Simplifying this beautiful Game Suggestion

[Star King]

Einstein said "Out of chaos find simplicity"

I think this game is pure genius and fun but there are aspects of it that turn people off.
This just my opinion:
One of the turn-off's and complaints in this game is running contracts for increase or decrease of quadrant control.
The clan pilots call this a pizza delivery war. Maintenance means running contracts until you reach 100% or a percentage that is needed for control! This is more work and not much game fun.

I think that the number of clan stations should determine system or quadrant control not the number of contracts you run.
Contracts should be run for credits and rank but not for system control.
Imagine the action if players could build, destroy and have fun with this kind of interaction. It is way to burdensome to run 100 contracts over and over again. Simply turn it into station system game and not a contracts game.
Running maintenance contracts for clan leaders leads to conflict in and outside of the clan. Clan wars would be fun and simple not long and tedious from contract running.
By making this simple change new clans will not have to remove their clan tags to rub a contract in another clans system (another clan issue).

[Edited on 12-25-2008 by Star King]

[Rubber Chicken]

I agree that there is not a real decisive way to win a battle over a system except to grind at it until the other side just gives up.

If the control percentage was based on the number of stations determined the amount of percentage though, clans would simply have to follow [LL]'s policy for defending their stations ie; hide them as deep into the +/- SY that the system will allow. Instead of long battles over running contracts you'd have long hours of running search patterns out in the middle of nowhere.

I would suggest:

1. A higher % award for doing the contracts. (even raising it to 2% per contract would speed things up)

2. A higher % award for killing opposing clan members. (3% would probably work well)

3. A % award for destroying opposing clan stations. (5% - If a clan has 50 stations built, you would end up in the positive if you got them all).

*
Perhaps there could also be a bonus 10% for destroying a player who is attacking a station AND has an active station detonator when you kill them.

Yes, the attacker would still be able to use STEALTH, hence the high bonus.

***>>>>Either that or make the Station Detonator into a single use deployable station.

You would have to put it close to the station to activate it, but you would be freed up to defend it until it goes off.

The detonation sequence would have a visible count down for all in the sector.

The way to deactivate the SD would be to fly close to the 'package' and press a Disarm Detonator button, much the same way you would press the destruct button for the Deploy Constructor stations. Killing the player who dropped the station detonator would deactivate it, as well as, if said player left the sector.

Using the model for the Sensor Station and the Destroy Station button that appears in the HUD when one flies close to the Sensor Station would probably work.

The Shield Array deployable would NOT work in proximity of a Station Detonator package. That way the defender - of the trade station - could not simply place a shield around the SD to avoid the player defending the detonator until they can maneuver to disarm it.

Also, the explosion of the of the detonator (if it goes off successfully) should be HUGE.
That way the defender of the Trade Station could chose whether or not to attempt a last second disarmament or bug out and avoid being destroyed along with the station. All pilots in a fair-sized vicinity could potentially destroyed as well.

I've always found it odd that a pilot could park at the heart of a station and blow it to smithereens, yet not suffer any damage or death.

Anyway that's my two cents


[Edited on 3-24-2013 by Rubber Chicken]

[DennyMala]

I think it's not much the award weight but the logic behind it. It will continue to be a grind war.

If you team up with other pilots (clan or non-clan) you'll get a 1% for each active pilot in the contract so with a little party you'll be able to boost to 100% in no time.

[Marvin]

I've always found it odd that a pilot could park at the heart of a station and blow it to smithereens, yet not suffer any damage or death.

The station detonator creates a miniature wormhole ... sucking the station into oblivion. The "bang" you hear is dark matter rushing in to fill the void.

[Rubber Chicken]

I think it's not much the award weight but the logic behind it. It will continue to be a grind war.

What would you suggest?

The point is that a battle for a system should take 2-4 hours depending on how intense the fighting is, not sometimes days/sometimes weeks.

With it not really being fair or feasible to 'lock' control of systems until the next time the defender comes online, something needs to be worked out to make battles decisive over a much shorter period of time.

The problem with shortening battles however is that if it becomes an attack when defenders log off only type of battle then any new changes would be broken as well.

---------

Wormhole or not, there is still and explosion animation.

[Sir Lancelot]

The system in place is great if clans were larger in general. With the smallish clans in game, a system that suits a shorter, more intense style of control would be welcome. No idea what that system could be though.

[DennyMala]

I have no idea too on what we can do to make it better. We usually try to pack in one system to raise it to 100% in a faster way but may it be half an hour or ten minutes, the principle stays the same.

Provided to have a working system you need to have "opposition" when you try to make a conquest, you have to limit it when the other party is online or you need to put an automatic defence in place.

Player built stations could have defensive armamnet such as the one on capital ships (obviously more armoured and punching) so that taking over would be a real clan challenge and a lone pilot could not do it.

But with the smallish clans around are we able to field such a force to do a hostile takeover?

I guess we're at a stall situaztion and the system in place now is the best bet with what we have.

[-splosives-]

If we want a good clan% system, I think we should look at how it is done in other multiplayer games.

You'll see that a whole lot of MP games use the "capture point" method, where players need to capture a location to gain control. If they lose the location, they will lose control.
It's usually done by defeating the defending party and staying in one place for a certain amount of time (15 seconds for example), or by building a certain structure at a capture point.
The defending party will place their forces in a defensive position, and build defensive structures. Turrets, towers, traps, catapults, walls, etcentera.
This way, territories would constantly move back and forth between the two parties until eventually one party captures the last point of the defenders.

If no clan attacks a defending clan, no % will be lost, which also removes the tedious maintenance we all have to do, so we can focus on practicing combat.

[Dingo]

A capture point system as splosives describes above has my endorsement. Even without that, the ability to build defenses would be a nice addition.

[Rubber Chicken]

That's all well and good provided that there are online defenders.

Having a system that locks the control when the owner leaves the server is very bad. Feasibly a player could take a system to full control, then only log on to do maintenance and log off whenever there is an attacker logging on. It would be possible to take most or all of the gated systems, then simply retire the [tag]. Nobody would be able to take control of those systems then and complaints to the server operator and Vice would mount.

Generally attacks while the defender is offline is a sore point for most, but the alternative is too easily exploitable and unfair in it's own right to work.

[Star King]

Attacks off line will always happen that is the nature of Multi-player games (different time zones). We can all admit the current system of running contracts is work and not fun. This is why clans get upset and have negative comments like great we have a war and now we five hours of maintenance!
A capture point system as described above also has my endorsement (not that it means anything). Like Dingo says even without that, the ability to build defenses would be a nice addition and would increase and raise game play to another level.
Capturing a location or territory would be more in line with the real elements of war and strategy.

[Zach]

I think giving players the ability to build real, formidable defenses, that while might be limited in number, require a concerted attack effort to take down, might be a good idea..

I mean, we're talking about control of a system here right? There should be control points in various in-system quadrants that can be defended, and require an honest attack effort to bring down. However they need to be free of gimp tactics (like "find the magic spot to park and blow up Cap ships " etc) and not so overpowering that a group of players cannot possibly destroy them.

Missle and Beam platforms, perhaps large yield AoE procs, or defensive minefields can be considered as part of that.. A capable defense platform (or concert of small localized platforms working together) should be able to realistically hold off a group of several attacking craft at once, but depending on the number of pilots, and how skilled they are, should be able to be taken down with concerted effort.

I think the idea here is, control points + effective but not godlike defenses that can make taking an entire system achievable, but difficult. Admittedly my idea of this means much more protracted and drawn out battles, in the interest of giving the defender who may be offline, a chance to fight back and retain a hold on his system; even if not complete control...

Approaching this as an outsider, it seems to me that taking control of a given system should be "no easy task". Nobody should be able to just jump in with 1 or 2 ships and liberate an entire system in 30 minutes or less. But a group of 5 - 10 players taking multiple control points after a given period of time sounds legit enough to me. I think taking control of an entire system should be difficult, but that's just me I guess.

This might encourage a more "active" clan system as well, and potentially give new players a better incentive for sticking with learning the game, and getting into PvP (vs PvC which can get old fast) and improving themselves. It might also make it easier for players trying to bring new friends into the game and keeping them interested, as opposed to just running contracts all day and maybe dueling someone in a dedicated PvP ring.

It might also encourage a more tight-knit and serious clan community, as people now have to carefully consider who they recruit, how much they expand and how fast, versus what they can realistically defend with automated defenses alone..

I know my ideas are not perfect, but I think most of them probably have some merit for consideration in an overall "idea".

[DaveK]

Wormhole or not, there is still an explosion animation.

I don't think it is - what you see is dark matter decay particles deceleration Cerenkov radiation.

Dark matter decay in the intense gravitational field created by the detonation creates a cascade of particles travelling at speeds greater than the speed of light - what you see is the Cerenkov radiation created as the particles instantaneously slow down to the speed of light.

The colour of Cerenkov radiation you see depends of the type of particles slowing down: in nuclear reactors this is blue but dark matter decay particles radiate in the red/orange/yellow region. The shock wave created by the influx of particles is what causes your ship to be pushed around.

or something like that anyway

he says, waving hands around . . .

[DaveK]

A few thoughts

• Clans certainly haven't done what they were created to do - get a scrap going
• They have done what I suspect was never intended - maxing out stations so indies have no place.
• Might be just me but I did find "clan chores" quite therapeutic at the end of a hard day - I used to try to beat my average for missions completed per hour! But then my clan never went for the "lots of systems on all existing servers" model
• The idea of creatable defences has a lot of merit, especially if they are expensive - clans would be encouraged to design an effective defense grid rather than just max out on launchers
• One defense point per system segment (like Oly Delta, Oly Prime etc) would make large systems more expensive to take over completely and allow attacker to take over segment by segment.
• Smaller systems would suit smaller clans perhaps.
• I don't know how easy it would be to code but a defense grid that was more powerful when no defenders are on-line might help reduce the negative connotations of only attacking when defenders are present. Boost them enough to make it a real challenge for a group but not impossible. It would also get round the issue of defenders maxing out a defense and then staying off line.
• I like the idea of unlinking contracts from system control for the reasons given in the posts above
• For fun we might have it so the defense AI systems might occasionally glitch and mean that the owning clan have to take their defense screens out to get back control of their system - sort of clan vs clan defense

There are some great ideas developing here. It sounds like it could lead to s step change in game play if handled right and Vice can be persuaded of its value.

[Star King]

Dave K actually brought out some great and very honest points. Clan alliances and maxing out stations in a system has made game play generic. Rewriting code is time consuming and tedious. I believe (I could be wrong) unlinking contracts execution to system percentage would be much easier to remove and a start toward very active game play. Clans would have to defend their ststions. Territories would continuously move back and forth between the two parties until eventually one party captures the last point of the defenders.
If no clan attacks a defending clan, no percentage will be lost, which also removes the tedious maintenance of contract running that the clans have to do. Clans and independents could focus on strategy, exploring and combat.

[-splosives-]

Dave K actually brought out some great and very honest points. Clan alliances and maxing out stations in a system has made game play generic. Rewriting code is time consuming and tedious. I believe (I could be wrong) unlinking contracts execution to system percentage would be much easier to remove and a start toward very active game play. Clans would have to defend their ststions. Territories would continuously move back and forth between the two parties until eventually one party captures the last point of the defenders.
If no clan attacks a defending clan, no percentage will be lost, which also removes the tedious maintenance of contract running that the clans have to do. Clans and independents could focus on strategy, exploring and combat.

That's almost exactly what I said a couple of posts earlier.
I'm glad you agree though .

[Marvin]

I doubt you'll ever see the kind of combat you're looking for in the current incarnation of EM. Why? Because almost every successful on-line combat game requires players to choose between a limited number of factions. From Rise of Flight to America's Army. From Bridge Commander to Mechwarrior.

To make it work, Vice would need to reconfigure large chunks of game mechanics. Instead of choosing a profession, players would start out by choosing an affiliation. If they choose the Alliance, reputation for them would remain as it is currently for everyone. If they choose the Federation, then reputation would be reversed (in both SP and MP): Good and Fair sectors of space would become Moderate and Hostile. And vice verse.

If a player chooses "Independent" as his affiliation, then all systems would become Moderate ... until that player reached Legend status. Then it would change to Fair (since nobody ever totally trusts an independent mercenary).

Consequently, each clan territory in MP would either be under Alliance control or dominated by the Federation. No IM or LL or FF. Ergo, the Territory quadrant map would be moot ... overridden by clan tags, each tag labeled either with an A or an F.

You want to add Richton to the mix? Fine. Vonari? Okay. Now you have five options. But, if you add any more, you're defeating the purpose. You want to hold on to your IM or your LL or your FF? Then you'd need to do it in much the same way professional baseball conducts the World Series: players from the American League on one side and players from the National League on the other. In other words, LL and FF might choose to be part of the Alliance while IM chooses to be Independent and some of the more contrary clans choose to remain with the Federation ... or Richton ... or the Vonari.

[-splosives-]

This is easily solved by putting a tag on capture points and defense locations.
Any player with another clan tag will be an enemy to these structures and will be fired upon.
Any non tagged player will be neutral and won't be fired upon.
A neutral can fire on defensive structures, and be fired upon and even destroy them, but cannot capture the point for himself
Members with the same tag will be friendly.

If a non tagged player builds a defensive structure, it will only fire on hostile AI or whoever fires on it.

[Edited on 3-26-2013 by -splosives-]

[Dingo]

I dig Marvin's idea. I know he's only making a point, but that's the system I'd want.

[Marvin]

Thanks, Dingo. The main point being: nothing in terms of team combat can really happen as long as clan structure is fragmented into a million pieces.

If EM was solely a quest-type game, then it would be possible to link up with one or more players, co-op style, and accomplish a quest mission or three. Like in Arvoch Alliance ... or LotRO ... or any number of quest-oriented online games. But, for combat between players, you either need a very large community or you need a limited number of sides. Usually two.

The other point is that such a change in game structure would require rewriting much of the program. Not a good idea.

[Rubber Chicken]

If this was a 'faction choice required' kind of game, I'd stop playing.

I do think that some way to prevent dual or even triple or even quad - (you get the point) - clan membership, should be employed.

Playing both sides, joining the enemy to spy and sabotage, and even instances where clans have more or less choreographed their battles in order to make things appear more interesting than they really are to new players, have all IMO turned a lot of people off.

There are a few other reasons beyond simple gameplay mechanics as well, but I don't have the time or energy at the moment to get into that.

[Cindy]

My opinion is to leave the current setup for percentage, but to add a few things to it.

*Add 3% for blowing up a station.
*Add 5% for blowing up a clan tagged player.

Otherwise it will stay the same as it has always been. Contract wars that no one likes, but that everybody does anyway.

[Star King]

Cindy's idea is perfect!
Simplistic and effective!
Otherwise it will stay the same as it has always been.
Contract wars that no one likes.

[Marvin]

How would that work? Take for example, I'm flying the IM tag and go into LL territory. Blow up three LL trade stations and mort a horde of 13 LL pilots. At the time I entered LL territory, it was at 100% ... how would the kills affect IM territory and/or LL territory and what if all the dead pilots were of another clan (as I, instead, helped protect LL assets) or the pilots were LL but I wasn't flying a tag or I wasn't flying a tag but morting pilots from a different clan?

[MiaZ]

How would that work? Take for example, I'm flying the IM tag and go into LL territory. Blow up three LL trade stations and mort a horde of 13 LL pilots. At the time I entered LL territory, it was at 100% ... how would the kills affect IM territory and/or LL territory and what if all the dead pilots were of another clan (as I, instead, helped protect LL assets) or the pilots were LL but I wasn't flying a tag or I wasn't flying a tag but morting pilots from a different clan?

I think it would work the same way it works currently for kills against a clan pilot except putting it up to 5% points instead of 1.

3% for blowing up a station sounds good too and I would add
3% for building a clan station as well, to balance that.



[Edited on 3-29-2013 by MiaZ]