keybounce wrote:
1. If campground improvements are your defense (as they seem to be), then not being as strong as the other guy means that you will gain less and lose more in PvP -- so you want to be at full or not playing.
2. If pets are your primary defense, and campground improvements only minor adds, but still expensive losses, then you still don't want to lose.
3. As long as the "strike at 12:01 to get in the first blow" factor gives a bonus to striking first, people will.
4. As long as rage gives you an attack bonus equal to what you've lost, then there is no bonus to striking first, except that you can strike first on people lower level than you, who have less stuff than you, giving you an advantage, and forcing them to retaliate against you only.
5. As long as rage drops at 11:59, there is an incentive to use any remaining raids at 11:59, reducing the retribution that you receive.
Well, heres my take on your points.
1- Theres no real way to have a pvp system that uses accrued opposed statistics that won't have some people refusing to participate unless they are maxed out. The only way to prevent this is to make everyone even, which kind of defeats the whole point. I don't see how this is really a valid point, all that considered.
2. Does anyone ever want to lose? Losing is either a negative or a neutral, and its only a neutral if you don't have anything to lose. No stakes makes for boredom, and its pretty unbalanced to have the opportunity to 'win' without the risk of some loss.
3, 4, 5: Got some ideas for these.
Ok, so it seems that the main problems here are 'abuse' of the reset timers and the huge discrepancy in power possible between 2 players, depending on level, and also the idea being tossed around about adding PVE bonuses for PVP.
This should be something thats workable. I just want to stress I am NOT a programmer, and I am unfamiliar with the backend for Game, though I presume the bulk of the data is stored in some form of database. Going out on a limb and guessing it's some form of SQL, and pardon me if I'm completely offbase.
If it is in fact a SQL database, I believe additional columns can be added to entire tables pretty readily with a single query. In fact, this should really be possible for any database type, but I digress...
The second assumption I'm making is that there is some form of limit to the number of raids possible, both offensive and defensive. If not a hard-coded limit, a de facto limit imposed by the maximal value of all equipment/improvements/pets/etc that contribute to the number of raids.
So, if we can assume that there is an upper limit to the number of raids possible...
How about, instead of refreshing raids and rage at the same time every day, instead recording a timestamp + data for each raid 'slot,' eg. Time raid took place, any rage gained if applicable. Check the database every hour or so, and when it's been more than 23 hours since the raid slot was stamped, clear the slot. This'll effectively put it on a sliding schedule rather than a one time refresh.
As far as rage goes- How exactly are we identifying who attacked our campground while we were away? Perhaps have rage work as an all-around offensive bonus rather than specific to the target.
When done this way, rage decay can be handled similarly. I presume one cell per entry is used for the current rage value- I propose that this be maintained, with a second cell to indicate decaying rage, and a third to indicate decay rate. These will start at 0. Calculate Current rage by adding the rage values for all defensive rage slots together with the 'decaying rage' value. When 23 hours have passed since a defensive raid was used, add it's value to the 'decaying rage' cell and increment the 'decay rate' by a value proportional to the total amount of rage and the expected decay rate. At whatever the preferred rage decay interval is, reduce the value of the 'decaying rage' cell by the 'decay rate' cells current value.
When rage is 'spent' spend from 'decaying rage' first, then the oldest defensive raids rage value, and so on.
This prevents waiting for the opportune moment to strike to gain a 'first strike' upperhand at 12:01 or mitigating rage by attacking at 11:59.
As far as PVP balancing goes...
I'm not sure how success or failure is calculated now, but perhaps a proportional 'buffer' of sorts could come to play, based on attack power vs. defensive power. The way I see it, even at extreme stat differences, there should always be a chance to win or lose, otherwise you can potentially have players with no chance and unbeatable players.
So I propose the following adjustments to how raids are calculated.
1) For each raid, randomize attackers attack and defenders defense between 75% and 125% of stat value.
2) Add attackers attack + defenders defense, then divide attackers attack by the total for % chance of victory. This would never exceed 90% or drop below 10% regardless of stats.
Example: I have 100 attack, Bob has 100 defense.
Randomization is in my favor, and my effective attack becomes 125 and his effective defense becomes 75.
Total this- 200. Divide my attack of 125 by 200 to receive: 0.625 or 62.5% chance of victory, 37.5% chance of loss.
Then, generate a random number between 0 and 1, and compare it- if it's .375 or less, lose, if its above, win.
Taking that to an extreme: Uberleet (1000 attack) vs Ubernoober (10 defense). We'll say, for this example, that they both rolled average and didnt get a bonus or penalty to their stat.
Stat total: 1010. Uberleet attack/total (1000/1010) = ~99%. But thats over 90%, so that'd get rolled back...
This way, powergamers who engage in pvp would have to stay on their toes, as even a much weaker player would have a chance to do some damage, albeit a low one.
And that brings me to my last bit- PVE bonuses.
This shouldn't be too tough to pull off, and I have just the thing to apply it to- stamina per day.
Yes. you heard me.
We are improving/raiding campgrounds, where we presumably sleep, yes? And I imagine its easier to get a good nights sleep in a nice, secure campground than it would be in a completely empty, exposed campground (both because of physical comfort and feeling of safety).
On the other hand, we shouldn't PENALIZE anyone stamina either, so lets make 100% stamina per day the bottom end.
So how to determine the bonus? Campground improvements! Each item used to improve your campground has a level requirement, and you have a level. Assign a value to each campground improvement, and set breaking points by level based on a percentage of the total value available at that level, say, 75%. If the value of your improvements is less than or equal to 75% of the maximal value available at your level, you get 100% stamina per day. For each percentage point over that 75%, you'd get a bonus 1% stamina per day.
So if you've got every possible improvement available at your level, you'd get 125% stamina per day, giving you a notable but not huge advantage.
How to balance it? Well, increase your defensive raids per day and the level range that can raid you in BOTH DIRECTIONS based off of this. I imagine a decked out campground is more visible and a more attractive target, if harder to succeed against, right? So the more stuff you have, the more people can raid you, and the more times per day you can be raided.
And to top it off- the stamina bonus only applies if you've opted to participate in PVP. Call it a perk to offset the PVE losses possible by engaging in PVP.
Like it, hate it, whatever- just something I'm throwing out there that may not be feasible to code at all depending on how the Game! backend is structured.