Print

[Count Matthew]

Hi,

I've been thinking about how we can streamline ZC and here is one of my suggestions: show who is attempting to cap zones.

For example, V Techs have V Enterprises under their control, lawyers come and start to cap it, V Techs can see which faction it is by the colour. So the timer would display as Gray but only for V Techs, for every other faction is would show as the traditional white.

2nd example, same as before but is is contested by family and lawyers, V Techs would be able to see again who is there by their colours being displayed.

This is useful because it gives the faction controlling that zone an advantage and therefore making zones more desirable Overall.

This could be more pertinent especially if new factions are introduced and it also opens the way for diplomacy. 

[Niamak]

Just to add some info to the discussion, ZC timer used to be like this :

http://www.hitbox.tv/cirn0/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbuSnGr8rEvCrUft03ekDig/videos

[Anza]

It's a good idea to give some intel advantage to the faction controlling the zone to make capturing them more interesting

[Caboose]

Hi,

I've been thinking about how we can streamline ZC and here is one of my suggestions: show who is attempting to cap zones.

For example, V Techs have V Enterprises under their control, lawyers come and start to cap it, V Techs can see which faction it is by the colour. So the timer would display as Gray but only for V Techs, for every other faction is would show as the traditional white.

2nd example, same as before but is is contested by family and lawyers, V Techs would be able to see again who is there by their colours being displayed.

This is useful because it gives the faction controlling that zone an advantage and therefore making zones more desirable Overall.

This could be more pertinent especially if new factions are introduced and it also opens the way for diplomacy.

So then Lawyers can decide whether or not to attack their Family friends.

[greenthumb]

sounds good, but actualy i cant see what problem is this measure addressed to. Even if it provides some minor advantage, importance is far less than minor.

I would like to see any solution addressed to problem of number imbalance in realtime gameplay.

EG: Polymer lab is being contested(7,0,4,1)

[paragon]

Factions are nothing but a color of a nickname and place you live, as in actual reality, same by design. It's well known, that 10 family and 10 lawyers in the zone doesn't mean they are fighting. Balance is not only a mechanic issues, but the whole player attitude issue as well. I don't say that faction system is a useless, but in the current state minor changes in faction system can not bring the difference to the team balance.

[greenthumb]

I agree very much with paragon here
"Balance is not only a mechanic issues, but the whole player attitude issue as well."

As i explained to Caboose in irc today, when he complained about players, which are playing dirty to win regardless of honour or simply "do not care".

"Those people are either stupid or lacks intelligence, while we cant deal with first problem, we can eradicate lack of intelligence" (Intelligence refers to available information, not brain trait)

Give people info about numbers of enemy, let them rebalance game on their own, those who will be intentionaly violating balance are simply part of the 1st problem. Nomnom, i want to tell them.

Stupid people need to know they are stupid.

[Count Matthew]

Factions are nothing but a color of a nickname and place you live, as in actual reality, same by design. It's well known, that 10 family and 10 lawyers in the zone doesn't mean they are fighting. Balance is not only a mechanic issues, but the whole player attitude issue as well. I don't say that faction system is a useless, but in the current state minor changes in faction system can not bring the difference to the team balance.

What is your attitude then Suff?

[Count Matthew]

I agree very much with paragon here
"Balance is not only a mechanic issues, but the whole player attitude issue as well."

As i explained to Caboose in irc today, when he complained about players, which are playing dirty to win regardless of honour or simply "do not care".

"Those people are either stupid or lacks intelligence, while we cant deal with first problem, we can eradicate lack of intelligence" (Intelligence refers to available information, not brain trait)

Give people info about numbers of enemy, let them rebalance game on their own, those who will be intentionaly violating balance are simply part of the 1st problem. Nomnom, i want to tell them.

Stupid people need to know they are stupid.

Bring more to the table please.

[MARXMAN]

I agree very much with paragon here
"Balance is not only a mechanic issues, but the whole player attitude issue as well."

As i explained to Caboose in irc today, when he complained about players, which are playing dirty to win regardless of honour or simply "do not care".

"Those people are either stupid or lacks intelligence, while we cant deal with first problem, we can eradicate lack of intelligence" (Intelligence refers to available information, not brain trait)

Give people info about numbers of enemy, let them rebalance game on their own, those who will be intentionaly violating balance are simply part of the 1st problem. Nomnom, i want to tell them.

Stupid people need to know they are stupid.

As Matthew said, this argument doesn't have near enough substance.  Lack of Intel creates surprise, and this can sometimes mean a whole war party vs a couple lone cappers, it's part of the game. A side affect of telling players how many are capping will be such:  If the numbers are high enough, people will choose not to come to ZC even more than than do now because they KNOW they are at a disadvantage. It takes all of the adrenaline fueled guesswork out of a firefight in the core. Sometimes, you might not know you're outnumbered, but it significantly helps morale on your side if you do not. If you know you're about to be terminated by 5 more players its no fun.
When it happens that 5 players that no one saw flank a team and start opening fire, its a good time. Adding this "Intel" aspect to ZC would take away from how Visual the game is, which IMO is a very bad thing.

[Count Matthew]

I agree very much with paragon here
"Balance is not only a mechanic issues, but the whole player attitude issue as well."

As i explained to Caboose in irc today, when he complained about players, which are playing dirty to win regardless of honour or simply "do not care".

"Those people are either stupid or lacks intelligence, while we cant deal with first problem, we can eradicate lack of intelligence" (Intelligence refers to available information, not brain trait)

Give people info about numbers of enemy, let them rebalance game on their own, those who will be intentionaly violating balance are simply part of the 1st problem. Nomnom, i want to tell them.

Stupid people need to know they are stupid.

As Matthew said, this argument doesn't have near enough substance.  Lack of Intel creates surprise, and this can sometimes mean a whole war party vs a couple lone cappers, it's part of the game. A side affect of telling players how many are capping will be such:  If the numbers are high enough, people will choose not to come to ZC even more than than do now because they KNOW they are at a disadvantage. It takes all of the adrenaline fueled guesswork out of a firefight in the core. Sometimes, you might not know you're outnumbered, but it significantly helps morale on your side if you do not. If you know you're about to be terminated by 5 more players its no fun.
When it happens that 5 players that no one saw flank a team and start opening fire, its a good time. Adding this "Intel" aspect to ZC would take away from how Visual the game is, which IMO is a very bad thing.

+1 Nailed it

[naossano]

Lack of Intel creates surprise, and this can sometimes mean a whole war party vs a couple lone cappers, it's part of the game.

Well, if it is a couple of lone cappers, everyone on the server already know that there are a couple of lone cappers, and how many they are (if they are between 1 & 5), including the war party that come to harvest their loot/XP (while pretending they came to fight). On the other hand, the cappers might not know how much are coming to get them. If they lucky, they can see a 6, that could mean 6 or 666. If the opponement come from an owned adjacent zone or a gate, the cappers know nothing until the war party is on site.

Factions are nothing but a color of a nickname and place you live, as in actual reality, same by design.

Nice to read that from you. Maybe someday, you will try out a different color.

[greenthumb]

My first assumption: balancing teams in small scale realy IS possible. I am also assuming that players are playing AOP arena server to use advanced pvp features in concurrent action, everytime i am playing i cant find pvp, not becouse 0 players online! Even 6 online could have solid pvp....
... if i am only one with such problem, my apology takes place here...
...if you are experiencing same as i do, it took you too long to realize surprise is not what we are (i am) looking for.


Sorry i will not leave any comments to this

...

...

Okay i will:
Lets imagine intelligence available in hypothetic situation of 5 "cappers", there comes unnamed swarm with 12, what will happen? 5 cappers will flee! Wooohoo, what an unexpected result, maybe next time swarm will not swarm but balance teams, eventualy  fights will take longer than 60 seconds. Eventualy there will be even minor portion of FUN before everybody dead.

And opposite hypothetical situation? Well maybe swarm of 12 after taking 2 or 3 zones unchallenged will realize there is something missing for pvp, eventualy they will offer help to other teams without any further necessary indications.

Thats IMO only way to create balance on server without further GM support or cirn0 need create script spawning players, oh wait.

Give people info about numbers of enemy, let them rebalance game on their own, those who will be intentionaly violating balance are simply part of the 1st problem...

This is my honest opinion about all said in this thread, why is my opinion such?, you should consider 2 reasons, i realy cant argue brainless reasoning of other debatants or i am just in bad mood being arogant.

[naossano]

And opposite hypothetical situation? Well maybe swarm of 12 after taking 2 or 3 zones unchallenged will realize there is something missing for pvp, eventualy they will offer help to other teams without any further necessary indications.

It will take you a lot of patience before seeing it...

[greenthumb]

it just happens, you just need educate people and shit comes true.

[cirn0]

I'd like some dynamic structures to be built in the core by factions that will provide utility and bonuses. I think it would be more entertaining if players put some investments the zones. That way we have a clear attacker and defender objective as well as better motivation of holding zones.

Such things may include:
 Radar dishes, get an estimate of players in adjacent zones.
 Medical stations, perhaps a forward operations base to allow players to quicker re-spawn into the action.
 Trade posts, spawn caravans that will make its way to the factions gate, when successful reward platoon / faction with income.

These are just ideas at the top of my mind ( clearly just making this up as we go ).

Of course all these zone upgrades should be volatile so the risk vs reward will be kept in mind such that it isn't always a loss to make these upgrades. All the rewards and benefits will scale dynamically based on core activity, I believe the scaling algorithm has been doing its job quite well for the payouts.

Regarding balance issues, It's been entertained that next session all new players will start off as factionless and will have a sewer rat hub (the map used for the pipe rifle event). I believe it is a mistake to have thrown players into the faction system without allowing players to make  a judgement of their own on the current political / balance of powers. In the future, to join a faction you will probably have to do some sort of quest for them and the requirements for entrance will scale depending on how actively swarmed the faction is. Also, an effort to clearly convey the state of factional balance to the players is something we're working towards.

The current state of the game however will have to rely on player self-regulation.

[Count Matthew]

I'd like some dynamic structures to be built in the core by factions that will provide utility and bonuses. I think it would be more entertaining if players put some investments the zones. That way we have a clear attacker and defender objective as well as better motivation of holding zones.

Such things may include:
 Radar dishes, get an estimate of players in adjacent zones.
 Medical stations, perhaps a forward operations base to allow players to quicker re-spawn into the action.
 Trade posts, spawn caravans that will make its way to the factions gate, when successful reward platoon / faction with income.

These are just ideas at the top of my mind ( clearly just making this up as we go ).

Of course all these zone upgrades should be volatile so the risk vs reward will be kept in mind such that it isn't always a loss to make these upgrades. All the rewards and benefits will scale dynamically based on core activity, I believe the scaling algorithm has been doing its job quite well for the payouts.

Regarding balance issues, It's been entertained that next session all new players will start off as factionless and will have a sewer rat hub (the map used for the pipe rifle event). I believe it is a mistake to have thrown players into the faction system without allowing players to make  a judgement of their own on the current political / balance of powers. In the future, to join a faction you will probably have to do some sort of quest for them and the requirements for entrance will scale depending on how actively swarmed the faction is. Also, an effort to clearly convey the state of factional balance to the players is something we're working towards.

The current state of the game however will have to rely on player self-regulation.

I am excited for these kind of features. Looking forward to them.

[Caboose]

Some of those features sound great.

Also self regulation means alot of different things, not just faction hopping.

[RazorRamon]

I'd like some dynamic structures to be built in the core by factions that will provide utility and bonuses. I think it would be more entertaining if players put some investments the zones. That way we have a clear attacker and defender objective as well as better motivation of holding zones.

That just smells of some kind of fonline2 "rich get richer" scheme. Dominating faction can reinforce all of their zones in peace while the others have to struggle.

I get what you're saying about costs scaled to core activity but how will that ever benefit a faction thats not holding a single zone.

[Anza]

Ramon has a point