The Mission System

[Hamma]

This hasn't been discussed a ton on the forums and I was curious what people think of the Missions system that has been mentioned? As far as we know it will include squad missions, outfit missions, continental missions and global missions. With various leaders able to insert their own missions into the frey for people to pick up.

To me, this seems extremely powerful. I am really excited for what this promises. Really it throws away the garbage CR system and replaces it with something more useful that could have actual rewards rather than some dude spamming a chat channel.

What do you guys think?

[2coolforu]

It sounds awesome, not many people listened to CR5's beyond "Fight is now at this continent, zerg there". With dynamic, player created missions we might see people actually being able to direct the correct amount of resources to the fights that need them so we will have less 'ghost hack an entire continent' and more 'Awesome rallying defences'

It may also give Planetside the direction that some people need, some newbies would be confused by the total lack of 'official' objectives and goals in Planetside but a mission system might give players the direction they desire.

[Baneblade]

As long as the mission system can keep up with the flow of battle and the dynamic theatre.

I still think the good CRs are valuable. But it is hard to keep bad ones out of the club.

[PsychoXR-20]

I had a idea for a mission system for PS1 so I am psyched to hear that there is going to be one for PS2.

I'm hoping that they won't all revolve around the one or two biggest battles going on at the time, but work in a way to also try and start battles.

[Tool]

I'm happy to see missions as well. I'm hoping they accomplish at least two key things. First being tangeable rewards for all mission types to encurage their use. Second that they're setup in a way to allow various combat elements to post missions as a form of request. Infantry requesting transportation, armor requesting air support, etc.

[p0intman]

I'm jaded on most command ideas. Especially after tonight. We really need a way to out the bad leaders so they dont destroy the fights for others. I could name names here, but anyone familiar with NC CR5 chat will know who im talking about. It has potential. I want a way to lock continents off for people, so that we can properly direct the zerg in a more organised fashion.

lock continents off for a period of time if objectives aren't achieved after so long a period of time. force people to fight elsewhere so things become more diverse.

i dont want to spend my entire goddamn week on fucking hossin because some fucking mentally retarded asshole thought it would be funny to go and open it when people wanted to go elsewhere.

[Malorn]

Missions have immense potential.

1) Auto-generated missions (from the "high command") are a way for the PS devs to shape battles and encourage interesting behavior and shape battles.

2) Missions give new players and solo players clear direction. Helps solve the whole "ok what do I do? where do I go?" problem. This is really good for retaining new players and getting them to the action and enjoying the game.

3) It gives a means to do real command by commanders for their outfits, squads and the empire as a whole. Its true "command rank" without needing globals or other announcements.

Its one half of command re-design to eliminate the need for a CR5 or the whole former CR system (the other half is the ability to create social groups of outfits for communicaiton & coordination).

Tons of potential with the mission system and I'm really happy to see it in the game. The question is are they going to make it worthwhile enough for people to complete the missions, worthwhile enough for commanders to create *good* missions, and easy enough to use for people to navigate to them.

I hope at a bare minimum players get a waypoint and instruction on getting to their mission objective. I'd like to see a searchable mission database and a means of signing-up for missions, along with the ability to see how many (but not who) has signed up for a given mission. You don't want to reveal who is doing them due to security/alts/spies. narrow rope to walk here but you do have to be careful about what all information about missions is conveyed.

[Valdae]

The way I see it, if an outfit is given the mission "Capture base A within 30 minutes", I would hope a rival outfit from the defending empire would get "defend base A for the next 30 minutes". This would be a cool feature if there was a high enough xp reward for encouraging players into taking up the mission.

[Malorn]

For automated missions it could end up working that way naturally. The "attack this territory" mission pops up. So players from empire A go over to it. Shortly after attacking the loss of the territory generates a mission to go reclaim it. At that point both empires end up getting directed to the same territory naturally.

But that depends on how many auto-generated missions are available. I hope they aren't matched exactly 1 for 1 so things stay interesting, but reacting to a lost territory by giving a mission to reclaim it seems reasonable and would flow well.

[Sifer2]

I think it sounds good. For combat on this scale you need ways to coordinate folks. An a lot of people wont listen to text or even voice chat. But they have been trained like dogs to follow mission objective icons by years of playing various games lol.

Of course the key here is who gets to decide what the missions will be. There better be a good system in place of determining who the high ranking officers are.

[razor851]

Missions could be extremely awesome or extremely terrible. They'll probably be the latter but we'll just have to wait and see!

[krnasaur]

As long as there isn't a way for the system to be abused by people trying to harm the empire (like 75% of NC CR5s do now) im all for it

[Lonehunter]

I think it has great potential. But I just hope it doesn't create any problems, or counterproductive. The only example I can think of right now is a mission like "Destroy 10 Generators in 30 minutes" That may be extreme, but you get my point.

I'm really interested in the Outfit/Squad missions. Is it something I can create on the fly? I would be nice to have a set objective in my squad's HUD.

[Lunarchild]

Overall missions sound good... I have a lot of questions, like:

Up to how much detail can commanders set up missions? How about mission trees / conditional missions? Can you prepare a bunch of missions in advance? How are they going to prevent abuse of the system?

Mostly very practical things I guess :)

[Dreamcast]

I don't know.....I don't really get it to be honest.

I mean is it going to be a guide, like with waypoints discussing what you should do basically....or is it going to be a mission, where you completed you get a congratulations and get resources or xp?

[hippieschuh]

I dont like auto-generated missions, I prefair that players give the commands....

But maybe it fits with the resource system.

[Tikuto]

I automatically accept this mission system to be a much appreciated feature to our PlanetSide experience, and so that's probably why I've said nothing - it's an awesome idea.

With this mission system and the weather system sparked a brilliant idea which elaborates a grand-scale addition to what this mission system may be.


Alien planet may be resource-raped and eternally contested to a point where we may think "what the hell is going on?". The planet may be more volatile than us recent human inhabitants had ignorantly hoped against, and so Auraxis may become a barren planet if not treated with respect.

[SAVE THE PLANET! (All Empire objectives shift to saving the world) (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=570767&postcount=258)]


...

[Gandhi]

Actually I'm looking forward to this feature the most. It'll bring a lot more strategy into the overall game and it should be great for players who like playing solo or in small groups. Say you just want to make an ANT run or provide a Lodestar, just check the missions and pick the one that says "OH GOD WE NEED A LODESTAR!" and you're off.

The only thing that concerns me was mentioned already; some kind of quality control on CR5's or whatever PS2's equivalent will be. Drawing the occasional penis on the battlemap is fine, but I don't want to see the mission system get spammed with "personal army" requests and things that aren't going to help your empire win the war. Like a pissing match between commanders who can't agree on a strategy, to the point where two sets of missions are basically undermining each others efforts.

[Hamma]

I have a feeling setting global empire wide missions will be quite a ways up the tree. I just hope there is no broadcast system this time around and if there is it's heavily limited.

[Lunarchild]

I dont like auto-generated missions, I prefair that players give the commands....

But maybe it fits with the resource system.

I think the point is: the system will generate missions when the players are not giving any commands ;)

[Lunarchild]

I have a feeling setting global empire wide missions will be quite a ways up the tree. I just hope there is no broadcast system this time around and if there is it's heavily limited.

I actually don't mind a broadcast system. But yea, highly limited, and kept in check by GMs.

[Goku]

It sounds awesome, not many people listened to CR5's beyond "Fight is now at this continent, zerg there". With dynamic, player created missions we might see people actually being able to direct the correct amount of resources to the fights that need them so we will have less 'ghost hack an entire continent' and more 'Awesome rallying defences'

It may also give Planetside the direction that some people need, some newbies would be confused by the total lack of 'official' objectives and goals in Planetside but a mission system might give players the direction they desire.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that. When PS was back in its prime I remember many times where I help coordinated assaults on continents. Of course there is the general stuff like you mentioned. Calling primaries and telling people which base to attack. Though I often managed to pull people off bases that were going nowhere to better targets. Asking for more support in regards to pulling tanks/air or even back hacks, ant runs, or gen drops people would go. When players respect you and believe you know what you are saying they will often follow your /coms. Maybe this was the minority of CR5s that actually did this, but it allowed for those who made use of it for a more coordinated fight then just plain zerging.

[Tikuto]

It may be that there are numerous missions for the player-leaders to select as a command.

[basti]

Oh well, missions. I feared that someone would open such a thread before we have details on the system. Thanks hamma, i hate you. Now i have to post. :D

Okay, there we go:

Global Command!

The entire idea of leading other players is no new one, its pretty much as old as the first multiplayer games. Planetside requires this quite alot, otherwise fights turn into massive zerg fests, and players miss alot of oppurtunitys to break away and gain more ground. In fact, without someone shouting at them and getting stuff together, planetside would have been dead within the first few years. Planetsides system was far from perfect, but it gave us the pest possible tool we could have: Text. Plain and simple Text, the ability to chat with others. This allowed us to share ideas, give details, share intel etc, making the entire idea of leading in Planetside actually possible. Without /c and /comxy, it would have been impossible to lead.

The exact same rules apply to Planetside 2. A mission system is fine, changing the way you become a leader to be a real choise rather than something you get after a while of being number 1 in Squad is also a good thing, it propably prevents what we have these days in plantside: Half the players online at any give time being CR5s. Yet, chat is nessesary, both chat between leaders and to everyone. No matter how complex the mission system may be, the fastest and easiest way to tell someone what you plan is and how to execute that idea is text. Just as we used to have it all the time.

The mission system needs to be put ontop of the old system of /c and /comxy, as an optional component to execute plans. If it is the only way to lead a continent, it will most likley fail. In order to suceed with just the mission system i would need to be able to go into very deep details: WHere to form the max crash, when to form it, how to form it, when to start autorunning to the base, where to go, who to follow, where to go inside the base, what to do once you reached that spot. And thats just half of it. Once your in there and reached the first goal, you need to issue orders to the maxes again. What to do now. Where, when, how, etc. Its massive.

And thats not just for max crashes. Same for Armor collums, air raids, Gal drops, base attacks, base defense, EVERYTHING.

and that all is just for a commander issuing orders to the zerg. I didnt even cover intel yet. /c was useful for that for a long time, also /tell. How many people at that back hack? Need help retaking control? Anyone got a good idea how to break out of this stalemate or avoid being crushed by both enemy empires? /c was used for that, it still is often enough.






That covers the very basics of /comxy and /c. If i would start including outfits, platoons, /sl chat and the individual players of the zerg itself, i would propably end up writing a book, thats how goddam complex this topic really is.

But as hamma said in other words: allowing everyone to be come a leader and stay it caused issues. Having half the players being able to spam OSes is bad. Having 20 people in /c arguing and countergloballing each other is also bad. That needs to be looked at, and fixed. But those who really want to lead should have the old tools as well as new tools to be able to do the job right.



tl;dr: Mission system as addition to the old style /c and /comxy, but /c and /comxy with restrictions for only those who really want to lead opposed to todays "i am cr5 because of the OS/reveal/emp, and i can also spam lol".

[Tool]

Good post Basti and I think much of the problems of organizing or directing forces was a lack of real benefits or rewards. With this new resource system that may be a thing of the past but even in a persistant game world like Planetside, you could only capture so many bases before the novelty of territory control wore off.

Having a reason to fight in different areas, those tangible rewards for all players involved from direct combat to support players are a huge factor in getting players involved with the coordination and perhaps genuinely caring about the territories.

The idea of dissolving Command Rank into the skill system will be a great step in the seperation of the real leaders and commanders from like what you said, the players who just grinded CR for the sake of having the abilities. Without that trade-off of direct combat effectivness or leadership, everyone was a Patton.

A note about the communication, unknown how they'll have it setup but an interesting note is MAGs VOIP and how it has seperate channels for Squad/Platoon leaders to communicate with each other over their respective squad comms. Allowing squad/platoon leaders in Planetside 2 to communicate directly in real time would be a very nice touch.

[DviddLeff]

Here is how I would do the mission system, based on my Command Overhaul (https://sites.google.com/site/planetsideupgradeproject/phase-2/command-overhaul) for PS1:

Squad Missions
Squad Leaders can now accept missions for their squads from platoon leaders to fill a variety of roles, including:
Offensive

Hack Base/Tower/Bunker Control Console
Destroy Base/Tower/Bunker Spawn Tubes
Destroy Base Generator
Assault enemy territory (10 kills within a specific enemy territory or have no enemies within it after 5 minutes)
Assassinate 5 (unique) Enemy Leaders (Squad, Platoon or Company Leaders)

Once these Offensive missions are completed, the Squad Leader and members are rewarded with experience, depending on how much resistance is encountered. If the squad completes the mission then it is cancelled from the Squad Mission List automatically, and they, the platoon and company leaders are informed.

Defensive

Defend Base/Tower/Bunker Control Console
Defend Base/Tower/Bunker Spawn Room
Defend Base Generator
Defend territory (10 kills in a specific friendly territory, or have no enemies within it after 5 minutes)


For every five minutes defending in the area, the Squad Leader and squad are rewarded with experience depending on how much resistance is encountered. If the squad fails the mission, then it is removed from the Squad Mission List after five minutes, giving them a chance to secure the area.
Up to two missions can be accepted by any one squad at a time (if they want to split their squad into two teams, and the Squad Leader can cancel mission orders whenever he sees fit. Squad Leaders can also request missions from their commanders. Missions have a 30 minute time limit.

Platoon Missions
Platoons can be granted missions from their company leader however these are much broader than the squad missions, consisting of only totally capturing and defending specific bases or territories.

Both squad and platoon would be displayed on every soldiers HUD.

https://sites.google.com/site/planetsideupgradeproject/_/rsrc/1262253375384/phase-2/command-overhaul/orders%20bar.JPG

[wildcat140679]

Unable to recall from what or where, but I got the general idea that the "Load Balancing" is tied in to the mission system.

Even tho the developers say that thousands of players can play on one single map, I don't believe they can all be in the same battle location.
(I really hope I'm wrong and the devs are right :D)

I believe the mission system generate empire specific missions to get combat going, instead of players having to seek out the enemy them self`s.

When a battle is going and it`s becoming to big with to much players clustering at one area they might risk causing performance network lag issues for the server cluster or graphical lag on low end clients machines.

I'm pretty certain that the mission system will kick in to create new high priority mission targets to try and prevent to many players being in one place at the time. Hence Load balancing.

[krnasaur]

one thing I do not want is the game automating missions, maybe during beta when there is noone that high up the tree to give them, some of the GMs can. but other than that i want it to be from real players. not some computer

[Chufty]

I'm sure Higby said that the automated missions were just to get people started. One of PlanetSide's greatest strengths was that each and every battlefront, outfit, squad and soldier were real people.

I don't see them throwing that away.

[Haro]

I think the auto ones are a) very very basic, to get players oriented, and b) may not show up if there are player missions available. From the sound of the Q&A, auto missions sound like a backup.

I wonder if they'll award some type of bonus for completing missions. Maybe a buff, or xp, or something. Maybe they can also work assigning missions into leveling command.

I'd also like to see some improvement on command ui, like a better map that has more detail and such. I would LOVE to see one of the dynamic, top-down displays that BF2 had for its commanders. That was so awesome and practical.

[SavageB]

To me it implies that Cr5 or whatever the case may be actually has meaning now. Im sure we will see commanders of the battelfield assigning missions to outfits to bid on or just asking certain gen buster outfits for ex to take out a gen for added experience points etc. IMO it will be a great incentive system and a way for commanders to utilize certain outfits which are known to be the best at a certain situation to just go and do the job. I can probably add a lot more ideas to this mission system, but I will save that for another day :)

[Hamma]

I don't see them throwing away player missions for sure, but I think there will be a fair amount of automated mission components to keep the battle fresh and exciting.

[Gandhi]

Should be interesting to see how they implement 'victory conditions' for these missions. Capture-this-area missions would be easy, but what about more esoteric missions like "reinforce this position" or "get a lodestar over here", if things like that are possible at all. And who gets the bonuses for completing missions, everyone involved in the capture or do you specifically have to put your name on a list of people participating? How do they make sure you actually did participate and aren't just spamming Accept Mission on everything?

Lots of questions :D

[kaffis]

This hasn't been discussed a ton on the forums and I was curious what people think of the Missions system that has been mentioned?
I'm excited to see it in action, and give it a whirl.

I've long advocated a similar system for encouraging big-picture cooperation between more discrete units like outfits or squads, though I suppose I kind of was suggesting it in reverse (where you could "claim" a portion of the front to manage/assault).

Frankly, I like the notion they've got better.

Hopefully, there will be enough of a carrot to encourage people to use it. Bonus BEP/training speed while making progress towards an active mission, etc., without allowing a commander to designate easy/safe missions for his buddies to farm.

I like the idea of commanders getting the ability to shape/manipulate/control which missions are active and where, and I hope there's some flexibility and granularity to it. I'd hope that missions will "lock out" when some group accepts them, so that you don't get the entire empire flocking to the same mission. I'd also hope that commanders, while choosing and assigning missions to be handed out, can designate what strength of force they'd like to fulfil the orders (1 squad, 5 squads, etc.), so they can both prioritize and manipulate the concentration of force in their empire.

I'm pretty sure missions will only work if they're voluntary (at least at the empire level), and several from which to choose are presented to the player/squad leader when he goes to accept a mission.

Outfit officers and squad leaders should also have access to missions on a smaller scale. I'd love to see squad leaders able to designate zones for individual players to cover (and for these two levels of command, assigning them directly would be okay), say having 3 players assigned to guard an entrance or whatnot.

I'm hoping the mission objectives available will include defensive missions, and reward people pursuing them diligently fairly (and yet, non-exploitably, which is, of course, the rub) whether the target they're defending is an active hotspot or not. Of course, this goes back to my criticism of PS1, where defending something essentially consisted of setting up some spitfires, mines, and tank traps, making sure the automated base defenses were functional and the base had power, and then *leaving* to go join the zerg. Which is a failure in gameplay, to me, because then, when the enemy does get around to assaulting it, there's nobody there anymore.

Other mission types I hope to see include recon missions and resource extraction missions. Recon missions could be something like "I, the commander, suspect there's an enemy AMS supporting their push in this region. I can drop a big bubble on a map at the mission assignment window/terminal, and create a mission to search this area to expose and signal a location (automatically?) of this hidden AMS." Recon missions could also consist of overflying a region (or otherwise getting a good look at everything in there), and data about what you see (considering line of sight, cloaking fields, and your paths through the area) update friendly commanders' information on enemy disposition and strength. Like, they could pull up an overlay that will superimpose a heat map of enemy concentrations, and mousing over specific hexes that have had recon information recently transmitted back will display percentages of the force that are armored, infantry, and air or whatnot. Recon information could also be gained about enemy base defenses and the like.

Better yet, instead of just doing line of sight, make the recon mission completer take "pictures"!

Anyways, lots of exciting things that could be done, here. I'm looking forward to something that offers the troops on the ground a little more choice than, say, Allegiance (where a single commander per match gives orders and assigns targets and missions to individual players on his team), but still allows a (relatively) small group of players the ability to influence the actions of their empiremates while providing rewards for everybody involved in addition to teamwork and cooperation for the empire. A good mission system will allow individual commanders to add a few missions each without stepping on each others' toes while also not requiring constant contact between the commanders to coordinate who gives what mission where (so it should be easy for commanders to either look at a glance at what other commanders are assigning and infer the plans of others to aid in cooperation with new missions vs. existing ones). Finally a good missions system will "fill in the gaps" with some modicum of intelligence when there are no commanders on, offering basic missions in productive places.