CAMP SYSTEM, - FAME POOL
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 10:42 am |
This poll has nothing to do with PVP (in the wilds)
This poll is just one aspect of further changes to be addressed later And set a solid foundation for greater things to come The reasoning is that camps are a logical extention of the player base, a 'gang of players if you will' There is only two rules about the fame pool, and that is it is locked, and hence a finite resource. And that it is seeking an equilibrium. New system, the general pricipal Without getting bogged down in details, because the fame pool is locked, it means fame can only be shared and never added or taken away from that pool. In spirit all camps share a pool of fame points, and all events PvE or PvP, are used to suck fame from the pool and give it to the wining camp. since there is less fame in the pool now, all other camps loose a tiny bit of fame that they each give back to replenish the pool. EDIT: Differences between camps' fames are also sculpted by adding their own individual bits of fame that are not shared. What about those camps that are not very active you ask? Well if they can't pull their own weight then they can enter into an alliance with other active camps who would share their fame in their own minipool. EDIT: camps with less fame would give less fame to the pool than camps with high fame. Hence the fame pool would try to replenish it's self back to an equilibrium between all the camps with time. (camps would still retain their own small individualistic base fame) I imagine this fame pool like an ocean with many waves, this 'elasticity' is this ocean forever trying to be still and flat. Another way to view it is as a giant pie with players trying to get a bigger slice. 
EDIT: the weekly reset , in regards to a camp's Upkeep would be based on last week's reset, so camp owners would have 1 week to set their production limits without fear of having to check in every friday. I think it's a good way to bring excitement and a competitive spirit to the now insular and plain way of doing business, also this would completely change the landscape of DW, and I think that's a good thing to keep making this game we love unique, So what do you think? Sam said it was a rather simple thing to implement |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 10:58 am |
The advantage of Alliances is that all the active camp members would all contribute to the upkeep across all the camps in their alliance, would help lessen the burden of camp management. 
I meant to say that all members helped get the fame back at weekly reset through all events possible, but now there would be no fame reset as we know it (except for the force that gravitates fame back to the pool) |
||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 11:09 am |
whats this about PvP?
are you watching what post Im watching? 
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 11:21 am |
I like the idea that actions effect each other, fame seems to make sense there.
I would like factions to come into it too |
||||||||||||||
|
*Brunwulf* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 12:00 pm |
I voted YES
I think it's a good idea- and will add to the player interaction side of things. Cheers, Brun. |
||||||||||||||
|
JS Posted Feb 15, 2013, 12:02 pm |
Hard to vote for something with no details. | ||||||||||||||
|
Tez Posted Feb 15, 2013, 12:12 pm |
What JS said, this is very vague. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 12:18 pm |
who cares, take a dive.... have faith in the all mighty
whats wrong Tez.. JS.. chicken? |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 12:47 pm |
What info you looking for? |
||||||||||||||
|
JS Posted Feb 15, 2013, 1:01 pm |
The full plan of course, how it will work, what are we trying to fix? Why are we trying to fix it (is it broke?) |
||||||||||||||
|
PvtParty Posted Feb 15, 2013, 1:04 pm |
No, he just likes to tinker
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 1:33 pm |
Ok the full plan has it pertains to the Fame Pool, i don't want to be throwing out other ideas that will muddy the waters. This Fame Pool is very important because it's a new foundation. 1st what is broke To me it seems like camps (which are a conglomeration of many players) could be much more dynamic and rewarding to a "group" of people that share the same ideology. right now Camps are insular, they exist in a vacuum, what one camp does to influence other camps is very limited, there is ScL which is very nice because it pulls individual players to participate, and then there is sponsorships that mainly affect only the rich. That's two things I can think off at the moment, and the sponsorship thing is harder to role-play. What i'm striving for the a taste of ScL without the drastic consequences. ScL is a great thing to put a player in front of another player and the two can learn from each other, and a kind of exchange happens, this exchange feels really nice and if we said ok let's try to take that bit and spread it out to everything else like town events you would have the workings of a more intimate climate were fame (currency, power, what ever you want to call it) is distributed and ebbs and flows according to tides of the players actively playing. You would have a way for all the members to contribute to a cause, to their gang so to speak. Then alliances come into play and there is a new plateaux with many possibilities to enjoy |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 15, 2013, 3:13 pm |
Not disagreeing with what you propose so far, However I do have some questions.
What is the proposed size overall fame pool for all camps globally? How do sponsorships factor into the parent pool? Are sponsorships considered part of parent pool, but only accessible via auction, or are sponsorships outside of the parent pool itself but only adding to an individual or Alliance pool total? Is there a minimum or maximum of how many camps that can compose an Alliance pool? Is there a maximum amount of camps a single owner can add to an Alliance pool? If an Alliance is made, but one or more camps have no more space to build, can they build on a larger camp location? How does one prevent multi-camp owners from setting up dummy front owners to create larger pools? In regards to smaller camps where building space is more of limitation than fame itself would there be (albeit very expensive or some other prohibitive manner) to maximum building area? Will there be established roads between Allied camps? If, yes to above,Will those above roads, bypass towns/cites/truckstops? |
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 15, 2013, 3:27 pm |
my question is this, will the camps base fame they have now be affected? If so, I'll vote no! If this is lets say extra fame above base fame, that might be ok. But if this can suck a camps base fame down it will just become another greifing tactic that can and will get used. Camp A goes out and gains a bunch of fame right before dailey or weekly upkeep and sucks fame from camp B, then camp B is now over the upkeep limit and takes damage at camp. This would make camp management a bigger pain in the ass IMO. The camp owner/manager would have to be online at reset every day to make sure his fame was high enough for upkeep. Either way its going to be hard to monitor your fame just before reset as you would have to monitor every event going on at the time then try to figure out if its going to effect your camps fame or not. Sounds to me a camps fame would be constantly changing, and since that is what a camps upkeep is based on something would need to change there. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 3:49 pm |
Not disagreeing with what you propose so far, However I do have some questions.
What is the proposed size overall fame pool for all camps globally? IDK, that's something easily tweaked by Sam, do we want something tight or comfortable, what will be the influence of future camps added? do we want less camps? be nice to know how many inactive camps there are atm. How do sponsorships factor into the parent pool? Are sponsorships considered part of parent pool, but only accessible via auction, or are sponsorships outside of the parent pool itself but only adding to an individual or Alliance pool total? Yes sponsorships are included inside the parent pool and via the auctions, I think that's fair and hermetic for the locked fame pool principal. Is there a minimum or maximum of how many camps that can compose an Alliance pool? IDK something for future discussion Is there a maximum amount of camps a single owner can add to an Alliance pool? Same as above If an Alliance is made, but one or more camps have no more space to build, can they build on a larger camp location? Not sure i understand the question, the larger of the camps if they have space can continue to build if they have enough fame Maybe one day camps that are close by one another can have an NPC outpost like a small town or something sprout between them? How does one prevent multi-camp owners from setting up dummy front owners to create larger pools? hmm.. they don't necessarily benefit from having multiple camps with a larger pool because they also have more overhead from their camps. It would be pointless. Am I answering the question? I am i clear? In regards to smaller camps where building space is more of limitation than fame itself would there be (albeit very expensive or some other prohibitive manner) to maximum building area? Don't think I like that idea, Smaller camps would be highly thought after by players who were less active since they don't need mega fame to make useful things. Will there be established roads between Allied camps? That's a nice idea If, yes to above,Will those above roads, bypass towns/cites/truckstops? Yeah, if they are not to far |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 4:07 pm |
I don't think it would be fair to players if all their hard earned efforts this year was for nothing
Yeah your right of course, I imagined this without a weekly reset. Something that could change is if there was a bracket level were upkeep limit would not be so harsh, also you would have an extra week's warning or something, how does that sound? Or just add an automatic system were it was impossible to shoot yourself in the foot regarding camp upkeep? |
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 15, 2013, 4:45 pm |
Not sure how you would do away with weekly reset? Its at the weekly reset , where production for the week is set. Would this change daily? The way it is now set-up you can run all week at over your upkeep limit as long as your proposed upkeep is set at limit or below. I usually set my proposed upkeep lower to safe guard against someone having a bad scout and having fame drop below and causing damage, then set to max upkeep just before weekly reset. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 5:26 pm |
When i was talking about a bracket system for upkeep I wasn't clear, but maybe this will make more sense,
instead of this you have now: Maximum Building Upkeep: 28700 Current Building Upkeep: 28000 try this: Maximum Building Upkeep: 28 Current Building Upkeep: 26 to 29 A bracketed (think tax brackets) would let you have a safety zone, like 2 or 3 points above, as long as your in the zone your safe, could be much wider brackets if it was a daily calculation at midnight. Also thinking that once the system is in place it would pretty hard for 1 camp to influence fame so drastically and rapidly, we would need to tweak it just right, and probably need safeguards |
||||||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:08 pm |
I would vote yes because a change is needed
But I cannot vote for something not fleshed out. I say this because vague changes usually wind up breaking stuff worse (sniper nerf...every single pvp change..etc etc.) I realise fleshing anything out on this forum is impossible. My advice is to have sam post exactly how the change would work as if it was a patch update...and then we vote on it. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:23 pm |
Yeah Sam should do this, also you can hold your vote now until your confident all points have been addressed | ||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:27 pm |
I did abstain so far.. see other board.... | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:34 pm |
What problems do you see with multi-camp owners setting up dummy front owners to create larger pools? The mini pool from the alliance could be a simple average of the two camps, or some fancy calculation to weigh the fame more towards the highest fame camp, but at no point are you cheating the system because you can't artificially add or take away from the parent fame pool. edit: or instead of having a mini fame pool for alliances were each camp has it's own fame within the minipool, you could have just one fame for both camp(s) which is a flat average of all the concerned camps. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:34 pm |
I like the fame pool idea, but I also want camps that don't want to Pvp to be able to operate. I feel like this idea is pushing and forcing everyone to Pvp, and we cant have that. Myself on some days just want to come in and run a few PvE scouts.. and things must be simple | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:39 pm |
This has nothing to do with forced PvP in the wild, the only PvP concerned is the one no one has a problem with, that is town events and ScL. |
||||||||||||||
|
JS Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:55 pm |
Thanks for clarifications Tinker. I'm in favor of making the cmap system more dynamic. I like the king of the hill ideas, but this is similar and so is interesting to me for that. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 6:59 pm |
Thanks for clarifying 
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 7:21 pm |
Let's get the foundations right, and then see this king of the hill ideas |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 8:45 pm |
Nec had some very tough questions, and i thought id share them
The objective is to feel that you are, with the help of your comrades and allies, shaping the political landscape of Evans, that every action you undertake affects someone somewheres.
The direct impact is that the powers to be will be in a constant flux, alliances will be made, you will have to be active or ally yourself with an active community to be at the top.
The camp members will feel like they are useful working as a team, knowing that everyone is involved, and they are not alone. working to the benefit of their camp or to a cause spanning multiple camps.
If they are in a active camp, they should never have to do the weekly fame refresh grind by themselves ever again, because every camp member is gaining fame everywhere they go. They will also feel like they are in a team of a bigger alliance knowing that they are responsible along with each of their members to win every battle fought and would have new options (alliances, neutrals, and enemies) and hence repercussions to think about.
The casual player should know that if he looses a scout badly with loses of gangers or deaths in town event, not only will his gang suffer but his camp will suffer, to the benefit of all the other camps
The same rules that apply to PvE will apply to PvP, but right now were talking about just town events, but it's safe to say that very valuable gangster loses will be bad for camp fame and a noticeable boost for everyone else.
Besides that active players will influence the economy, all the above, this flux of activities will impact the fame of camps and alliances, it could be argued that in a far future if this Fame pool works that even money could be replaced by a favor system based on how famous you are, but we are not there yet |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 15, 2013, 8:55 pm |
Ok.. A definite good start.
Now for the fun part.. the mechanics of it all. (to me anyways) I vote yes to continue along this vein. I myself would be intrigued and hopefully nicely surprised for the changes. Maybe Sam throw in some hidden goodies or gotcha in the background. Nice summary for a Project Proposal. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Splurs* Posted Feb 15, 2013, 9:28 pm |
Sounds like a good idea, and I definately like the road system between close town, this I would imagine would be at the cost and scouting ability of the adjoining camps to make themselves.
Being new to pretty much everything and not really having any idea of how camps works feel free to tell me Im wrong/dont know if any of this is pointless. If the fame points are fixed and there is the ability to form alliances to get a bigger fame pool, and we know that there is basically 2 factions in this game waring with each other what is to stop one faction getting the upper hand and driving the other camps down in fame. That sounds hard to explain so will try another way, (sorry Longo but dont know who is still classed as a Vet on the other team yet) AND to note im not picking on Alley this could swing the other way, just putting the point out there. So lets say Longo is sick of all the whining from the nonalley folk, so with his $50 billion dollars (am I close?  ) he donates $1 billion dollars to everyone in the Alley and lets them buy camps and floods the camp market with Alley supporters and then makes them all in the alliance.
The new members get small camps with little upkeep requirements thorugh to the big camps down south. They all start to suck away the fame from the "other" side, not to mention the smaller fish that dont want to be caught up in politics, this means the other side does exactly the same thing IF they have the money/personnel, OR they lose out fame and start to struglle to do anything from their camps. Not to mention the smaller fish gets even smaller due to the 2 waring sides. Is that possible? If anyone understands what I mean. |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 15, 2013, 10:38 pm |
Which is why these questions are VERY pertinent....
Is there a minimum or maximum of how many camps that can compose an Alliance pool? Is there a maximum amount of camps a single owner can add to an Alliance pool? How does one prevent multi-camp owners from setting up dummy front owners to create larger pools? When thinking up new systems, You also have to take into account human nature. How could one break, fiddle with, game, or manipulate it? In design of any type, you have to try and bulletproof it as best as possible.
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 12:05 am |
I understand what your saying, and let me assure you that it is impossible for things to play out like you fear. let's take for sake of round numbers that we have 30 camps and like a pool of 9000 fame for all the camps. that's 300 fame per camp now let's say the Alley rounds up 10 camps under an alliance. That alliance is not equal to 3000 fame because they still have 10 camps, so each camp is still worth 300 fame each, and are still limited by their fame. So nothing changes
Before talking about fame sucking from the "other" side, let me give an example under a normal peaceful situation. let's take a league race in SS An independent camp's member finishes 1st He wins for his camp a fame prize that is proportional to the $$$ prize. Let's say it's 29 fame, so out of the fame pool comes out 29 fame, but since it's impossible to take away from the pool (it is fixed at 9000 fame), all the other 29 camps must give 1 fame each to the pool, and it's evenly distributed. This is were "alliance/enemy" status comes into play. There is a fame modifier for enemies, not allies and neutrals. Let's say JS comes along and grabs 10 camps under his banner, so that leaves 10 independent camps. JS declares the Alley enemy Let's take the league race example again. this time JS's camp the Consortium Truckstop wins 1st. The prize is still 29 fame, so out of the fame pool comes out 29 fame. Now it get's a little complicated, The Alley's alliance have to pay a little more because they are enemies. just throwing a number out, let's say it's 25% more each, so that's 1.25 points each = 12.5 fame points to the pool, all the other 20 camps now have to pay a little less to fill what's missing in the pool.. which comes out to.. 29-12.5 = 16.5 divide by 20 camps = 0.8 fame each the CTS would have gotten 29 fame but in fact the faction gains a little less because of the other 9 camps had to give a little to the pool, so in reality the CTS alliance gets 21 fame To recap precisely CTS alliance gets 20.75 fame Alley alliance loose 12.5 fame The rest loose .825 fame each The pool stays at 9000 The numbers look drastic, but it's only because the Alliances are so big, and it's an unlikely scenario |
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 16, 2013, 12:45 am |
My biggest consern with this is that all the league races will turn into what the coe events are now. How will you prevent that? A race should not be a team event, should be a singles event. How will combats go when you have 2 teams in the combat, but you end up with enemy camp members on your team and friendlies on the opposing team? You'll need some sort of official to monitor each event to make sure shady tactics are not being used. Mabie have to penalize a camp fame if they have a member taking out other racers so his team mate can win, or for using freindly fire to take out someone in a combat. Either way the penalty should be more or at least equal to what the win would gain them. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 1:00 am |
This is a real tough point I think.
Some shady tactics and team play is what should be going on. There will be too many events for one group to get into everything. I would think. On ya for the poll tink, make people vote and suddenly they come up with the good questions. All of these points could be monitored over a period and adjusted as needed I think. The basic idea definitely seems interesting.
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Splurs* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 2:32 am |
I hope that converted it to quotes, not sure how you usually do it, that is my point entirely. If JS was to get a few and start to dominate the alliances, then wont The Alley do the same to try to keep the balance/get an upper hand, then JS gets a few more to keep the upper hand. I understand this is an extreme view, however if the hole is there someone will exploit it. Bast is right, the point is interesting and a very good idea, the whole idea is going to have teething problems, play testing is generally the right way to go, however everyone needs to be on the same page, and PA is right too, exploiters need to be punished MORE than the gain would of been. Punishments need to be harsh, or else people will keep doing it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Celticfrost Posted Feb 16, 2013, 2:40 am |
Another serious concern would be for all the newer players who need the facilities of a camp to repair certain items, but who don't win 99% of events, these guys are gonna get cut from camps very quickly, especially particularly competitive camps. Point being, camps will evolve even more into a big boys club than they already are. | ||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 16, 2013, 3:05 am |
Yeah I had worried about that too! A gang that has a few bad scouts and brings a camps fame down, could get booted from a camp just for not being skilled enough yet.
I like were the discussion has been headed here, but just think its a bit complicated really. I'd rather see a bonus simular to scl div 5 added to the rest of the league's. Also along with that a training modifier added to all the mech's working in shops at a camp. Really a mech working in the shops 7 days a week should gain some skill more so than the mech sitting in ss 7 days a week just going to the training center. |
||||||||||||||
|
JS Posted Feb 16, 2013, 3:15 am |
I'm the bogey man, lmao. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 4:02 am |
it depends on how the fame is weighted... I wouldn't imagine theres not(edit) too many bragging rights winning over a low fame gang. Wins over little people should be fairly insignificant. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Splurs* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 4:40 am |
Would it be possible to run a trial with say 15-20 active camps, or how every many there are, run it in line with the current fame points, however if your "trial: fame is above your real fame you get a bonus of the trial fame (have both written down, your trial fame in red maybe?) if your trial fame is below your actual fame you get a note saying something along the lines of "if the trail system was active you would only be able to do XXXX"
This way your not punishing anyone for the trial, and are rewarding those who are play testing it. The trial gets run for 3-6 months to see if it is worthwhile, and to iron out all the bugs. The only issue would be it might be a big issue trying to get the 2 systems to run in tandem. |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 16, 2013, 7:25 am |
This sounds very promising.
My only addition to whats been said is that there needs to be a Minimum Fame that camps cant drop below, or a set number of "free" buildings that wont be damaged if fame is decimated. Or maybe just a Moral rating of the NPC workers in them instead of Physical damage. a 50% moral worker doing only 50% work, etc. I see alot of room for abusing certain groups. As it is now certain groups DO dominate events. THIS change would mean other groups would have to take a keen interest in either STOPPING them from doing this, or winning. This would in many ways be a GOOD thing as it would renew the interst in town events for reasons other than just for the fun of it. Noobs could gain camp fame for winning Amature Night. There could even be some kind of player ranking system to determine who is eligable for fame for which levels of events. Certainly a person with 3 weeks as a sub would gain more fame for their camp in ama night than say, someone with 9 months in. But this is promising and could revitalise forgotten aspects of the game. On the downside it could also harm alot of people unduely if not implemented well or with safeguards. The strong get stronger and the weak sink deeper into despair. That would not be good. |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 16, 2013, 8:08 am |
I do not mind the event fame changes, But would keep them to the following in town events:
- All League Events besides SCL which has a bonus system in place. - Professional Events (Races, Death Rallies, Rallies) - Ladders - ANC - Militia vs Pirate events save Morgan Defenses No custom or non league events |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 9:30 am |
To me they are different animals, one is bring your own gear and the fame gains are much higher, League events, and by that logic all town events will work to same way for the same reasons, but the fame gains should be minuscule for regular town events.
I don't understand what do you mean by team event?
With this system there can only be one player that comes in 1st place, and only 1st place gains fame, so it doesn't matter what enemies are on your team. This simplifies team combats, but if Sam wants to do something special why not. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 9:43 am |
To recap precisely
CTS alliance gets 20.75 fame Alley alliance loose 12.5 fame The rest loose .825 fame each that is my point entirely. If JS was to get a few and start to dominate the alliances, then wont The Alley do the same to try to keep the balance/get an upper hand, then JS gets a few more to keep the upper hand. I understand this is an extreme view, however if the hole is there someone will exploit it. I don't see the hole, each alliance is not bigger fame wise for having more camps because they have to divide their fame by the amount of camps they have. Also indépendant (bystander) camps will suffer a lower fame drop from conflict between two enemies. In the above example i gave they lost only .825 fame each the winning 10 camp alliance got 20.75 fame = + 2 fame per camp loosing 10 camp alliance loose 12.5 fame = - 1.25 fame per camp |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:00 am |
I don't think low fame regular town event or low gangster deaths will have much effect on a camp that has a mix of vet and noob players. I doubt the current player base is so shellfish to stop new comers from joining their camp, and besides they should know that what's more important than skill is activity, an active player is more of an asset then a liability in the long run. New Blood is good! |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:04 am |
Yeah maybe they should get a little training through experience, but not much, because they are probably doing the same repetitive task each day, plus they are doing a good thing to their camp so let's not unbalance it. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:06 am |
Could ask Sam to do a simulation with all the camps, let it run a few months, and let us see it evolve in our camp pages. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:11 am |
If the upkeep was kept manageable, it would be pretty safe, just need to hash out some possibilities
I like were this is going, why does things have to be so brutal so fast? What is the purpose of NPC workers at camp? |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:24 am |
I agree with Necro. Except on Ladders... Those CAN be manipulated by one player throwing a match or a completly imbalanced Pair up... ie: 280 skill Sniper 5, Hip Shoot 2, Rapidshot 5 super gangers vs someone's 1 spec ganger. |
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:39 am |
Not asking for a big gain here, but as it is now, the best improvement I've seen at camp is 2 points and thats rare. While at the same time, if i take that same mech into ss for training he gets 5 points every time. While most mech's at camp will gain 1 point most of the time, while some will go 2-3 months before gaining 1 point. Having to haul mech's to town weekly to get the better training causes a lot of issues for camps, I'm sure I'm not alone on that issue. Camp workers are there to work in the factory's, that their only purpose. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:50 am |
That looks like an exploit lol |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:52 am |
I disagree only because i think it's less work for Sam, and i don't see an issue, except ladders, that all events should not be included, because it's only their fame that counts at the end |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 16, 2013, 11:28 am |
And grow food, mine stone, etc. I think Tink wants Assembly Line Worker spec! |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 16, 2013, 11:42 am |
As long as Events with only 1 player create no fame. and events containing 2 or more players of the same camp/alliance/faction (whatever is used for alegiences) do not create fame. I assume by racing in a PvP town race/DR/combat event players are "Gambling" their camp fame so to speak. risking it for the potential to gain it. |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 16, 2013, 11:48 am |
RED FLAG! If this is the case guess what? The Alley sucks everyone else's fame away. Who wins pretty much every even that that want? Joel or Lord Foul. Those JS9 dudes blow us all away. Fame should be a graduated amount similar to league point scores. Not winner takes all, otherwise the winner will always be the same person and suddenly it is one person's game and anyone not part of his camp is handicapped. No offense to Joel and LF. You guys are good racers but you cant deny you have an advantage due to haveing the best racing gangers around. DW would merely be a game dominated and beloning to Joel and LF. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 12:14 pm |
I got used to mechs leaving for training, gave myself that bit extra MR. You're probably right about exploit, but thats goes for anywhere, where the town you are in on training day is the one used to calc training gains (I believe) I agree too that mechs would get better training in camp, but then you'd get some great mechs pretty quick. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 12:16 pm |
Probably right there. This is sure going to be a complex system. And it would probably need to be to get it right. One could argue at that point if the system is needed at all, we have fame boosts for camp, but it might bring out the competition between camps we have been looking for. Maybe all fame should work this way. So we want to compete against JS for his fame, take down the top dog so to speak. (face it Latte, you're getting slack )
|
||||||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 1:12 pm |
once everyone realises the alley ios sucking their fame they can make a short term unholy alliance.. wipe the place off the map and then start on each other | ||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 16, 2013, 2:33 pm |
??? Not much of an exploit since it generally means the camp is going to lose MR as a result of people taking mechs out of camp for the time it takes to get them to a town and back for weekly training. Very difficult to have a mech in camp for the daily camp reset at 0:20 then get them to a town by 4:00 for training and back to camp by 5:00 for the camp's weekly reset. I'd say it's more of an exploit that camps get credit for every mech in camp at the reset checks, regardless of whether the mech has been in camp all day/week or just arrived minutes ago. But even that probably isn't that big of a deal, and it's how just about every type of check happens in Evan. A lot of good and interesting ideas being hashed out here. |
||||||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 3:08 pm |
I dont think it is. the single most important check... weekly training... calculates your time spent travelling |
||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 16, 2013, 3:36 pm |
True, but it still bases that check upon where the ganger is at the time of training (or last town left if traveling). Doesn't matter if the ganger only spent two minutes in Somerset (or any other town) that week, he's going to get SS training rather than camp (or GW or Elsm, ...) training if SS is his location at weekly training. How much time he actually spent in SS receiving training is not considered. If he's traveled a lot, weekly training probably isn't going to be very good, sure. But if he spent the week out at camp, he may only have a couple hours of training. Or if he was down at GW for the week but didn't really scout, perhaps as little as 26. (Well, could be even less now with the ability to travel faster.) In any case, I don't really see an exploit here. Or at least not very much of one. But if someone wants to develop a more complicated system for checks, that wouldn't bother me either. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 6:35 pm |
Na no worries do you know how many people finish 1st place in the leagues besides The Alley? There are so many league events that their successes are drowned in the whitewash, They might have a marginal benefit, and that's only one way to suck fame. I don't know if the winners at the end of the season is a problem though, might work out of the box, and could add a lot of competition lol |
||||||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Feb 16, 2013, 7:03 pm |
Just non stop bitchin, do you ever read you own posts? Just Waaaa poor me waaaa |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 7:38 pm |
On page 2 I showed a couple scenarios of the effects of fame suck, the first example was under peaceful times, the 2nd was of two alliances having a go at each other, and the repercussions on all the camps.
I will add a 3rd example There are 30 camps There is a Big Bad Alliance of 10 camps There are 20 independent camps Big Bad Alliance of 10 camps declares a single poor Tiny camp an enemy Tiny Camp wins the event Let's take a league race in SS again it's worth 29 fame again, so out of the fame pool comes out 29 fame, but since it's impossible to take away from the pool, (the rule is pool fame is fixed) all the other camps must give the pool 29 fame. Since BBA is an enemy of Tiny camp it must pay 25% more (per camp in it's alliance) to the pool. so that's 1.25 points each = 12.5 fame points into the pool, all the other 20 camps now have to pay a little less to fill what's missing in the pool.. That comes out to 29-12.5 = 16.5 missing, divide by 20 camps = 0.825 fame each. Tiny Camp would gets 29 fame BBA looses 12.5 fame (divide by 10 camps is 1.25 each) The rest loose .825 fame each 12.5 + (.825x20) = 29 fame The pool stays the same So the moral of the story is If your a big bad Goliath picking on tiny Jason, you better not loose, it will be embarrassing (a little) |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 16, 2013, 10:56 pm |
and the insults begin.
Im not bitching. Im just saying the system would be abused if it didnt have a carefuly planned out methid to ensure no abuse can uccur. are you denying that you or Foul dont already win any event you enter unless something toally out if the ordinary happens? I respect your skill and time investment Joel. Just because we see thngs from differing perspectives is no reason to insult my opinion. Speaking of bitching you have been that way too from time to time. Especially where the mess we call PvP is concerned. Yes I do read my posts but its because I type them on my phone and cant seem to hit the right keys so it looks like my cat or rabbit typed it. For the record I like this idea and thing it should be implemented, tested, tweaked... Till it works to everyones semi-satisfaction.
|
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 16, 2013, 11:07 pm |
Playing devil's advocate here...
But if someone can win events based on skill (no exploits etc), then it should be allowed. Other people can (and do) try their best to stop the frontrunner and win themselves. Just handing out bonuses for a single event for second or third... doesn't work. The winner should get that. Not a trophy from showing up. Now if at the end of a league, you place 2nd.. then yeah... a little fame bonus maybe. Nothing for 3rd and below save the standard prizes. But certainly to victor.. should go the spoils.
|
||||||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Feb 16, 2013, 11:16 pm |
Fine. btw PA generally can beat us racing. nevermind drivers. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 16, 2013, 11:19 pm |
Again I say it doesn't matter, they are not the only people playing in the leagues, they only have to score one 1st place a week. There are many people scoring 1st place as well, look at the list of people who won 1st spot this week. 1st Scarzams Dragoons 22 2nd Confusion 22 4th finger3 20 8th The F-Bombs 20 9th SwordStroke Enterprises 20 10th Absent Presence 22 12th Electric Dave 20 15th Nemesys 20 18th Something else 22 21st v.i.n.d.i.c.a.to.r.s. 20 23rd Raging Scavengers 20 24th Dolce Gabbana 20 |
||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 17, 2013, 1:09 am |
you had to pick one where Im down in 23rd. | ||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 17, 2013, 2:00 am |
So this includes 1st place finishes vs the NPC only?
Any 20 scores are NPC vs Player with no other players involved. How would those affect fame? I expect they wouldnt and possibly shouldnt. Im also guessing that if say 5 members of one camp group race together with no one from their opposing gangs, then no one gains fame? I think maybe I have to agree with Necro and partially retract my graduated prizes/fame thoughts for individual events. Mostly because (as an example) 5 members of one camp could race one member of an opposing camp and then they would have little incentive to beat eachother if they got graduated prizes instead of winner takes all. I just smell future problems and want us to avoid those future anger fests in the forums. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 17, 2013, 8:52 am |
Yeah these were all the wins this week, there could be some accidental 2nd place winners too from high player turn out events.
I think they should I don't think NPC only town event change much, after all PVE in the wilds are also NPC only. I'm not even sure if something wouldn't be broken if we made such a big exemption as to only allow the fame pool to work in town events when only at least two players were present and not enemies. it get's complicated too. Also if you don't count town PvE then it's not faire to people who play mostly town events, because all the people that scout PvE will be getting more fame But if I'm missing it can you post a concrete example of the problem?
No they would get fame, now the question is should their enemies loose more fame than normal, while not being in the event at all?
I don't smell problems with the base principal if it's allowed to be applied to as many events as possible, Oh I forgot I was thinking Fame suck should not apply to squad challenges, or FL glad events btw. and like you said neither ladder events, or custom events. Basically any event were the player can create it with an easy mouse click on purpose, for the purpose of exploiting something. I must be an optimist lol, but it's good that you are checking |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 17, 2013, 9:50 am |
Talking about Alliances
If you noticed the subtleties it is that a bigger alliance will have more to loose from a smaller opponent, per event That it will also have less to win in general, per event Alliance comprised of less active camps will have less fame than if they were all active camps. edit: On the plus side alliances will have more players, so should have more fame from activities. Is this balanced then? This makes alliances something to think about, I think these fame effects on alliances make perfect sense from an role play perspective, and is very clean. Now do they need a bonus on something or not, or the contrary? |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 9:29 am |
Factions may have to be tweaked a bit if it is to work with this Fame Pool, I have no idea how it would be incorporated in a way to be clean like the rest, but if someone want to fry their brain on the subject go ahead and let's discuss what you find |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 9:36 am |
I don't think there should be a minimum amount of camps to form an alliance. Is there any foreseeable problems if there was no upper limit of camps in an alliance for both of these point? |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 9:44 am |
How about a weekly reset for building upkeep, but no fame reset. The max building upkeep would have a "tax"bracket style, to give you some room to anticipate, without having to worry so much, and you got a week to set it like now? Also why do we need so many 000's after the upkeep figures? Would prefer something smaller personally... Maximum Building Upkeep: 26-30 Current Building Upkeep: 28 |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 10:09 am |
We are talking about town events and CoE/ScL right? The beauty of the system to calculate how much an event is worth fame wise is to base it on how much money you win from it, I believe Sam did it like that already as far as how much fame you get now too. So this would be easy for Sam to empliment Now non-cash prized events , i believe, are already based on the global fame of each player's gang, we could take their camp's fame instead |
||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 10:39 am |
Most things with this system should be fairly simple I would think, just that there will be many things relating to each other, each camp, each gang, alliances, event types, wild events, town events.... just making sure everything is well balanced.
But, over time things will get worked out. Asking for a full plan on how this will work is like asking for policies during a federal election, just here you know the big guy is honest and straight with you, unlike any federal election 
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 10:43 am |
Also thinking about the enemy status
I think that any camp should be able to label another camp an enemy, and that once done so both are enemies, if you want to be neutral again both camps have to set the other neutral, or they stay enemies indefinitely. It's only common sense. Backtracking now to the discussion about how fame is generated from an event, I think now, like bast said, it would be best to add a modifier based on the ratio of fame between the two camps in addition to the $$$ ratio. Because it would lessen famous camps from crushing less famous camps, and would give more benefit for less famous camps against more famous ones. Make sense? But i have no idea how to formulate that atm without making things way complicated, hope there is a simple solution |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 12:06 pm |
Because the Fame Pool has to stay fixed for this to work Racking my brains, because i suck at math, how about: When the calculation is done to contribute to the fame pool to off set the winner's gain; The contributions starts with the camps with the most fame are 1st, cascading to the camps with the least fame last; And the camps' donations are slightly offset so that camps with above average fame contribute a little more, the camps with average fame contribute the same, and camps with bellow average contribute a little less. Make it work so that at the end the fame pool is still the same. I think this would not cause problems with multi-camps in the same event since it's still only 1st place that gains fame. edit: as an added bonus this would keep players that don't have a day job from stealing all too much fame from people who can't play as much. Is there a magic PhP formula for this? Is it easy for you Sam? |
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 18, 2013, 2:43 pm |
There are some good idea's here, but I just see messing with fame like this will just get too complicated since so many other things in camp are figured by fame. Think it would also make camp owners/managers have an even harder time than they do now at keeping track of everything. Just afraid, you would see even more dead camps from this.
I was under the impression that camp fame was set when camp was surveyed? There must be a reason that some camps that are the same size and same area sometimes have vastly differnt fame levels. If its for some trade off to offset other componants( defence rating, resorces available, size, location, etc..)to the camp during the survey, then current camp base fame should not change. I suggest instead of fame use production boosts as league prizes like in scl. Say 1st in points at end of the race/death race/combat leagues get 5% production boost, 2nd gets 3%, 3rd gets 1%. I would have the mini leagues get a little less, mabie 3%,2%, 1%. This would help at all camps, where adding fame really doesnt help the majority of camps to be honest. I have 8 camps, and only 3 of those would benefit from more fame, as the rest alreay operate all buildings at 100% with the current camp fame. Most of the small camps and tiny camps are that way, only one I know of thats not is the one Crispin now owns, I think at max fame(243) I had to throttle the factory down to 90% or something like that. So under your proposal, if I understand it, your giving every camp the same fame to start with, so in reality, your taking the extra fame small camps have now and giving it to the large and mediam camps. Which if thats the case, its the wrong thing to do. If your talking about extra fame added to the current base fame(like you get now for sponsors/scl/camp war/etc..) well then its still something worth debating and talking about. But still see it as only a big/ medium camp making use of it, with the one exception being crisp's tiny camp. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 18, 2013, 8:08 pm |
Didn't know about that, pretty cool, so fine let's keep those modifier, it's not like they are dynamic or anything, should be a snap
There are huge camps, like Cry havock, The Alley and Latte's camp near BL which are 3 i've seen, there's probably many more that size. They are are so big that apparently no amount of fame could make them work at capacity at 100%. Now for the smaller camps, I think they would be in high demands from players that just want to crank out useful mid-range items without needing too much fame, and people that are not that active and want to run one by themselves
By what logic are you saying this, sorry i'm confused I said earlier that the high famed camps now should start with more fame then the others when this new system goes live, if that's what you mean. And what extra fame that small camps have now, that i would be taking away?
Sorry still confused, what do you mean the "current base fame"? The 'new' base system would be the fame pool, on top of that we can add a small boost depending on what resources a camp can provide, like 10 extra fame for each resources they can produce for example. In the fame pool are all things fame related besides the little modifiers for camp resources just for simplicity. i.e. you win a sponsorship the fame prize goes out of the fame pool and into your camp, all the other 32 camps have their fame lowered as a consequence. Camp owners will still have weekly reset to adjust upkeep just like they have always done, and i proposed an upkeep with "tax-bracket" style to not have to check it every friday if they get lazy, they just won't be able to squeeze every last ounce of upkeep like before, but is that a bad thing? |
||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 18, 2013, 8:54 pm |
According to the list someone (I think it was Longo) posted a while ago, there are 8 Huge camps, so there aren't that many more of them than what you have seen. Small camps are much more common.
So it doesn't matter to you that these small camps really have no way of getting any benefit from your proposed system but can clearly be hurt by it? I'm just not certain what you are trying to say about the smaller camps here.
I believe PA is talking about the base max fame any camp can have without getting bonuses from SCL and sponsorships. Each camp has a base fame that they can achieve (set by Sam at camp creation - and I think it is more random than based on any factors. It also isn't known immediately to the owner of the camp. It is discovered when scouting no longer provides any fame increases.), and this is the fame at which almost all active camps tend to function. Each week at the reset all camps lose fame and then work (generally not very difficult work, I will admit) to make certain they are back to that base fame before the reset the following week. As a result, this is the fame on which most camp owners who have space for multiple factories and workshops base their decisions when setting the activity levels. At reset, if your activity levels are set to require more fame than you currently have, the camp will suffer damage. Your proposal would appear to do away with this base fame entirely, meaning all camps would face much greater risk with regard to setting their weekly activity levels. Particularly because it would be possible, through no action of any camp member, for a camps fame to decrease right before the update (currently it could only decrease because a camp member lost a scout or SCL match - which can easily be planned for regarding the weekly reset). If a camp owner wanted to make full use of their fame, they would almost have to be online setting activity levels right before the reset, which is around 05:00 server time on Friday mornings. Either that or make certain to leave a substantial buffer margin so that if your fame drops due to events being won by other camps you won't have to worry about taking damage to building and vehicles at camp. |
||||||||||||||
|
Ragnak Posted Feb 19, 2013, 12:00 am |
The system should allow for a set pool of fame that camps use to boost their fame capacity. All camps should have a preset fame level, as in today, which shouldnt be part of this proposal. A camp should be allowed to operate at least to their max preset fame level without having to play town events/PVP events should the players not wish to.
If you want all fame to be pooled then all camps should be made equal in every way. Size, resources, whatever. Otherwise this system will only benefit the large camps and a select few at the cost of the user base in general. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 12:30 am |
Let's not mix apples and oranges. Because if Sam wanted us all to have big massive camps he would never have made smaller camps. Smaller camps need to be different. The system has to be logical and realistic. Life is not fair why should this be any different? If you have a huge space to built a camp you should be less limited then if you had a tiny camp. Let's not make them equal please. Huge camps were broken because you could not utilize the space even if you tried your best, and this fixes that at least. But if small camps need some overhaul, i'm all for it, but this poll is about how the fame pool works, I think it works flawlessly for both small and large camps. There are probably lots of mechanisms for making small camps different (in a good way), but let's make them independent of the fame pool idea, or it will never work if we make unrealistic compromises. I mentioned how small camps could benefit from specialization, but that's not a fame pool mechanic, and the idea hasn't been fleshed out. They can be motivated to take over another bigger camp if they wish too. (another mechanic unrelated to this thread)
Correct my proposal does away with base fame, i'm not sure if it's possible to put a minimum limit on a camp's fame for fear of messing up the system. I don't believe there would be any bad surprises regarding weekly upkeep resets because the fame drop/rises should be very small, unless there are certain high famed events just before reset, we know what these events are SCL CoE, and CoE happens after reset anyways. Also my proposal regarding friday reset is that if you go slightly over the upkeep limit you would not suffer any repercussions, there would be a buffer of about +- 5000 points, or is it 500 i'm not sure, a buffer large enough not to have to worry so much and especially reduce micromanagement on that. |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 19, 2013, 12:37 am |
I believe there should be a base fame for each camp, without question.
Fame is based not only on on size but location, defense capabilities, and other factors. Not all camps are made to be equal. Each camp should have a base based on above criteria. The pool should be on top of that, with a reserve of that pool for sponsorships. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 12:53 am |
The sponsorship would work best if it acted like any other event, except with the massive fame you get from it, comes out the same at the end and is simpler. Role play example; Your plugging away getting fame for your camp, "doing a decent job getting bounties for the town" you muse to yourself *SUDDENLY* That other camp you haven't heard from in a while WINS a sponsorship, you drive into town and it's all the locals are talking about! The mayor hardly thank you for those 10 heads you plop on his desk desk 
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 12:57 am |
yeah same, the base level will have to be in place.
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 1:02 am |
Let's not confuse a new camp fame base level (a small bonus based on what the camp can produce from the surrounding area, plus maybe defense rating) and the current base level which is rubbish and sabotages the fame pool idea. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 1:51 am |
Current base level for any camp without bonuses.
For The Vault is 390. I could use double this fame and still not get the most out of this Medium sized camp. I believe this was its base level calculated on its resources and base stats on creation. That never changes and once any bonus is gone, it always comes back to this point. And agree with PA and others, that if this was effected by the new fame system, this would make managing camp very difficult and often at a loss. Activity level for buildings is set at weekly turnover, and takes up fame. If the set amount exceeds the camps total fame, you take damage to all buildings. Camps could work like this but be much less productive than they currently are, maybe thats not a bad thing but would be a huge change to how it is now and as PA states, many might stop running camps if they need to put in all that extra work. I don't believe that less camps i s a good idea. Camps could work together, suit different player groups better. many reasons why lots of camps can be good even with the limited player base. Camps effected would be running at a loss. Its already a lot of work to run a camp. It either takes a lot of effort in diplomacy with players and other camps to get them to help support camp with resources and equipment for defense etc, or in the case of The Vault, a lot of time running goods out myself (which I did for a long time) which takes up half my gang just to run lorries from Elms to past Texan on a weekly basis. Then more crew to defend camp, and then mechs etc. Once a camp takes damage, requires another 2 lorries of goods just to cover that damage, possibly reduce production time, and increase costs... It all becomes quite difficult and one is scratching their heads as to why they would want to abuse themselves this way, limiting the other things they can do in the game. Ive often stated that camps produce way to much goodies which causes imbalance to rare goods and the market place, but Im not sure if cutting the minimum fame to camps would be the right way to solve that issue. I see this new fame bonus system good way that camps can compete for the bonuses. Last year I won one SLC match and received the first useful bonus for my camp. that dropped fairly quickly, and despite looking for intercepts and other ways to get more bonus, I couldn't manage to get another one all season. |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 19, 2013, 1:59 am |
The current fame base.. is not "rubbish" IHMO
Having camps duke it out, win races, and do other events for a pool to raise that fame. That works.
|
||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 19, 2013, 3:18 am |
And if Sam wanted small camps to have low fame and large camps to have high fame he would have given them such, as he's the one who assigns the fame. (And personally, I think there is a lot of randomness to this rather than basing it on defense rating, location, size, etc.) Fame includes (or at least it should) a lot more things than size. Necro mentioned a few earlier. I don't consider the fact that large camps can't utilize all their space broken design at all. It simply means there are different considerations involved when running a small camp than a large one. There are plenty of ways large camps can utilize their space even though they may not be able to actively have 10+ factors and 50+ workshops operating at one time.
Currently a fraction of a point of fame loss done just before reset would result in damage to buildings at Custom Iron. I would suggest that any medium or larger camp (CI is one of the huge camps, btw) where this is not also true simply isn't being managed all that closely. This is one of the results of bigger camps not having enough base fame to run everything they can fit into their space. And currently any loss in SCL (or even on a regular scout against AI) clearly results in double digit losses in fame. So yes, under your proposed system every camp owner would be well advised to be online and monitoring camp fame at the weekly reset. Currently you can just avoid scheduling SCL matches at this time or scouting from/to camp around then. Your proposal results in fame losses where camp members aren't even involved. A buffer of 500 would essentially make your "fame pool" pointless, as it would mean every camp could operate as if it were a 500 fame camp. Only a couple of camps currently have a base fame that high (most/all? are small SS camps who can't even utilize all of it). And really your buffer idea isn't much different that what the rest of us are saying in terms of the "fame pool" being an additional amount of fame that camps can compete for to raise their fame above their base level. The difference largely being that with a safety buffer a camp could actually have 0 fame and still operate at whatever the buffer is. With a base fame system, camps at least have to maintain their base fame (something which is lost every week just like gang fame) to operate. |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 19, 2013, 9:04 am |
One thing that bothers me with how camps grow is the fame requirement. Seems to me there is a better and more logical way to set it up. For example, there is no real life equivilent to compare "what can I build" with "I have 100 fame!"
Here is how I think it would make more instinctive sense. FAME is used to attract WORKERS (NPCs) who do the menial labor. There should be a set Pool of laborers. Something based on the economic factors of Evan or the region the camp is in. These Laborers should be functional camp NPCs. You can use them to scout if you like but they are just unskilled laborers or matbe only skilled at their job. Carpenters may not shoot guns too well! If you get them KILLED you lost a worker! BUILDINGS: you can build as many as you want! But buildings and the euipment inside them require maintainence or they degrade into unusable shacks after a while (even IRL). So building more than your maintainence workers can keep maintained is a waste of resources. But if you want to waste them, then you shouldnt be limited. For a while un-maintained buildings and equipment will function fine. But after a while you either need maintainence workers or it's going to degrade. WORKERS: You hire from a Evan wide Pool. The quality of the NPC WORKER is based on your fame. As is the number available for you to recruit. If the Alley had triple the fame you do, then you can bet their pool is 3 times as large. a formula could control this. for example you have enough fame to hire 10 assembly line workers of skill 20 (requiring expenditure of say 10x20 fame... 200) or you could spend that 200 fame on 4 workers of skill 50 (4x50=200). in this way weekly fame is SPENT (and recovered on server refresh based on the fame level you are at that week. Fame becomes Currency. workers can be Assy Line, Construction/Maintainence, or whatever else. And have skills for each type of job. With a LACK of workers, you can put your gangers in there to do the work (poorly skilled at menial labor that they are) and cover the inadequacys of your poor management by degrading your gangs ability to scout or do town events (thus possible reducing your chance to recover the fame you need to correct the problem) Just some thoughts I had |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 11:06 am |
So you want to have a new mechanism to get richer, with a risk you'll be like it is now? I don't To all the people that are afraid they will have to work harder to swim against this imaginary current of doom, I say make the fame pool bigger! Or make events pay less fame, but remember the other 32 camps are sharing and only paying pennies of fame for your prize. Changing the size of the fame pool would be the easiest thing in the world for Sam, just one value to change. It's just a matter of fine tweaking the size of it within limits. If It's too big we all get richer, and fame changes slower. If it's too small we ALL get poorer, and are constantly competing against the player base, we need to find that sweet spot that still lets you feel like your making a difference, yet aren't burdened and it stops being fun. And remember you are not alone in this pool, others are loosing and gaining as well, I believe the system already floats by itself. And remember I proposed that high famed camps would loose more fame then low fame camps, if these modifiers were symmetrical between high and low fame camps, the fame pool would still stay the same size, that's crucial. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 11:25 am |
Take a look at Cry Havoc, used to be one of the best camps for a little while, it's fame was way up there
It's been abandoned for god knows how long, the last message in it's activity page is from 2013-01-04, it's members have done nothing since that time, and who knows how long before. It's workers are long gone they ran away because there was no food, the earliest wages i can see, paid in april 2065 (that's 3 months ago IRL) are $0. It's 31 mec shops are down to 94-92%, 7 factories down to 96%, oil plant 84%, metal plant 92%, stone plant 97%, 5 lockups 100% It's fame is still at 287 I think it's base fame was around 360 after weekly reset. Is this fame drop normal? what is the "acceptable" comfort level that we want to achieve? We should make a note of this, Then Sam can make a simulation of the new system for a few months, and let's see how it works for us. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 11:48 am |
Aan easy way to solve this would be in, going over your upkeep limit wasn't detrimental, staggered phases of bad things could be happening, like Stcrisp said have the moral/efficiency of the npc workers reduced at first, get some warnings on your camp page showing maybe a week in advance what will happen. And yeah I guess huge camps now aren't broken now because they can't use all that floor space, IF it doesn't costs too much to fill it with pumpkin fields, or what ever is the cheapest buildings are that are available.
Sorry I wasn't clear I was talking about upkeep points not fame points. And while at it why do we need so many zeros in the upkeep figures? example; If fame is 390 Maximum Building Upkeep: 37-41 Current Building Upkeep: 39
That would be an exploit, also camps could never get to 0 fame because they have their own random fame bonus. and to preserve the fame pool from getting corrupted by a camp going down bellow it's minimum, maybe it has to go? or take over by NPC gangs (but that's a scary monkey wrench waiting to be thrown in the cogs, rather not go there yet) |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 11:55 am |
I think fame the way Sam made it IS a currency, it's a big simplified vulgarization to do what it is your proposing I think, could be wrong. but I like these ideas, just beware of not making it possible to have a camp with no mecs of your own |
||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 19, 2013, 3:25 pm |
Without knowing the actual fame level when activity stopped, it's a bit hard to say, but that does seem low. That's 5 or 6 weekly resets and only a drop of about 12 or 13 fame per week. That's less than half of what I experience at CI each week. Of course, 360 is also not much fame, so it could be that Cry Havoc has been losing fame for a much longer period and the rate slows down. Personally, I think the rate of loss should speed up the longer a camp has been inactive, but I'm not planning on testing how it actually works with CI.
But under the current system, it really doesn't matter what fame Cry Havoc has, as without workers (who left for a reason having nothing to do with fame) the camp can't be producing anything anyway. There really is no negative impact on the game or anyone playing it that Cry Havoc has 287 fame or even 500 fame if no one is actually running it. It's a deserted ghost town or mining camp, which is still somewhat well known due to what it has done in the past. Btw, base fame as I've been using it (and I believe most in this thread) is not a camp's fame after the weekly reset but the max fame a camp can reach without getting bonuses of some sort. This currently does require that camps are active, as they will need to do some scouting every week to get back to that base - just like gangs need to do with their own morale.
Okay, that makes more sense in terms of a buffer. You really meant a buffer of 5 fame. I still point out that even with this buffer, many camp managers will probably need to be online at the reset since camp fame will be changing much more dynamically under your proposal. Currently any loss suffered by a camp will likely cost more than 5 fame. Sure, most vet based camps don't currently experience many losses (typically only SCL against other players) but camps with newbs do. When I ran Slack Shack, we took fame losses just about every day when newer players lost to the AI. Generally these would be offset by successful scouts, but there was no way to guarantee the timing of such events. Slack Shack is a very high fame camp occupy a small space though, so it never was an issue because there was no way to use all of the fame anyway. Under your proposal, I'm not clear exactly on how much fame will be lost due to a failed scout, but there will also be losses that a camp has no input into because they are simply losing fame as other camps engage in activities and win. I just don't see how this won't require more constant managing by the camp owners. This may not be a bad thing, but it certainly needs to be considered. As for why building upkeep is calculated based on a number that is 100 time the camp fame, this is due to how buildings use fame. The fact their activity level can be set at less than 100% means they can be using fractions of a fame point. The same thing could be accomplished using decimals, but Sam apparently preferred whole numbers. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 4:08 pm |
Ah ok, so make it a little wider or make the gap above the max upkeep? if fame is 390 Maximum Building Upkeep: 39-44 Current Building Upkeep: 39 |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 19, 2013, 7:16 pm |
So what kind of fame did you loose from noobs, were they getting a lot of blue text you think? And what your saying is that if the slack shack was a low fame camp, then it would have been a pita to manage? I've never managed a camp so i don't know how friday resets work, but i was under the impression under the current system you had to always check in to adjust upkeep. If you lost a lot of fame before friday and you didn't know it you were going to suffer damages? I think that's kinda of harsh, would prefer if we used last weeks fame to calculate this friday's reset for example, that possible? |
||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 20, 2013, 12:24 am |
Oh, Slack Shack was a pita to manage despite not having issues with fame. Its issues tended to involve the MR rating fluctuating due to mechs constantly coming and going and dealing with the vehicle CR limit or bulk storage limit. The latter often became a problem because people would leave vehicles (and gangers) at Slack and then stop playing. All of those vehicles and gangers still counted against the limit and needed to be fed. And were a real pain to try to get rid off. In terms of fame losses, typically it wouldnt be more than in the teens from a single scout, as newbs generally arent scouting with a large CR. And I suspect it varied quite a bit in terms of damage suffered - especially since some newbs often dont care too much about their fresh gangers dying. As I said, for a small camp that has a base fame way above what it is likely to use, this isnt likely to be an issue. Even if you dont have someone scouting to make up for the losses, it probably wont impact your building upkeep since youll be well below what your base fame permits. But for those camps which do operate at or near their base fame, even losing 1 point of fame near reset time could be a major problem.
Yes, a camp manager does currently need to check and adjust the upkeep. However, I can only think of two things which routinely impact a camps fame from week to week: 1) Scouting to/from camp, whether against AI or Wilderness PvP. 2) SCL matches. The first is fairly easy to plan around by simply not doing camp related scouts in whatever window just before the reset which makes the camp owner comfortable. Could be an hour; could be four days. From Friday to whenever that is, it usually isn't hard to get back to a camp's base fame. The second generally isnt an issue since most SCL matches occur on the weekends. The camp manager will have a couple days to figure out what losses or bonuses (and SCL matches can push camp fame above the normal base) the camp received and adjust building activity accordingly. Under the fame pool proposal, because camps lose fame in events that camp members arent even involved in or aware of, this becomes more difficult for camp managers to plan around. Even if those fame losses will be small as you say, if a camp manager is trying to get the most out of the camp, hell need to be online near the reset to see if some event somewhere has caused his fame to decline. Or to take advantage of increases if camp members are winning events. I like the idea of using fame at a previous time to determine the building upkeep at the next reset. That would certainly help avoid unexpected or last minute damages to a camp from fame loss. For example if a camp's fame was at 387 at the last weekly reset and today its fame is at 390, the information may look like this: Current Fame: 390 Maximum Building Upkeep at Reset: 38700 Current Building Upkeep: 38910 Target Building Upkeep: 38700 (And unless the entire way production works is being recoded, it does need to be written with all the extra 0s.  )
In this example, the camp is currently at 390 fame, but because they were at 387 at the previous reset, their building upkeep is lower than the current fame would suggest. The previous week they probably were at 390 or above, as the current upkeep is set to need at least 390 fame. The owner has also already made adjustments to building upkeep to meet the new requirement. Whatever happens with camp fame between now and the next reset, the camp will be fine with regard to building upkeep. Even under the current system, Id like this. But I have no idea how easy or difficult it might be for Sam to program. |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 20, 2013, 12:49 am |
The fame projections would be a nice feature.... and less aggravating come Thursday/Friday.
Can actually do proper planning rather than an arbitrary hit if the worst happens. |
||||||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Feb 20, 2013, 12:23 pm |
Thanks Tinker, this is a good idea in principle, I think.
There are lots of details potentially in this, and I think your approach was (quite correctly) to keep it simple and have a vote on the concept in general. If the vote is passed, I'll get some options drawn up and have another vote to pick the preferred one. I'll create a lobby advert about this so more people are aware. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 20, 2013, 11:24 pm |
Cool Sam
Also I think we would need to creat a simple mechanic that tries to pull the low and/or high famed from camps back into the pool to bring an "elastic"equilibrium. This would be to reconfort less active players against very active ones. I think people need to understand this for the vote to pass |
||||||||||||||
|
Jose Bagg Posted Feb 21, 2013, 3:03 am |
From a self promoting standpoint. Any new system would be best implemented at the end of a game year. Camps like the Alley, and at least 2 other camps spent considerable money to buy the league sponsorships. The full benefit of the game year should be enjoyed before changing the system. | ||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 21, 2013, 3:51 am |
Hell.. alot of it was my money in the first place. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Feb 21, 2013, 4:09 am |
You didnt pay peanuts! A few years ago, I spent 88 million on two sponsorships for Longoville, haha
|
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 21, 2013, 4:54 am |
Cuz yer a overly rich dumbazz
|
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 21, 2013, 5:36 am |
Well, there are a lot of things in this idea that will just make running a camp more of a pain in the ass to most owners/managers. To me, I like that so it wont effect me so much, but I can see that you will likely have a few more camps that loose interest and get shuttered. As for a vote goes on changing how camps would be managed, just think the vote should be based more on camp owners/managers thoughts than those that have no experience with camps. | ||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 21, 2013, 5:53 am |
Myself.... while I am dubious currently...
I would like to see a full write up of the possible plans with the reaching effects before I make a decision. I will not turn anything down or advocate it at this time, until I see more. |
||||||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Feb 21, 2013, 7:05 pm |
the camp i have now in ss wont benifit from any fame anyway i have it at 540 fame and can only use 390 of it, so to me its a big no. | ||||||||||||||
|
Jose Bagg Posted Feb 21, 2013, 7:19 pm |
Don't ovelook the part where all camps are PVP open. Thats the best part of this new idea. | ||||||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Feb 21, 2013, 7:34 pm |
yeah if you want a bunch of flame wars, i can see it now, some spent alot of money to build there camps and some assholes will send in there 300 skill gangers with tg and destroy it all. sounds like fun for some , not for others. | ||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 21, 2013, 7:36 pm |
You might want to read the first post in this thread again - all camps being PVP open is not part of this poll according to Tinker. |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 21, 2013, 8:26 pm |
How does "win fame in Town Events" suddenly translate into "your camp is now PvP Open"? Seems to me this was (in Bold huge Orange) "Not about PvP" but about camps themselves being able to gain/lose fame without being forced to engage in Wilderness PvP |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 21, 2013, 8:32 pm |
I'll take some of it! I only have 243 when at maximum and cant even run my 1 facility at 100%. Why cant I spend more supplies, have it take more time, and build a mech shop on stilts on the lake edge? Hard to get any kind of mech rating going when some camps have 20 shops and I cant even fit more than 5 beacause of the map itself. Not that I can pay upkeep for them due to such a low Fame Cap... or run my factory at anything over 75% (if I shut my water plant down to 1% that is...) |
||||||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Feb 21, 2013, 8:36 pm |
StCrispi is that the camp very close to elms with a very large amount of stone lol i built that camp shipped a ton of stone there lol
if i could package my extra fame i could sell a sponsorship make millions lol |
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 21, 2013, 9:00 pm |
That be Ft.Raijuuk, 8 miles from Elms. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 22, 2013, 9:34 am |
Though i'd bring this point back for closer examination. So is it worth limiting any of this? I would hate to limit just because of a vague fear for something that has not happened yet. I don't see a problem now with it, at least with the first point, but if someone does please stand up The way Alliances work is they add their fame then divide it by how many camps they have, also since only 1 player from 1 camp in the alliance can win and event for said alliance, it means the alliance (if it was big) would gain a little less fame since it's other camps also need to give back to the pool for not winning. Because if a big alliance wanted to go after a single camp for instance, it would loose more fame if it lost (the bigger it is the more it sands to loose), the single camp winner if they won, would get more fame. And if a big alliance was enemies with multiple independent camps it would also have more too loose with the same mechanic It's a natural Anti-grief side benefit, which is a good thing. And easily role playable. |
||||||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Feb 22, 2013, 2:10 pm |
well i for one dont want any part of any alliances with any other camps, nor do i want more members in my small ss camp, i dont do town events, and shouldnt be forced into doing them to get fame, i only use a little over 390 fame to run my camp, but if i scout from camp it gets as high as 540, i really dont care whatever is decided, i wont be participating in any fame pools and shouldnt be forced into it to get fame to run my camp, if other want to fight each other go for it but i dont want any part of that, i have better things to do than read a bunch of flame comments in a thread about whoever, been there done that. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 22, 2013, 3:23 pm |
You can do scouts if you like from any town, it all works for any events |
||||||||||||||
|
Ragnak Posted Feb 22, 2013, 3:32 pm |
[quote=*Tinker*][quote]
The way Alliances work is they add their fame then divide it by how many camps they have, also since only 1 player from 1 camp in the alliance can win and event for said alliance, it means the alliance (if it was big) would gain a little less fame since it's other camps also need to give back to the pool for not winning. Because if a big alliance wanted to go after a single camp for instance, it would loose more fame if it lost (the bigger it is the more it sands to loose), the single camp winner if they won, would get more fame. And if a big alliance was enemies with multiple independent camps it would also have more too loose with the same mechanic It's a natural Anti-grief side benefit, which is a good thing. And easily role playable. [/quote] I dont see it that way at all. Alliances should be what they are today which are pacts made between players but which have no internal workings within DW itself. If a camp loses a fight, the particiapnts of that fight should pay the bill. Not some alliance mechanic. I also think your line on alliances having more to risk as complete BS. Even if we go with your suggestion, the fame hit for the alliance would be spread out over all the camps in the group thus minimizing that fame loss. Also, you are strictly talking about single events and not taking in consideration the overall effect a war has between a large group of players (represented by the alliance) and a single camp (few players) in which the alliance will most assuredly win by attrition on the small camp. |
||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 22, 2013, 4:07 pm |
One question I have is how will it determine which camp gets/loses fame if a person belongs to multiple camps? Will a camp flag need to be flown for every type of event? Currently, setting a camp flag on a scout is only relevant for PVP combats. And you can't set a flag for town events. If flags must be set, what happens if a player forgets or chooses not to set a flag? |
||||||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Feb 22, 2013, 5:13 pm |
and we need this because? let me take a guess, the large camps dont have enough fame to fill all there space so they can create 10 or more factories, crank out rares that the small camps cant make, then they can use those rares to supply there members to war on the smaller camps that cant make them lol i get it now, still a big no for me. | ||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 22, 2013, 5:24 pm |
Yeah, thats about how I see it too! | ||||||||||||||
|
*Snipe* Posted Feb 22, 2013, 5:36 pm |
HA - I agree......I am strangely silent on this because I try to stay out of camps for the most part. That exact reason - too easy to get "hard" stuff.
But even tho I am silent - I am still checking out what people are talking about. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Feb 22, 2013, 5:56 pm |
I think the idea is good... maybe should implement something for next season as a test pilot... 3 of the least participated events with a mediocre amount of fame to be gained...very simple rules of group fame, and go from there | ||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 22, 2013, 7:02 pm |
Somebody just fired a big nuclear-tipped torpedo...
|
||||||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Feb 22, 2013, 10:39 pm |
I don't know how it all got so complicated. Doesn't need to be. Its simple to assign different bonuses to wining different leagues (bonus fame bonus mr bonus camp factory. .what the fk ever). For wild pvp I still don't understand why not an optional system of fighting for tokens.
Never take away from players with a change ..its gotta be an addition. I have learn this much from players. Btw Tinkers system is has nothing to do with "big camps" or the alley...frankly I don't think I am for that system at all (but reserve my worries until a final draft is put forward). My own hope with a camp change of some sort is competition and I would prefer its not forced. We were promised this a year ago and either the rc dropped the ball...sam got side tracked (scav...new content etc). I subbed for a whole year on that prmise ..personally. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 22, 2013, 11:46 pm |
I disagree, the alliance system would bring a bit decision making to the table, camp owners must weight the pros and cons to forming ties with others, your saying that's nonsense, but I say it's what happens when groups get together, something new happens. the alliance is not a "mechanic" it's the direct effects of the pool system. Now if you want to make another mechanic on top of that because the way it is now isn't the best idea, i'm fine with that, but I think it stands on it's own two legs already by itself. The pros would be if they had an active player base The cons are less fame to win from an active player base, and more fame to loose from an inactive player base, than a single camp.
I forget what page but I talked about camps setting other camps' status to enemy, or neutral. Might need more fleshing out neutral: no fame modifier alliance/friendly: no fame modifier enemy: -25% fame modifier (off the top of my head) An alliance of 10 camps loosing an event against a camp would loose 25% extra fame x 10 to the pool. The winning camp would get his regular amount of fame, and all the other camps would loose a bit less fame than normal. (maybe a single camp should get a bit extra, sure it's a snap for sam to tweak, as long as the fame pool stays the same) Role play : big alliance penalized from sheer embarrassment If the same alliance won it would get less fame then if the single camp had won because 9 of it's member camps would loose fame too because they did not place 1st in the town event, this time at the normal rate. For wilderness group pvp, all camps in the events on the wining side would not loose fame, so the alliance would get more of a normal fame amount, they would all have to be present to get the normal amount. This fame would be distributed evenly to all it's camps. Single camp would loose 25% extra fame then normal. All the other camps would loose fame at the normal rate. Role play: Big alliance won, it is a big vague cooperation it doesn't deserve the same amount of fame as a single player in peoples' memories. Also i'm still not sure if an enemy who does not participate in the event should be penalized, in my heart I feel it should. But maybe there's a better way. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 22, 2013, 11:50 pm |
I was thinking about this then forgot to post I was thinking from the gang page you can set a "master" camp for this purpose, preferably with a check box to make it your default setting in your squad pages. edit: and you can't belong to two camps that are enemies, and maybe not with a camp that belongs to another alliance if you have one too. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:03 am |
Not that easy, if the fame pool is made the right size, to make super stuff a camp or maybe a couple camps would have to suck a LOT of fame out of the pool, the consequence being that the rest of the camps would have less fame, and would hopefully react. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:04 am |
why not do the full monty as a simulation? |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:16 am |
Try making a system were you can have competition and a sense your doing "something" with your brethren, it's more complicated then what we have now for sure, but i think I boiled it down as simple as possible, while still being truly dynamic.
Hate to be blunt, but I believe this is an "addition"
Yeah i'm trying to do my best improving the system we have now. I wish people would stop looking after their interests at the detriment of the community.
Competition concretely means a winer and a looser, it sucks to be the looser yeah, but can't have one without the other. |
||||||||||||||
|
Ragnak Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:41 am |
You're kind of stuck on the alliance and the effect of a single event.
My point is that alliances dont play a single event and be done with it. The players of an alliance play many events. For the sake of comparison, lets say an alliance comprised of 5 active players takes on a small camp with one active player. If the small camp wins the one event and the alliance loses a chunk of fame, dont you think 5 players playing a couple events will more than overcome that one loss. What if that alliance had Juan in it doing the 48 hour grind session? My point is that alliances will easily overpower any casual players and camps simply due to the sheer number of events they can play over a weeks time. Rather than taking Sam's time for setting up a trial, I would much rather see his time spent on other enhancements like ped scouting (into the ruins) instead. |
||||||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:51 am |
well i dont like it and wont use my camp in any fame pool, if others want to fine, but i dont want to be forced into the fame pool because frankly it wont help anyone with a small camp that cant get rares anyway, more fame is useless for a smaller camp, keep it where i dont loose the 540 fame i can get on my own and its fine, it only benifits the larger camps, not everyone gives a crap about fame especially me and its not right to punish smaller camps by taking away there fame. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 1:03 am |
Are you taking into account that that victim camp is sharing to replenish the pool along with the other 31 other camps for the wining alliance's fame? And that the pools will naturally seek to restabilize it's self? If we see it's not fair in the simulation for someone I'm sure Sam can fix it You say it will be doom for a camp against an alliance... you don't think even the most picked on player doesn't have friends with a camp to declare that alliance an enemy and strike back? a multi non-aligned camp attack on an alliance would be a disadvantage to the alliance same as guerrilla tactics |
||||||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 11:44 am |
Predicting player behaviour/reactions in this regard is not a sure thing by a long way Tink.
As Darth mentioned, and as Joel alluded to, I would agree that camp fame in of by itself is unbalanced due to camp size restrictions. No point having the extra fame if you can't make use of it, so why would a camp owner bother to get involved? There are already many ways of gaining fame (pooled or otherwise) , we don't need any more (indeed less is arguable). MR boosts and things like that would probably be more useful and thus more desired. Even the smaller camps with lower skilled mechs would have something worth fighting for. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:23 pm |
Nope but they have more options
You seem to be saying that small camps would be at a disadvantage. Well it seems to me small camps ARE at a disadvantage now also. Fame pool doesn't invalidate small camps just because it doesn't bring financial incentives to them, like I said again and again if small camps need a boost find it else were with another mechanic. |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:34 pm |
Which is why fame should be used as a currency in this proposed system instead of how it is used now as a limiting factor of what maximum ammount of money can be spent on camp upkeep.
True I could use more fame. But not much. As my maximum allowable fame stands (243) I can fun my water pump at 1% and my factory at 77% and have 5 mech shops. The map wont allow me to have more shops than this, I dont drink more than 2% water output. So a tiny increase would put me at 100% across the board. I'd rather "win" fame and then SPEND it on things. such as perhaps Hiring a 250 Mech NPC for a week to work the shops. Or get a MR boost for the week. Or something of that nature. I think fame should be more like Hero points: spendable. Although there needs to be something useful to spend them on (unlike HPs). If I win 125 "fame" over the course of however long... I could spend them. Say 25 FP to hire a 150 mech for a week. Poof, I now have 100 FP and poof a 150 mech is working in my shops as a "trainer advisor efficiency expert" or whatever. Then I spend 50 on a celebration party for the NPC workers in the factory and poof I have a 50% productivity boost for the week or something. Now I have 50 FP left. SOMETHING other than the current "I have X fame so I can spend $25,000 on upkeep even though I have a million in my pocket." oh... Hey lets drive to BL and bribe some Alley NPC factory workers with our last 50 fame on food and booze and convince them to slack off at work and not make so many weapons this week. or better yet, sabotage one of those Tank Guns on a defense car or camp scouter so that (unbeknownst to it's owner) it explodes when fired! Boom! the crew takes a free blue hit equivilent to a grenade or something. Now that type of stuff would be pretty fun. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:52 pm |
Disadvantage? Nope, just nothing to gain from it in reality as the extra fame cannot be used for anything - so if we are being hard headed about it why would they risk anything? Also, just because they are already at a disadvantage doesn't make it okay to perpetuate or increase that disadvantage. Futhermore, you want the maximum number of camps involved not fewer. Essentially, the famed pool idea is (imo) a good one. I just think the discussion needs to be wider and look at differing options. Crispy's idea seems a decent avenue to explore - especially if we are talking about adding to player choice rather than restricting it (though I may not agree with all of it). |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 23, 2013, 12:55 pm |
What is fame?
The way fame works, i think Sam made something that can role played in many different ways. I myself see it as a currency, if you can see "influence" as a currency. Crisp, maybe you got a good idea there, keep the fame pool idea but be able to sell extra fame for beefing up your shops and facilities, that would solve the small camp limitations. The beauty of the fame pool is that you will see the emergence of different power centers, that ebbs and flows according to tides of the players actively playing spanning months or even years perhaps |
||||||||||||||
|
Kodi Posted Feb 23, 2013, 6:31 pm |
[quote=StCrispin]
As long as Events with only 1 player create no fame. and events containing 2 or more players of the same camp/alliance/faction (whatever is used for alegiences) do not create fame.[/quote] Haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if this has been mentioned/discussed already. An easy fix for this issue would be to allow NPC factions to win fame. They could use their accumulated fame to then purchase tweaks to engines for races and purchase a second wave of additional cars for scouts. Giving NPC gangs better loot cars for fame only really benefits players, we need to give them stuff that will truly increase the difficulty level of a fight if the NPC gang accumulates a lot of fame. Extra cars and perhaps much better gangers should do the trick. Then allow the NPC gangers skill stats to be modified to make them competitive with the skills of the human gangers they are racing/fighting against. So for example if someone takes a 300 skill driver into a race vs. NPC gangs, all the NPC drivers should be within 50 points +/- of the best human driver. Gunners should be within +/- 50 points of the best human skilled gunner on the field, etc. Actually when I think about it further, perhaps NPC gunners should roll stats on a one for one basis. So every human ganger on the field of a shooting battle is responsible for the stats of one NPC ganger. So in mixed scouts with both old timer and newbie human players involved, the NPC gangers they face will be similarly mixed. That way it will be very hard for someone to enter events solo to try and grind out fame. The challenge level should be preserved for newbie's and old timers alike if NPC gangers skills scale up or down with who they are facing. |
||||||||||||||
|
Jose Bagg Posted Feb 23, 2013, 6:42 pm |
Pretty sure the best thing to do is not change anything about how the game works except the idea of a fame pool.
Leave fame alone, leave the mechanic alone, just change the way fame is distributed. If it works, and that is a big if, you can play around with different ideas for how to use fame. |
||||||||||||||
|
Celticfrost Posted Feb 23, 2013, 10:07 pm |
Personally I think the fame pool idea is destined for failure, but I think the bonus to MR pool would be a wonderful idea, people fight and compete for a boos tin MR which actually would help small camps just as much as large ones. Tinker, by your own admonition you really don't know anything about camps or how they work. Yet you champion a system that most camp owners and managers seem to be weary of at best, and are vehemently opposed to at worst. Why can you not consider their suggestions a bit more?
As a former camp owner, I look at your proposed system and see many headaches for managers, and probably for newbies as well. I hate to say it but I have had members in the past, who lose enough events I would absolutely consider booting them from my camp. |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 24, 2013, 12:04 am |
Mech Rating is far more valuable IMHO than Fame.
Fame allows you to build more building. Mech Rating allows for better items to be built and repaired. However...... Tinker, messing with the mechs is the only thing that lowers the rating. Raising it where the PvP is really valuable
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 24, 2013, 12:18 am |
If I understand camps correctly, MR is what differentiates big camps from small camps, because buildings are a big part of it, and small camps are limited by space, I see boosting MR as making big and small camps more similar which is the wrong direction to go. I prefer Crisp's idea of buying "favors" with your fame, that fame would go back into the pool and raise everyone else's fame a bit, I like how the pool illustrates the fame of camps relative to each other.
I think that if a camp owner can base his weekly settings on last week's fame, that would fix the problem, or most of them. Now if you want to be finicky about just how many points you can squeeze out, you will have to try your best and see, because it won't be capped anyways |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 24, 2013, 12:20 am |
Uh sorry? can you elaborate, I have no idea what your saying... |
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 24, 2013, 7:19 am |
Considering alot of aspects of the game feel 25% to 75% implemented in the first place and lacking function, I think a decent thing to do IS change how the game works fundimentally. For example: The economy FEELS like it was supposed to be player driven. With cargo runs from towns that produce items that other towns lack, with Camps making things that towns need. With the AI gangs trying to mess that up. With NPC autonomy functioning to change the overall status of the world based on player interaction with towns. With players changing things through scouts and missions. And yet the extent of the "dynamic" side of our world is slight declines in scrap prices for goods, and getting rep for hunting the "pirate of the week" famed AI gangs. i mean WTF? thats NOT all this is supposed to include in a "Dynamic World" is it? Fundimentally changing camps in this way and OTHER WAYS as well, PLUS fundimentally changing the economic dynamics of the world, the effects of gameplay upon the persistant environment, and a working NPC/AI world population and what they DO in their daily lives (simulation) to produce goods, gear, and gangers would create an ever shifting environment that keeps things fresh. Unfortunatly thats ALOT of work. and ALOT of beta testing and bug repair, and tweaking. so I doubt DW will ever reach that point. Not to mention the fact we'd never agree on any of it anyway. But I can dream and Role Play it in my head that im playing DW the way it could be... |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 25, 2013, 2:32 am |
FYI This is a representation of the fame pool showing the 33 camps in it today, and if you total all the fame it comes out to 14,292.
This shows how much "influence" or currency each camp has in relation to each other. 
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Splash* Posted Feb 25, 2013, 9:04 am |
Time to find a different game, buddy...
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 25, 2013, 10:07 am |
Would be cool to have a pie chart in the gazette.
If it was possible to have a color to show camps and alliances that were enemies and aligned opposite each other on that chart that would rock |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 25, 2013, 12:23 pm |
I really like this system because some groups of players could come along one day and shake things up, make a name for themselves, grab a bigger slice of the pie, stay a while, then play some other game for a while, leave come back try harder if they wanted... I think the fame pool is large enough not to curb other people's fun while competing with each others. If you don't want to compete that's fine too, I don't predict any big changes for those players. | ||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 25, 2013, 1:20 pm |
Mech Rating: Is the minimum statistic for the creation of items within a camp, the ability to repair items and vehicles, and the amount of Mechanic Units within to do repairs/modifications per day.
Right now only 3 things modify that. The total quantity and quality of Mechanics within a Camp The amount of mechanics shops (Influenced by fame) The mechanic rating modifier which can range from 0% to 30% (Gained by inflicting injuries on opponents during Camp Attacks, PvP events such as SCL, Intercepts of flagged enemy squadrons) Say you have a mechanic rating of 130 but have a bonus of 30%.. Combined you are a total MR 169 which is a *very* nice number @ 169 Mech Rating a camp can.... Have roughly 6500 points daily to do repairs and modifications Build Mounted Mortars, Turins, and 5Lv12's Repair lasers etc.
|
||||||||||||||
|
PA Racers Posted Feb 25, 2013, 1:49 pm |
LOL! | ||||||||||||||
|
Tez Posted Feb 25, 2013, 1:58 pm |
In all seriousness, do you even know how camps work at all? Not knowing what NPC workers do or what MR is doesn't convince me. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Feb 25, 2013, 2:55 pm |
This here is the main problem, too many camps and not enough players. |
||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Feb 25, 2013, 6:06 pm |
Based on what evidence? Simply the number? At most there appear to only be a couple of camps which may not be operating fully. And camps which aren't running, don't really impact anyone. How is having 33 camps a problem? Or 29,30,31 - however many are actually operating. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 25, 2013, 11:05 pm |
Yeah tanks I knew all that Your comment was ambiguous and wanted us on the same page
edit: I was under the impression that factories might also give a little MR, or was that the workshops, and the factories give a little extra lockup space? |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 25, 2013, 11:09 pm |
Problem? can you elaborate? too many camps is not a problem since they all share in the fame loss (hence a tiny bit each) that is given to a camp that wins an event. The amount of players doesn't bother me either since it all scales is there few or many. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 25, 2013, 11:37 pm |
You seem to be saying that fame would 'only' lower mec rating, how pessimistic. It would rise and fall with to the whims of the community, it would be analogous to an ocean with waves of different heights sinking and rising. PvP in my mind would only increase that amount (because of Sam's "more damage more skill/fame gain" principal), regular PvE will of course influence it more in a gradual swirling background kind of way. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:14 am |
And I really think StCrisp has a good idea with NPC workers, although this would fall under another mechanic, i think there is huge potential to polish things.
For example you use your influence/favors to recruit some talented workers, they stay for a season or less IF your camp starts to loose a lot of fame. You wouldn't nessecerally be able to pick exactly the skill level you want but you could ask for a ammo smith, a suv chassis specialist, weapon expert etc etc.. Also talented NPC workers could also allow you to retool factories cheaper and faster. They could also have a hidden loyalty figure, and could tie into factions, i.e. your good with X faction and have fame to burn, you get a rare gem of a worker that stays longer as long as the camp owner is good with that faction. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Splash* Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:52 am |
Yeah, at the very least, having an additional mechanic specialism like "fabricator" makes a lot of sense. | ||||||||||||||
|
Philyn Posted Feb 26, 2013, 2:07 am |
I agree that changing things about camp would be good. I Strongly Disagree that any Fame should be gained from town events. I have everyone in camp. I may only scout 3 times a week at times but these could be hours long scouts depending on what I run up against. So I am risking all my equipment, my gangers etc against high level opponents at 3 to 1 odds because of my location. It is not fair to give Fame away for little or no risk and be able to do it all day.
I think the pool may work but only from scouts from the camp. This would limit someone who can play all day to those of us with jobs. You could only scout until you run out of vehicles or the ability to repair them. If you want fame in the wild scout out there. I know this has started as a fame issue so I do have a suggestion there. Keep the current sponsorships but offer smaller ones on a bunch of the other leagues and limit the number of sponsorships a camp can have. So if you get a large sponsorship you can't have a smaller one. This keeps one camp from gobbling them up and allows smaller camps to be able to get added fame. |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 26, 2013, 2:51 am |
You and Splash have some nice suggestions I think... good money sinks too
|
||||||||||||||
|
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 26, 2013, 4:01 am |
So what limits the people who can scout from camp all day? Scouting from camp protects you from letting others compete for your fame. It merely becomes fame farming instead of a competition. While I think scouting from camp should provide a small abount of fame, it is ISOLATED from the knowlage of the towns HUNDREDS of miles away where you are famous fo the actions. How can you gain fame with a towns people if they have no way of seeing what you did? In a town event, they see. Is Joe Montana famous? Pretty much. Why? because his athletic activities were viewed by people. What about Bubba Joe Briskett? nope. no one has seen anything he's done. Fame isnt accomplishing some great achievement, it's publicity. Scouting from camp, at best should have a DELAYED fame influence. EVENTUALLY the word spreads, but if you smoke 50 guys from some raider gang in SS will the people in Sarsfield hear about it the next day? No. But they WILL know who won the latest League race. (they are probable betting on it too) |
||||||||||||||
|
*Splash* Posted Feb 26, 2013, 4:07 am |
Thanks, Necro.
A minor suggestion, but I'm all for character expansion and customization. Mechs are so importaint to this game, and yet, there's really not much that differentiates them from each other, apart from their final skill level. Perhaps that's another thread, though... |
||||||||||||||
|
Philyn Posted Feb 26, 2013, 4:32 am |
Camps have only so much available workload. At some point you would burn through it and not have cars repaired to scout with.
Fine if you want to go that route but I think that should be PvP and it already exists in the game.
So now I have to move people from camp to become promoters in a town. Then what is the point of a camp. You might as well have a little workshop connected to the town to make your own stuff. Camps are about risks. Town events don't have any. |
||||||||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Feb 26, 2013, 5:07 am |
Town events have more risk involved than scouting from camp does. When was the last time you went scouting from camp and found yourself competing against another player? | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 26, 2013, 6:19 pm |
I think fame in scouts should be worth more than in common town events, since it's cut throat out there, it's not like playing fairly by the rules in a town event should be worth more fame just because more towns people are there to see it imo. Now leagues and combats are more entertaining in that respect and better fame should come out of them.
The fame pool needs to be open to the maximum kind of events, so not to penalizes different play styles. Plus it works better in RP terms. I also talked about the fame pool trying to even out itself with time, bringing camps with high fame down and camps with low fame up. But now I think, if possible I'd like to see high famed camps go down faster with a curb less steep as you get to lower famed camps, that's more realistic and less artificial perhaps, and should come out to the same result at the end, i think.
Yeah good idea have more sponsorships for the smaller less known leagues |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 26, 2013, 6:27 pm |
That's one way to RP it, I see it more has a club of camps, were each knows about the others existence and reputation, so in that spirit, the fame pool is less about towns' reaction to your camp but more about other peoples' camps vie a vie to yours. (think Brooke's tales) |
||||||||||||||
|
*Rezeak* reecestensel@hotmail.co.uk Posted Feb 26, 2013, 7:13 pm |
Plus some camps are actually closer to town than people have the option to scout out away from said town, for instance Fort Raijuuk is only 8 miles away from elms and the brickyard only 47 miles from BL |
||||||||||||||
|
Philyn Posted Feb 26, 2013, 11:16 pm |
One other thing I think would not be fair is to have all the camps with the same base level fame.
Person A has a camp 8 miles from town up north say. He can get stuff there quickly and has a great supply of food and water. The scouts from camp are easier. Person B has a camp down south whose closest town is 500 miles away. Food and water are expensive if you can even find any and scouting is much more difficult. Like I said I am OK with change but it needs to be fair and well thought out. And just to make the point again I don't know how winning a race in town even compares to going up against a 500 famed NPC and bringing in (10) bounties. Phi |
||||||||||||||
|
Necrotech Posted Feb 27, 2013, 12:01 am |
It's not even close.... to the same thing
|
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Feb 27, 2013, 5:53 pm |
Agreed
I think camps closer to towns should have tougher opponents, just like scouts, this to offset camps very far away who regularly must complete 2 events to get home.
Fuel is more expensive up north, but yeah it's difficult operating a camp in the heart of high famed pirates, not sure how fair that is lol (sarcasm) :p
I'm sure reding a ton of high famed bad guys will help fame, but doesn't stop camps up north from doing the same from towns down south, remember ALL events contribute to the camp's fame. |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Mar 9, 2013, 12:22 am |
Have all the questions been answered? can the people who have been holding back to see were this was going put in their votes? | ||||||||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Mar 9, 2013, 1:18 am |
What's the point of voting for or against this?
Until Sam actually puts out something with real numbers and clear direction as to how it works, I really don't see what there is to vote on. This is still at the level of "There will be one fame pool from which all camps get their fame. If your camp members do things and win, you get fame. If your camp members do thing and lose, you lose fame. Even if your camp members don't do anything, you lose fame." Then again, what makes you think that anyone who cares hasn't voted? |
||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Mar 9, 2013, 10:23 am |
People said they were holding out, Sam said he would make an official vote if this thread had enough support, right now he's not very convinced. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Mar 9, 2013, 10:42 am |
I really like the idea that fame effects activities evan wide, and Id like that to tie in with factions and markets and the weather, but I thinks its going to be a huge task. | ||||||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Apr 22, 2013, 10:57 pm |
As of now (2 months later) CH is at 265 fame, I think there as been no fame gains, at least none i can see from the activities page. |
||||||||||||||
|
*The X Man* Posted Nov 25, 2014, 7:25 pm |
Just curious if anything further has been done with this thread? Becoming a recent camp manager, I was looking at this a possibilities to enhance camp and their activity.
I do not know a lot about how camps truly run and was hoping to find a thread that gave more specifics on maximizing their potential. But the fame pool ideas here could be something to look into. My take on this, so all the the different types of camps and players can benefit. Why not keep the fame set as is (so regular/casual players can run their camps) but add a fame pool above camps capped fame. This gives the competitive camps something to fight for through leagues, events, defenses and PVP. Players and camps who don't wish to engage in this won't be affected and everything remains the same for them. The same pool as discussed here may need adjusting, but now there becomes way for camps that hit that dead end to achieve more. There now becomes more of a reason to play and compete to boost fame. Camps have a PVP flag to designate who wishes to compete for the fame in the "Bonus" pool, so it should be easy to identify which camps would be eligible. Just a few thoughts thrown out there to see if this makes sense for camp owners and managers. I would like to hear some opinions to see if this is something worth pursuing further. |
||||||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Nov 26, 2014, 12:05 am |
GL dude | ||||||||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Nov 26, 2014, 6:09 am |
Zombie thread
Sorry X, even with Steam there's maybe 5 active players per camp atm. Most camps appear to be partially active at best. To many other issues to consider and I'm sure you've noticed we've lost some Steam lately in the activity area. I'd suggest devoting most energies into trying to keep players active and new players helped/scouted with as much as possible to have some retention. (Beats zombie thread back with X's COE trophy I borrowed) Here ya go, sorry has some zombie thread stuff on it. |