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

Enhancing the Territory Control Game Using "Existing" Tech


Recommended Posts

Warning: Long post.

Introduction - TLDR included below.

I would like the territory game to be more active.  I want guilds to be actively fighting to maintain their ownership of their areas of the map.  Natural warfronts should materialize when two or more guild territories collide.  This will create more frequent pvp action and an overall feel of player impact outside of siege windows.  It will also pressure larger guilds to disperse their forces wisely in order to maintain control of their territory, which will become increasingly difficult as guild sizes grow.  Currently there are not enough real points of interest on the maps to create this environment, hence why I suggest outposts to have more impact.

The change making Conquest points determine the overall winner of a campaign is a good move to create skirmishes between the guilds vying for the Throne, but it means that only large guilds will be competitors for overall campaign victories.  I am OK with that, however, small- and medium-sized guilds need to have an impact - they need to matter to the outcome of the campaign.  This is critical to complete the strategic war loop of the game.

Currently, large forces can show up in full force for any event because there are few-to-no consequences of leaving the home "territory" unprotected.  Guilds care little for the area outside the walls of keeps or forts that are on scheduled vulnerability windows.  If small and medium guilds had more reason to not only capture but actively compete over outposts we should see more overall pvp incidences in the world and at a wider variety of magnitudes. Enticing smaller guilds to take outposts from larger guilds is thus key to completing the territory control game.  Large guilds need to feel vulnerable to smaller forces pecking away at their territory when they try to own too much space, and be forced to be more strategic over what they own.  Also, smaller forces should feel like their efforts are not just hurting an enemy, but helping themselves in some way (use selfish motives to drive your pvp loop).  This will cause smaller forces to clash against one another, creating a nice pvp environment for those interested in smaller scale fights. Most importantly, by providing a wider variety of POI's to fight over, the smaller guilds will end up having more fun, stay in the game, and potentially grow into larger guilds that will continue to keep the game alive.  With smaller forces being able to impact the outcomes of campaigns we will also see more politics and more... Throne Warfare.

TLDR of Main Points, etc.:
-Current territory control game is incomplete, but is needed to drive more pvp actions at all times and make the game feel alive.
-Individual players should feel an increased sense of Impact in the campaigns, use the territory war game to do this.
-Use existing outposts & "Tech" to drive territory control game [Note: I am making some generous assumptions about what is "existing" and I am not an expert on game dev].
-Large groups/guilds need to worry about smaller groups in order to keep the game alive via the strategic warfare game.
-Small groups/guilds need to have an impact in the game for it to sustain a population in the long term: guilds of all sizes need meaningful impact in the game to sustain their growth.


IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTED CHANGES:

Principles behind the Ideas:
-Create a more active territory control game where guilds, large and small, compete to own areas of maps.
-Create immediate (active) incentives to own outposts to create clashes between active players
-Create medium/long-term incentives to own specific outposts, on top of existing Conquest points, to foster a desire for territory ownership and prevent cap-and-back-cap loops where players are chasing each other instead of fighting.
-Incentives need to appeal to both large and small groups of players.
-Make taking some outposts a judgement call, rather than a "just take it" decision (add a strategic layer).

OK HERE ARE THE IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS:

1) Make outposts have quality tiers (using existing outpost designs).
    EXAMPLE FOR DISCUSSION:
    -Campfire Outpost: Rank 1 guards x 4, Green-quality loot chest tier, 5 individual resource nodes adjacent to outpost (build it into the outpost?).
    -Watchtower Outpost: Rank 2 guards x 6, Blue Quality loot chests tier, 1 Motherlode and 5 small resource nodes adjacent to outpost.
    -Double Watchtower Outpost: Rank 3 guards x 8 and a Captain, Blue Quality loot chest tier, 2 Motherlodes and 10 small resource nodes adjacent to outpost.

The idea here is to create various levels of value and difficulty of capture in the outposts, to incentivize fights between similiar sized forces. Economic gain that doesn't bypass the Crafting-Harvesting loop is important to keep that loop intact and use it to further incentivize pvp. Soloers will still be able to roam and do Campfire outposts, a group may do Watchtowers, 2 groups may be able to do Double Watchtowers, etc. Balance rewards and guard difficulties to accomodate different small force scales (1-5, 5-10, 10-15).  A small outfit owning several Watchtowers nearby may find themselves in a lucrative position relative to their roster size, and can use their outposts for some light area defenses in lieu of owning a keep.  Likewise, a large guild may be interested in the same group of watchtowers, but will it be worth their time to send a chunk of their forces to take it all, if they risk losing other valuable outposts elsewhere?  I hope this will create a lot of medium-term territory ownership, which will make campaigns feel more dynamic.

2) Each outpost provides a parcel-wide buff to the owner and allied members (only while owned - similar to the Keep Well HP buff "tech")
    -Buff to harvesting stats [Ex: Harvesting Protection %, Weak Spot Chance, Damage Bonus All, PH +1, CHA + 1, etc.]
    -The strength of the buff is proportional to the quality of the outpost on the parcel.
The premise here is to incentivize ownership of outposts via the Harvesting-Crafting loop.  The strength of the buff scales with the difficulty of obtaining the outpost.

3) Add more outposts, Outpost Guard and Capture modifications
    -More outposts will create more visible "territories" on the map.  I know we have more outposts before, if outposts had more purpose and were less of a chore, perhaps we could use more outposts again?
    -Increase outpost guard HP overall [maybe about the same as the Ranger Elite Guards at the Res Outposts, but without the high damage?]
    -Increase base rate of capture of outposts (decrease stand-in-circle time once guards are dead).
    -Re-spawn guards <3> minutes after an outpost take (due to decreased stand-in-circle time).  Don't make people stand and do nothing to d, but give enough time for an active battle to not immediately end once guards respawn).

The goal here is to use guard-killing-ability as the rate-limiting factor of capturing outposts, rather than the stand-in-the-circle (boring) time.  Guards that don't fall over immediately become more useful in defending territory, even if the damage they deal is light.  Currently they do very little except for the elite ranger guards on the resurrection statues (which was a nice change).  Longer combat periods during outpost takes, combined with combat visual effects and sounds can help roaming parties to find fights, and also make the decision to take an outpost take a bit more consideration.

-----------

The above ideas are some things myself and a few others thought up and tried to make counterpoints to.  We felt that these ideas met the outlined principles the best.  I'd like to see what other ideas people have, or critiques/modifications to the above ideas. 

Keep in mind that the key goals of this post:

-Make outposts into activity hubs for players at all hours by using them to enhance/create the territory warfare game in CF

-Incentivize all players (not just people doing conquest) to take outposts and thus incite fights

-Use existing systems in the game (parcel buffs, parcel debuffs, economic loop of harvesting + crafting, conquest game/DF cards, etc.) so that the time to implement, test, and balance out the concepts is minimized.  Maybe some of these ideas will be adopted!

 

A topics have been posted in Suggestion Box previously:

 

Edited by Dern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like all of these ideas. I also really like the theme of using pre existing game functions to do it as i feel like it makes the idea and the possibility for change more viable.

I just wanted to also say that it would be nice to see resource nodes favor the outposts more. if resources were more abundant around outposts than they are now they would hold a lot more value in the eye of the player.

if guards were slightly stronger it could make those outposts very nice to have for a harvester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throne war with a legitimate territorial aspect that can also impact the harvesting and crafting? Great idea. With the way OP's are an easy come easy go mechanic, I think this is a fantastic idea. Capping/back capping for no reason other than some points cheapens the experience of the game. There will always be back capping in a PPT game but this at least provide more worth

 

Edited by Quig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this makes great sense to me. Would outposts level up, or would only certain outposts be certain levels? For instance, if a smaller guild wanted to dedicate their energy into creating a "stronghold" for themselves, could they dump resources and time and effort into making 2-3 outposts into double tower outposts? Or is it only specific outposts are double tower, single tower, campfire, etc and they don't change.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to post this in the discord conversation but just adding it to what you've come up with here (which is fantastic btw.)

Adding to what you said about camps, outposts/statues, and if you control these # of particular objectives,  your guild gains control of this part of the map. If I have these 3-4 objectives, this parcel or block of the map belongs to my guild.

Maybe that unlocks a bank or refinery or w/e. If someone back caps one of the objectives,  you lose control of the area and lose control of the facilities within until you reclaim it.  So if my guild wants to run pigs we need to cap and hold these 3-4 objectives until we're done running pigs. if we want to drop mats in a world bank,  we have to cap and hold the objectives necessary to control the area, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great ideas to improve the current game loop.  But I feel like crowfall deserves a more robust territory control system.  Willing to wait for a post launch, large update/expansion.  This idea would be amazing in the mean time though.  Hope they come up with something similar to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can take a page out planetside 2 boat too where maps are divided into parcels, if you dont have a connecting boarder to the parcel it harder to capture.

In this case camp guards could be stronger based on how many tiles are connecting to the defending so if you try taking a parcel in the middle of the somone territory there guards will be basicly raid bosses. where if there only connected via 2 sides to an allied parcel the guards will only be like 200% stronger hp/dmg wise.

larger parcel become harder to take than smaller parcel aswell then cause they have more boarders connection to give guards buffs, for example every board on the parcel that connects to an allied boarder grans a 100% bonus dmg/HP buff for example, so a single parcel tiles has a maximum of 4 boarder touching another side (A boarder consist of 1 parcel size line so a 2x2 parcel will 8 connection lines 2 along each side of the square) so the maximum bonus would be 400% attack and defence (Normally you would hit a completly surrounded parcel however but it still a potential option and if you do it easier for the defenders to swoop back in and retake it since you wont have connections estabilished yet.

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, veeshan said:

Can take a page out planetside 2 boat too where maps are divided into parcels, if you dont have a connecting boarder to the parcel it harder to capture.

In this case camp guards could be stronger based on how many tiles are connecting to the defending so if you try taking a parcel in the middle of the somone territory there guards will be basicly raid bosses. where if there only connected via 2 sides to an allied parcel the guards will only be like 200% stronger hp/dmg wise.

This sort of thing has been brought up over the years, sadly the response was no tech, but we got 'interactive' roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mystafyi said:

This sort of thing has been brought up over the years, sadly the response was no tech, but we got 'interactive' roads.

yyyyyeah but there shouldnt be an issue doing such a thing since it done in other games they just gotta think harder :P like albion kinda has something similiar with there seiges aswel then there planetside 2 im sure there more

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, veeshan said:

yyyyyeah but there shouldnt be an issue doing such a thing since it done in other games they just gotta think harder :P like albion kinda has something similiar with there seiges aswel then there planetside 2 im sure there more

As much as I want to agree with you, I dont know how they wrote their game, it could be very hard to implement. No, I fear if this was too hard then, it wont be any easier now even closer to launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mystafyi said:

As much as I want to agree with you, I dont know how they wrote their game, it could be very hard to implement. No, I fear if this was too hard then, it wont be any easier now even closer to launch.

there gonna fk em selfs if they dont figure something out before launch imo :P but guess time will tell, they like to avoid the question to anything territory control related though, which they realy should of thought of when they wanted a "throne war simulator' 

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the post is really some good ideas. Good thing too is that it is doable within the actual limits of the game. That idea for outposts would work great to have rewarding activities outside of the siege window, where most small guilds can't really play a part anyways (except if allied with a major).

For the upper tier action (sieges) I think it would be good to also include activities where all could participate. Since an actual territory control with changing borders is outside the limits of the engine (it was mentioned many times by developers in the past), why not adjust the siege timers dynamically to set a comon time window not to a specific keep/ fort but to all possession of a particular guild/alliance?

This would work as follow:

- when a guild claims a castle, keep or fort, they may decide to make that location their homeland (homeland by default if only possession).To prevent abuses, homeland can only be changed if guild captures a higher tier location or if homeland is lost.

- calling a place a homeland resets all timers linked to all other possession of that guild to the homeland timer. If a guild has many possessions, then all possessions of that guild would become opened during homeland siege window, meaning that they would need to potentially defend many fronts.

- if a guild is the leader of an alliance, then all holdings of the alliance members would also be resetted to the capital of the alliance timer. This plays 2 roles. First, it prevents an alliance to simply bring all alliance members to defend each allied guild in rotation (blob to defend territory 1, then blob to defend territory 2 etc.). Second, joining or leaving an alliance becomes a dilemma and brings interesting political choices.

- This simple change would bring more diplomacy, scale and strategy to the game. Major guilds would need to not only muster their alliance but also potentially turn to small and unallied guilds to defend their holdings when all become capturable at same time. This will also give the chance to any other guild (small or medium) to participate in major sieges, helping the defender, or carving a piece for themselves. Mostly, it would spread the fights in many places which will reduce blobbing and actually bring coordination and strategy on a big scale (potentially all the zones for major sieges)

- this would be easy to put in place, without many modifications to the actual system. It only requires to synch guild timers to an homeland location or to the alliance leader's one.

- Also, expansionist strategies will come at a price: the more you own, the more you risk of losing especially if your alliance is fragile. Higher risk higher rewards, higher rewards higher risks.

I guess this game is simply lacking a throne war feel right now. if outposts became interesting to own and sieges became a world event, I think the game would be so far better for all type of player (individual, small guild and majors) during siege times and in between them.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good ideas. I would also like some linkage between the outposts / forts / keeps. For example, Each keep is linked to 3 nearby forts, in order to capture the keep the attackers need to control at least ONE of the forts. In the same way, each fort is linked to 3 nearby outposts. In order to cap a fort the attackers need to control at least one outpost. If you control more than one, the guards become weaker, thus, outposts are stepping stones to forts, and forts to keeps.

Edited by MacDeath

Mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, veeshan said:

Can take a page out planetside 2 boat too where maps are divided into parcels, if you dont have a connecting boarder to the parcel it harder to capture.

In this case camp guards could be stronger based on how many tiles are connecting to the defending so if you try taking a parcel in the middle of the somone territory there guards will be basicly raid bosses. where if there only connected via 2 sides to an allied parcel the guards will only be like 200% stronger hp/dmg wise.

larger parcel become harder to take than smaller parcel aswell then cause they have more boarders connection to give guards buffs, for example every board on the parcel that connects to an allied boarder grans a 100% bonus dmg/HP buff for example, so a single parcel tiles has a maximum of 4 boarder touching another side (A boarder consist of 1 parcel size line so a 2x2 parcel will 8 connection lines 2 along each side of the square) so the maximum bonus would be 400% attack and defence (Normally you would hit a completly surrounded parcel however but it still a potential option and if you do it easier for the defenders to swoop back in and retake it since you wont have connections estabilished yet.

You and mystafyi discussed this somewhat, but I wanted to add that all these maps we play on are procedurally generated.  There is a big difference between the PS2 static maps which are tailored and designed for specific connections and borders and Crowfall where every map dregs map is procedurally generated. The devs spent a long time developing their code to produce usable maps from their map design engine, which was not designed to create specific interacting borders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like a lot of the ideas flowing from this discussion.  Here are some of my thoughts:

I think the game could improve if the spawn outposts didn't flip so often, especially during a siege window. A possible interaction with current tech is to link guard outposts and spawn outposts, where you can "lock" a spawn outpost by controlling the nearby guard outposts.  I expect this would create small areas of ownership on the map that could be somewhat protected because the attacking force would need to give away their position by taking the guard outposts before they can attack the spawn. If you also include adding stronger guards and the ability to reinforce those guards, we could have much more prolonged and interesting fights on the map.

 

My personally feeling is that everything flips too quickly on the map, barring the timers on forts/keeps/castles.  It really doesn't feel like an accomplishment to take any of the outposts right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stasy said:

You and mystafyi discussed this somewhat, but I wanted to add that all these maps we play on are procedurally generated.  There is a big difference between the PS2 static maps which are tailored and designed for specific connections and borders and Crowfall where every map dregs map is procedurally generated. The devs spent a long time developing their code to produce usable maps from their map design engine, which was not designed to create specific interacting borders. 

devs actually go over maps aswell before they release them from what ivebeen told

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, veeshan said:

devs actually go over maps aswell before they release them from what ivebeen told

I don't have any special knowledge to how their system works, but that makes sense.  They can't trust a computer blindly to make their maps and need a human to verify that it makes sense and will work.

 

I was more highlighting that the development team spent months/years working on a procedurally generated map making system. If it wasn't designed to include interacting borders, (from my experience as a programmer) it would not be trivial to add that feature in.  I am not saying it is impossible, but I imagine ACE wants to spend it's manhours on the other systems that need work. 

 

I do like the idea of interacting parcels, but in the spirit of this post's "utilizing existing tech" I was trying to explain that while the end result of your idea sounds good, it doesn't actually work with their existing tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Stasy said:

The devs spent a long time developing their code to produce usable maps from their map design engine, which was not designed to create specific interacting borders. 

They use a system of plug and sockets for placing items, so its possible if there is some functionality built in to the map generator. The dev's have indicated that what these folks are wanting is not possible and I have to believe them.(no reason not to)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my personal ideas as someone who doesnt really like the current implementation of gods outposts ( No one care for them after getting the buff). Keeping with 'existing tech' idea ofc.

Make outposts work like buildings. Or more accurately make them INTO buildings.

Create random 'worship spots' on the map (maybe some remnant from the original habitants worship - extra points for allowing to buff up our lore with other gods), guilds and faction can claim those and incorporate them to their territory as they expand. And this sorta idea heavily depends on territory control being an actual thing.

God outposts now work as buildings truly. We can select what kind of building we want (what god). And slowly upgrade them slowly getting better bonuses.

This also helps with alliance making their own patreon so to speak. A alliance that is know for running druids will want the god that gives the electricity bonus. Healer heavy guild will also pay special attention to certain gods, etc.. No more depending on RNG to get all the buffs you want, today it sucks if your keep happens to be in a island without a certain god outpost.

I would also like to propose upping these god outpost become Campaign long objectives. Slow to do, but also incredibly rewarding. I want the fact alliance X focused on the Heal god bonuses make their healing be the best in the goddamn CW. I want people to think and take into account what god they are worshipping when talking about a alliance.

I want the fact their alliance spent a lot of resources upping their god outpost to max to matter. Obviously not sure on numbers or anything. Hell perhaps the current buff of a god could even be broken up on different upgrade routes.

Another thing that i think deserves it is own breakdown is the upgrading. It would be super interesting if it took into account all gathering professions. Wood, ore, stone, leather is a given of course, but the idea of using Body Parts to upgrade NPCs has been thrown around before and still remains among the best ideas in this forums. And should be implemented in all sort of outposts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...