Small(er) scale pvp

MelechMelech Member Posts: 16 Novice
I think we need mechanically enforced small scale PVP to escape the deathball monotony.

Idea 1: Domoths.

Domoths are boring. Most go unchallenged because it’s too easy to wait for your team to have overwhelming numbers before you initiate a claim or upgrade.

This idea requires a coded way for organizations to be allies/enemies, but essentially, when a domoth is challenged and pops onto a bubble, it spits out a random (let’s say 6 to 10) number of participants that can access the bubble.

So if 10 pops, then 5 people from one alliance can fight 5 people from the other alliance. This incentivizes people who want to participate in these specialized conflicts to “get good” and be chosen for their alliance to attend.

Timequakes, villages, wild nodes, etc. remain as the mass participation mechanics that everyone can jump in and (lol) enjoy.

Idea 2: Org vs. Org conflict events.

Have specific events that happen once or twice a game year that only Magnagora vs. Celest, Serenwilde vs. Glomdoring, Halifax vs. Gaudiguch can participate in. I don’t care if there’s a mechanical benefit, fluff and daily credits are good enough.

This way, even if you don’t have the numbers to engage in alliance-wide conflict, you can field a team of your orgmates and duke it out against your hated enemies for glory or whatever.

I think the benefit of systems like this, other than not getting instantly nuked by large enemy teams or not having enough people to participate all together, is that it gives people more of a chance to practice and occasionally get a win without being overwhelmed, builds skill and confidence for larger scale combat, and breaks up the monotony of current deathball mechanics for something a little more dynamic.

Is this something others would like to see? Any better ideas for how to make it happen?
«13

Comments

  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    Domoth locking is already a pretty weirdly awful mechanic that should be changed. How would the random participants be determined? What if it just pits 6 random noncoms against one another? Or worse, pits a bunch of noncoms against seasoned combatants? Who decides who gets to go if it's a choice?

    "This incentivizes people who want to participate in these specialized conflicts to “get good” and be chosen for their alliance to attend."

    Or it just creates another elitist class of PKers and makes people who aren't fully artied up feel excluded, similar to the situation some people feel about aetherhunts.

    Organisations aren't balanced populations wise and are often split across time zones.

    The mess with conflict isn't an issue that can be fixed by any admin decision.
  • MelechMelech Member Posts: 16 Novice
    edited February 19
    Luxurio said:
    Domoth locking is already a pretty weirdly awful mechanic that should be changed. How would the random participants be determined? What if it just pits 6 random noncoms against one another? Or worse, pits a bunch of noncoms against seasoned combatants? Who decides who gets to go if it's a choice?

    "This incentivizes people who want to participate in these specialized conflicts to “get good” and be chosen for their alliance to attend."

    Or it just creates another elitist class of PKers and makes people who aren't fully artied up feel excluded, similar to the situation some people feel about aetherhunts.

    Organisations aren't balanced populations wise and are often split across time zones.

    The mess with conflict isn't an issue that can be fixed by any admin decision.
    1. Participants would be chosen by their alliances.

    2. Elitist PKers exist, regardless. In most cases, you stand a better chance in a 3v3 or 5v5 with no arties than you would getting smashed by 20... this is one avenue for something different, all other conflict mechanics could remain the same and everyone can still participate in their boring deathballs.

    3. Populations are definitely out of whack, but there are frequently 20 people in a time quake and 3-5 waiting outside it knowing they don’t have enough to participate. If you’re locked into a 5v5, most orgs can at least field something to contest.

    4. These are purposefully low stakes. The only small scale pvp happens in the arena now, and weirdly in the case of ascension war games) are basically the highest stakes ever. That being said, ascension war games are very fun.

    Also, no one is excluded from aetherhunts unless they’re whining about not gunning.


  • LilliralliaLillirallia Member Posts: 36 Apprentice
    I know I don't really have a horse in this race but I don't like the idea of code-enforced alliances.
  • MelechMelech Member Posts: 16 Novice
    edited February 19
    That’s fair, I just didn’t know how else you’d be able to enforce who was from where to determine eligibility.

    (Also welcoming all thoughts/opinions, here!)
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    I just think it'd create resentment from people who can't participate, either because they don't have the gear or class, or from combatants who "lost" their place to someone who either just wants to try it out or isn't the optimal choice. 

    If it's a worthwhile reward then only the top people would ever go, if it's not a good reward then people just wouldn't show up or bother about it.

    Like with the domoth locking, people don't really enjoy that. It's not fun and it doesn't even encourage the other side from contesting while enemies are down a whole organisation. 

    Deathballs are pretty much a design choice at this point as well. There are a bunch of ways to not have deathballs and none of those methods have been pursued.
  • MelechMelech Member Posts: 16 Novice
    Down with deathballs. :(
  • SynlSynl Member Posts: 221 Adept
    I've mentioned it before, but here it is:

    1. A coded way to form a team of 3 members. This can be cross org, and your team lasts for the length of a season.

    2. Time slots your team can sign up for to fight other teams. Failure to show up results in a loss. At the end of the season, you are required to have fought x number of other teams.

    3. The benefits for winning a season only affect members of the team, ie. no org loyalty here.

    Not fleshed out with all the deets, but the idea is essentially to have Wargames as a regular combat tournament. And the key is to make it cross-org, and benefit only the members of the team, so as to encourage the best players playing with and against each other. Then you get side-benefits like allowing fan posters, chants etc of the teams.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 475 Creator
    Honestly, I'm not opposed to any of these ideas - of having some sort of formal wargames system that promotes small group PvP.

    My big concern though is if we spent time coding this - would it get used or would it just languish there like combat rankings?

    There's already a big issue with people not participating in something because they feel like it benefits the 'other' side so they'd rather not engage at all than do anything that could help them (This obviously ignores that by not participating, the other side reaps all the rewards anyway). 

  • AeldraAeldra , using cake powered flight Member Posts: 1,311 Transcendent
    Orael said:
    Honestly, I'm not opposed to any of these ideas - of having some sort of formal wargames system that promotes small group PvP.

    My big concern though is if we spent time coding this - would it get used or would it just languish there like combat rankings?

    There's already a big issue with people not participating in something because they feel like it benefits the 'other' side so they'd rather not engage at all than do anything that could help them (This obviously ignores that by not participating, the other side reaps all the rewards anyway). 


    I feel this to be a very valid concern. To be honest, I see a lot of people not getting involved unless they feel they have very good odds at winning something / not "benefitting" the other side (kudos to everybody that does!). And while I get where they're coming from, it makes it a whole lot less engaging, especially as right now we are having somewhat of an imbalance. I think any such system may be prone from suffering a similar fate?
    Avatar / Picture done by Xeii. Wheeeeee 
  • AyisdraAyisdra Member Posts: 1,344 Mythical
    Orael said:
    There's already a big issue with people not participating in something because they feel like it benefits the 'other' side so they'd rather not engage at all than do anything that could help them (This obviously ignores that by not participating, the other side reaps all the rewards anyway). 

    It is largely that the rewards may be so great that one side can't even have a chance at winning them because of imbalance. Take old grimkeep rewards (as I know this was said about those, and its not really PvP). No one on shadowlight could possibly have get close to the top time yet every try increased rewards. Would you take part in something, knowing no matter what(just look at how many of the top runs are still 90%+ IHC people), you basically were giving a handful of people 5 credits each time you tried? I'm not sure about you, but that built up quickly and I'm not really wanting to give IC enemies high hundreds of credits.

    The problem is a numbers and resources issue more than the 'benefiting the other side'. They have handfuls of people that are heavily artifacted while Shadowlight's numbers of such people are more limited. If there was a even chance, Scaling  rewards wouldn't be as much of problem.
    Should someone try to PvP knowing they aren't going to win? Perhaps. Maybe they will even get a kill or two. But if the end result isn't going to change (and the otherside winning is a 100% thing because of the numbers), it becomes a question of why bother.

    Orael said:
    Honestly, I'm not opposed to any of these ideas - of having some sort of formal wargames system that promotes small group PvP.

    My big concern though is if we spent time coding this - would it get used or would it just languish there like combat rankings?

    It is largely just a feedback loop - you need to do something to encourage people to use it, which means tying some sort of reward/meaning. But when you have double, if not triple, the numbers on one side, it raises a 'why would we limit ourselves' which just feeds into the problem of one side having more people they can call to a fight.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,019 Transcendent
    Orael said:

    There's already a big issue with people not participating in something because they feel like it benefits the 'other' side so they'd rather not engage at all than do anything that could help them (This obviously ignores that by not participating, the other side reaps all the rewards anyway). 

    You've been given the explanation time and time and time again (and once again in this thread by Ayisdra), yet you keep insisting that it's this cut and dry.  It does not come across well and makes it seem as if you're not bothering to listen.  The situation you're referencing was very specific.  You designed and implemented a system that rewarded top performers in a massively lopsided game.
    You could just as easily do the opposite - give the higher rewards to the people who show the greatest improvement or try against the odds (this was even suggested to you in the specific case you're referencing, though it was declined).  Design a system intended to reward trying vs. winning (which would be a drastic departure from Lusternia's general Winner Take All system, but might be a breath of fresh air for that).
    image
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    A system that rewards those going against the odds is not going to be a system that rewards Shadowlight, I'm very sorry to say. 

    And forgive me for asking, but who was it that spoke the loudest against Ixion being given a "participation trophy" prize, Xenthos? Which commune had a collective tantrum about that whole situation? Why is it that you're in this situation right now?

    I'm still not seeing any way in which things are lopsided, please explain?
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,019 Transcendent
    You're clearly not looking.
    And we're in this situation right now because the administration chose to address the situation in a manner that was not even-handed, which they have acknowledged.  See: You're clearly not looking.
    image
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    edited February 25
    We're in this situation because the admin chose to do something that you are now advocating for but were advocating against previously? 

    So, you disagree with the prior action of giving out "participation prizes", but now you want them to give out participation prizes, which you see as the reason four people retired?

    And you want them to do this again?

    Is your hope that a number of IHC will retire like Shadowlight did?

    Or is there something else you want to tell us?
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,019 Transcendent
    If you can't see a difference between "Completely undermine the biggest competition in the game and turn it into a punchline" vs. "design systems that encourage more activity and reward people for showing up," then I'm afraid I can't help you.  I think this thread is a pretty good indication that other people are able to see the benefit of encouraging participation in day-to-day activities, though, even if you are not.
    image
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    edited February 25
    I don't know if there's a university handing out PhDs in doublethink but you could instruct every single one simultaneously.

    A system that rewards those against the odds would be very welcomed, most of us just want everyone else to be happy, I'm just warning you now that you're not going to be happy if a system that rewards the underdog or those who try the hardest is implemented.

    That's assuming your idea is more complex than just "Give Shadowlight specifically more rewards because we say we're so disadvantaged" and doesn't rely on actual mechanics or is in any way based in reality.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,019 Transcendent
    Luxurio said:
    I don't know if there's a university handing out PhDs in doublethink but you could instruct every single one simultaneously.

    A system that rewards those against the odds would be very welcomed, most of us just want everyone else to be happy, I'm just warning you now that you're not going to be happy if a system that rewards the underdog or those who try the hardest is implemented.

    That's assuming your idea is more complex than just "Give Shadowlight specifically more rewards because we say we're so disadvantaged" and doesn't rely on actual mechanics or is in any way based in reality.

    Given that I've been advocating for changes for a very long time now, I think I'll be just fine, but thank you for your concern!  I've given plenty of mechanical suggestions to Orael - I'm more on the detail end of things personally, so reality-based is definitely where I tend to start.  I do understand that isn't the same for everyone, though, and that's okay.
    image
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    edited February 25
    He did seem very receptive to your input the last conversation I saw between you two. /s

    Though seriously, maybe if you did just try harder you'd have more success. Your tactics at the minute are:
    Aeldra - Judge spam
    Azula - Judge spam
    Caliohaliowaligui - Decapitation Spam
    Aevum - Break legs/Deathsong 
    Kreon - Break legs
    Filliqilliwuwa - Echoes
    Qilliwallirugwat - Aeonfield
    Faragan - Deathsong 
    Xedrik - Deathsong


    It's pretty lazy... Step it up and you'll win a bit.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,019 Transcendent

    Luxurio said:
    He did seem very receptive to your input the last conversation I saw between you two.


    I have noticed some hit-and-miss in this regard myself.  Still, I think it's important to present options.
    image
  • SapphiraSapphira Member Posts: 186 Expert
    Girls, girls, you're both pretty - shut up.

    i believe an issue with combat rankings is that -losing- costs a good deal of family honour, thus making it not worth the risk.

    Reward for winning/competing is great, so long as there's no real downside to losing. TQs for example see the most people willing to try against odds because even though you may not get the anomalies, the only thing you lose by dying is your defs, you don't even lose XP. Something that considers that would probably get used more. Maybe. 
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    Ayisdra said:
    Orael said:
    There's already a big issue with people not participating in something because they feel like it benefits the 'other' side so they'd rather not engage at all than do anything that could help them (This obviously ignores that by not participating, the other side reaps all the rewards anyway). 

    It is largely that the rewards may be so great that one side can't even have a chance at winning them because of imbalance. Take old grimkeep rewards (as I know this was said about those, and its not really PvP). No one on shadowlight could possibly have get close to the top time yet every try increased rewards. Would you take part in something, knowing no matter what(just look at how many of the top runs are still 90%+ IHC people), you basically were giving a handful of people 5 credits each time you tried? I'm not sure about you, but that built up quickly and I'm not really wanting to give IC enemies high hundreds of credits.
    This is just spite. Pure spite. You're denying yourself Grimkeep's essence and daily credit rewards because you don't want a group of other players some credits?

    Again with the IC thing. There is absolutely nothing that is IC about that decision. 

    Try harder.
  • SilvanusSilvanus The Sparrowhawk Member Posts: 1,674 Transcendent
    Sheesh... moving on.

    I think the best solution is to adjust existing systems to fit into new designs. Like change timequakes or domoths to have limited amount of people involved that change the rewards. For Domoths, it could be 3 people at sceptre, 5 at orb and 10 at crown. Perhaps for timequakes, the more people in the timequake the slower the anomaly generates or perhaps the slower they capture it?

    Timequakes are a great addition, but I think the limited amount of research options plus the silly upkeep of an already limited resource means a lot of archpower goes unused and it isn't worth fighting over sometimes. The idea of a limited win from a timequake where you can still take 2 out of the 8 anomalies and it be meaningful would be nice. But the research and fight isn't worth it.
    2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
    2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
    2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
    2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
  • AyisdraAyisdra Member Posts: 1,344 Mythical
    Luxurio said:
    Ayisdra said:
    Orael said:
    There's already a big issue with people not participating in something because they feel like it benefits the 'other' side so they'd rather not engage at all than do anything that could help them (This obviously ignores that by not participating, the other side reaps all the rewards anyway). 

    It is largely that the rewards may be so great that one side can't even have a chance at winning them because of imbalance. Take old grimkeep rewards (as I know this was said about those, and its not really PvP). No one on shadowlight could possibly have get close to the top time yet every try increased rewards. Would you take part in something, knowing no matter what(just look at how many of the top runs are still 90%+ IHC people), you basically were giving a handful of people 5 credits each time you tried? I'm not sure about you, but that built up quickly and I'm not really wanting to give IC enemies high hundreds of credits.
    This is just spite. Pure spite. You're denying yourself Grimkeep's essence and daily credit rewards because you don't want a group of other players some credits?

    Again with the IC thing. There is absolutely nothing that is IC about that decision. 

    Try harder.

    When some of IHC getting 1000+ credits (record rewards easily hit 300-500cr before the record was broken by an IHC group, and they did it a few times) that's huge. When there is -zero- chance at shadowlight even coming close to be able to get those credits and any try we just makes it higher, there is a problem with the system.
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    edited February 26
    Ayisdra said:

    When some of IHC getting 1000+ credits (record rewards easily hit 300-500cr before the record was broken by an IHC group, and they did it a few times) that's huge. When there is -zero- chance at shadowlight even coming close to be able to get those credits and any try we just makes it higher, there is a problem with the system.
    You just admitted you weren't trying? 

    I don't know why you're pretending to be in this massively disadvantaged position. What real advantage/disadvantage is there? 

    You've been invited to IHC grimkeeps personally, so this complaint is especially confusing coming from you. What would your proposed solution be? Remove the rewards? Spite. Give your side rewards for not putting as much effort/achieving the same result as the other side? Ascension.

    There's no problem here that isn't you just not putting any effort at all in, and there's no solution which isn't something you'd whine about and probably cut your thread over if it was given to the other side.

    I'm fully in favour of most of these solutions that include more rewards, because I'm not spiteful, I'm just calling you a hypocrite.


    I wouldn't want to be liked by most of Glomdoring when you act like this and have Remilia.
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    Is anyone ever going to tell us why things are lopsided? Other than talking about artifacts because lol no.
  • SilvanusSilvanus The Sparrowhawk Member Posts: 1,674 Transcendent
    Luxurio said:
    Is anyone ever going to tell us why things are lopsided? Other than talking about artifacts because lol no.

    Yes, artifacts are a huge impact. Level 3 vitality, level 3 regeneration runes, damage buffs against mobs, damage resistances, wondersaddles, increase exp gains to give more perks that give more regen/dmg/resistances. To claim otherwise is ignorant. Why do you always poke the bear
    2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
    2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
    2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
    2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
  • LuxurioLuxurio Member Posts: 22 Inept
    edited February 26
    None of these things are in any way exclusive or limited. A significant number of Shadowlight have these various artifacts, not everyone in IHC has these artifacts. 

    What I'm saying is, this isn't an excuse for not trying/asking for things to just be made easier seemingly for just one side or harder for the other.

    Next?
  • AruokeiAruokei Member Posts: 57 Capable
  • SynlSynl Member Posts: 221 Adept
    For the Wargames system, tie the benefits only to the winners. Remove the org-aspect entirely. You already see some cross-org participation in GK because of this. Not-winning costs you nothing, but winning gives you... some reward. Credits, personal bashing buffs, a bright-eyed dweller that follows you around and tells everyone you're the best.
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi Member Posts: 2,623 Transcendent
    To post to people willing to listen, I'm going to be on the record as vehemently opposed to any solution that boils down to "Winner takes all, loser pisses off" because we have a lot of those already, and they tend to create feedback loops where the only way to win is to have won already.

    If there's a wargames style system in place where match winners earn points, it should probably reset periodically and award a scaling reward to everyone based on their ranking at the time of reset so that even participating and losing still means that you get SOME progress toward being mechanically relevant. If it's something like Grimkeep or an Endzone area, then record breaks cannot be the only repeatable source of credit rewards since credit rewards are really the only reward that matters for anyone going for a record, and the biggest way to get closer to being relevant for record runs is to get more credits (and making it repeatable instead of directly tied to dailycredits offsets the vast difficulty gulf between 20 dc worth of other quests (or even just a regular EZ run) and a record attempt).

    Basically, an ideal system would allow for fail-forwards where you get something for trying, otherwise there's no incentive to try against overwhelming odds.
Sign In or Register to comment.