And?
Farming Npc’s at stronghold carrier’s
- Thread starter Arkman07
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ascendancy elite powerplay
Weighting isn’t just my wish; it’s apparently the wish of many others.
If playing in Open awarded double merits, you can bet it would be far from empty LOL
This is exactly how weighting works in risk/reward game design. While your assumptions lack foundation, we have extensive game design papers and countless commercial examples showing successful application. And it's not just a modern concept, these principles were evident even 4,000 years ago when Go was created or even 5,000 years ago, when Backgammon came.
Last edited:
And such papers would validate my position, that there can be no adequate weighting when your fundamental game mechanics don't support one.
Here we are again on a cold desert highway...
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
The OP removed the mention of Open because they were trying to keep this thread focused. If the few usual people who can't seem to go 5 minutes without discussing how good or bad it would be, can't keep it out of this thread. Then I'll just remove your ability to post in this thread.
Here it is one of the simplest:
The Importance of Risk in Basic Game Design
In this design article, Portnow looks at the fascinating concept of risk in video games, "one of the key factors in what makes a game too tedious to play or too easy to endure", from Ultima to Silent Hill.
no one likes unbalanced risk/rewards envinroments.
If you have any paper or academic article or reliable study on the matter that may confirm your opinion, I'm all ears.
Until it happens, IMHO balancing issues in ED are:
- Efficiency for any activity in Open is reduced and riskier because of opposing real players
- People in Solo/PG have no risks and same rewards
- People use block feature as exploit to keep going with efficiency in open
Already existing and tested design solution:
- weighting ( AKA risk/reward ratio weighting)
- moderation ( AKA report/ban system)
Thanks for linking something that backs my position perfectly. But you're the expert, you already realised that right?Here it is one of the simplest:
The Importance of Risk in Basic Game Design
In this design article, Portnow looks at the fascinating concept of risk in video games, "one of the key factors in what makes a game too tedious to play or too easy to endure", from Ultima to Silent Hill.
no one likes unbalanced risk/rewards envinroments.
If you have any paper or academic article or reliable study on the matter that may confirm your opinion, I'm all ears.
Until it happens, IMHO balancing issues in ED are:
- Efficiency for any activity in Open is reduced and riskier because of opposing real players
- People in Solo/PG have no risks and same rewards
- People use block feature as exploit to keep going with efficiency in open
Already existing and tested design solution:
- weighting ( AKA risk/reward ratio weighting)
- moderation ( AKA report/ban system)
Sadly, it's your assessment of the game that's wrong. But hey, mode vs mode is OT now, remember?
The issue here is that farming NPCs at strongholds is effective and spammable, not the mode or timezone they're doing it in. There are plenty of ways to balance that.
They could make all attacks on strongholds less effective/ineffective if the stronghold's control radius doesn't overlap an enemy one, for instance. They could make only attacks from the relevant enemy count too, so it's harder to just wallop a stronghold on the other side of the bubble than it is to go after one on your border.
They could apply this to undermining in general - one of the notable things about 2.0 is if you're grabbing an acquisition system and there's no enemy fortification or stronghold in range, they don't get to oppose you, and even if there is then only that faction gets to oppose you, so you don't get the situations like the end of PP1 where one faction pushes an expansion somewhere and the other ten all just dogpile in to block it. So if an exploited system isn't being contested by another power, undermining it should be harder than one on the front lines. As I understand it that's supposed to be how things work, but I've not seen anything with a "beyond frontline penalty" other than normal yet.
They could make all attacks on strongholds less effective/ineffective if the stronghold's control radius doesn't overlap an enemy one, for instance. They could make only attacks from the relevant enemy count too, so it's harder to just wallop a stronghold on the other side of the bubble than it is to go after one on your border.
They could apply this to undermining in general - one of the notable things about 2.0 is if you're grabbing an acquisition system and there's no enemy fortification or stronghold in range, they don't get to oppose you, and even if there is then only that faction gets to oppose you, so you don't get the situations like the end of PP1 where one faction pushes an expansion somewhere and the other ten all just dogpile in to block it. So if an exploited system isn't being contested by another power, undermining it should be harder than one on the front lines. As I understand it that's supposed to be how things work, but I've not seen anything with a "beyond frontline penalty" other than normal yet.
Suggestion:
Remove any merits from killing NPCs at a Stronghold, keep merits just for other activity like scanning the comm towers or stealing cargo, etc (assuming that’s a thing, I haven’t actually done it. If it’s not, should be added).
Also give merits (a lot of them) for killing commanders belonging to the relevant power at Strongholds.
Provide a lot of defensive merits for killing attacking commanders at a Stronghold.
Remove any merits from killing NPCs at a Stronghold, keep merits just for other activity like scanning the comm towers or stealing cargo, etc (assuming that’s a thing, I haven’t actually done it. If it’s not, should be added).
Also give merits (a lot of them) for killing commanders belonging to the relevant power at Strongholds.
Provide a lot of defensive merits for killing attacking commanders at a Stronghold.
Customisable gameplay is cool and all, but if you're going to have competition between players you sort of need to draw the line somewhere. I'd love to be able to massively buff ramming damage, I'd really love to turn off encounters with people that have a bazillion shield cells, but I'm not in charge of the competition. Frontier can set the rules where they like, and that could include blocking.
(I've made just one correction, one word in your last sentence)
If your goal is to push your Power, read your three sentences and try to figure out the best / most efficient way to do so, according to your conclusions. That's the design of the game.
Everything more is asking FD to make all other players play the game the way you want them to.
Is it not allowed to suggest changes that impact the current meta, or alter the current design? That seems rather restrictive.
I actually don't know what you're implying, so OK. I just disagree with the idea that the current design of the game cannot be touched.
No, the game is perfectly balanced.
Thanks for backing my position about weighting and risk/rewards issues <3Thanks for linking something that backs my position perfectly. But you're the expert, you already realised that right?
Design needs adjustments over time; otherwise, we’d still be driving horse-drawn carriages. XD
A carrot rather than a stick approach.