Raiding

1235710

Comments

  • OwynOwyn USMember Posts: 122 ✭✭✭
    Highest population of non-comms. Highest arti weight? Again, a lot of non-comms have those (@Tikal for instance.) I would still say AM is heavier though. I have a lot of arties, sure. So do the 3 other combatants I named. Our goto team is 4 combatants. But sure, let's talk population. @Zith, @Caelya, @Etienne, @Caelbrook, @Zenigra, @Arutha, @Caelbrook, @Mizae, @Dagr, and you all participate regularly in combat when they're available. Me, @Jules, @Alvetta, @Theophilus, @Leighanna are the most active combatants in Magick. Occasionally we have @Pellerin and very, VERY rarely (because RP doesn't want to get involved in conflict) @Tyden. AM typically rolls @Septus, @Cyr, @Dyun, @Fanglor. When they're around or trying to push for something then add @Dreacor, @Ultrix, @Laeka, @Zerin, @Grashella. @Dyron is back, maybe he'll start participating. Also maybe @Robynn will start participating again.
    GjarrusAlvettaAodan
  • OwynOwyn USMember Posts: 122 ✭✭✭
    Oh, I forgot about @Siath for AM. He's been a thing recently.
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    edited March 1
    "Hey maybe you guys should do some alliances stuff" just hit me wrong after the past little bit, that's all :/ 

    But raiding in particular seems like it's going to be... really, really unfun without much, much more even stevens factions, and I have learned the hard way that absolutely no one who isn't a naive idiot (me) actually cares about that kind of thing (well, Owyn does, I think - he was dumb enough to leave AM "so there will be fights again" too).  I do think that that is a basic, very fatal flaw with the system, at least for me.

    The biggest problem, is that the stakes feel too real/important/srs (I do think there can definitely be such a thing), and so the actual "play" lately definitely feels much more "for keeps".  I very much prefer to play both with AND against people I like, and I want to keep it that way, so if that means taking a long break/quitting if things get too heated, that's what I'll do.
    Post edited by Swale on
  • FanglorFanglor Member Posts: 101 ✭✭✭
    Senpai noticed me :3
    GjarrusEtienneOystir
  • GjarrusGjarrus Member Posts: 424 ✭✭✭
    The only objective that feels *vital* to me is the NPC, if it's working like the help file indicates. That's why I suggested the refined timezone vulnerabilities a la Citadels. As an example, the NPC could get 4 hours of vulnerability a day, the standard 8, and the statue 12. Double those for stolen objectives. Unlike outpost design, that doesn't just make you off-hours another objective (or 5) to achieve your intended one.
    SwaleSeptus
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    Agree, Gjarrus, I meant to specify the NPC.
    Gjarrus
  • SeptusSeptus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 728 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Re: raids, I honestly don't feel its getting heated at all. There's the normal brief frustration post loss but personally I don't notice much difference in that respect. For myself, I yell angry things at Owyn then am all good again. I've been able to laugh with people post raid still about stuff, so I'm pretty happy. This actually feels less hostile inducing than obelisks to me.

    Do like vulnerability windows idea, gives more risk/reward for the better objectives. +1

    As for population, let's be real here. 90% of the fights from Am's side have been me/Dyun/Cyr/Fanglor. Two of those people have no arties or next to no arties, one of them (maybe both) doesn't even have trans skills. There is not a reallistic way Am can downsize our primary team without just shifting the power to another circle or becoming mostly non-competitive.

    That said, I don't think the power differential is honestly that pronounced. Am is losing a lot of fights. Not as many as they're winning, but its better than its been in a good year (probably longer) at least.

    GjarrusDyunTheophilusOwyn
  • DyunDyun Member Posts: 13
    edited March 1
    I lead us into a monolith fight last night minus Septus and we killed a few before losing. We definitely don't come out on top of a lot of engagements. 

    Then I forgot to unpause my curing and got smashed three times. I've since added my standard prompt pause tag. It's the little things that get you killed sometimes. 

    Up until two days ago, I wasn't even Aspect either, for reference. Our core is pretty raw minus Cyr and Septus. 
  • TydenTyden Member Posts: 50 ✭✭✭
    Everybody love everyone......#Celidon #trees #wedontthrowstones
    Gjarrus
  • TheophilusTheophilus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 731 ✭✭✭✭
    Yeah, I don't get where "AM can't be beaten" comes from. Or "magick can't win right now." Teamwork really is the problem--as is overthinking literally -everything- or feeling defeated at the smallest mishap. It's not that hard. You just have to execute.
    (Ring): Lartus says, "I heard Theophilus once threw a grenade and killed ten people."
    (Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
    DyunGjarrusCaelyaEtienne
  • FanglorFanglor Member Posts: 101 ✭✭✭
    I also don't get why people are trying to balance around timezones. Off hour raiding has been an IRE staple for decades 
  • SeptusSeptus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 728 ✭✭✭✭✭
    To be fair, leading well is pretty hard. We'd have a lot more leaders if it was easy.
    Swale
  • TheophilusTheophilus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 731 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 1
    Leading well isn't hard. Ed: Leading well is hard, but we have decent leaders in Magick.

    Getting people to listen to you is hard. So is finding consonance among the 10 different voices all trying to do something different. The meta hasn't really changed.. Damage the s*** out of your opponents and don't die.
    (Ring): Lartus says, "I heard Theophilus once threw a grenade and killed ten people."
    (Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
  • SeptusSeptus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 728 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Getting people to listen to you is the hardest part of being a leader. If they're not listening, you're not leading (or they're not letting you lead).

    Imo anyway.

    CaelyaTheophilus
  • GjarrusGjarrus Member Posts: 424 ✭✭✭
    Fanglor said:
    I also don't get why people are trying to balance around timezones. Off hour raiding has been an IRE staple for decades 
    Timezone warrioring is a natural phenomenon of risk/reward management in games that you have to deal with, even if you have tens of thousands of active users. Natural is not always good.
    CaelyaTheophilus
  • LartusLartus Member Posts: 312 ✭✭✭
    The best way to lead is to yell really loudly and make menacing poses.
    TheophilusEtienneWyll
  • CyrCyr Member, Beta Testers Posts: 55 ✭✭✭
    Owyn said:
     1v1 savvy as @Cyr
    uh my 1v1 is actually pretty abysmal. it's literally the same as my team longsword setup, where I have a specific job. 

    CaelyaTheophilusAodan
  • DyunDyun Member Posts: 13
    The key to leading is capslock. 
  • OystirOystir Member Posts: 371 ✭✭✭
    edited March 1
    The quality and quantity of fighters in the circle overall is all very interesting but highly irrelevant to the fact that at the end of the day, Team 1 gets to consciously form and Team 2 gets to react. Whether or not we're bffs with Khandava that is still the case. Being able to go back for my objective later, even with a group of demonic, is very reassuring but also not exactly a solution to the issue of what, if anything(tm), can/should be done to balance out the problem of timezone-centric raids. 

    I still like vulnerability times *grainofsalt* and of course changes to guards in smaller groups *pillarofsalt* and also general changes to guards for more variety *salty* etc. etc. 

    Edit: This is @ you too, Jeremy. Even if a pinata can get its candy put back after it breaks open it doesn't really change the fact that the way you got the candy out was to hit it with a stick while it hung from a tree. 
     You say, "This is much harder than just being a normal person."
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    No.  It definitely matters (quality and quantity of fighters).  How many hours have we sat around considering trying to get an objective back, doing "qw" and going "welp"?  And then of course ending up taking the path of least resistance if we take a path at all.    

    Raiding is unlike most other things because the defenders ALL get to react, period and that is a given groundrule/rule of engagement.  So while it's true that AM does try to keep the team they bring to say, a shardfall something that people won't just immediately go "nope nope nope", it's just not the situation with the raid system.  
  • OystirOystir Member Posts: 371 ✭✭✭
    edited March 1
    Well, from my assessment of the issue, I disagree, though it seems like we agree on what the problem itself is 'qwraids'. From what I see, even if magick was 100% the absolute strongest faction in the game and if we could skip to any city and crush them, it doesn't change the fact that when it comes time to defend you get who is online to defend and that means a 'qwraid' is the best way to go. There is nothing that exists to make anything but numbers v numbers the best strategy for a raiding team. Even @Jeremy's comment kind of shows that the expected course of action is kind of just to 'lose and raid back when you can win'. And losing is fine and at some point we're going to lose because of losing and idc but the actual system itself rewards raids happening when defenders aren't around and that's the problem I see. Septus mentioned before about a change to guards for small groups would decentivise people from participating but rn the best way to win is to do so when as few people are playing as possible (on the other team).

    Besides it's impossible to account for 'quality of people' when balancing mechanics, even though it may factor into the balancing itself. 

    And this is an aside but tbh I dont think any of the objectives really matter. The only issue I can really see with enemies walking through cities untouched is the ability to like destroy monolith sigils and point/laugh at citizens if they don't have PK cause on anyone. 
     You say, "This is much harder than just being a normal person."
  • OystirOystir Member Posts: 371 ✭✭✭
    It should be optimal through some measure of the mechanic for nearly-balanced teams or at least a reasonably stacked defense team of 3-4 (ideally idk don't ask me numbers but 0 isn't the ideal number) would be the number of people you'd want to raid against. Any fewer and they get X boost.

    ie If there's 0 defenders online then you should have like a 3 minute window of error to get an objective out or something (one death's worth). 

    ie if there's 1-2 defenders online they get a healing boost or some random idk what but healing is what got taken so that's the idea i've been running with. I don't even care if it's Septus with this boost.

    ie if there's 3-4 defenders then raids happen as they are - and tbh I would probably expect raiding itself to be a bit more balanced towards the raiders in this situation and i'm not against that either.
     You say, "This is much harder than just being a normal person."
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    Basically, extremely lopsided fights and/or systems where people end up strongly motivated to do whatever they can to avoid the PK part of a PK system and/or just "sit it out" because "we have 3 people and they have 8 and 2 of those 8 are Septus and Cyr" etc... are innately bad and broken.  And there is a very strong tendency for players to cluster in the strongest org (go figure), so I really have no idea how you'd truly address this issue.  It's somewhat workable in a lot of other systems/situations because of what I mentioned above (consciously limiting team size/composition if you're the game "heavy" so that people will actually come play with you).

    People have tried to conjure up diminishing rewards/buffs, but the problem with those is that they seem to usually incentivize further numbers games.
  • OystirOystir Member Posts: 371 ✭✭✭
    edited March 1
    I could see that being a problem. But whatever the solution, the current incarnation of things is systemic. IMO we can't even reasonably see how the advantages defenders have play out or try to balance around them when the raiding advantage can be/has been/will be abused to its extremes. Whether the whatever timer stuff or diminishing returns or blanket bans on raiding with <X people or ___________. Whatever it is. 

    Also, though, as I mentioned two pages ago, methinks there should be a limit on how many raiders can move an objective so I don't have to kill off an entire raiding team (theoretically) to get my sweet sweet 20 seconds with Aranel. Beyond that I don't have anything concrete except to say 'yes' to something that makes downtime raiding as BS for the raiders as it is for the defenders however that plays out. Because it is kind of BS, and I'm saying this as a person who gigglefitted for 15 minutes after our raid on Antioch.
     You say, "This is much harder than just being a normal person."
  • SeptusSeptus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 728 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To be fair I think we've seen how things pan out pretty well. Antioch alone has done at least 10 raids just against Kinsarmar, and all but three were heavily contested. I don't think its accurate at all to say that raids only happen when everyone is offline.

    Not to say timezones aren't an issue, but we've definitely seen both sides of things in the raids that have been going on.

    Gjarrus
  • CyrCyr Member, Beta Testers Posts: 55 ✭✭✭
    Swale said:
     because "we have 3 people and they have 8 and 2 of those 8 are Septus and Cyr" etc... 
    I don't know what you're talking about, I can't think of a single time we've had 8 people, and even the closest we get to that, we're bringing noncoms to help us, not seasoned fighters. Moreover most of the fights Septus and I go to, we're either on even footing, or outnumbered. 
    Theophilus
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    edited March 1
    What I mean is, say, magick, which is small-ish fighter-wise, will look at qw, Septus, and just see... a lot of people who could defend.  And this is not a shardfall, it's "defending thing in OUR city", so it's not like you are going to say "no Laeka and Zerin and Robynn etc..., you guys sit this one out".  It's, hrm, a social contract type thing combined with you guys being the biggest/strongest org.  

    Cyr, just seeing your post.  I mean the defensive side of things.
  • GjarrusGjarrus Member Posts: 424 ✭✭✭
    WHATEVER THE SITUATION AT THE TIME IS, weaker orgs will likely have a stronger need to mount rescue missions than stronger ones, so rescue benefits would definitely encourage more 'on hour' raids in general. Don't have a great idea of what that would be. Maybe make them the stationary objectives? Like the standards would be planted on a hill outside the city, the jails would be in undisclosed nearby locations, etc. Something like that.

    With rescues being made easier and shifted outside of interior guard balance, you can look at maybe strengthening guards further with a miasma buff that equalizes out the difference for groups under 4 or so players. The guards become easier to manage with more players, and the guard contribution means less with more targets for them to pick. Conversely, a relatively fair fight with lower numbers is impacted more heavily.

  • CyrCyr Member, Beta Testers Posts: 55 ✭✭✭
    Cyr said:
    Jeremy said:

    On a side note, this may be a good chance to create mutual defense treaties with other cities/councils to smack down Antioch.
    Bring it.

    Theophilus
  • TheophilusTheophilus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 731 ✭✭✭✭
    I went into city after the raid started and died in 5 seconds to guards. So ... screw this system. Especially considering demonic was unable to counter-raid with zero resistance.
    (Ring): Lartus says, "I heard Theophilus once threw a grenade and killed ten people."
    (Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
Sign In or Register to comment.