Jump to content

Observations Concerning Community Warfare Part 2 - Map Mechanics


207 replies to this topic

#101 Stargell

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:17 AM

View PostSupraluminal, on 16 August 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:


Yeah, that specific bit sounds terrible. Some of the general concepts people have shared from MPBT3025 sound workable, but the system can't reward zerg tactics by huge groups or middle-of-the-night attacks that go unopposed.


In GEnie MPBT opposing sides basically ran PvE missions for control of planets. I think this is a far better alternative option that winning battles by forfeit (obviously a lot of hard developer work though). The PvE missions would not contribute nearly as much influence as the real matches, but it would still be better than dry-dropping (would give newbies a good way to contribute while they learn the ropes as well).

Of course this would still allow one side to potentially zerg the other side, but I don't know how you can avoid that without penalizing people with long queue times or something.

#102 fil5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,573 posts
  • LocationInternet County, USA

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

View PostStargell, on 16 August 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:


In GEnie MPBT opposing sides basically ran PvE missions for control of planets. I think this is a far better alternative option that winning battles by forfeit (obviously a lot of hard developer work though). The PvE missions would not contribute nearly as much influence as the real matches, but it would still be better than dry-dropping (would give newbies a good way to contribute while they learn the ropes as well).

Of course this would still allow one side to potentially zerg the other side, but I don't know how you can avoid that without penalizing people with long queue times or something.


Yeah, I think it'll be a long time (possibly never) before we see PvE stuff because of how long it would take to code up a useful AI for this game. Way more stuff on the dev list before they get to that and integrating PvE stuff after community warfare goes live could prove problematic.

#103 Supraluminal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 161 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:31 AM

Well, here's a thought. If no faction defenders are available, merc groups get pulled from a separate queue to play the battle. If you have a large enough player population, there should always be a few unaligned merc groups looking for games at any given time, so use them to fill in gaps as needed.

#104 RoyalWave

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:10 AM

I really hope part of community warfare is 24/7, some is a range of tiers of matches, and some is more public battles for planets for factions.

That way you can log in and participate in the tug of war, be a part of an organized team and play matches, or log in at certain times for high importance scrums.

#105 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:23 AM

Raids should certainly be 24/7 since they dont actually grab territory, only create messes to clean up and small dings to resources. Plus, it gives your clanmates something to do between battles.

#106 Horrace

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:33 AM

View PostSupraluminal, on 16 August 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Well, here's a thought. If no faction defenders are available, merc groups get pulled from a separate queue to play the battle. If you have a large enough player population, there should always be a few unaligned merc groups looking for games at any given time, so use them to fill in gaps as needed.


I like that idea.

Also, I like the idea of something like 3 strategic battles deciding the overall result. One battle is randomly picked by the server during a 24 hour period, the defender and attacker leaders both get to pick the two other important battles, one for each so they can bring their best players.

If the defenders and attackers both get to use players from the general lone wolf/merc companies, if their numbers are low. You wouldn't have any unopposed drops. There would just need to be some kind of incentive for non-aligned players to want to be involved.

Edited by Horrace, 16 August 2012 - 10:34 AM.


#107 Jack Lowe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • LocationStaten Island, NY

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:04 AM

Very good post, excellent ideas. In my limited experience with a different game PotBS there is one other consideration to bring up in overall comm. warfare vein. That is multiple accounts. They was a problem that defied all game mechanics I witnessed. In a nut shell, and using BT as a reference instead to avoid lengthy explainations, this is how it went. A person could have as many accounts as they wished and each account could belong to a seperate account. Now in a very large commuity this might be less of a problem but on a small to medium sized one it was horrible. Players would ban together outside of the game to form their own meta game so to speak. The game had map resets after a certain number of points to declare a victor you see. Therefore this group or these groups of would either decide to in advance who would win or which house had upset them and thus torture for the map or maps and they would then align with said group. The houses might be fairly even at the beginning then one day you would wake up to find a very large chunk of your house had jumped ship POOF gone. Worse you might be within a few points of winning and the same thing they disappear only to appear under other screen names on different accounts for the enemy and now would commence to just grind your house to pieces. That was often done to teach some offending person or persons a lesson, or just for perverse personal pleasure all to the detrement of the communities experience as a whole. Second problem was since one person could have up to 5 accounts they tended to artificially inflate the player base making it hard to determine just how well populated a game was, even for the devs. Don't want to see this happen here, however never have known of a method to control it other than to disallow it. Probably one of my largest concerns when I saw this would be F2P. Looked like a good spot to bring it up.

Edited by Jack Lowe, 16 August 2012 - 11:05 AM.


#108 Popgun

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 86 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:50 AM

Having a hardset community warfare schedule is damaging, but the reality is that there simply has to be some way to schedule the battles ahead of time. In terms of faction warfare this could be as simple as selecting a planet contested under loyalty/faction points and entering a que there, letting your victories and success contribute to a global metric that has a definitive start and end time. However for mercenary pre-made lances taking planets in the farther regions?

There's something to be said here for offering the most lucrative contracts during the peak play hours. Hell, New Years Eve could see no contracts offered at all, or maybe some goofy ones that only reward you with a participation decal of some fireworks going off to stick on your mech.

#109 Hooperinius

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:53 AM

View PostPopgun, on 15 August 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

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)?


I don't think it'll be so much that one group 'gets' a contract rather than what you bid relates to what you win from that house. In other online games 'Contracts' offered by 'Houses' would probably mean PVE missions but since this is PVP...maybe go fight on such-and-such map, if you win you get a certain amount of money and xp. Do it with a lighter lance of mechs get more xp than a heavier lance perhaps.

Where contract bidding might be interesting is if contracts were offered for control of different worlds which I think is what a lot of people are hoping for but then you get into the problems of when to fight and who to fight in order to get it. Time zones might work but ideally you want planets to be somewhat-equally available so that people aren't staying up late or trying to connect during their lunch breaks etc.

Another thing I'd like to add is that complicated is easy but simplicity is hard. I think that above all else the warfare system needs to be easy enough to figure out so that people who just want to click a button and go fight can do so while at the same time having enough depth to satisfy the power gamer types.

Edited by Hooperinius, 16 August 2012 - 11:55 AM.


#110 Jack Lowe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • LocationStaten Island, NY

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:57 AM

View PostAmechwarrior, on 15 August 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

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.




Another fine idea, I don't think I like the idea of stages however some method of allowing casual gamers or new groups to get into the game and have fun is a must. I do think that in some fashion or another their actions should have an impact albeit small on the big picture so to speak. Was also a problem in my other gaming experiences until a person finished the grind to the top level they really couldn't have or had no place to contribute in a meaningful way, grinding was PvE missions. I still get sick when I think about PvE because of how it was handled. There simply wasn't anything there, and it killed alot of peoples fun. They would ask and get the reply there's really nothing u can do, get the lvl 50 then we'll talk. Many didn't get that far the just gave up. Any ideas that prevent that and keep it fun are aces in my book.

One thought, it is in the lore frequently that mercs. were used as "deniable" assets for raids, infiltrations, and various other missions where diplomacitic situations dictated no one know your attacking them. They were also used for many other things garrison contracts, reconisance, and reinforcements when other units couldn't be mobilized in time. Perhaps that last one would be a method of balancing out some of the perceived problems with the 24 or 48hr battle for planet idea making uncontested wins more difficult. Also contract should include latest intelligence to give the guys an idea what their up against so they don't get in over their heads. The recon missions would also add to the information warfare pillar and give players a meaningful way to get into the game with their light fast mechs. Also give defenders more reasons to keep lighter forces on planet to counter. Know thy enemy and thyself and in 1000 battles you shall never be in peril -Sun Tzu-. They don't and get killed by a superior force they asked for it.

On garrison duty as pertaining to mercs. and planet ownership

This was also a common contract, it was also common practice to allow the unit access to the resources of the planet as it was benificial to both sides to do so. This would allow the unit to have some portion but not all of the planetary bonus(s) in a realistic way. In some portion or none if desired as offered by contract. If those allowed bonus(s) are tied into the "income" so to speak of the contracting house it would prevent them from simply always allowing 100% as they would need that bonus for their own uses as well and be less inclined to just give it away. Solving some of the basic mechanics of how bonus(s) would pertain to mercs. Ownership as defined I agree with less. It was very very rare for a merc unit to "own" a planet and usually was only done after very long dedicated service, or truly herculeian effort. ex. Wolves Dragoons was decimated from 5 regiments of mechs. down to a 1 provisional regiment in the service of house davion tying up practically the entire Draconis Combines military on that front allowing Davion to in turn conquer about half the Capellan Confederation during the 4th. Succession War. That's from over 500 mechs down to less than 100 for those unfamiliar. Therefore outright ownership should be allowed but require similar effort types of efforts or loyality and therefore be rare.

Last thought is that it usually took several days even after reaching a jump point in system to get planetside. That works giving the defender some warning and ability to prepare. Also mentioned was a method of thru data obtained while the DS's were inbound to determine a general idea of weight and guestimation of composition of force by taking the ships mass empty and comparing it to it's current mass. Allowing the defender some amount of "homefield" advantage so to speak. If badly out weighed or outnumbered they could plan more of a gurrellia style of campaign try to hold out wait for help. That would also make retreat not so much of a dirty word, or hit and run ambush style fighting a possibility. It also makes certain assets on the ground of military importance and some more so than others. ComStar stations, spaceports, factories, cities that provide supplies of different types are a few examples of these and they change value to some degree or another depending on the strategy you choose to use. One could also use diversionary tactics, and otherwise vary strategys on the offense to acheive a more favorable outcome in various ways.

Some of these maybe difficult or even impractical to implement however hope they will be considered.

VERY GOOD thread overall. Many great ideas, or observations, between the dev's and the player base I'm seeing I haven't been this excited about the prospects of an event since I came back home after my first deployment with the Navy.

Edited by Jack Lowe, 16 August 2012 - 12:14 PM.


#111 Popgun

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 86 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:26 PM

View PostHooperinius, on 16 August 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

I think that above all else the warfare system needs to be easy enough to figure out so that people who just want to click a button and go fight can do so while at the same time having enough depth to satisfy the power gamer types.



Well people can always go click a button and fight, what we're talking about here is the system that "guild"/MercCorp leaders will be involved with to control their team assets and to set up Corp on Corp battles.

#112 fil5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,573 posts
  • LocationInternet County, USA

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:28 PM

View PostCCC Dober, on 16 August 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Excuse me OP, but WoT did Eff up the Clan Wars part completely. Their whole idea of it was to allow bigger Clans like Red on their side to lock down the whole map and they supported it, all along. When I see you 'suggesting' how stuff 'should' work, essentially being the devil's advocate (allied to Goons, aren't we?), I can barely contain my amusement. Look, I know you mean well for your buddies and stuff, but you're not doing the bigger community a favor by building on the same Eff'd up BS that Wargaming forced down the necks of so many players. Clean slate please. That's how you start things properly, not by trying to improve what is essentially BS. It won't fly. End of the story.


(note: I am not the OP) Fair enough - I've never played WoT so I'm interested to hear ideas for how this could be done differently. Have you got any ideas?

#113 TLBFestus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,519 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:32 PM

Wow, very impressive train of thought. Hat's off to you.

I actually went and read the original post as well, and those are some good suggestions. The suggestion of "no caps on membership for clans, etc., does make the soles of my feet itch a bit though.

Why? Because it seems tailor made for a large outside group to swoop in and establish a strong, early game presence that dominates aspects of the game, at least until another presence can rise up to match that. The first thing that comes to mind is Goonswarm. That said, I have no counter proposal other than "some number more than 0 and less than infinity".

Now, I have no personal axe to grind against them, but I feel sure that I'm not the first one to read this that had that thought cross their minds. OP did include quite a few counter suggestions to ameliorate the impact of a larger group as well, ie. limiting the ability to project power without penalty, so perhaps it can work.

Not knowing even the basics of how the meta-game will function it's hard to critique OPs suggestions, but they can certainly be used in assisting in the creation of that meta-game.

Edited by TLBFestus, 16 August 2012 - 12:50 PM.


#114 Gwaihir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:45 PM

View PostCCC Dober, on 16 August 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:


Excuse me OP, but WoT did Eff up the Clan Wars part completely. Their whole idea of it was to allow bigger Clans like Red on their side to lock down the whole map and they supported it, all along. When I see you 'suggesting' how stuff 'should' work, essentially being the devil's advocate (allied to Goons, aren't we?), I can barely contain my amusement. Look, I know you mean well for your buddies and stuff, but you're not doing the bigger community a favor by building on the same Eff'd up BS that Wargaming forced down the necks of so many players. Clean slate please. That's how you start things properly, not by trying to improve what is essentially BS. It won't fly. End of the story.



I haven't played WoT so I can't comment on how well it's system works or does not work, but you're sorta missing the whole point of Pringle's post- He doesn't want the WoT system. He's using this post to dissect that system and suggest ways to avoid making the same mistakes it made.

#115 Rychard Starheart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 300 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:49 PM

View PostTLBFestus, on 16 August 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Wow, very impressive train of thought. Hat's off to you.

I actually went and read the original post as well, and those are some good suggestions. The suggestion of "no caps on membership for clans, etc., does make the soles of my feet itch a bit though.

Why? Because it seems tailor made for a large outside group to swoop in and establish a strong, early game presence that dominates aspects of the game, at least until another presence can rise up to match that. The first thing that comes to mind is Goonswarm.



This. While very well put together and thought out, (truthfully interested if OP has had any experience in game design) the whole thing feels like a set up. It honestly feels like there are wheels turning in the background that they have not let on to. I just cannot bring myself to support this, at least not fully.

Edited by Rychard Starheart, 16 August 2012 - 12:51 PM.


#116 Gwaihir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:54 PM

Double posting, but oh well-

View PostTLBFestus, on 16 August 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Why?  Because it seems tailor made for a large outside group to swoop in and establish a strong, early game presence that dominates aspects of the game, at least until another presence can rise up to match that. The first thing that comes to mind is Goonswarm. 
Now, I have no personal axe to grind against them, but I feel sure that I'm not the first one to read this that had that thought cross their minds.  OP did include quite a few counter suggestions to ameliorate the impact of a larger group as well, ie. limiting the ability to project power without penalty, so perhaps it can work.
Not knowing even the basics of how the meta-game will function it's hard to critique OPs suggestions, but they can certainly be used in assisting in the creation of that meta-game.

Uncapped organizations are surely a benefit to large groups like Goons, DHB, or any of the other 100+ member groups that showed up in Hawkeye72's excellent forums census, but not for the reasons that you're implying. I don't think any of us want territory control that is decided solely on who can field more players. Instead, uncapped groups is all about mitigating what is always the limiting reagent in player driven communities and environments like MMOs: Willing and competent leadership (and by some extension, infrastructure and organization).
The other points in the OP about capped membership companies promoting burnout through required activity levels, and hostility toward "wasting" slots in your group on casual or more intermittent players applies as well, but I think the point about good leadership bears repeating. The number of people that are willing and able to run good groups is always going to be in short supply, so a wise developer would do what they can to make sure that that pool is not stretched thinner than it needs to be by artificially requiring many separate groups.

Edited by Gwaihir, 16 August 2012 - 12:57 PM.


#117 CCC Dober

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:55 PM

View Postfil5000, on 16 August 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:


(note: I am not the OP) Fair enough - I've never played WoT so I'm interested to hear ideas for how this could be done differently. Have you got any ideas?


Honestly, I do not think for one second that Community Warfare will be any different as long as numerical advantages allow bigger formations to run rampant on the map. The moment you, as a developer or community, try to limit said formations, they break up and get more dangerous because they are still allied and suddenly able to be everywhere at the same time, sharing players, accounts and presence between them.

What the devs intend to do is promising, as the players and their numbers will not have an influence on the main events. While this may be somewhat disheartening, the alternative is grim indeed. Look no further than WoT or Eve, where large formations basically run the whole show and smaller units are merely suffered until they go to far. That said, I do think the devs have at the very least one person with extensive knowledge and experience in these matters. And if I read PGI right, they have set things in motion long before any of us uttered an idea about how things 'should' run. They know their business and I trust them explicitely. Patience is the real killer though.

Edited by CCC Dober, 16 August 2012 - 12:55 PM.


#118 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:08 PM

Thats why i propsed the Raid mechanic, the ability of a small group not intersted in land ownership to raid and aqcuire resources from land holdings of even the largest clan.

The idea is to allow small groups to be a variable that even the largest clan to have to deal with. Drawing resources and man-power to holding not just land, but defending the resources on their land holdings. Like roving bands of hyennas stealing meals from the mighty lion. Because we have no land in ownership or to lose, their is no easy way to nail marauding bands down..but with the decrease in risk, comes lower returns during success.

Though i'd like to have a small, tribal outpost/encampment instance to call my own and share with my small clan :)

#119 xX_Nero_Xx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 649 posts
  • LocationDallas,Texas

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:13 PM

i think you have good points but i hope they actually take stuff from all the leagues tbh
vengence league aka VL
starlance league SL
Mechreg.org MR
nbt
and so on there was alot of things that worked so dam well in thoose and so many more that i could spend dam near all day here.
i played eve and wot eve was fun for the first 5 years and now its so borring that i gave the account up
mine run mission pirate or large scale fleet lag fest battles
Wot clan wars was broke when it started.
still broke now
the more they try to fix it the worse it gets
he is right on the clan number limit it suck you have clans that have 800 members running around using alt clans to attack them to keep them from take land or u take it and you have 8 attacks from the same clan
i could go on and on and on but we all know what im getting at
i want them to take there time and get it right. look at whats out there , take from them what worked please look at the old mech leagues and learn .
from a mw-mw4 please get this right

Edited by fccolhitman, 16 August 2012 - 01:16 PM.


#120 Gwaihir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:14 PM

I think that's where some of the proposals from the first post come in- There should be more and less valuable planets out there on the periphery, so that a smaller group can decide to hold down one as a home base. That goes with mechanics that make it not really worthwhile for a bigger group to expend their own manpower to try and add it to their own holdings (Those jumpships are better used going after bigger fish, or whatever lore explanation makes sense, really).





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users