[Skyshard Heroes] [Dev] Conquest

41 posts

Flag Post

Here’s an outline of our plans for and thoughts around Conquest:
1) We want Conquest to make up a good chunk of the end game. Fighting with your guild brothers should be fun and intense.
2) We recognize the current state of the new Conquest isn’t there yet. However, it was never our intent to release a completely full-featured metagame in one swoop. Instead, we want to see what your feedback is, and how you play Conquest, and develop the feature from there.
3) The problem with old Conquest was that a season would last for a very long time (4-8+ weeks) and that would cause things to stagnate.
4) We now intend on doing Conquest one week at a time. This makes battles shorter and sweeter, and prevents the “no chance to catch up” feeling.
5) An additional, and maybe more important, benefit to doing Conquest one week at a time: we can iterate very quickly on rules, and adding new features.

That said, if the World Map Conquest just sucks no matter what we do with it, we don’t have a problem going back to the old tile-based system. HOWEVER, I am very confident that we can tweak the rules as necessary to incorporate everything into the World Map, while also improving the basic PvP on the map as well.

Here are some things we definitely plan on adding to Conquest soon:
-Guild members can defend any member’s asset
-Guild notifications for anytime an asset is attacked
-Vehicles that significantly improve movement speed on the World Map
-Guild ownership labels on controlled assets
-An indicator telling each Guild what rank they are on Influence, and how many Conquest Cores they will get at the end of the week
-A timer showing exactly how much time is left until the Conquest week ends and influence dies down
-A “Conquest Map” – it will look very similar to the old map, but will actually show an influence map overlay using the Guild Colors.
-Potentially giving Influence-only Assets combat boosts or additional resources.

Long story short, give it some time and give us feedback on what specifically you don’t like (or do like) about the new Conquest.

 
Flag Post

overall i like where this is heading.. but as u mention.. making guildies able to defend assets so its a guild effort not individual.. 2nd and most important.. fix that u can rush.. make some kinda damage immune to cit from hero if no unit is hitting it.. or make it get -70% hero damage on cit.. anything to prevent people just mindlessly heads in 10 times untill cit dies..

Regards Michael

 
Flag Post

I have a thought but I don’t know about whether this suggestion is ripe for abuse. Could we make it so that even if you control max assets/forts/spires for your hero limit, you can still assist your fellow guild members in taking another asset? Granted, you wouldn’t be able to control them but would allow you to continue the team work element of Conquest with your guild.

 
Flag Post

This was my Suggestion for conquest i posted on the devs suggestion page:
I think what makes conquest fun is having to work with your guild to achieve something, so here are some ideas that i think would be cool to help with the process:
Have a ‘raid type’ feature where you attack it and it gets harder each level e.g. level 1-10 (10 being max)
Each Victory will award points towards a meter for the guild.
This meter when it reaches the top gives you(your guild) coords for a new spire/fort according to level which you can take, This spire has 24 hours protection so you are guaranteed points on it before its stolen :P This will make being active and contributing to your guild a lot more useful, than its non-existence atm.
Meter full is 10,000…..each victory at lvl 10, gives 100 towards it.
-Have conquest separate from assets and individuals.
Maybe have a second map for conquest, smaller, faster and easier to use and navigate.
Res is a problem so having to drop assets for forts/spires can hurt.

All in all, this could work and bring guild teamwork back and shouldn’t take that much work on the devs part…and remember this is just a suggestion and is very much open for interpretation and scrutiny…thanks!
Iv noticed some of the things i asked for are in the pipework thanks. :)

 
Flag Post

from other thread,
I believe this new direction IS the old direction but in a 3D view with real travel time.

Make all Assets, Fortresses, and Spires defendable by ALL guild members, regardless of personal ownership. This includes assets. (see next section).

Add levels to Assets, Fortresses, Spires. Each level increases the tile’s defenses. The IP bonus remains same at all levels. Resources on each asset level increases by a percent. All asset resources now go directly into the guild fund with a small percent going to the owner. (For example, an asset of 10k arcana at a 10 percent means 9k goes to guild, 1k to player. Each asset level up would eventually bring that number back up, say level 4 or 5 it would become an asset of 100k, then 200k at level 8, 300k at level 10 max?) So while this is initially an nerf to personal player funds, it does increase guild cooperation and warfare. Eventually it becomes a bonus for a player to be in a guild, enjoying increased resources by claiming higher leveled assets and being able to defend assets.

Fortresses and Spires simply increase in difficulty at each level. IP remains same at all levels, though I am not opposed to an IP increase but only at a slight rate. (like level 10 would only be double the IP of level 1).

Bring old tile cap back. Old tile cap = Heroes + 1. Current tile cap = Heroes + 0. Add a guild level. Guild levels add to tile cap (Level 1 = +1 for all members, Level 2 = +2, and so on.)

Assets, Fortresses, and Spires cannot be defended if a hero is not on the tile. Your hero personally must be on the tile to defend it. This forces players to use every hero at their disposal, instead of relying on only one or two of their stronger heroes, if they are expected to defend at multiple fronts at once. This will increase guild cooperation and warfare because two guilds can work to overcome a stronger guild by having both guilds attack at once at opposite ends. This also increase an awareness of guild territories because a guild would want to have a strong area of presence near forts and spires by claiming all assets near said forts and spires.

With the already locked-out of lower leveled tiles for higher players, it already applies a guild presence lock by preventing guilds at top-tier (Agency, L7, Brutal, for example, because they don’t have any players with low level citadels) from claiming any of the low-level spires, forts, or assets. This means a guild filled with only level 3 to 6 citadels can avoid a guild filled with citadel 7+ completely and duke it out only with other, lower-cit-leveled guilds on low-level tiles. All players at all levels won’t feel overwhelmed and cannot be bullied or dominated by the higher-tier guilds.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Manaco:

from other thread,
I believe this new direction IS the old direction but in a 3D view with real travel time.

Make all Assets, Fortresses, and Spires defendable by ALL guild members, regardless of personal ownership. This includes assets. (see next section).

Add levels to Assets, Fortresses, Spires. Each level increases the tile’s defenses. The IP bonus remains same at all levels. Resources on each asset level increases by a percent. All asset resources now go directly into the guild fund with a small percent going to the owner. (For example, an asset of 10k arcana at a 10 percent means 9k goes to guild, 1k to player. Each asset level up would eventually bring that number back up, say level 4 or 5 it would become an asset of 100k, then 200k at level 8, 300k at level 10 max?) So while this is initially an nerf to personal player funds, it does increase guild cooperation and warfare. Eventually it becomes a bonus for a player to be in a guild, enjoying increased resources by claiming higher leveled assets and being able to defend assets.

Fortresses and Spires simply increase in difficulty at each level. IP remains same at all levels, though I am not opposed to an IP increase but only at a slight rate. (like level 10 would only be double the IP of level 1).

Bring old tile cap back. Old tile cap = Heroes + 1. Current tile cap = Heroes + 0. Add a guild level. Guild levels add to tile cap (Level 1 = +1 for all members, Level 2 = +2, and so on.)

Assets, Fortresses, and Spires cannot be defended if a hero is not on the tile. Your hero personally must be on the tile to defend it. This forces players to use every hero at their disposal, instead of relying on only one or two of their stronger heroes, if they are expected to defend at multiple fronts at once. This will increase guild cooperation and warfare because two guilds can work to overcome a stronger guild by having both guilds attack at once at opposite ends. This also increase an awareness of guild territories because a guild would want to have a strong area of presence near forts and spires by claiming all assets near said forts and spires.

With the already locked-out of lower leveled tiles for higher players, it already applies a guild presence lock by preventing guilds at top-tier (Agency, L7, Brutal, for example, because they don’t have any players with low level citadels) from claiming any of the low-level spires, forts, or assets. This means a guild filled with only level 3 to 6 citadels can avoid a guild filled with citadel 7+ completely and duke it out only with other, lower-cit-leveled guilds on low-level tiles. All players at all levels won’t feel overwhelmed and cannot be bullied or dominated by the higher-tier guilds.

1. Levels to assets is nice. Having guildies donating res didn’t work unless the plan is to reward the guild with the most active end-gamers though. It was neither fair nor significant enough, to ask low levels still farming to donate 1/4 of their huge upgrade when that 1/4 is 1/50 of what an end-gamer can donate. I still think that, perhaps, buildings can automatically level as they are controlled, with, just throwing this out there, a max of 5 levels that generate every 4 hours for 20 hours. Like Manaco suggested, IP is static, it promotes guild cohesiveness, and it gives lowbies equal incentive to join a guild as they can help capture low level buildings big baddies cannot. Defending is rewarded, activity is encouraged, and it gives some peace of mind to guilds stressing out about stuff.
a. Max buildings held should be like tiles were unlocked in old Conquest. Heroes+1. You could then leave assets the way they are, (Heroes=asset#) and you aren’t crippling anyone of their coveted food and metal.
b. Each level of a fort/spire could increase armor to the cit, extra sgs, extra defense towers, increased cit level, etc so that it scales well for guilds (unlike raids where each level appears to add %atk and %health and %armor)(this discourages any progress for lowbies)

2. Hero needs to be on the tile to defend is sensible. I can’t add too much to that, and I don’t know how flexible the code is, but it would be cool if the Hero got sent back home after, say, 3 losses, in PVP fights on the map. I think I’m pretty much in agreement that it’s a good thing for the future of the game to let small guilds enjoy conquest without top-tier guilds being encouraged to poop on them.

 
Flag Post

this map is infinite……….what about making some edges??knowing where we will get hit less or more
assetts are too much and no fights will be done for them

more spires and less assets and forts

 
Flag Post

I was thinking along the lines of making levels similar to raid levels. Despite upgrading an asset level, it appears identical, only with more hp and damage, like the way it is with Raid Beacon.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Manaco:

I was thinking along the lines of making levels similar to raid levels. Despite upgrading an asset level, it appears identical, only with more hp and damage, like the way it is with Raid Beacon.

Well, if you tack on 50% damage and armor to a low lv citadel, a low level Hero has fewer tools to compensate for that than a higher one. Even chaining attacks, it’s more likely with low lvs to use all 3 to kill one defense building, let alone make progress for the next guy.

 
Flag Post

Y u 2 guys have the same profile pic?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SeanKraZe:

Y u 2 guys have the same profile pic?

undeniable sexual chemistry.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SeanKraZe:

Y u 2 guys have the same profile pic?

default kong pics XD
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by deathreapers:
Originally posted by SeanKraZe:

Y u 2 guys have the same profile pic?

default kong pics XD

Or that, but my explanation is just as true.

 
Flag Post

bbrday & manaco sitting in a….
winning the thread! hahaha

love the direction that the WM is heading syn. i like how you’ve mentioned many of the fun things about prior conquests are returning. i feel like the assets are a bit better balanced to pit even-levelled players against each other in contest.

i do like the idea of resource donation and levelling up forts etc. that was definitely a strategic component that lead to interesting escalations. not sure any of the systems mentioned here would be ideal

re: infinite map. don’t think this is necessarily a problem. toroid recursion at edges is common in many games, but then removes the ability to hole up your armies in australia or south america. because there’s too many players to make a solid start in asia… oh wait, wrong game. but, there are some insane clumps on the map. it’ll be really interesting to see how this influence map works out, and whether there’s any strategic advantage to the patterns as a result of where guildies got placed randomly

 
Flag Post

ppl still play this game? lol

 
Flag Post

1. Conquest assets seperate from player assests.
Amount controlled = number derived from number of guild members.

2. If guild can defend each others’ assets…
Level cap should apply.
There should not be a level 9 hero defending a level 5 citadel asset.

3. Cooperative attacking.
Put level 70 assets in.
The only way to beat them is a cooperative attack.
Don’t make the troop limit = the players individual army.
Make the troop limit = 1 or 2 player (make a building you can upgrade to add more, don’t do more than 3 or 4 each. meaning, a max upgraded building will let a person get 1 vogul in the fight)
Also, do not allow the guild member to use the same heroes.
The last thing we need is 4 kabals spawning so many units that it destroys the server.

4. Guild cooperative play might need “guild” buildings, or guild skill upgrades.
This is one proposed idea for the guild skill upgrades…
When in a guild, and you attack, and win, and get honor, 5% of that honor goes into a guild honor pool.
Use that to upgrade guild skills.
This is one proposed idea for guild buildings.
When a guild reaches 5 members, allow the guild leader to place a guild hall structure on the map.
put in perimeters to keep guild halls from getting cluttered (for example, no guild halls within 100 radius of each other)
This also “limits” the amount of guild halls on the map.
Perhaps even… you have to be top 100 in guilds to have a guild hall on the map.
If you are not, you do not get a spot.
MAybe even prespawn 100 guild halls, and assign them as guilds reach top 100/ top 100 gets filled.
Or have them be there, and you have to attack it to take it, and every guild gets one.
Then give the guild hall structures that the guild leader can build.
Have the guild hall gain resources in a fashion like this…
“taxes” from assets.
Everytime a guild member collects, the guild hall gets resources = 10% of the harvest, for the lowest asset, and 25% of the harvest for the highest asset.
Or a blanket 15% across the board.
Allow for group attacking/ defending (if the programing allows, same rules as conquest group attacking, only one of each hero)
If a guild can defeat the guild holding the guild hall, they can take it.
Allow for more towers to account for group attacks.
All that to say this.
A guild building can allow for more players to attack at a time, and can limit the amount that can attack at once.

5. if conquest cores are gained as a guild….
A guild with one EXETREMELY good player, and a bunch of way low level players… could set up a system where low level players get disproportionate rewards for the amount of help they put into the conquest.
Maybe reduce conquest cores gained based on contribution to gaining the conquest cores. If that makes sense.

6. Keep Razo out of Armor games. There’s enough balance issues as it is.
Keep it in facebook and kong, you guys need money, and paying to get razo does get you money.
But keep it off AG please and thank you.
Or if you ever take the game live, and get your own server to host it.
It’s a game breaker.

 
Flag Post

Oh. It would be nice to have biomes in the world map.

There are 5 distinct looking sections on the campaign map.

Wood comes from Syrelia, Metal comes from stonewick, Arcana from Talric, and Food from Fendor?

It doesn’t have to be cut and dry, you can only get those resources from those areas….
But it could be those areas have higher concentrations of those types of resources, and lower concentrations of the other kinds.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by iPee:

ppl still play this game? lol

lololol

 
Flag Post

The world map is just way too big
Scrolling forever to find an asset is not fun at all
The res issues have made me give up on trying to build my town, and i use all attacks on conquest to help my guildit is like you have to pick one or the other
There is energy for one purpose: to grind for res. and that’s also not awesome.

I really did enjoy the tiles more, and would prefer to see an expanded and updated version of that, maybe with hexagons instead of tiles, or a smaller world mapish thing….i think it makes more sense to have a guild territory, that all can protect, not random forts all over the world..for me growing a territory and defending it/expanding it was a great appeal

 
Flag Post

Dropping tiles after 4 attacks to grab them again still a tactic you think we should use? If not, the problem exists. Put a 5m prot bubble on tiles after they are manually abandoned?

 
Flag Post

^ that suggestion blows.

 
Flag Post

devs, there should be some special rewards as well. say one for a spire owned by one player for the longest period without losing it. this will make defending a fierce battle, etc

edit; just thinking of ideas to make it more intense!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by forceofvolcanos:

The world map is just way too big
Scrolling forever to find an asset is not fun at all
The res issues have made me give up on trying to build my town, and i use all attacks on conquest to help my guildit is like you have to pick one or the other
There is energy for one purpose: to grind for res. and that’s also not awesome.

I really did enjoy the tiles more, and would prefer to see an expanded and updated version of that, maybe with hexagons instead of tiles, or a smaller world mapish thing….i think it makes more sense to have a guild territory, that all can protect, not random forts all over the world..for me growing a territory and defending it/expanding it was a great appeal

+1
 
Flag Post

ok my view on conq: the world map seems to chaotic and i never feel oriented when i travel/use it. if you could give it borders or anything that would make it feel like a real space it would be nice. a mini map with the assets of each guild coloured so we can can have a clue with one look whats going on is nessecary i think.i believe that by not getting a visual info by the map itself on who has the lead on conq or where is each guild and rather by having as only feedback the running influence score makes the whole thing vague and not so tempting to engage in it. the troop cost reduction is fine but the economy needs a boost( well if other servers face our economy crisis as well)maybe a buff on assets..idk its up to you.i like the vehicles its fun but i hope you could polish a bit the whole running thing. you could significally increase the running speeds so it wont render the game tedious yet people who want to be super fast they get to buy it with the forementioned vehicles. overall i have a great feel for where is it going and congrats overall for your hard and commited work cause new great suff comes everyweak or so , so THANX :D. oh and one of my wishes…i would like the game to provide a steady income on conqcores and a well organised and ‘’stable conq store’’ with these new one weekconquests so everyone will have the chance of getting every item, faster if they participate every week and of course slower if they dont. and since this game is turning cloudcore hungry with each aspect enveloped in it maybe the ability to turn conq cores to cloudcores would be really great.and my final statement, again you ve seen the radical changes you had to do in asset bases because of keris. 2 times more hp on spire than lvl9 cit and hero reduction dmg on gens. and that was on a very freaky strong base.now imagine our bases…..o_o…….i bet you get my point…..i dont care if he gets my base when im offline, idc if he takes a tower or a gen if i am defending…but the ability to take almost all my silos while im defending is a bit shitty dont ya think?just give our silos significant hero reduction dmg with each reinforcement upgrade and problem solved. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK

 
Flag Post

agreed John.