XP Loss/Enemy Territory

Jules

Why are we so resistant to being "fair" though, in the sense that if the factions are more balanced in terms of skilled players, mechanics and the whole glob really, people who like to PK actually have enemies worth fighting?  I've seen people in the other games discuss this idea of not having one side have entrenched advantages as if it were an idea worth considering, even if they're not always perfect in implementing it, but for some reason, we're really averse to the idea here.   

Florentino

@Jules Some people don't want enemies worth fighting. We see this in the status quo, where there are a dozen or more things members of the faction currently atop the heap could do to handicap themselves or balance the field if they really wanted a challenge. They just want to faceroll, thus the contentious nature of some of these conversations.

Jarrod

Jules said:

Why are we so resistant to being "fair" though, in the sense that if the factions are more balanced in terms of skilled players, mechanics and the whole glob really, people who like to PK actually have enemies worth fighting?  I've seen people in the other games discuss this idea of not having one side have entrenched advantages as if it were an idea worth considering, even if they're not always perfect in implementing it, but for some reason, we're really averse to the idea here.   

We regularly try to be as fair as possible, but as I'm sure other city raid leaders know it's hard to deny people who show up and ask for an invite. It's obvious in our raids where 3-5 people will start a skirmish on a shrine, or on mountain as examples, and if things are going well then people start showing up. Suddenly you have 8+ people who want to keep going, but the balance has shifted away from giving numerical advantage to account for less coordination/artefacts. Sometimes people don't even join the party, they just show up nearby and either go for specific people or assist with less coordination. While the additions generally aren't as potent individually, adding onto a solid core group of people with more damage from extra people matters, and a lot in some situations.

The basic idea is that no matter how much you try to balance or give advantage at the start of an encounter, it's almost inevitably going to end up imbalanced. Just earlier we were skirming Mhaldor, Mhaldor had 1 or 2 more people and I saw a fight happening, so I decided to join. Numbers were still slightly higher on Mhaldor's side at that point because Florentino joined them, but Kuy had to go so Mhaldor backed off because, as a Mhaldorian aptly put it, "Florentino is not = to Jarrod". Adding people or removing people from each side will never result in the same parity as there was before.

I know we're not the only ones who intentionally hold back people either, I know Xinna took an intentionally smaller group to fight us when we were defiling. We ended up winning, she brought a few more, the fights went back and forth, I think we ended up losing the last fight in that series. The danger is that, if people don't understand the motivations for that holding back initially, it makes the decision look bad. "You could have brought more and you lost because you didn't." should never be the takeaway. I don't think it happened in the instance I'm remembering, but it's something you have to consider when you're getting a group together.

In very few circumstances are you going to get a fight where both sides think, "That was really balanced and it could have gone either way." It happens sometimes, but even rarer does it continue happening as people join each side and shift the balance one way or another. Regardless what people out of the loop think, lots of raid leaders try to make balanced fights.

Jules

I sort of meant even more/deeper things than trying not to bring overwhelming force to individual fights, because A-team actually does seem very aware of that.  I mean, for example, that as I've mentioned before, Ashtan has an almost gravitational like pull for would-be combatants thanks partly to its basic RP framework that favors freedom and pragmatism, and then, there is your core group that has settled there (which ends up feeding itself even more, and tends to starve other places). 

I also mean, for example, the way that icons work here means that eventually, they tend to become incredibly static, but when people bring that up, our attitude tends to be less about making them more dynamic, and more like "welp, that's just how it is, most powerful factions get the buffs and there are almost no icon fights ever" (although I see Eleusis recently tried to take one of yours).  It almost becomes a matter of "well, we'll leave yours alone if you leave ours alone" or "winner takes all", and so Nish hardly ever gets used, for example, because once the dust settles, the mechanic seems to really favor stagnancy.  We seem to have a lot of things like that, but I don't see people saying "wow, we need to make this more dynamic/make it so any faction can compete for advantages and buffs more often" (so that everyone is more involved in conflict and is enjoying it).   

Jarrod

Most people involved in Icon battles are advocates for changes to the Icon system.

I believe there are changes in the works, but as far as I'm aware we haven't gotten any change hints yet.

Xinna

Florentino said:

@Jules Some people don't want enemies worth fighting. We see this in the status quo, where there are a dozen or more things members of the faction currently atop the heap could do to handicap themselves or balance the field if they really wanted a challenge. They just want to faceroll, thus the contentious nature of some of these conversations.

What. Every "top" faction (which actually varies based upon the day and time of day) at least sometimes handicaps itself to balance fights. I've seen every faction "hold back" to do this. This isn't really an accurate statement.

Herenicus

It isn't so much that they don't try at all, it's that they shouldn't be put in the position of having to throw a wet blanket on each other to begin with. It's the conflict of interest. 

Xinna

Fights would never really be fun if players didn't bother trying to make them fun. I don't think there's any possible way to change that. You can reduce losses and the like, which will make some players happier about participating, but it's still only really going to be a fun, balanced fight if the players make it that way.

Mishgul

i miss malifuus

Jacen

Sometimes aggressors intend to make fights fun. Sometimes those fights then snowball to favor the aggressors. Sometimes aggressors have no intention of making the fight fun, but are trying to achieve some sort of objective (ie. Drop X shrines, blow a level X tank, kill X guards)

The system shouldn't depend on the good will of the aggressors, but should try to enforce the types of fights we desire to see. The existing city destruction mechanic went a good ways towards achieving this, by removing the channeling mechanic ( Long term channels only enforce a "do it when nobody's around" mindset, which is why I don't favor the shrine idea Nemutaur posted )  and making city evacuation a mechanically sound strategy for avoiding city destruction. 

I'm with @Daeir. Cutting PK XP loss would be a good start, and would promote conflict outside of cities, which is often hailed as a more fun way of fighting anyways. It doesn't carry quite the necessity of response for the defenders, allowing them to better choose when they want to fight, and when they'd rather spend their time elsewhere. Then you'd have defenders fighting, not because of IC demands or some OOC sense of obligation or duty, but because OOCly, they genuinely want to.

Jovolo

Cutting XP loss isn't happening, it's a dead horse.

Sarapis & Tecton have both said so.

Herenicus

Jovolo has the right of it; we have done our part, explored the arguments, and it's time to trust the professionals to make the next move.  I appreciate everyone who took the time to read or contribute to this discussion. Particular thanks go out to the individuals who swallowed some frustration or irritation to make themselves civil, with due apologies for where I fell short of that standard, myself. Thank you. This thread can be closed. 

Nim

Jacen said:

The system shouldn't depend on the good will of the aggressors, but should try to enforce the types of fights we desire to see.

Systems that encourage it (eg. the carrot principle in the OP) are also good.

The real underlying issue is that Achaea is a persistent game without a whole lot of persistence on the day-to-day level. Therefore, round-based game mechanics (such as penalizing rage quitters) make no sense, but at the same time, persistent game mechanics (such as permadeath or permanent changes) are also unfeasible.

With PvP as it currently is, people are rewarded for winning. Basic strategic warfare says to do everything you can to make sure you're going to win before even fighting, and the game encourages that philosophy. The problem with penalizing attackers (especially for losing) is that it only encourages this even more.

A very simple system that encourages even fights would be one that divides EXP amongst all participants based on the number (and rough strength) of enemy participants, such that it's most efficient when sides are even. The issue here is that it promotes exclusion based (primarily) on player skill (if you can have four attackers for maximum gain, you're going to want the best four you can get, ideally), but I'd personally argue that player skill should be emphasized with different mechanisms in some way.

From the player perspective, there's been a lot of debate about claiming player responsibility on the side of the attackers, but there's been some unmentioned aspects to the responsibility on the defenders. For example, @Herenicus claims to have asked a Targossian city leader, and people shot that down with "oh, that guy always likes raids."

That, to me, is a complete misunderstanding of responsibilities. It's arguably Herenicus's responsibility to make sure he's not ruining other people's days (within reason), but saying that it's his responsibility rather than the city leader's to make calls like that is... skewed. It's definitely the city leader's responsibility to make organizational calls like that. I won't say that they should do a perfect job, of course, but that's still the role they took on.

Aside from that, some cities "encourage" defenders by requiring them to defend. This only works so long as they agree that playing Achaea is more fun than any other activity, but in effect, it just means that if they don't want to defend, they'll just log out.

I think the primary reason that this happens in the first place, though, can be blamed on the game itself. There's no severity of attack to say that "oh, we don't need you" except in terms of oppositional forces. The only place you're ever attacked is the city itself, and so there's never any real reason not to defend it, unless you're on some faraway island doing some terribly important thing, or something like that... and if you're an active defender of your city, what's objectively more important than defending your city?

There's no easy solution to this from the game perspective (and therefore I disagree that the discussion is wholly in the administration's hands now), but there are from the player perspective. I think favoring defenders, for example, is starting to catch on.

Honestly, I'd just like a basic soldier's wage to cover my curatives and other supplies so I don't have to hunt. :c

Bluef

Daeir said:

Jovolo said:

Cutting XP loss isn't happening, it's a dead horse.

Sarapis & Tecton have both said so.

Nothing is that clear cut, I'm afraid. So long as there's room to talk about it, there's room to change things. Lots of things previously "not up for discussion" have ended up changing over the years.

I have faith that eventually, the player outflux or the general deterioration of people participating in PK stuff will encourage some sort of change in that domain. Eventually.

I don't really see an outflux of people participating in PK. If anything, i see older players returning and getting into it full swing, or new players joining Achaea because of it. Every once in a while I meet a newbie who is here to solely roleplay, but I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule. It may be more likely that cities with deteriorating PK bases will be given some cookie to lure in new fighters or who knows, maybe Ashtan really will be blown up by that volcano down yonder and the A-team will be spread across the map. Odder things have happened. 

Jacen

If cities' PK bases are deteriorating, it needs to be addressed on a system level, and not a "give them a cookie" level. Graphical MMOs are getting better and better, and Achaea needs to cure problems, not symptoms, if it wants to stay afloat. 

PK is a very enticing aspect of Achaea. I'm not sure why we're so opposed to taking steps to balance and diversify the PK scene to make it more enjoyable for all.

Bluef

Jacen said:

If cities' PK bases are deteriorating, it needs to be addressed on a system level, and not a "give them a cookie" level. Graphical MMOs are getting better and better, and Achaea needs to cure problems, not symptoms, if it wants to stay afloat. 

PK is a very enticing aspect of Achaea. I'm not sure why we're so opposed to taking steps to balance and diversify the PK scene to make it more enjoyable for all.

Given that 12 of the 15 out of subdivision homes sold within days for 1500 credits a piece ($441.99 each), I think Achaea's immediate future is pretty secure. What I mean by this is not that $5300 is some landmark income figure tied to the game's continued longevity, but that you vastly underestimate the fact that many players, PK individuals as well as purely roleplayers, are heavily invested in this game and will therefore return after they are burned out on the short-term from PK.

It's interesting that no one want to discuss the fact that some cities could do things to make themselves more attractive to others and even recruit the way Mhaldor has done in the last few years to garner a PK-interested pool of players. The fault does not like solely with the mechanics of city raiding.

Jacen

Cities shouldn't have to offer bandaids to cover system mechanics though. And cities can't buy you XP or give you back time lost, so they can't actually pose a solution to the problems discussed here

ETA: And that's just addressing symptoms over problems, again. Why don't we want to talk about fixing the problems?

Shirszae

They can offer rewards, though. They can make defence appealing instead of enforced. 

Edit: Let me get this straight: People are deserting your city and you consider offering them rewards and making it appealing to stay as not fixing the problem you have? Are you really being serious? 

Jacen

Of course I'm serious. Do you think the number of credits offered to PKers is the only reason Hashan hasn't had the same PK environment as Ashtan since... ever? There are many other factors at play here.

Dracen

Jacen said:

Of course I'm serious. Do you think the number of credits offered to PKers is the only reason Hashan hasn't had the same PK environment as Ashtan since... ever? There are many other factors at play here.

lolwtf? I haven't been offered credits for PK at -all- since joining over a RL year ago. What crack are you smoking? Most I've been "offered" are on bounties.

Herenicus

Brosef Stalin believes in you, Jacen.

Bluef

Jacen said:

Of course I'm serious. Do you think the number of credits offered to PKers is the only reason Hashan hasn't had the same PK environment as Ashtan since... ever? There are many other factors at play here.

There are reasons that fighters gravitate to certain cities. There are other reasons that those numbers dwindle beyond mechanics. If you split up all of Ashtan across the other cities forcibly, particularly those PKers who don't really care about losing XP, you'd end up with the same problem in the end if you didn't address what makes playing (and fighting) in your city appealing.

Florentino

Dracen said:

Jacen said:

Of course I'm serious. Do you think the number of credits offered to PKers is the only reason Hashan hasn't had the same PK environment as Ashtan since... ever? There are many other factors at play here.

lolwtf? I haven't been offered credits for PK at -all- since joining over a RL year ago. What crack are you smoking? Most I've been "offered" are on bounties.

(a) Please be less rude in Golden Dais, (b) the availability/number of credits in org credit sales, the frequency/lucrativeness of bounties, the Effigy (CTF experience award), and Icon bonuses are just a few vicious-cycle advantages luring away players from disadvantaged factions like Hashan, and I'm certain you've benefited from all of those.

@Bluef: the Mhadorian conversion campaign of the past few IC decades has been nothing sort of extraordinary; imposing the recreation thereof on the few players leading factions like Hashan (Vayne, Jacen, etc.) is unreasonable, especially after they've expressed burnout.  

Dracen

Been part of every city (That includes Hashan). Problem Hashan has, isn't Icons or Credits, or anything like that. It's that it's a city that likes RP more than conflict, which is cool. I don't down 'em for that. I just think it's silly to get up in arms about combat, when they don't have a major drive for it. Jacen knows he could push it, and turn Hashan more into a combat city, he's got more people for it now. Lanar, Kasa, and the like. It's all in initiative, and that sort of thing has to be player driven, not system driven. Being without Effigy, cr, Icon is just fine. I did that quite a bit, even on my main. Hashan has a chance to turn this around with the Renaissance, will they do it? That remains to be seen. As for the OP, I've said what I'll say, as have others.


EDIT: Adding in, because I don't wanna make people feel like I'm leaving them out. In regards to Hashani PK, they've got Yurdan, Kasa, Lanar and Jacen all working on it, with Yurdan and Kasa being the two prominent names, being at NoT and dueling and genuinely trying to help other Hashani out in combat. I've watched Kasa alone teach others (not just his class) basics of combat, and defense. They have a bit of forward momentum, and here's hoping they make it to the world stage.

Bluef

Florentino said:

Dracen said:

Jacen said:

Of course I'm serious. Do you think the number of credits offered to PKers is the only reason Hashan hasn't had the same PK environment as Ashtan since... ever? There are many other factors at play here.

lolwtf? I haven't been offered credits for PK at -all- since joining over a RL year ago. What crack are you smoking? Most I've been "offered" are on bounties.

(a) Please be less rude in Golden Dais, (b) the availability/number of credits in org credit sales, the frequency/lucrativeness of bounties, the Effigy (CTF experience award), and Icon bonuses are just a few vicious-cycle advantages luring away players from disadvantaged factions like Hashan, and I'm certain you've benefited from all of those.

@Bluef: the Mhadorian conversion campaign of the past few IC decades has been nothing sort of extraordinary; imposing the recreation thereof on the few players leading factions like Hashan (Vayne, Jacen, etc.) is unreasonable, especially after they've expressed burnout.  

True, but I'd argue the fact that they're burned out is why they're not really thinking about this clearly. They need to recruit some new people instead of trying to build up the few souls they have who are interested in PK or recycling MoW every few years. The tactic for that doesn't have to be Crucible of Slaves like. it should probably be something more akin to whatever the city is becoming in the Ren (which I'm sure will help a lot with an influx of new players overall).

City leaders choose to fulfill their role. It comes with headaches and yes stress and frustration along with wonderful opportunities to change things, try new ideas, etc. If they're too burned out to carry on those duties, maybe it's time to step down and let someone who isn't at the end of their rope step in. Fresh people and ideas can have an incredible impact on city morale, not to mention recruitment.

Edit: Agree with @Dracen 100%. Certain cities attract a certain kind of player (not necessarily PKers). I hope the Renaissance helps them to turn that around somewhat so they feel as though they have something more to put forth in terms of factional PvP.

Silas

The entitled attitude of some people (Florentino and Jacen) in this thread is honestly mind-blowing. I don't understand it at all.

It's not a game mechanic that keeps Ashtan strong. Some things contribute to it, like the Effigy and the Icon boosts, but the balance of power can, has, and inevitably will shift to favour another city. That requires that people work like the players of Ashtani leadership characters have, though, which seems to be something others are largely unwilling/unable to do.

I just don't get why people can't take being beaten by better players. Ashtan has a more skilled core group, because they put the most focus on PK. They have a larger playerbase because they make their city the most attractive to the populace at large, and not just because you can do whatever you want.

Ashtan has a seemingly fanatically loyal (to each other) and motivated playerbase, and that's telling right now on the combat and conflict scene. This is not a bad thing. Sure, it sucks to lose, but if your reward for hard work is to get kicked in the teeth and handicapped by the game mechanics, then the game is just going to actively kill its players' motivation, which would be terrible.

There is already a dearth of active, motivated players; removing the motivation to work hard to reach the top by just promoting the people who want to be the best without putting in any work is the last thing Achaea should do.

Herenicus's idea for more balanced conflict stages for people to enjoy PvP with each other without imposing on everybody else for several hours a day is sound, and there are definitely more things Achaea could do in that regard - especially around things like Icons. This does not equate, though, to the game disadvantaging the people who are just better at it than everyone else, so that everyone else can win instead.

Jules

Hmm, I do think from his response to my question in his Valentine's weekend thread that Tecton and Co. have something in mind for at least part of this problem.  That said, I wonder if they'd go for a limited number of "free" deaths per RL day (and no infamy up to that point either unless you're doing theft, but bounties and such would all apply).  It would let someone like me dabble in PK in a more free-wheeling way.  I could go punch Jhui in the nose, as one young forumer noted!  I probably wouldn't though, because I'd mostly be looking to fight someone who was "somewhat" better than me rather than the best people in the game if I did any 1 vs. 1 stuff.

Right now, I have to have the good fortune to log in at the right time in order to take part in one of the proscribed PK venues for those of us who might well be interested in combat, but are well aware that it's pretty easy to get yourself in way deeper than you wanted.  Even that really does feel like a bandaid though, because I think experience loss is just a huge deterrent for people (because experience loss pretty directly translates into time bashing, which I think most of us agree people aren't too fond of).  Worse, it's an incentive for people to want to be in a comfortably dominant position if they do PK much (this is almost certainly part of Ashtan's appeal for would-be combatants, though I wouldn't insult the leadership there and say that's all of it).   

Another missing element would be regularly occurring, well-defined conflict events that are Free PK.  Give us a bunch of mini-relics to fight over or something (hint, Imperian's shard falls).  A stick of gum works too.

Actually fighting in groups, or even alone really is different than trying to drag people to an arena.  Smallish groups with a couple people who actually know what they're doing are probably ideal, because then you have someone to talk to about it afterwards, and you have a few things you can see to work on, and you fix those things, and then next time, there are a couple of other things. 

Regular CTFs could be pretty neat too.  Even better would be something that divides CTF into smaller teams.  One thing about Achaean combat is that because we are the flagship, we have just that much more spam too.  Smaller fights would not only allow things like elite engagements, where say, best fighters take on another team of similarly skilled people, but it's also just more fun and manageable for someone like me to not be in a room where nearly 40 players might be spamming each other. 

Florentino

Silas said:

The entitled attitude of some people (Florentino and Jacen) in this thread is honestly mind-blowing. I don't understand it at all.

It's not a game mechanic that keeps Ashtan strong. Some things contribute to it, like the Effigy and the Icon boosts, but the balance of power can, has, and inevitably will shift to favour another city. That requires that people work like the players of Ashtani leadership characters have, though, which seems to be something others are largely unwilling/unable to do.

I just don't get why people can't take being beaten by better players. Ashtan has a more skilled core group, because they put the most focus on PK. They have a larger playerbase because they make their city the most attractive to the populace at large, and not just because you can do whatever you want.

Ashtan has a seemingly fanatically loyal (to each other) and motivated playerbase, and that's telling right now on the combat and conflict scene. This is not a bad thing. Sure, it sucks to lose, but if your reward for hard work is to get kicked in the teeth and handicapped by the game mechanics, then the game is just going to actively kill its players' motivation, which would be terrible.

There is already a dearth of active, motivated players; removing the motivation to work hard to reach the top by just promoting the people who want to be the best without putting in any work is the last thing Achaea should do.

Herenicus's idea for more balanced conflict stages for people to enjoy PvP with each other without imposing on everybody else for several hours a day is sound, and there are definitely more things Achaea could do in that regard - especially around things like Icons. This does not equate, though, to the game disadvantaging the people who are just better at it than everyone else, so that everyone else can win instead.

What a myopic opinion. I'd take your views on successful faction-building more seriously if your own several previous attempts hadn't ultimately required hard reboots. There's more than enough motivation for the top tier / advantaged faction already, the Garden would do much better to be concerned about the motivation of the players like Jacen/Vayne, without whom some factions would fall apart entirely. But perhaps you also want to argue that Ashtan's daily 3-4 hours of raiding on Targossas and the multiple guard wipes over the course of few RL months (before they moved on to Mhaldor) were great for the game and the long-term health of the faction. God, didn't you just get so much better, and didn't Cadarus and Davio really benefit from the group combat leadership experience?  

Spreading around the wins by using handicaps is *exactly* what a good game system should do to keep the playerbase interested. You can have a purely meritocratic (caveat: subject to how many arties you've purchased) combat tournament every 50 IC years. Every other time, the Garden should look to balance the playing field (e.g. denizen wyvern support during the Reckoning). Nobody's going to play to be a perennial punching bag even if the other team *did* work harder to get their wins. They're just going to stop playing.

Florentino

"Achaea should be full of wars that never end, with all sides well represented. If conflict is conducted

with the goal of the complete eradication of the opposing side, then conflict

will end quickly with all combat-capable players on the same side. As a

character you may (and should!) want Mhaldor to be driven in to the sea or

Shallam to be wiped out of existence but as a player you should not."

This stated philosophy sounds a lot different from "reward people who work hard by enabling them to be the most powerful."

Silas

You have no idea what you're talking about.