WDS awareness? - Page 4

Ragnafrak · 2013-10-21, 01:58 PM

I'm looking forward to outfits getting credit for base captures.

One thing that might make it more meaningful for outfits to take over territory would be if the outfit's logo got to be displayed on the continental map. For people who didn't want to see it, they could turn it off with the filters just like base names and resource types can be turned off. For people who are interested in outfit v. outfit stuff or props, it could be a way to earn braggin' rights.

Seeing that an outfit recently took a territory on the map would also give other outfits an idea of whether or not they would want to make the strategic choice of going head to head against that particular outfit as well.

Once we have the outfit revamp, with outfit specializations and such, the WDS could be used as an additional layer toward benefiting players who join outfits. Outfits who earn more WDS objective points could receive outfit-wide bonuses that would hopefully further encourage them to continue participating actively in the WDS.

Babyfark McGeez · 2013-10-21, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

What I've distilled out of this is:
1) rewards aren't motivating enough
2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful
3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish

The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

The problem with these mechanics is that they distract from the immersion and feel just out of place. Imagine playing "World of Warcraft" and having a excel sheet window inform you that the horde is leading in the war because of some intangible numbers. It just doesn't fit.

I read from your post that it is planned to keep the "wds" even after an intercontinental lattice is being put in the game. I honestly don't think that's a very good idea.
If you want to have some kind of "winning scenario thing" for gratification, do it with the game itself, not accumulated scoring spreadsheets. Take "typhaon"s idea for example, try to go along that lines. Let the players do something to achieve "victory", don't caclulate it. The game is bland enough as it is when it comes to gameplay and mechanics.

DirtyBird · 2013-10-21, 05:00 PM

There are more important things concerning players right now.
The WDS is just a distraction because nothing else is happening within the game.
Once you finally complete the PS4 release and can then focus on the real concerns of the player base then after that they might show an interest in the WDS.
Although I guess all this WDS testing is also for the PS4, maybe more so.
As it is now, how you manipulate a territory scoreboard to give the impression of a balanced game is the least of my concerns.

The game needs to be balanced, not the scoreboard, you would have included K/D data as part of the scores if it was balanced.

If you think rewards are a major factor to the acceptance of this why don't you tell us what rewards you are able to offer.
How important is this WDS to you, what's the best you have at your disposal to buy our interest?

Natir · 2013-10-21, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

What I've distilled out of this is:
1) rewards aren't motivating enough
2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful
3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish

The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

1) The WDS rewards, while are part of the problem, the whole point of the event is territory control and holding. You get almost no rewards in-game for this though compared to things like randomly getting kills. If I can earn more EXP in a couple of kills than I can waiting for a base to capture, what would I rather be doing? It doesn't matter if you are attacking or defending, if it is a good farm, then it is a good farm and no one really cares about the overall objective.

2) Well, yeah... Been like that for a while and WDS is not going to change that.

3)Outfit leaderboards...

Here is the thing, Malorn. In order for the WDS to actually work, you need a fully polished lattice, a working resource system (or removal) that matters, a reason to take territory, continental conquest, and the list can go on. WDS is mainly icing on top of the cake at the very least. It is a global reward for what you do in-game but the mechanics in-game are just flat out missing.

The game needs to be reworked from the ground up and an overhaul of the EXP system to favor what the game is supposed to be about, teamwork, continental conquest, etc. Right now it just favors your COD, BF4 mindset.

Carbon Copied · 2013-10-21, 08:52 PM

I apologize in advance for the long winded nature of this post.

1) rewards aren't motivating enough

Correct - stop throwing xp and boosts at the player base there's more than enough ways to get xp in this already. Why should I be motivated to fight for a 3 day boost when I should be being motivated to get some tangible in game empire benefit? The thought of "oh I must log in today and fight for my empire because I really want that 3 day boost / decal at the end of the week" is not something that I've ever encountered or cared about; have you? These need to be things that are a part of the game, not some war score on an excel spreadsheet - means fuck all to me if I'm playing or not.

2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful

Creeps into the above and what you've expanded below: every player knows that full domination of a global lattice / cont lock is chasing the highly improbable in a 3 way, but you chase it anyway regardless. It's weird but I think even then it's motivation to chase it - currently there's nothing that gives a glimpse of this.

3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish

The outfit revamp should cover the majority of this as more prominent outfits get their names on the banner board - but you can't forget the smaller ones that take part either this should have some sort of recognition roster in the installation of "Oufit x / y / z last took this base" base it around a minimum player threshold to be "recognized" where their decal displays on the board or something. The recognition, community and rivalries will grow from that naturally; supply the tools, nuture it if it needs it in infancy, just don't try and control it too much all in one go.

The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

The victories are short lived now yes, but come continental lattice they will be more persistent - you say that yourself. I may be missing the point but I don't see how adding points to an excel spreadsheet per outfit gives them recognition in game? See above reply #3.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

I think WDS has a bright future and place post continental lattice as it will give indication of how things are going per faction, per server etc. Once the other more important areas are sorted out then you can think about sprinkling WDS on the top - the framework is good I think you're using it to try and fix or solve the wrong thing; trying to use a spreadsheet and points to justify an outfit's contribution and think it'll magically inspire to do that.... I just don't get any sense behind that.

WDS doesn't have to be complicated by any means if you limited it on it's final incarnation of locking continents, breaking them, taking major facilities (like typhaon's citadel continent captures) and any other planned "hallmark moments/actions" then you're giving goals... within the overall goal. Territory between is the stepping stones to these overall points added it doesn't mean you need to be handed them like they're sweets every time you walk out of spawn. Could potentially turn out that this abated scoring would also stop one faction accumulating to a point of the other 2 not being able to catch them on the score boards as well so you haven't got to really come up with any magic formulas to constantly appease.. sometimes Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).. is best.

Shidhe · 2013-10-22, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

words...We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition...words

words...I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

Screw outfits, show players. That's what modern FPS players dig, their name in the sky. It's the whole entitled "Generation me" thing. Just like the SOE players site is centered around individual players, that's the mindset of CoD and BF players.

I'd prefer there was less of them around, but the game ain't going to make money without them.

basti · 2013-10-22, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish

This is the key point.

But not for the WDS alone, but for the entire game.

Take a look Malorn, you played PS1 longer than I did, also with a tactical outfit that did the things that mattered, so you should know:

What can outfits actually do in PS2? Yes, we can all hop along in the big fight, taking out generators or pushing certain objectives, as part of the greater zerg.
Or we could gather up with other outfits and hold our own position against the enemy zerg.

But one way or another, the Zerg is always present, always there, constantly around us.

And this is what bothers me. Outfits cant go elsewere, they cant do the stuff that matter, because numbers are also a large factor.

So I say: Give us back Generator holds of the old days. Let us take out Benefits and ressource gain under the new ressource system. I got some ideas for how to fix the problems PS2s has with such things (Endless Repair, Revive, Ammo), but i need to finish preparing first.
Give us back Combat Ant drops. The new resource system already returns the ANT mechanic to us, but give us back our actual Ant. Let us load them up into Galaxys once more, and let Power rain down from the skies of Auraxis.
Give us back The Global Lattice, and lots of continents with it. let us open up new fronts on our own once more, or stop attempts of enemy outfits to open up our continents.

If outfits can differ from the zerg oriented outfit that is always in the middle, to the tactical outfit that takes stuff out behind enemy lines or helps where it helps most, then Outfits have a proper role in the game, and with this in the WDS.

Trying to shug on some points for outfits if they have plenty of people at a base capture, and calling it quits after that, would only make people angry.

**Malorn** · 2013-10-22, 03:50 PM

I know what you mean Basti. It's a complicated issue. A lot of what small outfits did in PS1 was before a zerg moved in - resecuring continent opening attempts. They got so good at it that empires had to start forming up raids in Sanctuary in order to break in. Having an intercontinental lattice will create those opportunities and may develop a similar meta.

The Zerg also predictably stayed in one lane on the Lattice most of the time and didn't shift quickly, so even on a poplocked continent you could make an impact by going after the non-zergy bases and get a good smaller fight because the zerg couldn't instantly relocate to deal with the threat. Your small fight stayed small for longer. And cloaked AMS made it not as easy to locate the spawn. There's a lot of reasons why the smaller outfits were viable and fun, and I have keen insight into what made it successful.

We're getting there. You probably won't see a big patch where that's the subject of the update, but it'll be something that gets chiseled at over the weeks and months. I think it is getting slowly better with every update.

EVILPIG · 2013-10-22, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I know what you mean Basti. It's a complicated issue. A lot of what small outfits did in PS1 was before a zerg moved in - resecuring continent opening attempts. They got so good at it that empires had to start forming up raids in Sanctuary in order to break in. Having an intercontinental lattice will create those opportunities and may develop a similar meta.

The Zerg also predictably stayed in one lane on the Lattice most of the time and didn't shift quickly, so even on a poplocked continent you could make an impact by going after the non-zergy bases and get a good smaller fight because the zerg couldn't instantly relocate to deal with the threat. Your small fight stayed small for longer. And cloaked AMS made it not as easy to locate the spawn. There's a lot of reasons why the smaller outfits were viable and fun, and I have keen insight into what made it successful.

We're getting there. You probably won't see a big patch where that's the subject of the update, but it'll be something that gets chiseled at over the weeks and months. I think it is getting slowly better with every update.

Why was the ability to blow gens without a link removed? One of our spec ops units specializes in base preparation and this was part of their protocol. If it was removed because of players who just ran around and blew gens for points, then remove the point reward.

Sirisian · 2013-10-22, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Why was the ability to blow gens without a link removed? One of our spec ops units specializes in base preparation and this was part of their protocol. If it was removed because of players who just ran around and blew gens for points, then remove the point reward.

It's been suggested before that at 50% the lattice links would be semi-connected allowing players to leave the base and move on toward other objectives. (Losing the objective though would immediately stop any captures on objectives that used that link). This preserves long hack-times and promotes galaxy based take backs and lets the zerg spread out. That said it also requires getting rid of the horrible system where you lose XP for taking a step outside of an objective. (That is you earn XP while fighting in the area and if the capture goes through you get it no matter where you are. At the same time though XP should increase as the capture gets closer promoting defense and offense during the last seconds. Assuming spawn kills are mitigated. Complex problem).

typhaon · 2013-10-22, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Why was the ability to blow gens without a link removed? One of our spec ops units specializes in base preparation and this was part of their protocol. If it was removed because of players who just ran around and blew gens for points, then remove the point reward.

I feel like there might've been other reasons it was removed. If points was the only reason then SOE would've done exactly what you said.

There's little reason (certainly not for getting score - and that's the only motivation in the game) to ever defend a base behind the lines. Prepping bases essentially involves sending some infiltrators into unguarded places, pressing E... with the only resistance you're like to ever find is a few unaware people milling around and a random mine or two.

You want to be really pro? Trigger the gens in unison. Yay!

I'm all for back-hacking, base prepping, whatever... but for such a huge impact on the base's defense - there just needs to be more to it. There needs to be some skill involved. There needs to be some danger.

Put it back in like it is now, and it's just a mechanic that would be fun for a few... and annoying for most.

Jonboy · 2013-10-25, 08:19 AM

If I may say, the issue I think most at fault is your logistics model.

I get that you want to make the game accessible to the single player. But by giving that player a multitude of spawn points, you then give a squad, outfit, and empire a multitude of spawn points.

Where PS1 was great was that you could hit a base off the main zerg route, and it required some co-ordination to resecure that base. By base - insert gen, spawn room, cap point, NTU, whatever ... these were all nice sub-mechanics; but the real meat here is that a co-ordinated response was required.

Not so in PS2; where you can easily make your way to pretty much any fight by clicking on a series of spawn points, and respawning as soon as you get there.

Why am I saying this? Because ultimately where you don't need co-ordination, numbers will always win. The WDS will be a numbers game. You can 'fix' the scoring system to adjust for populations, but that just penalises the larger empire for probably having more 'casuals'. As has been said before; really you need to get the game favouring strategy over numbers before scoring it.

For my money. Fewer spawn points. No spawn on squad lead. No sunderer "drop+nuke" from outer space.

kubacheski · 2013-10-25, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Jonboy

Why am I saying this? Because ultimately where you don't need co-ordination, numbers will always win. The WDS will be a numbers game. You can 'fix' the scoring system to adjust for populations, but that just penalises the larger empire for probably having more 'casuals'. As has been said before; really you need to get the game favouring strategy over numbers before scoring it.

Exactly. Just count the number of people in your zerg and call the highest one the "win".

GeoGnome · 2013-10-25, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jonboy

For my money. Fewer spawn points. No spawn on squad lead. No sunderer "drop+nuke" from outer space.

I would just like to say that this is being done.

Fewer spawn points have been implemented. Redeploy was reworked so that you drop on the nearest friendly base (you still have to get to your squad then) and beacons are supposed to only have a 20-40m correction, as opposed to the 100m that it is now.

typhaon · 2013-10-21, 02:21 PM

I think you need to separate the scoring system from the actual conditions for a map victory.

You can tune the scoring system to identify outfit/individual participation and use that as a measure for the rewards at the end of a 'war.'

Map Victory:

* Each continent should have 3 Citadels.

* Each Citadel would function similar to an A, B, or C point in a typical base battle. Control enough of them, for a long enough time and you capture the continent.

* A Citadel is typically unassailable. The control center (singular capture point) is surrounded by an impenetrable shield, powered by a special reactor.

* This reactor is kept stable through 2 methods:
1) Connections to adjacent territories with power stations.
2) Manual delivery (ANT mechanic) of "power."

* Once a reactor has been destabilized - a meltdown will begin.

* A meltdown cannot be stopped and when complete, the reactor will be destroyed and the Citadel will be assailble.

* Details about the meltdown:
1) Length of time before the meltdown is complete will be no less than 12 hours, no more than 36.
2) Meltdowns will always complete during a designated (6-hour?) window of prime time hours for that particular server.
3) Once the reactor has been destroyed, it will remain so for a minimum of 2 hours.
4) After 2 hours, defenders can repair and re-energize the reactor <--- a not insignificant effort should be necessary to complete this process.

* Details surrounding the speed at which meltdowns could be triggered/prevented... the number of reactors that can meltdown in any one day... would all need to be tweaked, but the idea is to provide a "real" way of conquering the world AND keep those major conquest moments happening during the hours when most are playing.

* I'd also design the Citadels such that they were organized in a series of layers that attackers must battle through - BUT, that can only be repaired by the defenders when the reactor is re-activated. This would create a better flow to what should be intense battles. Defenders would have multiple chances to make stands, falling back when overrun, without having the fights devolve into the gen-tag matches we see in typical Amp, Tech Plant, Bio Lab fights... especially when there are even numbers.