Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
veeshan

Improvement to the camp/capture system

Recommended Posts

Current Problem

There a problem with the fundamental with the camp/capture system that simply put you can flip anything at anytime with basically no warning take the fort for example they get flipped so quickly you cant even defend against it most times because by the time u get over there it been taken. I feel i have a solution to this that will keep campaigns a little less chaotic bit and strategic :)

Changes to the Territory system
Key Points
- To Take keeps during a seige your faction must have a presence in the area lets says own 25% of the Control points.
- All Camps/Forts/Keeps are connected together (Refer to Fig 1 Below)
- The capture points must always connect up with a Beachhead or a Fort to be able to progress this way you can cut off the supply lines so to speak and hault the push (See fig 2)
- You can capture through runegates if you own points connect to it to the otherside that connects to your beachead

Edit: - Free cities runegates shouldnt count for territoy

These changes you should see more PvP happening fighting over control points instead of just flipping points where no one happens to be at/defending, you can also see on the map wether or not someone making a push towards your forts and able to muster a defence agaist it without it being flipped uncontested.
Ive spend alot of time capturing control points these last 2 campaigns and its rare you actually get a fight cause no one knows your doing it which is kinda boring. There not a whole lot of incentive for people especially unguided people to cap them either adding a small reward loot table may help that like a hand full of resources doesnt have to be much like even 10-20 or a small chance for a gem or mineral would go along way that or boose guard drop a little to be inline with mobs.


References
https://imgur.com/a/8oPtWj9


Fig 1:  (Red lines represent Connections that works both ways, Orange are one way connections these are connected from Beachhead runegates and Keeps, You can attack from castles but dont need surrounding points to assult keeps at siege times.
FrChwpq.jpg

Fig 2: Shows the supply lines have been cut and order can nolonger capture points using these locations so balance can take back this territory unless order can reestablish the supply line to the runegates
iO9IT9u.jpg

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was actually my presumption of how it was going to work when I was new to the game. Your design makes sense. My only critique would be to remove the outposts from this design and just keep it for forts and keeps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always post the image link (right-click the image and copy link) instead of the post so that image is shown directly.

EDIT:

Yep, this idea seems way better than the implementation we currently have. I just  hope the guys and gals at ACE used the one we have now as stopgap and are working on a better one.

Edited by BarriaKarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main issue is really : Lack of warnings.

 

We only get one when ppl are already capping and that is too late.

 

I do though agree with the idea/concept of this post... Well done

Edited by Soulreaver

Huginn ok Muninn, fljúga hverjan dag, Jörmungrund yfir; óumk ek of Hugin,, at hann aftr né komi-t, þó sjámk meir of Munin

Gathering of Ranger videos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Soulreaver said:

Main issue is really : Lack of warnings.

 

We only get one when ppl are already capping and that is too late.

 

I do though agree with the idea/concept of this post... Well done

the camps changing hands will add a buffer zone to the keep so that should give a little bit of warning :) since u could watch the camps change hands on the map if your paying attention could even get passive tree for scouting/tracking that may give you a head up when towers get taken


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I said this in feedback but didn't make nice photoshop mockups. Good job!

My version treats keeps a little different, as something you can always assault during the window:
 

On 12/20/2018 at 11:16 PM, PopeUrban said:

...

The tedium of outpost capping and how to define the front lines.

Outposts are fine, but they could benefit from more direction. currently there are so many in he world that they serve to diffuse players away from one another rather than funnel them toward one another and in to conflict.

Link outposts to forts, runegates, and other outposts sequentially to create "front lines" and clearly define relative "territory" to push players in to conflict.

Imagine a set of lines connecting all outposts. In order to attempt to cap an outpost it must be connected to something your faction already owns. Your faction always owns the runegates from its beach head. At the beginning of the campaign all outposts are considered neutral, and so teams must begin, naturally, by attempting to capture the outposts near their runegate. Once those are captures they can capture outposts near those outposts and so on until they get to a fort or keep. Forts require this outpost chain to be claimed, but after the initial capture keeps to not, effectively making siege times a way to get an alternate functional base from which to outpost cap.

For expansion in to other islands, factions must own the fort associated with that runegate, effectively making them owners of the link as well. This creates a natural expansion of territory which may splinter in multiple direction, and adds strategic context to ownership of all POIs beyond simple scoring. Is it better to chain cap directly to the heart of enemy territory for a more target rich environment of pois, or broaden their own territory in an effort to hald enemy incursion upon their POIs?

Players may attempt to decap enemy outposts they do not have links to as a form of sabotage, but may not cap outposts "behind enemy lines" so to speak.

This system creates a clear set of territory and battle lines that create clear, obvious natural regions of each map where players attempting to help their faction should go. As well, it creates a sense of progression as players may be progressing these links toward an objective (like a fort) and in general this links objectives together in to a coherant whole. You need outposts to capture forts, you capture more outposts to further secure forts. You want to have assets close to keeps during siege and you want to own keeps as they are effectively secondary beach heads.

This system can just as easily function in FFA campaigns by allowing players to construct outposts and automatically linking them based on proximity.

...

 

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

Hey I said this in feedback but didn't make nice photoshop mockups. Good job!

My version treats keeps a little different, as something you can always assault during the window:
 

 

You beat me to the posting! I had been writing up a very similar concept, which would define frontal and interior regions. Well, what can I add now, hmm. How about:

Use Delaunay triangulation among the spatial locations of the camps, outposts, forts, keeps, and portals to define a network of interconnections. Define the number of hops along edges of the network from the vertex nearest a player to the nearest one controlled by their own faction. When this distance is greater than one, give them a progressive "logistical" debuff, and any friendly player they fight a corresponding "logistical" buff. This is a fast, simple algorithm and easily precomputed at map generation, and distances updated only when vertex points change control (the distance metric for the entire map could be run in fractions of a second using Floyd-Warshall, for example). This would perhaps work better, if to gain this buff from a campsite/etc., the controlling faction had to place crafted supplies there, which would be destroyed when the camp/etc. is lost. This would mean that holding a camp, and especially a series of camps, builds up a stronger spatial interior position for your faction, not just granting a bit of score. It would mean that doing deep raids for ganking, harvest interruption, fortification destruction, or even to take control of rear area objectives would be at a significant disadvantage compared to the frontal 'unsafe' areas. Of course, my use of the terms 'safe' and 'unsafe' are only relative -- there are and would be no areas in the campaign that are truly safe.

The current battlefield is often spatially less coherent, which interferes with establishing an overall strategic picture organized on taking, holding, and fortifying ground. It would also be important to ensure that any changes along these lines did not make the game too static

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the game engine is more aware of parcels than lines, and parcels are limited to one capture feature each, so it may not be direct line, but adjacent parcels, that could be implemented.

Sort of how CoH did map areas controlled by a parcel.

iduhCCE.jpg

They could then possibly change the camp toast messages to be for all those in a "territory" area.  

 

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I think the game engine is more aware of parcels than lines, and parcels are limited to one capture feature each, so it may not be direct line, but adjacent parcels, that could be implemented.

Sort of how CoH did map areas controlled by a parcel.

iduhCCE.jpg

They could then possibly change the camp toast messages to be for all those in a "territory" area.  

 

 

there many ways to kinda simulate it, Get a buff on towers that means u can capture points X distance away from it for example another way, COH as u mention with parcels in another way although parcel may be a little big for it although u can always have it gotta capture majority camps on that tile/square to get the next one and so on.

Having a system where you have to systematically push a territory is a solid idea for crowfall and will go a long way how they implement if if they do though is up to them


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, veeshan said:

there many ways to kinda simulate it, Get a buff on towers that means u can capture points X distance away from it for example another way, COH as u mention with parcels in another way although parcel may be a little big for it although u can always have it gotta capture majority camps on that tile/square to get the next one and so on.

Having a system where you have to systematically push a territory is a solid idea for crowfall and will go a long way how they implement if if they do though is up to them

I think you misunderstood. 

Right now, each parcel can only have one capturable point, regardless of size.  When camps etc are close to each other, it's because they are on the edges of two adjacent parcels.  

It's one of the reasons the forts and such don't have defensive encircling towers for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt realise this post was here, love this idea and would love to see something like this in CF as it would stop the mad start campaign rush and give a slight warning as to when X faction is pushing where. 

Was also thinking of what would happen when X fort or keep is cut off from the supply? Should it eventually lose/go neutral after x time( Bar maybe keeps as it should have a storage/supply of X ?) 

Would be awesome to see something like this implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gready said:

Was also thinking of what would happen when X fort or keep is cut off from the supply? Should it eventually lose/go neutral after x time( Bar maybe keeps as it should have a storage/supply of X ?)

Having neutral camps/outposts/forts start hostile-neutral would be a good idea. With level-30's and imported gear, they wouldn't be more than a speed bump, but it would add a little threat to the environment. Having the stored supply be steadily drawn down by the NPC guards would be a neat addition, with them going hostile-neutral  when they run out. This would encourage gathering and resupply missions, which could provide roles for more people, and imagine this -- behind the lines ganking as a strategic interdiction mission!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, despite it being unpopular do to being a late addition to a pve game all of the open zone pvp mechanics from city of villains would make great additions to Crowfall.

Most of them involved a kind of fetch quest where players were encouraged to claim multiple pieces of a macguffin by either a key/lock or channel-the-object mechanism, and only after collecting the whole set could they take it to the final destination to claim the ultimate reward.

This setup encouraged roaming to intercept carriers, camping collection points, and battles for control of the final drop and did a good job of funneling PvP zone players in to one another because they had to visit the majority of pois in the zone if unopposed, or far less if actively winning fights and stealing them.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 30/12/2018 at 3:33 AM, Gready said:

Didnt realise this post was here, love this idea and would love to see something like this in CF as it would stop the mad start campaign rush and give a slight warning as to when X faction is pushing where. 

Was also thinking of what would happen when X fort or keep is cut off from the supply? Should it eventually lose/go neutral after x time( Bar maybe keeps as it should have a storage/supply of X ?) 

Would be awesome to see something like this implemented.

i thin it should go back to neutral over time its a great idea, should be after some time like 60 mins or so seem like ti be good.

Just think of the NPC getting hungry from no supplies so they went home to get food :P or wran out of ammo :P
Would be cool to tie it into archers have X ammo and if supplies get cut they shoot 100 arrows before they run out and go neutral :P but thats harder to code than say 60 min timers.

I would also like to see a way to spend gold at camps to upgrade guard ranks aswell as add new guards at forts/keeps on the wall for Coin.
Not many people out farming cause gold is rather not useful after the leveling stage and not a awhole lot on vendors atm

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎24‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 9:32 AM, Soulreaver said:

Main issue is really : Lack of warnings.

 

We only get one when ppl are already capping and that is too late.

 

I do though agree with the idea/concept of this post... Well done

In Daoc guilds could claim Keeps and Towers and when a guard dies it spammed the guild chat so everyone knew whatever was claimed was under attack. I hope in the future the same idea is implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't think they have the tech to make camps on various other parcels effect a fort on a separate fort parcel and I imagine it's no small ask to get this considering the procedural generation. 

About the best they could do is make a larger fort parcel and tie camps on THAT fort parcel to THAT fort. I'm not 100% sure they can have more than one capture point per parcel either so maybe there's not even tech for this. Not sure. 

Cool idea though but probably not feasible considering the cost of implementation. 

 

Edited by blazzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...