Jump to content

Faction Play - Making It A Campaign

Gameplay Mode

47 replies to this topic

#1 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 20 July 2017 - 04:27 AM

The focus of this suggestion is how we could use some of the existing features to substantially change the feel and flow of Faction Play from a match into a battle or war.

It is also hoped that elements of this suggestion will help to alleviate if not resolve on going issues raised by players about the mode such as spawn camping, being able to select the mode they want, wait times, minimal participation to win as well as some options or ways to introduce additional depth and player/unit interactions.

TURNING THE STAGES/MODES INTO MISSIONS



Spoiler

REPURPOSING SCOUTING



Spoiler

ENHANCING FUNCTIONALITY IN THE GROUP SCREEN



Spoiler

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DROP DECKS



Spoiler

VICTORY



Spoiler

Edited by 50 50, 21 November 2017 - 01:11 PM.


#2 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:10 AM

EVOLVING THE IDEA




After watching the changes to the map with the current setup and considering how the map was prior to the one bucket Clan vs IS it has occurred to me that it is not really suitable for PvP.

The map has been beautifully represented in MWO but it is a map designed for the table top and single player games. I'm going to discuss the points here and hope to get another vid up about it.

It's 2 dimensional.
Great for a book.
But this immediately sets up the problem of having some factions not able to face off against others.
This meant that factions such as Liao, Marik and Davion were not able to fight against the clans until the clans had pushed far enough into the map. As this was where the main point of conflict was, you pretty much had to swap to a different faction to get a match simply due to there not being enough players.
Not only that, but due to the borders there were also multiple instances where certain factions could not fight another.

Not all factions are equal
Some factions were at a massive disadvantage right from the start simply due to the size of their territories.
This is why we have not been able to give planets more value than just being a dot on the map.
Had that happened and each faction had a planet with a factory, or a space port etc. Some of the factions would immediately be at a disadvantage due to those strategic locations being closer to a border.
There is no way to balance this with the map as it is

Map resets are not good
Players want to feel involved and invested in the conflict. Massive and drastic changes to the map in a short amount of time means that at some point the map needs to be reset and the process starts again.
This has to happen because we are limited by the design of the map having borders.
When the individual factions were shown, it was possible for a faction to lose all of it's territory on the map in a short amount of time They would be reduced to a capital planet because those couldn't be taken.
It was terrifying how fast the borders could change in a short amount of time. Were we knocking over dominos or involved in intergalactic warfare fighting over planets?
Eventually this lead to the Tukayyid events and the map got reset. For a game where we might want to see the conflict as ongoing and never ending, treating the territories and planets so trivially reduces the desire for players to invest in the mode.

So what would we have to change?
A different approach is worth looking at.
One that provides all the factions with an equal starting point.
One that allows us to give planets values that when controlled provide a faction with bonuses.
We need a map that allows all the factions to fight against each other, one that is not limited by borders.
The conquest of a planet needs to have more weight, it needs to take more time. This is to allow the impact of losing or gaining a planet to be felt, to have a duration that changes the dynamics for players.
I will try and get this drawn up in a vid as it is a little hard to explain in writing but let's see how I go.
Posted Image
  • Remove the map as it currently is.
  • Each faction has a starting territory with multiple lanes containing multiple key planets which represent a portion of certain Faction Values
  • Each of these planets has a number of buffer planets leading up to it which need to be taken before we fight over a key planet.
By changing the structure of the map, we allow the mode to introduce some of those key ideas that were initially envisioned for Community Warfare.

Imagine the following:
My faction has a lane with 4 Key Planets, each with 3 Buffer Planets.
This lane I am going to call my 'Capital' lane and it represents my Faction Value for C-Bills.
My faction has a certain base value for c-bill earning per battle and the Key Planets add to that base amount meaning that the more my faction controls, the more I will earn.
All the other factions have the same number of Key Planets and Buffer planets in the same lane to start with.
Each faction has multiple lanes, each lane representing a different Faction Value but setup the same way with 4 Key Planets, each with 3 buffer planets.
The objective is to attack an enemy faction along one of these lanes, work through the Buffer Planets and capture a Key Planet.
When we capture a Buffer Planet, we advance down that lane extending our attack. It gets harder as we go as our Supply Line becomes stretched. Our drop deck maximum tonnage changes as a result when we are attacking this faction.
When the Key Planet is captured, it is added to our own lane along with the three Buffer Planets. Controlling that Key Planet modifies our Faction Value increasing our C-Bill earnings. Our opponent's C-Bill earnings has decreased.
We also consolidate our Supply Line and our drop deck tonnage against this faction is restored to normal.
It might be a little hard to envision just from the description so I will endeavour to get a vid done and I will add more detail when I can.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT 05/08/2017 Redid the video.
EDIT 13/10/2017 Re-wrote and restructured the OP
Mock up of the concepts in this proposal:

Edited by 50 50, 08 December 2017 - 04:21 PM.


#3 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:58 AM

I wish you worked for PGI. You clearly care about, and have some ambition for, Faction Play.

Unlike the current management of PGI.

But then, that's where all the salt comes from. We know how great MWO and FP could be. PGI even knew once, as they demonstrated in their first Powerpoints.

Now they can't be bothered.

#4 Kin3ticX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,926 posts
  • LocationSalt Mines of Puglandia

Posted 23 July 2017 - 01:32 AM

Nice work. Repair rearm would be an idea I would entertain but I am generally not a fan of it. It was such a horrible thing from closed beta. Something simple for the unit coffers which PGI still hasnt really figured out what to do with after almost 3 years.

For example, repair rearm in the context of the current game would be very bad because you need access to all 4 mechs. They are likely going to be lost every game. You need to be able to consume them without fear of some kind of killer penalty. However, in your plan I suppose it would be worked out somehow.

If you want 50 50 we can do one of those Mercstar Roundtables on my twitch with Antonius Rex(Mercstar Prime) and Queenblade(228 IBR) and you can lay out these ideas in the spoken word.


Lets be realistic though, you are practically telling PGI to go back to the drawing board which is what I would tell them. There were many sky high ideas presented to PGI which were less work than what you proposed and were shot down.

CW has some major problems going back into phase 2 that phase 3/4 just exacerbated.

1. The invasion mode is unpopular. The maps kinda suck, dropdecks kind of suck too. Waves of 12 assaults etc etc.

2. Farming baby seals 8 of 10 games turns away talent and scares away newcomers. No CW player or unit tiers.

3. Quickplay maps and dropdecks are a shotgun marriage. Again, walls of assaults on quickplay maps is bad and all of the other extremes.

4. The map is now a 24/7 tukayyid, the map and factions are becoming increasingly vestigial. Everyone knows its just Clan vs IS now and you just hit Fight Now. Literally dont need the map for ANYTHING. Space nerd politics is dead and this probably one of the most important things to the success of CW.

5. Contracts only come from the ether, from PGI. No way for units to wire cbills to each other (unit-unit coffer transfers for any purpose). You could do this via a cheap workaround in phase 2.

...I guess I could go on and on, like what about the current tonnage handicap being the tonnage pre new tech? No adjustments? Really?



PGI is really in a rock and a hard place because they need a matchmaker for the combat but that problem also prevents them from making the map do anything.

If I was in one of those super exclusive Roundtables, I wouldn't try to tell them what to do except that everything after Summer 2015 in CW sucks *** and I have no idea how to fix it.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 23 July 2017 - 01:44 AM.


#5 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 23 July 2017 - 03:46 AM

Thanks guys.

While I've had a few grandiose ideas about turning Facton Play into more of an ongoing open concept, this one I've really tried to think more about keeping the stages and making a few subtle changes that would be a lot easier to accept than a complete re-write.

Under the current system because we do use all 4 mechs in a single drop, there is no post battle ramifications other than "we won/lost, ready up and lets drop again." It's very rinse and repeat.We don't need a repair feature, nor would it work very well under the current system.
We have seen that the quick play modes expanded the content in Faction Play but the drop decks do not quite work as nicely as they could due to map design.... and the whole spawn camping debate.

So one of the thoughts was to not allow multiple drops in the quick play maps/modes.
This immediately eliminates spawn camping as a possibility. Let's face it, it's not something that we hear about in Quick Play.
It also makes something else immediately possible from a development perspective that I feel is actually really important, the ability to immediately port a new map and mode straight into both Quick and Faction Play. If we think about development effort in a game that is getting more and more modes, having a simple way to expand the content in each of those modes without needing to multiply development efforts etc is the smart way to go forward.

The argument here of course is what then makes Faction Play different to Quick Play?
That might just be in how we actually use the drop decks and attaching a benefit to each mode for successfully completing it.
We use the drop decks as a resource across multiple missions until we have no more mechs left.

The basic process would go something like this:
  • Go to the Faction Page and bring up the conflict for this week.
  • We can immediately see what sort of environment we will be fighting in so we can customise our mechs, build our drop decks and then commit that deck into a campaign.
    At this point, we need to pay a logistics cost which can be a simple upfront c-bill jumpship cost as it prevents deck hopping.
  • Once in we get a 'world view', which is where the video starts and we pick the mission we want to go on.
  • The first mission has to be a scouting mission as the concept behind the campaign is to scout for intel and use the intel to unlock the other missions.
  • So select a mech and we scout, get our intel and go for another mission.... or scout again to get more intel and unlock a harder mission.
  • The mech we used for scouting might get a bit damaged or maybe it was destroyed, but we see that in our drop decks and could take it again if it's still usable.
  • Keep going until we have no usuable mechs or we decide to leave the conflict.
Once we have left the conflict, all mechs are repaired automatically it's back to normal and we can pick that same drop deck or another one and go back to the conflict. Which is why we need the logistics cost.
However, as we are keeping track of the damage on the mechs after each mission, repairing them becomes something we will want to do if we want to do as many missions as possible.
I admit I was not around for when it was tried before but I understand that it was not well received mainly because it was a c-bill cost that came out of your match earnings.
My suggestion is to use the Conquest mode as a mission to obtain resource points. It's what the mode does anyway, let's just add those points as a value we can spend to repair our mechs via a simple function in our drop deck screen.
At it's most basic, we use the % of damage as the cost for repairs but it comes from these resource points.
The formula would be something like: (100-mech current health) x tonnage x modifiers = resource point cost.
We give it a bit of room to allow for the introduction of other features but to also account for bigger mechs costing more to repair.
Or.... take the points as loot and get a c-bill bonus for them so we can explore the idea of raiding.

Big part of it is having a reason to complete the missions, the objectives need some sort of benefit that we can add.
Domination might give us the radar sweep for our next match or more for example.

If we also provision for different types of victory points to be recorded from successfully completing missions, then there might be a really interesting and possibly fairly simple way to bring back more of those 'space nerd politics'.

Anyway, veeeerrry easy to get caught up in some of these ideas, but I do believe there is a way to make a few smallish adjustments that could open up and add new dimensions to Faction Play.
But as you said, we can only present any ideas we might have, PGI are the ones that need to do the work to make it happen.
Can only talk about it and hope so happy to have that chat and see where it goes.

#6 Kin3ticX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,926 posts
  • LocationSalt Mines of Puglandia

Posted 23 July 2017 - 10:34 AM

View Post50 50, on 23 July 2017 - 03:46 AM, said:


Under the current system because we do use all 4 mechs in a single drop, there is no post battle ramifications other than "we won/lost, ready up and lets drop again."



If saving CW means changing the dropdeck combat in any way, we might as well give up. There are players that have bought dupes just for CW with real cash and they would burn twitter and the brown sea down over this. The thing that would save CW, combat wise, is the very thing that would create a PR storm.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 23 July 2017 - 10:34 AM.


#7 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 23 July 2017 - 02:41 PM

Maybe.
Maybe not.
I am one who threw down some money for one of those MC packs and picked up all the drop decks I could.
I've also got quite a lot of duplicate mechs to use in the drop decks as well.
The drop decks make things convenient and easy to swap between.
That still applies but we get the option to be more pro-active in our choice instead of reacting to what we are getting thrown into and there is nothing stopping us from using a drop deck full of duplicate mechs.

Be interesting to gauge how people actually feel about using the drop decks this way.

Edited by 50 50, 23 July 2017 - 07:06 PM.


#8 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,060 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 23 July 2017 - 04:49 PM

Bring on R&R I have 350 mechs ready to go for this vary reason. War destroys things. Make it a cool down timer representing repair time.

The less endowed can use trial mechs. Mech purchases in the name of the war effort is the ideal c-bill sink.

#9 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 23 July 2017 - 07:35 PM

Don't know if I emphasized this point, but if we scout for intel to unlock the missions we get to pick our favourites.
That should mean that the players that like Siege get to play it and those that don't can pick something else but everyone contributes to the overall success of their clan/house and faction.

#10 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 24 July 2017 - 06:43 PM

I don't know how we could get the inter faction conflicts (IS vs IS/Clan vs Clan) working under the current system with one bucket.
Just doesn't seem feasible.

While the reduction to one bucket was to improve wait times and get the teams matching up against each other, I feel we did lose a lot of options and should have instead looked at reducing the match requirements from a full 12 player team on each side.

Would be great to find out if it is even a possibility, but would the system work with the individual territories of the houses and clans if we could select a planet on a border and set up drops of 4 v 4, 8 v 8 or 12 v 12?

Would it be better to have more activity around the galaxy of varying scales, get people involved in different types of missions?

#11 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 26 July 2017 - 09:31 PM

I'm not great at graphical editing but I'll try and elaborate on that video a bit if it helps to provide context.

#12 Kyrie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,271 posts

Posted 27 July 2017 - 05:17 AM

PGI needs to go back to the drawing board. Creating a proper CW means creating a proper framework, implementing key ideas that Kesmai had working back in 1992.

#13 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 July 2017 - 09:01 AM

View Post50 50, on 24 July 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

I don't know how we could get the inter faction conflicts (IS vs IS/Clan vs Clan) working under the current system with one bucket.
Just doesn't seem feasible.

While the reduction to one bucket was to improve wait times and get the teams matching up against each other, I feel we did lose a lot of options and should have instead looked at reducing the match requirements from a full 12 player team on each side.

Would be great to find out if it is even a possibility, but would the system work with the individual territories of the houses and clans if we could select a planet on a border and set up drops of 4 v 4, 8 v 8 or 12 v 12?

Would it be better to have more activity around the galaxy of varying scales, get people involved in different types of missions?

I've actually got an interesting idea for inter faction conflicts but it requires the addition of the each faction voting on which "mission/campaign of the week" they want to pursue and the repercussions of that choice. Since both IS and Clans use companies of 12, mixing the tech trees would cause much trouble, but would allow for a much more dynamic political map with alliances being made and broken on a (bi)weekly basis.

Example: Clans Wolf and Jade Falcon are each offered 3 missions. 1 of those missions is to capture said planet from the IS that happens to be on each of their borders. Aside from some sort of small reward for successfully capturing said planet, tensions could rise as both competing factions are "stepping on each other's toes" and thus creating an invasion lane conflict. Both Factions could have a set of options that would allow for a peaceful concession of the planet in exchange for a larger reward bonus, the chance to battle each other for the planet (a short window for the conflict would be created for those 2 factions to attack each other), or a third option (open to suggestions). Players from those clans would be given to participate either in this inter clan conflict or continue participation in the battle against the IS. Of course, we would need to show how many players are involved in that conflict during the window so we don't end up with absurdly long wait times in one of those two lines.

This is only a surface level attempt at a solution, but there are other basic concepts that are needed to make this more interesting such as incentivizing Faction Specific Mechs (in my opinion, the single most important first action needed for FP), as well as the addition of "key planets" with special rewards/consequences for conquering/defending them as well as a mission system for each of the clans to vote on.

Realistically, a long term plan would need to be adopted by PGI and implemented in a step wise fashion. Ideally, the goals would be to:
1. Individualize factions, even if they are fighting in the same buckets (attributes meaning to choosing a banner)
2. Create a "mission of the week" system
3. Give rewards/incentives for participating in and accomplishing the mission of the week
4. Create a dynamic political system in which selection of said missions could cause tension or strengthen alliances between factions (assisting an ally in a border conflict could also be an option, especially if such a window would exist for both IS and Clans at the same time in order to maintain single buckets)

There are many more details that need to be fleshed out of course, but stat with the broad bullet points is the best way to start discussing ideas for the best system to implement.

#14 DANKnuggz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 175 posts

Posted 27 July 2017 - 09:11 AM

Most of this sounds infinitely better than what we have going now.... It would inject some much needed purpose into what currently feels like 24/7 Solaris games with no real reason for any of it.

#15 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 27 July 2017 - 07:04 PM

View PostKyrie, on 27 July 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

PGI needs to go back to the drawing board. Creating a proper CW means creating a proper framework, implementing key ideas that Kesmai had working back in 1992.

I've had a bit of a look at those threads and there is a lot to take in.
Right at this point, if we talk about going back to the drawing board we will more likely just see Faction Play closed down.
I feel it's important to take what we have at the moment, not just in Faction Play, but in all the different areas and look at tweaking those a little and adding some extra functionality to some screens and bringing it together.
In doing so and in changing the approach a little we might get to a point that works along some of those lines discussed in those posts.

#16 Kyrie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,271 posts

Posted 28 July 2017 - 04:58 AM

View Post50 50, on 27 July 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

I've had a bit of a look at those threads and there is a lot to take in.
Right at this point, if we talk about going back to the drawing board we will more likely just see Faction Play closed down.
I feel it's important to take what we have at the moment, not just in Faction Play, but in all the different areas and look at tweaking those a little and adding some extra functionality to some screens and bringing it together.
In doing so and in changing the approach a little we might get to a point that works along some of those lines discussed in those posts.


The irony in all this is that originally, in a Town Hall a few years ago, Russ explained that the lack of CW development was all IGP's fault; that IGP had never "bought in" to the CW concept. Now its clear that PGI has the same problem as IGP did, no real belief in the revenue-stream CW may generate particularly after a few failed iterations.

Ultimately, there are a series of fundamental problems to resolve in FP:
  • solo vs groups in queue
  • declining overall player base
  • No player investment in the mode
The business case for CW must be made first. Unless the business case is made for a proposal that fixes those three factors, there is no point in further work in CW. The first point has a long history in MWO: Pepperidge Farm remembers when groups farmed PUGs long before the advent of QP. ;) The reasons and need to separate the queues became obvious and the logic remains clear to this day.

Taking a lesson from that, whatever CW proposal gets accepted has to work on the same principles that QP does: the solo experience in CW needs to be legit; its what has worked for the only profitable game mode that MWO has. Related to this point -- bribery to overcome poor game-play experience of being farmed will simply not work.

The argument I make is that to address all three points, an epic rebuild of CW is necessary. Makinga solid business case that redirecting all three major departments (design, coding, art) to this project will produce profit for PGI is the only way forward. The only way to reinvigorate the game is with a major investment in CW; we are running out of tech to be added. ;-)

Half-measures are doomed. There is an important principle that I have embraced as an old gamer: players will put up with a lot of problems as long they are emotionally invested in the game; this emotional investment has a principal component of social involvement. Getting that emotional investment will rely, in part, in working on what is often referred to as RPG elements: character development, progression, story-line.

A properly developed CW system, inspired by what existed in 1992 can fill this gap.

PGI reminded me of this clip:

#17 Poptimus Rhyme Wallace

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 329 posts
  • LocationDenmark

Posted 28 July 2017 - 05:22 AM

Why did people ever buy that IGP/PGI thing? Posted Image
If you bothered to check up on things back then you would know that IGPs share majority back then was owned by "The Rabbithole" a very appropriately named holding company owned by Russ Bullock...

Edited by Poptimus Rhyme Wallace, 28 July 2017 - 05:23 AM.


#18 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 28 July 2017 - 06:12 AM

Maybe for MWO2 in a different engine.
Probably at this stage the sort of depth and features suggested are too much.
Hence trying to work with a lot of the features we already have and perhaps look at things from a different angle.

#19 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 28 July 2017 - 07:25 AM

I'm combing these ideas and digesting them to see what I could reflect in both the Faction Play campaign mockups I'm currently working on ^1 and possibly some future "Battletech Sim" animations.

^1(At the moment: Davion versus Kurita [or vice versa], Marik attacks Liao and Liao attacks Davion) [The two with Liao were requests and I like them because I can use them to show the great diversity in canonical Liao's defense and offense forces and strategies; I'm glad you touched on intel as I'm working that out. Liao is especially known for fumbling with enemy intel as well as having very advanced intel on their enemies, which helps with their severe disadvantages.]

#20 Kyrie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,271 posts

Posted 28 July 2017 - 03:16 PM

View Post50 50, on 28 July 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

Maybe for MWO2 in a different engine.
Probably at this stage the sort of depth and features suggested are too much.
Hence trying to work with a lot of the features we already have and perhaps look at things from a different angle.


Creating a role-playing-shell is not a game-engine issue. It is three main issues:
  • Front-end UI.
  • Database Design.
  • Server Code adjusted to the expansion of the DB requests.

The interesting part is that this part of the game is eminently portable, whereas the maps, shooter-game is not. Consequently, an investment in this portion of the game can be done that can be reused.

A CW system is nothing but a giant CRUD app, the main work is in the game-design, database, and UI to execute interactions. And it has nothing to do with the game-engine.

As an example, the entire set of QP maps can be used and the CW system proposed with units, lances, supplies and so on is simply overlaid on top of it -- the resources in the map are determined by the new CW system.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users