Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Pann

The Strategy Game - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Curious to know if anyone has thought about the people playing that are outside the NA or EU time-zone where the server is hosted? I'm expecting that ASIA/Oceanic players will be disadvantaged until there is a server in the region.  By definition they would all be 'nightcappers', when playing typical after hours or weekend times.

Would love to know Raph Koster's view on the whole strategy game issue.

Edited by Axio_
Added commentry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Axio_ said:

Curious to know if anyone has thought about the people playing that are outside the NA or EU time-zone where the server is hosted? I'm expecting that ASIA/Oceanic players will be disadvantaged until there is a server in the region.  By definition they would all be 'nightcappers', when playing typical after hours or weekend times.

Would love to know Raph Koster's view on the whole strategy game issue.

I have to agree that the bonus points mechanic is the only way that can help offset the "night capping".  I cant think of any other way that would really be fair to players worldwide that have to join other servers simply because of their geographical area or latency issues. For example, I am in the Middle East and when I load up Crowfall around 6pm my time, EU server will have about 30 players, and NA will have about 130 players. I imagine that NA has more because of these people playing late into the night (which also defeats the argument for more restrictions on night capping). It makes more sense for me to take a hit on latency and play on the NA server than it does to join the low population EU server. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, more artificial restrictions on okay because someone can't be awake at certain times? Points are worthless yet people are so worried about what happens at night with backcapping. 

I swear people these days can't handle anything without being told what to do, when they can do it, and what restrictions there must be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to defend a fort, we have  to be aware of the attack and have time to go defend.

currently we dont.

2 days ago we were on a map, saw a fort under attack, when we arrived, they where gone.
A scout give us indication that they where going to the nother fort, but we dont arrived in time.

they were 20, we were 20 at the beginning of the marathon, but only 7 ( from 3 guilds ) when they jump on us after capping the fort.

After launch, scout will be available ( i hope so ) but not in alpha, and never 24h a day.

My solution : 

  • the fort cannot be attack while walls are full
  • the walls cannot be down while the nearest camp/tower is to the defendant.
  • camp/tower launch an alert : a vertical red light while under attack

pros :

  • people got much time to defend
  • attack is not much slower and available 24h a day
  • you can still fake an attack to lure some defender
  • you still need scout to count enemies
  • people need to stay on fort for 5 minutes to take all the camps

cons :

  • it's like an assisted mod
  • harder to go sneaky
  • not newbie friendly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SoBaDStrange said:

There is currently no incentive to defend.

We also need relics or faction buffs or zone buffs for controlling objectives. 


 

Yep and this system further compound that fact, This system as it stand by it self promotes avoiding fbattles, there no reason to defend and points in the middle of no where that has less traffic is more valuable so basicly your promoted to back cap point that no one will ever be defending. the only good thing with the system as it stand now is the castle because there on a timer and cant be back capped.

The game needs a territory system of some kind where u cant back cap the point system would go amazing with such a system too. Imagine if u cant capture other tiles unless u have a tile touching it this means back line point will be accumulating alot of points since they cant be captured. This promotes people pushing the terriroty line to the back to try and get those juicy built up camps and promotes people trying to prevent that cause the amount of point are back there. It also promotes conflict because people can see where the front line and where the pvp is at so people looking for fight will migrate there.
Also means u cant instant cap forts and would have to push the territory to it allowing defenders time to mount a defence to actually defend it.
As a catch up mechanic it doesnt realy do a whole lot either since the winning side isnt gonna stop capping in winter so if the other 2 factions are behind and capping as often as the winner the gap between the point wont change at all.
Personally i would like to see a system where player kills would provide score (On a 30min cooldown per person so cant camp same person) so player who dies gets a debuff for 30 minutes so they dont contribute to faction score when somone kills them. You can only score points from faction ahead of yours so loosing faction deaths dont give anyone else points 2nd place only get points off first and first can get kill score off anyone. This allows for loosing faction to close the gap via kills since they have 2 sources to get it where winner doesnt. You can have players higher on the leader board worth more points when u kill them aswell so killing key players are worth much more than somone not contributing to the war.

Overall the system doesnt do a whole lot to fix the problem alone however with a territory system to stop back caping and a method for loosing faction to close the gap it would become an amazing point system but till then it poretty rubbish imo

 


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

Nah, night capping is a real issue.

I for one quite like the idea someone proposed some time ago of scaling points based on the active population. I think no one would have a issue with that? Risk vs reward. Playing off-hours has less risk, so less rewards it is.

its not realy an issue all factions have night time players instead of 100 players for example though during the day on all factions it be 20 on each fastion doing it instead.
one faction doesnt have a majority night time players and if they did there day time crew would be lower so they wouldnt be able to compete during the day so thats there catch up time. problem will only come when one faction has much more active players than the other factions if the population the same in all faction/activity night time not an iussue cause there day time is weaker.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Aedius said:


My solution : 

  • the fort cannot be attack while walls are full

Could considering making fort wall require siege equipment of some kinda to destroy like catapults rather than auto attacks.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tinnis said:

i'd like to hear about whats going on design wise with fog of war / cartography and map exploration

This is my most anticipated feature. I hope we hear more soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jah said:

Actually, their time is often more valuable than yours. They can cap stuff and expect to hold it for longer because there are fewer players on to backcap it right after.

Similar to how harvesting during off-hours tends to be more productive because there is less competition.

There also less people to cap it in the first place. there nothing stopping ur faction lower night population to recap something another faction lower population took. they just cant be bothered.
Its not realy an issue if the factions are balanced playerbase if one faction has twice the amount of people than the other there be a larger night time force however there also be a larget day time force so it doesnt matter anyway cause they just zerg the point 24/7 anyway in comparison to enemy faction.

The fact is if the factions are rather balanced player base then night time capping is the exact same as day time capping just small fights for them. its juts day time in miniature form i can also tell u right now keeps dont flip at all during night time due to needing alot more player to take them than in 5.8 which in the current player base we dont realy have at those times (normal 25-40 people on the server after people go to sleep) and alot fo that are people who didnt log off :P the keeps dont flip at night the last person to cap them before prime time peopel sleep will keep them the whole night which power to them. Balance also log in earlier this campaign to recap them before anyone else to get the extra cap points, early bird gets the worm i guess, this probs contributed the most to the points atm tbh than.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, veeshan said:

The game needs a territory system of some kind where u cant back cap the point system would go amazing with such a system too. Imagine if u cant capture other tiles unless u have a tile touching it this means back line point will be accumulating alot of points since they cant be captured. This promotes people pushing the terriroty line to the back to try and get those juicy built up camps and promotes people trying to prevent that cause the amount of point are back there. It also promotes conflict because people can see where the front line and where the pvp is at so people looking for fight will migrate there.

I have been thinking the same thing would be very interesting. I see It being very similar to Risk you can't take a territory or tile you are not connected with. 

Share this post


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

there nothing stopping ur faction lower night population to recap something another faction lower population took. they just cant be bothered.
Its not realy an issue if the factions are balanced playerbase if one faction has twice the amount of people than the other there be a larger night time force however there also be a larget day time force so it doesnt matter anyway cause they just zerg the point 24/7 anyway in comparison to enemy faction.

I'm not talking about faction balance.

1 hour ago, veeshan said:

 the keeps dont flip at night the last person to cap them before prime time peopel sleep will keep them the whole night which power to them. Balance also log in earlier this campaign to recap them before anyone else to get the extra cap points, early bird gets the worm i guess, this probs contributed the most to the points atm tbh than.

This is what I am talking about. Being the "last person to cap before prime time people sleep" or "first to log in before anyone else" tends to get you more points for a capture. Night-capping is often more rewarded by the points system than prime-time capping because you'll tend to hold the point for longer with a lower population.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My preference would be to totally de-focus any balance concerns with points accumulation in the Faction CWs and redirect that time/energy/thought cycles on Dregs design and system-creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Night Capping is just a symptom of the greater problem: Defending Forts is generally a waste of time and energy. It's far more efficient to wait til a force moves on and recap it, the change to points don't change that strategy much (it does encourage going for back-line forts that may have been sitting in a faction's back-pocket most of the campaign, which is a nice incentive). Sure it helps take some of the edge off the low to high pop times, but it doesn't really solve the issue of circle capping til one side gets bored/runs out of time and logs off.

We've seen several really good Siege nights where lots of folks show up and have some fights with real objective based play. The ways keeps work encourages fun and engaging PvP interactions. The way forts work encourages avoiding PvP and capping them as often as you can at your leisure, if that can be changed somehow the whole dynamic will change and hopefully dispel/reduce any high/low pop timing issues.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Duffy said:

Night Capping is just a symptom of the greater problem: Defending Forts is generally a waste of time and energy.

Sorry, I dont remember how scoring work exactly, but dont people get more points the longer they hold it? Or are the points fixed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The points for holding are a fixed number times the season multiplier (winter has the largest multiplier). While the same faction holds a capture point across multiple ticks it accumulates a bonus pool of points that can be claimed by whatever faction steals that capture point next. I don't recall the exact amount but I feel like its roughly 20% of what is generated every point tick goes into the pool, I think it's mentioned in the OP article.

 

The pool system does work out well, as of last night's score 2nd and 3rd place could entirely swap positions solely on a keep changing hands due to the bonus pools accumulating from the keeps staying in their starting faction's hands. Combined with the late season multiplier it seems to be keeping the scoring closer, albeit not quite resolving the lack of player interactions around forts.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sharkbait said:

I have been thinking the same thing would be very interesting. I see It being very similar to Risk you can't take a territory or tile you are not connected with. 

Same here, i hadn't played for 6 months and when i saw capture points i was like "cool there must be territory control then" and was really disappointed to see none. I'm really looking forward to this kind of system, this gives players clearer objectives and allows for easier understanding of the strategy ongoing if you wanna help defend or attack. Problems like what has been told about defenders running behind attackers would be prevented as much as possible

Share this post


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

I'm not talking about faction balance.

This is what I am talking about. Being the "last person to cap before prime time people sleep" or "first to log in before anyone else" tends to get you more points for a capture. Night-capping is often more rewarded by the points system than prime-time capping because you'll tend to hold the point for longer with a lower population.

Then could it simply be the problem is more the lower playerbase in pre alpha testing, if the population was lets say 3 times what it is now there would still be enough population to cap points in the off peak times and not have them sit over night like they do.
 


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been stated several times already. People who play during prime time--an arbitrary number represented by the population's numbers peaking according to their day time schedules with jobs/school/etc that allow them all to be on for a duration at once--their time is not more valuable than others. Which I point out because any system trying to place greater emphasis on one time frame over another isn't taking into account the changing nature of schedules, especially based on weekends/holidays/gaining or losing players. I don't care what argument you want to use to pretend otherwise. I am a late night person, the time I put in is just as valuable as anyone else.

Furthermore, this restricts the power in the players hand to choose to be more active at a certain time for strategic values. We seen this quite a lot in Shadowbane. If a larger force was attacking a smaller guild, but that larger force had more players on during the evening rather than late night, the defending guild could try a strategy of allowing the bane to occur late night, hoping that some of the attacking guild's members wouldn't be on because of real life schedules. They could get their guild to commit to a later night defense, and some people could change their schedules to accommodate.

This is a video game that needs to stand alone from concepts such as players schedules and allow for the same time of play regardless throughout the full day/night, except for concerns such as keeps because we cannot choose the time for the bane to go live. This gives the players the most control to choose how their time will best be spent. Is there a chance that your faction could catch up and overtake another factions? How about asking more of your guild members if they could possibly make room to be on a certain time to make a late night push to capture a bunch of things.

People can change schedules. They can decide if instead of 6 pm - 12 am they play 10 pm - 4 am. And this should not be restricted because someone thinks because the server is Virginia EAST that the most impact needs to happen from 6 pm EST - 12 am EST. Not everyone on the server are near eastern standard time or even in the same country for that matter.

Night-capping 

As Veeshan already stated, night-capping issues doesn't like in the fact that there is the ability to night cap, but that current populations do no support the numbers to have people take forts at night. With the changes to it is much harder to take a fort with a smaller group. But that does NOT mean that all factions aren't having the same numbers on during those times. Which gives every faction the same ability to accomplish any  task. The issue lies in the absurd idea that if you take a fort, literally minutes later, another force can roll in and take it back. There is no permanence, there is no semi permanence, and there is nothing keeping those people from being able to roll in and do that except if their group can handle the guards.

Forts

Back-capping forts is boring game-play, plain and simple. It's trash that kept me from playing WvWvW in GW2 when that came out; the moment I seen that first objective taken right after capping it in the first place. It's what makes ESO's PvP trash. I think capturing things for points in the first place is just boring game-play for PvP, but at least if you chase points it shouldn't be a never ending dog chasing it's tail moment from no permanence.

There is literally no incentive to build up the walls for a fort, because NORMAL PLAYER WEAPONS can hack them down in moments. It takes some actual work to build those things up, unless you had the foresight to spirit bank a LOT of timber and boulders. Then in comes a small group bashing on a corner with their normal weapons invalidating all that works in moments. 

While they can also teleport through walls, I don't think that kind of game-play in necessarily bad, as it takes a specialized type of group to do this, whom may not have access to a great composition once inside to take the fort that easily. In Shadowbane it was much easier to bypass walls with Wizard's group teleport, Fury's group flight, or personal teleport. But then they weren't capturing anything by  doing that either.

Walls need to ONLY be damaged by siege equipment OR some new type of siege disciplines which would allow someone to buff themselves to allow their weapons to attack the wall, or maybe buff the group to do the same. I think letting them apply this debuff to the wall itself would lead too easily into multiple groups abusing only 1 person having the discipline.

Rolling vulnerability is an iffy thing. Big fights are fun, but turning gaining points into never ending big fights against people could easily burn them out on playing the point capture game. It's all find when once a night you have this huge, fun siege battle against many opponents (crappy performance aside). But when you have that, and every single fort fight become the same because the fort can only be hit at a specific time, this will draw in the keep siege size forces for all these events without getting keep sized siege rewards. I get it, people want more reasons to fight. But I don't necessarily think ACE needs to force this by coding it into the game. Other options to slow the back-capping for forts would be better, as I will outline below.

Outposts

I'm totally against needing to take outposts just to be able to attack forts. I get it that people need more time to response, but there are other things that can go into make fort harder to just steamroll.

1) Having it so that the maps generate a certain amount of outposts around each fort, so that in every situation there will be 4-8 outposts directly linked to what affects the fort.

2) Now that every fort has a certain number of outposts that directly affects them. Make it so that these outposts buff the defenses of the fort. 

3) The guards in the forts have a base rank. Each linked outpost you control will +1 to the rank of guards AND add more guards in general.

  • All outposts = R10 guards in center cap area, R10 guards in the fort confines, R10 guards in corner archer towers, R10 guards on wall catwalks.
  • No outpost = R6 guards in center cap area only
  • Half outposts = R8 guards in center cap area, fort confines
  • etc

4) Balance it how it makes sense. But the idea here is if you are a big group, you can roll in and maybe fights the R10 guards as they are, using siege buffed weapons to get past walls and fighting through R10s and players who defend to cap. 

5) NOW it's yours, but instead of running off to capture the next fort, you will--if you didn't elect to capture outposts first--capture the linked outposts to completely buff your guard defenses up. You will build the walls because they will actually be worth the effort to do it and make sure the fort is as good as it can be, before running off til the next one.

6) Or, if it's late night and groups can't handle R10 guards like that, a smaller groups can run around capturing the linked outposts first, debuffing the fort defenses to be weak enough for a smaller force to take. But NOW the messages saying you are losing outposts alert people who are online, and they have plenty of time to arrive to fight because they have the time it takes to take all the outposts, beat down the wall, cap and build them back up to respond to the attackers.

7) This makes it a choice on what fort you want to take, the kind of force needed to take the fort, the choice in how much defenses your group can handle while possibly fighting players at the same time. And now gives a reason to build walls back up, and build up your defenders, without locking out smaller groups from being able to fight for the forts at night.

8) If you don't build up the walls, then the outposts can't spawn the tower and wall guards to defend. Which means if you want the most defended fort before leaving it, you will need to build up the walls in addition. But if you are a small group and building up the walls are too much for the size of the group, you can still have all the outposts generate stronger guards for center capping area and fort confines. Or you can get all the timber and boulders you will need and bring it with you, hoping you can build the walls once you get it (this is obviously thinking past the point spirit banking is fixed).

Now there is something in place to delay the fast back-capping of forts already taken, and give time to defenders to respond to an attack call. You can make strategic choices to how much defense you want to leave to keep the fort from being retaken so easily so you can move on slower/faster to the next spot to do the same. It also alerts what fort might be the next target based on proximity to another fort or runegate.

Giving players choices without forcing specific times only that things can be vulnerable is much more interesting and fun gameplay than giving just another keep type defense window that will draw the whole server into massive protracted fights. Not every pvp instance needs to be a huge fight between everyone. Forts are not meant to draw this type of fighting.

I feel fixing forts and connected outposts with this kind of system can accomplish what is needed, without just making it so that outposts make a fort vulnerable period. Means massive groups can take take a fort quicker, while smaller groups have to go through the whole process to take a fort at night, giving people much longer to respond.

Conclusion

Even with the above mentioned changes, this is based on ACE making people even want points. I'm a firm believer in that players should make the reason for pvp,  and pvp for pvp sake. But having the mechanics in game to invite pvp will only entice people if there is a reason for it. If winning the campaign with 3 million points at the end means nothing but bragging rights, many people are going to ignore the system and not care about capping anything, regardless of what you put in place for day time capping, night time capping, or the argument people have for why they think the point gains are fair.

Population plays a big part of what's going on. And unless the numbers are completely imbalanced, there is no different from the forces available during the day and those available at night. I don't think night time capping is the issue people think it is, and even if it's contributing factor is because people aren't compelled to bother doing anything at night. So it leaves what the day time people did during the evening to pop on in the morning and pick up. This could completely change, given a reason to even care about what your point score is and will almost certainly compel guilds to start to play with gaming schedules to take advantage of these things. And there should NOT be a restriction from this kind of strategy, or having people on at night who are not EST people.

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...