Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Here you can talk about everything related to The Exiled.
YungChance
Posts: 9
Joined: 13 May 2016, 02:32

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby YungChance » 27 May 2016, 21:23

If this were to grow too much of a problem maybe when there is huge pvp area. When a clan's numbers surpass a certain number over the other you could perhaps give the larger one a handicap. Maybe do 80% damage. Just a thought. I don't like swarms but as a fonline player I have learned that numbers are not everything. If you are truly skilled past your opponent you will win and in this game I can see that even stronger. There is a threshold you must hit in a game before numbers are a factor. Just my opinion.
>inb4 khan just wants to zerg

zerus
Wiki Content Creator
Posts: 202
Joined: 04 Nov 2015, 21:00

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby zerus » 27 May 2016, 21:29

As you said "If you are truly skilled past your opponent"; big clans don't mean dumb clans. They can utilize strong strategies and tactics as well.

I like the idea Albion has: for each player that attacks another one, damage is reduced. I.e. 5 players attack one, they each deal only x% of their original damage. The only problem with this is that it doesn't promote focusfire at all. In fact it actively discourages it. But the general idea behind that is nice.

User avatar
Pavlov
Seeker Supporter
Posts: 115
Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 17:02

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby Pavlov » 27 May 2016, 22:52

Not sure about that one. You don't want people to feel like their teammates are too much of a burden. Friendly fire and body blocking can already cause issues. It's something to consider though.

User avatar
TKs-Mengelito
Vanguard Supporter
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 May 2016, 14:37

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby TKs-Mengelito » 27 May 2016, 23:19

ITT: nerf TKs.

How DARE you?
The Khans - Wasteland Rockstars.
Image

ManuKuma
Posts: 313
Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 17:59

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby ManuKuma » 28 May 2016, 00:29

From another thread:
ManuKuma wrote:
zerus wrote:Advantages of bigger groups:
1) You have an easier time ganking people and reviving your own
2) You have an easier time keeping the "poke" phase going if you've got losses
3) You can use the revive-mechanic to "burst heal" and buff up players.
4) You have an easier time defending multiple spots
5) You have an easier time bringing new gear into the fight
6) Even if you got ganked, you're not out of the fight for long. You'll come back up buffed within a very short time frame.


That matches my concerns for the exaggerated effect of numbers and limited playability for small clans or groups. Also touching on the missing "mob" opposition for a dominant clan issue.

Probably difficult to solve, since advantage by numbers is quite natural...

Something specifically tailored is needed that evens out the advantage of numbers - e.g. some kind of debuff if more than a certain number of players cluster (maybe distribute energy flow per area reducing energy regeneration for bigger groups)? or e.g. dimishing returns for damage and cc from a large number of sources (maybe there is some resistance building up and only the top 3 damage dealers to a player do full damage and additional damage dealers do reduced damage)(all scaled by current health, so no reduction for fully healed players)?

ManuKuma
Posts: 313
Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 17:59

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby ManuKuma » 28 May 2016, 00:39

While it is legitimate to target a game at gaming communities, there are also drawbacks:
It makes the game more about off-game organisational skills than game playing skills. It tends to force players to engage in not fun for everyone social engineering. Big clans can dominate if there are no counter built into the game. If too many seasons are dominated, the loosing side will abandon the game sooner or later. When no opposition is left, the dominating side will abandon the game. Game is dead.
To hope for all to just work out and balance in a social sandbox is imho wishful thinking. Imho you have to seed, guide and constrain to get some chance in obtaining a sustainable system.

User avatar
dbltnk
Game Developer
Posts: 2544
Joined: 27 Feb 2014, 12:52

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby dbltnk » 29 May 2016, 17:10

zerus wrote:
dbltnk wrote:
zerus wrote:So what I get from this is that theoretically, things like diminishing returns on numbers and generally mechanics discouraging zergs in some ways are within the game's vision, but zerg-based guilds in general aren't supposed to be just cut away by for example instanced sieges, and should still be part of the game?

Exactly!


In that case, I suppose it's fine if I yell about zergs all day and give the perspective on my small-scale focused PvP interest? :D

Always. I've played the small-group-versus-the-zerg game for the last 15 years of my life so I'm sympathetic of the problems. But part of my job is to make the game work for (more or less) all of its players so I can't always see everything from that perspective. Feel free to remind me frequently. =D

User avatar
dbltnk
Game Developer
Posts: 2544
Joined: 27 Feb 2014, 12:52

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby dbltnk » 29 May 2016, 17:20

Pavlov wrote:There are plenty of large gaming communities that could do something similar, so this is something the game has to prepare for. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to be big and powerful, but they can't be allowed to get the kind of critical mass that can lock down an entire server. Even forcing a guild to break up into guilds goon1, goon2, and goon3 can help. It encourages sectarianism. Maybe goon3 decides they don't like the leadership and sets up their own independent fiefdom. Then the head of goon1 declares war on goon2 because they're bored and someone in goon2 keeps using a meme they don't like. It's way more fun to collapse from mismanagement and infighting than to end a server 2 weeks in with "gg 2 zerg goons win".

But the sorts of imposed downsides to large single clans/alliances I suggested earlier can still work if you can convince people to stay in those guilds anyway. There's already a basis for that right now. Guild members get blue nametags (very helpful in chaotic fights), icons on the map, more favorable friendly fire mechanics, can cooperate capturing points, get access to base resources etc. If you keep adding little conveniences like that, it can go a long way to convincing people use the clan system even with large-clan downsides. If they try to avoid those downsides by not being in the same clan/alliance, then they're missing out on the conveniences and tactical advantages that other, smaller clans will have. That's a disadvantage in itself.

It may also be worth only allowing players to join one clan per X hour period, or have some cost to joining/leaving a clan, to avoid jumping clans to cheese the system.

The main deterrance to "everyone in the same zerg" is that it does indeed "shut down the server", making the game boring as hell if no fights break out within the zerg. Which is a problem if you're game is EVE (with one persistent universe) but less so if each game world is small in players numbers and time-boxed.

I am currently thinking about adding a maintenance cost for having more clan members - either in your clan or bound to your settlement tree. Free for the first couple members and then nearly exponentially growing. Might be useful, might be annoying. Haven't fully thought it through yet. Might just lead to larger clans forming secondary entities (taking into account the "small annoyances" you wrote about) or taking secondary settlements ...

User avatar
Pavlov
Seeker Supporter
Posts: 115
Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 17:02

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby Pavlov » 29 May 2016, 20:59

Maintenance cost is a good start. I'd still recommend thinking about deterrents that are more related to map dominance than to player numbers though. If, for instance, there was an event that required a guild to defend all their resource points at the same time or face X consequence, a larger guild might find itself spread thin and vulnerable to getting one or two picked off by clever opposition, while a clan with 1 or 2 points would be less so.

Yes, it would encourage the use of secondary clans, but they're not necessarily a bad thing. If you can convince secondary clans to use an alliance system, you can apply costs to that as well. If, say, you needed an alliance to access another clan's base facilities, then sister clans would be very pressed to form one, and you could have costs similar to being bound to a tree.

The reason I say this is that I'm not convinced that you can trust players not to wreck their own server if you give them that opportunity. The history of PvP sandboxes seems to that of power condensing and scaring of anyone else. It might just be the sort of players this kind of game attracts, but they often seem to play against their own long-term interests.

zerus
Wiki Content Creator
Posts: 202
Joined: 04 Nov 2015, 21:00

Re: Direction/Vision for Group/Skill-Based PvP?

Postby zerus » 30 May 2016, 17:02

I think due to the nature of Das Tal, comparisons to games like Rust and DayZ are valid. And in those games we regularly see people dominating servers, then everybody else leaving, the dominating clan splitting up / moving to a new server until they dominate gain.
So while time-boxing/server-splitting makes the problem less apparent(because instead of quitting the whole game, you can just move to another server) the problem could still be there.

One thing I could also see work out is using settlements to actively build up clans. Say every clan gets x members for free, but should they want to recruit more members, they have to build "Barracks". Coupled with potential building requirements (Barracks Lv1 gives you 10 more members, Barracks Lv2 requires you to have Warehouse LvX, Dojo LvX first) you could essentially put a time/ressource limit on big clans: "If you want to go big, do big".

I think the settlement mechanic itself could be a very good solution and fit well with the theme. Then give smaller clans more opportunities to cripple the progress of the big clans, like attacking settlements outside of the big sieges(Razing?; the Refinery mechanic is a great idea already) and you could have a very nice dynamic between small and big clans without ever instancing the fights.

Also, I want to point out that I don't think clans splitting up into smaller clans and then assisting each other is a problem. Thats essentially an alliance and legit. It's when they can always bring 100% of their force and be 100% effective without any consequences that I see an issue. This is where I think only proper combat balancing will help.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests