96 replies to this topic

[Halfinax]

Skarr, on 22 December 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

While technically you are correct in that there is no specific reference to a planetary control. That's the only type of contract they talk about in Q&A1

Now the problem with your secret auction 1 bid per corp towards another secret ( abitrary i might add) minimum bid is that this is a guessing game. Players have zero influence on if they get the contract or not, except if people knew the minimum which they will if it's not random after a while and then everyone will bid the minimum.

With a bidding up system over the right to collect profits corporations can actually decide how much they think a contract will be worth to them. Do you think you can hold a planet 4 weeks you can bid four times the amount that a corporation who think they can hold the planet for one week can. This also allows corporation to bid multiple times if they think their initial bid was to low if an auction suddenly becomes massively popular. Bids are secret to prevent last minute sniping and endless 1 c-bill more bids.

You are discussing two separate types of "bidding" in this post. PGI was referring to Merc Corps bidding for planetary control in the one instance regarding a bid of intent to take control (throwing their hat in the ring as a contender for the planet's control) and in QnA2 they were referring to bidding for a contract (attempting to win the contract with the lowest monetary bid). They were discussing wholly different types of bidding. One is as a team bids for a championship (participating in the tournament), and the other is as a contractor bids for a contract. They were discussing different game play mechanics altogether.

Edited by Halfinax, 22 December 2011 - 11:26 PM.

[Duncan Fisherr]

Yeah - people are getting hung up on the different types of bidding.

Contract Bidding = businesses underbidding eachother to get a contract - low bid generally wins

Auction Bidding = the obvious one - higher bid wins

Now go and do my bidding!

[Nav]

I'm with Prosperity on this. There is too much confusion over how this is 'said' to work.

Contract bidding "should" work in the same way that companies tender for jobs in the real world.

• The House should offer a maximum payout for completion with a secret minimum/reserve (for gameplay purposes).
  
• The lowest bidder who is still above the secret minimum should win the contract.

The benefits of controlling the planet will help to offset the overheads, for ongoing defense of it.

BUT THE DEV'S REALLY NEED TO CLARIFY THIS!

Edited by Nav, 23 December 2011 - 01:28 AM.

[Itka]

An alternative theory is that the Dev misinterpreted the question and answered about planetary take-overs, while many readers thought that the question was about a different kind of contracts (generic fighting with no planetary control on the line).

My question is: What different kind of battles exists and who can participate?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

We'll have to wait and see.

[Kristov Kerensky]

At launch, from what the Q&A2 says, the only ranked matches will be for planetary control. That's it..nothing else will be 'official' since only ranked matches count towards xp/lp/stat tracking. We'll just have to wait and see how much more they can fit in by launch..might be all we get, but it's a good start.

[Itka]

If the only type of matches are for planetary control them a lot of planets are going to change hands. Assuming 16 players per match and 20 minute games average then 94 planets will change ownership each hour for every 1000 players online. People seems to want as few worlds as possible, but even with only 1000 players online at an average that means over 2000 planets changing controller each day. Seems like we need to know more about the system...

[Kristov Kerensky]

From what was said, 1 planet changes hands per day..so we'll probably all be fighting for that same planet for the day and the final determination being made at X hour GMT based on...my guess..tonnage defeated total, whichever side takes out the most tonnage wins control for the day. But that's just a guess based on how we did it for NBT originally, how PGI is going to do it..no idea.

[CaveMan]

Kristov Kerensky, on 23 December 2011 - 04:29 PM, said:

From what was said, 1 planet changes hands per day..so we'll probably all be fighting for that same planet for the day and the final determination being made at X hour GMT based on...my guess..tonnage defeated total, whichever side takes out the most tonnage wins control for the day. But that's just a guess based on how we did it for NBT originally, how PGI is going to do it..no idea.

I hope it's not just tonnage. This game is supposed to be objective-based, not just FFA deathmatch, so it should be the effect of the objectives taken. Conquering the factories, the cities, the water sources, etc.

Edited by CaveMan, 24 December 2011 - 12:54 AM.

[Knoxville]

The way I read and understood "bidding" was as in when the city takes bids for concession stands on city/mall/company owned premises like baseball parks or an airport. The vendor who wins the contract is bound to pull in a lot of revenue so it is a highest bidder gets the contract to set up in the location kind of system. Does it make perfect sense in the Mechwarrior world? Admittedly, it isn't like what we are used to for a mercenary type of contract given that players essentially pay to fight; however, game mechanic wise, it offers high risk-high reward ventures that slows the pace of planetary acquisition and rewards groups of good players (acquisition of a planet probably takes a while because the dev's indicated that the two merc companies competing have to schedule the match. As in "hey, my company mostly play on Fridays, how about Friday night 7pm Pacific?"). I'm sure there are other types of matches available to keep mercs occupied and making LP/CBILLS such that they can make future bids. As such I'm going to bet my 1,000 CBILLS on a bidding up system. :-D

[Nik Van Rhijn]

After reading these posts I'm more confused than ever. I certainly won't bet against you Knoxville. Let's hope the dev's will put us out of our misery as a Christmas present.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I bet ComStar is deliberately holding information back from us in order to cause strife and confusion.

[Kristov Kerensky]

CaveMan, on 24 December 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

I hope it's not just tonnage. This game is supposed to be objective-based, not just FFA deathmatch, so it should be the effect of the objectives taken. Conquering the factories, the cities, the water sources, etc.

I'd prefer objective based myself, but they said objectives would be after launch, not at launch. For launch, they're just trying to get the bare bones laid it seems, which is a good idea really. Give us the basics, so they can get it out and start, hopefully, showing a profit, so the backers are, again hopefully, inclined to give more money for more development. F2P from the get go without any stats within the past 5 years to support a market base..PGI was damn lucky to get this far, and that was due to Duke Nukem Forever, not any merit of the BT/MW titles, lets not forget that folks.

[Xhaleon]

Some dark part of me says that PGI doesn't actually know what it's doing, so it throws some bones for the community to relentlessly chew on and turn it into a work of art. Then they quietly steal the refined idea and put it to work.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think that most of us will be so glad to get a game that unless it's really bad we will be prepared to wait for improvements.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Xhaleon, on 24 December 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Some dark part of me says that PGI doesn't actually know what it's doing, so it throws some bones for the community to relentlessly chew on and turn it into a work of art. Then they quietly steal the refined idea and put it to work. -

Actually it's their forum, so if we look in the small print I've no doubt that we have automatically given them that right. Besides I thought that this is why we post, so that they can glean any pearls of wisdom from the tons of rubbish that we produce.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 24 December 2011 - 09:46 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 24 December 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

Actually it's their forum, so if we look in the small print I've no doubt that we have automatically given them that right. Besides I thought that this is why we post, so that they can glean any pearls of wisdom from the tons of rubbish that we produce.

Exactly..now..lets just hope they can make some of our ideas work