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

Tyranny (a conditioning mechanic)

Recommended Posts

Tyranny as a concept would be a debuff applied faction/guild/alliance wide. This debuff would build up anytime a victory is won by a team that already controls a majority of the campaign. Think of it like dishonorable kills -- a consequence of driving more "unfair" outcomes in the path to glory. This would be because the faction holding the majority of settlements (or it could be point based) would simply be depriving enemies the opportunity to compete by destroying access to settlements or POIs necessary to progress. No one is saying the GOAT, BMOC, straight-up DNA-based WINNERS shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of their... advantage...but this idea is meant to reflect some of the real world consequences dominion to such a scale would have... and hopefully make for a more enjoyable outcome in any campaign.

So what would Tyranny be in effect? Over time inharmonious actions would create a compounding effect with associated consequences (debuffs). Upon reaching certain thresholds this would begin to effect the faction in a number of ways. For example;

First rank Tyranny could apply a debuff to all thralls employed by the faction, reducing their added benefits. If they are helping to automate or speed up production then that would be reduced.

Second rank Tyranny would then compound the first debuff, increasing the reduction even further, as well as increasing any associated upkeep for the thralls (acting as an abstraction of turn over/attrition)

Third rank Tyranny, would broaden this impact to also drive the efficacy of resource gains from POIs (overall dissatisfaction with the tryannical leaders)

The fourth and final rank of Tyranny would then broaden this effect to any agricultural or animal husbandry production (if it exists, otherwise rank 3 would be max)

 

Tyranny as an idea isn't meant to be a fix all, and obviously some tyrannical factions will do everything they can to maintain their grip on power even if it means maintaining a more burdensome and inefficient heirarchy, but that's the conquerors cost. 

Additional ways to give this more nuance would be to have settlements reduce their Tyranny over time by adding a loyalty score based on the duration a settlement is under that faction's control. For instance, if taking a fort would be a matter of reclaiming a holding that was previously "loyal" then there would be no impact to that faction's Tyranny level.

Thoughts?

Edited by Lightsig
Posted on phone -- lots of typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what if a guild took a bunch of land at the start then got teamed by everyone in the server but everyone on the server agreed to NOT destroy any of their holdings, just attack anyone who leaves their keeps and cities, and siege the cities bringing them to the brink of destruction without delivering the final blow, what would the "tyrannical" guild do to defend themselves? compound debuff after debuff to fight a war they cant win? The loyalty thing is some way to counter it i guess but it still leaves holes, the winning team isnt allowed to win for x amount of weeks? same problem as before or if its just a few days then it does nothing to fix the supposed "problem", i guess i dont really see what the problem here is nor understand how any measure taken wouldnt be immediately exploitable and ruin the political throne war we're supposed to have


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Staff said:

so what if a guild took a bunch of land at the start then got teamed by everyone in the server but everyone on the server agreed to NOT destroy any of their holdings, just attack anyone who leaves their keeps and cities, and siege the cities bringing them to the brink of destruction without delivering the final blow, what would the "tyrannical" guild do to defend themselves?

If they let them hold onto those holdings they would be gaining both loyalty and points. There also wouldn't be any tyranny gains, but they would have to effectively maintain that hold without other factions gaining loyalty somewhere else and mounting the offense where the larger faction might be vulnerable.

18 hours ago, Staff said:

compound debuff after debuff to fight a war they cant win?

Overall it would depreciate some of that faction's gains if they continued excising the loyal holdings of smaller factions.

18 hours ago, Staff said:

The loyalty thing is some way to counter it i guess but it still leaves holes, the winning team isnt allowed to win for x amount of weeks? same problem as before or if its just a few days then it does nothing to fix the supposed "problem"

The loyalty would theoretically act as insulation from tyranny so that short term captures aren't treated with the same significance as an established faction holding.

18 hours ago, Staff said:

i guess i dont really see what the problem here is nor understand how any measure taken wouldnt be immediately exploitable and ruin the political throne war we're supposed to have

The issue here is that some portion of players will give up if there are too few ways forward. Players should always have some play against larger factions snowballing the campaign anyways, and even if it doesn't dramatically change who is on top it does allow for there to be more players, as well as a greater variety of players, on the bottom that stay in the shuffle.

It's better to maintain more players in total for the health and longevity of the game. We don't want to end up an accidentally-more-niche-than-intended community if the game ultimately appeals to too few people, otherwise what sense of a kingdom is there for a throne to have any significance in the first place?

Edited by Lightsig
Extra word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, as mentioned here 

We could also add a way for smaller factions to generate Tyranny as well.

Perhaps by using seasonal thresholds to provide a window where gods might "intervene" offering a means of retribtution towards a larger faction. Sacrificing a holding to the God's and condemning it to the hunger could also generate tyranny to curtail any foreseeable abuses of overutilizing such a mechanic, though I have yet to conceive of or offer up what specific benefit could be provided.

I also don't yet know how large of a role the gods will play in campaigns, or if they will just be a smaller game loop for individuals to have as a time sink progression, but this would be a cool area to explore leveraging the game's lore and adding to overall immersion of the setting.

 

Edited by Lightsig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's an interesting idea, I just don't think people would be able to stomach getting the debuff applied to themselves. I think it will be viewed as a punishment and not a deterrent. 

As in the other thread, I just think it's a vastly superior idea to have a mechanic on the victory condition. So, in campaign, leaders and guilds need to make serious decisions about who they should ally with and if they should leave their alliance and join another, and so on. Not temporary, not combat related, but strategic.

Can you imagine the politics of needing to argue between nation leaders and subguilds as to whether it makes more sense for a powerful, small subguild to leave and take a lower position but better proportions, as opposed to staying with a large nation that does not pull their weight equally? I can. And I think it could totally work. 

In my experience, political intrigue and frustration is going to have more longevity than direct game mechanic intervention. Let us have to be smart about how we play, who we score points for, and who we keep in our guilds and nations.

 


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


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

I think it's an interesting idea, I just don't think people would be able to stomach getting the debuff applied to themselves. I think it will be viewed as a punishment and not a deterrent. 

As in the other thread, I just think it's a vastly superior idea to have a mechanic on the victory condition. So, in campaign, leaders and guilds need to make serious decisions about who they should ally with and if they should leave their alliance and join another, and so on. Not temporary, not combat related, but strategic.

Can you imagine the politics of needing to argue between nation leaders and subguilds as to whether it makes more sense for a powerful, small subguild to leave and take a lower position but better proportions, as opposed to staying with a large nation that does not pull their weight equally? I can. And I think it could totally work. 

In my experience, political intrigue and frustration is going to have more longevity than direct game mechanic intervention. Let us have to be smart about how we play, who we score points for, and who we keep in our guilds and nations.

 

a reasonable and logical assessment, you have jumped up 134 spaces on the dregs target list accordingly 


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, McTan said:

I think it's an interesting idea, I just don't think people would be able to stomach getting the debuff applied to themselves. I think it will be viewed as a punishment and not a deterrent. 

As in the other thread, I just think it's a vastly superior idea to have a mechanic on the victory condition. So, in campaign, leaders and guilds need to make serious decisions about who they should ally with and if they should leave their alliance and join another, and so on. Not temporary, not combat related, but strategic.

Can you imagine the politics of needing to argue between nation leaders and subguilds as to whether it makes more sense for a powerful, small subguild to leave and take a lower position but better proportions, as opposed to staying with a large nation that does not pull their weight equally? I can. And I think it could totally work. 

In my experience, political intrigue and frustration is going to have more longevity than direct game mechanic intervention. Let us have to be smart about how we play, who we score points for, and who we keep in our guilds and nations.

 

The game already leaves a lot to player autonomy, too much to feel like a game imo, but I understand there are many systems of impact yet to be implemented. This makes it somewhat difficult to crystal ball how experiences will change with those additions. I also understand I represent a different cohort of players than the ex-SB crowd, but admittedly I'm for just as many tools to be provided to players to structure their own outcomes as I am for putting in place bumpers like this that ensure an enjoyable experience from the top to bottom of player-made hierarchies.

I think it is worth acknowledging that a lot of player frustration is being encountered within the campaign loop itself, not solely with the near non-existent rewards that are expected to be provided at each campaign's end. While the structure of hypothetical reward distribution is a great place to look at maintaining a positive outcome from one campaign to the next, I see a lot of frustration from players about the way things are playing out in the campaigns, and it is my estimation that those negative feelings and the underlying holes in the design will be greatly exacerbated once we have the chad campaign mode -- the dregs. I feel this is especially true if we expect the game to maintain healthy campaigns that last for multiple months on end.

We might be insulated by enough like-minded backers right now to use the "git gud" response to new players but I think if this is a common enough impression that newcomers are having then it is gauranteed to be a legitimate problem facing the game at launch where high-level insights from the current backers are likely to be overlooked by new players simply excited for a new PvP-focused MMO. My take is, if players feel punished by gamification then they should probably try to see the other side of that experience which is players feeling punished by a lack of gamification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to add that while I agree wholeheartedly that victory conditions will do a lot to drive player behaviors, it would be best to avoid anything too convoluted. It's better to have scaling granularity in rewards than to dramatically move the goal posts based on the distribution of players across factions. Drama and politics would ensue for certain but would it fundamentally change the issue of lopsidedness in any way other than incentivizing top guilds to divy up the top tiers of reward slots? Arguably with mixed success and agreement but it is ultimately a game decided by the largest coalitions of players and does little to provide an enjoyable experience for those outside those coalitions. Important enough because it will be the starting place for every new player.

Ultimately the issue is that concentrated power is and always will be an inherent benefit in this style of game and what needs to be done about it is not likely something the community will agree on. So I concede there is not likely much to do to benefit this issue unless this can be driven by the vocal investor circle or trends regarding player attentiveness and retention prove the model is lacking in this regard.

Edited by Lightsig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "Underdog" should be a twin mechanic, because the most oppressed people always seem to get a "supernatural" boost in power, in real life, just like Tyranny always becomes a "supernatural" debuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a sample algorithm:

If first place has 50% more points than second place, they start becoming tyrannical, exponentially.

If last place has 50% less points than second place, they start becoming "Heroic" or something, exponentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be great if, for example, chaos had 100k points, balance had 400k, and order had 500k, if 1 dedicated chaos player could lay waste to dozens of opponents. Because in that kind of point situtation, odds are, there is only 1 chaos playing at that point anyways, and it would be hella fun for that perso, instead of so pointless they just log off.

Edited by R4ven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2019 at 8:42 AM, R4ven said:

I think it would be great if, for example, chaos had 100k points, balance had 400k, and order had 500k, if 1 dedicated chaos player could lay waste to dozens of opponents. Because in that kind of point situtation, odds are, there is only 1 chaos playing at that point anyways, and it would be hella fun for that perso, instead of so pointless they just log off.

I think this has come up before and the problem with artificially inflating power (if that is what you meant by 'heroic' -- correct me if I misinterpret) is that it's purely a handicap system that offers no little potential for broader gamification. Your levers simply become make the underdog more or less powerful.

I tried to align this idea with the systems of upkeep and sacrifice so that a new mechanic like this could be interlaid within preexisting mechanics as to maintain some broader configurability for both sides of the win-lose scales.

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...