Jump to content

How To Turn A Single Bucket System Into 13 With No Increase In Wait Times

Metagame Gameplay Balance

10 replies to this topic

#1 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,060 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 20 June 2018 - 10:47 AM

Currently we have an deplorable single bucket system that completely invalidates any concept of larger interstellar warfare.

My solution is to drop each faction in turn and then conduct an active player census at the end of 104 drops. This is the first value above one hundred that yields a whole integer quotient when divided by thirteen factions .

Initially I had wanted a fixed rotating order, but I realized that is not needed. For the initial pre-census phase each faction would have an attack quota of eight filled by the largest faction currently in the queue. The system would operate on first come, first serve basis.

Lets say there is a eight man of Kurita, a six man of Steiner and a five man of Nova Cat looking to form up a twelve man on attack. The first group to reach twelve with any majoritarian combination of valid factions would be placed on that faction's voted for attack world. Regardless whether that battle is a win or loss it would count toward the limit of eight. Groups split 50/50 would either alternate or be randomly chosen.

Once a faction reaches its quota limit it would no longer be eligible for attack, but could be shared with other factions of the same techbase for both attack or defense as in the current setup.

The one caveat I would place is that shared players should not be able to attack worlds of their own nationality. You would instead wait in a separate queue ready to fill in groups on any other I.S., Clan, or Clan vs. I.S. front. If a faction that maxes out its quota refrains from dropping further prior to the census, it risks having fewer attack opportunities once reapportionment occurs.

Other changes I propose for this system is the daily check for planetary control but no reset unlike what we have currently. This is very much needed as the number of planets would make resolution in eight hour combat window impossible.

I would also make it possible to declare war on multiple fronts. Why would you want to do this you say? A Kurita player could alter the ratio of attacks made against Clan opponents by declaring war on Steiner, FRR and Davion. The downside is of course that your rate of potential planet capture is much reduced, but I feel the increased agency and variety of gameplay are well worth it. Unless you only drop a premade of twelve, with no other same sized twelve mans prior to the quota limit you will be guaranteed to fight opponents of the opposing techbase, you are simply altering the ratio of that combat.

Lastly I would eliminate contract bonuses based on population. They are pointless with my census system. Make merc contracts -+50% based on percentage of controlled territory based on initial map star count. That forms a self-balancing system as a losing faction will find its ranks swollen by mercs and the loyalists will have more opportunities for rapid planetary conquest on any valid front regardless whether the opponents are Clan or I.S. through a higher quota value.

Do you see any obvious problems or flaws to this proposal? At current player count how long would it take to reach the first census threshold of eight drops for each of the thirteen factions? When counting active players, rate of participation should be a factor in some form. You want to incentivize drops after the quota limit.

Edited by Spheroid, 20 June 2018 - 11:48 AM.


#2 Johnathan Tanner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron Saint
  • The Patron Saint
  • 899 posts
  • LocationCurrently dodging the pugs war crimes tribunal

Posted 20 June 2018 - 02:54 PM

View PostSpheroid, on 20 June 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

Do you see any obvious problems or flaws to this proposal?

I'll go to hell before I drop for Davion!

#3 S O L A I S

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 390 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 24 June 2018 - 10:40 PM

View PostJohnathan Tanner, on 20 June 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

I'll go to hell before I drop for Davion!


*quietly changes contract to Davion with to mess this post and chuckle.

Edited by S O L A I S, 25 June 2018 - 01:02 PM.


#4 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,060 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 24 June 2018 - 11:24 PM

I realized that my proposal is somewhat poorly worded. In short because currently there are only enough players to fight one large Clan vs. I.S. conflict at a time my solution is to timeshare each faction in this singular bucket. The turns are passed between all factions until they have had a number of fights equal to their faction's percentage of active players.

Because you must have 50% or more of a 12 man to launch an attack , the differences in faction skill will manifest itself in the overall win or loss record. The contribution of any filler pilots will be spread among many factions. The chance of them disproportionally effecting one faction are small.

Factions that have reached their attack limit still have substantial reason to keep dropping as their nation potentially will be at war multiple hostile neighbors. Bringing back defensive planet tags and filling defensive queues by nationality will further serve to gauge factional martial prowess.

A faction that is greatly underpopulated in its ability to field 6+ man groups will under my system go last. The next census cycle the number of mandatory drops for this faction will be adjusted downward so that the contribution of the filler pilots is not overstated.


My proposal allows reintroduction of fronts and eliminates faction stacking as a side effect of seeking matches.

Edited by Spheroid, 25 June 2018 - 12:04 AM.


#5 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 25 June 2018 - 02:06 AM

I think hinging it on faction could blow up in our faces, since not everyone would opt to be in a faction, some like being mercs or freelance. And noobs in the beginning are unlikely to pick factions when they are still trying out the game, cause they haven't touched the FP. Lets face it, there's not a lot of people in FP and most likely they are veterans -- noobs usually only play FP during event.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 June 2018 - 02:21 AM.


#6 iLLcapitan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 654 posts
  • LocationBirdhouse

Posted 25 June 2018 - 02:59 AM

I think your proposal is a bit too much for the desired effect... if we all could agree on going back to Phase II (bucket wise) and spam the idea over twitter to Russ, yea, that would be great.

#7 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,060 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 25 June 2018 - 07:32 AM

@6thMessenger: Freelancers are so rare that it not even worth thinking about them. As in the current setup mercs are counted under the banner of employer for the purposes of population.

Its not going to feel any different to the player in match. The units that fight each other in North American primetime will still do so. The main observable effect is to the starmap, not the combat.

I like the idea of fixed drop rates because if people are free to choose both faction and location of attack you will artificially concentrate activity in too few factions.

Edited by Spheroid, 25 June 2018 - 03:42 PM.


#8 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 25 June 2018 - 10:05 PM

Phase II and then have "alliances" that loyalists vote for that lets you share fronts. That would have made a world of difference.

Now?

1 Bukkit has poisoned the well so completely I don't think it matters.

#9 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 03 July 2018 - 07:57 PM

It's an interesting idea and I'm reasonably sure I understand the concept.
It does feel like there are some hidden complications to it and you touched on a couple.

Steps:
  • Individual faction vote to determine which planet is getting attack by that faction.
This is closer to what was there originally but trying to maintain it within one bucket.
So the desired goal is trying to get back that interfaction conflict but also try to ensure that it is still easy enough to get a full team together.
  • Building the team and getting the results.
By trying to avoid dividing up the population the intention is to allow mixed groups but use a majority to determine where the result of the match will apply up to a quota limit.
Because of the first point there is an immediate problem with having players from two factions in one team that might have voted to attack each other. While the match maker could determine who gets priority, the unseen problem is players sabotaging the effort.
There is also the problem of keeping players motivated to fight once they have hit their quota but this has the same issue with allowing mixed groups and internal team sabotage.
You might get around this by only allowing teams to consist of players from particular factions and in effect divide up the single front of Clan vs IS into more than just two sides in the conflict but the more 'sides' we have the more spread out the population becomes and it needs to rely on having enough players in another 'side' to create a match. In short, the wait time issue increases.

View PostMischiefSC, on 25 June 2018 - 10:05 PM, said:

Phase II and then have "alliances" that loyalists vote for that lets you share fronts. That would have made a world of difference.

Now?

1 Bukkit has poisoned the well so completely I don't think it matters.


It's unfortunate that we didn't get a chance to try alliances, but while Phase II had a bit more depth thanks to the individual territories, even with alliances you would still have the problem of needing enough players no the opposite side to create the match because there was also a limitation in the match maker by relying on the borders on the map.
That's why it failed. (Amongst other things)

The galactic map is not suitable for a PvP game where we as the players are the only inhabitants in the galaxy.
It works great for a single player game and it works great for pen and paper/board game because there is a story to follow and a bazzillion inhabitants doing all sorts of other things and making up the opposition.

#10 Johnathan Tanner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron Saint
  • The Patron Saint
  • 899 posts
  • LocationCurrently dodging the pugs war crimes tribunal

Posted 04 July 2018 - 12:33 PM

View Post50 50, on 03 July 2018 - 07:57 PM, said:

It's unfortunate that we didn't get a chance to try alliances, but while Phase II had a bit more depth thanks to the individual territories, even with alliances you would still have the problem of needing enough players no the opposite side to create the match because there was also a limitation in the match maker by relying on the borders on the map.
That's why it failed. (Amongst other things)

Population was in no way an issue before pgi killed off the population with phase 3. Lets not have historical revisionism up in here.

#11 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:25 PM

View PostJohnathan Tanner, on 04 July 2018 - 12:33 PM, said:

Population was in no way an issue before pgi killed off the population with phase 3. Lets not have historical revisionism up in here.


Of course it was.
Unless you happened to be in a faction with enough active players when you were on, that bordered another faction that also had enough players you were stuffed.

We started with 10 factions.
Initially, you might have 3 adjacent factions to fight against. ie. only 1/3rd of the possible opponents.
We were immediately limited by the borders on the map.
If you could only play on a certain day of the week at a certain time of day/night then there was not enough active population.

Even when we could select which planet we wanted to drop on in the planet list and could see the number of players waiting, you would usually see one planet heavily stacked and others with only a handful on one or maybe both sides.
The smaller teams would not get up to the full 12 because everyone would go where the greater concentration of players were.

And then the system didn't have any flexibility.
Unless there was exactly a division of 12 players on both sides there were going to be people waiting. We still have that problem now.
If we look at the planets and could see that by adding 1 or 2 players to a side we could get a 4v4 or 8v8 match then it would have changed the whole mental perspective of it.
No longer would we have looked at the map and thought 'not enough players there, I'll go to the big pool and hope to get included in a game.'
It was rare to see a conflict escalate because it never had a chance to start.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users