207 replies to this topic

[Pook600]

Well thought out and very insightful. Nicely done and ty for the contribution

[Cidrich Syslet]

I very much liked the OP and while I see that there might be problems with a few of the things he presents, I at this time do not have any reasonable thoughts on how to address them.

Now as to JumpShip capabilities and troop movements for being able to set engagements. JumpShips can only transport a certain number of DropShips and DropShips can only carry a certain number of Mechs. Lets say for the sake of argument that a Dropship can carry 8 Mechs and a JumpShip can carry 6 Dropships. That means there are 42 Mechs available to be dropped into combat. So lets refine things a little further. Planet X is two jumps into Draconis territory from the Federated Commonwealth. Now that would mean that Jumpship would be in transit for several days as it recharged it's jumpdrive (can anyone point me to the specifics- looked on Sarna but didn't find any). Since this is a persistent universe in game that would mean the Mechs loaded on the DropShips would not be usable till the drop. This would make selecting the units going and force composition much more in depth and require a lot of thought. It also means that those making the decisions to attack need to carefully plan out their invasions, but it also gives the players an idea of when they will be needed for the fight as the arrival time in system will be stated when the JumpShips launch. What this would mean for the ones defending: Defenders would get a minimum heads up that they are about to be attacked of about 24 hours (the closest I have ever read of a JumpShip approaching a planet undetected was 18 hours out) and upto 48 hours out. They know that they are about to be invaded, but not what the composition of the force coming at them is. The invading force has limited amounts of rearm and refit bassed on the available tonnage of the combined DropShips, while the planet defenders have a much more available pool to draw from for refit and rearm.

Example of refit and rearm. In the first wave of the attack the Red Team (OpFor) stages 3 landings of 16 Mechs each, the Blue Team (Home) fields an equal amount for each landing. OpFor has available 250 tons of armor and a combined total of 75 tons of ammunition to refit and rearm. Home has 750 tons of armor and 185 tons of ammunition available. At the end of the first wave OpFor uses 85 tons of armor and 40 tons of ammo, Home uses 75 tons of armor and 30 tons of ammo, leaving Opfor with 125 tons armor and 35 tons of ammo for repair and refit after the second round and the Home team with 625 tons of armor and 155 tons available after the second round. Now the OpFor has to make a choice at the end of the second round: to press the attack with less then full health against a team that has the resupply to be at full health and full load out taking the risk or do they withdraw. Either way it brings in another element to planning the system wide warfare we are looking forward to. (Yes I know that my numbers for armor and ammo are outlandish- they were meant to be just used as examples.)

[CocoaJin]

Though I can appreciate the emphasis on owning land/territory(conventional warfare). I'd like to see how the concept of non-conventional warfare could be applied to the larger warfare model through interdiction, raids/smash & grabs, recon/intel gathering, etc.

I'd like to see how small bands/groups can participate within a world held by giants, where resources are present, but piecemeal acquisition of resources booty doesnt have to neccesitate ownership.

Not every "State" has to be a Roman Empire, super-power or some magestic kingdom...sometimes your a hard to pin-down, Barbaric Horde who strike fast and fades away with whatever spoils you can grab. Some groups would understandably desire to have their icons spread across the map, to build great monuments to their power and influence, managing and acquiring the resources within thier holdings. But some of us just want some of your stuff. We dont have the means and/or desire to invest in the Soveriegn tasks of ownership...at least not now...but at the same time, we want to participate in larger geo-political struggle for resources. We to be present, we want to leave a mark...even if that mark is a great power raising a "Great Wall" just to try and keep our marauding bands out(ok, maybe just slow us down).

[LaurenceMcFunk]

CocoaJin, on 15 August 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Though I can appreciate the emphasis on owning land/territory(conventional warfare). I'd like to see how the concept of non-conventional warfare could be applied to the larger warfare model through interdiction, raids/smash & grabs, recon/intel gathering, etc.

I'd like to see how small bands/groups can participate within a world held by giants, where resources are present, but piecemeal acquisition of resources booty doesnt have to neccesitate ownership.

Not every "State" has to be a Roman Empire, super-power or some magestic kingdom...sometimes your a hard to pin-down, Barbaric Horde who strike fast and fades away with whatever spoils you can grab. Some groups would understandably desire to have their icons spread across the map, to build great monuments to their power and influence, managing and acquiring the resources within thier holdings. But some of us just want some of your stuff. We dont have the means and/or desire to invest in the Soveriegn tasks of ownership...at least not now...but at the same time, we want to participate in larger geo-political struggle for resources. We to be present, we want to leave a mark...even if that mark is a great power raising a "Great Wall" just to try and keep our marauding bands out(ok, maybe just slow us down).

If I'm interpreting your post right, what you're suggesting is that smaller (call them "bandit" or "raider" groups) could be able to travel throughout the galactic map, doing raids and stealing salvage and equipment. I think that's a cool idea, if it is at all feasible in the overall community warfare. On the other end, mercenary corps or house units taking bounty contracts to fight them would be a clever way to fill in missions between regular house or mercenary warfare.

It would give smaller or less organized groups a role to play if they didn't care about the overall faction politics. Again, we have no clue how feasible it would be, but I'm going to daydream about it.

Edited by LaurenceMcFunk, 15 August 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Supraluminal]

LaurenceMcFunk, on 15 August 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

If I'm interpreting your post right, what you're suggesting is that smaller (call them "bandit" or "raider" groups) could be able to travel throughout the galactic map, doing raids and stealing salvage and equipment. I think that's a cool idea, if it is at all feasible in the overall community warfare. On the other end, mercenary corps or house units could taking bounty contracts to fight them would be a clever way to fill in missions between regular house or mercenary warfare.

It would give smaller or less organized groups a role to play if they didn't care about the overall faction politics. Again, we have no clue how feasible it would be, but I'm going to daydream about it.

Yeah, it's probably something that would have to come farther down the pike if it would require a discrete set of mechanics from the regular inter-faction and established merc corp systems, but it's a really fun idea. And who knows? There's so little information available about what the devs are thinking, maybe the CW system will be flexible enough for this kind of thing to arise organically.

[TG Xarbala]

I'd love to see smaller-scale raiding for resources/C-Bills instead of wholesale territory be a viable option for smaller and less organized clans, especially if it means possibly taking a bite out of the resources of bigger groups.

With reasonable limits regarding their impact, of course.

[Rofleupagus]

Thanks for the post, very informative.

[Cidrich Syslet]

hmm... I like the idea of small raiding parties. That would be a perfect way for smaller Merc units to be able to get jobs from the larger factions like Steiner who would try to throw others off balance... This bears more thinking into and development.

[CocoaJin]

You guys got the idea. If you gonna own it...own it and defend it from all threats. Raiders keeps the war for territory from just being a set of rules to exploit.

Its assumed their will be some "cost" involved based on where you want to strike, some type of logistical consdieration. Perhaps privateering contracts can be available to allow raiding of certain faction holdings held by player clans(I assume clans will be faction specific) to allow for larger Loyalty rewards, perhaps a small bonus payout from the issuer of the Privateering Contract for a successful raid. Perhaps the contract could be for raids on any player clan holding of that faction, or it can be against a specific player clan. Maybe contracts can have specific targets of interest within the holdings or just require a certain amount of damage done to get the pay-out. What is key, is that this not be a covert way for player's in a clan with holdings to attack another enemy land holder...these contracts have to be for seperate player clans/groups with no holdings, bids or incontention for territory...nor can it be away to launder c-bills and farm Loyalty points for people within the clan issuing the contract.

Edited by CocoaJin, 15 August 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[Third Flower]

This is the third time I'm going to thank Pringles for posting his thoughts, but I suppose that is fitting for the third flower. Thanks Pringles!

[Octavian Dibar]

Going by the storyline, small raiding groups became very common during the late Second Succession War, as well as the 3rd. Resources, particularly battlemechs and their parts were becoming more scarce. Raids for resources became as common as actual invasions to capture territory. Small raids were also used to disrupt enemy rebuilding of key infrastructure that had been wrecked in earlier wars.

A cool example of this was the Dracs, in between the 2nd and 3rd war (I think), used to put together suicide lances (4 mechs) made up of prisoners or disgraced mechwarriors, dope them up with stimulants, and drop them on Davion worlds to blow up whatever they were rebuilding. There's more to the story, and I wish I had my old Kurita Sourcebook handy, so I could relay a bit more.

FASA kind of walked this "atmosphere" back a bit for the 4th War and Clan Invasion storylines, however. Resources, including new mech designs, become more common, and the fight over scarce resources became unheard of. The more traditional "take and hold" invasion became the dominant strategy. By the 4th war, you were back to having the equivalent of entire battlemech divisions smashing worlds, leaving the clean-up to garrison troops, and jumping to the next conquest.

Edited by Octavian Dibar, 15 August 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Bring Stabity]

My name is Bring Stabity and I approve of this message.

[Raisinscone]

These were excellent points. I liked the idea of Lockdown. It's not something that gets addressed at all by other games yet, the social/team connections are what drives these kind of cooperative games. Even the most dedicated leaders that still love the game and their clan/guild/team/flock will burn out when they miss out on their own personal times because they have to be online to keep things in line. I am looking forward to the implementation of the community warfare and I hope the devs will take some of these into consideration.

[Amechwarrior]

Lesson #2 Part #1 - Separate the bigger corps from the smaller corps

The raiding/privateer idea posted in the last few pages sounds like it can be perfect for smaller or casual merc companies. Maybe limit raid matches to groups of 4-8. Let privateer work be beginner level merc contracts. You can potentially earn higher salvage, but get less/none of the loyalty points due to the nature of work. You would not pick a planet, but raid a Provence or border zone. Your opponents can be either smaller house groups/pubs of 4-8 or opposing small merc companies on Anti-Piracy Patrol. You would fight loose groups of house defenders to lower whatever resources that zone has and take a little for yourselves. You could even do this without creating new gametypes (but we all would love to do a real smash and grab missions... pipe dreams) by just taking the results from the current deathmatch setup. You win and have less then 60% losses then you successfully raid the stocks. Win, but with more then 60% loss and you have enough manpower to smash the place, but not take the extras. Lose, and the defenders get to keep whatever it is. If enough raids in an area fail, the extra salvage actually boosts that provinces resources. This would give the smaller house groups a reason to stop raids, as it would boost their own economy, not just stop leakage.

The whole point of these is to be able to get your small, amateur group up and running and dropping into combat instantly, any day of the week. You don't have the time or resources for planets, dropships and the daily grind. Your winnings are what you can salvage off the field and raw cash. If your group feels like it wants bigger and better things then you can start to take Anti-Piracy Contracts.

Once you have your group established, the next step is Anti-Piracy. Contracts would provide much more loyalty points and cash from your employer but only average salvage rates. You work legitimately, your team is now fighting against organized raider teams instead of pub faction members. The team has gown better and knows all the ins and outs of raiding and uses those skills against your opponents. You start to do well and after a while you find the organization growing. Most nights of the week you can start fielding full 12 man teams. The time has come, the company is now ready for its first planetary control contract.

Those contracts are dealt with in PCants posts and the dev blogs. But this privateer line works to keep casual groups playing any day of the week, make them a part of the larger inter-planetary meta game and keeps them fighting other groups of similar size and skill levels. The incentives are focused, but not exclusively, on personal cash and salvage. The larger units will want to focus on the higher level contracts that give loyalty points and territory they need to run a larger organization.

Issue #3 Timezones

I don't like the 24 hour "open for battles" when talking about Merc side CW that some people are posting. That kind of thing can be fine for the massive numbers in the great house faction warfare but if you have a small or casual company you're going to get kicked off your planet at 4am by larger groups with members around the world playing 24/7. I also don't like the reality of scheduling fights around mainland US evening times (Hawaii mechwarrior here) but I can't find a better solution that would force both sides to show up at the same time. It sets a clear and narrow window for either side to be online.

Both sides must have incentive to show up together. A win by default can feel like a loss if you took time and effort to wrangle your buds, spend your MCs and practice teamwork all for a "Congrats, no one wants to fight you. YOU WIN!" on the one night you set aside to stomp robots. We should strive for a system that forces combat matches and routes around "No one is online right now, please try again later" and for what I can come up with, setting a time and place in-game gets it done.

Disclaimer:
Another goon here, also a huge BT nerd. Most goons honestly enjoy playing the game and don't want to see it fizzle out 6 months after launch like so many other online games. We will back up good ideas like lockdowns and unlimited group size and debate against bad ideas. Goons are not the only mega faction here. Other groups like cReddit, DHB, Blackburn's Raiders, bronies, Black Wovles and countless others have 70 or 100+ members for a game that is only in closed beta. A limit on corp size would split a very large section of their current paying customers that have been waiting for a decade to play giant robots with friends.

[RoyalWave]

Very good read.

I hope the devs possibly invite the OP into the earliest beta for community warfare possible.

this is the best constructive and helpful OP I have read on my times on these forums.

I do hope the devs are very smart and comprehensive in their implementation of community warfare, making sure it has aspects to suit a lot of needs from casual to serious and from small tight knit to large community organizations. Do not cut any segment from the CW, and most importantly make it about actually playing MWO not diplomacy, alliances, meta gaming, or setting up dummy guilds etc, those aspects should be minimal or apply only to within houses not across them or to mercs. I have hopes the devs listen to the intelligent feedback especially on community warfare and are open to changing it up and responding to demand and needs. If it doesn't need changing based on how people are playing it, it wasn't open enough in the first place and is too constrained.

Community warfare needs to be something very interesting that people can sink their teeth into to really drive longterm retention and investment by players.

Edited by RoyalWave, 15 August 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[Hooperinius]

So if you take over a planet what do you get besides a dot on the map with your faction's flag on it? Money? Maybe access to a factory that builds a unique gauss rifle or mech? Extra XP? I see lots of people talking about how matches could be fought over planets but what do you get when you win?

[Popgun]

We don't know. That's the point in speculating/brainstorming on it. So on that note and for further thought:


Contract Bidding.

Player groups will be able to bid on contracts offered by the Houses or outside entities on battles. What could this mean and what would be most beneficial to a community warfare environment? In standard business the lowest bid which seems the most likely to achieve the task will recieve the contract. What does this mean for community warfare? Could there be a sliding scale for a group to pitch a full 1,200 ton drop of 12 potential Atlases but slide their profit down to "repair and re-arm only" to ensure a faction victory? Could instead the multiple contract offers be hardest? A specific tonnage array being given priority with a tie being handed to the group with the highest loyalty? (<- This is a terrible example and I think loyalty should only give cosmetic or minor global advantages. Not allow a self perpetuating steam roll of acquisition.) Should contracts pay out in cbills, Mc, loyalty, or other assets entirely (like drop ships)?

Edited by Popgun, 15 August 2012 - 08:41 PM.

[Magres]

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.

[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.