[SUGGESTION] - Breaking the "Kill everything" mentality

[mjbroekman]

As noted by @Amechwarrior here (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rewards-for-timely-recovery-missions.1143009/), Recovery missions are especially framed in such a way that bonus rewards could be implemented for quick completion (number of turns) without engaging the opfor. However there are other ones as well. In general, it seems like the 'kill everything" mindset is what gets reinforced through the current implementation of mission rewards.

Breaking the "Kill everything" mentality
One of the major complaints about Target Acquisition as a mission type is how it victimizes the player for using strategies that work in other mission types. Namely the fact that every other mission type, outside of story missions, can be "won" by killing the opfor. Target Acquisition very much punishes that mindset with short timers.

There are multiple mission types where it would be possible to reward the player for "objective play" so that players are not constantly reinforced with "kill the opfor, then worry about the objective".

• Recovery / Rescue
  • There are really two types of recovery / rescue missions (based on contract text).
    1. "Asset Retrieval" type missions where you are explicitly told to sweep aside the defenders, get the goods, and get out. This is a "wipe out the opfor"-appropriate mission.
    2. "Biological Sample" and "Brilliant Minds" type missions where you are trying to recover the goods before the opfor does. This can be interpretted as "wipe out the opfor", but it can also be interpretted as "get in first and get out fast".
  • The opportunity here is this:
    • Giving bonus rewards to the player for completing the mission quickly (for either one)
    • Giving bonus rewards to the player for completing the mission without destroying the opfor. I will grant you that BATTLETECH is a tactical mech combat game and so some people will balk at being rewarded for avoiding combat...but at the same time, there is an element of tactical thought and execution that is required to complete a mission without destroying the enemy while still accomplishing the objective.
  • To that end:
    • Time-based Bonus rewards: Base the number of turns on what a 240m sprint speed could accomplish + 1 turn / skull (2 levels of difficulty). Reduce the bonus reward by 25% for each turn beyond that number. Players that choose light mechs will be rewarded handsomely for completing the mission quickly, while players that choose heavier mechs will be rewarded by salvage opportunities.
    • Engagement-based Bonus rewards: Base the bonus on the percentage of the opfor (garrison + reinforcements / supporting units) that is still operational. If 100% of the opfor is still functional, the full bonus is given.
• Capture Base
  • Current methodology: Kill everyone / everything before stepping in the zone.
  • The opportunity here is:
    • Encourage the player to capture the base as soon as possible by giving "side benefits" such as the dropship crushing opfor units or turrets being captured and used against the reinforcements.
    • Additionally, the reinforcements could be made to be stronger on the assumption that player is capturing some number of turrets that will then be turned against the reinforcements.
  • To that end:
    • Bring in the dropship when the player enters the zone, regardless of opfor strength. This can provide some tactical depth as you try to manuever the opfor into the danger zone before having the dropship land and crush them.
    • Once the dropship lands, have the turrets (if there are any) be 'captured' after a couple of rounds and turned on any remaining enemy units.
    • Reward the player for the number of turrets captured as well as speed of capture (turns).
• Assassination
  • Assassination missions are sort of a grey area already. Lighter, faster units are able to quickly swarm the main target and take it out before escaping, or you can choose to fight through everyone.
  • The opportunity here is:
    • Certain mission types seem to imply that the target is the only real objective and the rest of the opfor is incidental or collateral damage. Examples: "Code of Silence", "Key Personnel", "Escaping Spy" come to mind.
  • To that end:
    • For those missions where collateral damage 'could' be mitigated, reward the player for doing so with a bonus cbill reward for leaving some % of the supporting forces intact (similar to recovery above).

The objective of these suggestions is to help provide rewardable objectives for alternate play styles. I am NOT suggesting that failure conditions be added, but simply bonus objectives (hidden or otherwise) for completion based on time or engagement styles. This would make them similar to the bonus objectives of preserving a certain number of ammo crates during the story mission, or being successful is keeping all escorted vehicles alive or all base buildings intact.

 

[Justin Kase]

Great post, and it would be very nice for there to be multiple layers of objectives that reward different play styles.

You could also start the 'bug out' timer in the Assassination mission sooner. Normally I take out the other lances, then go engage the target with my whole lance (or whatever survived).

The most interesting and tensest fight I had was when I ran into the target at the same time I ran into the first lance - and he started to run. That was a hard mission, and I wound up catching the target, but then sprinted for evac

 

[mjbroekman]

For me, the most tense fight was going into an assassination mission with all medium mechs thinking it was going to be a "light" heavy and one supporting lance, only to run into a fully armored Black Knight and two lances of mixed LRM and long range AC support (I think it was at least one Treb and one Jager A along with a Cataphract and a couple of Manticores). On the desert oasis map (with the base in the middle of the crater / lake). I took out the BK and barely escaped with a single mech because I ended up ejecting pilots to save the mechs they were in.

 

[vparez]

Great post and thanks for writing this up.
I am also in favor of lessening the "kill all" mentality of the missions.

 

[jklinders]

One way to help reduce the "kill all" mentality would be to stop having your exfil point be behind the lance and a half of reinforcements that arrived mid mission. The majority of the maps are too small to really get away from them as well. That second point is the real kicker as it is rarely to your benefit to run and expose your back when you can just smite them. It's also the hardest to fix due to the sheer amount of assets that would have to be reworked. This is half the reason why Steiner Scout Lances are the prefered method in the current meta.

I would like the lance to be meaningfully split to allow for diversions and sneaky bahavior but mostly the tool of choice is a hammer because everything in front of you is pigeonholed as a nail.

 

[JibSail]

One way to help reduce the "kill all" mentality would be to stop having your exfil point be behind the lance and a half of reinforcements that arrived mid mission.

This <3

 

[Cathead]

Another idea for assassination missions: only spawn the reinforcements a turn after the target detects your lance. As far as I can tell, they are now often spawned as soon as one of your mechs is detected.
Thoughts?

 

[bobucles]

A lot of reinforcements spawn as soon as you hit the hidden floor traps on the map. A light and fast force ends up filling the map with enemies even faster, which is the exact opposite of why you'd want to go fast.

There are only a handful of missions where you have friendly support or a legitimate reason to go fast. For everything else the slow march of death maximizes your outgoing firepower while minimizing incoming damage.

 

[MacroNova]

The Long War 2 mod for XCOM2 addressed a very similar problem in the vanilla play for that game. All the pieces were there for guerrilla style, get-in-get-out combat but every single mission played out the same: move towards the objective and kill everything in your path, accomplish the objective, and you're done.

Long War 2 made patrols more random (instead of being programmed to head toward the player) and also smaller so there was a meaningful decision to make about whether to avoid or fight each patrol. It dropped reinforcements on the player after a certain number of turns so you never reached a state where everything was dead and the mission was over. The result is that almost every mission ends with the player's team evac-ing with enemies still on the map.

In Battletech this would require a) smaller, weaker and more dispersed patrols with b) more frequent reinforcements. Also, probably c) bigger maps. a and b are easy; not sure about c.