17 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

It seems that many people I talk to about this game are already burning out on CW because of the pace of the game. Love it or hate it, the demand to take and hold planets on a daily basis is extremely hard and potentially unsustainable. It would be interesting to make the taking of planets not a daily event but rather a 3 to 4 day event tallying hundreds of battles for a planet over the course of the campaign but throttleing the attack sectors like we currently have. So many players cannot or will not devote their lives to this game, and that is healthy.

PGI could further throttle back the speed of battle to limiting the number of battles played in 1 hour or do an hourly winning percentage to take tokens so one victory token is earned an hour like scoring in boxing. That way one hour where a few dozen matches played would have the same long term weigh as an hour with thousands of matches played.

I dunno. I just don't like seeing planets moving in a daily "easy come easy go" method... particularly when it benefits only a couple of time zones or populations. Ultimately, Ithink a slower pace will grow the game more and give feelings of real accomplishments, while requiring less hardcore awareness that leads to people burning out.

[CarnageINC]

You raised an excellent point and I agree with most of what you said. As things stand now, the whole system is unstable, unbalanced and unsustainable. I agree that the problem with tactical planetary control needs addressing so it eliminates the Magic Hour effect. Losing a whole planet in one day seems a bit drastic and slightly unrealistic IMO. I however don't agree with limiting the number of battles per hour per for each front.

Off the top of my head, I think an effective Slower Pace System would be for every planet to have 24 zones up for control, one for each hour of the day. For each hour, only one zone is fought over repeatedly. The side with the highest victory percentage wins for that hour wins that zone. A faction has to control 13 plus of the 24 zones to control that planet. Hours that are not fought over are considered draws and there are no ghost wins allowed. If no faction controls 13 plus for that day, all victories just carries over to the next with no resets.

That should slow the pace down in some places while allowing players to play as many drops on a single location as they so desire. This idea alone might have a minimum effect, taking 2 days instead of 1 to win control. There needs to be an additional breaking balance placed. This might work well if you combine Slower Pace System with the Tonnage Balance System. It would create conditions further down the road, say weeks to months, where additional tonnage might create a gradual breaking effect to further slow down faction expansion rate for each planet.

If both systems where to be combined, I would probably increase the Y value requirement for tonnage changes to 12-15 planets for a 5 ton change. I honestly don't know if they would be a good fit together. It would take some troubleshooting thought to find the holes in the combined system.

The challenge however, would be to win over people to the idea. There are a lot of short sighted individuals of the "me me me" generation who follow the adage of 'instant gratification' in life. They seem to want everything now, their way, without cost and not care about paying for it at bigger price later down the road.

Edited by CarnageINC, 27 December 2014 - 03:29 PM.

[AeusDeif]

I think fast planet wars are good for testing... so it makes sense in the beginning of beta...

I suggested elsewhere that each bar on the point bar should signify a day's win, and those wins should be calculated by a win to loss ratio over the entire day up to ceasefire... with a margin of 10% so one side has to win by 56% or there is no change. This would also eliminate the primetime advantage.

Suppose they could vary how many points a planet's bar has to modify how long it takes to conquer it. 3 bars = fastest you can take a planet is 3 days... 7 bars would be a week, and so on.

Edited by AeusDeif, 27 December 2014 - 06:11 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

I don't necessarily see day-by-day progression of a border. The Phact/Wazan/Old Kentucky theater took at least a solid week to settle. It may come down to size of the factions.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 27 December 2014 - 08:00 AM.

[Cerlin]

I also agree with these comments. When the final product is out of beta I would like to see the map take a much longer time to change or just have the seasons that were talked about before. I would also like more penalties for switching sides in a conflict and much higher incentives to stay with a faction, especially a losing one. Also the vs clan factions need a lot better incentives for play.

Edited by Cerlin, 27 December 2014 - 08:16 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Could also consider the larger a faction population, the more border wars it has to fight to equalize forces.

[CarnageINC]

Cerlin, on 27 December 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

I also agree with these comments. When the final product is out of beta I would like to see the map take a much longer time to change or just have the seasons that were talked about before. I would also like more penalties for switching sides in a conflict and much higher incentives to stay with a faction, especially a losing one. Also the vs clan factions need a lot better incentives for play.

I agree with your initial statement. I don't agree with player penalties to move. Some people do like to be nomads and migrate to where they so chose to do so. It will be hard to create conditions for people to stay in where they are at if they have to endure losing. But any system PGI will use will create conditions players don't want to partake in. Hopefully they will use some system that 'turns off' a small portion of people.

[Kjudoon]

CarnageINC, on 27 December 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

I agree with your initial statement. I don't agree with player penalties to move. Some people do like to be nomads and migrate to where they so chose to do so. It will be hard to create conditions for people to stay in where they are at if they have to endure losing. But any system PGI will use will create conditions players don't want to partake in. Hopefully they will use some system that 'turns off' a small portion of people.

This is true Carnage, some people will never like to stay put and want to roam. Of course, Factions like dependability and stability from those they ask to defend for them, and will discourage that. Plus, factions, realistically would be quite averse to 'faction jumpers' and would really penalize their loyalty points for an extended period, forcing them away from their campaigns because they couldn't trust them to stay put. Causality is a harsh mistress. You stay a loyal retainer, you are rewarded as such. You come and go, there cannot be said to be any loyalty, and should not be rewarded the same or as well.

A real life analogy that would make perfect sense here, even though I understand why you'd be less thrilled with penalties, this is really a legitimate issue and reason to penalize it heavily. No trust, no loyalty, no longevity, no payola. Makes sense. Breaking contract should be for the agrieved, and just plain job hopping shouldn't be given the same weight as real loyalty born out over time.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 December 2014 - 03:40 PM.

[CarnageINC]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

This is true Carnage, some people will never like to stay put and want to roam. Of course, Factions like dependability and stability from those they ask to defend for them, and will discourage that. Plus, factions, realistically would be quite averse to 'faction jumpers' and would really penalize their loyalty points for an extended period, forcing them away from their campaigns because they couldn't trust them to stay put. Causality is a harsh mistress. You stay a loyal retainer, you are rewarded as such. You come and go, there cannot be said to be any loyalty, and should not be rewarded the same or as well.

A real life analogy that would make perfect sense here, even though I understand why you'd be less thrilled with penalties, this is really a legitimate issue and reason to penalize it heavily. No trust, no loyalty, no longevity, no payola. Makes sense. Breaking contract should be for the agrieved, and just plain job hopping shouldn't be given the same weight as real loyalty born out over time.

Your loyal retainer idea is not to shabby Kjudoon. With your permission, I would like to use that in an idea I'm working on. I don't mean to stump my idea on someone else's thread, but I have posted concerns somewhat conforming to what is being discussed here. Check out my thread I posted earlier. It helps alleviate part of this issue. Some additional ideas created by AeusDeif have given me incite to something similar to what you and I are now talking about, financial rewards.

[Kjudoon]

So here is a proposal.

Make planet capturing a 3 day event till it flips. You earn tokens to victory every hour based on most victories that hour. Of course ghost drops do not count unless no defender checks in. Then you get an absentee token for those hours. Vice versa if no one attacks. If there is a tie in contested victories, ghost drops could resolve that too to simulate military saturation.

You could have cease fires every day set for each major time zone and the winner of the most time zones by hourly tokens, wins the campaign for the planet. This would give a variety of times between ceasefires and not always at the same length. Or you just set it at 37 victories (hours) in the 3 day period wins.

Oh, and set planetary size/importance by the sectors. Smaller, lesser systems could allow only 7 drops at one time while large planets or capitals allow 21 at one time.

So there is my latest proposal. Hope you like it PGI

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 December 2014 - 07:55 PM.

[Desolator]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

It seems that many people I talk to about this game are already burning out on CW because of the pace of the game. Love it or hate it, the demand to take and hold planets on a daily basis is extremely hard and potentially unsustainable. It would be interesting to make the taking of planets not a daily event but rather a 3 to 4 day event tallying hundreds of battles for a planet over the course of the campaign but throttleing the attack sectors like we currently have. So many players cannot or will not devote their lives to this game, and that is healthy.

PGI could further throttle back the speed of battle to limiting the number of battles played in 1 hour or do an hourly winning percentage to take tokens so one victory token is earned an hour like scoring in boxing. That way one hour where a few dozen matches played would have the same long term weigh as an hour with thousands of matches played.

I dunno. I just don't like seeing planets moving in a daily "easy come easy go" method... particularly when it benefits only a couple of time zones or populations. Ultimately, Ithink a slower pace will grow the game more and give feelings of real accomplishments, while requiring less hardcore awareness that leads to people burning out.

This is only true, because CW is only 2 weeks old.
What happens to your idea, when CW has been out for 2 years. The pace at which things are going on currently in no way reflect the long term of the game.

Everyone just has all of these knee "great ideas" with no actual long term thoughts on the impact they might have.

The madness will certainly slow down as more and more pugs stop playing and it really just comes down to a few really well organized clans battling for territory.

Am I opposed to changes no, I am just sick of seeing thread after thread of what "individuals" want for CW and 98% of them are horrible ideas.

[AeusDeif]

I wonder if contracts and rewards shouldn't be assigned -to specific borders- rather than faction wide.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Cutting our collective heat scales in half would slow the pace of war down immensely. 80 pt lolphas every 6 seconds would go down to 20-30 pts every 8-10 seconds....firing off 20-30dmg would gain about as much heat, on a 50pt heat scale instead of near 100....

[Kjudoon]

These ideas are being brought forth to help increase a person' opportunity to experience more of the whole of cw instead of risking burnout on the urgency currently found for capping planets. I know quite a few players who are experiencing some form of fatigue. This is a threat to the community and I want to prevent it.

[Myke Pantera]

CarnageINC, on 27 December 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

Off the top of my head, I think an effective Slower Pace System would be for every planet to have 24 zones up for control, one for each hour of the day. For each hour, only one zone is fought over repeatedly. The side with the highest victory percentage wins for that hour wins that zone. A faction has to control 13 plus of the 24 zones to control that planet. Hours that are not fought over are considered draws and there are no ghost wins allowed. If no faction controls 13 plus for that day, all victories just carries over to the next with no resets.

I agree with Carnage there. Only thing is you can't remove ghost wins because not showing up for battle as defender would be the way to go to make sure no attacker ever wins. Apart from that: spot on!

Edit: Using Ghostdrops for tie-breaks only could work though! Good idea Kjudoon

Edited by Myke Pantera, 28 December 2014 - 12:47 AM.

[Kjudoon]

yeah, that is why I propose using ghost drops as tie breakers in my proposed "boxing" method and to prevent absentee defense

[CarnageINC]

Myke Pantera, on 28 December 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

I agree with Carnage there. Only thing is you can't remove ghost wins because not showing up for battle as defender would be the way to go to make sure no attacker ever wins. Apart from that: spot on!

Edit: Using Ghostdrops for tie-breaks only could work though! Good idea Kjudoon

I guess your correct. There is potential to abuse such a system if you could somehow get majority of your faction player base to ignore certain attacks. And Kjudoon is correct that ghost drops should break ties to prevent the abuse. Thank you for pointing that particular loop hole out.

[CarnageINC]

Desolator, on 27 December 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

This is only true, because CW is only 2 weeks old.
What happens to your idea, when CW has been out for 2 years. The pace at which things are going on currently in no way reflect the long term of the game.

Everyone just has all of these knee "great ideas" with no actual long term thoughts on the impact they might have.

The madness will certainly slow down as more and more pugs stop playing and it really just comes down to a few really well organized clans battling for territory.

Am I opposed to changes no, I am just sick of seeing thread after thread of what "individuals" want for CW and 98% of them are horrible ideas.

In some aspects you have a valid point Desolator. The madness will slow down and few ultimately may remain. Those group will for the most part be competitive in nature. PGI still needs to have a system in place to allow pugs or new people/units to participate in the game regardless. I didn't fund this game so it could become a 'elitist' club of just competitive units. When they said Community Warfare, they should stick to exactly that, a community game.

I personally have no problem with people airing out ideas, good or bad. Majority of the community could care less about them, good or bad. What seems like a horrible idea to you doesn't necessarily mean its bad overall. Maybe it just doesn't conform to your way of thought, or maybe it is not well thought out and has gaping holes in it? If your sick of these ideas you need not read or participate in them sir.