Ideas for the "Rich get richer" problem - Page 4

Tamas · 2012-03-23, 04:52 PM

Base/Tower upkeep.

Bases get static defenses that require x resources to maintain them. The more zones you have the better/more defense you can have (manned defenses not auto). So a partial resource sink becomes the upkeep (apart from naturally spending on vehicles etc.).

Towers - well the more towers you want, the more upkeep you have to pay. If there would be be different levels of towers (increase in size/strength/functions etc.) the more expensive it becomes.

There has to be a resource sink for the empire, but on the other hand there must be a reward for getting those resources.

Duddy · 2012-03-23, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

1) Enabling the have-not empires to wage effective war

2) Motivating the have-not empires to fight back for territory instead of going to some other continent

3) Maintaining the intensity of the battle

4) Making it difficult to maintain a large amount of territory

These 4 aspects sort of create constraints and show why there is no silver-bullet answer to address this problem. There's been good ideas but I think a combination of ideas is required to address all facets of the problem.

This thread has yielded some good ideas for each of these different aspects. I'm going to think on this more, I think some ideas are converging in my head which I need to put to paper.

I think I have a solution that helps address 3 of those 4, Malorn;

A "bonus pool" that is taken from the "haves" and is awarded to the "have-nots".

Have the bonus build up based upon the amount of territory owned and how long it has been owned, perhaps utilising a multiplier to make it more prominent when more is owned for longer. When the "streak" by the haves is broken the amount built up should be taken from the haves and awarded to the have nots.

The closest analogy to this I find is in the MOBA genre. A player that is dominating builds up a bounty on them which is awarded to the player that kills them and comes from their own pocket.

How this ties into your criteria is;

2) The bonus pool not only gives the have nots a reason to fight against their superior but it awards them generously if successful, not to mention humiliating the opponent.

3) The have nots want to win the bonus and deny it from the haves, the reverse is of course true for the haves naturally

4) If the bonus can be broken from any base it forces the defending empire to have to stretch across those fronts making it easier for the inferior empire to succeed somewhere

Unfortunately I can't think of a good answer that also covers 1), I'm not adverse to some of the suggestions so far such as the mission system. I don't think the discounted cost is so bad, I think it should only be necessary in extreme cases.

EDIT:

TLDR; Dominating empire builds up bounty that is awarded to empire that takes base from them, comes from dominating empires pocket.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-23, 05:31 PM

I was thinking something very similar to that Duddy.

One of the things Higby said in the reddit from yesterday about how resources are distributed:

You'll earn resources both as divedends on your empire territory holdings as well as personal rewards

If the "personal rewards" are in the form of bonuses that you get for capturing territory, then one way to help motivates the have-nots is to dramatically increase the personal reward bonus when capturing territory from an empire, with bigger rewards the more territory the has.

Conceptually it is similar to what you are saying, which is that as an empire gets bigger and more resources the territories they own get richer - and when that territory is captured the conquerors get a bigger bonus from plundering the rich territory.

So we help motivate by making territory belonging to a large dominant empire more lucrative to capture as a one-time bonus.

Your time-based solution is interesting too, making it worth more the longer it remains uncaptured, however I think that would mostly encourage back-hacking as opposed to pushing out from a front. It might add a bit of complexity too.

I think most people can understand a simple concept that "the empire with the most territory is worth the most to capture". As a bonus this sort of mechanic will also help discourage double-teaming on weaker empires. It would encourage double-teaming on large dominant empires, which is what you want to keep them in check and move things back to a more balanced position. Once they are more balanced the bonuses are gone so things return to a more normal neutral state.

Duddy · 2012-03-23, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Your time-based solution is interesting too, making it worth more the longer it remains uncaptured, however I think that would mostly encourage back-hacking as opposed to pushing out from a front.

You're right that it would probably encourage back-hacking, depending on how easy it is to notice said event potentially mitigates the issue but I guess I'd still prefer it as a means to try encourage a fight somewhere that has been held for too long.

Certainly however, I think the method of awarding bonuses for accomplishment should be the go-to over handouts to those in the inferior position. There certainly is, this said, a good case for combination of the two.

Boomzor · 2012-03-23, 05:50 PM

Isn't the back-hacking to some extent already countered by the adjacency system? Maby not countered, but inhibited at least.
(what I mean by "to some extent" is that behind the lines is so binary it doesn't make any difference between just behind the lines and all the way back at the foothold)

ThGlump · 2012-03-23, 05:52 PM

Taxes are bad. It should be something that penalize dominant empire on cont but its wanted anyway.

What about transferring resources to other continents?
This rely on that empire that will be dominant on one continent wont be as strong on others, so they want that buff to happen.
It wont work in case global dominance - well it will work but there will be no benefit for dominant empire - thats a flaw
It counts on that people will care how their empire is doing globally (global dominance is everybodys dream), zerg and K/D fanatics would not probably like it to be cut from resources.

So here it is:
Once empire gets like 80% of all territories, all resources diverted to building transferring machine in their warpgate, and after its build (say 30-60min), all other continents gets 20% resource income bonus to help them fight there.
During this time dominant empire wont get ANY resources, so they start getting resource starved on that continent, giving others greater chance to get some territories back. Those who would want get some resources still could get it at other continents (at increased rate because of that buff), but leaving cont give others another chance to retaliate. So both should lead to restoring balance. Transferring should stop once you get under 60% of territories held.

Its not perfect, has some flaws, but maybe somebody can improve it.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-23, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Duddy

You're right that it would probably encourage back-hacking, depending on how easy it is to notice said event potentially mitigates the issue but I guess I'd still prefer it as a means to try encourage a fight somewhere that has been held for too long.

Certainly however, I think the method of awarding bonuses for accomplishment should be the go-to over handouts to those in the inferior position. There certainly is, this said, a good case for combination of the two.

At this point I think the combination of making larger bonuses against empires with larger territory (scaling of course, with small increases as they gain more territory), along with huge discounts to vehicle costs for an empire that's at a severe disadvantage would be a good way to enable them to fight and motivate them to take territory. In effect they have very little to lose with a huge discount so the battle could keep raging, and if the do take territory then it's a huge bonus.

I think also having the adjacency system take into account the amount of territory an empire has and start scaling it back as it gets significantly large would help make it harder to defend all of the territory. Combined with free or near-free vehicles, it would allow squads to branch out into other territory not just the stuff immediatley around the warpgate. If the capture times are reduced they'll have an easier time capturing, large bonuses for capturing, and then be able to get back on their feet.

All this without punishing the empire for making those conquests, so it seems to be shaping up to a good set of mechanics.

sylphaen · 2012-03-23, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I think most people can understand a simple concept that "the empire with the most territory is worth the most to capture". As a bonus this sort of mechanic will also help discourage double-teaming on weaker empires. It would encourage double-teaming on large dominant empires, which is what you want to keep them in check and move things back to a more balanced position. Once they are more balanced the bonuses are gone so things return to a more normal neutral state.

Well summarized !

For those who jump in this thread for the first time, I just want to emphasize that promoting a balanced situation is not equivalent to promoting stalemates.

a 33/33/33 territory split at time X and Y only means that all empires control an even percentage of territory at time X and Y but it does NOT mean that they control the same territory.

Balance remains somewhat constant on average while territory shapes fluctuate.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-23, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Boomzor

Isn't the back-hacking to some extent already countered by the adjacency system? Maby not countered, but inhibited at least.
(what I mean by "to some extent" is that behind the lines is so binary it doesn't make any difference between just behind the lines and all the way back at the foothold)

Yes, the adjacency system makes back-hacking harder. I would argue that they should scale back that mechanic so as a empire gets larger and larger it becomes more difficult to defend all of that territory and they become more vulnerable to back-hacks (and front-line assaults).

Ruwyn · 2012-03-23, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jonny

Nanite Systems charge 50% tax rate. The more one empire owns the higher tax they charge because its in their interests to keep the war going....or something.

Along these lines is what I was thinking. Make a tax system that can be written in as "maintenance costs" for the story line.

If each "hex" in a territory was worth 10 units of X resource you could do something like:

0-9 hex = 0 tax
10-19 = 1 unit tax (faction would get 9/10 units)
20-29 = 2 unit tax (8/10)
etc.

You could break this down by resource type even further so factions would then target key resources that aren't yet highly taxed. A tax cap would have to be put in place of course or you could let it hardcap out (where it no longer pays to take more territory since you will make less then if you didn't have it).

The best would probably increase the "tax" for each block of 10 and not as a whole. So it would basically act like diminishing returns. So in the example above if you have 23 hexes worth of a single type of resource:
No tax = 230units
increasing tax to all hex = 184
tax hitting just those in the block of 10 = 212

Adjust the rate as needed.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-23, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Well summarized !

For those who jump in this thread for the first time, I just want to emphasize that promoting a balanced situation is not equivalent to promoting stalemates.

a 33/33/33 territory split at time X and Y only means that all empires control an even percentage of territory at time X and Y but it does NOT mean that they control the same territory.

Balance remains somewhat constant on average while territory shapes fluctuate.

To be clear I was advocating one-time capture bonuses based on territory size, not the residual income from owning territory.

I don't think resources should balance out at all or they lose their value. I do however believe resources are a fantastic reward for conquest and can be used as an encouragement to fight back and strike against a dominant empire by yielding more lucrative personal gains for doing so.

The idea is that if the vehicles are cheaper and you get rewards of personal gains that sort of gets the war machine rolling, so as you gain more territory back the bonuses taper off and then you rely more on the residual income and have to be more mindful of your resource spending.

Its almost like a pillaging model where you take territory, pillage it, get lots of one-time resources, and after its pillaged you have to rely on the land to replenish its loot.

Ruwyn · 2012-03-23, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

To be clear I was advocating one-time capture bonuses based on territory size, not the residual income from owning territory.

I don't think resources should balance out at all or they lose their value. I do however believe resources are a fantastic reward for conquest and can be used as an encouragement to fight back and strike against a dominant empire by yielding more lucrative personal gains for doing so.

The idea is that if the vehicles are cheaper and you get rewards of personal gains that sort of gets the war machine rolling, so as you gain more territory back the bonuses taper off and then you rely more on the residual income and have to be more mindful of your resource spending.

Its almost like a pillaging model where you take territory, pillage it, get lots of one-time resources, and after its pillaged you have to rely on the land to replenish its loot.

I like the 1 time bonus idea.

I don't like making things cheaper, unless it's in part based on population. One question before I go further is, " are resources gained while offline or only during online sessions? If Only during Online time then disregard anything further.

If you reduce price and resource accumulate offline then what happens is that when its the "weak" empires turn to take over for the day (experienced players know it cycles) they instantly get an advantage even if it's only going to be until they recap territory. Pops can change several hundred players per empire pretty rapidly simply because, "NC dominate EST, so i'm gonna play that!".....everyone logs off EST and now TR takes over, then VS. Then you get like 12 hours where nothing really happens before NC starts rolling again....repeat.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-23, 06:32 PM

Would you mind elaborating on why you dislike the idea of discounted vehicles for an empire that has little or no territory on the continent?

(obviously any discounted vehicles would need to be flagged and not be transferable off the continent to prevent abuse)

sylphaen · 2012-03-23, 06:32 PM

Edit: Emphasis mine to show that we agree:

Originally Posted by Malorn

To be clear I was advocating one-time capture bonuses based on territory size, not the residual income from owning territory.

I don't think resources should balance out at all or they lose their value. I do however believe resources are a fantastic reward for conquest and can be used as an encouragement to fight back and strike against a dominant empire by yielding more lucrative personal gains for doing so.

The idea is that if the vehicles are cheaper and you get rewards of personal gains that sort of gets the war machine rolling, so as you gain more territory back the bonuses taper off and then you rely more on the residual income and have to be more mindful of your resource spending.

Its almost like a pillaging model where you take territory, pillage it, get lots of one-time resources, and after its pillaged you have to rely on the land to replenish its loot.

No worries, I was basically saying that a system which promotes balance (or, said differently, incentivizes battle between 3 empires instead of double-teams) is essentially a good system.

Some solutions are more preventive (to promote/keep equilibrium between 3 empires) while others are more about restoring the balance once it broke.

There were a some good ideas and many could be used to prevent snowballs or keep the game enjoyable when things get out of balance. The good balance to strike is enough liberty in the game for unexpected situations to happen at anytime but never enough to let the game break once weird stuff starts happening.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-23, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

Has it been stated somewhere that all hexes offer the same and equal types of resources? If there are variations across a cont, this is going to cause some issues with all the hypothesizing here.

Territories are not equal and some are certainly worth more than others. Higby said yesterday that the resources are currently static, but indicated they might spawn/despawn and move around over time back in July.