Small(er) scale pvp

2

Comments

  • edited February 2021
    Please keep the conversation civil enough without devolving into namecalling or personal attacks.

    Making assertions about others' alternative characters, true or not, is against forum rules and furthermore is off topic. Certain posts have been removed to reflect this.

    Help this thread be useful, or we may have to close it!
  • edited February 2021
    Luce said:
    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.
    Make it seasons. Length of season up to admins. 3 RL months seems good to me, get you four seasons a year. The winner of each season could maybe have a special tourney at the end. Who knows.

    I see a system where the top 3 teams get rewards, could be credits to keep it simple but I was thinking buffs to non-combat activities, like say a crit bonus or something, that lasts until the end of the next season. Maybe partaking in official match fills your daily credits for the weave. But important to keep the rewards as personal as possible so as to encourage cross org participants.

    And then the glory of combat!!!!! I can already see Maggie posting propaganda about their favorite team.

    Also the team's should have names.
  • edited February 2021
    Sheesh, 

    I'm pointing out my concern about implementing a solution here given what I've seen from the playerbase.

    If we implement a wargames system (cross-org or not) that rewards winning, then I'm concerned that players are going to opt-out and not even try because they're going to see some team from whatever side that is participating that they don't think they can beat and rather than try, they're going to say 'they're going to win anyway, why should I bother'

    That's my concern about implementing this. It's a concern because it's been brought up to me before. I don't agree that Shadowlight (as is being claimed here) cannot get a top run in Grimkeep and I wouldn't agree that Shadowlight wouldn't be able to win any kind of smaller scale PvP system that's implemented.

    It doesn't matter what I believe though, it matters what players believe. Players have shown that they don't want to participate in things that they feel benefit the 'other' side.  There are accusations that I haven't listened, but my concerns here are literally because I've listened. Just because I don't agree with the reasoning does not mean I'm not listening. This isn't just limited to Grimkeep, it's cropped up in other areas as well.


  • edited February 2021
    Then it might be a good idea to enshrine the mechanics that benefit people who actually take part in it, and expand towards more of those similar mechanics so that people can't make things less fun or less rewarding by just boycotting them and also denying themselves a chance in the process.

    Or, since people see not getting involved as harming the other side, make not getting involved harm the side that are being petty by not joining in instead. We know that there's not any factor resulting in lopsidedness other than effort, so reward effort and punish not trying.
  • Unlike a lot of stuff in lusternia like domoths, villages, etc, Grimkeep isn't a zero sum game - other people doing well doesn't take anything away from you. You still earn dailycredits and piles of essence for your own runs, even if they're not record-breaking, and you can put that towards new artifacts or wonderitems to help you do better in future runs.
  • Just to be clear - I don't want this to devolve into an argument about whether or not you agree with this premise. That isn't the point, the point here is I want to implement systems that everyone wants to participate in. 

    I don't want to spend time on a system that doesn't get used because people for whatever reason, don't want to use it. My concerns listed here are based on my experience and the complaints I've received. This isn't an invitation to start discussing the validity of those complaints, but instead an invitation to develop ideas that everyone is willing to be a part of and participate in.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Orael said:
    Sheesh, 

    I'm pointing out my concern about implementing a solution here given what I've seen from the playerbase.

    If we implement a wargames system (cross-org or not) that rewards winning, then I'm concerned that players are going to opt-out and not even try because they're going to see some team from whatever side that is participating that they don't think they can beat and rather than try, they're going to say 'they're going to win anyway, why should I bother'

    That's my concern about implementing this. It's a concern because it's been brought up to me before. I don't agree that Shadowlight (as is being claimed here) cannot get a top run in Grimkeep and I wouldn't agree that Shadowlight wouldn't be able to win any kind of smaller scale PvP system that's implemented.

    It doesn't matter what I believe though, it matters what players believe. Players have shown that they don't want to participate in things that they feel benefit the 'other' side.  There are accusations that I haven't listened, but my concerns here are literally because I've listened. Just because I don't agree with the reasoning does not mean I'm not listening. This isn't just limited to Grimkeep, it's cropped up in other areas as well.



    The problem is when you continually misrepresent what people have told you.  You were not told that nobody wanted to participate in things that "benefited the other side," you were told that people felt that a system where their participation increased benefits that they had no chance to attain was offputting and made the system less appealing.  I just don't understand why you insist on continuing to present it the way you do - they're two clearly different views.  You chose to take the route of "just nuke the rewards," but that wasn't the only option available nor was it presented as being the preferred solution, simply that it was better than what previously existed.
    Yes, the current situation is better!  Absolutely.  But it would have been even better still if the rewards had nothing to do with a leaderboard at all and instead were more of a personal achievement / milestone so that you were always encouraged to keep trying harder and improving.  Actually design the system to encourage everyone to keep trying and getting better, instead of just locking it to the same few individuals as it used to be.
    image
  • edited February 2021
    @Xenthos - I was told that. I was explicitly told that. Maybe you didn't say it, but others have.

    For the record, any changes made to Grimkeep were made to encourage players to make each run last as long as possible. We want people to consistently and routinely try to get the top run. Everything about the rewards is to encourage that motivation.

  • edited February 2021
    Xenthos said:

    The problem is when you continually misrepresent what people have told you.  You were not told that nobody wanted to participate in things that "benefited the other side," you were told that people felt that a system where their participation increased benefits that they had no chance to attain was offputting and made the system less appealing.  I just don't understand why you insist on continuing to present it the way you do - they're two clearly different views.  You chose to take the route of "just nuke the rewards," but that wasn't the only option available nor was it presented as being the preferred solution, simply that it was better than what previously existed.
    Yes, the current situation is better!  Absolutely.  But it would have been even better still if the rewards had nothing to do with a leaderboard at all and instead were more of a personal achievement / milestone so that you were always encouraged to keep trying harder and improving.  Actually design the system to encourage everyone to keep trying and getting better, instead of just locking it to the same few individuals as it used to be.
    From my perspective it really does look like you are just saying "Nuke the rewards for people who actually do the thing because we don't want to do it because it'll give them rewards." I'm not surprised if other people see it like that, maybe something is being lost in translation.

    So, just so we can all see, what are these other ideas that you've presented Orael with? Like you are, I'm quite uncomfortable with discussions happening in back-channels and between individuals and admins myself, and I'm sure others would appreciate seeing what you have to offer to the discussion?
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Orael said:
    @Xenthos - I was told that. I was explicitly told that. Maybe you didn't say it, but others have.

    For the record, any changes made to Grimkeep were made to encourage players to make each run last as long as possible. We want people to consistently and routinely try to get the top run. Everything about the rewards is to encourage that motivation.

    So to be clear here - this same statement was made multiple times directly to me and I tried repeatedly to clarify the matter every time.  Seeing it show up again here seemed to just be a continuation of that.  This is not actually the case?
    I would like to think that anyone who explicitly stated something along those lines would be swayed by something that is more universally beneficial.  I have to agree with you that a system that just (or primarily) rewards winners probably won't be compelling, but there is no reason to design it that way.  People who are into PvP tend to like it just for the thrill of it.  You don't need to reward winning.  Instead, pin the enticement on the participation itself.  If doing a ranked spar gave 5 dailies I suspect more people would do them, for example, despite no actual benefit for winning (note that this is just an example, I am not advocating for this because the overall design of that system would still be super flawed).
    So apply this theory to Synl's proposal.  Adjust it a bit as follows.
    1) Everyone interested in the "season" registers and signs up.
    2) Teams are assigned from the pool at random (like the anniversary wargames).
    3) Teams would be 4-5 players, but matches are 3v3.  This provides some flexibility on people not always being around the same time as everyone else.  You could also allow 2v3 or 2v2 as well.
    4) Every team is allowed to play each other team once.  Your final reward is based on how many battles your team fought, win or lose.
    5) The season ends when all matches have been played or at a predetermined time.
    The team with the best record wins pvp accolades / bragging rights.
    I am sure there are far better ways to implement something like this, just tossing some thoughts out there.  The important part is that the primary motivation be tied to people using the system.  This general format would provide greater results when more people sign up, though; more teams = more potential matches = greater rewards.
    TL;DR: If you want people to participate in a system, make sure that the perceived incentive to participate is greater than any potential disincentives.  Whatever you end up doing, that is probably a pretty good policy to follow.
    image
  • edited February 2021
    EDIT:This is in reference to Luxurio, not Xenthos btw. If that wasn't clear

    Look, you need to stop jumping on people for putting up their opinions and their point of view.

    Nobody ever said 'nuke the rewards for people who actually do the thing.' That was never once suggested by anybody, whether through support emails or on forums.

    Nothing is being discussed in the 'back-channels' on the direction of the game. We listen and respond to every concern or complaint that comes in through support but it doesn't affect any major game decisions. 

    Major game decisions are brought to the community at large, for better or worse, because we believe in transparency and do our best to be transparent with all our decisions. We often ask for input when implementing changes and will continue to do so. 
  • Xenthos said:
    Orael said:
    @Xenthos - I was told that. I was explicitly told that. Maybe you didn't say it, but others have.

    For the record, any changes made to Grimkeep were made to encourage players to make each run last as long as possible. We want people to consistently and routinely try to get the top run. Everything about the rewards is to encourage that motivation.


    I would like to think that anyone who explicitly stated something along those lines would be swayed by something that is more universally beneficial.  I have to agree with you that a system that just (or primarily) rewards winners probably won't be compelling, but there is no reason to design it that way.  People who are into PvP tend to like it just for the thrill of it.  You don't need to reward winning.  Instead, pin the enticement on the participation itself.  If doing a ranked spar gave 5 dailies I suspect more people would do them, for example, despite no actual benefit for winning (note that this is just an example, I am not advocating for this because the overall design of that system would still be super flawed).
    So apply this theory to Synl's proposal.  Adjust it a bit as follows.
    1) Everyone interested in the "season" registers and signs up.
    2) Teams are assigned from the pool at random (like the anniversary wargames).
    3) Teams would be 4-5 players, but matches are 3v3.  This provides some flexibility on people not always being around the same time as everyone else.  You could also allow 2v3 or 2v2 as well.
    4) Every team is allowed to play each other team once.  Your final reward is based on how many battles your team fought, win or lose.
    5) The season ends when all matches have been played or at a predetermined time.
    The team with the best record wins pvp accolades / bragging rights.
    I am sure there are far better ways to implement something like this, just tossing some thoughts out there.  The important part is that the primary motivation be tied to people using the system.  This general format would provide greater results when more people sign up, though; more teams = more potential matches = greater rewards.
    TL;DR: If you want people to participate in a system, make sure that the perceived incentive to participate is greater than any potential disincentives.  Whatever you end up doing, that is probably a pretty good policy to follow.
    Okay - but this goes back to my main concern.

    Bob, Bobby and Robert see Greg, Gregory and Grog signed up for a tournament - they know they cannot beat the three G's so they just don't bother to sign up because it's not appealing to be handing the Three G's more rewards. Either that or they only fight against teams on their side to increase their own rewards but not others. 

    I'm interested in a system that people will engage in and use. The only other thing I've considered is that people will sign up, but the teams end up being randomized and anonymous somehow. Could have a system where people can pick and choose a class for that specific event and things reverse back, but by being anonymous, you ideally don't know who you are playing with or against. I'm sure some people will figure out through things like Discord etc but it's the best I got.
  • edited February 2021
    Orael said:
    Look, you need to stop jumping on people for putting up their opinions and their point of view.

    Nobody ever said 'nuke the rewards for people who actually do the thing.' That was never once suggested by anybody, whether through support emails or on forums.

    Nothing is being discussed in the 'back-channels' on the direction of the game. We listen and respond to every concern or complaint that comes in through support but it doesn't affect any major game decisions. 

    Major game decisions are brought to the community at large, for better or worse, because we believe in transparency and do our best to be transparent with all our decisions. We often ask for input when implementing changes and will continue to do so. 
    Just to clarify, the latter half of that was entirely a jab at Xenthos and something he'd said in the past about back-channels, sorry if that wasn't clear.

    And people kind of... Literally are saying to nuke rewards. The main reason for people not participating is "We don't want the other side to get anything." In Ascension it was "If our enemies are getting something then nobody should get anything." Even now we're getting "don't give winners anything" but... Why not? If it was coming from the people actually winning, I wouldn't mind, but it's coming from the people that are losing.  

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to shut down complaints or anything, it's just that I can't believe we're acting like any of this complaint is being made in good faith, it's not. The simple solution is that they just need to actually show up. I don't get why people want special treatment or more of an incentive for showing up than anyone else?
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Orael said:
    Xenthos said:
    Orael said:
    @Xenthos - I was told that. I was explicitly told that. Maybe you didn't say it, but others have.

    For the record, any changes made to Grimkeep were made to encourage players to make each run last as long as possible. We want people to consistently and routinely try to get the top run. Everything about the rewards is to encourage that motivation.


    I would like to think that anyone who explicitly stated something along those lines would be swayed by something that is more universally beneficial.  I have to agree with you that a system that just (or primarily) rewards winners probably won't be compelling, but there is no reason to design it that way.  People who are into PvP tend to like it just for the thrill of it.  You don't need to reward winning.  Instead, pin the enticement on the participation itself.  If doing a ranked spar gave 5 dailies I suspect more people would do them, for example, despite no actual benefit for winning (note that this is just an example, I am not advocating for this because the overall design of that system would still be super flawed).
    So apply this theory to Synl's proposal.  Adjust it a bit as follows.
    1) Everyone interested in the "season" registers and signs up.
    2) Teams are assigned from the pool at random (like the anniversary wargames).
    3) Teams would be 4-5 players, but matches are 3v3.  This provides some flexibility on people not always being around the same time as everyone else.  You could also allow 2v3 or 2v2 as well.
    4) Every team is allowed to play each other team once.  Your final reward is based on how many battles your team fought, win or lose.
    5) The season ends when all matches have been played or at a predetermined time.
    The team with the best record wins pvp accolades / bragging rights.
    I am sure there are far better ways to implement something like this, just tossing some thoughts out there.  The important part is that the primary motivation be tied to people using the system.  This general format would provide greater results when more people sign up, though; more teams = more potential matches = greater rewards.
    TL;DR: If you want people to participate in a system, make sure that the perceived incentive to participate is greater than any potential disincentives.  Whatever you end up doing, that is probably a pretty good policy to follow.
    Okay - but this goes back to my main concern.

    Bob, Bobby and Robert see Greg, Gregory and Grog signed up for a tournament - they know they cannot beat the three G's so they just don't bother to sign up because it's not appealing to be handing the Three G's more rewards. Either that or they only fight against teams on their side to increase their own rewards but not others. 

    I'm interested in a system that people will engage in and use. The only other thing I've considered is that people will sign up, but the teams end up being randomized and anonymous somehow. Could have a system where people can pick and choose a class for that specific event and things reverse back, but by being anonymous, you ideally don't know who you are playing with or against. I'm sure some people will figure out through things like Discord etc but it's the best I got.

    My point 2 involved randomized teams too, specifically to avoid that situation.  Sure, you may know who signed up but no clue who the teams are until the season starts.  Two of the Gs might even be on your team!  This also avoids the "sides" thing.  Not sure that anonymous is required but might be interesting?
    image

  • Orael said:
    That's my concern about implementing this. It's a concern because it's been brought up to me before. I don't agree that Shadowlight (as is being claimed here) cannot get a top run in Grimkeep and I wouldn't agree that Shadowlight wouldn't be able to win any kind of smaller scale PvP system that's implemented.
    Then you don't know Shadowlight.  We don't have the heaviliy artied out people that are basically a requirement for the top run. Even just look at Queen kills - IHC can take her down with a small group , and have multiple times (I think the lowest was under 8 they did?). Shadowlight has yet to kill her. Could Shadowlight have an equal number of top-tier artied people that just aren't interested in grimkeep and aren't speaking up? Sure, but if they aren't doing runs then there is no chance of getting the top record.
    Can Shadowlight win small scale PvP? Sure, depending who the other side has, but once they start losing and call in their big fighters to be in instead? Perhaps we can't compete then and get wiped easily by their best combatants that take our full force to take down.
    Orael said:
    For the record, any changes made to Grimkeep were made to encourage players to make each run last as long as possible. We want people to consistently and routinely try to get the top run. Everything about the rewards is to encourage that motivation.

    If the intention is to encourage top runs, then you have failed the mark. Because of our level artifact-level, It is better to stop a run at some 30m mark after you hit the next tick of bonus essence and let more/new people join the group to start a new run.
    Would it be better if there some sort of Achievement/milestone instead as Xenthos suggest? Perhaps. Would it be better if 'Unlimited Party' was a '6 or more' instead so it was two separate record lists and didn't include <5 groups? Maybe.
    Tie some other reward to the system that isn't credits if you want some sort of physical reward. Give out a large chuck of REP (even if REP is pointless right now beyond the shop unlock, I'm assuming the admin had plans for the other two rooms). It needs to be something that people want to try for, but if they don't/can't get it, it doesn't affect them too much.

    Orael said:
    Okay - but this goes back to my main concern.

    Bob, Bobby and Robert see Greg, Gregory and Grog signed up for a tournament - they know they cannot beat the three G's so they just don't bother to sign up because it's not appealing to be handing the Three G's more rewards. Either that or they only fight against teams on their side to increase their own rewards but not others. 

    I'm interested in a system that people will engage in and use. The only other thing I've considered is that people will sign up, but the teams end up being randomized and anonymous somehow. Could have a system where people can pick and choose a class for that specific event and things reverse back, but by being anonymous, you ideally don't know who you are playing with or against. I'm sure some people will figure out through things like Discord etc but it's the best I got.
    This is the problem, as you said. the three G's skill and artifact level out match the others. So either you help them get even better (ie, they get more rewards which they use to better themselves) or you don't and hope they stay at the same tier. I'm not sure how you would do it, but elo ranking might help a lot if you could evenly make it so the three Gs would only fight people of their skill level (and thus their rewards would only be increasing when fighting people that have a chance to beat them.)



  • Orael said:
    Okay - but this goes back to my main concern.

    Bob, Bobby and Robert see Greg, Gregory and Grog signed up for a tournament - they know they cannot beat the three G's so they just don't bother to sign up because it's not appealing to be handing the Three G's more rewards. Either that or they only fight against teams on their side to increase their own rewards but not others. 

    I'm interested in a system that people will engage in and use. The only other thing I've considered is that people will sign up, but the teams end up being randomized and anonymous somehow. Could have a system where people can pick and choose a class for that specific event and things reverse back, but by being anonymous, you ideally don't know who you are playing with or against. I'm sure some people will figure out through things like Discord etc but it's the best I got.
    This is the problem, as you said. the three G's skill and artifact level out match the others. So either you help them get even better (ie, they get more rewards which they use to better themselves) or you don't and hope they stay at the same tier. I'm not sure how you would do it, but elo ranking might help a lot if you could evenly make it so the three Gs would only fight people of their skill level (and thus their rewards would only be increasing when fighting people that have a chance to beat them.)

     I'm not interested in making this a thread about Grimkeep and whatever failings you think are there. So I'm ignoring those points to stick to the topic at hand. I'm not opposed to addressing it, just not here.

    I'm confused by what you are saying here. That's what I'm asking - what can I do to encourage people to try that 1) doesn't involve punishing the teams that did invest and have put in the effort to learn and 2) Makes it appealing to someone to attempt even if they lose and the 'other' side gets the rewards. 

    I straight up don't think we have enough people to implement any kind of ELO system.

    At the end of the day, the winners should have the best rewards (to encourage you to try to win) and we can have other rewards and everything but it doesn't make any sense not to reward the winners the most. Like I don't know what other options there are.

    My concern with randomized, non-anonymous is people then intentionally throwing things because they don't like their team members. I suggested this for a War Ascension event (which I know is higher stakes) and that was the overwhelming player opinion. 

    There's also nothing wrong with wanting to roll with your homies.

    We could potentially add something to timequakes, but I'd rather leave domoths alone for a variety of reasons. 
  • Domoths could do with not being locked, if anything. It creates a purposeful 3v2 situation when you could just... Make the side with the opposing domoth be unable to claim?
  • Orael said:


    Orael said:
    Okay - but this goes back to my main concern.

    Bob, Bobby and Robert see Greg, Gregory and Grog signed up for a tournament - they know they cannot beat the three G's so they just don't bother to sign up because it's not appealing to be handing the Three G's more rewards. Either that or they only fight against teams on their side to increase their own rewards but not others. 

    I'm interested in a system that people will engage in and use. The only other thing I've considered is that people will sign up, but the teams end up being randomized and anonymous somehow. Could have a system where people can pick and choose a class for that specific event and things reverse back, but by being anonymous, you ideally don't know who you are playing with or against. I'm sure some people will figure out through things like Discord etc but it's the best I got.
    This is the problem, as you said. the three G's skill and artifact level out match the others. So either you help them get even better (ie, they get more rewards which they use to better themselves) or you don't and hope they stay at the same tier. I'm not sure how you would do it, but elo ranking might help a lot if you could evenly make it so the three Gs would only fight people of their skill level (and thus their rewards would only be increasing when fighting people that have a chance to beat them.)

     I'm not interested in making this a thread about Grimkeep and whatever failings you think are there. So I'm ignoring those points to stick to the topic at hand. I'm not opposed to addressing it, just not here.

    I'm confused by what you are saying here. That's what I'm asking - what can I do to encourage people to try that 1) doesn't involve punishing the teams that did invest and have put in the effort to learn and 2) Makes it appealing to someone to attempt even if they lose and the 'other' side gets the rewards. 

    I straight up don't think we have enough people to implement any kind of ELO system.

    At the end of the day, the winners should have the best rewards (to encourage you to try to win) and we can have other rewards and everything but it doesn't make any sense not to reward the winners the most. Like I don't know what other options there are.

    I'm not sure you can do something that fills both 1 and 2 as long as there is such a large numbers imbalance between sides. I'm not sure you can do something about 1 short of disabling of select artifacts within timequakes to make things more even.
    Doing something for 2 could be possible if numbers were evened. Speaking from personal experience, being nearly perma stunned/proned (because of all of the 'do nothing' affs (stun, prone, entangle, aeon) stacking and being separate) while only having less than a second window to escape is no fun and not appealing. While it seems this game operates heavily on these factions of a second windows, I personally would rather see much more reaction time for things than having to relay on triggers/system or else I die. I'm not saying that systems and timing things shouldn't be a thing, but as a much more casual pvp, I shouldn't punished because I don't time things down to milliseconds.
  • Orael said:
    Xenthos said:
    Orael said:
    @Xenthos - I was told that. I was explicitly told that. Maybe you didn't say it, but others have.

    For the record, any changes made to Grimkeep were made to encourage players to make each run last as long as possible. We want people to consistently and routinely try to get the top run. Everything about the rewards is to encourage that motivation.


    I would like to think that anyone who explicitly stated something along those lines would be swayed by something that is more universally beneficial.  I have to agree with you that a system that just (or primarily) rewards winners probably won't be compelling, but there is no reason to design it that way.  People who are into PvP tend to like it just for the thrill of it.  You don't need to reward winning.  Instead, pin the enticement on the participation itself.  If doing a ranked spar gave 5 dailies I suspect more people would do them, for example, despite no actual benefit for winning (note that this is just an example, I am not advocating for this because the overall design of that system would still be super flawed).
    So apply this theory to Synl's proposal.  Adjust it a bit as follows.
    1) Everyone interested in the "season" registers and signs up.
    2) Teams are assigned from the pool at random (like the anniversary wargames).
    3) Teams would be 4-5 players, but matches are 3v3.  This provides some flexibility on people not always being around the same time as everyone else.  You could also allow 2v3 or 2v2 as well.
    4) Every team is allowed to play each other team once.  Your final reward is based on how many battles your team fought, win or lose.
    5) The season ends when all matches have been played or at a predetermined time.
    The team with the best record wins pvp accolades / bragging rights.
    I am sure there are far better ways to implement something like this, just tossing some thoughts out there.  The important part is that the primary motivation be tied to people using the system.  This general format would provide greater results when more people sign up, though; more teams = more potential matches = greater rewards.
    TL;DR: If you want people to participate in a system, make sure that the perceived incentive to participate is greater than any potential disincentives.  Whatever you end up doing, that is probably a pretty good policy to follow.
    Okay - but this goes back to my main concern.

    Bob, Bobby and Robert see Greg, Gregory and Grog signed up for a tournament - they know they cannot beat the three G's so they just don't bother to sign up because it's not appealing to be handing the Three G's more rewards. Either that or they only fight against teams on their side to increase their own rewards but not others. 


    Well the idea is that Bob Bobby Robert wouldn't get nothing. If they complete all their battles during the season, they get say 50% of the reward. Then you can scale the rewards from there to 100% at first place win.

    I also dislike randomized teams. The idea is to create a playground for people who only play the game for PvP to PvP vs other people who want to just spend all their time PvPing.
  • For some reason I don't feel like that would be accepted. If the teams end up being disproportionately IHC, which they would assumedly be considering that PVP doesn't seem to be why Shadowlight is playing the game, then surely this would just be another way of IHC getting benefits and extending their lead?

    I think the issue we're trying to resolve is that Shadowlight, and at this point IHC, want more people to participate in PVP and other systems of the game that have some competitive element, not just aiming to create a PVP arena for 1337 PVPzors.
  • QuixoteQuixote Manchester, UK
    I feel I have to point out that there are many more from SL who are just as artifacted as IHC Grimkeepers than is being made out. I'm managing to outlive/outbash most people in there and I am still missing important things like a max saddle and demi+. I think the only -essential- artifacts are resists, vitals buff, divinus buff and RoA.
  • QuixoteQuixote Manchester, UK
    On a further note, even we've struggled to get a group together lately. Interest in Grimkeep seems to have waned somewhat lately. I'm unsure of the reasoning. Maybe it's true that some people have grown a disinterest because of the tangible cost in grinding the place.

    I love Grimkeep. Sure, it could use a little tweaking here and there, but overall, it serves its purpose well.
  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning **
    edited February 2021
    Removed post because it's hecka off-topic, tag me if there's a separate Grimkeep thread sometime soon!
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • Type of reward matters, too. Personal bashing buffs or honors lines are good in that they don't help the person to 'continue winning'.

     Personally I consider credits largely devalued due to dailies, and don't consider credit rewards as something that will really push someone over the top, ie. If someone wants demi+, they can get it easily enough between dailies and org credits. But that is definitely an opinion.
  • AeldraAeldra , using cake powered flight
    Orael said:

    Bob, Bobby and Robert see Greg, Gregory and Grog signed up for a tournament - they know they cannot beat the three G's so they just don't bother to sign up because it's not appealing to be handing the Three G's more rewards. Either that or they only fight against teams on their side to increase their own rewards but not others. 

    I'm interested in a system that people will engage in and use. The only other thing I've considered is that people will sign up, but the teams end up being randomized and anonymous somehow. Could have a system where people can pick and choose a class for that specific event and things reverse back, but by being anonymous, you ideally don't know who you are playing with or against. I'm sure some people will figure out through things like Discord etc but it's the best I got.

    having an anonymous system (while its in effect) would definitely have the benefit of solving all those issues with have where people are just against someone just because they've done X that they considered bad because Y and they carry it with them to eternity. On the flipside it'll be somewhat challenging  to tie that into RP properly, at least am not seeing how that could be possible. Allowing people to pick a class certainly sounds interesting and may create further insight into other classes for people, which in turns sounds interesting.

    For me, wanting to use a system like that more would be mostly based on how interesting a fight I can get for this. I'd not be very interested in running consistently against the same X people using the same Y thing over and over again. Randomized teams, even possibly with somewhat selectible class-range, would definitely improve my interest in that, especially as randomizsation would suggest I could also do it when there's a low on my "side" of the battlefield.
    Avatar / Picture done by the lovely Gurashi.
  • I would 100% run a bookkeeping business based on betting on wargames teams.

    It'll be Lusternian Superbowl!
    It's pronounced "Maggy'!

    Explorer (80%), Achiever (53%), Socializer (53%), Killer (13%)
    Bartle Taxonomy
    (test yourself)

  • edited March 2021
    Remove enemy lists, make all enemy-wide effects automatically hit everyone that's not a member of your city. Likewise ally effects only hit city members.

    It would be a mechanically relatively small change (hopefully not too much of a lift to code in) but it would have a fairly significant impact on the stagnant group combat meta. It would help break up fights into smaller scale engagements, or at least diminish the effectiveness of the 10v10 deathball meta. Also melds/etc. could then be tuned up to be a bit more deadly 1v1 and make passives potentially more of a double edged sword.

    Try it! PvP in Lusternia is so stale, making some changes might just shake something fun loose.
  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning **
    edited March 2021
    Chogan said:
    Remove enemy lists, make all enemy-wide effects automatically hit everyone that's not a member of your city. Likewise ally effects only hit city members.
    This would make it impossible to participate in duels, wargames, FFAs and the like for people who have to manage enemies currently. Also, why would I want to hit my international allies with my meld?
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
Sign In or Register to comment.