Making Sects and Shrines Better - Brainstorming

ZerinZerin Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
edited February 19 in New Ideas
So both sides seem currently less than pleased with sect/shrine functionality, so I though maybe we could hold a civil (lol) brainstorming session! Remember, brainstorming is for all ideas, not for calling people stupid. I'll go first:

Limit the amount of total shrines per area, say to 15 (or have no limit but still do the following, but I like a limit for pvp reasons). Within this, limit the number of shrines per sect to 5. So, say Flame, Conquest and Dream each have their 5 shrines, the area is now "full". More shrines from a sect = better perks, fewer shrines from other sects = better perks, so it will be beneficial to nuke other shrines. This makes it easier to focus conflict and is less bonkers than having like 80,000 shrines everywhere. 

Let the games begin. 

Edit: I somehow managed to include a link to a photo of a blister on my finger, so if you saw that, my bad. Rofl. 
«1

Comments

  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    edited February 19
    If we don't totally rework the system to something that is less "build this gigantic thing, one brick at a time", then one problem is that for defiling purposes, I am pretty sure you don't have to HAVE shrines, in order for your defiles to benefit from the existence of other sects' shrines in the area.  It also creates a weird situation where sects from the same circle can't help but sort of step on one another when they build (although I am not at all saying we should preclude same circle sects from conflict).  I'd like to see all numbers be based on defending sect vs. aggressor.     

    On that note, some sort of hard limits on the number of shrines you can have might be needed, or someone could lol shrine enough of an area that even a very strong, active sect would have a lot of trouble even finding an appropriate place to start building themselves.  At the same time, some kind of limit makes the system a bit less cumbersome overall. 

    I could swear we've had at least some discussions on a rework.  I will try to find those.
  • OzreasOzreas Member, Beta Testers Posts: 235 ✭✭✭✭
    Honestly, a simple reduction in the costs of both building and destroying shrines alongside a hard limit on how many of the same relic type can exist inside your web would go a long way towards creating a more fluid system that encourages active participation instead of the current "set and forget" model.
    TheophilusAnarys
  • AnarysAnarys Member Posts: 39 ✭✭✭
    Swale said:
      I'd like to see all numbers be based on defending sect vs. aggressor.     

    How would this work, theoretically?
  • SarriusSarrius Member, Beta Testers Posts: 1,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20
    Take shrine creation and networks out of the equation.

    Every zone has an area lore-centric object that resembles a neutral shrine. Influencing the shrine is a push-pull struggle that can be initiated at any time. Controlling the shrine lets you stuff relics in it and blanket the zone with those benefits. The relics crumble if the shrine is captured, but only remain dormant if it is turned neutral.

    Work on a proper capture system. The truly onerous aspect of the entire system is that:

    you must play shrine tetris
    there's 700000 shrines
    defiling is boring for the aggressor, sanctifying is stressful for the defender

    Simply add upkeep to 'per area shrine controlled'. Slapped some cool new toys on it. Streamline the dumb relics. Fix/delete Aegis. Adjust Bulwark. Bam bam boogie.
    Message #2062  Sent By: (imperian)      Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a rightass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."
    AnarysAodanOhm
  • AnarysAnarys Member Posts: 39 ✭✭✭
    Sarrius said:
    Take shrine creation and networks out of the equation.

    Every zone has an area lore-centric object that resembles a neutral shrine. Influencing the shrine is a push-pull struggle that can be initiated at any time. Controlling the shrine lets you stuff relics in it and blanket the zone with those benefits. The relics crumble if the shrine is captured, but only remain dormant if it is turned neutral.

    This seems super appealing to me, as a lore dork.
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    Anarys said:
    Swale said:
      I'd like to see all numbers be based on defending sect vs. aggressor.     

    How would this work, theoretically?
    Well, it assumes not doing a pretty big rework (which is probably the better option).  And most of us even seem to agree generally on what that system would look like (which is much more of a capture type system, without quite so much labor investment)

    But what I mean is that your sect would have to build in order to benefit from the shrine formula, which basically looks at all of the shrines that are yours, and all of the ones that aren't yours, and calculates damage.  Instead, it would look at your shrines, and our shrines, and calculate the numbers that way (which is how it would always end up working anyway in a less contested area than DP anyway).  
  • AnarysAnarys Member Posts: 39 ✭✭✭
    Swale said:
    Anarys said:
    Swale said:
      I'd like to see all numbers be based on defending sect vs. aggressor.     

    How would this work, theoretically?
    Well, it assumes not doing a pretty big rework (which is probably the better option).  And most of us even seem to agree generally on what that system would look like (which is much more of a capture type system, without quite so much labor investment)

    But what I mean is that your sect would have to build in order to benefit from the shrine formula, which basically looks at all of the shrines that are yours, and all of the ones that aren't yours, and calculates damage.  Instead, it would look at your shrines, and our shrines, and calculate the numbers that way (which is how it would always end up working anyway in a less contested area than DP anyway).  

    My big issue here is we're starting way after these giant sects - there aren't many 'less contested' areas that are remotely worthwhile. Why are you looking at penalizing me for trying to get involved, etc. To get started, we have to start somewhere, so if this is how it works, I have no idea how new-to-the-game kids would get involved and that seems like it would stagnate quickly.
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    edited February 20
    You misunderstand.  You are benefiting from the many shrines from various sects in DP.  Without them you wouldn't be able to touch our shrines.  Those shrines are the only reason your defiles do anything.  In a less congested area you'd almost certainly HAVE to build as part of your overall strategy.

    When DP first started getting big, Conquest wanted to move in on Leechwood.  And I mean, Conquest built shrines, so it could attack shrines.  Conquest had no option to rely on shrines from other sects to boost their defiles because those shrines didn't exist.  Just a big, strong Leechwood network.  That's also why I said (similarly to other posters) that there does need to be some kind of cap on how many shrines you can have in an area in general (you could technically start outside the area and try to work your way in but damn, that really would be hard mode).  However things get tweaked, nearly everyone seems to agree that would make life less painful for everyone.  
    Anarys
  • SarriusSarrius Member, Beta Testers Posts: 1,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is why I support the MONO SHRINE OF GLORIOUSNESS.

    Let everybody idiot sect fight over one single ancient lore shrine in every single area and control of it lets you project 3 relics area-wide or whatever. Probably revise relics. Hammer out a new capture system for said monoshrine or kinda refine defile/sanctify in a world without bulwark and Aegis.
    Message #2062  Sent By: (imperian)      Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a rightass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."
    AodanAnarys
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    edited February 20
    Sarrius said:
    This is why I support the MONO SHRINE OF GLORIOUSNESS.

    Let everybody idiot sect fight over one single ancient lore shrine in every single area and control of it lets you project 3 relics area-wide or whatever. Probably revise relics. Hammer out a new capture system for said monoshrine or kinda refine defile/sanctify in a world without bulwark and Aegis.
    I truly like Sarrius' idea here. A big issue I've had with sect/cults is the fact that there are only a few sects that have these huge, pve power giving, networks, which is why you tend to have 1 or 2 big sects in each circle while the rest stagnate. People, especially new ones, want the technical advantage and the shrine one is too strong. With this that wouldn't be an issue and people wouldn't have to contemplate the question, "Do I join this sect with ideals that I resonate with, or do I use this lame sects super powerful shrines?" Because most people are gonna take the advantage, when they shouldn't have to in the first place. 
    Anarys
  • GaltGalt Member, Beta Testers Posts: 210 ✭✭✭
    Personally, I'd rather not have the sect system and shrines revolve largely around who can bring the biggest team to field at prime time. That would suck for everyone else. 

    Whether you like it or not, a huge part of sects and shrines is about PVE and grinding. There are other conflict systems that don't rely on that - Raiding, obelisks, champions, aspect monoliths, shardfalls - but sects at least will retain the PVE/grind/long term effort part. Flame has spent a a huge amount of effort and time to raise the shrine network up, as have the other sects with significant shrine networks, and whilst new sects should have a chance to grab spaces, that shouldn't hinge on who can bring the big team at prime time. Rather, it should hinge on who's willing to bash, grind and put the effort in to raising shrines. 

    As for the "One big sect per circle" nonsense, magick at least has three sects of comparable size and a fourth, new sect of equal size to hollow. If it's all about big shrine networks and PVE bonuses, why is magick spread out the way it is, and why is flame the only one actually stacking PVE buffs? 

    Aodan
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    edited February 20
    Galt said:

    As for the "One big sect per circle" nonsense, magick at least has three sects of comparable size and a fourth, new sect of equal size to hollow. If it's all about big shrine networks and PVE bonuses, why is magick spread out the way it is, and why is flame the only one actually stacking PVE buffs? 

    lol okay so magick has a few. the big ones have existed since the beginning, for the most part. they all have pretty big and entranched(lol) networks. so you guys may have a few options but it still doesn't change the fact that new sects don't get a good chance. All it really sounds like you're saying is - I was here first and did things, I should be able to keep it. That's pretty much how you stop new fun things from happening and attracting new people, which we sorely need. In all honestly I dislike having PK things tied to PvE. As you say, its a grind and who tf wants to do that? Not the majority of PKers, look at how MOBAs are on the rise and not MMORPGs. Besides any of that though, if you want them tied together, why not make it simpler. You talk about prime time this and prime time that, but really, the ideas haven't fleshed out yet. the shrines could be fluid and changed at any moment, not locked to another sect for x amount of time. everyone is bound to have a prime time, why not make this something that is always pk-able at moments notice, that way everyone can get their prime time jollies.

    edit: lol like y'all are doing right now with obelisks with only me around after logging in to 19 minutes left. 
  • GaltGalt Member, Beta Testers Posts: 210 ✭✭✭
    It's not "We were here first"

    It's that we're putting in time and effort into maintaining the big shrine network. Currently. Actively. We're doing what the system wants us to - bashing up belief, grinding up the necessary resources, learning how it works and putting substantial effort into growing the shrine network.

    If you don't want to grind, if you don't want to bash and put the effort in to shrines, relics, etc, that isn't a problem with the sect and shrine system. It's a problem with you. You're acting like flame is some big, utterly dormant sect that's just left a blanket of shrines across the continent, when that simply isn't true. Shrines and sect stuff move glacially slowly. You're looking at multiple power-bashers bashing for hours and hours just to make and level up a single shrine, and then plenty of effort needed to maintain them. 

    Yes, the shrine system needs changes. No, those changes do not require removing the PVE or time investment element from it. Not every conflict system in the game has to be about PK PK PK. 
    AodanRokasAnarys
  • RycRyc Member, Beta Testers Posts: 44 ✭✭✭
    Flame actually sprung up remarkably fast, largely because Juran is a monster when he decides he wants something done. conflict is conflict, you're not required to respond in the same system (within reason) to retaliate. You are free to raid Ithaqua, Ganksquad the people who have been defiling (within reason), defile other AM sects and make it clear why, or more, to put political pressure on a sect to stop.
    NarujAnarysSeptus
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    I'm definitely not much of a PvE-er, and I'd like to see less of a sheer investment in time and effort with shrines.  Probably in the form of a cap.  Because you'll never feel like you need to build shrines you can't build.  

    But, the more I think about it, the more I think PK-ers will end up sadface if we make it strictly capture.  We could have a capture element of some kind, but the only reason I am here like some dirty reservist in a bad uniform is because people cared enough about their shrine network to try to call in dirty reservists.  I think you might not get the same effect with a strictly capture system.  
    AodanAnarysAlvettaSeptus
  • AlvettaAlvetta Member Posts: 33 ✭✭✭
    Kyraic said:
    Remove all passive PvE benefits from the shrine system. This single step would kill off 90% of the reason for the mega-sects right off the bat.

    PvE here is already fast enough without the shrines and they really trivialize the world bosses that are still the best thing about Imperian. People might join sects other than Flame/Conquest/Leechwood if doing so didn't mean they were literally halving their bashing dps.
    I agree that PvE is probably fast enough without shrines. You could entirely remove it, but you would be ignoring the fact that that's one of the driving reasons to get people that aren't entirely PK centered to even care about shrines.
  • ZerinZerin Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    I haven't seen any of your PVE players get involved in defending your shrines thus far. So they must not care too much. Besides, the bashers will keep bashing with or without shrines, because that's just what they do. I definitely think the bashing bonuses need to go, or at least be massively toned down. 
    AlvettaAodan
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    Alvetta is one of the biggest PVE-ers in the game (and she kills people too).  Pellerin is similar, less sure about Galt.  Shou was a HUGE PVE-er, who also killed people in old, sucky predator, and actually enjoyed the intricacies of shrine networks.  
    Alvetta
  • ZerinZerin Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    edited February 21
    All of those people you named are what I would consider PvPers, who just happen to sometimes bash. 

    PVE to me is your Rokas, Miichelle, Rei, Curran, etc etc.
    AodanAnarys
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    We did grab Morgaze and Jeb (and every sect courts people like that, people who just want to bash).  Those people usually don't just turn up looking for a fight, but when you ask, they will come make a team that probably couldn't even take to the field into "okay, we might be able to get part or all of our objective this round".  If they weren't there, there probably wouldn't be a fight at all sometimes.  That said, why would only the strictly PvE-ers "count"?  
  • ZerinZerin Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    Ask Alvetta? I just think shrines have been around for like...  Ever and there has been hardly any conflict involving them because the system sucks, so it's obviously not working as it is now. 
    Aodan
  • AlvettaAlvetta Member Posts: 33 ✭✭✭
    edited February 22
    I am one of the biggest PvE-ers in game. PK is a fairly new hobby for me in comparison. I am driven by systems that reward with some kind of utility. I am least of all driven by things that give an "I'm a special snowflake" type reward such as so-and-so has claimed this area. The only reason we even care about those shrines is because of the PvE or utility potential. Clearly people do care about the system because there is a lot of hard work behind each and every one of them and they are used often for their benefits. I think the reason they have failed to generate a lot of conflict over the years is for a lot of the reasons, One, there has been a "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" synergy. Also possibly the same reasons the other PvP sytems aren't thriving. I'm not sure what the solution is overall. I think maybe because people in general are lazy. @Owyn use to take pride in his laziness. But people that are PK-only in general like the "quick fix" and get bored easy.

    Edit - I don't mean lazy as a character flaw, I just mean they don't want to put in a lot of effort for whatever reasons.
    Post edited by Alvetta on
    SwaleAnarysOwyn
  • OzreasOzreas Member, Beta Testers Posts: 235 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 22
    @Naruj: I can certainly see where you're going with these suggestions, but lowering the optimal shrine count per sect and stretching the range at which shrines can support or oppose one another will ultimately make shrines matter even less as a conflict system than they currently do. Unless you're someone who genuinely wants to fight about shrines, that would be a system in which politely leaving each other alone becomes even more optimal - when placing enough shrines to block other sects actively reduces your own perks, why not just share 10 rooms per area with everyone?  :D


    Edit: Aegis scaling is currently reported to be 50/75/90% reduction. 25/50/75% would still be just as terrible as you make it sound, but for the sake of transparency I just want to point out that right now the required win rate for defilers is TEN to one.
    NarujAodanAnarys
  • GaltGalt Member, Beta Testers Posts: 210 ✭✭✭
    Perhaps not all conflict systems are meant to revolve entirely around who can win fights that they get to dictate?

    Perhaps sects and shrines are meant to be as much or more about time, effort and working on shrines than PK, and perhaps that's why this system isn't working the way you want it to. Yes, the system has issues, and I agree with @Naruj about the solutions, though other than actually making it harder for you to defile with no shrines, it wouldn't have changed much about the current conflict.
  • AnarysAnarys Member Posts: 39 ✭✭✭
    Galt said:
    Perhaps not all conflict systems are meant to revolve entirely around who can win fights that they get to dictate?

    Perhaps sects and shrines are meant to be as much or more about time, effort and working on shrines than PK, and perhaps that's why this system isn't working the way you want it to. Yes, the system has issues, and I agree with @Naruj about the solutions, though other than actually making it harder for you to defile with no shrines, it wouldn't have changed much about the current conflict.
    Why do you want to punish me for playing this game that I already spend most of the day working in via keeping my org relevant, orgrequests, mob revamps, quest redesigns, volunteer work for other organizations, et cetera.
    Aodan
  • GaltGalt Member, Beta Testers Posts: 210 ✭✭✭
    edited February 22
    How is me wanting a conflict system that doesn't work the way you want a punishment?

    You absolutely SHOULD need to win a large majority of the teamfights to make progress defiling a solid shrine network. You currently aren't doing that, yet keep acting like the problem is entirely with the system, not with the fact that your 'superior' force can't reliably win fights with 2:1 odds and Khandavan backup.

    Is aegis perhaps too strong? Yes. Should it go away entirely? No. Defiling shrines should be an uphill battle, because all you're doing is going to teamfights every few hours. The defenders, on the other hand, had to spend time and effort raising the shrines, working on relics, and then they also have to fight the same fights. You're asking for your 50-50 winrate at just the teamfights to translate into progress because you've "put the time in" and "roleplayed this", when the defenders have spent way more time just on those shrines than you've spent on your entire sect.

    What about this is so hard to grasp? You're a brand new sect asking for the system to drastically change to suit your playstyle and negate the time and effort spent by older sects, because you don't want to put in the same time and effort. That's not ok. That isn't 'fixing' the system or 'balancing' it, that's nuking the time investment of other players because you're upset about that investment paying off.

    It is already far less time and effort intensive to defile than it is to raise and defend shrines. If you can't handle that, quit your sect and walk away.

    And like @Ryc pointed out - Flame sprung up fast due to good planning and did so within the current system, so it's perfectly possible. This means the problem is not the system, nor balance, the problem is Hollow not being capable enough.
    AnarysAodanMereis
  • OhmOhm Member Posts: 283 ✭✭✭
    edited February 22
    I think what needs to be kept in mind is not capability or effort but the fact that the game population has been shrinking which means that any effort any sect makes is now twice or thrice as much as it was earlier due to thinner populations. The same argument also holds true for relics. They were probably more effective when you had 10 people raiding parties. Not so any longer when getting 4 people together is an achievement. 

    This is akin to getting Aspect. In the early days of the game, it was nigh impossible to get there with only a few managing to do that. Now, almost everyone gets there. 
    image
    AodanMereis
  • AnarysAnarys Member Posts: 39 ✭✭✭
    edited February 22
    Galt said:
    How is me wanting a conflict system that doesn't work the way you want a punishment?

    You absolutely SHOULD need to win a large majority of the teamfights to make progress defiling a solid shrine network. You currently aren't doing that, yet keep acting like the problem is entirely with the system, not with the fact that your 'superior' force can't reliably win fights with 2:1 odds and Khandavan backup.
    We win a lot of fights? With or without Khandava? And sometimes you guys win a lot of fights. I'm totally okay with this and enjoy the back and forth. It doesn't make me mad, like it seems to do you. You do remember that -we- offered and chose to have people sit out to be fair with you guys, shortly before you guys decided to bring people like Jeb, Morgaze, et cetera? We didn't complain, we just killed came anyways and then when the tide turned, you all left.

    Is aegis perhaps too strong? Yes. Should it go away entirely? No. Defiling shrines should be an uphill battle, because all you're doing is going to teamfights every few hours. The defenders, on the other hand, had to spend time and effort raising the shrines, working on relics, and then they also have to fight the same fights. You're asking for your 50-50 winrate at just the teamfights to translate into progress because you've "put the time in" and "roleplayed this", when the defenders have spent way more time just on those shrines than you've spent on your entire sect.
    I did not say this. Why are you directing this at me? Do I hate aegis with a burning passion? Yes. Will I just be patient and wait it out? Absolutely. I think it would be silly to get rid of aegis, but I think it should be toned down. If nothing happens and it stays the same? Guess what, I'll still be here, doing this. Tada! (I think you're confusing me with @Sarrius, who extra hates aegis and wants it to die a death.) Besides, we WERE going to put shrines up until everyone started moaning about it. Now we're just ... not putting shrines up because we're both contrary and irritated that we're going out of our way to make this conflict more reasonable for your team and you're still yelling at us and stuck in the same old IDK HOW TO DO THIS.

    What about this is so hard to grasp? You're a brand new sect asking for the system to drastically change to suit your playstyle and negate the time and effort spent by older sects, because you don't want to put in the same time and effort. That's not ok. That isn't 'fixing' the system or 'balancing' it, that's nuking the time investment of other players because you're upset about that investment paying off.

    It is already far less time and effort intensive to defile than it is to raise and defend shrines. If you can't handle that, quit your sect and walk away.

    And like @Ryc pointed out - Flame sprung up fast due to good planning and did so within the current system, so it's perfectly possible. This means the problem is not the system, nor balance, the problem is Hollow not being capable enough.

    Realistically, you could say that our sect is the only sect who has really, recently, put this defile system to the test. Why shouldn't we have input? Because we haven't been playing for a hundred years at the same system? That's rude, foolish thinking - like saying highschoolers can't have a political opinion because they're young. You can disagree all you want - but you can't tell us we shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion. That's thoughtless. Look at it this way:

    We all agree: shrines shouldn't cost so much to build, because gross. Who wants to 'work' in their game?

    We all agree: aegis lvl 3 sucks to defile against. If we had it, you'd hate it just as much. Should it go away? Probably not, idk, idc. Other people feel differently and that's OK.

    EDIT: To be fair "what about this seems so hard to grasp"? I could be just as condescending, but I'm not. Change is good. If a multitude of people on both sides agree that something could use fixes on both sides, why be mad? We haven't found a solution to everyone yet, no. But we will. Stop being so irritated all the time. This is the most activity Imperian has seen in a while, honestly. Players who were considering going elsewhere have stayed because they can find their PK here. Why lose that? Why hate that? It's just a game.
    Aodan
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.