Outposts shifting to GvG
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:18 pm
Continued from other thread...
As far as I can see, a dynamic GvG OP system basically requires there to be no alliances whatsoever.
It depends on the mechanic really.
Alliance could be different affiliations than FvF. We have, somewhat, a Tryker nationalist faction, if things were mixed up a bit more you could have alliances on all sorts of grounds. Our problem, in no small part, comes from the attitude that's been picked up of a semi-monolithic faction oriented approach which, in order to survive, has necessitated the same approach from the opposite side. It may well be too late to shift this problem without some change in mechanics, at least on Arispotle.
Part of the problem is that OPs can be fought over by absolutely anyone so inclined so it becomes a matter of...
1. Numbers.
2. Levels.
3. Timing.
To determine who wins.
This can't be particularly exhilerating for the PvP lovers as you can tell, usually (but not always) within the first three rounds or so who is going to win and its sheer weight of numbers, not tactics or skill.
Why would you attack someone who helps you out?
Why would you trade crystals with someone who might attack you?
What happens when every guild has one OP? (You didn't mention it, but I often see GvG coupled with "1OP per guild")
The only way I can see this happening is if "everyone" is allied with everyone else, and only use OPs for some "PvP fun". I really doubt that's going to happen.
That would be one approach but its not satisfying from and RP/Story point of view particularly, though it could sate the competition need it would basically reduce OPs to the equivalent of a game of five-a-side football or a CS battle. I guess once R2 incorporates PvP we'll see what happens there,
For "trading up", why would you give your OP to someone who has a lower q than you do? If your answer is "Because you get another, higher, one; what happens when someone gets to the top of the ladder? Besides which, if there was no "one OP per guild" ideal, why would you give an OP to someone who may well start gunning for your higher OP pretty soon anyway?
One OP per guild is something that gets brought up quite a lot and does head off a lot of these potential problems. If you have to give yours up for a higher one that does create a chain of ownership and allows for some upward movement. The competition would gradually intensify for the high end OPs as groups levelled however. That's what trading up is, moving for a higher OP.
As for newer guilds, as soon as they attack someone, they lose a potential ally (tho I can't see how alliances would work at all in this theoretical situation) and make an "enemy". Assuming they fail their attack, they stay without crystals - likely enough there's no reason for anyone else to give them crystals to lvl up with (they might come after you next) and the people they attacked sure wouldn't give them any crystals.
I think part of this has to come from having more reasons to have outposts and more ways to acheive them.
As soon as someone starts giving crystals to you, its kind of expected that you won't attack them. This is where alliances come in, and once you have alliances, you lose a dynamic GvG OP system.
Alliances can also be dynamic. When we held an OP we were in an alliance, it shifted and changed constantly even to the point of a formerly allied guild threatening to attack because things weren't going their way. The alliance was also across factional bounds. We see hints of this in the way that the KA is really more like the MA and in the Tryker nationalism, so there are hints that this monolithic struggle CAN be broken down into smaller chunks but the lead needs to come from somewhere.
That's not really GvG then is it? It's more like alliance vs alliance, and the "most logical" routes for alliances to form is along faction boundaries, which then gets back to FvF.
The civ leaders copped out on this though and basically said its nothing to do with them, seemingly happy to have their land annexed - which didn't make much sense to me.
If we still had more moderates I expect we'd see a bit more dynamism going on.
No, I think the changes have to come at a mechanical level, at least somewhat. Greater variety, more reasons to own outposts, things that directly and only benefit the guild owning them perhaps to encourage some internal alliance/faction competition over them.
And in there somewhere was the old "limit the number of combatants" idea which has been done to death.. I really hope you don't expect me to make those points again? Following that was some "positive feedback" stuff which I didn't get into because I thought Sehr and riv were doing quite a good enough job of proving you wrong.
The limiting combatants idea is one of the best that has sprung up, along with the 'dig on the site to produce crystals for you AND the owner' one that came up in another thread.
It would prevent size being greater than anything else and would reintroduce a tactical element,which should be more satisfying for those that like it. Alliances would still play a roll and it would allow, if not necessarily for GvG dynamism, at least a little more back and forth in the existing outpost byplay.
Ultimately I think the solution has to come from Nevrax. Reasons to hold particular outposts relevent to the guild (Say farms increase everyone's digging rate, diplomatic outposts increase fame with tribes in that area, forts give a few bonus HP to members of the holding guild, things like that) plus particular buildings with benefits to the holding guild, TPs, stables etc, things that only the holding guild can use. If the emphasis is shifted a bit more to what you get from holding an OP, as a guild, rather than the supplies that can be scattered around, that might be a nudge in the right direction.
As far as I can see, a dynamic GvG OP system basically requires there to be no alliances whatsoever.
It depends on the mechanic really.
Alliance could be different affiliations than FvF. We have, somewhat, a Tryker nationalist faction, if things were mixed up a bit more you could have alliances on all sorts of grounds. Our problem, in no small part, comes from the attitude that's been picked up of a semi-monolithic faction oriented approach which, in order to survive, has necessitated the same approach from the opposite side. It may well be too late to shift this problem without some change in mechanics, at least on Arispotle.
Part of the problem is that OPs can be fought over by absolutely anyone so inclined so it becomes a matter of...
1. Numbers.
2. Levels.
3. Timing.
To determine who wins.
This can't be particularly exhilerating for the PvP lovers as you can tell, usually (but not always) within the first three rounds or so who is going to win and its sheer weight of numbers, not tactics or skill.
Why would you attack someone who helps you out?
Why would you trade crystals with someone who might attack you?
What happens when every guild has one OP? (You didn't mention it, but I often see GvG coupled with "1OP per guild")
The only way I can see this happening is if "everyone" is allied with everyone else, and only use OPs for some "PvP fun". I really doubt that's going to happen.
That would be one approach but its not satisfying from and RP/Story point of view particularly, though it could sate the competition need it would basically reduce OPs to the equivalent of a game of five-a-side football or a CS battle. I guess once R2 incorporates PvP we'll see what happens there,
For "trading up", why would you give your OP to someone who has a lower q than you do? If your answer is "Because you get another, higher, one; what happens when someone gets to the top of the ladder? Besides which, if there was no "one OP per guild" ideal, why would you give an OP to someone who may well start gunning for your higher OP pretty soon anyway?
One OP per guild is something that gets brought up quite a lot and does head off a lot of these potential problems. If you have to give yours up for a higher one that does create a chain of ownership and allows for some upward movement. The competition would gradually intensify for the high end OPs as groups levelled however. That's what trading up is, moving for a higher OP.
As for newer guilds, as soon as they attack someone, they lose a potential ally (tho I can't see how alliances would work at all in this theoretical situation) and make an "enemy". Assuming they fail their attack, they stay without crystals - likely enough there's no reason for anyone else to give them crystals to lvl up with (they might come after you next) and the people they attacked sure wouldn't give them any crystals.
I think part of this has to come from having more reasons to have outposts and more ways to acheive them.
As soon as someone starts giving crystals to you, its kind of expected that you won't attack them. This is where alliances come in, and once you have alliances, you lose a dynamic GvG OP system.
Alliances can also be dynamic. When we held an OP we were in an alliance, it shifted and changed constantly even to the point of a formerly allied guild threatening to attack because things weren't going their way. The alliance was also across factional bounds. We see hints of this in the way that the KA is really more like the MA and in the Tryker nationalism, so there are hints that this monolithic struggle CAN be broken down into smaller chunks but the lead needs to come from somewhere.
That's not really GvG then is it? It's more like alliance vs alliance, and the "most logical" routes for alliances to form is along faction boundaries, which then gets back to FvF.
The civ leaders copped out on this though and basically said its nothing to do with them, seemingly happy to have their land annexed - which didn't make much sense to me.
If we still had more moderates I expect we'd see a bit more dynamism going on.
No, I think the changes have to come at a mechanical level, at least somewhat. Greater variety, more reasons to own outposts, things that directly and only benefit the guild owning them perhaps to encourage some internal alliance/faction competition over them.
And in there somewhere was the old "limit the number of combatants" idea which has been done to death.. I really hope you don't expect me to make those points again? Following that was some "positive feedback" stuff which I didn't get into because I thought Sehr and riv were doing quite a good enough job of proving you wrong.
The limiting combatants idea is one of the best that has sprung up, along with the 'dig on the site to produce crystals for you AND the owner' one that came up in another thread.
It would prevent size being greater than anything else and would reintroduce a tactical element,which should be more satisfying for those that like it. Alliances would still play a roll and it would allow, if not necessarily for GvG dynamism, at least a little more back and forth in the existing outpost byplay.
Ultimately I think the solution has to come from Nevrax. Reasons to hold particular outposts relevent to the guild (Say farms increase everyone's digging rate, diplomatic outposts increase fame with tribes in that area, forts give a few bonus HP to members of the holding guild, things like that) plus particular buildings with benefits to the holding guild, TPs, stables etc, things that only the holding guild can use. If the emphasis is shifted a bit more to what you get from holding an OP, as a guild, rather than the supplies that can be scattered around, that might be a nudge in the right direction.
