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

Songcaller

It's one thing to have a diplomacy system, it's another entirely to have a warscore system which can be exploited. It is difficult to argue about node expenses when we have limited information. We don't know how much seige defense costs to setup.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

It's one thing to have a diplomacy system, it's another entirely to have a warscore system which can be exploited. It is difficult to argue about node expenses when we have limited information. We don't know how much seige defense costs to setup.

No, it can't be exploited, not even in a carebears wet dream this can be exploited.

This is just rewarding people with gold for killing your enemies, this will help carebears in outsourcing their defenses, carebears are having it easy with a mercenary contracts system.

Songcaller

So, buffy becomes mayor and assigns all contracts to The Vampire Slayers. All the previous mercenaries are disbanded. The taxes are siphoned to the sole guild and the guild initiates a guild war. Payments roll in. A node war happens and The Vampire Slayers decide not to partake and continue the Guild War - still siphoning all the gold from the node defence.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

So, buffy becomes mayor and assigns all contracts to The Vampire Slayers. All the previous mercenaries are disbanded. The taxes are siphoned to the sole guild and the guild initiates a guild war. Payments roll in. A node war happens and The Vampire Slayers decide not to partake and continue the Guild War - still siphoning all the gold from the node defence.

If The Vampire Slayers don't kill anything, they won't get any gold, the contract will expire over time and the deposit goes back to the node's bank.

Mayors have more power, they can set taxes to 100% if they want, I don't remember seeing you complaining about that. They also build anything they want and spend all the gold with the npcs in any way they want, all that gold will be gone.

Mayors can set tax to 0% and let his buddies buy buildings, then after his buddies bought the buildings, he can set tax to 100%, never saw you complain about it either.

Steven already said that there will be drama depending on the mayor's decisions.

Songcaller

I don't remember my complaints about 100% tax rate but I would complain yes. The mayor can already benefit some and not others. It depends which node type you are in to how much damage can be done. My example was The Vampire Slayers killing people. Better to keep everything on an even keel and thus win.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

I don't remember my complaints about 100% tax rate but I would complain yes. The mayor can already benefit some and not others. It depends which node type you are in to how much damage can be done. My example was The Vampire Slayers killing people. Better to keep everything on an even keel and thus win.

The mayor can initiate quests when his buddies are online and help them get rich, others can starve.

The node is at the mayor's mercy, if he is a bad mayor then he probably won't get reelected.

Songcaller

Election only happens in science node. Hence why I keep saying its dependant on node type. I don't think letting pvp players screw over the allied player base by design is a good system or message. Its like a pve guild locking the local raid from all the allied pvp players.

Songcaller

I like the idea of mercenaries - I was going to be a caravan guard and try to get paid. I'm just not a fan of warscore or silly notions about gear damage. I want the ability to be a paid pvper and I still want guild payment contracts too.

tautau

This strikes me as an effort by PvP focused players to shift game resources to themselves. Actually, to shift game focus to themselves.

To do this, game development resources would have to be shifted to benefit a small minority of players. It is also a scope creep problem.

Two thumbs down.

Songcaller

Really it was two pvp players discussing the merits of a pvp system. Much akin to two pve players discussing a pve system. Hopefully the keel has been evened and normality can resume.

Arya_Yeshe

tautau wrote: »

This strikes me as an effort by PvP focused players to shift game resources to themselves. Actually, to shift game focus to themselves.

To do this, game development resources would have to be shifted to benefit a small minority of players. It is also a scope creep problem.

Two thumbs down.

By engaging in PvP on your behalf, the gold obtained will benefit all participants. As your node and guild accumulate vast amounts of gold, maybe hundreds of milions or bilions, others may be enticed to defend you in times of serious danger.

Furthermore, as a contractual arrangement, a node may even issue a contract against pirate guilds that engage in piracy on their waters.

Some individuals, referred to as "carebears," may focus solely on accumulating gold and harbor paranoid tendencies akin to the dwarves in The Hobbit. However, they fail to recognize the larger strategic picture.

Translation: carebears are full of envy, jealously and spite, that they get blind and can't see the big picture of anything

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

I like the idea of mercenaries - I was going to be a caravan guard and try to get paid. I'm just not a fan of warscore or silly notions about gear damage. I want the ability to be a paid pvper and I still want guild payment contracts too.

If a warscore system existed, you could be paid a fee as caravan escort plus getting extra for the kills.

The truth is: PvPers will need gold in AoC, gold is needed for repairs and there is no gear drops, the gold has to come from somewhere

Songcaller

I admire your gusto but public relations might improve if we used less carebear references lol.

Arya_Yeshe

Contracts also will serve as a tool for extortion, since you can demand gold from others and if they don't pay then set a contract against them.

Songcaller

Never a bad thing to have more Bounty Hunters. Bridged on SWG Bounty Hunter with your ideation. Though, extortion is not my forte

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

Never a bad thing to have more Bounty Hunters. Bridged on SWG Bounty Hunter with your ideation. Though, extortion is not my forte

I can't even tell how many wars I saw where the defenders were completely undedicated to the war and they kept mining, gathering, doing PvE and they got killed by the hundreds and suffered big losses. Because that's how hoarders are, they go after where there's gold and there's nearly no gold in PvP in most games for them.

Mayors and guild leaders require a mechanism to incentivize their members and redirect the unused stockpiles of gold. This would be the same as dangling a carrot in front of a donkey, a tool that encourages their members to participate in PvP.

The only problem is when PvP has no gear degradation.

Songcaller

I think you don't want to tie it to gear degradation because there are no death penalties in the sponsored pvp (objective based pvp). You need to simplify the system because I do love the mercenary idea, I just don't see the use for warscore and payment from gear degradation.

Solvryn

I think a greater diplomacy system that calculates peoples actions would be fun. I also think that high value folk are natural targets, as they should be in a game with quasi empire building, state building, politics, war, etc.

I too also will merc out, but they'd have to make a really damn good payment system to support it to where players cannot welch on bets or back out of contracts.

I just think diplomacy system should be over arching with war and martial efforts being a piece of the grand total of the score.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

I think you don't want to tie it to gear degradation because there are no death penalties in the sponsored pvp (objective based pvp). You need to simplify the system because I do love the mercenary idea, I just don't see the use for warscore and payment from gear degradation.

Warscore can be calculated even when there's no gear degradation tough, this could be used for the PvP season score too.

Contract payments should be rolled when there is gear degradation, because PvPers spend gold in repairs.

Arya_Yeshe

Solvryn wrote: »

I think a greater diplomacy system that calculates peoples actions would be fun. I also think that high value folk are natural targets, as they should be in a game with quasi empire building, state building, politics, war, etc.

I too also will merc out, but they'd have to make a really damn good payment system to support it to where players cannot welch on bets or back out of contracts.

I just think diplomacy system should be over arching with war and martial efforts being a piece of the grand total of the score.

Think with me, if someone dresses up all fancy and with expensive gear, he has an edge over everybody else. If there's a contract against his guild or node, then he will be a juicy target... this guy will be primary target.

AoC came with this proposal of no gear drops, but at least people should be paid based on the damage done on that fancy gear.

Songcaller

But we have that warscore system already. It's for the pvp seasons which I mentioned before. A mercenary should be paid weekly to be on staff even when there is no war. Though you might only get 4 payments dependant on the mayor.

I realise the payments are for repairs but the payments can be stored for when there are repairs. We don't drop gold.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

But we have that warscore system already. It's for the pvp seasons which I mentioned before. A mercenary should be paid weekly to be on staff even when there is no war. Though you might only get 4 payments dependant on the mayor.

I realise the payments are for repairs but the payments can be stored for when there are repairs. We don't drop gold.

There are mentions about the pvp seasons score in the wiki, but it is vague for now, there's also mentions about objetctives... I do love objectives but they should give the warscore on the level of guild and node. The objective based warscore is the warscore that should tell who won the war in the end, which side won.

The gear damage warscore would be in the player level, so you know who are the bad asses in the war, who deserves more gold.

Other games have flavorless warscores simply based on kills, even if you kill a naked guy it would register as the same as killing someone with legendaries... other games' warscore make no sense.

Songcaller

Well, I'm used to pvp experience and pvp armour at various pvp levels. I don't think we should implement pvp levels beyond the current plans. The pvp seasonal scores will have multiple facets for sure. I wonder if we can get bonuses for mercenary contracts after each season ends.

It could be based on time served and performance.

Arya_Yeshe

Maybe one of the war objectives could be dealing more gear damage to the other?

People would even craft T1 gear so the other team won't register a high score in the end.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

Well, I'm used to pvp experience and pvp armour at various pvp levels. I don't think we should implement pvp levels beyond the current plans. The pvp seasonal scores will have multiple facets for sure. I wonder if we can get bonuses for mercenary contracts after each season ends.

It could be based on time served and performance.

If I recall correctly, Steven said a long time ago that you would be able to see how many sucessful caravans you had, being as defender or attacker.

The PvP league score tells more how the "match" ended and not how you personally performed, except for scores that just tell how many kills you had... there's no information for now.

Songcaller

Well, if we go the damage/degradation route we open an avenue for corruption to be profitable which would be anti policy.

Arya_Yeshe

@Neurath , hey...

Death penalties (mostly) do not apply to objective-based events (also called sanctioned events).[16][17][18][19]
Gear degradation applies on death during Caravan PvP.[17][18]

Songcaller

Yeah sounds good. I said the pvp will be sick in the livestream chat. It's also why I want to be paid to be a caravan guard mwuhahahaha.

Arya_Yeshe

Neurath wrote: »

Well, if we go the damage/degradation route we open an avenue for corruption to be profitable which would be anti policy.

Yes, ganking could be profitable...... UNLESS since contracts are a legal thing, they are as legal as a war declaration... so maybe corrupted players won't score anything.... it's up to Steven to decide.

Probably "ilegal" kills won't be benefited, and arena kills wouldn't either.

Songcaller

Well, arena does count for pvp seasons so if you get contract bonuses for season performance arena kills would have to count. I don't mind no benefits for corruption.