PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Ideas for the "Rich get richer" problem
View Single Post
Old 2012-03-23, 09:29 AM   [Ignore Me] #26
sylphaen
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Ideas for the "Rich get richer" problem


Disclaimer: all ideas expressed in this post are opinions and if I state something without saying "I think" or "IMO", you should still consider as an opinion rather than a fact. I do not claim to be an all-knowing superior being: that would be Vanu.

This post will mainly aim at giving propositions and answers to:
So how can we both reward players for conquest while simultaneously handicapping them so it is still possible for the conquered empires to strike back and regain territory?
Doing so, I address issues such as "richer gets richest" and double-teams.

I. Disturbances in the force

Assuming all variables (population, resources, equipment, player skill, player organization) are even between all empires, we could say that in theory, an equilibrium should exist between all factions in the long-run.

However, game mechanics can create "disturbances" in this equilibrium and destroy the carefully balanced chaos we know as Planetside.

I believe that winning should come from skill and organization (i.e. player variables) so before exposing some ideas and solutions, let me restate what I consider to be systematic sources of dis-equilibrium.

1. Resources
I think the problem is not stated properly. yes, "the rich getting richer" is a problem but we may all agree that it is the natural by-product of a game with resource mechanics. If equipment depends on resources and assuming all other variables are the same between factions, winners get more resources and more resources make winning easier.

If resources did not give a benefit, no one would care about them and they would serve no purpose. However, by providing benefits, resources increasingly favor winners (since winning gives you more resource to win) like new snow feeds a snowball rolling down a hill.

We all agree this is what we name "the rich getting richer" problem. Assuming all variables to be equal, once an empire starts winning (let's explain this through luck since all variables including skill is equal), resources would only help the winner to win more.


2. Factions
Another factor rarely mentionned and that I believe to be critical in Planetside is "3 factions". More territory is also linked to more benefits (facilities benefits and continent benefits in PS1, facilities and resources in PS2) so for an empire, it's always better to control more territory. Controlling more territory is also a source of pride and a feeling of achievement for players of an empire.

The problem with 3 factions is that there is a natural tendency towards double-teaming. I think so because as an empire player, controlling 40% territory makes people feel good even though it could be through a double team.

In the end, there are huge differences of difficulty in how your empire achieves control of 40% of global territory. A share of 40% TR / 40% NC / 20% VS share of total territory is significantly easier to achieve than 40% TR / 30% NC / 30% VS. The difference is that in the first case, you have a double team. In the latter, your empire conquered territory vs. 2 empires at the same time.

As long as people only see 40% territory as a victory and not how it was achieved being the victory, there will be double-teams. This issue compounded to resources would simply make the game unplayable for one empire once equilibrium is broken.



II. Maintaining equilibrium

1. How the Planetside system should behave

Planetside is a game about players interacting through a system. I believe that this system should have an equilibrium state and have mechanics that pushes it to return towards equilibrium. I also believe that, while the system should revolve around an equilibrium state, there should be room for disruption of that state through quality (skill & team organization).

A team of better players should be able to beat even odds. They should be able to keep the system out-of-balance through skill while the system itself pushes towards the equilibrium state. Beating the odds is what I call a victory.

2. Tendency towards equilibrium

The biggest threat to equilibrium between all empires is a double-team. It is much easier to rack-up kills and dominate while doing a 66% vs. 33% pop because numbers are a greater factor than skill. It is also much frustrating to be on the double-teamed side because there is little that can be done to prevent losing territory once 66% pop decide to roll over you.

Uneven situations create a flurry of issues (players switch empires or stop playing which increases the problem) so Planetside should have mechanics which favor even populations and promote even fights.

PS1 had incentives and benefits for lower pop empires (more XP, faster spawn rate). It's not perfect but it did promote balance and while it did not stop from losing vs. 66% pop, it did make it a little less frustrating until the other 2 empires started to attack each other again.

I believe that PS2 should provide incentives for an empire to attack the other 2 evenly to promote equilibrium. If all empires attack each other evenly, the most skilled should naturally control the most territory. In any situation that is not a double team, skill and organization should be a determining factor for territory control.

Double teams should not be incentivized.

2. Equilibrium with a resource system

With a pure resource system where % of territory controlled is proportional to resources accrued, double teams are being rewarded. Getting into a 40% TR / 40% NC / 20% VS situation is easy-mode for the NC/TR and they both would get more resources from double-teaming the VS. Such a system will effectively wipes out an empire as its player population and resources will drop along with decreasing territory. Planetside could become a 2-faction game most of the time once a double team starts.

Of course, the situation could return to equilibrium once the other 2 empires start fighting each other again but in the mean-time, an empire was wiped out: not from skill but from incentives to double-team an empire. Incentives which are also compounding through the richest gets richer issue. Worse, if a double-teaming empire managed to conquer territory faster than the other double-teamer, the game would transform into a game of quantity (what's left in the double-teamed empire in stock equipment+double-teamer in ok equipment ) vs. quality (the "winner" of the double-team in decked out equipment). It could be a long readjustment process during which the game is frustrating for the losers (i.e. the majority of players) and overall, this could kill Planetside pops.

Of course, this is just theory and it may not be as terrible as I think when it happens but still... It doesn't sound great.

To prevent such a situation:
- there should be decreasing returns on resource per territory controlled as your empire's total territory increases vs. other empires (in order to limit the strength of the snowball effect)
- decreasing returns should kick-in much faster if there is a double team in order to not incentivize it (if you progress vs. 2 empires, you are rewarded. If 2 empires progress vs. 1 together, they are not rewarded).

e.g. by controlling TR 40% of territory, you are naturally getting more resources. Then a modifier could apply where:
- NC 30% / VS 30% = 1 so no penalty
- VS 20% / NC 40% = .5 so 33% at 100% return and the remainder 7% at 50% return

Of course, this is just an example. The key point is that double teams must not be rewarded. It could even go as far as decreasing XP given from players from a double teamed empire while a double team is happening. The point is to promote 33% vs. 33% vs. 33% instead of 33%+33% vs. 33% which would naturally happen in a 3 factions game.

3. Promoting domination through skill

As many of you know, I am openly against end-game or resets in Planetside because I think they create more problems than they solve. However, I am not against victory conditions that can happen during the game. While I have described ideas to prevent situations from happening (i.e. maintain equilibrium), there should be mechanisms which promote a behavior that favors equilibrium.

So how should player skills be linked to territory mechanics ? One solution I see is through a victory mechanism. In the end, the reason why players want to control the most territory is to have a feeling of victory. It's one thing to win battles and engagements but it's another one to dominate the world.

Here is how I envision a victory condition that would fit Planetside:
- the victory condition should promote all 3 empires to compete against each other (i.e. it should be desirable)
- the victory condition should involve all 3 empires at the same time in order to promote even fighting between all empires and decrease the prevalence of double-team behaviors (i.e. it should promote competitive behavior)
- achieving the victory condition should be difficult enough in order to become a rare event (i.e. it should not be trivial)
- a victory should not happen in unfair conditions

How would each of those goals be achieved:
Desirability:
- victories should provide rewards (I think of unique merits with numbered victories such as "Markov - Victory n.1 - VS - 04/10/2012")
- victories should be visible (character stats and merits page, "Victories Hall of Fame" with links to players who achieved them)
- victories should be difficult to achieve and rare
- essentially, the drive to achieve victories is pride and recognition

Fairness
- Possibility of a victory should only be allowed after the game situation has reached "fair" conditions (large overall population, even empire population & even territory per empire would allow victories to be achieved) and stop being active when parameters become "unfair" (e.g. to prevent ghost victories when no one is online, victory conditions would stop being active when total population drops below a certain treshold of players on the server; they would reactivate only when that condition is met again along with all other conditions for fairness, so that it's useless to ghost all territory when everyone is offline).
- victory conditions should not promote double teaming:
45% TR / 27.5% NC / 27.5% VS would be a fair victory
45% TR / 40% NC / 15% VS would not be a victory

Competitive behavior
With high desirability and fair conditions, it would be incredibly hard to reach victory because the closer you are to victory, the more the other 2 empires would not want you to win. By victory being so hard and so rare, it fuels its desirability and competitiveness between all 3 empires who would tend to double-team less. With even odds, meeting the victory conditions would be more about skill than double teaming.

Finally, victory conditions are a rare event and neutral to the overall gameplay: they simply promote fair-play and competitiveness by showing a carrot on a stick. They also provide a feeling of victory for those who want a large-scale objective. The amount of time a victory condition is kept alive by an empire could also be timed and shown in the hall of fame.

Victories are neutral because they would not prevent temporary fluctuations in battle and temporary double teams. However, providing a greater incentive to win than to double-team and giving no benefits for double teaming will likely shorten the time the game spends out of equilibrium.


_______________________________

I hope I have explained my idea correctly enough to share and thank you for reading.

Last edited by sylphaen; 2012-03-23 at 11:57 AM.
sylphaen is offline  
Reply With Quote