The Switch - Lessons from another game

[baka77]

You can attack whoever whenever you want. I thought thats what you wanted? Yet it doesnt come without a price. Thats what all this is about. You want to be agressor and have agression "incentivized" by removing risk from it, i want a balanced system where playing defensively and offensively is equally valid. Risk vs. reward.

Did we read the same update today? And have you actually read my posts today?

You actually can't attack whoever you want whenever you want. People who refuse to flag for war will always be safe in their lands. I'm fine with that, they can stay there all the live long day.

However, I think it's poor form for those people who refuse to take a risk to expect the same rewards as those who do. By flagging for war, I'm willing to risk everything I have built to utter destruction. I'm willing to accept the consequences for my actions. However, I also expect to be rewarded for putting my ass on the line. I won't have a magical safe zone to fall back on if I piss off the wrong people. What's my incentive for flagging? I really hope it's a situation where special resources/recipes are only available to flagged tribes.

I never ever want a situation where there are incentives for aggression with no risk. I actually think we kinda want the same thing. LOL

The post of mine you quoted as a tongue-in-cheek note to Sirius, letting him know that what he considers fun is not what others consider fun. As I said, I'm cool with carebears hiding behind safe zones forever, but they should have to miss out on some incentives since they're unwilling to take a risk.

[Doc]

It doesn't need to be all items. Actually, it'd be a bad idea to destroy all items on death. Keeping some stuff still intact would be a nice little trophey for the victor. But you can't think about one system without considering how it effects others. The economy would need items to completely leave the game to keep it going, otherwise people would become inundated with too much stuff that they'll never use, so they'll stop trading. The war-engine provides an outlet for this: If items get destroyed than crafters would have a more prominent role in the game (and let's face it, Jooki WANTS the game to focus on crafting. Having warfare helps give crafters more of a purpose. I know, I know. It seems odd to think that emphasizing warfare would also stimulate the crafters and the economy (though it really shouldn't if anyone reads up a little on how warfar has acted to stimulate technological advances and manufacturing)). But this also provides an incentive not to die. The individual doesn't, and shouldn't, want to lose their items. But, to acquire more stuff and increase their influence, tribes (and individuals) would need to conquer lands established by others and to do so they would need to build up goods to launch an attack.

The consequence of losing, is that the aggressor loses all the time that it took to acquire it, but if they win then they get more resources to build more stuff. Eventually some defender will lose. This is why I suggest having some safezones. You don't want to completely knock out a players, or a group of players, means of advancing again.

Edit: Doc: The reward for winning a defense is that you acquire some of the items of the aggressors, you maintain your facilities and infrastructure, and you obtain the knowledge that one of your competitors just lost a lot of time and resources in an unsuccessful seige.

Well, thats the point, items are not destroyed on death, friends can loot your corpse to get all items back when you die, and you can sound retreat when you see fit. Non destruction of items has to be compensated somehow, if capital ship pops in EvE, its gone, its not like someone can scoop capital ship and return it back to their fort.

What are you scared of?

I wan't people seiging me. That means i don't have to spend the resources to have a real fight.

There is no offensively/defensively...i mean if someone hits you, arent you going to hit them back? You get hit, you mount a counteroffensive.

I keep trying to make the point, and none of the non-pvp types seem to be hearing it:
THERE IS A POINT ON THE RISK REWARD SLIDER WHERE INCREASED RISK IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. BEYOND THAT POINT, A PLAYER/TRIBE/ALLIANCE WILL SEEK TO COMPLETELY REMOVE RISK FROM AN EQUATION BY ENSURING THAT THEY DO NOT ENGAGE IN A CONFLICT THAT THEY ARE NOT 100% CERTAIN THEY CAN WIN.
There is actually a point beyond that, where the risks are so comical that we just stop playing (i'm sure that would break your heart).

Who is taking the risk when my little tribe of 20 somethingonagreatday decides to go to war with your ubermilitia of 100+ ? We did it because we wanted the offensive challenge and we thought our defensive capeability was sufficient to stifle any counteroffensive you may make. Because you win a defensive engagement 100v20 you 'deserve' a cookie? Really?

I am perfectly aware what you want, and i want balanced system. If your "tribe of 20 somethingonagreatday" wants to attack something it should attack another "tribe of 20 something".

Yes, you dont go on offensive when you have no chance of winning, that should be common sense and be reflected in the game.

Did we read the same update today? And have you actually read my posts today?

You actually can't attack whoever you want whenever you want. People who refuse to flag for war will always be safe in their lands. I'm fine with that, they can stay there all the live long day.

However, I think it's poor form for those people who refuse to take a risk to expect the same rewards as those who do. By flagging for war, I'm willing to risk everything I have built to utter destruction. I'm willing to accept the consequences for my actions. However, I also expect to be rewarded for putting my ass on the line. I won't have a magical safe zone to fall back on if I piss off the wrong people. What's my incentive for flagging? I really hope it's a situation where special resources/recipes are only available to flagged tribes.

I never ever want a situation where there are incentives for aggression with no risk. I actually think we kinda want the same thing. LOL

The post of mine you quoted as a tongue-in-cheek note to Sirius, letting him know that what he considers fun is not what others consider fun. As I said, I'm cool with carebears hiding behind safe zones forever, but they should have to miss out on some incentives since they're unwilling to take a risk.

My system was no safe zone solution. You should first read the thread we are discussing before making any assumtions.

[Proto]

Don't waste your breath Dubs/Sirius, Doc is just a troll. He knows very well that there is risk and reward for both the attacking and defending sides, he would just prefer to prolong the arguing for his own trolling purposes.

[Dubanka]

Well, thats the point, items are not destroyed on death, friends can loot your corpse to get all items back when you die, and you can sound retreat when you see fit. Non destruction of items has to be compensated somehow, if capital ship pops in EvE, its gone, its not like someone can scoop capital ship and return it back to their fort.



I am perfectly aware what you want, and i want balanced system. If your "tribe of 20 somethingonagreatday" wants to attack something it should attack another "tribe of 20 something".

Yes, you dont go on offensive when you have no chance of winning, that should be common sense and be reflected in the game.

oh, so now I, as the attacker should be penalized for whom I choose to attack? Maybe we jsut grew tired of listening to you and decided to see if you could back up your mouth in game? Ahh, but you're too big to be attacked by a small tribe, so the small tribe should autolose. Everything. Great, great system there.

What if you look like a 20something tribe, and then ally up immediately before a seige to be 100+? Your extraordinary skill in zerg organzation means you deserve a my stuff? Really?

Run the mental traps on your proposals...they don't work except in very limited circumstances.

[Doc]

Don't waste your breath Dubs/Sirius, Doc is just a troll. He knows very well that there is risk and reward for both the attacking and defending sides, he would just prefer to prolong the arguing for his own trolling purposes.

Dont troll please.

oh, so now I, as the attacker should be penalized for whom I choose to attack? Maybe we jsut grew tired of listening to you and decided to see if you could back up your mouth in game? Ahh, but you're too big to be attacked by a small tribe, so the small tribe should autolose. Everything. Great, great system there.

What if you look like a 20something tribe, and then ally up immediately before a seige to be 100+? Your extraordinary skill in zerg organzation means you deserve a my stuff? Really?

Run the mental traps on your proposals...they don't work except in very limited circumstances.

At this point its obvious you havent read the thread and just want to spam with nonsense. As i said, rant away, im not really interested in people that just want to rant. Hopefully Jordi will be smart and implement actually balanced system, you know, a system that actually works, instead one side attack reward vs. 0 risk scenario some here want.

EDIT: mrcalhou, please if you want to continue discussion and look for solutions do that in another thread away from trolls and ranters, as i see you are interested in looking for solution instead just ranting.

[Proto]

Dont troll please.

That's ironic.

I was just giving them advice, you're the one arguing for the sake of arguing (ie. trolling).

[mrcalhou]

EDIT: mrcalhou, please if you want to continue discussion and look for solutions do that in another thread away from trolls and ranters, as i see you are interested in looking for solution instead just ranting.

I'm not "looking" for a solution. I already know the solution. It might need to be tweaked a little bit here and there, but it'd work very well relative to pretty much everything else people on these forums are saying.

[Sirius]

Don't waste your breath Dubs/Sirius, Doc is just a troll....he would just prefer to prolong the arguing for his own trolling purposes.

And what would YOU know about the subject, Proto? Please bro, don't act like you know how to troll <3

[Doc]

I'm not "looking" for a solution. I already know the solution. It might need to be tweaked a little bit here and there, but it'd work very well relative to pretty much everything else people on these forums are saying.

Yah, i am pretty much in line with your idea, just that i want to think of no safe zone solution, cause some people here have nervous breakdown when someone mentiones safe zone. *shrug* It seems safe zones it will be.

[mrcalhou]

Yah, i am pretty much in line with your idea, just that i want to think of no safe zone solution, cause some people here have nervous breakdown when someone mentiones safe zone. *shrug* It seems safe zones it will be.

I don't mind if they have nervous breakdowns. Those types have serious difficulties with thinking about anything other than themselves or about the long-term.