25 replies to this topic

[50 50]

REPAIRS/REARM


This proposal is for adding some additional features to Faction Play that goes along with a suggestion about making better use of the Loyalty Points:
https://mwomercs.com...-as-a-currency/
As well as a suggestion about changing Faction Play to a more open system:
https://mwomercs.com...an-open-system/
And works in conjunction with an additional feature for a logistics cost:
https://mwomercs.com...play-logistics/

NOTE: Please take into consideration the suggestions in the links provided when reviewing this proposal. This is not for the modes as they currently are but part of a larger picture for Faction Play.


HOW IT WOULD WORK
The basis of this idea is in utilizing the resource points we collect from Conquest mode in a different way. Most of the functionality is already in place.
Presently when we capture a point, we begin collecting resources.
The more points we have, the faster we collect those resources.

Where I see a change is where those resources points are pooled. Conquest on it’s own uses the points as a win condition. I am proposing that in an open system, as per the link above, that we instead collect the resources on our drop decks while we are deployed in battle.
The longer we can stay in battle, the more points we can individually collect.
We can then have two choices with those points.

TAKE THE LOOT AND RUN
Straight up, treat any unspent resource points as a c-bill bonus when we leave the battle. As the win conditions in an open system are more extensive, we should allow for the possibility that players will want to drop onto a planet, capture the points, collect the resources and then leave.
It gives us a mission beyond just capturing the planet, something for smaller groups to engage in that also aid a larger invasion force. But we get a reward for it if we chose to take what we can and leave.

REPAIR/REARM OUR MECHS
Being able to repair and rearm our mechs is only worth while if we have an extended open scenario where control of the resources will mean a chance for attrition of forces.
The idea here is simple. We add a function to the drop decks, a ‘repair button’ that lets us select one of the mechs in our deck and repair it.

The cost to repair the mech can be determined by its tonnage how much damage it has taken and even if it is an Inner Sphere or Clan mech. In this regard it can be used as another factor in balancing the sides. As a new feature we can also look at additional options that may affect the cost as per the above link on loyalty points.
A completely destroyed mech could have a significant cost compared to a mech that has minor damage. The time to repair the mech could also be a factor. An undamaged mech that has depleted its ammo reserves could have a flat cost, or a cost per ton of ammo. These can be simple equations and after selecting a mech, we can have the choice to accept the cost.

However, instead of making it a c-bill cost which subtracts from our earnings, let’s use the resource points gathered. This in turn will give meaning to the control of those objectives on the map and also as a way to either keep participating in the battle or take the loot and run without it impacting our earnings. It becomes a bonus.

Example formula for repairs:
Mech tonnage * (100 - current health percentage)

A 20 ton mech (locust) that has a current health of 85% (15% damaged) would then have a resource point cost to repair of 20 * 15 = 300pts.

The resource cap is a great feature to add some differences for factions and personal items by the way (See reference to Loyalty Points).... we could also look at some flat modifiers for repairing completely destroyed mechs and what it might cost to just rearm.

New: Keeping the contest active
After a good comment, it would make sense to have a way to encourage the conflict and try to avoid the possibility of two groups of players sitting at opposite ends of the map and avoiding each other.
If the resource points have a collection rate of 1 per 5 seconds, you could just capture one and guard it to earn the points but it's going to take time.
If each resource point collected was worth 1000 c-bills then we have a reason to control these points but have to decide if we are prepared to wait long enough to collect enough points to be profitable, or capture more and do it quicker. It creates a natural incentive for conflict.
However, mix in the suggestion about a Logisitics Cost.
If it costs you a certain amount to charter a Jumpship to the planet you want to raid then what we have is a way to encourage players to try and achieve more in the scenario. One resource point just may not recoup those costs and it will avoid the problem of players jumping from scenario to scenario just farming c-bills.

If the collection rate is 1pt per 5 seconds, then having 5 of them would be 5pts per 5 seconds (1 per second).... it's still a decent amount of time to be active in a scenario and having to deal with any AI opponents or opposing players in their mechs.
But manage to keep control of those points and it's a very attractive payout at the end.
And that's just the LOOT side of things.
Keeping control of the minor objectives to collect those points forces greater attrition on the opposition team as your team can repair mechs more efficiently and it makes sure that in an extended campaign the minor objectives keep their worth when the major objectives are the goal and will require a significant effort to take.

(Refer to open war concept.)

EDIT 11/07/2017
I had pondered over the idea that a cap per resource point would encourage players to camp a location. However, after some further thought on the idea and working on some different angles it creates a few complications. Hence, just leave it as is with the increased rate of collection.
It did present the idea that there are 3 additional values that we can now use and modify with other features.
The number of points collected per 5 seconds.
The rate of collection being better than ever 5 seconds.
And, the total number of points that can be collected on the drop deck.
These are great options to include with the Loyalty Points and also a great way to provide some differences between the factions.

Edited by 50 50, 11 April 2017 - 03:01 AM.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Really not worth considering unless you want the lrm no skillers (as opposed to those who are manoeuvrable and actually take an active part in the match) to simply sit by the supply depot and expect everyone else to protect them while they "win" the match for everyone with their 80/100 lrm builds.

Matches are set up to try and encourage folk to participate in a limited time frame with a specific build they have considered, built and brought to the battlefront. R&R would just break that down to a pair of base hugging teams doing very little.

So, NO

[Cichol Balor]

all i see this doing is making the game easier for skilled pilots and damningly hard to inexperienced ones.


the ones dieing more will get less resources and need more resources. it also puneshes front line pilots more than LRM cowards sitting 1200 away

[Rick T Dangerous]

Not a good idea. Repairing a mech should take days, not minutes. Having points where mechs could get new ammo would breed two new forms of camping...

[50 50]

Ok, interesting points to discuss.
Keep in mind that this suggestion is meant to go hand in hand with the other changes to Faction Play as per the link at the top.

Repairs and Rearm under quick play.... no point.
Repairs and Rearm under current Faction Play model using the stages.... no point.... and trying to implement is across multiple stages has numerous problems.

But if we have a dynamic system with a variety of objectives (more than just the conquest points) all on the one map... with no timer saying when the match will end. Makes more sense.
Hence, review the other link.

Potentially you would see players capture a point and camp it to protect it.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, but also not overly beneficial to those players either.
If a lance of players sits on one point, yes they might be able to hold it but as we see in the existing conquest mode, any opposition held point is a target for conflict. We go to those points because we want to control them.
So having a fight at one of those locations is natural and inevitable.
It becomes our mission to retake that point and force the enemy out. Isn't that what we want to do anyway?
It does also mean that we may be leaving other points exposed which will begin to put us at a disadvantage so the alternative is to isolate the players that are trying to hold a single point and hit them from multiple sides.

I am not suggesting that the repairs or even re-arm be instant either but neither can it take days. The actual duration is more of a balance question but the idea is that we can only collect the points while participating in the battle but need to leave the battle and return to the staging area to actually use them. As we have seen with the retreat in Scouting and with redeploying from our dropships in another wave, this all takes some time.
If it means having to select a different mech to drop in while the other is being repaired/rearmed, then it's not much different to the use of drop decks we have now.
All it really means is that if we can stay in the battle, we may be able to prolong the game, our participation and our enjoyment of battling it out for as long as we are able.

A brawler mech may be seen as having a bit of a disadvantage as once you are at that range, it's a good chance you won't survive if you get focused down. However, it is a team game and we can only hope that you may get some support and live that bit longer.
More than that, this is where our selection of mechs for the drop decks may see some variety.
You can't really push a point and capture it in an LRM mech.
It's difficult in a long range build as well.
It stands to reason that you might then need a good brawler that can push an objective to try and capture it and drive off the enemy. As soon as it is captured, if we can retreat from that location or your mech is destroyed, you can return to the staging area and try to repair it. Bring in a fresh mech to continue the fight or hold the position yourselves if it looks like there will be a counter attack.... and you might want a mech that has a different role to do this. It may be that you jump in an ECM scout and play cat and mouse for a bit so you can build up some points.

There might be the possibility that you get two teams of players that sit on the opposite sides of the map and avoid each other. That would be their choice but not overly conductive to the whole idea of being at war.
Putting a limit on how many resources can be collected based on how many points are under control might sort that out as to make it worth while, you need to take more which will inevitably lead to a skirmish somewhere on the map. That's territorial control with a dynamic incentive.

Edited by 50 50, 26 March 2017 - 06:48 PM.

[Athom83]

I'd personally prefer this to be only applied to Siege mode and the upcoming Invasion mode, with some differences.

Repair: Done in friendly repair bays and/or hangars. You go in and power down, and you start repairing at a slow rate (bays and hangars have different rates). Reapir bays can be destroyed while hangars cannot (with only 1 hangar on Siege and 2 on Invasion). However a few things; 1) You can only repair up to half of your max armor value. 2) You can't repair destroyed parts (arms, side torso, leg) nor components (DHS, weapon, etc). 3) You can only repair half the damage taken to internal structure. Ex; If you take 25 damage to your structure, you can only repair 12.5. The next time you repair you've taken another 10 internal damage, you can only repair 5.

Rearm: Done in friendly ammo bays and/or hangars, you go in and power down. They can restock all ammo for every weapon, with a rate of 1 ton every 5 seconds for hangars and 1 ton every 10 seconds that for bays. Of course Bitchin' Betty needs to give an audio cue for when a weapon system is fully restocked. "LRM ammo at 100%" should be a common one. There could also be some neutral bays in no-mans-land in Invasion. However; 1) They cannot restock destroyed ammo stores. 2) They restock ammo for every weapon including weapons that were destroyed on your mech, making you more vulnerable to ammo explosion. 3) The bays'/hangar's rearming function can be take out by destroying an ammo store located on the map somewhere (hangar; hidden and protected, but still a possibility for skirmishers to find and take out. bay; probably right next to the bay).

Also to note, none of the above take any sort of resources.

Edited by Athom83, 27 March 2017 - 05:26 AM.

[Zenthious]

I would like to see much more extensive battles in this game. Longer maps with objectives like airfields, communications, HPG's, mobile HQ's, all of it. I don't see why one team -wouldn't- spawn from a mechbay and defend while the other is dropped in via a dropship to assault the bases and/or objectives in most modes. MWLL had repair bays, ammo trucks, and hangers, and it worked extremely well. I don't see why it wouldn't work in this game except that you would simply respawn in the hanger after death as appose to trying to run back to the hanger in an eject-able elemental. Any of these things would be fine even in quick play. Except that in quick play you wouldn't be working with a drop deck and respawn.
An easy answer for how to fairly implement the ammo truck is to limit when they show up in the match, and for how long. It might make more sense for ammo trucks to show up for a defending team that has to survive multiple waves of enemies.
There are a lot of options for how to mix things up in this game, and it sorely needs it. There should be many more modes and maps for this game given the age of it.

For those complaining about artillery LRM boats: Just wait for ATM's and thunderbolt missiles. Seriously, it's a part of the game. Learn to use cover, or just die over and over. Aside from that, for every game where you get 1200 LRM damage you probably have just as many where you had your back shot out by an ECM scout and only did 50. That's balance, IMO.

[50 50]

The approach at the moment would be to increase the scope of the existing maps to make them viable for a bigger scale of warfare.
The modes broken up as they are is good for Quick Play. That's where we need to get the experience in our mechs, learn the basics and understand the modes a bit.
I feel for Faction Play that the end result should be putting those modes together (not seperated into stages) in one BIG mode, a map that contains all of these objectives, has no time limit and lets us cycle through the battle in waves.
Given what we have at the moment I really think it is possible and perhaps not as difficult as we might think.
If we look at how we have spectators for the matches, some of the features from the Private lobby, options to retreat and gather intel from Scouting, how we can rejoin a match if we get disconnected.....

I dare the developers to give it a go.

[50 50]

Updated with Keeping the contest active

[50 50]

EDIT 11/07/2017
I had pondered over the idea that a cap per resource point would encourage players to camp a location. However, after some further thought on the idea and working on some different angles it creates a few complications. Hence, just leave it as is with the increased rate of collection.
It did present the idea that there are 3 additional values that we can now use and modify with other features.
The number of points collected per 5 seconds.
The rate of collection being better than every 5 seconds.
And, the total number of points that can be collected on the drop deck.
These are great options to include with the Loyalty Points and also a great way to provide some differences between the factions.

Edited by 50 50, 24 May 2017 - 07:11 PM.

[Insanity09]

Personally, I like the idea of a logistics factor in the Faction Warfare game. But then, I've always been a fan of strategy based games.

The one big problem I see is that any sort of maintenance/repair/re-arm cost system will further deter people from playing FW mode.
That aside....

The next obstacle is that several major changes to the way FW is implemented would need to take place. You touched on many of those in the Open system thread.

It seems what you are really talking about here is more of a campaign mode inside FW. Take the objectives from all the existing game play modes, dom, assault, conq, and make them actually mean something in the context of faction warfare. Very cool idea.
Each type of objective could offer a different benefit. Drop zones would have to be captureable/controllable. Segments of the overall map would have to be clearly marked as to what they contained and who currently controlled them.
There is a clear tie in here for scouting as a way to actually, you know, scout. For the attacker to figure out what was where objective wise, and for both sides to figure out enemy disposition.

I might suggest that the defender of a given campaign start out, as they often do, with a much larger stockpile of resources to be spent, while the attackers pool is far more limited, unless they can supplement with wins/claims, particularly of conq style objectives. (Also, as an interesting side point here, in the typical scheme of such things, loyalists would be getting the lion's share of any of these resources, mercs would be far more limited, such was the nature of being a merc, after all.)

Which brings up another concern. Resource sharing. How does one person get prevented from hogging all the resources, repairing and reloading their heavy/assault mechs over and over?

The more I think about this, considering as well the related threads you linked, the more interested I would be to seeing a game developed like this. I say "a game" because I'm not sure MWO is set up, or ever will be set up, to function with all this in mind.

I'd write more, but it's late and my brain isn't working very well.

[50 50]

Insanity09, on 13 April 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:

Personally, I like the idea of a logistics factor in the Faction Warfare game. But then, I've always been a fan of strategy based games.

The one big problem I see is that any sort of maintenance/repair/re-arm cost system will further deter people from playing FW mode.
That aside....

The next obstacle is that several major changes to the way FW is implemented would need to take place. You touched on many of those in the Open system thread.

It seems what you are really talking about here is more of a campaign mode inside FW. Take the objectives from all the existing game play modes, dom, assault, conq, and make them actually mean something in the context of faction warfare. Very cool idea.
Each type of objective could offer a different benefit. Drop zones would have to be captureable/controllable. Segments of the overall map would have to be clearly marked as to what they contained and who currently controlled them.
There is a clear tie in here for scouting as a way to actually, you know, scout. For the attacker to figure out what was where objective wise, and for both sides to figure out enemy disposition.

I might suggest that the defender of a given campaign start out, as they often do, with a much larger stockpile of resources to be spent, while the attackers pool is far more limited, unless they can supplement with wins/claims, particularly of conq style objectives. (Also, as an interesting side point here, in the typical scheme of such things, loyalists would be getting the lion's share of any of these resources, mercs would be far more limited, such was the nature of being a merc, after all.)

Which brings up another concern. Resource sharing. How does one person get prevented from hogging all the resources, repairing and reloading their heavy/assault mechs over and over?

The more I think about this, considering as well the related threads you linked, the more interested I would be to seeing a game developed like this. I say "a game" because I'm not sure MWO is set up, or ever will be set up, to function with all this in mind.

I'd write more, but it's late and my brain isn't working very well.

Hi Insanity09, thanks for the feedback.

The idea behind the repair cost suggested here was to make it a choice during the fight.
Most of our c-bill earnings come from the actual fighting, achieving an objective and the various rewards.
If we can stay in the battle longer, theoretically we would accumulate more of these and therefore our c-bill payout at the end would be higher.
By using the resource points as the 'currency' for the repairs it becomes the option to either take a bonus from raiding and keeping those points, or spend them to keep fighting. This promotes several options for us as individual players:

• Fight on because I'm having fun piloting my mechs and battling all over the map.
  
• Get a nice bonus for completing some objectives and escaping... ie. raiding.
  
• It promotes these objectives as 'worthwhile'.
  
• It promotes the build up of conflict in the scenario to allow for greater participation.
  
• It's our choice.

There is also nothing stopping us from dropping into a scenario, grabbing the objectives, collecting the points, not repairing our mechs and leaving. No repair cost outside of the actual battle. They get automatically repaired and you simply get a bonus. Recommit the same drop deck or another one and do it again if you like.
But that is why there is a logistics cost to get to the battle. This is necessary considering the possibility of ghost drops.

As for the actual collection, at the moment the resource points are collected for the team. The suggestion here is to make it more individual. While we are deployed into a scenario and piloting our mechs, we collect the resource points individually based on how many of the conquest objectives we have under our control.
The easiest spot to keep track of this is on the drop deck that we have committed to this scenario.
These are our points on our drop deck. We don't share them, but we also do not deny other players those points if we leave.
Because we have to be deployed to collect the points and that collection happens over time, continually repairing our assault mechs is both slow and uses a lot of those points.
As it is a feature used from the drop deck, this also means withdrawing that mech (and yourself) from combat to activate it.
To give the feature a bit of weight it should also include a timer so that a more damaged mech takes longer to repair.
(I don't thin instant repair is a good idea)
A team that can dominate and control the conquest objectives and therefore collect the resource points to keep their mechs in the fight is part of the dynamics and tactics for the game. It would be difficult to do however as with the additional major objectives as discussed in the open warfare thread, you can leave yourself open to a flank.
In a full scale invasion, control of these points creates attrition for the opposing force. The opposing force might have to retreat from the scenario to get their mechs repaired out of the game, then pay the logistics cost to come back in again. Keeps the battle going, might get a bit costly as well. 'End of scenario' conditions come into effect here so that a team that does fight the good fight can win the scenario.

Completely agree that in a larger mode, need to have different options for the drop zones and being able to select where we drop and capturing/re-capturing those drop zones.

Scouting, absolutely. I would prefer to see scouting incorporated into a larger mode so we are all in the same scenario. I thought I'd put a thread up about using intel points somewhere.... I'll see if I can find it... or just re-write it in line with these threads.
However, quick idea: We only see on our battlegrid, radar and compass the objective points we control. If there is a little randomness to where these might be on the map, then we do need to scout to find them... or re-find them should we lose control of them. If the discovery of mechs currently gives a reward, so to could the objectives. We simply add that reward as an intel point bonus as well. If we can spend those points to provide ourselves, our group or our team when we drop with some sort of temporary buff, then that promotes continued scouting. I'm really going to have to put up a better thread about this... too much to discuss here.

While some of these changes would require some programming effort, I have tried to incorporate many of the existing features we already have and keep some of these proposals fairly simple so as to make them reasonable.
Down the track we can expand on them.

[Insanity09]

Ah, I didn't catch before that you are suggesting in some way that the resource points be dual purpose: either they can be a cbill (xp?) boost at the end of the match, or they can be spent inside the match for repair/refit. I like it.

For the mechanism, I'd suggest a version of something I dimly recall from the MW franchise, the repair station/dock. Iirc, it would handle armor and ammo, but structure and lost components were an after the scenario thing. Strategic use was crucial, but you were also very vulnerable while using it, so doing repairing while under fire was a bad choice.

I love the idea of making scouting more important in a number of ways. "Losing" track of an objective/waypoint, and having to find them to start off, giving points for doing so, that's wonderful. Goodness knows the game as a whole needs a way to make lights and mediums a little more viable (incursion actually does an ok job of that, but for some reason many folks hate the mode <shrug>)
As an added bonus, randomizing the objectives a bit makes the games a little less of the set piece affairs they frequently are now. That does get a trifle stale. Not being sure of where on the map you needed to fight for objectives would fix that very nicely.

[50 50]

I think for a more complex repair system we could look at breaking up the repairs for armour, structure, equipment and ammo. That might be something to explore down the track as it does require a bit more functionality and depth.

Right at the moment, to get the feature implemented easily and quickly we can just start with using the mech health % as the measure.

If it's a simple formula along the lines of:

(100% - Mech Current Health %) * X resource points * mech tonnage = repair cost

... it keeps things really simple and therefore much easier to implement.
You don't really want a Locust to cost as much to repair as an Atlas so tonnage needs to be factored in.... possibly modified in some way.
But a simple percentage using what we have in game at the moment I would think should be a fairly simple start point for the cost.

EG:
(100% - 54% Health) = the mech has lost 46% of it's functionality.
If it was a Locust then it becomes 46 * 20 tons = 920 points to repair.
An Atlas would be 46 * 100 = 4600 points.

Currently we don't collect that much so perhaps it might be tonnage/5.
EG:
The Locust would be 46 * 4 = 184 resource points.
The Atlas would be 46 * 20 = 920 resource points.

That can all be worked out.
Add to that a timer which may also be affected by the tonnage so the bigger mechs do take longer to repair and we start to get some interesting dynamics to the feature.

But, take it a step further and think about modifiers that can now be brought into place to affect this calculation. This ties in with the Loyalty Points idea.
We could start to acquire a few NPCs to see in our Mechbays. Something like a technician that could alter the time it takes to repair, or a supply officer that can reduce the cost.
We have the NPCs available in the game (look at the tutorial) so could show them in the mech bay and they simply add a modifier to the function.
Different Factions could have different modifiers as well so it's way to bring in some added depth at that level, reasons to pick one faction over another and encourage loyalists. Some features like this allow the game to add depth in other areas which can only be good.

[Insanity09]

All this adds a little more world persistence into the game, which I think it is sorely lacking.

[50 50]

That's exactly it.
Quick play works well and serves it's purpose allowing us to jump into a match and just have a fight.
No consequences.
Great way to skill up and experiment with builds.

But for faction play, having that feeling that this is our galaxy, we will fight over planets for resources and territory.... it would be great to have a different feel to it.

I'd love to be able to log in and go to the Faction Play screen and find out that two major units have been having some epic battle against each other. Something that started with a handful of players that scouted out some defences, skirmished with some enemy forces.... then that escalated when a couple of additional lances dropped onto the planet and captured some resource points prompting a company of defending players to react to the threat and suddenly it was on like Donkey Kong and there has been a regiment of pilots from both sides battling it out for hours.
Read that one in the ISN News feeds.

At the same time, it would be really cool to be able to go into the Faction Play screen and see that a couple of players are having a great time scouting and skirmishing against each other on another planet, then over on the periphery there is a 'pirate' raid going on with a mercenary unit that has moved into a faction's territory and dropped onto a planet to pinch some resources.... and there is a call to arms going out to loyalists and freelancers in that area to respond to them.

The biggest point I would like to make with all these threads is enabling players to join in and play the game.
Enabling repairs and rearm adds that bit of depth and functionality, but it also creates a sceanrio whereby we can create our own mission to simply steal some resources or act as a prelude for a greater invasion force.
We start to get the ability to create our own missions and our own story.

[Johnny Z]

This would be great to see in faction play. Resource management and things like that.

[Erik Ouzbel]

It would be worth it, if the maps were larger, had multiple objects, were persistent, and had more players on each side. It's a nice concept, but wouldn't work well with the maps we have now. I don't see them making a map with several siege bases, conquest points, with scouting going on at the same time in the near future.

[Insanity09]

As regards some complaints for the cost of R&R, perhaps I'm overstepping, but I'm seeing that as another thing faction/loyalty points could be paying for.
Of course, mercs would be paying cbills, because they have no loyalty.

[50 50]

Insanity09, on 12 May 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

As regards some complaints for the cost of R&R, perhaps I'm overstepping, but I'm seeing that as another thing faction/loyalty points could be paying for.
Of course, mercs would be paying cbills, because they have no loyalty.

Might be an option.
I was thinking that the loyalty points could be used to get some items like an NPC technician that provided a modifier to the cost but having a one off 'Spare Parts' item that we could purchase and use to negate costs would be a cool idea.
It would be a like a drop deck consumable.
In the end, having a repair cost allows us to introduce other features that will work with it.
We build more depth.

Edited by 50 50, 14 May 2017 - 06:42 PM.