Objective Party System for Node Wars
Xeeg
Member
*Updated periodically as ideas/discussions occur*
Steven was recently asked a question about zerging bosses and rendering boss mechanics trivial. He answered that they absolutely CAN do that, but the loot will stay finite. Finite Rewards is part of the Risk vs Reward answer in Ashes with regards to zergs. In other words, opportunity cost matters.
How about we apply the same idea to the Node Wars, creating Finite Reward incentives to balanced PVP scenarios (more risk and typically more fun!) while still allowing zergs to overrun the war for less risk.
Introducing The Objective Party System:
-Objectives have PVE Objective Mob Packs designed for specific group level/sizes brackets to defeat; 8v8, 16v16, 40v40
-War Score can only be gained by completing Objectives and not PVP kills.
-When War is declared, a small number of Objectives open up.
-Players join Objective Parties through in-game UI.
-As players from both sides queue and match into the Objective Parties, more Objectives come online, fluctuating to meet the size of the war.
-Only Objective Parties gain Participation Rewards after the war is over. Finite Reward.
-Only Objective Parties can deal damage to an Objective Mob Pack and complete Objectives.
-Everyone else can do open world PVP as would normally be the case in a Node War. Or they can go do something else if their side is clearly going to win.
Perhaps there could be Objectives for multiple level brackets, end game isn't the real game right?
Sample Rewards for a 10-60 minute Objective:
Level 25-29 Objective: 10 War Score, 10 gold, 75% level worth of exp.
Level 30-34 Objective: 15 War Score, 15 gold, 40% level worth of exp.
Level 35-39 Objective: 25 War Score, 25 gold, 25% level worth of exp.
Level 40-44 Objective: 40 War Score, 40 gold, 15% level worth of exp.
Level 45-49 Objective: 50 War Score, 50 gold, 10% level worth of exp.
Level 50 Objective: 100 War Score, 200 gold.
Maybe 1000 War Score to win the Node War, in a Tug of War Score format.
Let's imagine that a war is declared
Initial objectives open on the defender's territory, 2 for each level bracket and more objectives increasing as team matches are made.
Let's say that this war has the following people available to fight.
Defenders:
30 level 25-29 players
120 level 50 players
Aggressors:
250 level 50 players
Our brackets would look like this:
25-29 Bracket - 10 War Score victory:
Objective 1: Party of 8 (0 vs 8)
Objective 2: Party of 8 (0 vs 8)
The remaining 30-16 = 14 low level defenders can't join an Objective Party and can only help with PVP around the objectives, or go do something else with their time.
50 bracket - 100 War Score victory:
Objective 1: Party of 8 level 50s ( 8 vs 8 matched)
Objective 2: Party of 8 level 50s (8 vs 8 matched, when 75% full on both sides unlocks Objective 3)
Objective 3: Party of 16 level 50s (16 vs 16 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 4)
Objective 4: Party of 16 level 50s (16 vs 16 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 5)
Objective 5: Party of 40 level 50s (40 vs 40 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 6)
Objective 6: Party of 40 level 50s (40 vs 32 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 7)
Objective 7: Party of 40 level 50s (40 vs 0, no more objectives unlocked until this fills up opposing team)
In this scenario, 168 players from Aggressors, and 120 players from the Defenders will be in 7 Objective Parties, obtain Participation Rewards, and can increase the War Score. 5/7 Objectives will have evenly matched parties and 2 will be in favour of the Aggressor.
The remaining 250-168 = 82 players on the Aggressor's side will get no individual benefit for helping in the war. Maybe 20 of them volunteer to harass the evenly matched parties and guarantee the win. Risk vs Reward.
The other 62 could go kill a few bosses that night instead and get even further ahead. They don't even need to bother with the lowbies getting 20 War Score on defence unless they are bored.
It's not a 100% guaranteed fair and balanced PVP scenario, but it establishes an individual profit incentive pointed in that direction. It is self organizing and can accommodate bubbles of level brackets matching up. It can meet the needs of small node wars or scale to very large ones while maintaining the the Risk vs Reward incentive structure.
System also gives the devs strong control over the War Score collection rates and Participation Rewards as a way to guide player behaviour. They can use these as dials in relation to other activities.
Steven was recently asked a question about zerging bosses and rendering boss mechanics trivial. He answered that they absolutely CAN do that, but the loot will stay finite. Finite Rewards is part of the Risk vs Reward answer in Ashes with regards to zergs. In other words, opportunity cost matters.
How about we apply the same idea to the Node Wars, creating Finite Reward incentives to balanced PVP scenarios (more risk and typically more fun!) while still allowing zergs to overrun the war for less risk.
Introducing The Objective Party System:
-Objectives have PVE Objective Mob Packs designed for specific group level/sizes brackets to defeat; 8v8, 16v16, 40v40
-War Score can only be gained by completing Objectives and not PVP kills.
-When War is declared, a small number of Objectives open up.
-Players join Objective Parties through in-game UI.
-As players from both sides queue and match into the Objective Parties, more Objectives come online, fluctuating to meet the size of the war.
-Only Objective Parties gain Participation Rewards after the war is over. Finite Reward.
-Only Objective Parties can deal damage to an Objective Mob Pack and complete Objectives.
-Everyone else can do open world PVP as would normally be the case in a Node War. Or they can go do something else if their side is clearly going to win.
Perhaps there could be Objectives for multiple level brackets, end game isn't the real game right?
Sample Rewards for a 10-60 minute Objective:
Level 25-29 Objective: 10 War Score, 10 gold, 75% level worth of exp.
Level 30-34 Objective: 15 War Score, 15 gold, 40% level worth of exp.
Level 35-39 Objective: 25 War Score, 25 gold, 25% level worth of exp.
Level 40-44 Objective: 40 War Score, 40 gold, 15% level worth of exp.
Level 45-49 Objective: 50 War Score, 50 gold, 10% level worth of exp.
Level 50 Objective: 100 War Score, 200 gold.
Maybe 1000 War Score to win the Node War, in a Tug of War Score format.
Let's imagine that a war is declared
Initial objectives open on the defender's territory, 2 for each level bracket and more objectives increasing as team matches are made.
Let's say that this war has the following people available to fight.
Defenders:
30 level 25-29 players
120 level 50 players
Aggressors:
250 level 50 players
Our brackets would look like this:
25-29 Bracket - 10 War Score victory:
Objective 1: Party of 8 (0 vs 8)
Objective 2: Party of 8 (0 vs 8)
The remaining 30-16 = 14 low level defenders can't join an Objective Party and can only help with PVP around the objectives, or go do something else with their time.
50 bracket - 100 War Score victory:
Objective 1: Party of 8 level 50s ( 8 vs 8 matched)
Objective 2: Party of 8 level 50s (8 vs 8 matched, when 75% full on both sides unlocks Objective 3)
Objective 3: Party of 16 level 50s (16 vs 16 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 4)
Objective 4: Party of 16 level 50s (16 vs 16 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 5)
Objective 5: Party of 40 level 50s (40 vs 40 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 6)
Objective 6: Party of 40 level 50s (40 vs 32 matched, when 75% full on both sides, unlocks Objective 7)
Objective 7: Party of 40 level 50s (40 vs 0, no more objectives unlocked until this fills up opposing team)
In this scenario, 168 players from Aggressors, and 120 players from the Defenders will be in 7 Objective Parties, obtain Participation Rewards, and can increase the War Score. 5/7 Objectives will have evenly matched parties and 2 will be in favour of the Aggressor.
The remaining 250-168 = 82 players on the Aggressor's side will get no individual benefit for helping in the war. Maybe 20 of them volunteer to harass the evenly matched parties and guarantee the win. Risk vs Reward.
The other 62 could go kill a few bosses that night instead and get even further ahead. They don't even need to bother with the lowbies getting 20 War Score on defence unless they are bored.
It's not a 100% guaranteed fair and balanced PVP scenario, but it establishes an individual profit incentive pointed in that direction. It is self organizing and can accommodate bubbles of level brackets matching up. It can meet the needs of small node wars or scale to very large ones while maintaining the the Risk vs Reward incentive structure.
System also gives the devs strong control over the War Score collection rates and Participation Rewards as a way to guide player behaviour. They can use these as dials in relation to other activities.
0
Comments
If points given for these <50 objectives are in any way tangible for the overall goal - this will definitely be alt-ridden and cheesed to all hell, but imo that is its own fun, so I'd still be completely fine with it.
And 2) God no, no forced L4G mechanic to make sure everyone gets to be equally involved. If you're low level, make the most of it. You don't need to be the highest level player on the battleground in order to participate as part of the pack. If you're like a level 20 among level 50s, that's a great motivation to keep levelling after the war is done.
Instance-free gameplay is more natural and engaging, when will the themepark community accept that lesson? If you're in the mood for a lobby game, there are plenty of MOBAs out there for you to jump on.
I wish there was a good way to combine the two, but getting one-shot as a lvl20 dude among lvl50 enemies usually leads to people never participating in that kind of content again.
I don't really understand how someone would rationalise joining that battle before they've caught up with the average server level, if they can't handle being killed by stronger players.
And like...wouldn't those players be focused on PvE before joining PvP combat anyway? Because they care that strongly about wanting to be able to stand their ground against anyone they face?
It just all seems evidence of a lack of a principled ideology to me. If you want to play an MMO, you've opted in to a vertical progression experience.
Why do that, if you can't handle other people out-progressing you, if there are tons of games with matchmaking and balanced, consistently equal fighting conditions out there?
Actually there is a connection. If the Objective Parties are the only teams that can generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to use the Objective system, which is a more tailored PVP experience and something under the dev control. If PVP kills generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to mass zerg as we typically would see in other games, just killing whatever players they can to generate war score. The war score should be directed at creating opportunities for balanced PVP which wouldn't otherwise occur naturally.
Actually the system as I outlined wouldn't let everyone get involved equally. Only those who queued into the Objective Party would be able to participate in the Node War Objectives and generate war score. If there are no defenders then you can have something like max 16 players per level bracket (assuming two 8 party objectives spawn for each level bracket). With 5 level brackets that would be 80 vs 0 players distributed from 10-50 on the aggressor's side.
Everyone else would be able to still PVP enemy Node Citizens to help with the PVP part but not progress the war score through Node War Objectives.
That is until defenders start showing up. Once defenders show up and match the existing Objective Parties, new Objectives open up and more players from either side can join in.
I think this could be done instance free. But we can combine some Lobby Game concepts to direct the player base into a game play mode that is more fun than straight zerg, which would otherwise be the case.
Also, these lower-lvled players will already be OBLITERATED outside of the war objectives. They won't be able to do shit during the war in off-prime-time hours. So giving them at least some content during the war would be nice imo.
I think it is doable without instancing. Sure there will be some bad gank Node Wars where the defenders have no chance, but if they have more than enough maxed people to distribute to 16 Objectives simultaneously the defenders were probably hooped anyways.
Maybe a big group of low levellers extends the war to 4 days instead of min 2, because they have been capping some of the odd brackets. And that 4 day war was long enough to let a Parent Node get a War Assistance Commission purchased and join the war with their Vassal Node. Suddenly the biggies from their side join the defenders Objective Parties and flood the Node level brackets and begin to turn the tides! =D
If both sides have 50 players available, and one side has a 40 man zerg rolling around the map in a single ball, the additional kills won't make up for the lack of presence across the map. At least not if the side with smaller teams plays their cards right and doesn't just feed the zerg.
@NiKr The problem is not that I don't think it can't be done in a fun, fair, interesting way, but I think the motivation for doing it in the first place is bad, and will inspire decreased frustration tolerance, which will be needed for the game as a whole to stay alive. You're essentially coddling carebears to boost the playerbase short-term, at the cost of a functional community long-term.
Sure but how often are we going to randomly get a perfectly balanced open world PVP scenario where either side just naturally happens to have 50 players? Probably never.
Not unless the devs put incentives for that to happen. That is the point of my post.
Another thing this system would help with is increase the value of lower level players during a war. Let's say that only Objective Party members will get the rewards for Node War Participation after the war, as a way to offset the opportunity cost of gathering/exping/questing/raiding that they could have been doing.
However, other players won't. They only get citizen buffs for winning the war. So, for the most part, if you didn't get in the Objective Party queue, and it looks like your Node is going to win the Node War anyways, then you might as well continue your night and go to a grind spot or whatever. No need to harass low level Objectives if you are going to win the war anyways and you could have been doing something more valuable.
Then, if the low level defenders are actually making progress, a call might go out for some people to come help chase them off. Sure, you roflstomp them when you get there, but now the low leveller just made a high leveller have to come camp some lowbie spot and waste their friday night. They can't cap the objective anyways because it only triggers for low level Objective Parties. Plus the low levellers just participated in the Node War by engaging on the Objective, so they get a reward at the end just for trying.
It is a system that actually gives the lower levels alot more power strategically even if not in an actual fight.
I believe PvP/PvX MMORPGs need an entirely different approach to this, unlike anything they normally use because of where they draw their inspirations from, to eventually get us to a gameplay type that would actually last.
I don't know if people's current expectations would ever align though, so it probably doesn't matter.
tl;dr of the many 'incorrect' ways to do this, I think what Intrepid is doing now is the better option, no need for level or party scaling. As they said, some people enjoy 'zerg' gameplay.
Well people can still zerg it with what i am proposing, its just that only an Objective Party can complete the objective to add war score to the Node War. And only they get Participation Rewards, gold or something. You can still help them PVP the area so they complete the objective faster and without competition. Or if they got it handled you can go do something else with your time.
Its like the risk vs reward thing. Finite reward for each Node War Objective, so if you bring more people than the predetermined party size designed for the Objective then they don't get any benefit from it.
It seemed to me this presentation only focused on the system itself.
I'm moreso referring to the idea that you'd just send your 'extra' level 50 PvP group alongside your level 20 Objective group.
Which would happen enough to probably drastically change or 'ruin' any chance that the lower level players have of enjoying the content anyway, but it would have created an 'expectation' that they could. An expectation that would also be at odds with the 'best thing to do' (having overgeared level 20 alts).
As long as Node Wars auto-flag all citizens of the two opposing nodes against each other, achieving a gameplay flow using this method would end up being a lot of development and balancing work for no positive outcome.
Note, I'm not saying this idea is useless or anything, there's lots of 'theoretically should work' aspects of it that would (or do) work well in other games. But I think they don't work in PvP MMORPGs for long, and in Ashes, as far as we know now, Node Wars and similar will probably happen way after most meaningful participants at least 'have enough max level players to disrupt the idea'.
That whole 'we expect players to reach max level before a quarter of Nodes reach Stage 3' thing.
Right, but they wouldn't be getting Participation Rewards (gold/exp). So they are kind of wasting their time if they aren't needed. They could be out farming or killing a boss that night or something else.
If we have a Participation Reward system for the people in the Objective Parties, then they are getting compensation for their opportunity cost of fighting in the Node War.
Everyone else isn't. So, yeah they can help, but Risk vs Reward says they don't get a Reward. The Reward is static based on the developer designed party size/level for the Node War Objective.
We can also just make the lower level objectives less impactful, like maybe 10% of the max war score or something.
Not sure if they said, but it was just something I was thinking about while at the same time trying to come up with a way to provide incentives to somewhat balanced open world PVP.
Realistically it might only make sense to have level 25+ brackets or something. Shrug.
Devil's in the details, as they say.
I like to fight that devil, and sometimes I 'realize I can't win'.
Or at least, that's my opinion of it.
I can agree absolutely that building a good strategic PvP MMO 'war' system is 100% about 'making opportunity costs matter and making people split their forces, so if you're not 'overthinking' all the minute details like I am, I think we're just in agreement.
But since I've 'overthought' them, my conclusion is 'eh, never mind, just leave it, too much work to put on this many band-aids'.
Gotcha. It's not a silly question. I know level scaling was a hard no so it'll have to be dealt with somehow.
They can participate in such events by leveling up and joining in.
This is not an unreasoable thing to expect people to do in an MMORPG.
I feel this has a 'problem' relative to what I understand the goal to be (please correct my understanding).
If you have an open world area, a level 20-ish zone, an Objective spawns, for two level 20 groups to 'compete over'.
Doesn't adding just me, as a level 50 Cleric, for example, not in their party, almost automatically make my side win? I don't think Ashes has any limitations on who I can heal as a Cleric. Maybe cleanses. Now obv the enemy can send a level 50 to kill me and prevent that, but the main reason to send the Cleric would be... there's probably protections on the level 20s of some kind to prevent the level 50 single DPS just coming in to mop up (maybe not, but that's just doubling the problem).
Whereas precisely applying this to a Tank or Cleric is usually much more complicated and a matter of battling new and interesting exploits (e.g. Tank taunts or CCs mobs that the level 20 party needs to kill and stands there, but does insufficient DPS and therefore they get credited normally without needing their own Tank, that sort of thing).
I guess this is still technically 'getting level 20 players involved in the war', but I'd have assumed that getting it to happen this way isn't the goal.
It kinda should.
At least as in there is same as much to do more or less - than it all of the levelling Progress.
There should be plenty to do,
so that the "true Game" shouldn't just be to level up Character after Character after Character until one can not stand the Game anymore from having made countless Characters.
" Should " - exist in both the Levelling Process - and in the Endgame. Gotta keep it spicey.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Low lvl players are not carebears. They are simply at the low lvl of progression.
Also, just to make it clear, I'm against any participation awards. The only reward for those lowbies should be the fact that their node won't die or get crippled due to their actions.
Then why have lowbie raids or lowbie mobs or lowbie artisanry or anything lowbie. Just let them grow somehow. Noaani, I expected a better argument from you than a damn "just lvl up, bro".
Leveling up takes hundreds of hours, and that's if you know what you're doing. This means that any of the more casual players will take MONTHS to level up. Those months will most definitely have node wars. Do you want people to be so damn useless during those wars that their only purpose is to be a killing point for the enemy?
For different reasons.
Low level raids should be mostly about quest/story, as opposed to raids at the level cap that are equally about drops.
The point here is two-fold. The first is that it adds weight to the games storytelling. A quest chain that you can complete solo has no real weight to it in a game world. A quest that sees you require the assembly of 20+ players in order to complete - that has some meaning.
The second is so that players aren't playing a totally different game leveling up vs at the level cap. In a game where the level cap content is largely based on raids, players should be exposed to raiding early on.
Mobs at low levels should exist so that players can kill them to level up.
Crafting should exist at low levels for the same reason as the second reason in relation to raids - players shouldn't acquire gear via one method leveling up, and then by a totally different method at the level cap.
Actually, this is largely player conjecture.
It takes the statement Steven made years ago of how long it will take players to finish progression, and assumes that this time is based on competent, organized players that are only progressing in one aspect of the game.
To me, that statement always seemed like Steven was talking about a player wanting to be mroe balanced - working on character level, artisan level, working on their node, religion, social organization and what ever else the game has.
Realistically, we have no idea how long it will take to just level up.
Since most character leveling the game will ever see will happen in the first few months, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that low level characters at that point in the games life will be useful - a level 20 should be perfectly viable against a rival level 20.
It is when most players are level 50 that a level 20 should feel near worthless.
Why?
If nothing else, I have always been about players only ever getting what they earn. I've never been an advocate of hand outs to players, I have always said players should put in the work needed in order to be given opportunities in game - the above comment fits perfectly with that.
Steven has said specifically in regard to levels that "you should see a reward for your progress or effort spent". Putting level 20 players in a position where they can determin the outcome of a war largely between level 50 players is specifically not rewarding players for effort spent.
I'm on the opposite side of this. I think the punishments for the losing node should be small. Something like Citizen stats -1% for 14 days and Node Contribution leech of 5% from the losing Node to the Winning Node for 14 days.
Punishing the losing side for being on the raw end of a one sided Node War as a way to encourage participation is a recipe for drop in the player base after a loss.
I'd rather have Node Wars be much more common place and typically not that significant, and every once in a while the conditions arise for some crazy epic Node War, than Node Wars being rare and forcing the player base to have to join out of fear of punishment. That already occurs in the Node Siege.
Then give participation rewards to the players that joined the Objective Parties that each objective is designed for. Any more players show up then they can help with PVP, but can't do the objective and they don't get participation rewards.
For Node Citizen rewards, after the war you could have each citizen on the winning side choose a buff:
Citizens choose between 1 of 5 buffs for 14 days; +5% gather/process/craft speed/amount/material requirement reduction, +5% glint drops/purchasing power, +5% health/armour/spell resist, +5% mana regen/cast times/CD reduction, or +5% ability power.
Either way, there's gonna be a ton of people that are not max lvl, while others are. And there's gonna be wars while that statement is true. So, just as you say with raids/artisanry - those lowbies should experience some war content as well.
We've only seen only one objective so far, so there's still a chance that wars might have instanced objectives, just as sieges will. So lvl50s might have an instance as well, so the lowbies' experience wouldn't be different in that way.
Also, just to make my point clearer. By "instance" I mean that both sides enter the same separate location and have some content there (i.e. the Flag + mobs from the OP). So the content itself wouldn't be a handout and it would still be pvx. It would simply be separated from all the highbies that would 100% mess up the lowbie gameplay.
Also, I am using Participation Rewards as a system designed to incentivize somewhat fair and balanced PVP in the open world, and offset the opportunity cost of joining the Node War.
If a Node Objective is designed for a level 50, 40 person raid, and players who joined the Objective Party through the game UI get Participation Reward, you are much more likely to get something closer to a 40 v 40 when capturing that objective.
Sure we can still zerg it with a 200 vs 40, but the extra 160 players on the one side don't get participation rewards and have an opportunity cost for whatever else they could be doing that night. They could be out raiding or gathering mats. Only the 40 vs 40 in the group are actually getting an additional benefit (gold or something).
If you are leveling at a similar pace to the bulk of players, you get to participate in those raids.
Replace "raids" with "wars", and you have my opinion on them. In my experience, while there may well be many characters around at lower levels, there is usually significantly fewer players around that don't have a max level character.
When it comes to something important - such as defending your node - people are going to be on the character they feel will be most useful - which according to Stevens statements of seeing reward for effort, should always be their highest level character.
And if both sides don't have similar numbers of players within the same level range that want to participate in the war?
The longer the game goes on, the more common this will be. Since the whole thing with lower level players in wars is only an issue as the game gets older (and then at a point about 18 months in, will probably cease to be an issue at all), this seems to me like an attempt at a solution to the "issue" that is self-defeating.
And what about people that lvl slower or simply any new expansion release that attracts newbies? Do you expect those newbies to level up within days, all while there's not a single war going on?
That's the tradeoff. If you have more highbies - you'll get more points by using them. But if you have lowbies, they'll still get points and won't just be useless and free points for the enemy.
This will inevitably lead to lowbie alts, which in turn will remove some of the highbies as well. And like I said, I personally like this kind of setup. If the economy is well-designed and has progression stages that require lowbie chars to be optimal - people will already have lowbie alts, so wars having some content for those would simply be a continuation of that design.
And yes, lowbie alts imply better gear on them, which then requires the side with low lvl newbies to give them better gear, which then helps build relationships between old and new players, which I see as a plus.
You can then tie this shit into the mentor program and you have yourself a nice interconnected design
cant always zerg. all nodes wont have high pop. also, if you are zerguig one spot, the enemies can split and go for the mobs and the gatherables and win the event.
i disagree with forced low level events. at some point (pretty quickly in ashes) people will be max level. now we won't have low levels for the events. people gonna have to make low level alts for that.i wanna play my main, I'm probs other people as well.
If an expansion attracts new players, then there will obviously be a good number of players at that lower level. However, this is rare enough an event in MMORPG's in general to be able to safely assume it won't happen in Ashes. New players tend to join a game with new servers, not expansions. Expansions bring players back. In what world is this a good thing?
Players shouldn't spend all that time to level up a character, only to feel that when one of the most important things happens, they need to abandon all that work for a lower level alt.
That is horrible game design.