Fair system for capturing territory in pvp

cochs

So we are actually tackling this in a game I'm working on, thought I'd throw it out here to see what ideas might come up.

The challenge is the old how do you prevent people from taking your stuff when you aren't online.

Thing that have been tried I am aware of:

#1 scheduled times.  Along the lines of Eve Online

#2 Low population bonuses of various types

#3 Nothing, you aren't there you lose it.

We are thinking of a variation of #2.  Our game has npc hirelings for various things.  Npc's are no different then players in our system down to pretty much every detail including progression.  And since npc's are central to the game we have fairly strong combat ai around them.

So the idea is the ai takes over when a player is offline.  Special rules likely to avoid item loss/wear stuff like that.  

We would have to come up with a system for determining if the player is eligible.  Some measure of activity over a recent time period. The goal would be to match something like the average guild online population during peak hours in their time zone.

Of course ai is not going to outsmart players.  We can give them some built in advantages if needed, there are a lot of things we could tweak.  In the end I don't think it would be perfect.  But the real question is it better then the alternatives?

What do you guys think?

Martiander

I dont think that "Fair PVP" is possible whatsoever.

mmolou

PvP = Player versus Player.

If you have a mechanic in game that allows a player to create, or take ownership of in game real estate, like a plot of land, or a building, that can be attacked by other players, you will always have the problem of PvP turning into PvE when the owning player is offline.

If you want PvP, keep it PvP, create a system that makes anything player owned attackable only while the player that own's it is online.
Part of that system will need to include a decay mechanic, so that players cannot claim land/buildings, then stay logged off making them invulnerable while friends/guild members use them.

Having AI/NPCs take the place of players in PvP is not PvP.

rodarin

Simplest and easiest a declared war system.

One party declares war the other party at least knows theyre under attack or possible attack.

Then add some realistic limitations on how much territory people can hold in the first place as well as take in any war or specific battle. So even if there is offline raiding they cant go in and take everything in a single night or a few hours even if the other group knows theyre at risk.

If people are going to continue to use a capture the flag mechanic then any aggressive flag places should be a much smaller area than an established flag. Territories should expand over time. While it might make the initial claiming (unopposed) a little messy as they start to overlap any system should have outlines to show progression including maximum rage from any given flag. Once they start overlapping then some flags could be taken down. (that would also help with people simply placing flags right next to existing ones and give some 'strategy' elements to aggressors).

There will never be a perfect system or even one most people will like. But the 'secret' to PvP in general is make something and never ever change or tweak it, unless MAJOR changes are made to existing skills or 'classes'. That way people wont have mental breakdowns every time changes are made and they start claiming x class (100% of the time the one they play a main) has been 'nerfed' to uselessness. Games that make sweeping PvP changes with no changes to skills or even when minor tweaks are made to classes are the ones that have the most PvP problems.

Bottom line if these guys that make the games actually tested them (in any and all possible scenarios) before they threw them out there they would see any glaring imbalances and have them fixed before people are playing it 'for real'.

cochs

mmolou said:

PvP = Player versus Player.

If you have a mechanic in game that allows a player to create, or take ownership of in game real estate, like a plot of land, or a building, that can be attacked by other players, you will always have the problem of PvP turning into PvE when the owning player is offline.

If you want PvP, keep it PvP, create a system that makes anything player owned attackable only while the player that own's it is online.
Part of that system will need to include a decay mechanic, so that players cannot claim land/buildings, then stay logged off making them invulnerable while friends/guild members use them.

Having AI/NPCs take the place of players in PvP is not PvP.

In our game npc's are already part of pvp.  It's just core to the design.  That it doesn't match how some define it or how most games do it, that's fine, it's what we were aiming for.  It's emphatically not like anything out there right now.

Gdemami

Assuming we are not talking about pvp exclusive game, I always fancied an idea based on territory utilization - whoever use the territory the most, will gain an official claim over it.

Kyleran

Gdemami said:

Assuming we are not talking about pvp exclusive game, I always fancied an idea based on territory utilization - whoever use the territory the most, will gain an official claim over it.

Sort of like how EVE did it when I last played,  systems had ratings which had to be kept up with PVE activities / upgrades to increase their productivity and reduce the base station vulnerability timers to the minimum of four hours. 

Corporations also got to chose when the window of vulnerability was and there was the shield timer gap which required two assaults to take something, with a gap in between to allow defenders time to make repairs and fortify.  (Or evac if the situation was dire) 

Kyleran

In DAOC guilds earned points for successful PVP activites. When a Keep was captured it could either be claimed by a guild or left in NPC control which set the defenses to the lowest level. (1)

If a guild claimed a keep they were charged a maintenance fee which came out of their accumulated point pool.  They could also upgrade the defenses up to level 10 which greatly increased the power of the NPCs guarding the keep, also reducing their respawn timers.

Of course maintaining a keep at level 10 burned a furious amount of points and few guilds could afford to maintain such for long.

I believe the keep level could be adjusted at whim so a guild could choose to ramp it up during their offline hours and back down again when they had more players active. 

Level 10 guards were quite difficult to deal with, even for a larger zerg. The respawns often killed me being I was a healer who likely was towards the back.

Elsabolts

Kyleran are you saying these guilds used WALLS, sad keeping folks out ?

Scot

This is a complex issue, you don't just need some good ideas to create a system that works you need some good tools to make easy changes when you find that inevitably it has not panned out like you thought it would.

Amathe

You hire  NPC guards or soldiers to guard your stuff in your absence. They would be tough but not invincible. 

Gdemami

Kyleran said:

Sort of like how EVE did it

No.

Asheram

What ever you do dont copy Atlas.  Released game with major connection issues, let the ones who were lucky enough to actually connect run around naked claim everything they could with 30 minute flags. 
Its EA game right so you would think they would do a wipe now that connection issues are fixed right? Nope what they do now is make flags take 5 hours to be able to contest land gobblers claims, with 30 minutes added back on timer everytime anyone runs over area you are trying to contest regardless of whether said people are in the company of contested lands.

Also dont make sea region server let china play on na and eu servers so they can destroy your stuff when you are offline because they play when you sleep.

Kyleran

Gdemami said:

Kyleran said:

Sort of like how EVE did it

No.

So perhaps something like how more and more people from the US kept settling in Texas until the time came when they could rest control away from Mexico.

Panther2103

I like the idea of scheduled raids. Lineage 2 did it. You own a castle, people schedule a raid on you at a specific time and you defend it or lose it. 

kjempff

Idea throw: Player and/or npc alliance systems where you pay to a protection fund. Whenever an (offline) player is attacked, this fund act as a buffer where either npc armies come and defend you, or as reward for other players (maybe only those in the alliance?) who are online, to come and defend you.

Other than that, I also always like the idea of a takeover period after winning a territory, in which the aggressor can not control or gain anything from the territory they won. During that time, the defender who lost (while offline?) can battle for retaking their territory with some advantages, and if winning instantly gain control and income.

Also, not relying heavily on destruction of buildings or deaths of expensive units, so that the loss but especially on retake of ones territory is a relatively light burden/setback. For example armies that dont die but instead can be re-hired with little experience/gear loss, buildings that can be re-constructed at a very fast rate compared to first build, etc.

If possible make rewards from beating an offline player very small, while beating an online player very high.

And in general, draw out winning conditions (time wise) so there is lesser incentive to play the coward game of waiting till someone is offline.

Anyways, not thought through at all, but maybe useful for inspiration