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

why are we fighting for points?

Recommended Posts

Maybe this has already be answered, and if so, i apologise for not reading about it. But this is part question and part suggestion, hence it is in this section.

Firstly, I am unsure why we are fighting for points. I know we get rewards, but the rewards seems to be determined by points. What we should be fighting for are resources.

My suggestion (and this links to other posts i've seen), is that the war should be fought for resources. The scoreboard should be about resources obtained throughout the campaign. How much resource is obtained by who. There are two main ways to gather resources. The first is the current way, gatherers go out, hit nodes, get materials, and bring it back to a base such as forts or keeps and craft items with it which is then use in the campaign to improve their fighting.

The second (and this is the suggestion part), I feel should be where there are several mechanics. I will start from the temple. This is the end point of where resources (more info later about what this resource is) will be brought to. Once resources are brought to the temple, the resources are considered safe and secure and can be distributed at the end of the campaign.

The Keep - This is the supply chain. The keep closest to the faction temple is the connecting supply chain. Resource caravans must pass through the keep before heading to the temple. if an enemy faction captures the keep, this breaks the supply chain and resources are unable to pass through to the temple to be secured.

The forts - The forts in the keep area can be temporary stops for the resources. As the resource caravan travels through the zones towards the temple, it is able to stop at a fort before moving on. Forts are also routes that resource caravan should pass through.

Both forts and keeps are storage area for resources. Forts will have a small storage area where once filled, resource caravans stops until the resource is moved on to the next fort/keep/temple along the route freeing up the storage. Forts can also be considered temporary storage, so if a caravan reaches a fort, but the fort gets captured by enemy faction, the resource caravan is considered lost or burned down during the fight. If the resource caravan is in a keep, it is considered as secured, but unable to move on until the keep is recaptured during the sieges.

Lastly, the adventure zone. This is where the resource caravan will begin from. Players will be able to gather materials from nodes and bring to the forts and use the materials farmed to create a caravan convoy. Player can then choose where this caravan convoy will go (such as the woods, spider valley or zombie valley). Players will escort the caravan, and once at the destination, gatherers can gather resources to fill up the convoy. PvP'ers can escort the convoy and gatherers and get PvP action by trying to prevent enemies from disrupting them. Once convoy is filled, they then escort the resource caravan back to the forts then keep then temple. Once secured, this resources are distributed as "scores" or resources which players will get at the end of the campaign.

Should the route be broken for the convoy (for example, the faction gathering not controlling any of the forts in the adventure zone), the the convoy has no destination to go to. As such, it will be stuck until the group recaptures a fort for the convoy to then start moving.

Distribution of resources can be split into the following:

A small percentage will go towards zone upgrades such as forts, keeps and convoy. forts upgrades may be things such as npc patrols. keeps could get additional guards. Keeps and forts can also be upgraded in ranks (this means starting with a lower rank keep or fort), and using resources to upgrade the rank of the forts or keeps. Convoy upgrades could be larger caravan (bigger capacity) so they do not have to go back and forth as often.

A large chunk of the materials gathered will go to the guilds involved based on who farmed what or who assisted with defense of the caravan. A smaller part of the farmed materials will go to the individuals.

Anyway, hope this suggestion makes sense. It's late for me so may not be written the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the win condition will provide rewards at the end right? if so, are the rewards resources? and if it is resources, wouldn't the suggestion in the opening post be a better option since you are fighting for resources. Resources gathered during campaign is the score (as in you can see which faction gathered the most resources)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sanfall said:

but the win condition will provide rewards at the end right? if so, are the rewards resources? and if it is resources, wouldn't the suggestion in the opening post be a better option since you are fighting for resources. Resources gathered during campaign is the score (as in you can see which faction gathered the most resources)?

Resources are only one possible reward. ACE has not answered the specifics of the first sanctioned campaign rewards. I personally suspect that all campaigns will have a certain category of rewards, and then special, sanctioned campaigns will have additional rewards.

Short answer, only ACE knows, we don't yet, but it will be something.

Share this post


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

Thematically it would make more sense for scoring to be based on resources. Crows gathering up resources and thralls from dying worlds is the main story of the game. Controlling territory in the dying worlds is just a means to that end.

Ugh, I hate it when you say poorly made socks I 100% agree with.  Can we ban Jah Pann?  Please?


This post was paid for by "Mandalore for Emulated CF Community Manager 2032™". 

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

Thematically it would make more sense for scoring to be based on resources. Crows gathering up resources and thralls from dying worlds is the main story of the game. Controlling territory in the dying worlds is just a means to that end.

I partly agree.  

I would personally like to see the territory capture mechanics have a palpable impact on resource gathering.  For example an extra plentiful harvest pip for working land you territorially control.

Then tie some scoring to how much material has been sequestered in the not built yet embargo. 

I also think knocking down/sacrificing hunger shards should play a much bigger role. 

One  problem with pure resource gathering as the only means to points, is that the largest guild will win, every single time, and players will avoid direct conflict in territory disputes and search for non-opposed locations to harvest from.

I think they started with the "easy" and obvious territory stuff, but should look at the other options to gain increasing influence.  

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 9:53 AM, KrakkenSmacken said:

I would personally like to see the territory capture mechanics have a palpable impact on resource gathering.  For example an extra plentiful harvest pip for working land you territorially control.

I saw this previously and didn't think much of it because I'm against the idea of an extra pip argument, mainly because I don't think you need to increase the extra pip. A fully skilled gatherer at winter has 5 pips if they use the right discipline, food and potion.

However, I do agree with territory control messing with harvest, and today it finally clicked for me, but instead of increasing the pip, I think it should suppress the plentiful harvest resource pips for other factions instead. This will actually be more of an incentive for people to control the area. If I can control your faction area, I can suppress you from getting the higher quality stuff, but at the same time, I can still get the higher quality stuff myself (without trying to increase drops from current 5.8 system).

This in turns means, people will put in more effort to ensure they are not debuffed as opposed to people who already have their stuff not caring if they get an extra resource pips or not. Basically, if no buff is the baseline, I see people put more effort to make sure they are not below baseline, as opposed to trying to get above baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sanfall said:

I saw this previously and didn't think much of it because I'm against the idea of an extra pip argument, mainly because I don't think you need to increase the extra pip. A fully skilled gatherer at winter has 5 pips if they use the right discipline, food and potion.

However, I do agree with territory control messing with harvest, and today it finally clicked for me, but instead of increasing the pip, I think it should suppress the plentiful harvest resource pips for other factions instead. This will actually be more of an incentive for people to control the area. If I can control your faction area, I can suppress you from getting the higher quality stuff, but at the same time, I can still get the higher quality stuff myself (without trying to increase drops from current 5.8 system).

This in turns means, people will put in more effort to ensure they are not debuffed as opposed to people who already have their stuff not caring if they get an extra resource pips or not. Basically, if no buff is the baseline, I see people put more effort to make sure they are not below baseline, as opposed to trying to get above baseline.

Welp, either way, but with the increase you could harvest the Hungershards for value, whereas now, there is not enough training/equipment to get them into pip range in winter.

So the time they are the most plentiful, and everything else is sub par, hunger could be the one thing you actively search out, on your own land.

If they were to go with the "penalty unless owned", they could even scale it on time.  So for example for every 4 hrs held, the team that held it would get +1 pip, up to a cap of the current 3. 

Flipping a parcel, or even just taking close parcels for a few minutes, would have a protracted palpable impact on resource productivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it's hunger shards, you should look at changing hunger shards mechanics and not plentiful harvest. Maybe hunger shards should work in reverse to everything else. Start with low amount of hunger crystal spawns nodes during spring, and towards winter you get more. Each season that passes by, the plentiful resource pips will also increase.

Either that or a node specifically for increasing hunger shards harvesting. But regular materials should not be changed just because of hunger shards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the other problem with buffing plentiful harvest pips is that this removes the need for skilling into gathering. A player skilled into the specialisation for gathering will have 5 pips in winter. If you are providing buffs, and as your second suggestion, more buffs the longer you control something, this removes any incentive to be skilled in gathering. This means your PvP'ers are able to gather just as good as your gatherers.

If you punish someone by reducing the pips, then this affects your gatherers, but doesn't affect pvp'er in terms of gathering since they sucked at it anyway. I agree that to prevent flipping, you need to control for a period of time however. If it gets flipped, there are no debuffs. After a certain time has passed, then the debuff is added. I don't believe this should be a stacking debuff however, but this can be open for discussion as to which implementation would be better.

You may argue that there is no incentive for PvP'er to then capture the points because it only affects gatherers, however, if your gatherers are down 1 pip in spring, they are getting lower quality materials already. Then the PvP'er will only get lower quality gear. So they will need to ensure that they control territory to ensure their gatherers are not debuffed when gathering so that they will be able to gather and craft better gear.

Edited by sanfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more saying to withhold the current buffs if you don't control the land.

Also, there is nothing preventing it from being tied to season.  So regardless of ownership, all plots get the +3 in spring.  Summer comes, and only the plots you have held for 6 hours (changed my time window in this example) have the +3.  Fall, and you have to hold for 18 hrs to get the buff, and maybe it caps at +2 regardless, and then in winter, you have to hold for 24hrs, and the buff is only +1.

Then the harvesters would still be better in the winter, but there would be a combat/control way to help them along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, lets do this.

Current system right now:

Spring - 3, Summer - 2, Fall - 1, Winter - 0 (Unskilled, Undiscipline)

Spring - 4, Summer - 3, Fall - 2, Winter - 1 (unskilled with discipline)

Spring - 5, Summer - 4, Fall - 3, Winter - 2 (unskilled, discipline, food buff)

Spring - 5, Summer - 5, Fall - 4, Winter - 3 (unskilled, discipline, food buff, potion)

Spring - 5, Summer - 5, Fall - 5, Winter - 4 (Partial skilled with discipline, food, potion buff)

Spring - 5, Summer - 5, Fall - 5, Winter - 5 (Fully skilled with discipline, food and potion buff)

 

Now, With your argument:

Spring -  5 (Capped), Summer - 5, Fall - 4, Winter - 3 (Unskilled, Undiscipline)

Spring - 5 (capped), Summer - 5 (capped), fall - 5, Winter 4 (unskilled, discipline)

Spring - 5 (capped), Summer - 5 (capped), fall - 5 (capped), Winter - 5 (unskilled, discpline + food buff)

Spring - 5 (capped), Summer - 5 (capped), fall - 5 (capped), winter - 5 (capped) (unskilled, discipline + food + potion)

There is no point going further as any unskilled gatherer will be capped so there is no point in specialising in gathering. I understand the numbers can be tweaked, but my point is that if you have a buff that provides plentiful resource pips, you are reducing the gap between pvp'er and gatherers. People who only skill in PvP should not be able to harvest just as good as people skilled in gathering.

 

With my argument for debuff but control added but only -1 pip (adjust numbers if you want it stackable):

Spring - 2, Summer - 1, Fall - 0, Winter - 0 (Unskilled, undiscipline)

Spring - 3, Summer - 2, Fall - 1, Winter - 0 (unskilled, discipline)

Spring - 4, Summer - 3, Fall - 2, Winter - 1 (unskilled, discipline, food)

Spring - 5, Summer - 4, Fall - 3, Winter - 2 (unskilled, discipline, food and potion)

Spring - 5 (capped), Summer - 5, fall - 4, winter - 3 (partial skill, discipline, food and potion)

Spring - 5 (capped, Summer - 5 (capped), fall - 5, winter - 4 (fully skilled, discipline, food and potion buff).

 

As you can see, if we add buffs, you reduce the needs for a gathering skill tree. That's wiping out the majority of exploration and it's specialisation. There would be no reason to focus on gathering. With a debuff, you are widening the gap between pvp'er and gatherer. Gatherer's also cannot gather as good a material if are gathering in territory they don't control. This means that gatherers will be hassling the pvp'er to go fight for control which generates pvp content.

If you argued for higher rank nodes when controlling a territory, I'm all for it. For example, if you are on a piece of land, and the nodes are rank 5, if you control it for a period of time, the rank increases, sure. that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are definitely not understanding what I am saying.  This is my suggested math.

Seasonable effects.

Spring - (+3), Summer - (+1), Fall - (+0), Winter - (-2) 

Ownership bonus Max (+1 for each 6 hours of ownership)

Spring - (0), Summer - (+1), Fall - (+2), Winter - (+3)

Final Cap

Spring - (+3), Summer - (+2), Fall - (+2), Winter - (+1) 

This would also ramp up the importance of holding territory by season.

Higher rank nodes have the potential problem of knocking out untrained players, or new players, from having the ability to harvest.  You need to get to a certain degree of skill to hit the higher end nodes, so if you push that up via ownership, they have to be careful not to push it completely out of range of the players it's supposed to be for.  The lesser trained new players.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. i'm definitely not understanding. +1 for each 6 hours, so doesn't matter what season it is, if you hold something for 6 hours, it is +1. if you hold something for 12 hours, it's +2?

I'm not sure how season spring went from 3 to 1 in summer right now but i'm assuming that is a change you are suggesting as the current system seems to be a -1 per season. So spring +3, summer +2, fall +1, winter 0 is the current system we are playing right now.

What would happen if this is a long campaign and spring lasts more than 1 week? does it become a +20 somehow? Is there a cap? I'm slowly understanding what you are trying to get at. Also, is this final cap for a fully skilled player using discipline for gathering and food and potion buff? or is this for unskilled, undiscipline, no buff from potion and food?

Edited by sanfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sanfall said:

ok. i'm definitely not understanding. +1 for each 6 hours, so doesn't matter what season it is, if you hold something for 6 hours, it is +1. if you hold something for 12 hours, it's +2?

I'm not sure how season spring went from 3 to 1 in summer right now but i'm assuming that is a change you are suggesting as the current system seems to be a -1 per season. So spring +3, summer +2, fall +1, winter 0 is the current system we are playing right now.

What would happen if this is a long campaign and spring lasts more than 1 week? does it become a +20 somehow? Is there a cap? I'm slowly understanding what you are trying to get at. Also, is this final cap for a fully skilled player using discipline for gathering and food and potion buff? or is this for unskilled, undiscipline, no buff from potion and food?

Yes, up to the cap which is the Ownership bonus max in the message above.  In spring you get nothing for owning, in summer the cap is +1 , fall +2 winter +3 so that the ownership matters more in winter. 

Winter has a penalty, it's not zero, you just can't see below zero.  So in winter, the best you could get from ownership is +1 total, after countering the -2 penalty, and then training kicks in to push you however high, above 1 you can.

Now do you understand what I am saying? 

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now i'm undersanding. although i didn't think winter was in the negative. i was farming in winter and +3 last campaign, and i should be at +4 in winter now. i'm working on the last plentiful harvest pip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...