207 replies to this topic

[CocoaJin]

If we are talking about Privateer(and anti-piracy if included) contracts, I think first we must make sure it cant be exploited to allow contract issuers to farm/launder c-bills and such to friends and clan-mates, or allow for the funding of clan spin-offs acting as clandestine operatives for the larger clan...we dont want contracts staying "in house", the goal is include large slices of the player population.

Also think there may (im still thinking it over) be some benefit to having some disclosure(explicit or acquired by other means) for contracts...sort of a central clearing house that shows who is contracting what against whom. Not to specific, no locations, no times...we dont want to hinder the contracts.

There is also a possible benefit of having some type of loyalty model for these contractors...you dont want a group raiding your territory and then a day later, end up using them yourself to raid somebody else...its just messy. Plus there has to be some honor amoung thieves.

I'll have to think more about all this...its late.

[PringlesPCant]

Magres, on 15 August 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Good points, all, and well written. Despite being a 'wall of text,' you conveyed a ton of information very succinctly. I'd absolutely be interested to see a similar writeup for EVE instead of Tanks - EVE definitely has better warfare mechanics than WoT, but still has some pretty moronic stuff to it.

Read part 1, I linked it. I didn't go over Eve for mechanics because they don't really translate well into MWO at all.

[Supraluminal]

CocoaJin, on 15 August 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

If we are talking about Privateer(and anti-piracy if included) contracts, I think first we must make sure it cant be exploited to allow contract issuers to farm/launder c-bills and such to friends and clan-mates, or allow for the funding of clan spin-offs acting as clandestine operatives for the larger clan...we dont want contracts staying "in house", the goal is include large slices of the player population.

Also think there may (im still thinking it over) be some benefit to having some disclosure(explicit or acquired by other means) for contracts...sort of a central clearing house that shows who is contracting what against whom. Not to specific, no locations, no times...we dont want to hinder the contracts.

There is also a possible benefit of having some type of loyalty model for these contractors...you dont want a group raiding your territory and then a day later, end up using them yourself to raid somebody else...its just messy. Plus there has to be some honor amoung thieves.

I'll have to think more about all this...its late.

I'm not sure any of this stuff would really be a problem. Yeah, it's messy, but war is messy!

If a large unit wants to spin off a raider contingent, why not? It's less manpower for their front-line operations, and presumably the rewards for raiding would be less than what they could get in the planetary conquest arena, so they'd be paying a price to do it. Basically the raiding/piracy/security ops would need to be balanced in such a way as make them annoying enough for the targets to want to hire mercs for defense, but not so appealing that they'd draw people away from their main efforts elsewhere. (Assuming these raids are even targeting/sponsored by player groups, and not automatically generated contracts set up by the Houses against one another.)

As for being attacked by a group and then hiring them to attack someone else the next day, that seems fine to me. We're talking about mercenaries here, after all, and not big house-affiliated units of them either. Loyalty to C-Bills first and foremost feels appropriate. Secret contracts would fit nicely as well, I would think. Unless either party to the contract wants to publicize it for some reason, I guess.

[Amechwarrior]

CocoaJin, on 15 August 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

If we are talking about Privateer(and anti-piracy if included) contracts, I think first we must make sure it cant be exploited to allow contract issuers to farm/launder c-bills and such to friends and clan-mates, or allow for the funding of clan spin-offs acting as clandestine operatives for the larger clan...we dont want contracts staying "in house", the goal is include large slices of the player population.

...

I was personally envisioning this as an auto-generated "basic daily quest" dished out by the great houses en-mass. No real players are writing these basic contracts. Something you can always do, can never run out of. This way casual groups or "odd men out" of larger groups can do something meaningful instead of pub around aimlessly. The rewards would be minimal compared to the real full-company ones that require the extra time and effort of those involved.

Maybe house leads could adjust the baseline prices or bonuses for their houses Raid/Counter-raid contracts so if one house is a cheapskate to the newbs they will be forced to fight off more raiders unless they start paying market prices?

[Amechwarrior]

Idea to my above post. The ability for house leads to adjust prices is ripe for abuse or market destabilization by overly powerful factions. Simply make contracts relative to great house member size. Bigger factions pay slightly less, smaller factions give out slightly better pay. This would keep the controls of the basic quests in developers hands and help out smaller factions. The bigger factions will have the spare manpower and new members to deal with the increased piracy.

[Popgun]

Well my understanding is that the Houses are at their core non player groups that follow the storyline. We as players may pledge loyalty, but contracts on canonical battles are developer set. A major historical landgrab by canon will simply field optimal contracts to support the groups involved, whereas Houses who have no stake by storyline simply have no contracts available. Thus preventing any player faction from dominating or drastically altering the storyline outside of what PGI feels like writing to. They, PGI might allow for wiggle room to allow us the players to alter canon, but it's at their control, and contracts are really the crux of it.

[Sandweed]

Ten points to the word of lowtax.

[Joke Fruit]

I really liked the OP, it gives the impression of a warfare system that I'd like to take part in and perhaps provide a bit of context of something to fight for rather than deathmatch for the sake of deathmatch.

I also like the notion of what Amechwarrior was saying around privateer groups and would like to add:
As a privateer group having the option of taking private contracts where player factions provide a kitty which is used to pay the groups of privateers who join.

[Bob Random]

I am worried about a couple of aspects of game mechanics that will affect my ability to actively participate. Namely being a casual player and being able to take a break without losing everything I have worked for.

Pringle has offered solutions to both of these issues in his well thought out presentation.

Until Pringle mentioned it, I didn't even consider there could be a cap placed on clan member limits. I can't see how I would be able to play this game as a valued member if there is a limit on clan numbers, I would want someone with more play time to take my place to provide the level of support the clan required.

I have a family, like many here, and being able to take a break for a day or two without having to worry about my (my clans) territory being taken while I was spending time with my family would be a real solution as outlined by Pringle.

I hope the issues Pringle has raised have been discussed, at length, and solutions given that have been taken apart and reconstructed. I really do hope. If they haven't, please, please take on board these points or something that hits the nail on the head like these do so that I can invest my time into this game after release, instead of just the money I have invested so far.

[Horrace]

I'd never tried world of tanks but from reading the great OP it appears they limit group size to the 100 players, which in effect becomes the 100 players who can be online the most.

I must say, that's really put me off even trying world of tanks.

I'd really like to feel like a semi-useful part of whatever Community Warfare system we end up with but that's just not going to happen if the whole system is heavily biased towards small teams that have to play a lot. I already have a job thanks.

Edited by Horrace, 16 August 2012 - 01:10 AM.

[Rappo]

Nice work, i agree 100%

[Kyrie]

I can't resist posting a few thoughts on this thread. First, let me begin by stating that Wargaming's implementation of Clan Wars caused me to quit WoT. The frustration factor given clan limits and requirements to being constantly online were simply too much.

The most important issue for me -- timezone scheduling. Please, for the love of all that's good and decent, do not use a pre-set scheduling system for battles. It penalizes people who work, people with RL commitments, it is simply too annoying to have to schedule your life around the game rather than the other way around. Instead, attacks and defenses should occur in real time.

I'm sure this must have been posted previously, but I would like to go over how the role-playing shell in EGA MPBT worked; a system that I truly loved. A few elements are already out the window, but here goes:

I. Map Combat - House to House combat

A. Attacking a Planet

Any house player holding a command position(lance leader/unit XO or CO/Prefecture CO/Military District Commander/HXO/HL) can start an assault; or any merc unit member with the right privileges in that merc unitcould also start an assault. The ownership was displayed in a pie-chart form, with each faction present having a percentage. Assaulting the planet grants a slice proportional to the rank+position of the person ordering the assault. As part of the assault, lances are moved on the planet that in turn grant more of a "weight" to missions as well as a larger initial slice of the pie.

The "weight" of each lance moved should perhaps depend on the number of people in the lance, an empty unit would have less importance. There should also perhaps be a multiplier for "elite" House canon units as well.

Since there were a finite number of lances available, deployment in both offense and defense was the key issue in planning military campaigns. When a lance is just moved to a new planet, its power rating is reduced to 50%, and it grew back to 100% over time after 24 hours. So a lance carefully placed ahead of time (24 hours or more) in defense counted for two freshly moved attack lances.

Merc lances often counted for significantly more than a house lance based on the rating and strength of the merc lance.


B. Planetary Control

Control of a planet requires a majority ownership. A planet can be attacked by any House as long as they have a "supply line" to that planet. Battles won contribute to planetary control after being modified by the overall Lance Strength. If your side had 1/3 of the actual lance-strength on the planet, you would need to run 3 successful missions to equal one defense mission. If your side had 3/4 of the lance-strength, you would get a 75% bonus towards capture. The moment a given faction gained key majority (if I recall correctly 65% or so), they gained control in real-time.

C. Supply lines

To start an attack you had to have "supply" to the target. That meant an uninterrupted connection from the target traced back to a core world that creates supply. The greater the distance from one of the supply-line originating planets, the more difficulties ensued unless the supply line was "broadened" beyond the minimum of one link to the target if you were deep into enemy territory.

What that implies is that you can't just attack anywhere, you had to build a supply route to the key target you wanted to capture (the capital of the enemy House).

D. Role of Mercs

Unlike what has been stated as planned for MWO, merc unit could not own planets. However, in that ancient game, mercs held an amazing amount of power by being able to bolster the lance strength of a House, as well as their prowess in running missions. Powerful merc companies influenced diplomacy and wielded a lot of power in the InnerSphere by working through their chosen House. The key for them was "standing". Basically Loyalty Points in MWO, without them counting towards rank. Rank points were separate. Running missions for a House earned standing, running against a House lost standing against the particular House. The higher the standing, the better the contract terms awarded for each mission by the House (completely computer controlled, no player involvement in merc contracts).
Standing also existed for house faction players, but since they would only run missions for their House it was seldom relevant.

E. Victory condition

There was an actual way to win -- take out all the Houses supply line points, controlling them to 100% and you won as the House would be unable to start an attack. This meant that there were regular resets of the I.S. Map.

II. Applying this to MWO?

As I noted previously, this goes out the window with what has been announced as the plan for community warfare. The first problem is the split of the map into different categories of planets - core, faction, merc.

IMHO, dividing the battle-space is a mistake. Everyone should fight for the same real estate. Faction and Merc players should be given the option of working together towards strategic goals; they should be relevant to each other instead of being split. It also creates a fundamental problem -- if merc players get to "own" their planets, what do faction players get? It makes mercs inherently more interesting and brings me bad flashbacks of WoT clans fighting clans in Wargaming's Clan Wars instead of what its really about --- houses vs houses.

That being said, if a merc unit takes a contract to conquer X and accomplises it, they should gain the rights to benefit from X until someone takes it from them. But this would not mean that planet X is a merc only planet.

And of course, given whats been announced as untouchable core worlds it appears that there will be no way to "win"; there will be no Victory condition, just an endless struggle.

TL;DR - Please do not use anything like WoT's Clan Wars. Just don't. For the love of all that's good and decent.

Edited by Kyrie, 16 August 2012 - 01:43 AM.

[Kharnifex]

A Chaos March campaign might work, that way nothing canon is affected.

[Gaspard]

This is such a great post. I hope they take some of it on.

[Stargell]

Another thought I had on this topic (concerning 'power projection') that might be a fun way to integrate the 'canon' and theme of the game is to use Dropships and Jumpships as guild/faction resources. In the storyline due to the difficulty of manufacturing new ships, jumpships and dropships are extremely highly valued and rarely risked in open warfare. It would be fun if these became assets that non-house factions could earn and use in their campaigns (in a behind-the-scenes roll the dice kind of way, not in actual fighting).

Small mercenary factions would be very mobile and could rely on their employers for transportation (at a price of course, the longer the jumps the more expensive the move). Larger factions could perhaps aquire their own dropships and jumpships which they can 'gamble' on missions. Defense missions and missions close to home being very safe, and long range missions or missions deep in enemy territory having a signifigant risk of dropship/jumpship loss or damage. Factions could possibly even use their funds to purchase various assets to affect the odds (better jumpships and dropships, refueling stations, aerospace fighter wings for attack and defense, etc).

The idea is built off of another poster saying that smaller groups could focus on raiding, hit and run, and garrison kind of stuff while the big boys worry about taking over planets and cities.

[Pwnographic Kerensky]

Devs,

Please please listen. We all love big stompy robots!

Thanks!

[CompeAnansi]

Implementing a version of clan wars that has been improved in the ways that PringlesPCant has suggested would definitely keep me involved in the game much longer than I will without it. And remember PGI, that means more money for you. As someone who has participated in clan wars in WoT I think that the most important point that Pringles mentions is to make sure there is no cap (or at least a very large cap) on Clan membership. It sucks having to be put in the beginners clan who doesn't do much just because you don't have previous clan experience.

[VinnySlick]

Since the beginning of MWO all I have wanted is for it to be an exact replica of MPBT3025

The planetary capture model worked perfectly fine with that game I wonder if MWO will be anything similar to that?

In a nutshell, you could either attack adjacent territory to expand house control or defend your current territory. Attacking lances would enter a staging area for a contested zone and the defending house would have a certain time limit to ready up for a defense. Each match would be for 1% of the contested zone where it would flip colors if a house owned 50% or more of the zone. If an attacking force was un-contested after the ready timer ran out (a few minutes, maybe 5 or 10 I forget) then the attackers would win a fraction of a percent of the zone. You could cap a zone by winning battles against defending armies or by chipping away (dry-dropping) at an undefended zone. Heck, we used to dry-drop for hours on end, just sitting there clicking 'ready' every 5 minutes and waiting for the timer to run out, talk about dedicated. The purpose was to capture your way to the other Houses capital cities, rewarded both attack and defense and punished inactivity, it seemed fair and balanced.

Anyone else have a better recollection of that system than I do?

[Horrace]

VinnySlick, on 16 August 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

Since the beginning of MWO all I have wanted is for it to be an exact replica of MPBT3025

The planetary capture model worked perfectly fine with that game...
..............................
Heck, we used to dry-drop for hours on end, just sitting there clicking 'ready' every 5 minutes and waiting for the timer to run out, talk about dedicated.

Urgh. Hoping for better than that type of thing.

Edited by Horrace, 16 August 2012 - 07:24 AM.

[onipanda]

I also want very much for this to have no hard timezone restrictions. I play at odd hours so anything resembling WoTs setup completely shuts me out of it.