Targeting Malus

InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
Disclaimer: This is an idea, and it is definitely not perfect. Hopefully, this opens up a discussion as to if this problem is even a problem, and if it is then are we able to feasibly resolve. All numbers would be tentative.

Problem: There is a tactic of if we lose a battle then we must need more people. I have seen pretty much everyone use this tactic. This makes PvP into glorified bashing. 

Real World: If someone is jumped they can only be punched or kicked by so many people before the attackers have to wait their turn. It is diminishing returns of economic gains. 

Possible Solution: Targeting Malus: Any action that can not be done on prime without declaring the person will be what qualifies as an aggressive action. Hit rate is reduced by 25% for these aggressive effects for every person over 4 attackers capping at 50% percent reduced hit rate. There are certain skills that that should be whitelisted to avoid this effect such as melds, bard songs, power cost abilities such as toad, pulp, etc, aoe skills, etc. 

Glaring problems:
1. How to keep this from being abused. That means if I  attack my allies to abuse the hit rate reduction. 
2. Is this a feasible programming feat?
«13

Comments

  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    Could you clarify two points? 
    Innon said:
    Hit rate is reduced by 25% for these aggressive effects for every person over 4 attackers capping at 50% percent reduced hit rate. 
    What's the time frame? Within what time period do 4 attackers have to hit the target for the targeting malus to count that as 4v1 and take effect? How long does the malus last?
    Innon said:
    1. How to keep this from being abused. That means if I  attack my allies to abuse the hit rate reduction.
    Do you mean, if Team A of 5 people is fighting Team B of 3 people, and 2 people from Team A start attacking their own team, thus causing Team B's hit rate to go down?

    What if, instead of a malus on the attackers, the mechanic works as a def for the defender. If you are attacked by 4+ different people in x seconds, you gain the ability to optionally raise a def which would reduce enemy hit rate. Abuse could then be reduced by giving this ability a cooldown. You would have to use it strategically. Also, it could have a high maintenance cost, eg in power or balance. You wouldn't want your allies to attack you so you can raise this def, because then you wouldn't be able to raise it when your actual enemies are ganging up on you and you actually need it. And the high maintenance cost would make it unattractive as a way to tip the scales against just 1 to 3 enemies.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • StratasStratas Member Posts: 418 Mythical
    You opened this with one of my peeves, so I'm just gonna put out there that in the real world I can't inflict someone with tonal energy sickness that causes their head to explode if they move, or summon magic crystals that move them out of sync with local time. And in the real world where I can do that? It probably isn't hampered by the number of people punching my target.

    By all means, suggest the change, but please do it in the name of balance or fun. Not the real world 
    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!
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    This sort of idea has been raised a few times. It's always a bit tricky to look at.

    I'm not really sure it'd change a whole lot of balance issues with groups.

    Like eg if I had a group of 10 people vs a group of 5. All I'd do is have a group of 4 killers and order the rest not to attack the target directly. They are to either do heals or salt on the four killers or if they have it spam an aoe attack because aoe attacks under your system don't hit the diminishing returns issue. You'd end up with splitting the game into prime roles and supporting roles. Like I could sit back and let Enadonella, Tarken, Xenthos and Yendor murder people while I just keep healing who ever the enemy target was. And hopefully my extra team were wyrdenwoods who could just use all their power dropping bombs

    Not saying this is a bad thing its just not going to change the numbers issues. It'd create new issues in having teams that are too heavily focused on offence. Eg a team full of monks wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a team full of bards or a team full of guardians for example.

    Summary of it is numbers vs numbers in a straight fight under your system would still heavily favour the larger group but would create an additional issue of group composition to factor in.

    The way to beat larger groups right now is by splitting the group and using things to keep splitting them and hindering them from returning. I'm not sure if your suggestion would really change that at all.


  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Stratas said:
    You opened this with one of my peeves, so I'm just gonna put out there that in the real world I can't inflict someone with tonal energy sickness that causes their head to explode if they move, or summon magic crystals that move them out of sync with local time. And in the real world where I can do that? It probably isn't hampered by the number of people punching my target.

    By all means, suggest the change, but please do it in the name of balance or fun. Not the real world 
    I apologize for offending you, but I actually started the post out with much more than that. I dare say this comment is petty and unhelpful; however, you are correct. I can't p5 someone irl. Would you care to give constructive feedback about the actual post and problem? 
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Deichtine said:
    This sort of idea has been raised a few times. It's always a bit tricky to look at.

    I'm not really sure it'd change a whole lot of balance issues with groups.

    Like eg if I had a group of 10 people vs a group of 5. All I'd do is have a group of 4 killers and order the rest not to attack the target directly. They are to either do heals or salt on the four killers or if they have it spam an aoe attack because aoe attacks under your system don't hit the diminishing returns issue. You'd end up with splitting the game into prime roles and supporting roles. Like I could sit back and let Enadonella, Tarken, Xenthos and Yendor murder people while I just keep healing who ever the enemy target was. And hopefully my extra team were wyrdenwoods who could just use all their power dropping bombs

    Not saying this is a bad thing its just not going to change the numbers issues. It'd create new issues in having teams that are too heavily focused on offence. Eg a team full of monks wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a team full of bards or a team full of guardians for example.

    Summary of it is numbers vs numbers in a straight fight under your system would still heavily favour the larger group but would create an additional issue of group composition to factor in.

    The way to beat larger groups right now is by splitting the group and using things to keep splitting them and hindering them from returning. I'm not sure if your suggestion would really change that at all.


    I agree and disagree. The ideal situations is to have the group split into multiple squads having multiple targets without just ground and pounding one target. I agree that the strategy may be to have a defensive group, but that severely limits their PvP experience in my opinion and would cheapen it. It would make skillsets like healing more fun, and maybe salting others could be looked at. I honestly feel anything over a 2-3 person advantage is unbeatable which because of population and timezones is more often than not the case. However, if the problem has been brought up multiple times then maybe we all can work to come up with a good. I would love to make combat more about tactics and less about which org has the most active combatants. 

    It may still favor the larger force, but it would for sure be a step in the right direction. 

    My solution is far from perfect, and I have issues with with it. Is there another solution you would prefer? 
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Devora said:
    Could you clarify two points? 
    Innon said:
    Hit rate is reduced by 25% for these aggressive effects for every person over 4 attackers capping at 50% percent reduced hit rate. 
    What's the time frame? Within what time period do 4 attackers have to hit the target for the targeting malus to count that as 4v1 and take effect? How long does the malus last?
    Innon said:
    1. How to keep this from being abused. That means if I  attack my allies to abuse the hit rate reduction.
    Do you mean, if Team A of 5 people is fighting Team B of 3 people, and 2 people from Team A start attacking their own team, thus causing Team B's hit rate to go down?

    What if, instead of a malus on the attackers, the mechanic works as a def for the defender. If you are attacked by 4+ different people in x seconds, you gain the ability to optionally raise a def which would reduce enemy hit rate. Abuse could then be reduced by giving this ability a cooldown. You would have to use it strategically. Also, it could have a high maintenance cost, eg in power or balance. You wouldn't want your allies to attack you so you can raise this def, because then you wouldn't be able to raise it when your actual enemies are ganging up on you and you actually need it. And the high maintenance cost would make it unattractive as a way to tip the scales against just 1 to 3 enemies.
    Oh yes, I left out the timeframe. Of course that would need to be debated. I would suggest starting the convo at about the 15 second mark. So basically you get a debuff or buff that increases with every new attacker. The debuff/buff would drop ticks after that person's last hostile action toward you was x seconds ago. 

    That was exactly the exploit I was talking about, and I absolutely love the idea of if you hit by 5 people then it opens up an ability to strengthen defenses somehow. A tick of 6 could be a stronger version. 


  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Deichtine said:
    Like eg if I had a group of 10 people vs a group of 5. All I'd do is have a group of 4 killers and order the rest not to attack the target directly. They are to either do heals or salt on the four killers or if they have it spam an aoe attack because aoe attacks under your system don't hit the diminishing returns issue. You'd end up with splitting the game into prime roles and supporting roles. Like I could sit back and let Enadonella, Tarken, Xenthos and Yendor murder people while I just keep healing who ever the enemy target was. And hopefully my extra team were wyrdenwoods who could just use all their power dropping bombs

    Not saying this is a bad thing its just not going to change the numbers issues. It'd create new issues in having teams that are too heavily focused on offence. Eg a team full of monks wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a team full of bards or a team full of guardians for example.

    Summary of it is numbers vs numbers in a straight fight under your system would still heavily favour the larger group but would create an additional issue of group composition to factor in.



    There is no reason why you can't be dropping 5 bombs right now except illself and other things. This is an issue that maybe my solution does completely address, but it does moreso than without it. Also, currently monk's have a hemo malus, there is a deathmark malus, there is a balance loss one, and I think warriors hitting the same limb isn't good either. The fact is a 4 monk team would not be as good as a 4 bard team now. A team can be defensive now. This issues already exist currently. 
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    Deichtine said:
    I'm not really sure it'd change a whole lot of balance issues with groups.

    You'd end up with splitting the game into prime roles and supporting roles. 
    This is a really good point. @Deichtine, since you're really experienced with combat, do you have ideas of your own for improving balance issues between groups or issues with ganging up on a single player? Or could you link to good ideas you've seen? If that needs its own thread, it's cool, I don't mean to derail.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    A four person monk team is as scary to fight as a four bard team to me. With a balanced team on my side I'd be much much more scared of a four monk team than a four bard team. Both are very potent right now. I'd be way more scared of an eight monk team right now than an eight bard team as long as I had 1 or 2 bards on my own team.

    Numbers are important now for sure. Saying 2-3 or so more people is unbeatable isn't totally spot on though. On the larger scale a team of 10 can potentially easily beat a team of 15 for sure, that's been done numerous times. A team of 3 or so can and has beaten a team of five or six before but its rarer and its not going to be easy, it'll be an uphill fight for them. 

    Whats ideal or not is variable I guess but practically no matter the system it generally rolls around one team trying to kill the enemy team the fastest.  If that means 4 people focus while everyone else aoe's to avoid it then thats just what people will switch to. 4 focused and 4 aoe hits will kill faster than just 4 people focusing in a rough 8v8 example.

    If your concept is to encourage groups to split into smaller groups to fight then you probally want to include aoe and passives in the diminishing returns.

  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Deichtine said:
    A four person monk team is as scary to fight as a four bard team to me. With a balanced team on my side I'd be much much more scared of a four monk team than a four bard team. Both are very potent right now. I'd be way more scared of an eight monk team right now than an eight bard team as long as I had 1 or 2 bards on my own team.

    Numbers are important now for sure. Saying 2-3 or so more people is unbeatable isn't totally spot on though. On the larger scale a team of 10 can potentially easily beat a team of 15 for sure, that's been done numerous times. A team of 3 or so can and has beaten a team of five or six before but its rarer and its not going to be easy, it'll be an uphill fight for them. 

    Whats ideal or not is variable I guess but practically no matter the system it generally rolls around one team trying to kill the enemy team the fastest.  If that means 4 people focus while everyone else aoe's to avoid it then thats just what people will switch to. 4 focused and 4 aoe hits will kill faster than just 4 people focusing in a rough 8v8 example.

    If your concept is to encourage groups to split into smaller groups to fight then you probally want to include aoe and passives in the diminishing returns.

    Here is what you are saying:

    Current: 8 blue v 4 red
    4 blue bombs plus four blue others kill four red players

    Proposal:
    4 blue bombs plus 4 blue others kill four res faster.

    Therefore, you are literally pointing out a flaw in the current system too.
    Here is the difference:
    Current
    8 non-aoe blue players target 1 of 4 red players and blow them up then proceed to the rest.

    Proposal offensive strat:
    4 non-aoe blue players target one red player and 4 more non-aoe blue players target another red players while 4 red non-aoe players target 1 blue player.

    Players defensive strat:
    4 non-aoe blue players target one red player and 4 defensive blue players defends players the 4 red players focus. 

    In both examples, the red team has far better odds than in current. Because all the situations in the proposal can already happened in the current game. However, not all situations in current could happen in the proposal. 
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    You may be over complicating it.

    It's a team of 4 people hitting you with their prime attacks and 4 people hitting you with aoe vs a team of four people hitting you with their prime attacks right?

  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Deichtine said:
    You may be over complicating it.

    It's a team of 4 people hitting you with their prime attacks and 4 people hitting you with aoe vs a team of four people hitting you with their prime attacks right?

    That is one example yes. Which can happen in both the proposed and current situations.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    edited March 5
    Ya that's the point i was saying about.  Your suggestion encourages that which isn't really much difference to how we have it now and kinda won't make the numbers fight much of a difference. 

    Like we're talking about an example team of eight v eight.

    The first team does 4 focused attacks and 4 supporting aoe attacks to focus on killing 1 person.
    The second team tries to split their attacks and ends up just doing 4 focused attacks to kill 1 person.

    Grouping up and focusing on a single target is the quickest way to kill someone under your system.
    Grouping up and focusing on a single target is the quickest way to kill someone under our current system.

    The only real difference is in the current system you can all attack with what ever you want and in the proposed system you have to coordinate who's doing aoe and whos the main attackers. Creating a sort of two tier team.
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    edited March 5
    Deichtine said:
    Ya that's the point i was saying about.  Your suggestion encourages that which isn't really much difference to how we have it now and kinda won't make the numbers fight much of a difference. 
    That is literally just one example, when I provided two examples of where it worked. 1 situation of the same plus 2 better situation is better than 3 situations of the same. I'm more than happy to hear suggestions to perfect the proposal or another proposal that solves better than 2 out of 3. 
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    edited March 5
    If you make aoe and passives part of the diminishing returns it solves that issue,
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,610 Transcendent
    In the past this kind of thing has been brought up, but never really has taken off.  In the end the suggestions end up making combat harder to get into for people, need to end up having different groups / command channels, ignore some calls and prioritize others, etc.  Combat is already a lot of spammy stuff, so how do you implement something that does not exacerbate complexity?  There isn't really a great solution that does not introduce other issues instead (at least, not one that has been brought up so far).
    image
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Maybe just look at more events with fixed numbers if theres a big issue with numbers imbalance.

    Like more wargame tournament type things.
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Okay, so you would suggest to remove aoe from the whitelist? I could get behind that because hey the aoe could still hit because of the cap of the malus. Melds and songs I am actually torn on. On one hand I feel like they would be whitelisted on the other if you have a bard and mage then technically that would just fill up to attack slots or cause some things to not hit sometimes, so the mage and bard plus 2 more focus. Because of the lack of 8v1 the mage may be able to actually participate in some attacks.
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Xenthos said:
    In the past this kind of thing has been brought up, but never really has taken off.  In the end the suggestions end up making combat harder to get into for people, need to end up having different groups / command channels, ignore some calls and prioritize others, etc.  Combat is already a lot of spammy stuff, so how do you implement something that does not exacerbate complexity?  There isn't really a great solution that does not introduce other issues instead (at least, not one that has been brought up so far).
    Is complexity as far as tactics a bad thing? Let's be honest, Glom would do extremely well because you guys have a plan and good communication. Honestly, the malus would be best avoided but it has a cap so it would not be terrible if accidents happened. This would lead to imperfect combat which would provide a lot of complexity for leaders and top tier while also keeping it so weak targets aren't melted. 
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Deichtine said:
    Maybe just look at more events with fixed numbers if theres a big issue with numbers imbalance.

    Like more wargame tournament type things.
    This is great, too. However, there are still events that one side will never be able to compete without a boom in population or a rash of threads cut. I don't think the first one is happening, and it would take a long time. I hope the second doesn't happen. For example, wild nodes, domoths, and non-peaced revolts as well as the new time quakes more than likely will all be dominated by Glom/Gaudi/Celest for the foreseeable future because of sheer number of people. It is to the point of why try? 
  • KistanKistan Member Posts: 393 Expert
    Innon said:
     For example, wild nodes, domoths, and non-peaced revolts as well as the new time quakes more than likely will all be dominated by Glom/Gaudi/Celest for the foreseeable future because of sheer number of people. It is to the point of why try? 
    It is not sheer number of people - it is a willingness to fight. Most time, numbers are about even.
  • EaEa Member Posts: 25 Apprentice
    edited March 6
    Kistan said:
    Innon said:
     For example, wild nodes, domoths, and non-peaced revolts as well as the new time quakes more than likely will all be dominated by Glom/Gaudi/Celest for the foreseeable future because of sheer number of people. It is to the point of why try? 
    It is not sheer number of people - it is a willingness to fight. Most time, numbers are about even.
    Numbers haven't been "about even" for over a year where pvp/global events are concerned.

    Deichtine said:
    Maybe just look at more events with fixed numbers if theres a big issue with numbers imbalance.

    Like more wargame tournament type things.
    I agree, but if it's just for the sake of PVP; I don't think it's going to change anything or make a lick of difference.  If it were "for the sake of having pvp", there would be more people involved on both sides during events rather than the majority being on one.  Maybe it would changes things, maybe not -- I'd be down for more events with set numbers.

    As far as the malus, I think it'd be nice to implement but I'm not really sure how nor to what extreme. It's probably a bit hard to implement with the combat system as it stands, but I wouldn't be opposed to such a thing under the right circumstances.
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Kistan said:
    Innon said:
     For example, wild nodes, domoths, and non-peaced revolts as well as the new time quakes more than likely will all be dominated by Glom/Gaudi/Celest for the foreseeable future because of sheer number of people. It is to the point of why try? 
    It is not sheer number of people - it is a willingness to fight. Most time, numbers are about even.
    If this was truly the case then this issue wouldn't be brought up multiple times. Do you dispute the fact that numbers is even a problem? 
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    The actual numbers of people in the game seem semi balanced to be fair. It fluxes a bit but like yesterday before I went to bed it was 

    53% gaudi/glom/celest and 47% mag/seren/halli.

    Thats just players online though including everyone like even level 1 newbies just through the gate.
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    edited March 6
    Yeah, our end of things get a bunch of newbs that poke around and don't stick at all. When we say numbers are not anywhere near a balance, we're talking about active people who aren't new characters. Also, most of the time, when one does stick around, they already state that they want nothing to do with PvP because it isn't even worth bothering with, true story.
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Deichtine said:
    The actual numbers of people in the game seem semi balanced to be fair. It fluxes a bit but like yesterday before I went to bed it was 

    53% gaudi/glom/celest and 47% mag/seren/halli.

    Thats just players online though including everyone like even level 1 newbies just through the gate.
    That is straight population. The problem with this is glaring. It has been both sides, but if you can't see that Glom/Gaudi/Celest has leaps and bounds more people that fight then I don't even know what to say. I literally came back and avoided my favorite org (flavor) just to attempt to have a real shot at competition. The last time this side had real numbers it seems was prior to several combatants cutting their threads. Since the last time I left, Mag/Halli/Seren has lost two to three pking serens, 3-5 pking mags, and 1-2 pking hallis. Moreover Gaudi and Celest have added a few that are active. Numbers are not even, and it will be the death of activity. As Halli/Seren/Mag will literally avoid and kinda already do avoid events while Gaudi/Celest/Glom go and stand to hey their glorious deserved victory. 
  • SazSaz Member Posts: 178 Master
    Lycidas said:
    ...Also, most of the time, when one does stick around, they already state that they want nothing to do with PvP because it isn't even worth bothering with, true story.

    (Veterans say that too.)

     "Oh the year was 453CE, how I wish I was in Serenwilde now... aletter of marque come from the regent to the scummiest aethership I ever seen, gods damn them all...I was told we'd cruise the void for auronidion and dust, we'd fire no turrets, shed no tears.. now I'm a broken man on a Hallifax tier, the last of Saz's privateers."

    -Kilian
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    Yes they do, me being one of those. It's not worth going into a force where it is -always- 1:3 ratio, and that's being generous.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Motivation is a big part in that as well.

    People are being pushed away from joining in because of negativity. When people are told not to bother that is a big discouragement. 

    Looking back on when we were outnumbered by a fair margin we had some very positive people who really encouraged people to try and join in even when outnumbered. 

    Positivity, a good attitude and keeping on trying is a great way to build up your team for sure. It worked for us when we were at a low ebb.

    I mean I know Lycidias you didn't really like doing pvp even on your older characters. You even said on yourself more than a few times.
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 2,950 Transcendent
    edited March 6
    Deichtine said:
    Motivation is a big part in that as well.

    People are being pushed away from joining in because of negativity. When people are told not to bother that is a big discouragement. 

    Looking back on when we were outnumbered by a fair margin we had some very positive people who really encouraged people to try and join in even when outnumbered. 

    Positivity, a good attitude and keeping on trying is a great way to build up your team for sure. It worked for us when we were at a low ebb.

    I mean I know Lycidias you didn't really like doing pvp even on your older characters. You even said on yourself more than a few times.
    People are being pushed away because anytime they actually get the gumption and motivation to PvP, you come down hard, raiding multiple times a day nonstop until people give up, not to mention absolving domoths at every opportunity, etc etc. Stop shirking that responsibility. You and yours stifle PvP on the regular. Stop putting this "negativity" narrative into the mix. Calling you on your BS.

    EDIT: Your most recent victim was Magnagora. I'm sure they could say more about this given the recency.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.