Warscore: with diplomacy option + gear damage + tips for healers and boosters

This is the first thread about warscore in AoC history, this word was only used once previously.
Why typing "warscore" is better than "war score"? Using "warscore" instead of "war score" simplifies searchability.

In AoC, there will be objectives that contribute to a warscore, but I believe players should also have a personal war score based on the damage inflicted on their opponents' gear when they are killed during the war. his would incentivize players to target higher-level opponents and allow for rewards to be distributed based on score. Additionally, it would prevent exploits by using naked low-level alts as punching bags.

Having a personal warscore system in AoC would create the possibility of receiving payments for contributions to the war effort. As the game currently lacks a diplomacy system, implementing this feature would allow for the fair distribution of prizes and ransom payments based on individual performance within the war party.

Warscore criteria:

Node and guild warscores: based on objectives
Player warscores: based on gear damage from the players you get the final blow, higher gear generates more score. It could also be based on the value of the materials needed to repair the gear, or at least a fraction of the value of these materials.

If you are fighting others in the war, you are spending your time and possibly dying and having to repair your gear, spending gold and materials from your own pocket. Therefore, it is only fair to have a mechanism for tracking individual successes during the war and rewarding players accordingly.

A personal warscore system that calculates the value of damaged gear in gold feels like a more natural approach. For instance, if the materials needed to repair all the gear of players you killed would cost 500k gold, your warscore would be 500k. In the future, if there are rewards or payments, you could claim a portion of it based on your personal warscore. Moreover, this system could allow mercenaries to charge their own fees to war sponsors based on their warscore.

This would open the door for real bounty hunting; guilds and nodes could ask your group to destroy another group, being guild or node. So you would have the players' warscore from this war, and you would be able to use this as an invoice and receipt.

Mayors could create employment opportunities by utilizing the personal warscore system based on gold and materials. This would allow the generated score to become an invoice and receipt for the job. The mayor could set the payment percentage, such as 50% up to 10,000,000 gold. Participants would start accumulating score by killing enemies and causing damage. As it is a 50% rate job, they would need to accumulate 20,000,000 gold in damages against the target to reach the payment threshold. If participants damage less than that, then they would receive proportional payment individually.

EVE Online's warscore is calculated based on the value of each destroyed item, which encourages players to use cheaper gear and avoid sacrificing high-value ships and items to the enemy during wars. As a result, scoring a major hit on the enemy can become a game-changer in securing victory.

How to split and give warscore tips?

Edit #1: deleted

Edit #2: I thought about how to pay healers and keep it simple:

A party that scores a killing blow, will split evenly the warscore among the party members who actually have a contract

How it works in the simplest scenario:
In an eight people party, everybody has a node vs node contract, they find the a target from the other node and kill him. The warscore is split evenly among the 8, regardless their roles, regardless if they score any hit. If you are working with the party, for the party, you are entitled to score.

How it works in the most complicated scenario:
An eight people party could have 6 people with no contracts, but one guy with a guilds vs guild contract and another guy with a node vs node contract.... the dead target is target in both contracts. In this case the first guy would register all the warscore to himself in the guild vs guild contract, the second guy would score all the warscore to himself in the node vs node contract

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kilion

Two things immediately crossed my mind on this:

If I play a Cleric, I'll obviously do less damage than a fighter. But if I heal someone they are doing more damage due to being alive longer and more so I will become a primary target just for the fact that I increase the threat a more difficult to catch opponent poses. This would need to find it's way into that warscore to be actually "fairly" calculated and might become even harder for bards.

Secondly: Siege weapons are meant as a way during sieges for players of low level to contribute to the siege, as the damage these do will be independent of the level or gear the player using it might have.

So these things would need to be accounted for or support and healing classes will have significantly reduced incentives to participate and care about PvP that contributes to their warscore.

Arya_Yeshe

Guild leaders and mayors could offer mercenary jobs without any restrictions on skills or classes. Anyone willing to work in this job would be considered a mercenary roleplayer.

The jobs could be either public or private, where the latter could be limited to a specific guild or node. For instance, sometimes secrecy is necessary, and public disclosure might not be an option. However, on other occasions, publicity might be preferable, and the job could be made available to the public.

Arya_Yeshe

Kilion wrote: »

Two things immediately crossed my mind on this:

If I play a Cleric, I'll obviously do less damage than a fighter. But if I heal someone they are doing more damage due to being alive longer and more so I will become a primary target just for the fact that I increase the threat a more difficult to catch opponent poses. This would need to find it's way into that warscore to be actually "fairly" calculated and might become even harder for bards.

Secondly: Siege weapons are meant as a way during sieges for players of low level to contribute to the siege, as the damage these do will be independent of the level or gear the player using it might have.

So these things would need to be accounted for or support and healing classes will have significantly reduced incentives to participate and care about PvP that contributes to their warscore.

I don't know the answer for that yet, because this idea just popped into my mind while I was drinking coffee.

I will think about it, suggestions are welcome.

Btw, AoC needs diplomacy options.

Arya_Yeshe

Kilion wrote: »

Two things immediately crossed my mind on this:

Secondly: Siege weapons are meant as a way during sieges for players of low level to contribute to the siege, as the damage these do will be independent of the level or gear the player using it might have.

That is fine, this would be intended gameplay, killing people with cheap gear will generate less score, it is what it is.

Kilion

Will I lose points on my warscore based on the damage done to my gear?
Or is it only "upwards through damage"?

Arya_Yeshe

Kilion wrote: »

If I play a Cleric, I'll obviously do less damage than a fighter. But if I heal someone they are doing more damage due to being alive longer and more so I will become a primary target just for the fact that I increase the threat a more difficult to catch opponent poses. This would need to find it's way into that warscore to be actually "fairly" calculated and might become even harder for bards.

This remembers me that other games could never figure it out how to do this, but I believe I have a potential one.

The system should be based on parties, with healers and boosters who have aided you within the past 2 minutes receiving a 10% share in your kills, regardless of whether or not their assistance was necessary. They would not have to reset their boosts for each kill or heal you during your final blow; if they are fighting alongside you and present during the kill, they should receive compensation. It's similar to car insurance, where you pay for it regardless of whether or not you need it. If they are not contributing, their cooldown will expire, and they will not be eligible for payment.

This system operates similarly to tipping, where party leaders can decide who receives a share and what percentage is allocated to them. I think the party leader has to decide who earns what, because people could bring some VERY EXOTIC builds.

In my experience with EVE Online, I have received tips for healing, and I also pay tips when someone saves my ship during a fight.

Arya_Yeshe

Kilion wrote: »

Will I lose points on my warscore based on the damage done to my gear?
Or is it only "upwards through damage"?

I am against losing score, it should go up only.

Being killed will generate monetary losses to you, you shouldn't be penalized a second time by losing warscore.

Songcaller

The more hardcore the system, the less players we will have.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

The more hardcore the system, the less players we will have.

This is just a payroll based on damaged gear.

The system itself could be a contract having:

target: node or guild
visibility: node (could be any node, even to the enemy node if you are a backstabber), guild, public (includes even non-citizens)
deposit: how much gold
rate: payment percentage based on damage, if you deal 10,000 in damage and the rate is 50%, you get 5,000
duration: 1 to 90 days

If a mayor observes that his citizens need to put more effort into their conflict against another node, he may initiate a contract like this and use the node's bank.

Alternatively, any individual could publicly offer a contract to eliminate a specific guild. Those interested in taking on the task could use various methods such as naval PvP, guild wars, or even PK.

People would be able to run one contract only against the same target, so you don't get double payments. If a targeted guild also belongs to a targeted node, he should receive payment from one source only.

Arya_Yeshe

A system like this can't be exploited, since it is based on damaged gear, since Intrepid will have a good grasp on how much it will cost to fix the gear.

Arya_Yeshe

Additionally, a splitting the warscore could be implemented to address the issue of healers resorting to cheap tactics such as spamming heals on all members or delivering weak attacks to every enemy just to secure a share of the income from kills.

By offering a percentage of the income from all kills done the party, support characters can focus on their assigned tasks and avoid "kill whoring." This would also apply to other support classes.

Arya_Yeshe

The miners and carebears will generate revenue while the banks will accumulate gold. When the need arises for PvPers to take action, this gold could be utilized to reward their investment in defending the tax payers, as they have invested time, gear, and repairs.

This is reminiscent of the reason for the existence of governments, which is to fund armies.

Arya_Yeshe

One possible approach for implementing a warscore system would involve registering a party ID, ff any significant changes occur, a new ID would be generated. Each party ID has it's members list.

When a kill occurs, information about the kill and the last associated party ID would be transmitted.

During downtime, the forwarded data would be analyzed to calculate the war score. It is during the downtime that the kill will be matched to a contract and the warscore registered under that contract.

Arya_Yeshe

Another reason to calculate war score during downtime is to avoid rounding errors and rounding
problems.

By including all kills made by a party within the last day, it would yield more precise war score calculations and more equitable splitting results, as opposed to rounding on every individual kill.

Songcaller

We have pvp scores for the pvp seasons already. We don't need two forms of the same function.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

We have pvp scores for the pvp seasons already. We don't need two forms of the same function.

The focus of this discussion is related to contracts, diplomacy and payrolls in gold. Payrolls are determined based on the war score.

The PvP seasons will be something else.

Songcaller

Who wants to micro manage hundreds of contracts? There's a reason we don't have guild contracts like BDO in the first instance. Although I did request the function in the dev discussion.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

Who wants to micro manage hundreds of contracts? There's a reason we don't have guild contracts like BDO in the first instance. Although I did request the function in the dev discussion.

You seem to be exaggerating the number of contracts, just in attempt to make the contracts idea impractical. In reality, most players will only have a few contracts, if any at all.

As for the PvPers, they need not be concerned with any of the details. They can simply focus on fighting and receive updates on their rewards the following day.

By the way, in EVE, most of the time I have from 60-80 active contracts, since they last many weeks it is quite easy handling them. I have to handle this much contracts since I am a CEO and a merchant, most people almost never have any contracts.

Solvryn

I think that when further developing your idea often people overlook other contributions to the battlefield, such as support, CC, healing, los, etc.

How do you calculate that into a warscore so everyone playing their role properly gets contribution?

Warscores are neat, I'm all for a system that creates high value players, but high value players should always have a target on their back and it should bar any penalty associated with it.

It's the nature of furthering the development and what we'll have in place already.

My question to you is this as @Neurath said above, if you put in something hardcore. What are going to be achievable goals for the Mom and Pop players? If you leave too much content out of reach for them, our numbers will dwindle and Ashes is already going to struggle with numbers as it's pretty time, effort, and logistics intensive already for your Mom and Pop players.

Songcaller

You talk about registering groups

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Who wants to micro manage hundreds of contracts? There's a reason we don't have guild contracts like BDO in the first instance. Although I did request the function in the dev discussion.

You seem to be exaggerating the number of contracts, just in attempt to make the contracts idea impractical. In reality, most players will only have a few contracts, if any at all.

As for the PvPers, they need not be concerned with any of the details. They can simply focus on fighting and receive updates on their rewards the following day.

By the way, in EVE, most of the time I have from 60-80 active contracts, since they last many weeks it is quite easy handling them. I have to handle this much contracts since I am a CEO and a merchant, most people almost never have any contracts.

You can't offer a system for a select few and leave out the rest. There will be a huge gulf between casual players and these contract players. Why should casuals pay the taxes to fund these elite contracts?

Child Item