207 replies to this topic

[Hammerlock]

All good ideas.

As for the people concerned about mercs and "lone wolves": the house units seeking to expand their territory could hire them for defense or to support an attack. Player-generated content at its finest!


X vs X battles ensure that even the largest groups are only as effective as the quality of the X pilots they put on the ground. Having uncapped groups just enables them to have a deeper bench, as it were. This is a game, and if Eve has taught me one thing its that having to play a game as a job burns you out faster than a cloud of nondairy creamer in a cigar bar.

[Zorgensen]

This topic deserves the devs attention.

Edited by Zorgensen, 15 August 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[WardenWolf]

I am curious as to why pre-arranged battles are required at all? For merc company stuff... maybe. But if you are looking at the community warfare going on between the Great Houses I would think that there will be so many players from each faction on at any given time that the battles over worlds on their borders could be nearly non-stop.

For example:

House Kurita attacks a House Davion world? Okay - for the next 24 hours battles will take place on the planet, in which Kurita and Davion forces duke it out. Mercenaries (lone wolves or corps) can join in on either side as well. If the Kuritans win a pre-determined percent of the battles (at least 50%, maybe higher in order to take a planet from its owner) then they capture the planet. If they don't they are forced off and can attack another world (or defend against a Davion counter attack, etc).

That could be much more detailed as well: maybe multiple phases to the attack, with different types of game modes as the capture progresses. The timer could also be longer than a single day, but that should be the minimum so that players from all over the globe can participate.

[Stalkerr]

Well-written post. While I disagree with parts (IMO the WoT model of community warfare, especially timezone-oriented battles, doesn't seem like it would apply well to the pre-defined territories of the MWO map), I think that this post should be part of the PGI community warfare design team's regular meeting/discussion.

IMO, when a planet is being "invaded" (i.e. goes from uncontested to contested), the planet should be available for battles for X hours (say 72 hours), during which time the "invaders" and "defenders" fight it out. The results of the battles fill a progress bar. Depending on the planet's stats (periphery, border, core) it will require a different # of battles to move the progress back up. If it's 80%+ to one side by the end of the invasion period, the planet's ownership is set to whoever had the highest %.

This mechanic would allow groups with tons of people to participate in a large number of battles, however they would need to focus strategically on a limited number of worlds in order to move the capture bar before the invasion timeout. This, in conjunction with your ideas regarding increasing cost by invasion distance and 2 week invasion lock "breaks", Pringles, should go aways to preventing a 1000 person corp from starting 100s of simultaneous battles across the inner sphere.

This may be a horrible idea that needs more thought, but I think it works more effectively in the pre-defined territories MWO is going to sport.

Edited by Stalkerr, 15 August 2012 - 01:28 PM.

[Vorkosigan]

WardenWolf, on 15 August 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

I am curious as to why pre-arranged battles are required at all? For merc company stuff... maybe. But if you are looking at the community warfare going on between the Great Houses I would think that there will be so many players from each faction on at any given time that the battles over worlds on their borders could be nearly non-stop.

PringlesPCant, on 15 August 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

This will be written focusing on border worlds and merc corps as illustrated by this dev blog.

[WardenWolf]

Vorkosigan, on 15 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

This will be written focusing on border worlds and merc corps as illustrated by this dev blog.

Ah, now see what I get for skipping straight to the meat of the post? My bad

[costi]

Excellent article, PGI please give this a thorough read.

[Supraluminal]

Good stuff, Pringles. I hope this gets some attention.

Speaking as a (currently inactive) member of S.I.M.P., one of the top WoT tournament teams, my biggest concerns revolve around battle times and the flexibility of individual participation in CW. As Pringles explains, WoT was very rigid in terms of how competitive play was set up; basically it was go big or go home. You needed lots of top-tier tanks available every night at very specific times to be viable in Clan Wars. Tournaments offered a venue for smaller teams, and as we had something like a dozen members when I joined that was where we focused. However, the schedule was still entirely rigid, with matches at a set time every other night for two or three straight weeks.

I feel like I was pretty good at WoT. Not the best of the best, but somewhere in the top few percent statistically speaking. I was serious about the game and really wanted to participate in the competitive scene. But I'm an adult; I'm married and I have a job (and probably kids in the next couple of years...). I work on an erratic schedule, mostly from home and frequently in the evening, so I tend to play games at random times during the day. On my nights off, I generally want to spend time with the wife or socialize with friends and family (especially on weekends and holidays, which WoT treated no differently as far as tournaments and CW were concerned). Ultimately it just didn't work out. I was able to participate in an occasional tournament or Clan Wars battle but I never felt like I could commit sufficiently to be really useful.

Perhaps more important than my daily schedule, though, is the fact that I simply don't want to play games by the clock. They're a recreational activity; I want to be able to hop in and out pretty much on a whim. That option was always available in WoT in the form of random battles, but even when I could manage to hook up with a 3-man platoon those were a crapshoot at best in terms of the quality of play, and of course they lacked any connection to the metagame.

So one thing I would love to see is some relatively unstructured way for competitive players to participate in CW, in varying group sizes and on no set schedule. Maybe there can be a dedicated matchmaking queue for smaller side-skirmishes between house units that contribute in some minor way towards the higher-stakes battles for planetary control. Perhaps a lobby for lone-wolf types to hang out in, available for under-strength lances to recruit from at the last minute. There are a lot of possibilities here.

Short of something more free-form, Pringle's simple advice about not capping unit membership would help alleviate the issue. If there's no harm in keeping rarely-active members on the roster, it'll be easier for them to hop on for a game once in a while without feeling like dead weight in the interim.

(Edit: I'm an ***** and didn't re-read the original CW blog post despite Pringle's link, so I forgot about the plan for faction worlds vs. border worlds. It's vague, but the faction world system sounds largely similar to the kind of thing I'm asking for. If so, consider this post to be a vote of support for that concept!)

Edited by Supraluminal, 15 August 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[Quincy80]

The article inspired me and I ground out some thoughts on how I would like the Community Warfare. Hopefully this will be interesting enough that some ideas are used.



WOT's Clan warfare rests on the cornerstone of small clans. The fact that the Successor States will be much larger will break this up because there will be less fractions with more people. Many of these people will not be able to agree on who should be 'moving their chips' or acting as the central command.

I suggest that clans of players affiliated with a State form a unit and that they internally select their commander who moves their chips. Players who are members of a state, but are unaffiliated with units form a milita and are dropped into random games where there are not enough defenders or attackers.
If there are no slots in random games then they will form a group where they attack as part of a strategic objective voted on by the unaffiliated members of their house.

On balancing the ability to project power, I like the ideas presented, but I feel they need to be tweaked. The general feel of Battletech doesn't really lend itself to balancing by drop weight, dropships carry mechs by number of mechbays not mass. The idea of a single battle for a planet changing it's ownership also doesn't sit well. I think there is a unified solution in dealing with the two.

I propose a system where planets have a War Value(some combination of population, tech level and war material produced). War Value determines the number of battles that are fought to conquer it and the amount of supplies available to the defenders. The amount of material available to the attacker is a function of the distance from origin planet the attacking units and the war value of the origin planet. Spending War Value like this reduces the defensive bonus of the planet, so you must balance the utility of attacking from close, threatened planets or more distant protected planets(and eat the efficiency loss). Over commit from your rearward planets and you are vulnerable to raids.

On the attack you can carry any total drop weight you wish, but it affects the amount of supplies you can carry. The supplies are used to maintain the attackers between the battles. The heavier the mech the less supply you can carry for it. You will need to take a number of lighter mechs so that you can carry the supplies to maintain Assault mechs without exhausting your stockpiles of War Value. It may be possible to help balance XL engines by their extraordinary cost in supplies or that you can't take any as spare parts(can't produce them out of your supply value).

On the attack or defence you may choose to wait for complete repairs or launch a suprise attack. The surprise attack is a gamble, as you will receive barely any repairs, but your opponents will start damaged as well. Prohibiting consecutive surprise attacks may be required as a balancing measure.

This will balance the interests of the core players (which lets face it, are more about the Table Top Strategy and Role Playing aspects) with the shoot mechs in the face mentality of casual players and provide a deep metagame.


Additionally a Global War Value bonus could help balance under populated Successor States, which could be used for a direct advantage or used to hire Mercenaries. Alternately, an overly dominant faction could be subjected to a Comstar Interdiction(very true to canon) which increases their chip placement cooldowns. Proximity to Terra could carry a War Value bonus(oldest most developed) to lure in the strongest clans and expose them to attack by multiple fractions


E: On second thought, the suprise attack mechanic would not scale up well. Maybe on suprise raids though.

Edited by Quincy80, 15 August 2012 - 01:55 PM.

[NobleTetatae]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Wow did you get all your clannies to like and comment how great these ideas are?

Is there a better way to reach the front page where people actually read it?

[fil5000]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Wow did you get all your clannies to like and comment how great these ideas are?

Why not try rebutting them if you don't like them?

[RG Notch]

fil5000, on 15 August 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Why not try rebutting them if you don't like them?

Guess you did just get all your guildies to bump this and state how great it is.

Edited by RG Notch, 15 August 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[fil5000]

Really, please do rebutt them - the only way we end up with strong mechanics is if we get contributions that find the holes in something before it gets implemented. A lot of us play with Pringles and respect his opinions on things.

[fil5000]

Oh. That's a shame. Well, never mind.

[David Decoster]

I am not a Goon member, but I wholeheartedly approve of this post. Well thought out, well written. Hats off to you Sir.

[Stalkerr]

To all non-goons:

I am a goon. Note that while I agree with may points of Pringles' post, I don't agree with all of them. I posted my own thoughts on what IMO is a more workable solution for one point of disagreement. This is the point of this thread... To discuss, to critique, to come up with what we want (as a community) out of community warfare.

If your comment isn't critiquing, agreeing with the OP, or otherwise extending the OP's discussion, reconsider hitting the "Reply" button. For the sake of making this game awesome, if nothing else.

Thanks.

[marcus elgin]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

On topic, wow pick a game with worse community warfare next time. WoT clan wars....

I'm interested in what games you think have better community warfare, I haven't played any with that sort of component and I find the general mechanics they employ interesting on a technical level. Plus more examples and why you think they are superior can only help the designers.

While the the use of different time zones for different planets seems pretty feasible generally, I have to wonder if it'll be possible if Europe has to play on the same servers as North America. Seems like there might be a few too many time zones to spread out.

While I don't have any community warfare experience, based on the toll that running high level raiding took in WoW I would agree that some kind of lockdown mechanic is a must or the game will cycle through it's most devoted players at an unsustainable rate.

[Gwaihir]

marcus elgin, on 15 August 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

While I don't have any community warfare experience, based on the toll that running high level raiding took in WoW I would agree that some kind of lockdown mechanic is a must or the game will cycle through it's most devoted players at an unsustainable rate.

As someone that did the bleeding edge thing in wow and ran a high end raid guild for far, far too long, I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly.

Phatel, on 15 August 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

I'll pass, don't really care if his ideas are gods gift to fun and leisure, the fact they want it is enough for me to say it's bad for the player base as a whole.

Yes, you see, we desperately want to strangle, kill, and poison a game that a considerable number of us have paid $120 for because

Edited by Gwaihir, 15 August 2012 - 02:56 PM.

[Stargell]

Phatel, on 15 August 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

I'll pass, don't really care if his ideas are gods gift to fun and leisure, the fact they want it is enough for me to say it's bad for the player base as a whole.

I'm not a goon and I thought it was a good post. Why not try judging the post on it's own merits?

Besides, the community warfare doesn't even EXIST yet. Don't you think it's a little hasty to accuse somebody of bullying?

[marcus elgin]

I read your post in it's unedited state, I merely ignored the off topic portion. I'm still interested in hearing about what form of community warfare you prefer and why. Getting into the nuts and bolts of game design is always interesting, especially if you're not that familiar with the genre.