Star Sonata :: View topic - [Gameplay/Code/Content] Incentive for Conflict

s_m_w wrote:

I like this idea a lot, however there are still a lot of problems that need to be solved:

Incentive:
Why would you want to voluntarily enter a conflict? (Stat-)Bonuses are nice, but it's hard to outweigh the risks you are taking. Items bound to a specific Faction(/Religion) would be a possibility, but they would need to be very good and/or easy to get once you are in a Faction. A balancing nightmare.
A possible solution would be to force everyone to choose a faction*, BUT:
Seperation:
Can followers of different factions be on the same team? Can they be in the same squad? The ideal situation would be complete seperation. No possible interaction apart from shooting eachother* would mean that doing pvp has almost no negative repercussions, which in this case would be a good thing. In my opinion, PvP will only work properly if killing and being killed is the norm, not the exception.
Balance:
My biggest concern. Every faction has to be absolutely equal, but entirely different at the same time. The whole system would not work properly if the majority of the playerbase joins the same faction. If that's the case, joining any other faction other than the biggest one would mean that you have a lot of enemies. Which is not actually the problem, hostile universe and all. The problem is that if you join the big faction, you have a lot of friends, which means the bigger the faction, the higher the incentive to join it.

All in all, I'm very much in favor of a system similar to the one you suggested, but hitting the right equilibrium in an enviroment that is already very established is incredibly hard. Additionally, I don't think SS has the critical mass of people required for a system like this to work yet. And don't forget that SS is SS because of its playerbase. (More or less) Forced seperation is a good way to promote pvp, but at the game's current state, it would hurt more than it would help

* (Ex-)WoW Players will have noticed that WoW pretty much does it the way I described. I like the system WoW uses a lot.

Author:	Tomzta09 [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
Time Warp, I thought you quit?

Author:	Madridista [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
s_m_w wrote: I like this idea a lot, however there are still a lot of problems that need to be solved: Incentive: Why would you want to voluntarily enter a conflict? (Stat-)Bonuses are nice, but it's hard to outweigh the risks you are taking. Items bound to a specific Faction(/Religion) would be a possibility, but they would need to be very good and/or easy to get once you are in a Faction. A balancing nightmare. A possible solution would be to force everyone to choose a faction, BUT: Seperation: Can followers of different factions be on the same team? Can they be in the same squad? The ideal situation would be complete seperation. No possible interaction apart from shooting eachother would mean that doing pvp has almost no negative repercussions, which in this case would be a good thing. In my opinion, PvP will only work properly if killing and being killed is the norm, not the exception. Balance: My biggest concern. Every faction has to be absolutely equal, but entirely different at the same time. The whole system would not work properly if the majority of the playerbase joins the same faction. If that's the case, joining any other faction other than the biggest one would mean that you have a lot of enemies. Which is not actually the problem, hostile universe and all. The problem is that if you join the big faction, you have a lot of friends, which means the bigger the faction, the higher the incentive to join it. All in all, I'm very much in favor of a system similar to the one you suggested, but hitting the right equilibrium in an enviroment that is already very established is incredibly hard. Additionally, I don't think SS has the critical mass of people required for a system like this to work yet. And don't forget that SS is SS because of its playerbase. (More or less) Forced seperation is a good way to promote pvp, but at the game's current state, it would hurt more than it would help * (Ex-)WoW Players will have noticed that WoW pretty much does it the way I described. I like the system WoW uses a lot. Incentive: Bonuses and items would be the biggest influence, would need a bit of balancing - or it could be a unique form of item. Maybe even really over-powered gear, but it has a fail rate/maximum number of uses, so it's more of a strategic bonus. Also, I tried to think (with the Scholar/Priest/Warrior idea) of ways to give people with no interest in pvp a way to participate behind the front line. Maintaining infrastructure and gathering intelligence/knowledge instead of hunting/defending. Seperation: That would be the ideal situation, or current teams could be replaced with a faction system (not really plausible imo). I think it depends on whether people prefer to have the "SELF : TEAM : FACTION" or the "SELF : FACTION" Would they want to balance team and faction duties? Or have the two merged. Balance: This is the major reason I thought a "higher power" (NPC) would control the overall direction of the faction. Whether strong AI were spawned on weaker factions to make up the difference, or higher incentives were offered to make the weaker factions able to compete with lesser numbers, they could effectively have divine intervention to keep the balance as best as possible. Also, I don't really mean to say it's "forced PvP" but more "excuses for PvP". You don't HAVE to fight, there should be other options to advance (as mentioned above: knowledge/building/etc) but it gives people excuses to fight and take it less personally - you are both trying to kill each other for faction score, so it is socially accepted that opposing factions would pvp. Attachment: ssreligionsartifacts.png This model is to illustrate the basis of the idea, every so often - when a certain number of people are online from both faction - emergency orders can be issued forcing warriors to assemble and fight over a new relic/artifact to win rewards. After the fight, a mission for Scholars could be to research the artifact and the Priests could be tasked with building their own artifact/momument to the triumph. This way non-combat players can help in the fight if they want, but if they don't they still have a challenge to overcome and are vital to the factions success. Interesting to hear what other people think.

Author:	s_m_w [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
Other than the amount of work required to implement something like this, I have no other complaints anymore. Excellent suggestion

Author:	Battlecruiser23 [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
Factional Warfare(Term came from EVE) Pretty much, as Madr mentioned, a team or individual is signed up to be part of the faction's military. This is purely voluntary, unless you didn't want your director from doing it in the first place! In the never ending wars that'd be part of this thing, "Faction Officers"(generally higher level members of the faction or people with more kills from fighting) receive missions from "High Command" that he and his lower ranks do for "Faction Points", which can be turned in for PvP oriented gear. Such gear is "volatile". As in each death reduces its durability by like 20%, rather than 5%. This offsets the fact the gear is often vastly more powerful. Incentive to do the missions for points. In fact, even ships could be volatile, with their deaths become a complete destruction event. While we do want people to take the rewards outside this zone and use them in fights they (hopefully start) are involved in, we don't want this to become "if I lose in FW, I'll take revenge by putting 4 ada kits in your HQ". Radia's post(below) is an awesome idea, and would work here too. Quote: Perhaps some way to clear the evidence of who the aggressor is? No names shown, Levels rounded to nearest 100, ships given generic sprite based on tech/hull type, team flags set to "Emp Runner" or "Anti-Emp". The wormhole exit would dump all the aggressors in random gals when they leave. Missions for the Faction officer to take his squad to do would include things like scouting, fire base building, demo-man escort, siege, and raiding. But the point is all missions are military objectives.

Author:	Blue Dwarf [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
s_m_w wrote: Balance: My biggest concern. Every faction has to be absolutely equal, but entirely different at the same time. The whole system would not work properly if the majority of the playerbase joins the same faction. If that's the case, joining any other faction other than the biggest one would mean that you have a lot of enemies. Which is not actually the problem, hostile universe and all. The problem is that if you join the big faction, you have a lot of friends, which means the bigger the faction, the higher the incentive to join it. Another way to work this could be dynamic member caps, if there are say 3 factions, all factions must have +/- 5/10% population of the others. New members can't join unless this is met. This does pose the problem of making one faction bigger than the rest (450 character join all three factions, 150 each. 300 leave two factions leaving the third faction +150 members to the others). But on the other hand those 300 people are factionless and no one can join the third faction.

Star Sonata http://www.starsonata.com/forum/

[Gameplay/Code/Content] Incentive for Conflict http://www.starsonata.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=103&t=49268	Page 2 of 2

Author:	Camsy [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
It sounds like a good idea to me in the whole, but it also sounds like a completely different game. How big is this idea of factions going to be exactly?

Author:	goett [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
What's wrong with good ol fashioned hate? How about a ship skin upgrade... Ur ship with 'truck nuts' to first team starts a war. Nothing like a hm with chrome balls on the back.

Author:	Madridista [ Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
Camsy wrote: It sounds like a good idea to me in the whole, but it also sounds like a completely different game. How big is this idea of factions going to be exactly? Well, my original suggestion is designed to tack onto the current gameplay - as an "extra" rather than a "change" to the current system.

Author:	Madridista [ Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
bump since s_m_w liked this, still interesting to anyone?

Author:	bageese [ Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Incentive for Conflict
Because of the interest from one of our Devs I'm going to go ahead and move this to Accepted!

Author:	reyjalrmm [ Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Religion
Mail wrote: assasinat3r wrote: Why is there no Ivism? What about a Trevorist or Timmnostic? Timmeh +10% currency from colonies while afk

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/