houses.

[Orzorn]

I totally agree. The way I see it, if we have mechs built mainly for fighting (heavies and assaults), and most of the game types are geared towards fighting, its unfair towards mechs like lights and mediums that are built towards recon and team support, something that we don't get to see often in dedicated game types.

As such, I think its only fair to have game types revolving heavily around recon aspects (where lights shine), or defense/harassment (where mediums really shine).

Why should Heavies and Assaults get all the action?

[Threat Doc]

VYCanis, on 12 December 2011 - 12:17 PM, said:

I don't know, that system seems to hinge a lot on people treating MWO like a full time job and are always on call to do what a commander needs them to do at nearly any hour of the day.

Not at all. You didn't catch the part where I said that, obviously, AI would be a requirement. The idea with the 24 to 48 hour system of averaging wins/losses is to allow ALL members of a Merc Corps to participate at the times they're going to be able to participate, making it NOT a necessity to make the game a full-time job.

Say you have three Lances that can fight, but none of them can fight at the same time. Rather than what's taken place in the past leagues, being a requirement to get everyone in the unit together, or they're left out, period, now you could make it possible for each Lance of MechWarriors to fight in their own battle and/or complete their own objectives, with or without live pilots on the enemy side. If it's a company vs. company battle, then the Lance Leader has control of assigning the AI-'Mechs to go and do -a la MechWarrior 3s Lance Command Window- what the Lance Leader needs for them to do. Now, imagine the Merc Corps on the other side having similar restrictions, and yet all of them are able to fight, even at varying times and in varying strengths.

Once each fight is finished, its results are placed in a database that tracks points for all MechWarriors, wins and losses on each side and, at the end of the fight period allotted, the results are averaged to determine an overall winner, an overall loser, and the salvage each side receives, what objectives, if any, are completed, and how much closer each side is to completing their goals. If there's a tie, which should be VERY difficult to achieve, the time is extended, the average is destroyed, and more fights are done. Each full Lance could fight either as many times as possible or once every amount of time that passes (6 hours, 8 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, or one time), though that would have to be agreed on by the force commanders through whatever fight interface is used.

Quote

I mean i know for a fact that i've got stuff to do in real life. I don't have time to be on call waiting for a pair of commanders to finally reach the point of battle some time after hours of planning and strategy against each other, and have that only be the beginning of some full blown campaign. Nor do i have the time to wait hours or days to move between worlds.

You... didn't... actually... read (shakes head) anything... did you?

VYCanis, it's problematic that you didn't read what was written several times over. This is how fights start more than anything. Please go back and read, again, because you didn't get anything I said.

Orzorn, on 12 December 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

Why should Heavies and Assaults get all the action?

Quote

that sounds very much like mechwarrior2 mercenaries a lot of the mission especially early on in the campaign are attacks/raids to give the diplomats ammunition in the forever ongoing "peace talks" between the great houses.

Both, precisely.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 12 December 2011 - 02:07 PM.

[VYCanis]

I did read everything, and when you are saying stuff like

" However, if their primary planet -or, if a larger force, one of their planets- is under threat of attack, they need not be flitting about the universe, especially on a 1 day = 1 day system, and need to keep themselves put where they belong, period."

and

"A terrible precedent has been set in previous leagues built for the BattleTech universe, and that is the idea of jumping from planet-to-planet instantly and fighting whatever whenever, no real consequences for losses and no real bonuses for wins. MWO, in MY future vision, would have actual battles requiring strategic moves and countermoves, intel, recon, objectives, and they would be accomplished over time."

the overall impression I got is that as a player I'd be incredibly restricted in where and when i can fight.

[Threat Doc]

Well, that's not what I was saying at all. The terrible precedent will continue, because it won't be "fun" otherwise; don't worry, you'll be able to play Tinkerbell wherever you want. However, if your planet is under attack, or you've been informed that a battle is coming near, and you decide you're going to go and fight someone else's war, anyway, you're doing a disservice to your unit, their reputation and strength, and you're adding to problems your employer for that contract can ill-afford, and they'll be less likely to employ you.

There will surely be no restrictions, and I am not an advocating of making those types of restrictions, which is why I recommended that players, while on-contract and/or otherwise waiting, would be able to 'ghost' in to play with other units. Their in-game pilot would be where they're supposed to be while the 'ghost' of their pilot will be able to replace an NPC pilot somewhere -if any of this comes to fruition in the first place- and fight in their stead. Once that fight is done, look at the lobby, or whatever is going to be used as a mid-point for this game, find another battle or answer training or battle calls for their own unit, and go fight again.

I don't know if what I'm saying, now, is not just going to be placed in the sarcasm box, again, so I have to ask that if you have a real question, please ask it? I apparently explained myself well enough for the few other folks who've written in this thread, and I believe I've more than adequately explained myself to you. So, if you have another question from the reading, then please ask away? In my mind, this doesn't sound rude, though even as I write it, I see how it can be taken that way. Forgive me if it sounds that way.

[VYCanis]

Ah, in that case i misinterpreted, my bad.

[Threat Doc]

No problem. I want to make sure I'm clear, even if it seems like I'm not happy about it; I think it's just a matter of trying to find new ways to explain it.

I'm not looking to impinge on anyone's fun, but I would love to see some real depth, here.

[Red Beard]

Hmmm...far too complex. I would venture to say that while this game is appealing, in it's early stages, to many of us, some folks are taking the ideas of planetary conquest too far. I can appreciate the creativity, but I can see most of the finer detail being lost on the largest majority of the gamers that will play this.

That was a good deal of typing to do.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Red Beard, on 12 December 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:

Hmmm...far too complex. I would venture to say that while this game is appealing, in it's early stages, to many of us, some folks are taking the ideas of planetary conquest too far. I can appreciate the creativity, but I can see most of the finer detail being lost on the largest majority of the gamers that will play this.

That was a good deal of typing to do.

Actually i think for a large proportion of the people on this board it's exactly what they want the campaign mode to be. deep, complex and absorbing in the way the BT universe can be and should be. When I've played other games in the past where neccessary I've taken leave and played for hours straight to help successfully conclude a campaign. It's why a number of people have suggested several types of play.
I'm sure that in a Solaris style match you would take me. Strategy is what I've spent the last 50 years on playing.

[VYCanis]

been doing some thinking, and I think i figured out how this might work without even needing any AI

High ranking players in charge of a planet can sort of customize the overall defensive elements of the planet. with whatever resources they have. None of this is represented in 3d. It is essentially a 2d planet-lab

so stuff like orbital defense, secured LZs, sensor arrays, automated defenses, force placement, etc

These defensive options stay active whether there is any actual player there or not, only going offline if there is no one paying for upkeep.

An attacking commander would not know what these defenses are. So he must kinda blow cbills worth of commander assets to either neutralize or bypass the defensive stuff before successfully touching down and engaging the enemy troops. Certain aspects of this could translate into abilities or perks for either side once the fight starts depending on which commander's planning was successful.
The process can be very short and happen out of game space

For example
D-planet has orbital guns,
A-send aerospace fighters to disable
D- orbital guns have AA emplacements, attack repulsed, x amount of aerospace destroyed,
A-Send HALO commando team to disable AA
D AA disabled
A send another aerospace wave to disable orbital guns
D- orbital guns disabled
A- get closer to planet, initiate scan for enemy forces
so on and so forth until the 2 forces finally meet.

Ostensibly it could almost take the form of a slightly animated short multiple choice quiz. Where the defender determines which is the correct answer. and wrong answers cost you resources.

The average player only deals with the actual fighting and sees none of this aside from any bonuses or maluses they might get because of it.

Edited by VYCanis, 13 December 2011 - 08:06 AM.