[Skyshard Heroes] Suggestions to fix conquest

10 posts

Flag Post

Right now, while conquest is great fun, I think we can all agree that it is also broken. There’s no feeling of building an empire, of carving out a piece of territory for yourself. The main reason for that is that lands change hands too quickly and too easily. You can spend days building up territory, but once someone else takes it, everything on it is immediately theirs. And all lands are pretty much inter-exchangeable. Sure some gives special bonuses, but what I mean is that it doesn’t matter if your territories are scattered about or not, it doesn’t matter where you attack, or who.

Add to this the three hour protection rule. It serves a good purpose, but also some nasty side effects. The result is that no matter how carefully you defend your empire, and no matter how strong you are, someone can always just walk in, and as long as they take at least 1 territory every 3 hours, you can never ever eject them. Even monks can only stop others from taking their lands by using a second alliance to block for them. Surely that’s not an intended mechanic.

I’ve been thinking about ways to fix this, and I have come up with a number of suggesetions. Most of these are independent of each other, in the sense that you can implement one without doing implementing the other. Though I think they enhance each other and give a really good result together. I’ve ordered them roughly on how drastic a change they are, with smaller (and easier to implement) changes coming first.

1) First of all, greatly increase the size of the map. The map is too small to allow a large number of guilds to live. Make it bigger. A lot bigger. At least twice its current size (4x the number of tiles). This should be very simple to do. On its own it doesn’t really fix anything, but it’s still a necessary first step. I’d suggest starting new territories with citadel 3 or maybe even 4, so they aren’t too far behind.

2) My first major idea is loyalty. The system is very simple: For every hour you hold a tile, your guild gains one loyalty point on that tile, and every other guild loses 1 point. Loyalty starts are 0 and is capped at 100. Every point of loyalty gives a straight 1% bonus to both health and damage of everything. Buildings, units, heroes. So if two guilds have equal loyalty, it cancels out and combat is unchanged. But if one has more loyalty than the other, they are much stronger. This means it’s easier to defend lands you have held for a long time, and even if you do lose them, they are easier to retake, provided you take them back before your loyalty decays significantly. So building up an empire becomes easier, while hit-and-run tactics become harder. You can still grow, but it’ll be a more steady process. Note that you do not have to hold a territory continuously to have a lot of honor. As long as you hold it most of the time, loyalty will slowly increase.

3) My second idea: Guild capitals! The guild leader can designate a tile their guild holds as the capital. This tile receives a huge bonuses to defence and attack, (and perhaps also production and building time), but more importantly this bonus extends to neighbouring tiles. Again the idea is to stimulate building up slowly. It’d like to see new guilds settle a relatively unpopulated corner of the map, plant their flag, and then slowly begin building their empire. Clashing with their neighbours as they expand, leading to interesting wars.
This idea can of course be implemented in many different ways, so let me flesh it out a bit more (though I’m open to suggestions and improvements).
- The capital gets a 100% bonus to building health and tower damage. All 8 tiles surrounding it get a 75% bonus, all tiles bordering these get 50%, all tiles bordering those 25%, etc. For the 50% bonus and below, only tiles that border horizontally or vertically count, not diagonally. This is basically the ‘fat cross’ system from Civilization 4, for those familiar with the game. It gives a rough circle shape.
- This pattern could extend further out. Three tiles away gives 25% bonus, four tiles no bonus, five tiles gives a 25% penalty, six tiles a 50% penalty, seven tiles a 75% penalty and finally 8 tiles a 95% penalty. This obviously as a replacement of the current penalty for having too many territories.
- The bonus / penalty would also apply to attacking units and heroes. Probably only to attack though, otherwise it would become unbalanced. The exact numbers probably need work anyway. But the idea is that territories close to your capital are easier to defend ánd attack, while further out it becomes harder.
- If your capital is conquered, it is destroyed (well, it’s not an actual building. But the tile’s capital status is lost). The guild can not build a new capital for 24 hours, and gets a huge combat penalty for the duration of that period.
- You can move your capital once a day without penalties.
- Some restrictions should probably apply: You can not build a capital next to another one, and (if this is implemented together with my suggestion about loyalty) you can only start a capital in a tile hwere you have more loyalty than any other guild.

4) Finally I’d like to suggest making a more interesting map. Add impassable tiles (Call them mountains, or lakes. Or even both), and make some nice chokepoints. Perhaps add rivers, which give a penalty for attacking over them. The map also doesn’t have to be square. A more radical, but probably pretty hard to implement, idea would be to change the map to hegaxons. Hegaxons are much better than squares from a strategic perspective.

I think these ideas, especially together, have real potential. I did put some thought into the numbers I used, but I won’t pretend to have exactly balanced everything. Some tiles may become a bit too strong with this setup. A bastion with capital status and 100% loyalty would have 300% HP and attack bonus. Then again, it’s not supposed to be easy to take a capital. I know others have suggested adding guild levels. The capital bonus could depend on guild level.

One final note: I really dislike the 3 hour protection after conquering a tile. I see why it’s there, but it leads to really sucky strategies. I think with the above, it will be a lot less needed. Though I’m not sure if it could be removed alltogether. Definitely greatly reduced though. Some more thought is needed. Which, I guess, is my final final note: if the devs like these ideas, I’d be more than willing to help flesh them out a bit more.

 
Flag Post

You my friend, need to learn code ;P you’d make an excellent dev!

 
Flag Post

I think most of your idea are great, some might need a tweak, but I disagree with the hexagonal thing since it’s more common than unique. I might be wrong, but the other games that had a similar conquest system had hexagonal lands, hence why I disagree.

The conquest map thing being enlarged is a planned update once the servers can handle that much of a big map.

As for the capitol (yes, capitol, not capital), I think it should simply not be allowed to place it on buildings such as Bastion, guilds, forts, etc. OR it could be placed ONLY on forts. That could be interesting. As for the bonus/penalty thing, I think the penalty gets too harsh too fast o.o There should be a few 0% bonus tiles before the penalty starts.

As for the loyalty points (btw, I’m glad you didn’t neglect my idea of guild points), I don’t exactly get it. Two guilds cannot have 100% loyalty on a land since holding it an hour would decrease the other guilds’ loyalty and increase yours. Which means every other guild should have -100% if you get to 100%, unless it only affects guilds that previously held that land (?). In that case, maybe 50%/50% could exist at the same time. :P Anyhow, I’d completely agree with that system, except maybe, the bonus shouldn’t apply to the hero at all, or always apply. That way, defending lands that you’ve held for a long time is easier, as well as taking it back. Comes the capitol factor if that suggestion is also added, then lands closer to the capitol would make your hero stronger, therefore, defending better, and doing so far away would make your hero weaker (because he;s homesick, y’know, poor fellar misses his home :P), but holding that weaker land for a long time could nullify the penalty or slightly surpass it. That way, you can actually hold lands that are far away, but only if you’ve had it for a long time, and lands closer to the capitol would be stronger after holding it for long. Then we’d have proper guild areas that would be hard to conquer. I really like that idea, in condition that the map is made bigger and more guilds (the buildings) are added. Then it would be truly fun, and give a purpose to holding lands. :) Good job!

Originally posted by Benjyrob:

You my friend, need to learn code ;P you’d make an excellent dev!

I’m pretty sure he told me he does code, but not flash. :P

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AleXinoS:

I think most of your idea are great, some might need a tweak, but I disagree with the hexagonal thing since it’s more common than unique. I might be wrong, but the other games that had a similar conquest system had hexagonal lands, hence why I disagree.

It was a minor throw-away line, don’t think too much about it. I would like to see a more exciting world map, but this can be done in many different ways.

Originally posted by AleXinoS:

The conquest map thing being enlarged is a planned update once the servers can handle that much of a big map.

Good :)

Originally posted by AleXinoS:

As for the capitol (yes, capitol, not capital)


Actually, both is possible, depending on what you mean. A capital is the principle city of a country / province / region. A capitol is the building where the legislature of a country / province / region meets. Typically the capitol is located in the capital (though not always). I don’t think it’s necessary for my suggestion for there to be an actual capitol building you build. The guild leader could simply mark the territory as the capital.

Originally posted by AleXinoS:
I think it should simply not be allowed to place it on buildings such as Bastion, guilds, forts, etc. OR it could be placed ONLY on forts. That could be interesting. As for the bonus/penalty thing, I think the penalty gets too harsh too fast o.o There should be a few 0% bonus tiles before the penalty starts.

Only on forts might be a good idea, though then there’d have to be a few more forts to allow all guilds a capital. A bigger map should solve that I guess. Another solution is to simply remove the bastion, or reduce its bonus. Possible replace it by something else. Would be nice to see a few more types of special buildings anyway. And the penalty may be too steep, perhaps drop the bonus by only 20% per tile instead of 25%. I was aiming to keep the ‘maximum’ number of territories around 200 like it is now, though with a softer cap (since the penalty now only applies to outlying territories).

Originally posted by AleXinoS:

As for the loyalty points (btw, I’m glad you didn’t neglect my idea of guild points), I don’t exactly get it. Two guilds cannot have 100% loyalty on a land since holding it an hour would decrease the other guilds’ loyalty and increase yours. Which means every other guild should have -100% if you get to 100%, unless it only affects guilds that previously held that land (?). In that case, maybe 50%/50% could exist at the same time.

Every guild starts are 0 and this is also the minimum, no guild can ever drop below that. And the maximum is 100. So for example I take a new territory, and hold it for 20 hours. Now my guild has 20 loyalty. Someone comes along and takes it from me. His guild now starts building up loyalty, and mine starts losing it. After 5 hours I attempt to retake the land. He now has 5 loyalty, and I have 15 left. So I’m at an advantage. If instead I wait 10 hours before attempting to retake the land, we’d both have 10 loyalty, and the battle would be equal. And yes, that means it’s impossible for 2 guilds to both have more than 50 loyalty. In fact the total loyalty on a tile, by all guilds together, can never exceed 100.

Originally posted by AleXinoS:
:P Anyhow, I’d completely agree with that system, except maybe, the bonus shouldn’t apply to the hero at all, or always apply.

The way I proposed it is that it applies to everything. Towers, buildings, units, heroes, both hit points and damage. That way equal loyalty cancels out. But there are differnet ways of doing this. You could apply it only to the defending buildings, and look at loyalty difference (which could be negative, giving your towers a penalty when defending against someone they are more loyal to). The exact details aren’t too important as long as holding the land longer makes it easier to defend and easier to retake, and equal loyalties cancel out.

Originally posted by AleXinoS:
That way, defending lands that you’ve held for a long time is easier, as well as taking it back. Comes the capitol factor if that suggestion is also added, then lands closer to the capitol would make your hero stronger, therefore, defending better, and doing so far away would make your hero weaker (because he;s homesick, y’know, poor fellar misses his home :P), but holding that weaker land for a long time could nullify the penalty or slightly surpass it. That way, you can actually hold lands that are far away, but only if you’ve had it for a long time, and lands closer to the capitol would be stronger after holding it for long. Then we’d have proper guild areas that would be hard to conquer. I really like that idea, in condition that the map is made bigger and more guilds (the buildings) are added. Then it would be truly fun, and give a purpose to holding lands. :) Good job!

Yeah, that was the idea. Taking lands close to a capital would be very hard. The way to defeat an enemy guild is nibble away at their borders and slowly push inward. But the mad ‘taking all land in 1 hour’ won’t happen anymore. And hit-and-run strategies of running straight through a guild won’t happen anymore either. Capitals itself would be very hard, since they’ll typically have 100% loyalty so that’s a 200% bonus to hitpoints and damage. Though the penalty for losing your capital is huge, so it should be hard. Another idea I have been toying with that serves the same purpose is to give an defence bonus based on the number of friendly tiles bordering a tile. Likewise an attacker could get a bonus based on the number of friendly tiles bordering a tile he’s attacking. Counting diagonals would probably be best for that, and make the bonus 10% per tile or so, so maximum 70%. This makes carving through an empire even harder, but those very hard to defeat capitals would be more vulnerable once you have them surrounded.

Not sure if you need all three (loyalty, capitals and surround-bonus) though. Might be overkill.

Originally posted by AleXinoS:
Originally posted by Benjyrob:

You my friend, need to learn code ;P you’d make an excellent dev!

I’m pretty sure he told me he does code, but not flash. :P

Yeah. I know how to code, but I’ve never really done anything serious with flash. Also, one major part of writing games is making the graphics, and I’m not an artist by any stretch of the imagination.

 
Flag Post

I forgot to add, the current debuff shouldn’t be replaced as it balances things out if your ideas are taken.

Originally posted by Diadem

It was a minor throw-away line, don’t think too much about it. I would like to see a more exciting world map, but this can be done in many different ways.

Alright.

Originally posted by Diadem

Actually, both is possible, depending on what you mean. A capital is the principle city of a country / province / region. A capitol is the building where the legislature of a country / province / region meets. Typically the capitol is located in the capital (though not always). I don’t think it’s necessary for my suggestion for there to be an actual capitol building you build. The guild leader could simply mark the territory as the capital.

Oh, I see. I was indeed thinking of a building. :P

Originally posted by Diadem

Only on forts might be a good idea, though then there’d have to be a few more forts to allow all guilds a capital. A bigger map should solve that I guess. Another solution is to simply remove the bastion, or reduce its bonus. Possible replace it by something else. Would be nice to see a few more types of special buildings anyway. And the penalty may be too steep, perhaps drop the bonus by only 20% per tile instead of 25%. I was aiming to keep the ‘maximum’ number of territories around 200 like it is now, though with a softer cap (since the penalty now only applies to outlying territories).

Adding a few more forts and maybe spreading them a little bit more equally to avoid things like 2 forts next to each other. That occurs a few times if you give conquest map a quick glimpse, and that could become problematic. And 20% buff reduction per tile seems good. The way it should work is 100% minus smallest # of tiles to get to capitol (no diagonal moves) multiplied by -20% starting from 2 tiles away. So tiles that are diagonal to capital would have 80%, but tiles diagonal to that would have 40%, as for tiles right in front of capital would have 80% as well, and next adjacent one would have 60%. And it would end up making a square-ish circle. o.o

Originally posted by Diadem

Every guild starts are 0 and this is also the minimum, no guild can ever drop below that. And the maximum is 100. So for example I take a new territory, and hold it for 20 hours. Now my guild has 20 loyalty. Someone comes along and takes it from me. His guild now starts building up loyalty, and mine starts losing it. After 5 hours I attempt to retake the land. He now has 5 loyalty, and I have 15 left. So I’m at an advantage. If instead I wait 10 hours before attempting to retake the land, we’d both have 10 loyalty, and the battle would be equal. And yes, that means it’s impossible for 2 guilds to both have more than 50 loyalty. In fact the total loyalty on a tile, by all guilds together, can never exceed 100.

Ah, saying the minimum is 0 changes everything. You should mention that in main post. :P

Originally posted by Diadem

The way I proposed it is that it applies to everything. Towers, buildings, units, heroes, both hit points and damage. That way equal loyalty cancels out. But there are different ways of doing this. You could apply it only to the defending buildings, and look at loyalty difference (which could be negative, giving your towers a penalty when defending against someone they are more loyal to). The exact details aren’t too important as long as holding the land longer makes it easier to defend and easier to retake, and equal loyalties cancel out.

I was actually thinking about something else when I wrote that, but never mind it. o.o

Originally posted by Diadem

Yeah, that was the idea. Taking lands close to a capital would be very hard. The way to defeat an enemy guild is nibble away at their borders and slowly push inward. But the mad ‘taking all land in 1 hour’ won’t happen anymore. And hit-and-run strategies of running straight through a guild won’t happen anymore either. Capitals itself would be very hard, since they’ll typically have 100% loyalty so that’s a 200% bonus to hitpoints and damage. Though the penalty for losing your capital is huge, so it should be hard. Another idea I have been toying with that serves the same purpose is to give an defence bonus based on the number of friendly tiles bordering a tile. Likewise an attacker could get a bonus based on the number of friendly tiles bordering a tile he’s attacking. Counting diagonals would probably be best for that, and make the bonus 10% per tile or so, so maximum 70%. This makes carving through an empire even harder, but those very hard to defeat capitals would be more vulnerable once you have them surrounded.

Not sure if you need all three (loyalty, capitals and surround-bonus) though. Might be overkill.

Well, the maximum tat surround bonus does is +70% or -80%, so the max of maximums would be 370% on capital. Then surrounding the capital would bring it to 220%. Not too over-kill in my opinion. May as well go all in while we’re at it, y’know. Plus Syn once said that he’s thinking of things to make lands harder to grab and lose, as in, very much harder. So this could do it. Then add in guild bonus with its 100%. xD I think there should be a total cap of 400%, to avoid things like 470%. :P But yeah, these are great ideas.

Originally posted by Diadem

Yeah. I know how to code, but I’ve never really done anything serious with flash. Also, one major part of writing games is making the graphics, and I’m not an artist by any stretch of the imagination.

It is very rare that coders are good at art. You shouldn’t worry about that, all the coders I know code everything, and use a hired artist’s art. :P

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AleXinoS:

Well, the maximum tat surround bonus does is +70% or -80%, so the max of maximums would be 370% on capital. Then surrounding the capital would bring it to 220%. Not too over-kill in my opinion. May as well go all in while we’re at it, y’know. Plus Syn once said that he’s thinking of things to make lands harder to grab and lose, as in, very much harder. So this could do it. Then add in guild bonus with its 100%. xD I think there should be a total cap of 400%, to avoid things like 470%. :P But yeah, these are great ideas.

I agree with you (and, apparently, Synapticon) there. Making it generally harder to grab land is a good idea. Add automatic, but much slower, repair, and wearing down territories becomes an option, without being overpowered when people are offline. Though the cost is a bit too low at the moment.

Regarding the surround-bonus: Snce you always need at least 1 tile next to the target tile to attack it at all, I’d suggest a surround bonus of 10% for every tile above 1 for attacker (and 10% for every tile for defender, which is max 7 because otherwise it can’t be attacked), so that it ranges from -70% to +70%.

 
Flag Post

sorry read a little bit of your post but i agree conquest is broken i like the game but taken huge amounts of land then watch 4/5 guys come take it all and you can’t actually defend it because they gain protection so you just watch a 5 man guild eat what you have then come next day they lost it to another 2/5 ppl we took a whole corner one night for no reason really…

Any way cool game but i think i quit for now and hand my guild over i really have not had the urge to come on and play and too just watch a yellow blob in the middle of the map and rainbow of colors around it bye for now maybe it will be fixed i will come check later.

 
Flag Post

On second thought, -25% per tile away from capital is a good idea, as long as there is a 0% tile. Then it avoids having giant squares and such. Then, for the loyalty system, someone suggested something nice. For every tile away from capital, loyalty buff should have less of an effect (-10% per tile away from the 2 tiles adjacent to capital), so being 12 tiles away would give no effect. That way, there won’t be any random easy-to-make lines of guilds trying to reach another area. :) They’d actually have to work for it and move their capital with them, but just once a day.

Edit: Yeah, your last comment makes sense.

 
Flag Post

id like a guide for each campaign mission with lvl of heroes and troops to use, and items. also a success rate. a mini video or picture might also be nice.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by koolaidirm:

id like a guide for each campaign mission with lvl of heroes and troops to use, and items. also a success rate. a mini video or picture might also be nice.

Wrong thread, silly.