DUST Search - [Request] Contract Implementation

Greiskind wrote:

Jonquill Caronite wrote:

I have to admit I'm mildly surprised by the disinterest, and I just ran another search to make sure I wasn't missing some big thread on this subject... Seems to me if there's no interest in contracts, or the actual mechanics on how conquest and matches will be encouraged and played this game is doomed to become another quick play first person shooter.

Maybe that crowd just isn't online right now, who knows...

You probably frightened a lot of the younger players - high school and below. I expect a lot of the Eve players in Dust might also be intimidated. I'm an older guy that deals with contracts all the time. I'm hugely interested in how contracts will be implemented. Even though my FPS skills mean I'll only be a plasma sponge most of the time, I still want to know what kind of contract my employers are getting me into. I want to know the scope, rewards, and penalties. Good to read the fine print that says "if you destroy over 10% of cargo you don't get paid" on a contract.

I think the Dust side organization, when we get into Corps and the like, will probably include a few folks with contract-reading skills. (Be nice to get paid ISK for helping scan a contract.) Depending on the mechanism to select or bid on contracts, I can see some leaders getting fragged by their mates for accepting a contract where nobody received ISK to pay for the equipment they lost.......


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.08 11:39:00 - [1] - Quote How Contracts Should Operate This thread is designed with the intention of providing a compilation of ideas for contracts and how they should be created and the sorts of things they should control. Additional suggestions will be added regularily and this thread will be monitored and added to assuming it remains active. Being as this will be the primary means of interaction between EVE and Dust 514 player, and general method of interaction to begin with I think this topic warrants significant discussion I hope the community begins. Annotated List (Read Below For Full Description): - Ability to set Conditions - Bonus Objectives - Contract Bidding - Contract Deposits - Contract Perks - Contract Pre-Requisites - Deductions and Penalties - Default Templates - Don't Dumb it Down - Highly Modular In Depth Contracting - No Arbitrary Limitations - No Objective Limitations on Maps - No Scale Limitations - No Stat too Big or too Small - Ongoing Contracts - Percentage Modifiers - Pre-Requisite Objectives - Reward for Capture - Reward for Escort - Reward for Intercept - Reward for Sabotage - Reward for Victory Suggestion With Descriptions: - Ability to set Conditions, this is absolutely essential and basic, the contracts should by no means be limited to price and victory, conditions need to options for the contractor to select, destruction, capture, take hostages, disable, destroy, infiltrate, sabotage, et cetera. Don't be stingy about this and we'll be off to a good start. - Bonus Objectives, players should have the ability to make baseline contracts, but add rewards in either ISK, Aurum, or some other trade good, for completing additional objectives. These bonuses should either be an apparent part of the contract, or can also perhaps even be hidden to encourage players to take contracts from that Corporation in the future. - Contract Bidding, players should have the option of setting a minimum reward for a contract, and then allow other Dust Corporations that meet the contracts requirements (If it has any), to bid on the contract offering to complete it for lower and lower amounts of ISK, or whatever, as rewards. - Contract Deposits, the contractor should have the option to make an ISK or item deposit part of their contract (As a bonus if the contract has penalties, it can include penalizing enough to deduct from the Deposit after removing the reward), this allows contractors to offer high risk/ high reward contracts to confident Dust Corporations with less risk of loss. - Contract Perks, contracts shouldn't be limited to ISK and Aurum transactions and should be able to include as part of their requirements things such as Alliances, trade of districts and even whole planets and systems, ships, resources, and supplies, these can be offered as conditional perks, or just part of accepting the contract in the first place. - Contract Pre-Requisites, contractors should be able to list pre-requisites, such as requiring the deployment of Mercs with access to prototype tanks, or requiring a certain Corporation rating, or average K/D ratio for players entering into the contract. - Deductions and Penalties, as previously mentioned contracts should be able set conditions that penalize failure, such as no reward in the event the battle is lost, or deductions for every installation lost, or every enemy installation destroyed rather then captured. - Default Templates, all planets and districts should have a default contract template assigned to them for quick issuance of contracts well suited to the design of the map, or availability or resources. These templates will act as a 'quick contract' function for new users or ease of access, but remain completely open to modification for advanced users. - Don't Dumb it Down, although the surface interface and default options can be extremely basic to allow anyone to use the contracting interface, there should be an advanced mode, or means to create much more deep and complicated contracts such as the ones being discussed, don't dumb it down for the incompetent, or disinterested. - Highly Modular in Depth Contracting, as stated above, a large variety of contracting options should be given, rather through the ability to open up an advanced option tab, or merely adding conditions through if/then statements, contracting should be very deep and concise, making it procedural would of course aid in programming, but that's an aside... - No Arbitrary Limitations, for the love of all that is good, please don't relegate certain maps to certain types of contracts, and certain limitations, and certain gameplay types to certain options, or certain numbers of players, or any other arbitrary decisions. Being arbitrary is VERY bad for creativity and player freedom... - No Objective Limitations on Maps, same as mentioned above, but with a little more depth, so for example, please don't make 'capturing' the facility ALWAYS our only option if we are on a map with a large facility, in any map rather its good or bad, we should be able to choose between capturing OR destroying a facility or a number of other options... Don't simplify... - No Scale Limitations, contracts should not be limited to districts, allow contracts to be made for people (Bounties), districts (Battles), planets (Conquest), and entire systems, or more complex, don't limit the scale of Dust 514 contracts.
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.08 11:44:00 - [2] - Quote continued.... - No Stat too Big or too Small, allow a LARGE variety of things to be conditionalized in contracts, make contracting for number of hacks an option, kill to death ratio, installations destroyed, installations captured, number of times captured, installations held at the end of a match, time taken to complete contract, et cetera. Variety is good in this regard. - Ongoing Contracts, these special contracts effect multiple areas, or a wide area, and can even be set to give out partial rewards throughout the contract for capturing planets within a selection of planets, or holding them, or could be made to last indefinitely, or until a major final goal (Conquering an entire system for example), is accomplished. - Percentage Modifiers, don't make real numbers absolute, allow percentages to be used in regards to unknowns in a contract, such as destroying 75% of the enemies clone reserve, whatever it happens to be. - Pre-Requisite Objectives, allow players to organize objective in orders they must be completed if they wish, or make certain objectives pre-requisite before credit will be given for another objective, for example destroying all CRU's before credit is given for destroying the main facility, or turret installations. - Reward for Capture, allow contracts, or objectives within contracts to reward players differently for capturing vice destroying. - Reward for Escort, allow for contracts both for intercepting supply lines between districts, as well as actually escorting these supply lines. In the event of an attack on a non-escorted supply line, there will be no resistance, in the event of an escort with no hostility directed at it there will be no match. - Reward for Intercept, as mentioned above allow rewards for successfully intercepting, and either destroying or confiscating or grabbing supplies from a convoy transporting along a supply line. - Reward for Sabotage, allow contracts to be made for intentionally sabotaging ones own team, and losing a match on purpose. - Reward for Victory, obviously allow contracts for successfully winning matches, or capturing districts, planets, et cetera... Current End Of List
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.08 22:26:00 - [3] - Quote Example 1: -Two opposing corporations own several districts on a planet, Corporation A has two groups of districts separated by Corporation B's Districts, but they have to transport supplies between their districts to maintain planetary productivity... If neither corporation employs any contracts, then Corporation A successfully delivers supplies with no consequence... However, if Corporation B chooses they can set up a number of contracts... What follows are some ideas... - Ambush and destroy, the object of this contract is simple, Corporation B sets up a contract and attacks Corporation A's convoy en route and potentially disrupts their trade... The results would be realistic, namely Corporation B's mercenaries would have a limited time to overcome the resistance of Corporation A's automated defenses, and destroy all of Corporation A's cargo, if they didn't succeed they would (Depending on the terms of the contract) either receive a percentage of the contract reward, or none of it if the requirement was 100% success (Please note however, that even if they don't receive any credit for destroying half of the convoy, Corporation A will still lose half of the resources that convoy was transporting as would be expected by losing half of the convoy). - Ambush and Capture, clearly different from the former as in this objective the team would either fail the contract or be penalized for every piece of cargo that was destroyed, or for failing to capture all the cargo before the elapsed time after which a portion of the convoy will have escaped. - Corporation A hires mercenary Escort, exactly the same as above, only now you are fighting other players who were contracted to protect the same assets that you are trying to destroy or capture in the process. The mercenaries doing the protecting would be responsible for either protecting all of the assets put under their responsibility or some of them depending on the terms of the contract. Once again this can mean the contract lists a total reward which is penalized for losses, a total reward which isn't given if ANY objective is failed, or a reward for each successfully protected piece of cargo, all up to the contractor. Those are just some idea's for escort as one example. However, the same features SHOULD apply broadly to other objective types as well, and all maps should have these sorts of objectives as models... Namely the contractor shouldn't be FORCED to state capture as his objective for a facility, destruction of the facility should be an option... Likewise the contractor should also be able to penalize, or require ALL structures to be captured, and all friendly assets to be defended, or whatever other conditions he or she chooses. It will be the players responsibility to carefully accept and agree to the contracts terms. Another caveat, SCALE of contracts... Contracts shouldn't be limited to match, or to battle, or to districts, or planets, or any such... They should be as small or large as the contractor wishes... If a contractor wishes to put out a bounty on a faction and pay someone 1,000,000 ISK per head from that faction or corporation so be it, if he wishes to do it for a particular player, so be it, if the contractor wishes to make a contract requiring the player to capture 2 facilities, and get a 10 to 1 K/D ratio and LOSE the match to get the reward HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CONTRACT... Does this all sound too complicated? It really shouldn't because these requirements are not difficult to program at all... The more control we give the player the better, and that's what I want to stress here. However, I want ideas, why wouldn't this work? Is this what everyone else had in mind? Does anyone else have any other pertinent suggestions? What would you add or remove? I'm looking for feedback, I'm sure CCP is also, this is a very important topic, so I hope people show as much interest in it even if it isn't implemented yet as I am... I searched contracts and came up with numerous results, after reading 3 pages of posts, and finding all of them were very SPECIFIC questions and requests, I decided I searched enough and its about time we had a much more general thread on this VERY important topic. Contracts will be the defining feature that determines the relations and organization all players in Dust 514 have with each other and with other EVE players, and thus they are the most important aspect of this game in many ways, even if they aren't implemented yet. As such I think we need to throw our suggestions together before this feature is releases to make sure we get what we want at it and CCP (In spite of their utter brilliance and complete competence), isn't going into this critical feature blind... For starters, it is important to determine HOW the territories will be approached... There are a lot of scenarios that could be encountered, but ALL contracts must be emergent... What would be depressing is if we discovered that each map had 'built-in' objectives and we couldn't alter them through our own terms in a contract... What I mean by this is the following... I have to admit I'm mildly surprised by the disinterest, and I just ran another search to make sure I wasn't missing some big thread on this subject... Seems to me if there's no interest in contracts, or the actual mechanics on how conquest and matches will be encouraged and played this game is doomed to become another quick play first person shooter. Maybe that crowd just isn't online right now, who knows...
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.09 02:52:00 - [4] - Quote Greiskind wrote: Jonquill Caronite wrote: I have to admit I'm mildly surprised by the disinterest, and I just ran another search to make sure I wasn't missing some big thread on this subject... Seems to me if there's no interest in contracts, or the actual mechanics on how conquest and matches will be encouraged and played this game is doomed to become another quick play first person shooter. Maybe that crowd just isn't online right now, who knows... You probably frightened a lot of the younger players - high school and below. I expect a lot of the Eve players in Dust might also be intimidated. I'm an older guy that deals with contracts all the time. I'm hugely interested in how contracts will be implemented. Even though my FPS skills mean I'll only be a plasma sponge most of the time, I still want to know what kind of contract my employers are getting me into. I want to know the scope, rewards, and penalties. Good to read the fine print that says "if you destroy over 10% of cargo you don't get paid" on a contract. I think the Dust side organization, when we get into Corps and the like, will probably include a few folks with contract-reading skills. (Be nice to get paid ISK for helping scan a contract.) Depending on the mechanism to select or bid on contracts, I can see some leaders getting fragged by their mates for accepting a contract where nobody received ISK to pay for the equipment they lost....... Completely agreed and exactly my point. I say these sorts of things are good things of course, and I want that depth, but I'm afraid that the game modes and contracts will be overly simplified... If even nul-sec just has one type of contract per map per world, and all players can do is basically 'Purchase' the already configured contract to have other players accept it, I will be extremely disappointed... Honestly I'd even like MORE depth then EVE which is decent, but relatively rudimentary compared to what could be done.
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.09 08:20:00 - [5] - Quote Noowb Sauce wrote: This is a very crucial aspect for the merged game side of things. Well spoken and well thought out. This needs to be very robust to help eve and dust players feel connected and a part of the same universe. I seriously hope other people agree and start posting their own ideas, I've been adding to this thread as ideas were proposed or occurred to me, but my creativity has its limitations...
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.09 11:01:00 - [6] - Quote Ten-Sidhe wrote: A option of setting multiple options and rewards would be cool. so x if facility captured, y if facility is destroyed, z if operation is disrupted. Person setting contract could set destroyed as a penalty, or set capture and destroy as equal value(setting capture lower then destroy wouldn't make sense since owner can remove with single command from pi interface.) Same thing with defense, owner could ask for everything to be defended, or a single building held even if everything else burns, a building that may not even be the attacker objective. Could make for interesting battles. Noted and added, I will probably update the original post to try and make it look neater, and add a little more description to each item and move my examples down to the reserved post =).
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.09 11:48:00 - [7] - Quote Fully updated awaiting more suggestions =).
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.09 22:34:00 - [8] - Quote So then should I just let this thread die?
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.11 06:12:00 - [9] - Quote All suggestions have been added, and an annotated version of the list has been included prior to the list including a short description of each feature =). Thank you all very much for the suggestions, keep them coming and lets hope CCP reads this.
Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.11 12:00:00 - [10] - Quote Wall of text must be imposing, still waiting for someone to post and tell me to let the read die though =).

Jonquill Caronite Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 115	Posted - 2012.08.12 09:10:00 - [11] - Quote Unashamed Bump.