ZZZ - Disincentivizing Teaming Up

Shuyin

So as much as I love winning, it's probably more healthy if we actually fought during conflict games. However, the mechanics and general RP of all orgs reward alliances way more than going at it alone.

I'm not saying that alliances are bad, I'm saying that they're boring.

No, the answer is not, "break up", because that just makes a new alliance with different orgs. The fundamental problem is not solved.

No, the answer is not, "you first", because Hallifax already tried that and it didn't work because no one else bought in.

So with that said, this thread is to:

1. Discuss the issue of alliances and its overall effect on the game

1. Re-examine and collect ideas to change almost all conflict events to reward individual orgs more than alliances

2. See how to properly support a change in RP from all orgs to properly encourage this behavior - this will probably need Divine input

I already got the death in enemy territory issue handled, so I figure I need a new cause to pitchfork for during envoy reports now.

Crek

Hai'Gloh round 2?

Vladimere

We've seen it before, one organization makes the executive decision to "go it alone", does well here and there but overall comes out creamed, the player-base gets tired of not having villages, domoths and other benefits that come from a healthy alliance and either quit, jump ship or stop going into conflict altogether while other organizations opt to band together and come out with more benefits and personally I would side with RP but time has proven that the player-base reacts more positively to being able to get benefits/be on the winning side.

Lerad

Incentivizing the individual rewards is one thing - but I personally thing disincentivizing teaming up, by hardcode if need be, is the way to get success. I mean, the rewards now ARE very individual org based already. Look at villages - allies get little from helping their friends win, except by being able to lay claim to the "we won" side. Domoths and ascension are probably the only things where the reward is more spreadable - you can bless an ally org, and a TA is not tied to a single org, and can hop around, though that's also arguable in terms of shared rewards.

Rewards are already individualized. Participation is not. Well, technically, it is, but you can't stop people from "standing aside" unless there's some kind of way to prevent them from doing so - nor can you prevent people from "jumping in" unless, again, there're mechanical restrictions in place.

Whether we want to go down this route, however, is certainly debatable. The greatest possible incentive will be that there is lesser "ZZZs", as Shu puts it. But it does remove some of the player agency in deciding how the wind blows, and the story goes in the game, and cheapens the idea of politicking and alliances. Furthermore, how exactly to do it is also difficult to ascertain. We'll never be sure it works unless we do something extreme, or see it in action.

Shedrin

Well I'll start with something simple.

Every org needs other orgs for access to certain trades. Communes need a city slicker for Spellcrafting, Cities need a forest bumpkin for Lorecrafting, and Gaudiguch and Hallifax need someone else for Tattoos.

For Domoths, if an ally holds the opposing domoth, both are safe from absolving. Sure you can't help them claim and upgrade, but that's still a big deal. 3v3 exacerbates this because it's pretty often that you can win a 2v3 when you choose almost any time to fight.

Village revolts, there's some pressures to ally. One, village feelings go negative if you hold a village in the same set. This helps stop one org from holding a whole set, but also means that orgs aren't incentivized to push for more.

Raids are pretty rare these days for a few reasons. One, there's not much point. Unless you can take down the supermobs, there's really not much benefit to you, and with populations how they are, that requires an alliance. Smaller raids don't really accomplish anything.

Hallen

While I don't know what this would look like, but from an RP perspective nobody really has an internal ideology that fits with the other orgs, except maybe for Gaudiguch. If you dialed that up it seems like alliances would be significantly less likely.

Enyalida

Unless some of the mechanical realities of the game change, players will either dial down those aspects or ignore them if it's a choice between the roleplay and playing any other part of the game. 

Shedrin

So one idea might be to make all abilities reliant on enemy and ally list instead work based on org. If you're a part of a different org, all enemy-based skills will hit you. This can be explained that a connection to a certain nexus makes you for example, in tune with the earth and taint such that you don't get affected by a Geomancer's meld, or having a connection with the Matrix allows a Symphonium's song to synchronise with you and heal you.

Doing that would place a barrier in the way of combat coordination with allies.This would also mean that the 30 enemy limit wouldn't be as much of a factor when fighting against everyone.

Steingrim

Hallen said:

While I don't know what this would look like, but from an RP perspective nobody really has an internal ideology that fits with the other orgs, except maybe for Gaudiguch. If you dialed that up it seems like alliances would be significantly less likely.

There's a point where even racists allow minorities to join armies. If you're going to have the big bad that will end everything then it takes a flat out moron to risk that. What I'm saying is politics and idology are all well in good, but sometimes there are bigger things and sometimes some people can rise above.

Aeden

I've not any ideas so far, but I do wish there was a change of scenery to break up these reliant alliances and all, as to what I'm thinking anyway.