The Switch - Lessons from another game

[Sirius]

Aaaand, we are back to sq. 1. You want reward with 0 risk. Noted. I will never support a system where attacker has nothing to lose and defender has everyithing to lose.

Reward with zero risk? You mean the right to sit back, play without courage or ambition, win an easy fight with home court advantage, and then be treated as conquering hero (who enjoys all of the same rewards as the people who actually took some initiative to make the game interesting) -- all without actually having to mobilize for war, mount an attack, and go fight an uphill battle on someoneelse's home court?

ROGER THAT BRO. NICE VISION YOU HAVE THERE.

[Doc]

Reward with zero risk? You mean the right to sit back, play without courage or ambition, win an easy fight with home court advantage, and then be treated as conquering hero (who enjoys all of the same rewards as the people who actually took some initiative to make the game interesting) -- all without actually having to mobilize for war, mount an attack, and go fight an uphill battle on someoneelse's home court?

ROGER THAT BRO. NICE VISION YOU HAVE THERE.

Really, if i can defeat your attack with just "sitting back doing nothing ever in the course of the game" i deserve to pillage your land. Great attack you launched there bro.
Another one on "reward with 0 risk" list.

[Sirius]

Have you ever participated in a PVP combat game? Are you familiar with the concept of ATTACKING being both more difficult and labor-intensive than DEFENDING?

That's why you incentivize aggression, instead of lazy, no-ambition pacifism, unless you want the server to be stagnant, boring, and uneventful.

[Dubanka]

Aaaand, we are back to sq. 1. You want reward with 0 risk. Noted. I will never support a system where attacker has nothing to lose and defender has everything to lose.

Question: have you played a game with asset destruction? MMO/MUD/whatever?

THE risk when moving from skirmish, open field pvp, to an asset destruction / territorial dispute is that you're wrong. That you've underestimated your opponent. That you've underestimated their ability, or their fear of losing pixels (and thus end up fighting them and all their allies)...because after its your turn, it's theres.

Conflict is something that should be 'feared' (OMG I MIGHT LOSE MY PIXELS!!!) it is something that should be embraced as the pinnacle of the game- where else does everything come together...crafting, city design, politics, and pvp?

[baka77]

unless you want the server to be stagnant, boring, and uneventful.

You do realize that's actually exactly what some people want. They want a lovely place to build a pretty little town & then sit back to enjoy social time with friends around a cozy fire while weaving the most fierce grass couture this side of the Sierra Nevada's. Not my kind of "fun," but I guess to each his own?

[Dubanka]

Really, if i can defeat your attack with just "sitting back doing nothing ever in the course of the game" i deserve to pillage your land. Great attack you launched there bro.
Another one on "reward with 0 risk" list.

Successfully seiging a city SHOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. A DEFENDER SHOULD NOT LOSE WITH ANYTHING APPROACHING EVEN ODDS.
The attacker should have to acquire resources for a 'war totem', seige engines, get them deployed without having them ripped appart by the defenders.

When you create a game with no incentive to attack, or where the penalty for loss is the same, or greater as the benefit from victory, you ensure that very few attacks will be made, unless they are done so with overwhelming numbers.

Do you want to play that game? No conflict unless it's completely lopsided? Really?

[Doc]

Have you ever participated in a PVP combat game? Are you familiar with the concept of ATTACKING being both more difficult and labor-intensive than DEFENDING?

That's why you incentivize aggression, instead of lazy, no-ambition pacifism, unless you want the server to be stagnant, boring, and uneventful.

Really? By removing risk and promise reward? Lol, yah, i know all about "incentivising". Its on you then to make the world non "stagnant, boring, and uneventful."

Pretty much everyone can see you just want reward with 0 risk. You want tribes that play defensively take all risk, while tribes that play agressively take all rewards. Thats your "incentivising". No. You want to create imbalance for sake of imbalance. No.

You do realize that's actually exactly what some people want. They want a lovely place to build a pretty little town & then sit back to enjoy social time with friends around a cozy fire while weaving the most fierce grass couture this side of the Sierra Nevada's. Not my kind of "fun," but I guess to each his own?

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.

Successfully seiging a city SHOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. A DEFENDER SHOULD NOT LOSE WITH ANYTHING APPROACHING EVEN ODDS.
The attacker should have to acquire resources for a 'war totem', seige engines, get them deployed without having them ripped appart by the defenders.

When you create a game with no incentive to attack, or where the penalty for loss is the same, or greater as the benefit from victory, you ensure that very few attacks will be made, unless they are done so with overwhelming numbers.

Do you want to play that game? No conflict unless it's completely lopsided? Really?

Where have i mentioned tremeduous resources or anything like that? You havent read whole thread, have you? Thats the problem.

Benefit/drawback of victory/defeat would be roughly the same. Just as you have to build and invest resources in attack, defender has to build and invest resurces to defend.

You want to know why EvE works? In large even fleet battle both attacker and defender lose huge amount of resources. By attacking you risk losing your whole fleet just as the defending side. That is not present in Xsyon, and has to be compensated by other means, Unless you suggest that everything you wear is destroyed on death.

[Sirius]

No offense, Doc, but you sound pretty unintelligent. It's clear you haven't thought this through in anything approaching a realistic fashion.

[mrcalhou]

Well, i havent seen anything about severe item destruction mentioned anywhere. It would amount to having all items you wear being destroyed on death.

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.

[Dubanka]

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?