I am creating this post as i would love to gage people's opinions on the situation of outpost wars, it is no matter how it was intended to be alliance vrs alliance, if one alliance has 50% of the server's population support and two other alliances had the rest, no matter what happens there will only be one winner.
Currently on arispotle the kami own two Q150+ outposts
neutrals own four Q150+ outposts
the karavan own fourteen Q150+ outposts
easier to break it down into factions rather than alliance, for the most part the three sections are their own "alliance". Im not here to moan that were losing ect, i would like to see other peoples opinions of what could change to make a fairer system (as much as some people love to argue the current system is fine, its only fine for those who own outposts and have 3 active members). What i dont want to see is people posting its the kami's fault their not organised, the point of this post is to see peoples opinions of outpost mechanics and if they are running as they "should".
I am posting this after thinking about some previous outpost wars, resently two outpost wars bothered me the most.
A guild won an outpost with the support of its alliance, only 3 people from that guild attended the attack and defence stages, the previous owners had over three times that.
There have been very similar attacks to these for a while now, the current system is making more people "richer" because of the alliance they support, and more people unhappy because theres is nothing short term to do to change the ballance.
Enjoy flamming people, but please keep in mind what i have said:
This is not a thread for people to blame one another, it is to put forward suggestions of how things could change for the better or why the current system is working perfectly (someone is bound to try and explain that)
I will try and keep this post undated of all the good suggestions made
there would need to be a method of stopping people who joined that guild for only the battle, but genrally a great idea at stopping guilds who would struggle to even beat NPCs from owning outpostsblaah wrote:simple... marauders need to try and retake the outpost. only guild owning the outpost can help to defend it. guild owning it has 24h window to set 2h attack phase or marauders attack at 22h'th hour (so choosing the time will make marauders attack sooner).
threshold should be whatever default is for that outpost (5'ish ??).
so, guild who cant beat marauders, will lose it's outpost. then it's under marauders control for random of (more or less) 5 days +/- few sec. (no countown plz lol)
ok, not that simple and it has holes and nothing to do with balancing alliances, so ignore.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________riveit wrote:I've always wanted more dynamism in the outpost system. A stagnant distribution of outposts is no fun and leads to big imbalances and belief in ownership of outposts. One of my favorite ideas is that once a week, a new outpost becomes available for drilling. The first one to notice it and declare can take it from marauders. A day later or so, an established drill dries up. Such a mechanism would allow outposts to move around somewhat without huge battles between alliances. Of course, the alliance battles would still occur.
final60 wrote:An example of an OP war with the limiting participants mechanic in place:
A guild attacks declares war on an outpost! They gauge possible support for the attack phase. Realise that perhaps only 35-40 of their comrades may be able to turn out to help them! So they set the Attack time! And then the participant number to 40v40.
The next day the attack goes ahead. They manage to break the threshold and raise it to 9! There were many wipes, and different tactics used, all in all a great fight as usual!
The Defenders set their defence time and participant number to no limit! The attackers aren’t so worried about the number limit! The casual pvper’s that didn’t need to show up the previous day are fresh and in the mood for a fight! They don’t feel like they were forced to come, because “it’s their duty”, even though they’d rather be doing something else, they haven’t fought in a while and are looking forward to it!
The fight goes ahead. The war is more of a frontal head on approach due to the numbers! Thanks to those casual players that wanted to come and fight, there are just enough numbers to make the fight even enough for both sides to wipe every 2 to 3 rounds! The defenders manage to keep their OP with a threshold of 11! But it was close with only 2 rounds in it!
Ideas for the limiting options!
Attackers only choose the attack phase participant limit!
Defenders only choosing the Defence phase participant limit!
The limit:
20 v 20 - 2 guards per spawn
40 v 40 - 4
60 v 60 - 6
80 v 80 - 8
No limit - 10 guards per spawn
Attackers can Banish people from being part of their force via the list of participants in the Outpost Tab of the guild information window(shift + J on old UI) to prevent defenders choosing to attack but not participating!
The same would apply to the defenders for their phase of the war!
For those not familiar with the way guards work!
Ill have to check this as i cant remember off the top of me head, but its approximately 8-9 guards per pop. 1 pop added with every round increase! So round 1 = 1 pop of we'll say 8 for now guards
round 5 = 5 pop of guards = 40 guards
round 10 = 10 pops = 80 guards
round 18 = 144 guards
round 24 = 192 guards (near impossible on a ql250 op, unless one side overwhelms the other, which has happened only once EVER, just recently!)
___________________________________
iwojimmy wrote:After the threads mentioning professional athletes, and previous threads asking for some kind of dapper sinks, it occured to me that we could just pay the guards to take a dive.
what you do, is when you pay to declare the attack, you can also pay extra (exorbitant) fees to move the attacker threshold up, up to level 5, so you commence the attack at level 5 (with all the appropriate guards spawning etc)
this would guarantee the attack going through to the defense phase, where the defenders could do the same thing. The initial defenders would be fighting to keep the threshold down same as before.
the other financial attack option, is to buy "kill-all-guard" consumables - again for truly enormous prices. Probably in a stack with each use accounting for a squad of guards. These are non-transferable, only acquirable at the time of declaration, only valid for the attack they are declared for, must be used from within the OP combat area.. and the defenders know who is carrying them
from a RP justification, they could be Ma-duk getting peckish, Matis poisoning the guard supplies, nubile trykerettes enticing the squad off to the pub, False orders sending gullible Fyrosians off duty or Karavan orbital laser strikes..
To prevent this attack, the defenders must hunt down the carrier and prevent them from activating the consumables before they can be used inside the OP zone. The attacker has to weigh up wether to use them early to guarantee passing the theshold, or using them later to push it higher.
the first option, buying off entire rounds, gets the battle going at a higher level, and brings the battle through to the defense phase, where the owning guild can pay for the same effect - or just fight it out. With this battle balance issues remain pretty much the same - it just costs a hell of a lot more.
the second option, buying guard-nuking tickets, has the potential to give a small team of attackers victory over a massive army of defenders - requiring the defenders to mount an active defense, and prevent the "bomb carrier" from getting into range.
Balance issues - cant buy off more than 5 rounds, price increases as you buy more. Guard nuking tickets- each squad worth probably costing more than the actual declaration itself, takes significant time to activate ( longer than anti-magic aura/invul ), must be OP tagged to use, and within the zone. Defense side must know who they need to watch out for.
_________________________
_____________________________________redslayer wrote: As I dreamt up in a previus thread...
"*dreams* Take the Spire idea...Break it down, And use that system for towers and add it to OP defense 'instead' of guards, Have the towers maybe be able to do a bit of damage...
But make it so the owning guilds (or allies of the guild) Crafters/Diggers have to build the towers... and in order to take the OP the towers must be destroyed in the 2 hour period(Limit the amount of towers ofc so you can't have a super un defeatable OP)
You can even make it so crafters/diggers can do/repair damage durring the fights... (This too would have to be limited, Atleast on the defending side(they would need to be OP tagged to do it))... Crafters could make ranged weapons and Ammo to install on the tower... And thats what would do the damage(Imagine,A launcher on it... that would need to be reloaded! that would get crafters into the battles more!)... Or an Armor maker could make Armor to increase its defense!
Get the diggers/crafters invovled some...
Those are just a few ideas... I could think of so much more for OPs ahh They would be SO much fun for even more people if they were added too!
You could even have jewel crafters make resist jewels that would make magic do less damag to the tower."
Yeah I still dream about better OPs... OPs could just be so much more fun then they are now.
2--Fix the rest of the bugs in the game would be nice...
3--Make it so Armour can have your guild emblem on it...
Thats all I feel like typing now, Even tho I copy/pasted my dream for OPs
_______________________________________setstyle wrote:WARNING: The following post may contain constructive material; judge at your own risk.
In response to the original post, flaming and suspicion of motives aside, outposts are boring and meaningless. So why not combine them with something else just as boring and meaningless: tribes. This was, in fact, the initial plan for these little points on the map, on which I will expand.
Remember the boxed game manual? Yeah, that little booklet that nearly describes another game entirely? This thing actually alludes to a more exciting and lively future for outposts, not only dynamic but also meaningful to story and gameplay. Think of this as more of a summary of what could be rather than an original suggestion, but nevertheless one I would like to see considered (or else I wouldn't be typing it all out ) for the gaining, though currently less relevant since everything's already been claimed, and continued possession, which has already come up in this thread, of outposts.
I. Obtaining an Outpost
As I understand it, any current unclaimed outposts are inhabited by mysterious "marauders" (is there even reference to these guys anywhere? any lore-based justification? or are they just placeholders added at the last minute?). You declare on one of these locations, beat the marauders to a bloody pulp, and voilà - the folks disappear and you're in control. How... disappointingly simple and boring?
The manual continues with explaining that tribes control and inhabit the outposts in the wild (hmm, now THAT makes more sense!) and that two methods of obtaining an outpost exist (the whole guild mission, guild experience, and guild fame stuff is already obsolete and a totally different issue entirely, so I won't mull on that). The first way is through diplomacy should your guild have enough fame (again, fame being irrelevent); the seond is by force if your guild lacks the required fame.
So... why not update the idea and link the aquisition of outposts with tribes, as was originally intended? Here's one way to do it: initiate the diplomacy/force options. If a tribe resides in a region in which an outpost lays unclaimed, they will, by default, control it (giving a tribe their first actual purpose, aside from just sitting there waiting to kill your aggro (or you )). If two tribes of opposing fame reside in that region, one of random choosing will take control and face occasional attacks from the other; sometimes these attacks will be successful and the outpost will change hands between the tribes while other attacks will be thwarted (which isn't really necessary, but would still make for interesting events at the otherwise lifeless and dull outpost locations). To obtain an outpost, guild members can either complete a series of involved missions from that tribe if they have enough fame (remember those outpost NPCs in camp?), or forcibly attack that tribe until they surrender:
Let's consider an example. Wooky Workship in Knoll of Dissent is unclaimed, and the Matisian Border Guards have control over it. My guild can either waltz in and massacre their camp, guards, and Captain until they abandon the outpost to our control, or we can run a series of missions for them if our members have enough fame (0 or greater) to do so. The missions can by set on a timer, say for example a few days, during which we must complete them. This also allows other guilds to take up the diplomatic challenge should we fail (suppose too few of our members were not dedicated enough, or did not have positive fame to allow for such). In that case, we cannot try again for a period of time, say a week, during which other guilds can make an attempt to win the outpost.
Therefore, to obtain an outpost, your fame with the tribe in control will determine whether you must complete their missions or slay them into submission.
II. Keeping an Outpost
Currently, any outpost won by a guild just sits there. The drill/bore plucks away at Atys, the guildhall building... um, inventories... well, you get the idea, these things are pretty boring.
So if tribes were factored into the obtaining of an outpost, what next? If your guild achieved the required missions, the outpost will be transferred peacefully and the tribe will not attack you. [This, however, would also be boring, so I would add in blaah's suggestion for random marauder raids, or perhaps that of any opposing tribe; in the Wooky Workshop example the First Deserters would, logically, be the attackers.] Otherwise, if force was used, the outpost will be attacked regularly (not frequently) by that tribe:
Again, in accordance to blaah's idea, either of these defenses will be limited to guild participation only. The same would apply to the obtaining of an outpost, since missions are available only to that guild's members, and if a guild can't take the post by force then surely they can't defend it. This would introduce some of the guild-only activity intended for outposts, while GvG (AvA, FvF, what have you) battles would remain the same.
That's basically my adaptation of the original plan for outposts. Interestingly, there's no mention anywhere in the manual of outposts providing direct benefit (be it catalyzers, flowers, or materials); instead, they served only as a part in guild missions that improved guild experience, which in turn could be used to "upgrade your guild hall by adding trainer NPCs and other additional extensions." It's strange to see how the Saga of Ryzom transformed into a PvP game, huh?
------------
It may be that there is a problem with player aggressiveness, which fashions paper tigers of the game mechanics. The mechanics of outposts are working quite as intended, but leave wide open a door for expansion... and the possibilities could be really cool!
I know I just posted a really long reply, and you're quite welcome to skip over it if you haven't the time or interest, but either way it's an honest consideration and musing on my part.
iceclad wrote:Some ideas to fix OP battles a bit.
PvP wars are never a that simple thing to balance. To simplify down what I love to see, it would be fun, balanced and everyone who wants having the chance to take part. I'll just list first some of the things I see as poor points in Ryzom OP battles and also some things that can't be take advantage of in it's current form.
All comes down to numbers now.
This is as it is. Would be poor for a game to not allow all who want to join a battle the chance. By making a certain limit it would mean that there are people sitting around the battlefield watching. Someone with a low skills could like to join, but he'll never be given the chance as all those spots are taken by a 250 lvl veteran. Also depending on the implementation it would have al rushing to be first on battle to not be left out or one guild leader making the choices. Not good at all. But this will keep the flaw of numbers only dictating how the battle goes. There are things that could keep the influece of numbers in check, but those are quite inexistent here. Also only having the owning guild battle some marauders sounds like a very poor solution, why can't their friends help them like in normal OP battle. It would be an artificial restriction and poor one also.
There sadly are not much tactics that could have a big influence in combat compared to numbers so it's mostly just hack and slash. Some things that normally do make matter are quite inexistent.
- terrain
Has almost 0 effect here.
- skill/training
Same problem as mostly all online RPGs have. Skill level is capped so not much of a difference. Comparing 2 AoDs in combat we can see that they are almost the same, not much difference (other could have more HP with having fight 250 also). This is especially true in mass combat. In a server that is over 2 years old we are bound to see loads of 250 level people.
- equipment
Both sides have in long run about the best equipment to use. Only difference could be OP mats, but that's about that. Not much advantage can be gained this way.
- morale
Only affects who will join a battle, no game mechanical advantage at all.
- leadership/organization
Has some value, but in online games there are normally many good leaders. Can affect a bit how people do in battle, but has not much against superior numbers.
- guerrilla warfare
Has almost no use. Trying to damage an army with healers with 10 to 1 odds will just create a massacre. You can't touch enemy supplies much or can you get anyone killed. They are resurrected immediatelly or just respawn in a rare case to a close respawn point and run back. Will just create more losses than any real effect.
- tactics
Has some meaning here. Basically how many healers, mages, melee fighters and ranged fighters you take to battle, how you mix them. Where are they during the battle and etc. Altough after few years, both sides know what they need so it lessens the effect a lot.
- strategy
Strategy before battle has propably the most meaning. Most effect it does is to try to keep the amount of enemies as low as possible to even out the numbers. So declare a war when there is christmas dinner or work/school time of enemies, in middle of the night and etc. As numbers mean by far more than anything else, this has some value. Altough it mostly just annoys players to have battles in times like that.
Unless there is not much else than numbers that affect the outcome of the battle then you will see poor PvP in the end. It'll just be massing enough people to win the battle and seeing odd hours of battles to have as few enemy as possible.
But some of the normal points could also be used here to get some variety. This is what I'd try to do to get some changes.
1. Healing and Area of Effect is overly powerful in Ryzom. I know that healing has been reduced in strenght already, but in my opinion it's still way too strong influence in a battle. But keeping it normal for PvE I'd do this:
- Make AoE work as real AoE in PvP mode. So all bombs and etc will hit who is closest and not only enemies or only friends. So you just can't spam bombs like you want. This would need some thinking from the part of the player and also give weaker side the possibility to use friendly fire better. So all AoE would work on all who are closest, no matter what side.
- Do not allow resurrection during OP battles for people who are tagged as an attacker or defender. This would give a new tactical edge to use in battle and make guerrilla warfare possible. When someone dies, they actually die. Other choice is that if you die you can't be an attacker or defender anymore, but can still be resurrected. In worst case it would be 2 hours of not playing (no one forced them to that OP battle) and in better case they can still do something else.
2. Give morale/homeland some boost. People fighting for their own land has been know to be a lot better in combat than some foreign invasion force.
- Give people fighting in their homeland in OP battles a bonus. They fight for their home and they know the terrain better than anyone. With this I mean give them an individual bonus (to attack/defence/etc). This would at least help weaker side in OP battles in their own lands.
These are just few ideas to make OP battles more fun for everyone. I do have more ideas, but these would be the ones I'd try first.
