Envisioning the Mission System

[NewSith]

This was an entry for that metagame contest, but I'm actually more curious as to what you guys have to say about it...

A quick in-depth to how I envision the mission system: A mission system is a Squad Leader tool allowing to place a certain marker on a certain dynamic object, adding a "condition" for all his squad members.

But since PlanetSide 2 is all about teamwork I propose the following implementation based on my envisioning of a basic Mission System. Hereby Mission=Order, that's to clear your understanding.

Missions

• Attack an Area (Every enemy unit in the vicinity of the order killed gives "Mission In Progress Bonus" for XP)
• Attack a Generator (Every enemy unit in the vicinity of the generator killed gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Arming the Generator gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Generator destruction gives "Mission Fulfilment Bonus")
• Attack a Control Console (Every enemy unit in the vicinity of the generator killed gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Console capture gives "Mission Fulfilment Bonus"; Upon capture mission status changes to "Defend a Control Console")
• Attack a Unit (Killing/Destorying a unit gives "Mission Fulfilment Bonus")
• Attack Territory (Consists of Attack an Area, Attack a Generator and Attack a Control Console Missions for everything in the vicinity of a hex; Grants smaller "General Mission In Progress Bonus", and "General Mission Fulfilment Bonus"; Upon capture the mission status changes to "Defend Territory")
• Defend an Area (Every enemy unit killed, while the killer is in the vicinity of the mission gives "Mission In Progress Bonus")
• Defend a Generator (Every enemy unit in the vicinity of the generator killed gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Every enemy unit killed, while the killer is in the vicinity of the mission gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Generator defusal gives "Mission In Progress Bonus")
• Defend a Control Console (Every enemy unit in the vicinity of the generator killed gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Every enemy unit killed, while the killer is in the vicinity of the mission gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Upon capture by an enemy or neutralization of the console mission status changes to "Attack a Control Console")
• Defend a Unit (Killing/Destorying an enemy dealing damage to a unit gives "Mission Fulfilment Bonus")
• Defend Territory (Consists of Defend an Area, Defend a Generator and Defend a Control Console Missions for everything in the vicinity of a hex; Grants smaller "General Mission In Progress Bonus", and "General Mission Fulfilment Bonus"; Upon losing the hex, mission status changes to "Attack Territory")
• Repair (Repairing a unit/object gives "Mission In Progress Bonus"; Completely repairing a Turret/Generator gives "Mission Fulfilment Bonus")
• Heal a Unit (Healing a unit gives "Mission In Progress Bonus")
• Move to an Area (All Mission Followers grouped in an area recieve "Mission Fulfilment Bonus")
• Support an Area (Repairing/Healing/Supplying units in the area gives "Mission In Progress Bonus")
• Support Territory (Repairing/Healing/Supplying units in the vicinity of a hex gives smaller "General Mission In Progress Bonus")

Notes:

• Mission Markers can be set on either 3D Map or Continental Map (To allow placing them inside structures/places with ceiling)
• Giving Out Missions requires a cert
• Only one Mission can be set at a time
• Missions have a 5-minute cooldown to prevent exploiting (especially statspadding with "Move to an Area" missions)
• Mission source (A Squad Leader, a Platoon Leader or an Outfit Leader) gets small "Order Followed" experience bonuses for each "In Process" and "Fulfilment" bonus for their subordinates
• Missions are set for squad/outfit by default depending on who gave the order
• Missions can be set for platoon by a platoon leader
• Missions can be set to "open"
• Active missions are visible on the Continental Map, on the Minimap, and on the 3D Map.
• Non-Active Open Missions are visible on the continental map for everyone and can be turned off via checkbox
• Mission Source can see "closed" missions of other squads/platoons/outfits on the continental map
• Short context can be set for missions by the Mission Source (e. g. "Kill this son of a !@#$" for "Attack a Unit" mission)
• Mission Source can see the number of Mission Followers
• Mission Source can set a limit on number of outside squad/platoon/outfit followers for Open Missions
• Closing (unsetting "open" status of) a mission automatically clears out all the Mission Followers outside the squad/platoon/outfit
• Open missions can be accepted by anyone, even non-squaded people
• All "Area" missions are spherical, except "Move to an Area" Mission
• "Move to an Area" missions is cylindrical with no floor and ceiling limits. This is done to promote hotdrop and deployment missions

Post Scriptum:

The "Open Mission" system I propose is rather controversial, but is necessary, as it allows teamwork on smaller scale, aswell as missions for solo players and the zerg. Also "Mission Fulfilment Bonus", since "Mission Completion" doesn't sound that good from the pronounciation point of view.

This is in fact a system based on the order system from Battlefiled 2142, polished, expanded and redesigned to fit PlanetSide 2.

[Malorn]

Just a few things to trigger some thought and discussion. I of course have no insight into mission design at all...

1) Purpose. What is the difference between a "Mission" and an Order a squad leader gives his squad? Things like "attack a generator" could easily be done with a squad waypoint and a voip/text message by the squad leader. Simple and effective, and very flexible. What makes a mission special? What is its purpose vs squad-level command? What do YOU think its purpose is?

2) Scope. What is the purview of the Mission? Is it to get a single task accomplished? Is it to provide general direction to your empire? Is it to communicate needs and desires?

3) Scale. How many missions do you expect there to be at any given time? Too few and they may be overwhelming response or simply completed too quickly. Too many and most will go unaswered. How do you solve "mission creep" where over time more and more missions appear? We saw a lot of CR5 creep in PS1, so things like cert gates do not achieve a stable rate/number of missions. What do you think is a good Mission-to-player ratio? 1:10? 1:30? 1:50?


Three important questions when talking and thinking about missions. How do you see the answers as a mission creator vs a mission recipient?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Just a few things to trigger some thought and discussion. I of course have no insight into mission design at all...

1) Purpose. What is the difference between a "Mission" and an Order a squad leader gives his squad? Things like "attack a generator" could easily be done with a squad waypoint and a voip/text message by the squad leader. Simple and effective, and very flexible. What makes a mission special? What is its purpose vs squad-level command? What do YOU think its purpose is?

Question: What is the difference between a "Mission" and an Order a squad leader gives his squad? Things like "attack a generator" could easily be done with a squad waypoint and a voip/text message by the squad leader. What makes a mission special?
Answer: Better indicativeness/illustrativeness, ability to communicate with other people through "signs" (which have higher "readability" than words) and most importantly - physical (if you can say so) reward, represented by XP bonus.

Question: What is its purpose vs squad-level command?
Answer: In this particular version mission system is in fact designed to promote teamplay:
A) among "deaf squads" - squads of random people that can't be arsed to read chat/use VOIP;
B) of inter-group property, like between outfits and squads of different origins;
C) between minorities and majorities, like a big outfit putting up a supportive mission for smaller groups of people to pick up, or maybe even for solo players, that have only partial interest in teamplay activities. I say that from a standpoint of semi-lonewolf, from my own experience, sometimes you DO want to help your Empire and do some teamwork for a change, especially in times when it feels like you are the only one on your empire that has a clue.

Question: What do YOU think its purpose is?
Answer: General Purpose is to provide a simple, yet complex mechanic that allows "passive teamplay", that works as a "light version" of hardcore teamwork for zerg and players not generally interested in going hardcore. It also provides tangible reward.


PS: As an extra mention, I can say that (in my head, perhaps) such kind of mission system would allow players to show a bit of creativity, or in other words it would result in some very interesting player-driven meta emerging.

2) Scope. What is the purview of the Mission? Is it to get a single task accomplished? Is it to provide general direction to your empire? Is it to communicate needs and desires?

A little bit of all actually. But what it has to be, in my opinion, to be successful is to be a dummy, with seemingly no context offered by the game, allowing players to decide what the purview is.

3) Scale. How many missions do you expect there to be at any given time? Too few and they may be overwhelming response or simply completed too quickly. Too many and most will go unaswered. How do you solve "mission creep" where over time more and more missions appear? We saw a lot of CR5 creep in PS1, so things like cert gates do not achieve a stable rate/number of missions. What do you think is a good Mission-to-player ratio? 1:10? 1:30? 1:50?

I expect only one mission to be available for creation by a mission creator. But there's an ostentatious hole in my system that allows metagame to step in, giving outfit leaders and/or platoon leaders that extra mission capacity. This is a way of promoting grouping, since an outfit leader, leading a platoon, can set 1 outfit mission, 1 platoon mission, and 1 squad mission.
TL;DR: 1 Mission

Also in my opinion (and in fact my idea) is that the optimal mission-to-player ratio is 2 to 1 based on the minimal requirement to set a mission being squad leadership. This is how I think it should work, since mission system should first and formost benefit those people outside tight teamwork groups.
TL;DR: 2:1 Ratio

What's the logic then? Simple: On paper - "outfits equals coordination, so outfits need more coordination tools", "solo player equals alone, he doesn't require tools for teamwork". In reality though it's absolutely vice versa. Outfits are indeed coordinated groups by definition. But the truth is - if you don't give ANY teamwork tools to outfits, they will still be able to perform that very teamwork. A single player on the other hand doesn't have anyone around him, and taking away his ability to teamplay without entering a group, is a catch 22, where he doesn't have means for teamwork because he doesn't play in a team, because he doesn't have means for teamwork...
TL;DR: It should benefit mostly players not tied to groups

So my implementation is aimed to benefit ALL the player layers, but it does have more visible impact on uncoordinated group rather than coordinated.

[PredatorFour]

Some good points here. The thing that stands out to me is that the mission system should work in squad/platoon only. Not empire.

You would get missions here there and everywhere which would confuse the average guy who already has a tough time figuring out the game.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

Some good points here. The thing that stands out to me is that the mission system should work in squad/platoon only. Not empire.

You would get missions here there and everywhere which would confuse the average guy who already has a tough time figuring out the game.

Small things like having the "Open Missions Map" checkbox being unchecked by default will help that very guy, in my opinion.


Afterall it's the small things that affect the outcome greatly.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Just a few things to trigger some thought and discussion. I of course have no insight into mission design at all...

1) Purpose. What is the difference between a "Mission" and an Order a squad leader gives his squad? Things like "attack a generator" could easily be done with a squad waypoint and a voip/text message by the squad leader. Simple and effective, and very flexible. What makes a mission special? What is its purpose vs squad-level command? What do YOU think its purpose is?

2) Scope. What is the purview of the Mission? Is it to get a single task accomplished? Is it to provide general direction to your empire? Is it to communicate needs and desires?

3) Scale. How many missions do you expect there to be at any given time? Too few and they may be overwhelming response or simply completed too quickly. Too many and most will go unaswered. How do you solve "mission creep" where over time more and more missions appear? We saw a lot of CR5 creep in PS1, so things like cert gates do not achieve a stable rate/number of missions. What do you think is a good Mission-to-player ratio? 1:10? 1:30? 1:50?


Three important questions when talking and thinking about missions. How do you see the answers as a mission creator vs a mission recipient?

Whop is the mission intended for. Higby has given us to understand missions are for newer players to ease their way into the game. Therefore they should be limited in scope, straight-forward and some at least easy to accomplish.

Should missions be listed according to rank? E.g. A mission for a BR1 might be 'equip as Engineer, get a tank, proceed to nearest friendly outpost, identify the capture point' etc, in other words become part of an induction.

A mission for level 20 and above might be to capture a named outpost or base and to have been a mission created by a 'leader', whatever one of them is.

However, the last uncovers the problem that I have always had with the mission system. Who is the 'leader', who elected him, how do we know the mission is sensible. I don't know how any of that could be done.

If we think back to the leaders from PS1, the CR5's. Many CR5's were active in chat, providing information and opinion. Often after a discussion an common way forward was agreed, but there was often people who disagreed and often they wouldn't follow the agreed line.

Even after a vote was held there were still rebels. Occasionally the forces the rebels commanded were sizable. I don't know how this could be resolved within a mission system and tbh I don't think it should be. I think people should just 'talk' to each other.

[bpostal]

This is mostly in line with what I hope for the mission system to be. The fact that it's not in is one of my bigger disappointments with PS2.
That aside, I would also envision such missions as 'Provide XXX vehicle/role in the vicinity of YYY area.' As well as things like 'Establish a no fly zone in the vicinity of XXX area.' Add a small space for the CR5 to add detail.

The mission system should, in my opinion, identify a need on the battlespace (identified by what passes as CR5s nowadays) and aid in finding a person (or persons) who can fulfill that need. It should allow the CR5s and those who choose to participate, hopefully quite a few through the use of XP as a carrot, the ability to function as a coordinated army throughout the continent.

A CR5 should be able to input into the mission system something to the effect of "We need 'this' and we need it Now(Soon/Before this base flips, etc)!"

A function that would be nice, but most likely little used would give the option to automatically create a temporary voice channel with the CR5 and those who have 'accepted' a mission (such as a Gal Pilot, a Lib team or the SL of an infantry squad) for the duration of whatever mission is needed.

Another function that could be of service would be a way for a third party CR5 'support' my mission. The name and outfit of each CR5 to check a tick box is automatically attached to the mission and adds 1% extra XP for those who fulfill the mission. This added functionality would hopefully add legitimacy to the mission request and ideally help network CR5s together.

At the end of the day all this is nice, but for now please SOE, give us what you've got.

[VGCS]

This is hard..... gonna need more time to think about it lol

[Chewy]

What if the Attack and Defend icons squad leaders place on the map are a mission? Instead of making some A.I. system for what to attack/defend based on a fluid map, base value, player locations, and stuff. Have the players choose where the attack/defend missions happen.

Say if an outfit is having problems with an area. They can place an order to help with covering a flank or for pub players to attack a direction that they just don't have the men for.

If this is done, then it would have to be limited HARD to keep from farming the extra XP and lower spam. Maybe only have platoon leaders be able to place the orders and on a 30-60 minute timer.

[raw]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Just a few things to trigger some thought and discussion. I of course have no insight into mission design at all...

1) Purpose. What is the difference between a "Mission" and an Order a squad leader gives his squad? Things like "attack a generator" could easily be done with a squad waypoint and a voip/text message by the squad leader. Simple and effective, and very flexible. What makes a mission special? What is its purpose vs squad-level command? What do YOU think its purpose is?

2) Scope. What is the purview of the Mission? Is it to get a single task accomplished? Is it to provide general direction to your empire? Is it to communicate needs and desires?

3) Scale. How many missions do you expect there to be at any given time? Too few and they may be overwhelming response or simply completed too quickly. Too many and most will go unaswered. How do you solve "mission creep" where over time more and more missions appear? We saw a lot of CR5 creep in PS1, so things like cert gates do not achieve a stable rate/number of missions. What do you think is a good Mission-to-player ratio? 1:10? 1:30? 1:50?


Three important questions when talking and thinking about missions. How do you see the answers as a mission creator vs a mission recipient?

I think the mission system should be entirely dynamic and player driven. What I mean by that is, essentially, high BR players who put down a bucketload of certs into leadership can draw their elaborate plans and a penis on the map for everyone to see and everyone in the game can bring up the map, see those plans (and the penis) unfold live and then take part and get bonus XP and whatnot for participating.

So high BR players who qualify have some sort of pencil tool, with wich they can draw arrows on the map, just like you would IRL, a circle around a base means 'take this'. Obviously the battle plan should be staged, so what gets drawn first must be completed first or there won't be any bonus XP.

something like this:


Something more finegrained like this would be cool too:


maybe we can have some sort of command map that's in-between the minimap and the world map with abstract unit symbols in the future? i am grinding my teeth over that everytime, the metagaming around that would be amazing: scouting mattering, positioning mattering, hierachies mattering, being organized mattering...

talking about organization, whatever you end up doing, it needs to empower the organized vs. the unorganized to cull the zerg and reward outfit gameplay. to this end:
- make scouting, positioning and all that tactical stuff matter
- outfit ladders
- since you've already delved down the avenue of dynamic XP, bonus XP when acting as a team/unit, XP reward by proximity check
- there's definitely more but i am already straining the bounds of this topic

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by raw

I think the mission system should be entirely dynamic and player driven. What I mean by that is, essentially, high BR players who put down a bucketload of certs into leadership can draw their elaborate plans and a penis on the map for everyone to see and everyone in the game can bring up the map, see those plans (and the penis) unfold live and then take part and get bonus XP and whatnot for participating.

Savage 2 had this all figured out in 2005.

[SixShooter]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

Some good points here. The thing that stands out to me is that the mission system should work in squad/platoon only. Not empire.

You would get missions here there and everywhere which would confuse the average guy who already has a tough time figuring out the game.

I would disagree since the mission system is really needed more for new players that need some direction and will likely not be in a squad or platoon. Most squads and platoons are already going to have a sense of what they want to acomplish but a mission system can definitly enhance that experience.

I think that missions should have a maximum amount of players that can accept the mission before it's locked out and you would have to select a different mission although I think think this could be scaleable for different missions and have a high cap of between 50 - 100. You chould also be able to see how many have currently accepted a mission.

I like the OP suggestion of gen killing missions for sure and gen hold missions would be pretty cool but only if they add a gen that controls the base benefits. Old style gen hold need to return and need to have a higher purpose than what is currently available.

One of the biggest things missing from tech tech up through today is a sense of direction and the mission system has been touted since the begining as the thing that is supposed to fill this void. I understand thaqt it's hard to do with only 3 conts but I have confidence that this is something that will improve over time.

Thank you to NewSith for bringing this topic up since we have not heard much about since before beta.

[typhaon]

I'd make sure there is some kind of in-game audio cue...

"Command requests... (various group designations -- squad A, plantoon B, general assault)... to (various attack/defend options -- destroy generator 1, capture assault, defend position) at (location)."

^Something like that. Would give our 'faction voice' some more work and I think it would make the system feel more immersive.

[Eggy]

The automatic mission system needs to be targetted towards new players and those choosing to solo or run in small squads.
The missions these people are offered should be tailored based on where there are and the size of the group they are in.
For example, your faction has just captured the base of allatum on indar, you were in the hex when it was capped. The mission system in the background should be able to see what the level of enemy activity is in that hex and all the surrounding hexes. Then on a squad by squad level offer "defend" this hex, "capture" this hex, "capture" this point, "defend" this point" missions. People can then choose to ignore or accept the mission. If this is done dynamicaly you should see a spread of troops as people move around completing missions for bonus XP, instead of just a big zerg going from base to base. This automatic system should also be able to have a vague idea of the type of resistance so can create such missions as "Air support needed at allatum", "Enemy ground armour spotted at quartz ridge" style missions.

The manual mission system needs to only be available to people who have maxed out the current leader certs, and also purchased a new "mission" cert. They also need to be leading a platoon of at least 20? people before they can create missions.
There also needs to be a mechanism in place for solo people to create missions for events and stuff.
The manual mission system allows the creation of a more complex type of mission, with interlinked stages with bonus XP(capped so it cant be exploited) and the ability to add flavour text and map penis's. When a manual mission is entered into the system it should be made available to a random number of people, solo, small squads and of course the people in the creators platoon. The bonus XP increases (again capped) depending on how much action occurs and across how many hexes.

[PredatorFour]

One important thing to think of is when will the mission start? and when will it end ??

Also is the mission bonus enough to draw farmers away from their desired farm to get points ? and mission credibility, who is just spamming griefing missions ? (just for the sake/leading troops to their deaths)