Jump to content

Faction Warfare Improvement


5 replies to this topic

Poll: AI to fix CW population issues (10 member(s) have cast votes)

Would AI help with CW population issues?

  1. Yes (6 votes [60.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

  2. No (3 votes [30.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

  3. Not sure / Maybe (1 votes [10.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Belkor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 385 posts

Posted 01 November 2016 - 02:17 AM

I really hope the developers give faction warfare some more thought before dedicating valuable development time on a reduced bucket system. The core reason why faction warfare is unpopular is because it lacks all the elements that provide engagement, a sense of progression and being invested in who wins or loses. Simply forcing through a reduced bucket system is not a good solution. A revamped contracts system could provide some more engagement / investment:

View PostAresye, on 15 March 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

Ah, the good ol', "What are we gonna do about mercs?" discussion. Well, here's my idea to make both merc and loyalist units happy, avoid out of the blue attacks on allies, and give more depth to CW as a whole.

Loyalists
The big problem of being a loyalist (besides the lack of mech bays and other rewards) is the general lack of control when it comes to hiring mercenaries. Contracts are less like contracts and more like a gentleman's agreement. Money may or may not be involved, and if it is, it's coming out of a player's personal CBills, and there's no system in place to hold mercs accountable to the terms and duration of the contract, setting up the possibility of trolling loyalists out of money.

A solution to this would be to give unit leaders the ability to create contracts themselves, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a complicated system. A simple in-game contract generator can do.

How it would work:
- The unit leader clicks on a tab on the faction screen called, "Contracts," bringing up the sub-menus of, "Create Contract," "Current Contract/s," and, "Contract History."

"Create Contract"
- The unit leader creates a contract.
- A page opens up similar to the current mechlab with different tabs/menus on the left side.
- The first tab at the top is for the date and duration of the contract. Input the start and end dates. The contract begins at 0000 GMT on the start date selected and ends at 1159 GMT on the end date. A "Flexible" option is represented by a check box. If checked, the mercenary unit accepting the contract has the option to break the contract earlier than the end date without being penalized. This option could be used to raise/lower the costs of a contract.
- The next tab is for selecting targets. Select all factions you are okay with the mercenaries attacking. Note that just because a faction is not selected does not mean the mercenaries cannot attack them (more on that later).
- The next tab is for selecting allies. Select all factions you wish that mercenaries do not attack. Note that just because a faction is selected as an ally does not mean the mercenaries cannot attack them (more on that later).
- The next tab is for selecting a preferred mercenary company/s. You can enter a maximum of 4 unit tags. Note: If no unit tags are entered, the contract will be open to all mercenary units, but only one can accept. If one or more unit tags are entered, only those units can accept/deny the contract, with payments split depending on how many accept and fulfill the contract (more on that later).
- The final tab is for setting up the cost/payment of the contract (CBills only). Enter the amount of CBills for the contract. CBills will be temporarily deducted from the unit coffers once the contract is submitted, and placed into a holding status until the completion of the contract, at which time it will be officially deducted and placed into the mercenary unit's coffers.
- Once the contract is filled out, the unit leader has the option to submit or cancel the contract. Once submitted, the contract may be cancelled up until the start, at which point the contract can only be cancelled through the "Current Contract/s" menu.

"Current Contract/s"
- Submitted contracts and current contracts will both show up under this menu.
- Contracts are sorted by date and preferred unit tag (if applicable).
- Clicking to edit a contract will bring you to the same screen as above, although certain elements will be locked/non-editable. For example, the price and dates of the contract are hard locked and cannot be edited.
- The unit leader may edit the contracts in terms of selectable targets/allies. This is to ensure that if a political situation changes for a faction, the unit leader may adjust the contracts for their mercenaries to give them the full bonus. Contract changes will automatically notify the leader of the mercenary group that the contract has changed.
- The unit leader has the option to cancel the contract at any time. If a contract is cancelled by the unit leader, the price of the contract will be prorated for all current days (Ex: A 1wk contract for 140 million that is cancelled on the 4th day will cost the unit 80 million for 4 days of work).

"Contract History" - This will be quick.
- Shows a historical record of all past contracts that were officially submitted (aka: Not cancelled before submitting), along with their status (Fulfilled/Cancelled).

Mercenaries
The main problem with mercenaries is they want to fight as both IS and Clan, often having to deal with penalties for breaking factions and/or being stuck with a faction to avoid said penalties. They also don't want to be held down by politics, and fight whomever they wish to fight.

How it would work:
- The mercenary leader clicks on a tab on the faction screen called, "MRBC," bringing up the sub-menus of, "View Open Contracts," "Current Contract," and, "Contract History."

"View Open Contracts"
- Clicking this tab brings up all available contracts from all factions, with a "View" option for each one. Contracts created with a preferred unit tag will only show up for the unit/s selected.
- Each contract created by unit leaders from the above process is compiled to a single page showing all the information about the contract, who to attack, who to not, etc.
- Contracts can be accepted a maximum of 3 days in advance. Note: Only one contract can be active at any time. The start date for a new contract must not overlap with any current contracts.

"Current Contract"
- The current contract tab will show the current contract in progress and/or a recently accepted future contract.
- If the loyalist unit leader changes the contract, the mercenary leader will be able to see those changes at any time by viewing the current contract.

"Contract History"
- Same as above.

Questions/Concerns
So let's talk about some issues that may arise from this system. I'll update this part of the page with responses and concerns from people replying, but here's a few I've thought about to get things started:

Q1: What about mercenary units that decide to attack allies?
A1: The way I see this system working, is we want to promote mercenaries adhering to their contracts, but not hold them down. Perhaps a system could be created where if a mercenary unit attacks an ally, a CBill penalty would apply, automatically deducted from the contract payout? One or two small skirmishes would have very little effect on the contract payment, but going completely against contract and constantly attacking allies would result in little to no payment. Since the allies/targets would be part of the in-game data surrounding the contract, this system could be automatic. If a unit leader changes the contract and a previous ally is now an available target, the automatic penalty would no longer be in place.

Q2: Won't that be easy to create errors?
A2: The way I see it, this is a system to assist negotiations between unit leaders and mercenaries. Unit leaders and mercenary leaders should both stay on top of their contract/s.

Q3: This is impossible!
A3: It's completely within the realm of possibility. I know I haven't presented the most coherent, logical form of the idea, but everything dealing with CBills and in-game data is simply that...in-game data. I'm sure there will be bugs and better ways of doing things, but a base concept of this idea is definitely possible with the information available in MWO's database surrounding CBills, unit coffers, and game tracking. The real question is, how much time and effort would it take to create a system like this?

Q4: What's the risk vs reward ratio?
A4: That's for PGI to decide. I see it as a low risk, high reward, but they would be the ones coding it and devoting resources to making something like this a possibility, and only they will have an accurate measure if something like this would be worth it or not.

Alright, that's all folks. Sorry for the long read. Please fire your comments and concerns away. Let's help come up with more ways to give more depth to CW!


In addition to this system, what about a contract system that lets Loyalists pull up a database of active CW mercs with their current leaderboard record and allow Loyalists to make a pooled bid for said mercs? This will give players incentive to improve their play, research better builds, learn the maps and etc to make themselves more attractive for higher bids. The merc can decide which bid/contract to take in the end.

Note that I'm not sure if it will be sustainable to completely fund these contracts entirely from players' personal account. Maybe have certain captured planets generate a stream of cbills that can only be used to hire mercs? Also, I don't see an issue with Loyalists having the option to offer a bit of the MC generated from their planets to secure contracts / bids.

Outside of a revamped contracts system, AI mechs could be a solution to population issues. For example, in a game with 16 human players, 8 AI players could be added for a full 12v12 match. This addresses queue times and the population issue causing players to avoid faction warfare. A game named Crossout has successfully used this model to address population problems.

Adding strategic value to planets would also generate engagement and allow players to be invested into something. Perhaps allow groups that own planets to get into base building for that planet? Buy defenses and etc? More thought and time will need to be put into this.

Edited by Belkor, 10 November 2016 - 08:54 PM.


#2 DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • LocationBetween Type 1 and Type 2

Posted 04 November 2016 - 12:30 AM

Yeah work on PVE and come back to CW/FW after that when we can substitute potatoes with AI.

Tier 5 is just them testing out AI Posted Image

Edited by DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, 04 November 2016 - 12:31 AM.


#3 Belkor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 385 posts

Posted 10 November 2016 - 08:49 PM

View PostDiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 04 November 2016 - 12:30 AM, said:

Yeah work on PVE and come back to CW/FW after that when we can substitute potatoes with AI.

Tier 5 is just them testing out AI Posted Image


Posted Image But seriously, I think AI can solve the population issues. Even CS:GO fills in teams with AI when there are not enough players for a team and they definitely do not have a population issue. A way to balance AI in faction warfare would be simply trying to put an equal number of AI on each side. Also I think AI can be as deadly as tier 1 players if PGI wants to spend the development time. Think about the reaction speed and aim of an AI... very deadly....

#4 DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • LocationBetween Type 1 and Type 2

Posted 19 November 2016 - 06:51 PM

I've asked for this before CW even came out sorry I don't care to give feedback that falls on deaf ears.

#5 Belkor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 385 posts

Posted 02 December 2016 - 11:57 PM

View PostDiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, on 19 November 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

I've asked for this before CW even came out sorry I don't care to give feedback that falls on deaf ears.


Posted Image Well that is unfortunate. With all the suggestions flooding these forums, I wonder if the developers just missed them. I think it is still worth giving your feedback in the odd chance they see it. Good ideas are something worth fighting for.

#6 Belkor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 385 posts

Posted 09 December 2016 - 08:59 PM

Any further comments / suggestions from anyone else?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users