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

The War Goes On! Campaign War Suggestions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

Priority List

  1. More meaningful goals built on top PPT

  2. Better Time management and Windows of Opportunity

  3. Improving Outposts, Forts, and Other Structures

  4. Strategy and Tactics

 

The current goals within the war are to obtain and hold onto a high point per tick (PPT). I personally feel this is a solid base, but by itself it is no different than many other games, like GW2 for example. My suggestions are to look into ways of providing higher incentive for Owning and Defending something. Create a struggle between what is worth holding onto and what is worth dropping. Create more unique ways of assaulting and capturing. I will provide examples throughout the rest of the post. In my mind, the most powerful components from this system will be the ones that direct player traffic to similar areas so that conflict can occur.

 

  • Owning a keep gives you access to all crafting stations (already implemented) and provides a special portal to a dungeon parcel that provides special materials, this is only accessible to the faction (or guild) owning the keep.

  • Owning a Fort gives you access to specific crafting stations and increases production, harvesting, etc in it’s area of influence or adjacent parcels

    • As an example, if a Fort is located in the Lumber Mill area of a forest it will have a woodworking and leatherworking tables to coincide with its surrounding resources. It provides a bonus pip in its area of influence meaning that holding this Fort in Fall/Winter is very beneficial. This also helps generate more activity in the area.

    • Alternate: Forts remain as strategic locations on the map but special outposts are now situated in the above examples.

  • Owning an outpost provides resupply stations inside the outpost. Bandage, food, etc. Finding someway to connect the outposts to the nearby forts and POIs would be best.

 

I believe that the incoming changes such as objects being worth more the longer they are held will help with targeting/incentive but that will still be towards PPT alone. With something similar to the above there are several intrinsic value systems that can be implemented to help create more conflict and incentive over certain areas. It would be an interesting observation for sure.

 

Another suggestion I would like to make revolves around time management and the overall respect on the players time spent in the game. We want as many players playing as much as possible but that time should be respectful of the fact that not everyone will have the time to play 24/7. Even so, the game shouldn’t just be catered to a certain time, but it should respect and make sure that the player is having as much fun during their time spent. Be that 1 hour or 10 hours. I would like to breakdown one example, and an example that I feel disrespects the time of the players. Outposts.

 

  • Capturing a fully captured outpost solo to full cap takes ~16 minutes

  • Capturing a fully captured outpost solo to capture state ~10 minutes

  • With an avg 39 outposts on a map this means 10.4 hours to full cap and 6.5 hours to just cap outposts that have been full capped.

 

This is an insane amount of time to be standing around. If the 10-15 minutes was fun or interesting this would be great! I would assume that the future warclans are going to assist in providing more interesting interactions at outposts but As Is this is very brutal to a players’ time. Even with the addition of more interesting mechanics I would suggest a few things to capturing in general.

 

  • Capping anything with a capture ring should have a standardized time disregarding the number of players within the ring (perhaps ~30 seconds, could be based on movement speed times)

  • Two contesting players (or NPC) within a ring should cause it to maintain its current status disregarding number of players within the ring

  • A standard cap time disregarding the number of players (promotes solo to small team roaming, shuns zerging)

  • Bake capture time into the act of pre-capture (the wall breaking, fighting guards, etc)

 

This can create more windows of opportunity to defend and it sets a standard for capturing. The above is primarily for forts and outposts but keeps are orthogonal to these. Currently a siege window begins at 9:30 ET. The capture goal (Tree of Life) is vulnerable for the duration of the siege. 15 minutes into the the siege safeguard objective (Bane Trees) appear and the defending team can eliminate these to stop the siege. This overall seems to work but the current issues are the length of the sieges. The HP of both of these objects are too low, and that seems to be understood based on the recent live stream. It also creates a very odd siege where the outcome of the siege can literally be 15 minutes. Sieges also suffer from a similar issue of respecting time as they are every night and the call to action is strong and very unsatisfying if a group of people log in to then log off 15 minutes later.

 

  • Potentially make Keep sieges Monday, Wed, Friday

    • Potentially rotate through keeps, Keep A on Monday, Keep B on Wednesday, Keep C on Friday

  • When a keep is taken a siege does not end

    • After a keep is taken it can be retaken until the siege timer has ended

  • Make attackers have to spawn Bane Trees, and all 3 are REQUIRED to deal damage to the life tree. Without the Bane Trees the Life Tree is safe

 

What this should do is make clear the objectives of a siege, provide layers of defense that must be protected and broken through, creating more consistent fights among players on the objectives. Provide chances for a comeback DURING the siege. This also helps with eliminating dominant strategies and 1 tricks. It creates a consistent schedules and it respects the time of the players allowing a breather between sieges, remember all of the forts and outposts are up 24/7.

second to last, but not least and the most difficult aspect is the positioning of parcels and forts/outposts. The procgen is great but there needs to be a more hand crafted ruleset for the procgen to follow. I know this is not easy, but it is still manageable.

 

  • Reduce outposts down to ~19 keeping it an odd number

  • Move forts into locations that foster confrontation

  • Incorporate forts into the special resource zones (lumber camp, mining camp, etc)

  • Set rules that only spawn outposts every X amount of parcels apart

  • Focus more outposts in locations where you want to generate traffic

  • Forts should be several parcels away from gates

 

lTNbvfYbQehEyWZn3GgYk64ZH-kdYarJjwEeYONL9fy0dxDOteGaxp1gBrXK9evoAxCQDuDA3fCcOlqEABcjvn1gUr20jehnShP1aYTKlSWA3m5Qg-WS4VctrrfFXWiQaVaFuR8v

 

The above image illustrates some potential relocation. The most important are the Forts. In this example the forts are too cluttered, especially with the Keep. The Western portion of the map is effectively pointless. IN THIS EXAMPLE, if the forts were moved to the new locations indicated by the blue lines there would be a bottleneck in how players can approach the fort. This leads to more traffic and that is not a bad thing. Some forts should be in more open areas. As a side note, the X refers to an outpost that would be removed, a O is an outpost that would remain or be moved.

 

Political Pressure Mechanic

Allow for the amount of "captures" a faction or guild controls to influence NPC prices/access in the Free City. This is a huge reason to maintain control over keeps and forts. A faction/guild that can control all three forts may get access to something special in the free city, maybe they are celebrated as the Leaders of the free city. The reward doesn't need to be intrinsic, it can be extrinsic.

Lastly, in an attempt to create fairness and less cheese, perhaps make logging out/death return you to the nearest Runegate ONLY. If you need narrative sell it that a vessels and crow can destabilize and it draws them to the gates.

 

Two Victory Conditions

 

  • Use the Current system of Victory Points using Outposts, Keeps, Forts, and Kills to calculate VP

  • Use a Sacrifice System that accumulates Sacrifice Points (SP)

    • Players Sacrifice Skulls, Rare Mob Drops, and Rare Harvest Item (these items are not used for anything other than sacrifice).

 

This merely provides multiple win conditions. A Faction/Guild could win both with VP taking priority.

 

---

I hope this is insightful and sparks a lot of thought! Feel free to tear it apart, add in your own suggestion. Pass on to Artcraft, etc. Would love to see some more ways to make the sieges and overall campaigns have more moment to moment action and provide various strategies thorough all the seasons.

TL;DR - Create goals by placing forts/outposts in better locations, give them benefits to those locations. Respect player time by putting a standard on capture times, make capturing more interesting, space siege times for keeps and provide more incentive to want to hold onto them. Provide better ways of defending and attacking keeps. Add in some extra intrinsic and extrinsic systems.

 

---

Extra

  • Look to adding in Points Per Kill (PPK) to the system to allow additional points from factions (or guilds) that are winning conflict but may not be capping forts constantly. I don't recommend that it overtake capturing, just accents.
Edited by KanashiGD

Game Designer | KanashiGD.com | @KanashiGD

Elf of Hy'shen Avari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your suggestion to make keeps rotate and go live one at a time would destroy the very strong anti-zerg mechanic of simultaneous keep sieges.  

A faction that is snowballing in numbers and points can't be everywhere at once. The effect only get stronger the more keeps on a map.

Simultaneous keep siege should absolutely be retained for the 3 faction ruleset to reduce faction snowballing/Uncle Bob issues.

Share this post


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

Your suggestion to make keeps rotate and go live one at a time would destroy the very strong anti-zerg mechanic of simultaneous keep sieges.  

A faction that is snowballing in numbers and points can't be everywhere at once. The effect only get stronger the more keeps on a map.

Simultaneous keep siege should absolutely be retained for the 3 faction ruleset to reduce faction snowballing/Uncle Bob issues.

Potentially yes. This highly depends on the population of players. With a higher population (which I hope is the case) all keeps open works more because the numbers can be spread. I disagree with the notion that rotations promotes zerging. After these few campaigns I have observed that a very tiny group remains at a keep and a zerg goes to another keep. The zerg will always exist and all a rotation would serve is directing the traffic into one area for a large fight over a single objective for the night.

The Uncle Bob argument is weak here because the numbers would definitely be changed if a keep was being held for more than a day.

Note that I'm ok with either way, that suggestion has been brought up a few times so I included it as a potential. I would say focus more on "does this create more interesting conflict over the keep or does it bloat the map due to a high amount of traffic."

Perhaps 2 keeps are up on a day and it alternates each active siege. 


Game Designer | KanashiGD.com | @KanashiGD

Elf of Hy'shen Avari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On your suggestion, Largest Faction "X" can put it's entire Zerg at the only keep open that day under your suggestion and win every single fight day after day.

Simultaneous keeps means the days they leave to few behind, Faction X loses a keep. Geography, movement speed, communications, general chaos, all work to prevent Faction X from being able to win everywhere at all times.

Any idiot can drop a Zerg at the only location on entire map going live that night.  

Share this post


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

On your suggestion, Largest Faction "X" can put it's entire Zerg at the only keep open that day under your suggestion and win every single fight day after day.

Simultaneous keeps means the days they leave to few behind, Faction X loses a keep. Geography, movement speed, communications, general chaos, all work to prevent Faction X from being able to win everywhere at all times.

Any idiot can drop a Zerg at the only location on entire map going live that night.  

The concept of 3 factions plays into the fact that if a single faction is stronger than the other two, that those two will band together to take on the stronger faction. If that isn't happening that is not a system issue, that is a communication issue. Nothing is stopping faction A from working with faction B to make sure faction A gets a Keep. 

If the game remains as is right now, and we went to a rotational system I agree there would be issues. It would be very unfair, especially with how Bane Trees function. Therefore potentially changing to a rotational system hinges on the fact that there are orthogonal designs that are meant to facilitate fair combat within that area. Holding Forts, Outpots, etc can all contribute to spreading out the force on the map.

This is just a suggestion, not a right or wrong answer. I think the game can easily function as scheduled days (even every day, though exhausting) with all keeps unlocked on those days, but it is also worth exploring what could be if sieges were map wide and not map(s) wide. I don't see Artcraft changing this to be honest, but it never hurts to bring it up. The goal would never be to promote more zerging, and as is now that is basically all that happens on most nights. In fact once the zerg on the map has cleared the Bane Trees, which generally happens at the same time, there is no more siege and we just fight each other which isn't even part of the siege anymore....just fights.


Game Designer | KanashiGD.com | @KanashiGD

Elf of Hy'shen Avari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The placement of outposts and forts seems a bit too random really.  They don't seem to have any real strategic value so cap them for point and move on, but they don't seem to have any significance in terms of terrain control.  In fact there seems to be no possibility of terrain control whatsoever.  The forts also seem to not have any guards covering the outside and the inner ones can be bypassed.  I would like to see them become meaningful objectives in their own right and an actual challenge to take down.  Hell, even just putting doors on the central keep would be a huge improvement so you couldn't just charge in.  Have outposts spawn more densely near a fort and have the fort spawn on some sort of elevated or controlling piece of terrain would be huge too.  Put the fort at a bottleneck on the campaign map or something so you have to pass through it to access the other side or detour through a whole other map to come at it via runegate from the rear.

 

Didn't mean to just restate some of the OP's points, I skimmed through his post but managed to bypass where he commented on some of the same things, my bad.

Edited by X-Jack
I'm either blind or can't read ;P

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...