Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

    Below is a write-up of only one part of an important change I think PS2 can bring to the table. There is an open SOE sponsored suggestion event and the winners would gain a seat, and voice, in a meeting with the developers. The below focuses on changing the mechanics of XP gain to deter zerg ghost capture and promote high risk battles for all factions. SOE is looking for quick and easy solutions that can enacted in a short amount of time. I feel tackling player psychology by revamping the reward system is one of the most reasonable suggestions.






    ON EXPANDING THE STRATEGIC LEVEL PLAY IN A QUICK MANNER

    To improve the METAGAME of PlanetSide2 one can only change the rulesets of the TACTICAL and STRATEGIC levels of play in order to provide a more dynamic battlefield.

    Tactically the game is quite solid and balance tweaks are all that are generally needed. The tactical battlefield is also quite diverse and is perhaps more limited by player behavior than anything else. So we will not waste much time on that. The tactical ruleset will redefine itself naturally over time and also changing the Strategic Level could impact the tactical level.

    Strategically the game is quite base and more nuance must be implemented to diversify the game’s experience and increase longevity. The core concept of the current Strategic Level of play is one of territory control. Territory is both a crucial element in gaining an upper hand and is the yardstick by which we measure success. Through the control of territory a faction gains benefits, while denying them from other factions, and also exerts more ‘INFLUENCE’ which is the main mechanic for strategic level territory play. Finally there is one more rule, ‘connection’. Territory only grants a benefit if it is connected to the warp gate through other owned territory.

    The current status quo of the game benefits a play style that too heavily focuses on territory ownership and not the more crucial aspect of war; destruction of the enemy army. Without getting too far into Strategic Theory and real world implications I will only use a quote from Napoleon to underline my point;

    “I see only one thing-the enemy’s main army.”

    It should go without saying that in a game that expresses the meaning of scale that our battles should focus on this. Few other shooters can dare to compete. However there is one mechanic that is being exploited by human psychology to avoid this one rule of war. The current certification reward system has an effect of creating a low risk - moderate reward scenario that all teams can exploit nearly simultaneously of each other. This is the ‘ZERG GHOST CAPTURE’. (We will ignore ‘spawn camping’ as it is being addressed with the LU2 Update)

    A Simple Problem

    A quick math example should prove a point. Killing a person grants a base of 100 XP. Taking a territory grants 250, 500, and 1000 XP based on the size of the base. Assume you have one large outfit for each faction. The NC outfit coordinates to overwhelm Amerish, the VS overwhelms Indar, and the leftover continent, Esamir, is taken by the TR.

    These outfits (or coordinated collection of outfits) are large enough to overwhelm the small enemy presence and the three hundred people strong, on each continent, begin to take the bases. For one small base those three hundred persons are granted a combined 75,000XP, certainly the persons who killed individuals were able to pad on 100XP here and there but to come near to that cumulative gained XP 750 enemies would need to be killed. Consider for a moment that an entire continent can not hold that many persons.

    For the largest bases this swells to a cumulative gained XP of 300,000XP which is equivalent to 3,000 enemies killed. If you were to capture all of Amerish with one 300 man zerg the cumulative points gained would be 6,3000,000 XP or 63,000 enemies killed. Small bases capture in minutes, almost regardless of influence, the medium and larger bases take longer, and influence matters more, but when unopposed the time to capture is still rather short. The general rule is that for any capture the cumulative XP gain is equivalent to 2.5x, 5x, and 10x (respective of base size) the size of the attacking force worth in deaths. This doesn’t even account for the fact that the defense is only rewarded by a slight percentage increase of its normal actions. The defense does not have a direct reward for repelling an attack. This should be changed.

    Here we can see how even an unorganized collection of small outfits and players would find it more beneficial to capture large swathes of land with little to no competition quickly. It pays out collectively more than any other possible outcome. Therefore it can be said that the metagame favors territory capture over actual battles. Obviously I am ignoring many other sources of XP in a battle, for example revives and heals. However as the battle scales to favor one side and the ratio is somewhere in the range of 10:1 the opportunity for the support roles to be important greatly diminish. Remember support roles are primarily effective in supporting battle actions and not capture actions.

    Well I think I can hear a few people saying; ‘but YT they are implementing a patch that changes the focus away from KDR to Score Per Minute. Are you suggesting KDR should be more focused on?’ The quick answer is not exactly. Keep on reading for the complicated answer and hopefully a solution.

    Finding a Solution

    The problem above is a simple one. It is the vast disparity in the rewards of the two main components of the game. Battle and territory control. There is no single battle that can grant the widespread cumulative gain of XP as an uncontested capture can. Remember battle is a highrisk situation where as uncontested capture is a very lowrisk situation. What would make more sense would be to reward highrisk situations significantly more than a lowrisk situation. In a perfect world a highrisk situation should have comparatively high rewards and a lowrisk situation low rewards.

    What exactly, though, defines highrisk?

    Highrisk is a situation where the chances of failure are either equal to or greater than the chances of success. Betting ten dollars on a coin flip is a significantly high risk. Betting ten dollars on a Professional Football Team versus a High School Football Team is terribly low risk and shouldn’t even be rewarded. Simple right? Likewise highrisk is a situation where the numbers of attacking/defending are comparative or equivalent. If both sides have an equal chance of winning then the risk of lose to either team is equally high.

    Strategic level behavior, capturing territories, then should be rewarded based on the difficulty of the capture just as much as the importance of the capture. So instead of a blanket 250 XP, 500 XP, or 1000 XP reward for capturing a territory introduce a multiplier that rewards higher risk scenarios.One means to accomplish this could be to use a generic ratio of attackers to defenders under the time it took to capture the base.

    So, for example if the attackers overwhelmed a significantly larger defending force and quickly capture a the territory they should be rewarded significantly more than a larger attacking force who very slowly slogged through the battle. Furthermore the person who just joined the battle should earn less than the person who joined the battle at the beginning.

    Now to incentivize larger battles, the whole point of this suggestion, is to offer a reward for these larger battles. I envision a ‘jackpot’ of XP. An amount of XP that is added to as the battle progresses. Without getting tied down to specific math right now just envision a general system that accumulates XP based on all the side’s positive actions; support or directly battle related while taking into account the ‘risk’ that side is taking. Your potential share of this battle’s XP is related to the amount of the battle you participated in and the amount of XP to the ‘jackpot’ you contributed. If you leave the area of the battle and it ends in victory you are still rewarded. This prevents an artificial loss of momentum.

    Finally, the defenders should be rewarded based on a time scale of the defense. Not all defensive actions need to result in absolute success. Rather the defense can buy time while troops in other parts of the continent regroup and ready their own attack or prepare a defence in the next territory. Failed attacks should garner no reward.

    Addendum: A Point for the Future
    Player progression is the solitary persistent feature in this game that everyone can fight for simultaneously, on either faction, and always win in some manner. No battle or continent lock persists in the way that our characters progress. Once something is unlocked it is ours forever. It makes perfect sense that people would rather progress their characters permanently than progress their faction for something that wouldn’t matter in a few hours.

    In the future, for the long term viability of our great virtual war, our factions and outfits must have their own sort of progression to reward ‘collective’ behavior. Only then will a real persistent Outfit/Faction based Metagame exist. Perhaps an outfit can gain special resources and spend them on orbital strikes or use them for building/maintaining an ‘AirShip’. Whatever it is, when the game incorporates something of progression that is persistent and can take multiple days/weeks/months to achieve, we will have created a grand expansion into a ‘CAMPAIGN’ level, a level above STRATEGY. Something that few games have ever attempted to do and something that would perfectly fit in the PlanetSide 2 universe.

  • #2
    Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

    Nothing? :/ Crickets?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

      Yt.....I'm going thru some relationship issues and am moving to a new home. I'm AFK for quite a while. Apophis should see this. Bear with .....

      |

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

        Apophis is busy. I'm here. I'll have a good read tonight and comment later.


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

          Thanks for covering for me Wicks. I appreciate it.

          |

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

            Anytime mate!


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

              Lol. I was just looking for feedback. Nothing serious.

              Its tied to this thread. I think its too late for me to get a good number of up votes even if I published it now.

              http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...elopers.80250/

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                By and large I agree. But I have serious problem with your argumentation, that capping bases gains more XP than even fights... In the progress of an average 1000 points base capture I do like 10 - 20 kills + tons of assist and support points... so that would make for like 1700 points just for fighting... that is more then what the actual capture is worth. For the same reason I join large battles for farming certs and don’t go capture undefended tiles. I really don't see why capping would have a better (for the XP) XP/time rate than simply fighting and making kill- and support-points... Also, by incentivizing large battles even more the maps would get even more deserted, as you would have even bigger zergs, I think. I do see why you would want to enforce larger EVEN battles more and support this opinion. But a solution that would cause even bigger zergs and even less spread out forces I don't agree with. If there was a solution to split the zerg into smaller one, of which each is probably going to fight an equal smaller zerg, so you would have more smaller but even battles going on simultaneously, that would be a good thing to have.

                Apart from that I agree that the game definitely needs way more strategical depth.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                  That argument is not mine; no where did I say that capping grants more than even fights. The argument is that ghost capping bases gives people an easy low-risk;moderate-reward and it touches on a very real problem with this geographically fixated simulation of combat. Let me simply restate the two points:

                  #1.) War fighting is the the act of destroying the enemies army and ability to fight.
                  #2.) Currently the strategic ruleset for PlanetSide2 rewards capture over conflict.

                  My purpose with the numbers was to show that, for example on a low populated continent, one faction can show up and effectively steamroll and is rewarded with a cumulative 6,300,000 XP for combating no one. This behavior is seen on Mattherson in spades. Amerish and Esamir are normally only ever moderately populated and Indar is the only continent with large 'even' battles (as even as a 37%-22%-34% divide could go). Beyond Indar the continents of Esamir/Amerish tend to see a constant changing of battle as one large outfit/coallition hops to a continent and overwhelms it with little conflict.

                  A 300 man zerg that ghost captures Amerish in under an hour nets a cumulative 6,300,000 XP. This is 25,200 certs and each individual gets 84; those 84 certs represent 21,000 XP or 210 kills. You may feel more accomplished duking it out over Tarwich for an hour as the Vanu constantly take it and lose it but when you come away from the battle with only 30 odd certs you need to wonder why the incentive of this game is so focused on quick and easy captures.

                  The group, the whole army of your faction, benefits more by capturing a point uncontested quickly than being held up defending or taking a biolab.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                    Simple infographic. Each pixel is approximately 1 XP point.




                    Apologize. The image's alpha background didn't translate.
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                      I thought that was a good post, though a lot of the XP mechanics are beyond my comprehension at this point. I was thinking that there should be some equation that compared the attacking force and the defending force and gave XP as a function of some formula of the ratio, ie. you get little/no XP gain for ghost-capping an undefended base. Hell, in the interest of actually participating in battles, make completely undefended bases uncappable - but that's just silly.
                      |TG-6th|Belhade
                      "I am actually looking forward to watching Jon and Kate plus 8." - Dirtboy




                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                        http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/c...ding_based_on/

                        Up vote if you like the idea. Or just up vote cause we all know we want TG insiders in the game making process right?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                          Another thing I thought of: Sometimes it is important to cap undefended territories to cut off the enemy from vital supplies, if you want to conquer a heavily contested territory. Capping those undefended territories is then strategically very important, but you would not reward for helping your team a lot to win the actual battle in the territory you are cutting off...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                            This is a very good point!

                            A deep strike that isolates a huge swath of territory grants no further reward than a frontline skirmish or worse of yet a frontline stomp on an undefended base.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: [ARTICLE] YT's WIP for METAGAME SUGGESTION

                              Yea, but with your proposed system it would not be rewarded accordingly to it's importance either, would it? That's the point I was making! There is no question, that the current system is very basic and non-context sensitive, and thus bad.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X