On the mechanics of raiding - reflections and brainstorming

245678

Comments

  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.Member Posts: 8,210 Transcendent
    Enya said:
    I don't think it supports a very cohesive roleplay environment when the key intervention for dealing with raiders is to ignore them or pretend they dont exist. Sure, that will always be a thing to some extent, particularly for insults etc., the kind of stuff it makes sense to just ignore, but the game itself shouldn't support trolls .

    You can either tell newbies/midbies to just ignore them, or you can push them to constantly train, invest credits into artifacts, and coordinate like Glomdoring does. That's your call.
    Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
  • NelrasNelras Member Posts: 177 Expert
    edited July 2018
    Shaddus said:
    Aeldra said:
    Shaddus said:
    I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the OP. After about two or three lines, my eyes started to unfocus. No offense :/

    I think a lot of peoples' problems is that they care too much. Can't beat the raiders? Shrug and come back to rebuild when they aren't around. If someone calls you a coward, snub them and go about your business. You aren't here in Lusternia for them, you're here for yourself. If people are kicking ladies/lords/daughters/whatevers, just ignore them. They aren't actually after those mobs, they're either after some easy pk to make their imaginary e-peen swell, or they're poking a wasp nest because of the same reason but don't actually want to fight. Don't let them piss you off, that's what they want to do.
    I'll easily admit that I am not good in formating things, I have groaned a few times at rereading. Sorry about that.

    While in principle what you're saying is the 'to go solution' in the game and what I suppose everyone who's still around and does care has adapted, it isn't something that I find neccessarly good. For me personally the problem is not that raids are happening, I do enjoy my share of pk here and there. The main problem for me is: I have five people, three of them newbies/half newbs. Facing two or three people out to raid. We -want- to engage them, give them a fight and drive them off. Can we? Only through boring them. And that is the issue that I have with raids.

    I'm the same way. I hope you didn't see my post as a jab at you :D


    No, I get it. You want to be able to drive people off, not just as RP but to give yourself and your allies peace of mind. I'm not saying you shouldn't want those things so much as saying that sometimes you just can't win, and that's ok. You aren't lessened as a commune leader or guild leader or "go-to person" because you aren't as coordinated or artifacted as the people raiding you. You aren't less of a player, or less "invested" just because someone else heavily invests in PVP and you don't. 
    I think the issue here is not that people don't see it as being ok that they sometimes can't win. Instead, it is that there is currently no way for the defender to win. If there was a way to win other than, 'Oh, they got bored,' then I don't think people would mind losing so much. Having some way to discourage raiding when no one is around would also help on that front, in my opinion.
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    edited July 2018
    Yes, and we could also improve the mechanics of raiding so that it doesn't actively support trolling behavior. I dunno, is your response to bullying writ large "toughen up princess"? This isn't a matter of individual animus or drive (as Karlach points out), there's a systemic flaw that causes this issue to come up over and over with a rotating cast of characters. Attaching personal duty to individual players in the system to overcome that system doesn't make sense: it has never worked. 

    The sentiment of "Just train your newbies to push through the resentment and unfun mechanics so that you can abuse them in turn later" doesn't jibe with the "Just don't play" message.


  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.Member Posts: 8,210 Transcendent
    Nelras said:
    Shaddus said:
    Aeldra said:
    Shaddus said:
    I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the OP. After about two or three lines, my eyes started to unfocus. No offense :/

    I think a lot of peoples' problems is that they care too much. Can't beat the raiders? Shrug and come back to rebuild when they aren't around. If someone calls you a coward, snub them and go about your business. You aren't here in Lusternia for them, you're here for yourself. If people are kicking ladies/lords/daughters/whatevers, just ignore them. They aren't actually after those mobs, they're either after some easy pk to make their imaginary e-peen swell, or they're poking a wasp nest because of the same reason but don't actually want to fight. Don't let them piss you off, that's what they want to do.
    I'll easily admit that I am not good in formating things, I have groaned a few times at rereading. Sorry about that.

    While in principle what you're saying is the 'to go solution' in the game and what I suppose everyone who's still around and does care has adapted, it isn't something that I find neccessarly good. For me personally the problem is not that raids are happening, I do enjoy my share of pk here and there. The main problem for me is: I have five people, three of them newbies/half newbs. Facing two or three people out to raid. We -want- to engage them, give them a fight and drive them off. Can we? Only through boring them. And that is the issue that I have with raids.

    I'm the same way. I hope you didn't see my post as a jab at you :D


    No, I get it. You want to be able to drive people off, not just as RP but to give yourself and your allies peace of mind. I'm not saying you shouldn't want those things so much as saying that sometimes you just can't win, and that's ok. You aren't lessened as a commune leader or guild leader or "go-to person" because you aren't as coordinated or artifacted as the people raiding you. You aren't less of a player, or less "invested" just because someone else heavily invests in PVP and you don't. 
    I think the issue here is not that people don't see it as being ok that they sometimes can't win. Instead, it is that there is currently no way for the defender to win. If there was a way to win other than, 'Oh, they got bored,' then I don't think people would mind losing so much. Having some way to discourage raiding when no one is around would also help on that front, in my opinion.


    I'm going to have to disagree with that last statement.



    In the grand scheme of things, Glomdoring likes conflict. Serenwilde, for the most part, does not like conflict. Both views are equally valid. Why mechanically punish Glomdoring because Serenwilde doesn't feel like fighting at the moment? The real world doesn't work like that, conflict and hardship don't go away just because you don't feel like dealing with them. At least in Lusternia people can get  bored if nobody rises to their bait. 
    Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.Member Posts: 8,210 Transcendent
    Enya said:
    Yes, and we could also improve the mechanics of raiding so that it doesn't actively support trolling behavior. I dunno, is your response to bullying writ large "toughen up princess"? This isn't a matter of individual animus or drive (as Karlach points out), there's a systemic flaw that causes this issue to come up over and over with a rotating cast of characters. Attaching personal duty to individual players in the system to overcome that system doesn't make sense: it has never worked. 

    The sentiment of "Just train your newbies to push through the resentment and unfun mechanics so that you can abuse them in turn later" doesn't jibe with the "Just don't play" message.



    Raiding is inherently bullying. Raiding is inherently trolling. If you don't like those two things, then remove raiding. 
    Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
  • NelrasNelras Member Posts: 177 Expert
    edited July 2018
    Shaddus said:
    Nelras said:
    Shaddus said:
    Aeldra said:
    Shaddus said:
    I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the OP. After about two or three lines, my eyes started to unfocus. No offense :/

    I think a lot of peoples' problems is that they care too much. Can't beat the raiders? Shrug and come back to rebuild when they aren't around. If someone calls you a coward, snub them and go about your business. You aren't here in Lusternia for them, you're here for yourself. If people are kicking ladies/lords/daughters/whatevers, just ignore them. They aren't actually after those mobs, they're either after some easy pk to make their imaginary e-peen swell, or they're poking a wasp nest because of the same reason but don't actually want to fight. Don't let them piss you off, that's what they want to do.
    I'll easily admit that I am not good in formating things, I have groaned a few times at rereading. Sorry about that.

    While in principle what you're saying is the 'to go solution' in the game and what I suppose everyone who's still around and does care has adapted, it isn't something that I find neccessarly good. For me personally the problem is not that raids are happening, I do enjoy my share of pk here and there. The main problem for me is: I have five people, three of them newbies/half newbs. Facing two or three people out to raid. We -want- to engage them, give them a fight and drive them off. Can we? Only through boring them. And that is the issue that I have with raids.

    I'm the same way. I hope you didn't see my post as a jab at you :D


    No, I get it. You want to be able to drive people off, not just as RP but to give yourself and your allies peace of mind. I'm not saying you shouldn't want those things so much as saying that sometimes you just can't win, and that's ok. You aren't lessened as a commune leader or guild leader or "go-to person" because you aren't as coordinated or artifacted as the people raiding you. You aren't less of a player, or less "invested" just because someone else heavily invests in PVP and you don't. 
    I think the issue here is not that people don't see it as being ok that they sometimes can't win. Instead, it is that there is currently no way for the defender to win. If there was a way to win other than, 'Oh, they got bored,' then I don't think people would mind losing so much. Having some way to discourage raiding when no one is around would also help on that front, in my opinion.


    I'm going to have to disagree with that last statement.



    In the grand scheme of things, Glomdoring likes conflict. Serenwilde, for the most part, does not like conflict. Both views are equally valid. Why mechanically punish Glomdoring because Serenwilde doesn't feel like fighting at the moment? The real world doesn't work like that, conflict and hardship don't go away just because you don't feel like dealing with them. At least in Lusternia people can get  bored if nobody rises to their bait. 
     Yes, Glomdoring likes conflict. By making defending more engaging, there would be more conflict. At the moment, the 'default' response is to sit around until they go away. Would the people who want more conflict not like it if people came to defend instead? Yes, they might not always win if there was a way for the defenders to win, but there would be both more conflict and more meaningful conflict. Who knows, people might even raid them back as well if they felt that raiding was actually engaging rather than something that the defender just has to endure.

    This is not about punishing Glomdoring (or anywhere else), mechanically or otherwise. It is about creating a scenario whereby that conflict can take place in a way that is engaging for everyone who wants to be involved in it.
  • AeldraAeldra , using cake powered flight Member Posts: 1,184 Transcendent
    Shaddus said:


    I'm going to have to disagree with that last statement.



    In the grand scheme of things, Glomdoring likes conflict. Serenwilde, for the most part, does not like conflict. Both views are equally valid. Why mechanically punish Glomdoring because Serenwilde doesn't feel like fighting at the moment? The real world doesn't work like that, conflict and hardship don't go away just because you don't feel like dealing with them. At least in Lusternia people can get  bored if nobody rises to their bait. 

    I personally don't want to discourage them from having a good fight or even having fun, I was trying to find a way to make it fun or us defenders too. Right now it isn't, because we can't walk away and say 'yay, we did it, we won' or 'hrm, we didn't win, but we can figure out how to improve so we have a better chance next time'. That is my reason for this thread and that is my reason that I try to accomplish. I do agree that Serenwilde is less prone to enjoy conflict mechanics then say Glomdoring, but that doesn't invalidate the point. There's people who feel equally in Gaudiguch, or Magnagora and Glomdoring too. Its not a glomdoring vs Seren thing and I'd rather not make it about that.

    Also, I've not in any way taking your posts as a jab at me, no worries :)
    Avatar / Picture done by Xeii. Wheeeeee 
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    Shaddus said:
    I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the OP. 

    Anyways, moving on from a derail with folks who didn't even read the premise of the thread:

    I've outlined what I think is an ideal framework before, and I'll sort of do a speed version here.

    Institute time caps and cooldowns on raids, after which intruders are de-facto kicked out of the territory and locked out for a duration. These caps should be SHORT, in the neighborhood of 5 cumulative minutes before you're removed.  That way, defenders can go about their business as usual (read:playing the rest of the game). 

    Create some method by which raiders can circumvent the caps. This should be a mechanical method of some variety, and it should be purpose oriented and that purpose should not be "just to eat up defender's time" for everything. In other words, you and your buddies want to kill the Aspects of Hart. You are permitted to hang around Ethereal Serenwilde in pursuit of that goal for longer than 5 minutes. However, win (Kill the Aspects of Hart) or lose (Fail to do so before the end of the cap) you may not use that method for that purpose again for a window.  We have a mechanic sort of like that in the SMOB  immunity periods. Of course, it only kicks in if you *win* and doesn't prevent you from entering the territory, so it doesn't actually curb raids per-se, if you "lose" you don't really lose and can just keep coming back.

    Here's the key part: Adding these features you can play around with a bunch of variables and do things like institute lose conditions outside of timing out. For instance, in the example provided, you can have the cap be pretty low: Once you're in the territory you still only have a few minutes before you're kicked out. However, the planar defenses are otherwise dropped so it's a more fair fight. Every time you kill ONE Aspect, you get an additional few  minutes! On the other hand, the defenders can go channel on a room somewhere else in Eth Seren to re-empower the defenses. You've got to split your attention as a raider between pursuing the objective and staving off the defender's objective.

    There's also way more levers for adjusting things in other ways. You can adjust the cost for starting a raid, the duration of the raid, the cooldown for that kind of raid, what becomes vulnerable during that kind of a raid, the win condition for the raid, the lose condition for the raid, any benefits or penalties for winning/losing a raid. What I'd suggest doing is creating the framework and loading up basic vanilla raids in for every org so that it works, but then working to develop more interesting and unique raid types for each raider/defender org as interest permits. Right now we have exactly ONE lever for adjusting raids: essence loss. It would be a big undertaking to add real raid mechanics, but I think the game would end up dramatically improved and that the effort would therefore reap dividends. 
  • RasvinRasvin Member Posts: 44 Apprentice
    edited July 2018
    Nelras said:
    Trying to get this back on topic, what would pvpers/people who engage in raiding think of any of the following ideas? What about people who only defend (/because they feel they have to)

    NPC defenders of varying numbers/strengths depending on how many defenders are online/active.
    Explicit time limits on raids/ smob raids.
    Having different conditions in place for smob raids/having to declare smob raids somehow and them having a fail state.
    Increasing damage/maluses over time for attackers based on how long they have spent on the enemy plane recently.
    Increased death timers/ not being able to enter enemy planes for a time after dying.
    Increasing smob strength depending on how many active defenders there are.

    Just a few random ideas that came into my head. If the answer is that they are terrible, that is also perfectly valid feedback. It would be nice to know why though.

    These are just my thoughts, and they could be wrong or modified based on others' views

    NPC defenders of varying numbers/strengths depending on how many defenders are online/active.
         -Active defenders is a population issue not a raiding issue, but I enjoy fighting others not mobs. 

    Explicit time limits on raids/ smob raids.
         -Time limits on raids? Absolutely not! Time limits on Smob raids? I don't think the timing is the problem, but you could add a wipe timer like a           WoW boss; however, I doubt this solves any issues. 

    Having different conditions in place for smob raids/having to declare smob raids somehow and them having a fail state.
         -I would like to see this more strategic. May not be what you were thinking, but how about pk-free quests like gathering bards to sing the                 praises of the smob gives them buffs or heals them during the raid?

    Increasing damage/maluses over time for attackers based on how long they have spent on the enemy plane recently.
         -Increasing damage/malus is just another way to time limit. I disagree with mechanics that tell players what they can and can't do in game. 

    Increased death timers/ not being able to enter enemy planes for a time after dying.
         -Yes, this is needed. (I think 5 minutes would be a good start. This would allow groups to be wiped before the players return.)

    Increasing smob strength depending on how many active defenders there are.
         -Again population issue first, but we do need to find ways to make our population matter like my idea about bards. 



    The following is general and not directed at Nelras.

    Ideas: Take away essence from restorying smobs. Make it nexus world entities. 



    Discussion:
    I have raided in bad circumstances. I get killed. I chirp some smart comment about how it wasn't my fault sometimes, and I continue playing. I learn, and I change my tactics. I am a pker. The moment I can't PK in Lusternia is the moment I retire. I take my deaths. I try to stay civil, but I am competitive. 

    Raids(not smob) - I feel it is important to discuss the two seperately. 
    The idea that raiders have no consequences is silly. What does the defender really lose some power and pride? Defenders have plane conditions and better melding situations then attackers. Defenders actually have the advantage in that regard, but they don't get to choose when they fight. However, the defenders can raid too. 

    Time limits: Until we have more PK events at decent times then time limits will cause pkers to leave the game. Let's be real pkers most likely buy more credits, but non-coms make an org strong too. If you don't like PK then don't do it? I don't think anyone is being griefed? I haven't, and I know that I have made a couple of Pkers hate me. Maybe even target me first just because. Honestly, if you aren't a pker then why worry about the power in your nexus? Ascendancy is really for combat. 


    If you are really concerned about RP then combat is part of it. The answer is not limit combat and the fun of some players because you don't like ignoring combat. This is a you problem not a game problem. 
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    edited July 2018
    The thing with time limits is that the most frustrating and demoralizing thing about defending against raids is how incessant they can get. People just staying forever whether or not you kill them is grinding and monotonous. Having to decide between spending all your time playing dealing with someone who just wants to sit in your territory for eternity or in invalidating your character (or playing a perpetually losing character) is a bad choice. Inhibiting the unfettered ability of one group of players to punish a second set isn't punishing that first set. The lack of mechanics regarding raiding IS the game telling players what they can and can't do when, it's a false choice between adding mechanics and having player agency.

    Raiding doesn't NEED to be inherently bullying the players by monopolizing all of their time. 

    EDIT: Heck, with real raid mechanics there can be real bonuses for winning raids! There can be real penalties for losing them as defenders, because there will be real ways to curb constantly getting stomped just cuz. You'll lose less population from being constantly occupied as has happened in the past! A lot of those things can be fixed with a real raid system.
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    Like, if what you enjoy is fighting other players, why argue to perpetuate a system in which those other players win by avoiding you and logging off? Wouldn't you want a system where they have incentives to participate in the raid, and there are real stakes? 
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    There are three kind of raids:

    1. Smob raids: Glorified bashing run. They sound like they are way more punishing than they should be. Adjust the numbers and penalities of losing your smobs if needed. Adjusting the mechanics here is an easy valid solution. Easy to identify problem and easy solution to bring in.

    2. Kick and run raids: People kill loyal mobs to be annoying when either A there is no one around to defend or B they can kick and run before defenders show up. These are annoying to me but not really a game issue. I log on and see daughters killed when theres no defenders, I go try and raid the person who did its place or if they are not online my counter to these raids is just to go and gather more fae and raise more daughters. I can't see any real or sensible change that would stop these raids.  Like I said I think its annoying but I don't think its an actual "issue"

    3. "I want pvp" raids: What it says on the tin. "I want to pvp and fight and have fun, so I'm raiding to get fights." There are very very very few conflict events in lusternia. Domoths/Villages/Wildnodes. Wildnodes are once every 2 weeks. Domoths and villages you can pretty much miss for real life months on end over and over again due to how infrequent they are and their random times. Even wildnodes which you know which day its on is fairly easy to miss. People have to sleep and stuff. The arena is an option but limited(we did have like a five hour run of wargames about a week ago which was really fun).

    TLDR version:
    Introduce more conflict zones and conflict events in the game and you'll see a reduction in raiding.




  • RasvinRasvin Member Posts: 44 Apprentice
    Enya said:
    The thing with time limits is that the most frustrating and demoralizing thing about defending against raids is how incessant they can get. People just staying forever whether or not you kill them is grinding and monotonous. Having to decide between spending all your time playing dealing with someone who just wants to sit in your territory for eternity or in invalidating your character (or playing a perpetually losing character) is a bad choice. Inhibiting the unfettered ability of one group of players to punish a second set isn't punishing that first set. The lack of mechanics regarding raiding IS the game telling players what they can and can't do when, it's a false choice between adding mechanics and having player agency.

    Raiding doesn't NEED to be inherently bullying the players by monopolizing all of their time. 
    There have been times when I can't defend. I stopped pking this past weekend, and I did my own thing. No bullying. No monopolizing of time. Take the loyalmob hit or defend. That is the defender's choice. Don't tell the raider they can't raid because the defender doesn't want to make the choice. 
  • RasvinRasvin Member Posts: 44 Apprentice
    Enya said:
    Like, if what you enjoy is fighting other players, why argue to perpetuate a system in which those other players win by avoiding you and logging off? Wouldn't you want a system where they have incentives to participate in the raid, and there are real stakes? 
    Not saying we don't need changes. We do, but time limits and not having an avenue to start combat is not something I support. I think villages could be a solution. Allow orgs to do quests and influence villages to start revolts. This would be a way to start combat, and it would be harder then just going to a plane and hitting a mob. 

    Also, I think that if villages "transported" power, gold, comms to their org every x days, so that orgs would have to defend or attack. 

    These are just ideas. That being said time limits on non-smob raids in current game will destroy any hopes of pk. 
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    I agree, which is why I'm not and never have advocated for disallowing raids. In fact, everything I've suggested is likely to result in more PvP and less enemy-plane PvE! I think there should be structure to raids, so that they're more interesting for everyone involved, meaning that more people are likely to participate.
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    Like, I don't personally raid other orgs because why? I get nothing out of it, and risk having to spend boring time grinding back up my essence to avoid losing demigod. I don't participate in many raid defenses because it's very boring in outcome: we can work on our tactics and improve and stomp - like we recently did on a Nil defense.... then enemies came and occupied EthSeren, a softer target, with more people and it ground on until we just left the plane. We'd do a good sweep and crush them in Eth Seren but eventually they just came back with more and more people until it was stalemate.  What was the point of doing the defense then? We "won" but it was a totally hollow victory, that makes all the previous stuff sour.   We can learn to improve our tactics, but at the end of the day the best tactic was still to go away and leave the raiders to get bored. That should change. Adding structure will change that. 
  • NelrasNelras Member Posts: 177 Expert
    edited July 2018
    Rasvin said:

    These are just my thoughts, and they could be wrong or modified based on others' views

    NPC defenders of varying numbers/strengths depending on how many defenders are online/active.
         -Active defenders is a population issue not a raiding issue, but I enjoy fighting others not mobs. 

    Explicit time limits on raids/ smob raids.
         -Time limits on raids? Absolutely not! Time limits on Smob raids? I don't think the timing is the problem, but you could add a wipe timer like a           WoW boss; however, I doubt this solves any issues. 

    Having different conditions in place for smob raids/having to declare smob raids somehow and them having a fail state.
         -I would like to see this more strategic. May not be what you were thinking, but how about pk-free quests like gathering bards to sing the                 praises of the smob gives them buffs or heals them during the raid?

    Increasing damage/maluses over time for attackers based on how long they have spent on the enemy plane recently.
         -Increasing damage/malus is just another way to time limit. I disagree with mechanics that tell players what they can and can't do in game. 

    Increased death timers/ not being able to enter enemy planes for a time after dying.
         -Yes, this is needed. (I think 5 minutes would be a good start. This would allow groups to be wiped before the players return.)

    Increasing smob strength depending on how many active defenders there are.
         -Again population issue first, but we do need to find ways to make our population matter like my idea about bards. 



    The following is general and not directed at Nelras.

    Ideas: Take away essence from restorying smobs. Make it nexus world entities. 



    Discussion:
    I have raided in bad circumstances. I get killed. I chirp some smart comment about how it wasn't my fault sometimes, and I continue playing. I learn, and I change my tactics. I am a pker. The moment I can't PK in Lusternia is the moment I retire. I take my deaths. I try to stay civil, but I am competitive. 

    Raids(not smob) - I feel it is important to discuss the two seperately. 
    The idea that raiders have no consequences is silly. What does the defender really lose some power and pride? Defenders have plane conditions and better melding situations then attackers. Defenders actually have the advantage in that regard, but they don't get to choose when they fight. However, the defenders can raid too. 

    Time limits: Until we have more PK events at decent times then time limits will cause pkers to leave the game. Let's be real pkers most likely buy more credits, but non-coms make an org strong too. If you don't like PK then don't do it? I don't think anyone is being griefed? I haven't, and I know that I have made a couple of Pkers hate me. Maybe even target me first just because. Honestly, if you aren't a pker then why worry about the power in your nexus? Ascendancy is really for combat. 


    If you are really concerned about RP then combat is part of it. The answer is not limit combat and the fun of some players because you don't like ignoring combat. This is a you problem not a game problem. 
    I like quite a few of your ideas. 

    I agree that combat can be a part of RP, although I know that some people also avoid combat as a part of their RP. Given that we are specifically talking about combat, I think it is safe to say that the people saying that the current state of things causes problems with their RP are the ones who do include combat in their RP. They are people who want to join in but find that defending is pointless/uninteresting currently.

    I disagree with the point that people shouldn't care about power if they are not involved with combat. It is something that is important, at least on an IC level. A similar matter is that everyone has to/feels compelled to raise smobs and complete the quest to raise nexus guardians if they go down. These (especially the latter) can have a massive impact on RP, no matter if you engage in pvp or not.

    Making smobs require nexus world entities is an interesting idea. It would make the process less (but not entirely) resistant to outside interference, however it would also mean re-balancing how much damage is done with each tick while the smobs are down.

    As an alternative, how would you feel about keeping the existing process for smobs but having them automatically reform at a certain rate with essence speeding the process up. That or simply requiring less essence?


    You say that defenders should have the advantage, but that clearly is not the case at the moment because of the fact that you mentioned - it is the attackers who get to choose when to attack. Obviously this will always be the case, but I think that there should be some way to encourage relatively fair fights if only to keep it interesting for both sides.

    I like the idea of the strategic quests, particularly if they would force an attacker with a numerical advantage to split their forces.
    Perhaps it could be combined with some sort of timer to provide a fail state for smob raids. Say that after the first smob falls, a timer begins. When it hits 0, enemies on the relevant plane will be killed and enemies would be unable to enter for a time. The attackers could have some way to increase the timer, or just a long timer, and the defenders could complete the quest to shorten it. I am aware that it would limit what people could do for a time after it, but what would you think of the general idea? By having it tied specifically to smobs, it introduces some element or risk for the attackers. Unfortunately, I could see it leading to more raids when no defenders are around. If you like the idea, do you have any suggestions on how to mitigate that?

    On the death timers, I would go with not being able to enter enemy planes for a short amount of time. Sitting around looking at your character being dead is boring, but if we only limited one specific plane then raids would just bounce between planes.


  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Time limits and locking people out of planes is a horrible idea. We should be doing the opposite and making planes more accessable to enemies. Its pretty bad that gate distort can lock people out of raiding cosmic unless you have a 2000 credit artifact on their team.

    Increasing the death timer is a totally different issue that I agree with totally and not just directly linked to raids. Totally unrelated to raids people die and come back to the fight too quickly as it is. This to me is an issue on all conflict events. I can die in a fight and be back on the domoth swinging before the enemy team has killed the next target.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Defenders have a strong advantage already. Nexus powers and shrine powers are very potent.
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    edited July 2018
    On the topic of attacker timing advantage, it'll always be an element but it can probably be mitigated somewhat. For instance, give smob raids a pretty long windup that requires planning but ends up with an attack window with some warning. In other words, the target org gets a RL day warning of an attack window that's say... 6 hours wide. The enemy could attack at any point during that 6 hour window (and presumably plans to get their allies together for an attack at a specific time) and defenders get some warning in which to rally their own troops and have a higher chance of having some people around to fight off the attack. 

    Stuff like that only really makes a lot of sense for the BIG raids. 
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    Planes should be more accessible to raiding, but should be less accessible for hit-and-runs or constant occupation.
  • RasvinRasvin Member Posts: 44 Apprentice
    Nelras said:
    I like quite a few of your ideas. 

    I agree that combat can be a part of RP, although I know that some people also avoid combat as a part of their RP. Given that we are specifically talking about combat, I think it is safe to say that the people saying that the current state of things causes problems with their RP are the ones who do include combat in their RP. They are people who want to join in but find that defending is pointless/uninteresting currently.

    I disagree with the point that people shouldn't care about power if they are not involved with combat. It is something that is important, at least on an IC level. A similar matter is that everyone has to/feels compelled to raise smobs and complete the quest to raise nexus guardians if they go down. These (especially the latter) can have a massive impact on RP, no matter if you engage in pvp or not.

    Making smobs require nexus world entities is an interesting idea. It would make the process less (but not entirely) resistant to outside interference, however it would also mean re-balancing how much damage is done with each tick while the smobs are down.

    As an alternative, how would you feel about keeping the existing process for smobs but having them automatically reform at a certain rate with essence speeding the process up. That or simply requiring less essence?


    You say that defenders should have the advantage, but that clearly is not the case at the moment because of the fact that you mentioned - it is the attackers who get to choose when to attack. Obviously this will always be the case, but I think that there should be some way to encourage relatively fair fights if only to keep it interesting for both sides.

    I like the idea of the strategic quests, particularly if they would force an attacker with a numerical advantage to split their forces.
    Perhaps it could be combined with some sort of timer to provide a fail state for smob raids. Say that after the first smob falls, a timer begins. When it hits 0, enemies on the relevant plane will be killed and enemies would be unable to enter for a time. The attackers could have some way to increase the timer, or just a long timer, and the defenders could complete the quest to shorten it. I am aware that it would limit what people could do for a time after it, but what would you think of the general idea? By having it tied specifically to smobs, it introduces some element or risk for the attackers. Unfortunately, I could see it leading to more raids when no defenders are around. If you like the idea, do you have any suggestions on how to mitigate that?

    On the death timers, I would go with not being able to enter enemy planes for a short amount of time. Sitting around looking at your character being dead is boring, but if we only limited one specific plane then raids would just bounce between planes.


    I agree there could be a passive regen for smobs. 

    Idea: Create a 5 minute staging/warning message before smobs can be attacked. Maybe a weakening quest. This would also allow the strategic quests to start. So bards can't just be cleared prior. It would probably have to be centered around empowering the library rather then gathering bards. 

    Smob raids happen when there is enough raiders to do so, but defenders will probably determining if it is a normal raid or smob raid.

    Death times: I agree.
  • StratasStratas Member Posts: 418 Mythical
    Enya said:
    On the topic of attacker timing advantage, it'll always be an element but it can probably be mitigated somewhat. For instance, give smob raids a pretty long windup that requires planning but ends up with an attack window with some warning. In other words, the target org gets a RL day warning of an attack window that's say... 6 hours wide. The enemy could attack at any point during that 6 hour window (and presumably plans to get their allies together for an attack at a specific time) and defenders get some warning in which to rally their own troops and have a higher chance of having some people around to fight off the attack.
    Org Smobs should just flat be invulnerable unless a quest is done to weaken them. The quest itself would provide a defensive PVP point in lieu of the Smobs. Even if it's not stopped by defenders, there could be a world emote, announcement on CT, and log note that there will be an upcoming vulnerability point. Maybe at this point there's a counter quest that can be done to restore their invulnerability sooner then they would do naturally. Give some actual room for conflict.

    The village caravan thing sounds neat, but I think it would have a similar problem to a lot of random events that people who want to protect/attack would miss them, and the antagonizing side would just hijack the off-prime shipments. Maybe instead there's a quest in each village to prepare a shipment, which then has a Prime world emote that there's a caravan heading from X Village to Y Org, so that the defending org actually gets to choose exactly when they want to deal with it.

    I popped on to Aetolia recently to see what's happening there, and they have an interesting thing going on - some sort of war is happening, and each org seems to be taking a side and providing support. I don't know much of the details and how that's working out for them, but it seems like that could be an interesting thing. Rather than the next world event arc just ending up with "goddamn gnomes are using the Nature seal to power their toasters again", there could be an actual multi side conflict happening, with potential for PVP events around that. Attacking and defending garrisons, quests for lowbies and noncoms to gather and provide materials to help, more big PVP events both planned in advance and randomly happening (two sides of the conflict clash in a random area - a cosmic or elemental plane, somewhere on Prime that's free PK while the battle's going on, etc.) Make it more interesting and have three sides in the war, but each side will only accept help from 2 orgs, so there's finally a break from the 3v3 structure that I personally feel stifles the game a bit too much. Hell, that would even provide a way to frame Ascension and the Seal Challenges around that to shake things up.

    There should be -something- on off plane areas to promote conflict for something other than the sake of conflict. Let's be real, it's not just defenders who have no real win condition - the win for BOTH sides often ends up as "well, screw it, we're bored now". I'm not sure what it could be, maybe some sort of capture the flag style thing? Each area has a quest of some sort that can spawn a relic important to that plane, which can then be taken - but it doesn't want to be, so the attackers can't just do the quest, grab the item, and cubix out - if they do, they lose it. It could be like a dead weight, drastically slowing their movement speed down while they try to get the hell out (although given how combat goes here, they'd just be killed and it's game over for that. There'd be something to work around this). I guess this sort of ends up like Wild Nodes, but at least it would be player activated. It could even be that the quest is done, there's a world announce, and the item in question pops 24 hours later, give or take, so that the defenders can prepare to defend or not. Maybe instead of capture the flag, it's plant the flag. You do a quest on your org's special plane to get an item, and then you have to move it into enemy territory, slowly securing a path to a goal spot where you plant it and have to defend it for a certain time, then you get whatever bonus. Then the defenders can do something later on to tear it down. Bonuses could be simple and org wide - h/m/e buffs, bonus to crit chance, increased gold production, something. I don't know that putting a malus on the defending side would be helpful (that's just more trolling) but maybe they get the bonus for a month or two if they reclaim/remove the relic.

    Any of those ideas helpful?
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    I agree that Smobs should be invulnerable unless you do a quest. Then, you could make them require fewer people to kill and be less frustrating to fight/defend, as they wouldn't need to be so powerful: they're invulnerable by fiat unless the conditions are right! Imo, that should be the case for most raiding. 
  • StratasStratas Member Posts: 418 Mythical
    Some more random ideas.

    Do something with Divine Wars. I have no idea what, but find some way to make that viable.

    Cultural relics. Maybe the long lost homeland of the Czigany has been found, and new relics are occasionally excavated. PVP can happen in the area to claim the artifact, which then provides bonuses to culture for the holding org. Or a quest can be done to pack a relic onto a caravan and ship it out. It has to go through a special PVP area where the goal is to defend the caravan as it moves, divert it from the defending org, or destroy it so no one gets the bonus. It wants to go to a certain room in the area so the org of the quest instigator 'wins' but using certain skills can cause it to go somewhere else, to a challenger's 'win' room so they gain the benefit. At least one person in the attacker's group will be focused on trying to divert the caravan and build roadblocks so it goes a certain way, but since the area can't be entered until the challenge is happening (it's a sort of arena I guess) it can't be prepped one way or another.

    Heists! I know Lusternia is generally anti-theft, but maybe that should be limited to players' stuff. Guilds, orders, and orgs can have treasure rooms somewhere, not in the 'proper' parts of the halls but in special heist areas, and skill sets can have various heist skills to allow them to approach unnoticed or steal the treasure successfully - but getting noticed on the way in or taking the item triggers an alarm so people can defend. Maybe you have to send a calling card, Phantom Thief style, before you can try to steal the treasure so people will know it's coming. The heist group (it would be easier as a group to keep up with the raiding theme) wouldn't be able to keep the item, of course, having to give it to their order/guild/org, who can only have so many treasures - and who risks having them stolen back. Prolly too much potential for greifing with this one, but it would be interesting.

    Org loyal NPC groups will periodically claim certain Prime areas and harrass members of enemy orgs, but can be driven off by a bit of PVE - but the group will shout on relevant CTs so their org can defend them in PVP if they want. Whichever org wins gets a crown style bonus in that area for a while.

    Just some thoughts.
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!
  • KarlachKarlach God of Kittens. Member Posts: 3,868 Transcendent
    The best a defender can do is maintain the status quo.

    The worst an attacker can do is lose essence, which is swiftly gained.


    Make attacker deaths punish their org as a whole and they'd merely only attack when there's no one to defend, give more tools for people to use to defend and the problem comes around again, just attack when no one's around.

    Having a "people online vs attackers" counter to determine balance means nothing, we already have people logging to alts during these raids to gather either intel or salt, so they're already fine with metagaming.

    So what's the result, removing org raiding as a mechanic, or make the effects of it inconsequential to the game? That'd suck, especially without more avenues to FFA PK being added.

    But ultimately you can't convince everyone to play in good faith, and you can't attempt to mechanically balance for the reasons mentioned above. And any form of active policing of a mechanic is far more work than the admin should ever have to take on.

    Buff everyone's supermobs out of range of a group killing them? (Or at least fix them back to pre overhaul levels of damage so that they do more than pitiful damage to non artied players and are actually a threat) Well sure, but then you're setting a mechanic that you hope will be achieved, but making the bar unrealistically high for the pop we have.

    I mean sure the hotfixes to correct what seems to be oversights to supermob behaviour makes some difference, but it doesn't resolve the situation.

    We're a risk averse culture (and by we, I revert back to my previous statement that every org/alliance has engaged in this), hence why people attack when there's little to no risk, same applies to upgrading/absolving domoths. People are forced into fights by random timers and pre-announced events to get any real fights, because of the short window.

    Maybe loyal plains need the same mechanic, you can only attack during pre-announced vulnerability timers. Then defenders know when to expect a rush, and attackers know when to actually go up there.

    Sure some windows won't fit your timezone (players who almost perma live here notwithstanding) but that's the luck of the draw, everyone's going to have bad windows of opportunity.

    But maybe then raids will be for the fights we all claim they're for, and not merely a chestbeating PvE bash while swatting the occasional noncom with barely any effort.

    The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."

    You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!


    image
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 3,010 Transcendent
    I'm just astounded by the sentiment that raiders feel like they're on the disadvantaged side, especially with discretionaries being nerfed over the years, and baffled by the pushback on punishing raiders more. Defenders have it rough.

    Either reward defenders for defending in a meaningful way or punish raiders when they fail and die. Or both.

    image
  • EnyaEnya Member Posts: 493 Expert
    And make failing a raid a thing, in the process
  • RasvinRasvin Member Posts: 44 Apprentice
    Karlach said:
    The best a defender can do is maintain the status quo.

    The worst an attacker can do is lose essence, which is swiftly gained.


    Make attacker deaths punish their org as a whole and they'd merely only attack when there's no one to defend, give more tools for people to use to defend and the problem comes around again, just attack when no one's around.

    Having a "people online vs attackers" counter to determine balance means nothing, we already have people logging to alts during these raids to gather either intel or salt, so they're already fine with metagaming.

    So what's the result, removing org raiding as a mechanic, or make the effects of it inconsequential to the game? That'd suck, especially without more avenues to FFA PK being added.

    But ultimately you can't convince everyone to play in good faith, and you can't attempt to mechanically balance for the reasons mentioned above. And any form of active policing of a mechanic is far more work than the admin should ever have to take on.

    Buff everyone's supermobs out of range of a group killing them? (Or at least fix them back to pre overhaul levels of damage so that they do more than pitiful damage to non artied players and are actually a threat) Well sure, but then you're setting a mechanic that you hope will be achieved, but making the bar unrealistically high for the pop we have.

    I mean sure the hotfixes to correct what seems to be oversights to supermob behaviour makes some difference, but it doesn't resolve the situation.

    We're a risk averse culture (and by we, I revert back to my previous statement that every org/alliance has engaged in this), hence why people attack when there's little to no risk, same applies to upgrading/absolving domoths. People are forced into fights by random timers and pre-announced events to get any real fights, because of the short window.

    Maybe loyal plains need the same mechanic, you can only attack during pre-announced vulnerability timers. Then defenders know when to expect a rush, and attackers know when to actually go up there.

    Sure some windows won't fit your timezone (players who almost perma live here notwithstanding) but that's the luck of the draw, everyone's going to have bad windows of opportunity.

    But maybe then raids will be for the fights we all claim they're for, and not merely a chestbeating PvE bash while swatting the occasional noncom with barely any effort.
    Comparing the worst for the defender and best for the raider is apples and oranges. The key here would be if we are talking about raids or smob raids. If it is raids what do the defenders lose? 100 power tops? Easily regained in non-pk means. Hurt pride because they didn't defend? We have all been there. 

    Windows are bad because no one wants to log into to a game only to not be in a window. That is the worst mechanic in Lusternia. I have never been awake for flares for example, and I am quite active. 

    Again, take away pkers way to pk and they will retire. 
This discussion has been closed.