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

Pyrrhic Victories

Recommended Posts

I've been reading what little I can find on the Kneeling mechanic and it's struck me that it might be a good opportunity to introduce the concept of pyrrhic victories.

 

Please correct me if I'm mistaken on any of the following points regarding the Kneeling mechanic -

 

As it stands now, it sounds like one side in a conflict may choose to kneel to hasten the end of a rather one-sided campaign, thereby also hopefully securing some measure of resources to take out of the campaign with them, rather than suffering total defeat and walking away with nothing.  My understanding is the other side has to accept for this to happen.

 

What happens if they choose not to accept?  They continue rampaging through the remainder of the campaign, most likely walking away the richer for it?

 

What if the other side is able to make that victory much more costly for them?  What if instead of having to then accept a straight defeat, they can use the remaining time in campaign to whittle away at the resources the winning side has been amassing?

 

I'd love to see a scenario where even the apparent "losers" get to rally at the end to make every last minute of the remaining campaign a bloody reminder that it is sometimes best to be a gracious and magnanimous winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you lose without kneeling you get a set amount of resources, if you win you get a set amount of resources. If you kneel and they accept...if they win you also win and get the winner amount of resources. Though a portion of it is paid to the actual group that won you still get more than if you straight lost.

 

However...in a campaign that is winner gets 100% and loser gets 10-0% I fully support that if you kneel and they decline, every time you kill a member they start losing resources from their escrow, thus allowing you to make them pay for every step they take now.

 

Basically...win with class, act like a child and get your own stuff broken. If the various losers can band and inflict some serious hurt in the last throes of the world, you may find your "winnings" be as low as 50% because they exacted some serious damage upon you before the end...all because you refused to accept a surrender.


"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They went to all the trouble of actually, you know...  WINNING.  Why should you be able to make them lose?

 

What if the kneeling faction are a bunch of raging dicks, who don't deserve to even be allowed to play, let alone earn resources for a profoundly poor ability to play the game?


Press to test...

*click*

Release to detonate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They went to all the trouble of actually, you know...  WINNING.  Why should you be able to make them lose?

 

What if the kneeling faction are a bunch of raging dicks, who don't deserve to even be allowed to play, let alone earn resources for a profoundly poor ability to play the game?

It is called winning graciously.

 

The other side of the coin...risk/reward...you want your full reward...you have to protect it properly...which sometimes means accepting less desirable elements. You take the risk of dismissing those you consider not worth it...they may just hurt you bad for it. I like this...it is a way to force more real life attributes to a game that wants consequences...and this here is a true what if consequence. I say this as someone that would refuse surrenders from those I consider a bunch of dicks.


"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not using this term correctly. Pyrrhic Victory is when one side wins, but cost of this victory is so great that it might as well be a defeat.

 

This doesn't often happen in MMOs, because you can always respawn your soldiers, and objectives tend to be binary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not using this term correctly. Pyrrhic Victory is when one side wins, but cost of this victory is so great that it might as well be a defeat.

 

This doesn't often happen in MMOs, because you can always respawn your soldiers, and objectives tend to be binary.

 

This.  In the 3rd century BCE Pyrrhus led a coalition of Greek city states against the Roman Republic and its allies.  Despite winning several battles, Pyrrhus' forces suffered heavy casualties, which negated any strategic advantage he might have gained from the victory.  The term was coined when Pyrrhus remarked that any more victories of that nature would surely be his undoing.  

 

This was a major step towards Roman domination of the Mediterranean.  

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, always love having a chance to talk about ancient history (my extremely useful college degree).  

Edited by Abel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would posit that I'm using the term as intended, at least within the scope of what would be possible with this game.  That's why I've suggested the idea of being able to cause the loss of resources after a kneel is declined.  Sure, you've won, but at what cost?  If the losing side is able to reduce the winner's effective resource pool at the end of the campaign to practically nothing, I would certainly consider that a "pyrrhic victory" for the winners, wouldn't you?

 

Either way, it's semantics.  I don't particularly care what it's called; it's still a mechanic I would be very interested in seeing implemented.  I think it would lend some additional depth to the campaign dynamics.

 

If I'm going to fight to the bitter end, give me something to fight for.  Give me something to make the experience a little bit more epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fight With Blood

Fight With Steel
Die With Honor
Never Yield
Fearless Hearts
Filled With Pride
Into Glory We Shall Ride
Into Glory We Shall Ride"

 

I shall never yield!

Edited by arro

Arrogance diminishes wisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the best outcome,  isn't to not lose, but to not let the other side win by too much.

 

 

I've done this in Obey, in a tournament.

 

I never once won a game (getting 1st each round), but I could force others to lose by either assisting the winner to stop them from out competing me for 2nd, or by pushing someone else into the lead.

 

Spreading the advantage between players, and allowing a more reasonable come back in the series.

 

The games pretty cool and I think has a lot of the sort of game of thrones gameplay the dev's want to look into.

 

https://youtu.be/0Y2kjMXlGLg

 

(I d/ced this round and got boosted slightly above where I was at, however if I hadn't been d/ced I'd have gotten into the robot, likely putting me at, or above the adjusted cash level...although honestly I couldn't remember my total when I got booted so I was just guessing.)

 

Overall I got 2nd. I didn't get first, because I didn't have as good a mechanical grasp of the game, but because of tactics, I placed 2nd over all despite the critical flaw in my gameplay.

Edited by Zomnivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dying worlds.

These campaigns are ephemeral to the game. Our relationships with each other and our guilds are as permanent as our involvement in CF.

If you kneel, you immediately lose respect, but you get 50% spoils and we at least respect your recognition of the inevitable.

If you kneel and are denied the opportunity to pledge fealty to the dominant guild in that campaign, that is a disgrace.

A player who doesn't respect you in the game can be taught respect by griefing, and so can a guild.

I personally define griefing as agression without expectation of short-term gain against another.

Griefing can be necessary to teach a player that it is not trivial to offend you. Guilds should grief guilds in the situation above.

If you are unable to grief your nemesis, you're doing something wrong. 

If you're unwilling to grief your tormentor without some mechanic rewarding you,

I respect the christian ethic of forgiveness but prepare to be blessed with the opportunity to be martyred regularly.

 

It is unnecessary to implement a mechanic in CF code for this, and you lose honor for suggesting it.

 

Tl;Dr     Sometimes you play without expecting any gain. It's part of getting good after getting got!

Edited by chancellor

I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you're unwilling to grief your tormentor without some mechanic rewarding you,

I respect the christian ethic of forgiveness but prepare to be blessed with the opportunity to be martyred regularly.

 

It is unnecessary to implement a mechanic in CF code for this, and you lose honor for suggesting it.

 

I'm going to be martyred?  What??

 

As for implementing a mechanic for a reward...I guess I just don't see it that way.  Incentive, yes...reward, no.  But that's gameplay.  It's all carrots and sticks, right?

 

If the campaign is incredibly one-sided, I will most likely kneel to move things along; I'm no glutton for punishment.  If the other side declines then I'm stuck in that campaign through to the finish, with what sounds like nothing to really show for it.  Yes, I suppose I could "get good after getting got," but sometimes it's just a numbers game, and no matter how relatively "good" you are you're still going to get rolled.  I would argue that's not really fun for most people, myself included.

 

And yes, CF is supposed to lean heavily on emergent gameplay, but I'm suggesting something that would not be possible through those means.  You could "grief" the other side, as you suggest (though I think your definition needs some tweaking), for some short-term gain of personal satisfaction, and maybe deny them the gain of a handful of resources.  It's doesn't have quite the same satisfactory sting as being able to actively whittle away at what they've already worked to amass.  And again, in an overwhelming numbers situation, your suggestion of "griefing" the opposing force doesn't really hold up; you would be a mild annoyance, at best.

 

PS: -50 honor to you, sir.  I can take away made up honor points, too, buster, so watch yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dying worlds.

These campaigns are ephemeral to the game. Our relationships with each other and our guilds are as permanent as our involvement in CF.

If you kneel, you immediately lose respect, but you get 50% spoils and we at least respect your recognition of the inevitable.

If you kneel and are denied the opportunity to pledge fealty to the dominant guild in that campaign, that is a disgrace.

A player who doesn't respect you in the game can be taught respect by griefing, and so can a guild.

I personally define griefing as agression without expectation of short-term gain against another.

Griefing can be necessary to teach a player that it is not trivial to offend you. Guilds should grief guilds in the situation above.

If you are unable to grief your nemesis, you're doing something wrong. 

If you're unwilling to grief your tormentor without some mechanic rewarding you,

I respect the christian ethic of forgiveness but prepare to be blessed with the opportunity to be martyred regularly.

 

It is unnecessary to implement a mechanic in CF code for this, and you lose honor for suggesting it.

 

Tl;Dr     Sometimes you play without expecting any gain. It's part of getting good after getting got!

Griefing in it's true form requires actually denying the enemy something, or gaining something.

 

The numbers are massively against you, winning will never happen. How do you grief? Only the escrow is lasting in this game so everything else is pointless and is not griefing, it is just wasting your time. Thus, to grief truly and properly, to have any real effect, you have to be able to effect the escrow.

 

So you want to grief those so obviously winning that are being total asshats and prolonging a game by not accepting surrenders? Then you should be able to whittle away at their escrow, every time you deny a surrender you allow the guild you denied to now whittle away at your escrow. not what is in it, oh no...the maximum amount you can now take out. Now you are hurting them, now you can injure them to the point they may as well have not won if you rip into them hard enough. After all, you are losing and dying doesn't mean as much to you as it does them as every death now lowers their escrow.


"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would make for interesting last standf instances with whatevers left of an army marching ontoa  field coverd in the dead a pennant fluttering as they refuse to back down...i couldnt find a way to make that into your description :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, why would a guild who is obviously winning accept someone's surrender?

 

Really, only if the campaign is no longer any fun for them.  If the other side surrenders, but its not accepted, I see two possible outcomes:

 

1) the loser will adobe guerrilla tactics as much as they can, preventing the other side from resource accumulation

 

2) the loser will just abandon that campaign, spending time in their EK or on an alt in a different campaign, ceding the resources to the winner but also boring them to death, as there won't be anyone to fight.

 

Depending on the level of domination, option 1 may not be feasible, in which case its option 2 only.  I can see where we might want to make the rules such that option 1 is a little more viable to keep the campaigns going as long as possible.


CF_Hap.png

SCOTLAND!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd salt the earth behind my retreat, sure.

And poison the wells with dead livestock. If you are facing an inevitable loss you should be able to hurt your enemy by intentionally shooting yourself in the foot; sure I'll starve or die of thirst, but so will you.


Luke I am your Uncle... Bob.  What, my sister Padmè never mentioned me?

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...