Territory control game reward discussion

AAAMEOWAAAMEOW New York, NYMember UncommonPosts: 503
I want to start by saying I didn't play DAOC, so I dont' know how it is in that game.

I started RvR game with warhammer online.  What I find silly is it become a game of zerging empty objectives.  Basically running around taking unguarded territory.  So you have 2 group running in circles taking things and another team taking it back but no one is fighting.

It dont' get much better with GW2.  GW2 does implement a system where there's cool down timer, as in after a territory is taken, it'll take a while before it can be taken back.  But it is more or less the same.  Just 3 team keep flipping each other's unguarded territory.  Worse yet, I never sense a form of unity in server play.  In Warhammer Online at least the whole server would try to push to enemy's castle.  That's not the case in GW2.  I felt there isn't any ultimate end game goal in it.

Now I want to talk about a mobile territory control game called pokemno go.  The reward system is really interesting.  Basically you are not rewarded for attacking territory.  You are only rewarded for holding territory.  I used to think it's the best system ever, why didn't any RvR game think of that.  Ultimately I realize it is even dumber because now no one want to attack other territory.  Because you are only rewarded for holding territory.  So in the end it lead to a stagnation state where everyone just sit in their territory and do nothing.  It also lead to another problem because people find attacking territory so unrewarding if you can't hold it after, many people just give up attacking at all.  So ultimately it won't be a good design for RvR mmorpg, because having people give up is the last thing mmorpg developer want their players to do.  

I haven't read on how Camelot Unchained is going to construct its rewarding system.  But just want to know what's people's thought on the topic.

Comments

  • meddyckmeddyck USAMember UncommonPosts: 1,223
    edited March 26
    This will be one of the key factors in CU's longevity. I think the answer is in fact to go back to what worked in DAOC. More recent games try to bribe players to care about territory through tangible rewards which often leads to unexpected consequences such as the swapping of empty keeps in WAR.

    In DAOC players cared about keeps, towers, and relics because owning or not owning those had a direct impact on gameplay. If you didn't control your keeps, your relic keep was weakened by not having the strongest guards from those keeps making it much easier for enemies to raid and take your relics. If enemies controlled more keeps, then they could have access to the RvR dungeon Darkness Falls and you would be locked out of that dungeon. If enemies controlled relics, then they gained powerful damage bonuses. If enemies took 4 towers and the keep, they could port from their realm to that keep making it easier for them to raid deeper into your realm.

    The result was that players attacked and defended keeps, towers, and relics because doing that made strategic sense to them not because they expected to get a bag of gold or a piece of shiny armor for doing so.
    Post edited by meddyck on

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,847
    One mistake most territory games make is not rewarding defenders, only the attackers.

    In DAOC you get realm points for taking a castle, but if the defenders repel the assault they get nothing. (outside of points during the fight)

    Also not only is there no great reward for owning a keep, a guild is actually penalized for taking and upgrading it costing a daily burn of bounty points and tons of gold to upgrade its doors and defenses. 

    Its designed to encourage regular trading of keeps and its no surprise the players opt to go attack other keeps rather than defend even sometimes when their own realms keeps are under attack.

    Definitely need to see further refinements in this area to encourage stronger defenses.

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon




  • CopperfieldCopperfield RotterdamMember UncommonPosts: 563
    the thing with CU is.. or atleast i hope.. its gonna be alot different then doac and gw2 you are mentioning

    the cube system allows sieges or raiding parties to actually use tactics in which side you gonna be attacking..

    Everything in cu is destroyable.. making holes in walls, destroying bridges to counter incoming enemies.

    I think, because of the cube system, the static " smashing on doors" sieges/raiding; will be complete different in CU

    I expect alot of the cube system

  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,745
    I think one of the simplest methods to ensure continued pvp is to separate the types of rewards given out. 

    So, perhaps you can only gain pvp experience by fighting other players. So, if all you ever did was exchange empty keeps, you'd never get above rank 1. But, perhaps make taking keeps / gaining territory reward you in other ways, such as gold / gear etc. 


    Admittedly, I don't yet know how CU is going to handle rewards for territory control. There are three motivating factors that I'm aware of so far:

    1) The Depths - Territory control grants access to The Depths, which is going to be the best place for farming certain things. Maintaining access to The Depths means maintaining territory, so defence will be needed. 

    2) Crafting Resources - with minimal loot drops in the game, crafters are going to be highly valued. The best resources sound like they come from contested zones. So, if you want the best sword in the game, you'd better find your crafter and escort him to dangerous zones and help maintain territory access, otherwise he won't have the mats to craft for you. 

    3) Player Buildings - The CUBE system will allow us to design and build our own structures in the game world. Building a new castle will require an awful lot of time and resources from dozens of players, so you'd hope this would inspire them to defend it longer. We'll have to wait and see if this is enough to inspire players who weren't involved in the construction. 
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,197
    R-000 said:
    why does this games graphics look 10 years old
    This is an indy game, not a AAA game.

    You can't expect to have an indy game with limited budget be like games that have 300+ development teams with large hordes of cash.

    The idea is that "game play" will have to trump beauty for these games.



  • LaetitianLaetitian ViennaMember UncommonPosts: 19
    edited April 15



    meddyck said:
    The result was that players attacked and defended keeps, towers, and relics because doing that made strategic sense to them not because they expected to get a bag of gold or a piece of shiny armor for doing so.






    Yes, I am pretty confident that is the generally desired state. I also think the developing team will have no issues reaching that state in some way, considering their experience with the game's predecessor.

    However, I deeply hope they will let established territory control call for further PVP action, rather than mainly be there to enable PVE benefit.
    I don't want to hold my own and captured forts in the realms' warzone just for the sake of allowing the guys inside the safe zone to kill some dragon. I don't exactly care why we capture enemy buildings. To get treasure, to slay people in the enemies' safe zone, or to combine magical relics from all territories and then get treasure (or temporary boosts of certain stats/resource gains). All those reasons are fine for me, and all of them may equally inspire offence and defence (because no one wants the enemy realm to take benefits from them for free).

    What I do care about is that when each offensive goal has been met, that is only more reason to continue fighting.

    Champions of Regnum, a game clearly inspired by DaoC, but without endgame PVE, does this right by not giving people access to something like instanced dungeons when they gain access to protected enemy territory, but instead enabling even more open-world PVP battling inside the enemy territory. Specifically trough "invasions" connected to objectived to be seized inside the enemy safe zone and collected to grant boni. All over the course of hours, after the territory control overtake has been *maintained* for an hour. That is what I hope territory control will allow for in CU, too.

    If PVE content needs to exist for player customisation, that is fine, but it should be separate from PVP, and PVP should never be something players can just hurry trough to allow for progress in PVE. That just creates a community atmosphere where PVP doesn't receive the place as a constantly ongoing game feature it deserves.
    Post edited by Laetitian on
Sign In or Register to comment.