XP Loss/Enemy Territory

Kinilan

Oh I'm sure edge cases like logging in then logging out can be handled on their own. The whole raid system is opt-in. No chains here. You can join up and take part in raids. Gain xp when your city blows tanks, lose no xp when your city is raided. Use the font powers depending on rank all that fun stuff. Or you can not join, not take part and do your own thing during a raid in whatever city you play in because if you're not in the army your death doesn't charge the tank.

I'm thinking perhaps you're a little confused about how the whole army system/city destruction mechanics work. Read HELP ARMY  and CITY DESTRUCTION. You can check the assorted help files on the web site if you don't feel like logging in right now though. You'll find most of the information you need there. some parts might be a little out of date/missing. Help files don't always get updated like they should.I hope this helps.

Herenicus

Jacen said:

Man, some of the ideas being thrown around seem to be aimed at whittling down the people who desire to participate in group PvP. Isn't that the exact opposite of what pretty much everyone wants?

All I am suggesting are some modest changes to conflict and XP. Them that don't care about XP won't be losing anything they value, and those who balk at throwing good XP after a bad time will have their inhibitions lifted. Nothing will stand between @Kinilan and the enthusiastic embrace of defenders everywhere, whether he chooses to raid, skirmish, or defile shrines. No self-monitoring required. 

Nim

@Kinilan: Raids aren't opt-in round-based games with well-known approximate or exact time costs. They last until the attackers give up. @Herenicus essentially wants to make this control cost something. Penalizing rage quits only makes sense in games where you consciously agree to play for X minutes and then go NOPE, CHANGED MY MIND.

Kinilan

Nim said:

@Kinilan: Raids aren't opt-in round-based games with well-known approximate or exact time costs. They last until the attackers give up. @Herenicus essentially wants to make this control cost something. Penalizing rage quits only makes sense in games where you consciously agree to play for X minutes and then go NOPE, CHANGED MY MIND.

They last until one sides loses.

Herenicus

Thank you for contributing some ideas to this thread, Kinilan. I'm sorry we couldn't see eye to eye.

Nim

Kinilan said:

Nim said:

@Kinilan: Raids aren't opt-in round-based games with well-known approximate or exact time costs. They last until the attackers give up. @Herenicus essentially wants to make this control cost something. Penalizing rage quits only makes sense in games where you consciously agree to play for X minutes and then go NOPE, CHANGED MY MIND.

They last until one sides loses.

No one loses in Achaea.

Kinilan

Nim said:

Kinilan said:

Nim said:

@Kinilan: Raids aren't opt-in round-based games with well-known approximate or exact time costs. They last until the attackers give up. @Herenicus essentially wants to make this control cost something. Penalizing rage quits only makes sense in games where you consciously agree to play for X minutes and then go NOPE, CHANGED MY MIND.

They last until one sides loses.

No one loses in Achaea.

Clearly you've never heard of the CIJ.

Herenicus

But we digress.

edit: Limiting the issue to raids could be misleading, @Nim. Group combat often begins with shrine war and skirmishing in the area just outside the city. I wrote the proposal to broadly address the control exercised throughout the whole raid. And not just the control of one faction, but realistically two or three a day, depending. How does one city entertain so many enemies fighting for her attention? 

Seftin

Changes to XP loss from raiding won't stop the current people from raiding, it will just ensure that others won't get involved in the raids, changing nothing. People who currently die 20 times in a raid don't care about xp, they will hunt it back up if they need to. It also means that people will be less willing to 2v6 a city or 2 v 10 a city in raid style and bring all their fully artied raid-head buddies.

Forced time outs will do nothing but stop people raiding completely, or just saving up and going for a full fuck-fest of gankage with the only difference of being more willing to run/move rooms and not put a tank.

Also adding in things like double xp for shrines etc wouldn't work too well as I know I'd suggest raising a shrine in an enemy city and/or just at their defendable so we don't lose xp/gain more xp etc.

People who don't care about xp at the moment won't suddenly change their mind unless it's 1 death = 1 level, and then it won't be THEM who get fucked over, but the current ohnoes mytextp group that will get screwed.

Jovolo

You should never use the other side being more skilled as an argument. They're "skilled" for a reason (lots of practise), and skill provides a fair edge. If you want to comment on the balance of artefacts, that's a separate issue, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the disparity between aggressors and defenders in a conflict. in terms of consequence.  Defending in this game is never mandatory either, despite people's claims. 

If you don't want to play with the PvP crowd, don't play with them. No one is forcing you to. I don't understand the gripe with shrines. Anyone want to elaborate on why they're a bad mechanic? Raiding is pretty shitty in terms of the actual game design of raid systems. I preferred the old one where you just walked into an enemy city and fought them. None of this tank and font crap (although the Font isn't really a bad idea in theory, it just needs more thought behind it).

Bluef

Seftin said:

Changes to XP loss from raiding won't stop the current people from raiding, it will just ensure that others won't get involved in the raids, changing nothing. People who currently die 20 times in a raid don't care about xp, they will hunt it back up if they need to. It also means that people will be less willing to 2v6 a city or 2 v 10 a city in raid style and bring all their fully artied raid-head buddies.

Forced time outs will do nothing but stop people raiding completely, or just saving up and going for a full fuck-fest of gankage with the only difference of being more willing to run/move rooms and not put a tank.

Also adding in things like double xp for shrines etc wouldn't work too well as I know I'd suggest raising a shrine in an enemy city and/or just at their defendable so we don't lose xp/gain more xp etc.

People who don't care about xp at the moment won't suddenly change their mind unless it's 1 death = 1 level, and then it won't be THEM who get fucked over, but the current ohnoes mytextp group that will get screwed.

Jovolo said:

You should never use the other side being more skilled as an argument. They're "skilled" for a reason (lots of practise), and skill provides a fair edge. If you want to comment on the balance of artefacts, that's a separate issue, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the disparity between aggressors and defenders in a conflict. in terms of consequence.  Defending in this game is never mandatory either, despite people's claims. 

If you don't want to play with the PvP crowd, don't play with them. No one is forcing you to. I don't understand the gripe with shrines. Anyone want to elaborate on why they're a bad mechanic? Raiding is pretty shitty in terms of the actual game design of raid systems. I preferred the old one where you just walked into an enemy city and fought them. None of this tank and font crap (although the Font isn't really a bad idea in theory, it just needs more thought behind it).

I pretty much said some of the same things yesterday. I hope y'all take these two responses more seriously than my prior efforts at contribution here. They both know what they're talking about. 

Herenicus

Seftin said:

Changes to XP loss from raiding won't stop the current people from raiding, it will just ensure that others won't get involved in the raids, changing nothing. 

Appreciate the thoughtful post, Seftin.

The people this proposal aims to get more involved with raids are the defenders, players being asked to play along with someone else's idea on someone else's schedule, sometimes without leaders of their own. Trying one or more of the passive incentives for defenders (the carrots) does not necessarily mean adopting every stick in the OP. Of those sticks, only one involved XP penalties.

People who currently die 20 times in a raid don't care about xp, they will hunt it back up if they need to.

We wouldn't really know; XP penalties for dragons haven't been consequential in a long time. We might be surprised by how much everyone ends up caring. 

It also means that people will be less willing to 2v6 a city or 2 v 10 a city in raid style and bring all their fully artied raid-head buddies.

Adopting the proposals in the OP could make every raid a happy, unplanned opportunity for the defenders - whether they have leadership available or not, no matter the odds. Aggressors are by definition having fun and the event takes places on the schedule they choose. Whether that fun takes the form of 2 or 10 dragons, it's important that everyone has a good time. We want everyone to come back, right?

Forced time outs will do nothing but stop people raiding completely, or just saving up and going for a full fuck-fest of gankage with the only difference of being more willing to run/move rooms and not put a tank.

The forced time-outs (only after several deaths) are a stick designed to add risk and consequences for someone who is otherwise XP careless. Some kind of resource management becomes necessary where it wasn't necessary before. 

Also adding in things like double xp for shrines etc wouldn't work too well as I know I'd suggest raising a shrine in an enemy city and/or just at their defendable so we don't lose xp/gain more xp etc.

I imagine aggressors would continue raising shrines to defend against worldburn. Worldburn, incidentally, becomes less necessary when every defender is excited to defend. How many times has your raid ended early on account of worldburn? 

People who don't care about xp at the moment won't suddenly change their mind unless it's 1 death = 1 level, and then it won't be THEM who get fucked over, but the current ohnoes mytextp group that will get screwed.

I think you gave us some food for thought and appreciate your time and contributions to the thread. Please feel free to put your head together with us again, anytime. 

Jacen

I don't understand the "if you don't like it, don't do it" attitude. It shuns improvement to existing systems and the introduction of new mechanics. And its not like we're overflowing with fighters in every city. Raiders lament the use of guards and worldburn as often as defenders lament offpeak raids and guardraiding. Can't you imagine Achaea rewarding a balance of power? That going to somewhere like Hashan as a fighter not being a chore or a job, but actually fun and rewarding? It even helps all the IC stuff fall into place, because at some point it starts feeling ridiculous that Targ can't just demolish Hashan, given the differential of power and super long term opposition.

Are we satisfied with the number of people in and the power distribution of group PvP? Are we content with the status quo?

Herenicus

Thanks, Jacen. I guess some people feel that they benefit more from the status quo; but are they the ones experiencing the business end of the positive feedback loop that pulls combatants into one or two large knots? It doesn't disqualify a position, but it helps explain why the situation isn't viewed as a problem for some people.

Jovolo

What do you mean you don't understand the concept? It's the main principle of having fun, and Achaea is a game. If you don't like an aspect of the game, why are you participating in it? If you do like it, why are you complaining instead of trying to get better? Or do you just want things to be made easier to you to minimize the effort you need to put in to accomplish that? 

Herenicus

Lowering barriers to entry is part of the discussion here, yes. Once raids are associated with happy, unexpected surprise visits from friends around the world, you'll see more players willing to play along with every raid, in every city. I think that's what we want, right?

Jacen

Because where we are now is where you get by following that thought process. Lots of talent packed into small groups in a couple of cities. Rewarding the powerhouse players when they cooperate, not compete.

I'm not saying that it should require zero effort to be good at, but it should be an innately fun system for all involved. Otherwise, when the dust settles, we'll be left with the A-team standing on top of the mountain in a world of burnt out combatants, saying "Damnit, why didn't they just get better?"

Herenicus

The "get gud" and "sucks to suck" rhetoric has a long, proud tradition here on the forums but for all its nobility, it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect. It's only been 18 years or so. Give it time.

Jovolo

I can get on board with lowering entry barriers, I just disagree that group fights such as raids and shrine conflicts are suitable areas of which to dip your toes into combat unless you have a genuine motivation to do so. There are other avenues of which people can pursue combat and it's what arenas were invented for, and at the end of the day, if you actually want to get good at combat, you will put in the time necessary to achieve that, or pay the money in order to substitute the required amount of time to achieve that. Then, you get to play with the "big boys" on an even footing.

I'm wary that I'm getting into a different discussion here and derailing though, so apologies Herenicus. I need to reread your points and see what it is you're actually proposing and why--I just wanted to respond to the comments on this page.

Herenicus

It's all good, Jovolo. I appreciate your time and attention.

Jarrod

As someone in a 'powerhouse knot', I can 100% guarantee ours has very little to do with how good the people in our group are, and is almost entirely based on how fun they are to chat/hang out with.

That being said, this idea is decent but I don't think it holds much weight. Defense is already largely stacked to favor the defenders, as it should. When the system for sanctioned raids was talked about the main discussion points were a) How do we encourage defense and b) How do we prevent high-damage off-peak raids. Both of these are very well addressed by the system in place.

With access to font and guards (and worldburn in theological cities), defenders can heavily influence how a fight is played out, and have the benefit of initiative as well. When a fight happens in city it's the choice of the defense if they take even a modicum of precaution (stand on monolith, done). They have an innate experience advantage, as they have two paths to positive XP gain and no paths to an XP loss once a sanction raid starts. They also have an end-goal, where dismantling the tank rewards that second potential source of XP for everyone involved. There's no need to amplify this with anything else. It's also worth noting that tying anything else to shrines is a terrible idea.

In terms of offense, there are typically two motivations for raiding. 1) Raider enjoyment 2) Raid pressure. The former is obvious, "Wanna raid?" "Yeah" "Ok!".  Done, raid (attempt) started. The latter has multiple forms of pressure. "Our God said so." "Everyone wants to retaliate." "I have to for this task." There's always the chance for some overlap, but I typically find the latter results in more  lopsided raids due to everyone joining up. The few times everyone in Ashtan decided "Hey screw those guys for raiding us, can we raid them back?" it's resulted in some pretty ludicrous numbers on offense, generally hasn't happened recently. Examples of this are generally found from Shallam, like the guard-bonanza retirement raid or the few "Holy shit we have 20 people" raids. Adding in 'stick' mechanics to the offenders will largely not affect the (1) type of raids, unless they're extremely severe, and make people 'getting their toes wet' hate the (2) type raids.

Your suggestions do nothing but raise a barrier to people getting involved in raiding, because the only chance they have for a fight where they don't get huge losses if something goes wrong is on defense. Right now, a bad defense can pretty easily be mitigated with a "Let's go stomp some people, and it won't matter if a few die because we should get a tank off for a win!" These changes turn that 'win' raid in a potential bigger downside for people who are newer to group combat or less experienced with it, as they're most likely to die to mistakes.

TL;DR Raids already offer high incentives to defenders (as they should), these changes wouldn't help new players at all.

Herenicus

I appreciate your input, Jarrod. It's good to get different perspectives.

Trey

Herenicus said:

Thank you for contributing some ideas to this thread, Kinilan. I'm sorry we couldn't see eye to eye.

 

Thank you for your visit.

Herenicus

Thank you, Trey. We must remember that there is strong passion on both sides.

Amarillys

Is anyone else creeped out by Herenicus being like way to cool to everyone in this thread?

Herenicus

Here beneath the Golden Dais of Creation, the ancient laws of forumwar must be observed.

Xinna

I don't know why we'd want to make people care more about XP. That, if it is effective, just makes people miserable and less fun to interact with. I would prefer no one care about XP. More fun all around, then.

Any hard coded limit on how often you can engage in PvP (re: TDF, super xp loss, etc) will just cause people who play the game for PvP to log off.

It's good to make defenders want to participate, and it's good to encourage fights with willing participants, but I wouldn't say it's good to just flatout discourage combat completely.

Herenicus

Xinna said:

I don't know why we'd want to make people care more about XP. That, if it is effective, just makes people miserable and less fun to interact with. I would prefer no one care about XP. More fun all around, then.

Striking another blow for XP equality! Making raids an XP positive experience across the board could turn every raid into Logosmas morning for players hoping to shave a few hours off their grind. 

Any hard coded limit on how often you can engage in PvP (re: TDF, super xp loss, etc) will just cause people who play the game for PvP to log off.

Nothing in the OP is meant to prevent PvP-oriented players from playing with one another as often or for as long as they choose. Let's not suggest that PvPers can only only keep themselves entertained when they are the aggressors, setting the agenda for others in terms of PvP conflict. Allowing every player to freely externalize his or her boredom onto an entire faction eats away at organizational focus, which is finite. Smaller organizations can't keep up, creating a positive feedback loop in the game design. Isn't it generally more fun to raid than be raided? Why shouldn't it be the other way around? 

It's good to make defenders want to participate, and it's good to encourage fights with willing participants, but I wouldn't say it's good to just flatout discourage combat completely.

I know I don't have to tell you to feel free to correct me. It's good to have you in the thread. Thanks for your input.

Rahvin

Having been a member of just about every faction, I will weigh in with my thoughts.

I am strongly in favor of 'more rewards for offense' over 'more risks for offense and more rewards for defense'.

The problem that we seem to face is that people are afraid to get into group combat because, offensively, there is very little to gain unless you go in with an insurmountable group that can pretty much guarantee victory.  Let's face it, people enjoy offense more than defense.  However, people very rarely go on offense because a) people don't like losing, so they'll wait until they can ensure victory to go on the offensive b) they feel the need to have a leader around to get enough people to go on offense or they will just lose and their XP will spiral downwards or c) they don't like fighting on enemy territory where they can't control what tactics the defense uses at their disposal (font, worldburn, extreme numbers, etc).

I think we are lucky to have a few niche groups willing to go out and start non-lopsided conflict.  Unfortunately, very few players/groups like this exist.  It seems that a lot of players are very, very afraid of losing, so they won't even risk conflict at all offensively until they are for sure they will win.  The problem, from what I can tell in my limited experience, is that not enough people are willing to risk what going on the offensive requires you to risk.

More players would get involved if they knew they could go out on the offensive and gain the same thing, if not more, on offense.  However, with the current environment, there is no reason to risk so much to gain so little, especially when the fight is already skewed heavily in the defenders favor.  The only time the fight is skewed in the offense's favor is when the offense brings a group that they feel has no real reason to be losing.

Rewarding offense more may result in less lopsided raiding and more fair fights for the defenders because both sides have something to gain without having to wait for a for-sure win to enter a city or stir up some conflict.   A few more small groups of raiders may spring up knowing they can go attack a city/start conflict and not be so negative on the other end of it if they are taking that risk.

Herenicus

Rahvin said:

The problem that we seem to face is that people are afraid to get into group combat because, offensively, there is very little to gain unless you go in with an insurmountable group that can pretty much guarantee victory.  Let's face it, people enjoy offense more than defense.  However, people very rarely go on offense because a) people don't like losing, so they'll wait until they can ensure victory to go on the offensive b) they feel the need to have a leader around to get enough people to go on offense or they will just lose and their XP will spiral downwards or c) they don't like fighting on enemy territory where they can't control what tactics the defense uses at their disposal (font, worldburn, extreme numbers, etc).

Glad to have you aboard, @Rahvin. We hold different ideas on the rarity of PvP engagement. In my personal experience, shrine conflict, cloud skirmishing, and raids are a common, everyday, often-welcome part of gaming. These species of small-group PvP are enjoyed in varying degrees for varying lengths of time. It should go without saying that every player's time is equally valuable, worthy of respect, and we shouldn't presume upon each other absent gratitude and self-awareness. If you roleplay a Targossan or Eleusian or Cyrenian character, that does not automatically mean that you have agreed to PvP for my enjoyment on Mhaldor's schedule. But PvP can be fun! 

I think we are lucky to have a few niche groups willing to go out and start non-lopsided conflict.  Unfortunately, very few players/groups like this exist.  It seems that a lot of players are very, very afraid of losing, so they won't even risk conflict at all offensively until they are for sure they will win.  The problem, from what I can tell in my limited experience, is that not enough people are willing to risk what going on the offensive requires you to risk.

When the best way to have a good time at PvP is to join the raiders, it feeds into a positive feedback loop that draws PvPers into recognizably large knots. Nobody's gonna play on hard mode if nobody else is. Making defense more palatable will reward players who spread out to the smaller factions, expecting to be raided. It will also encourage these smaller factions to speak up during world events, knowing that their players will happily and enthusiastically meet the enemy with or without defense leaders, peak or off-peak. 

More players would get involved if they knew they could go out on the offensive and gain the same thing, if not more, on offense.  However, with the current environment, there is no reason to risk so much to gain so little, especially when the fight is already skewed heavily in the defenders favor.  The only time the fight is skewed in the offense's favor is when the offense brings a group that they feel has no real reason to be losing.

I would like to be able to reward raiding with significant consequences and satisfying challenges, without discouraging PvPers from playing together before going to the organizational well for volunteers. Maybe we need more and better PvP events.

Rewarding offense more may result in less lopsided raiding and more fair fights for the defenders because both sides have something to gain without having to wait for a for-sure win to enter a city or stir up some conflict.   A few more small groups of raiders may spring up knowing they can go attack a city/start conflict and not be so negative on the other end of it if they are taking that risk.

The only thing I ask for is some gratitude and self-awareness on the part of anyone who volunteers another to play a complicated, fast-paced, expensive game of chess whether they want to or not. Let's also exercise portion control, remembering that most of us are feeding two or more hungry factions in terms of conflict. Be excellent to each other.