Level appropriate PvP: the challenge

[Bormun von Eastbourne]

From various threads, there seem to be two main worries that get mentioned again and again.
- the murderhobo
- organised gangs preferentially targeting lower level PvE groups.

This is about the second one.
E.g. Level 10 bandits avoid not only the level 15 traders, but also the level 10 traders, and instead repeatedly own the level 5 traders.
This being also true for settlement raiding, wars, etc.
To summarise The Art of War, the acme of generalship is to only start fights that you know you will win.

Imagine the Emerald Spire dungeon, but where you arrive on a random level, and have to complete it before you can get out. It would suck because of the high % of encountering one-sided fights, which are boring to win, and frustrating to lose. The encounters would not be level-appropriate.

For PoI based PvP there is a solution: the best loot is in the star metal craters, which are high level, and only usable by high level settlements. So the lower level groups won't be there, thereby avoiding the higher level PvP ers.

Perhaps we can experiment with putting the Towers also into tiers? The first 10 settlement points would come from regular Towers, but once you have those 10, the next settlement points need "expert" towers, and there is no value in collecting any more regular towers? These higher-tier towers would of course be rarer, so the big groups would travel one distances to fight over them.

Any other thoughts?

[Andius]

People won't always (or even frequently) group by level. Chances are that outside a newb zone there won't be a group of level 15 traders, a group of level 10 traders, and a group of level 5 traders but a bunch of groups of level 1-20 traders.

As far as not getting PvPers to target low level PvEers the solution is like you suggested with the star metal, make targeting the higher level ones sufficiently more rewarding. I'd much rather kill an enemy carrying star metal than inferior copper ore.

[Tyncale]

Wasn't there also a difference in reputation-hit when a high level attacks a low level? Though this would not apply to "sanctioned" PvP where there is no rep-hit.

[Nihimon]

Bormun von Eastbourne wrote:

The first 10 settlement points would come from regular Towers, but once you have those 10, the next settlement points need "expert" towers, and there is no value in collecting any more regular towers?

I like where you're going, but I would be more inclined to have a number of NPC Guards that spawn in your towers with that number being smaller the more towers you have.

[Guurzak]

Let's not invest in making the tower game any more nuanced or complex than has already been discussed. It's a throwaway placeholder system; we shouldn't be diverting development resources away from permanent systems once we have the bare minimum workable tower system.

The problem of low-level PVP should be solved by giving low-level players a useful role in high-level PVP, and by making the power curve smooth enough that mid-level PVPers can beat high-level PVPers given superior logistics or numbers.

If you're worried about mean neighbors taking your towers, make more friends.

[Caldeathe Baequiannia]

Nihimon wrote:

Bormun von Eastbourne wrote:

The first 10 settlement points would come from regular Towers, but once you have those 10, the next settlement points need "expert" towers, and there is no value in collecting any more regular towers?

I like where you're going, but I would be more inclined to have a number of NPC Guards that spawn in your towers with that number being smaller the more towers you have.

Or proximity based. Towers under the control of an immediately-neighbouring settlement spawn NPC guards, while those not controlled by an immediately touching hex do not.

(edit) although, again, this makes it harder for allies to fight with you, unless the guards can identify allies, whether declared or not.

[Proxima Sin of Brighthaven]

Barring RP, everyone will quickly learn to assess and avoid fights that are fair or more difficult; a majority of the strategy goes into creating conflict scenarios where your opponent is at as mch disadvantage as possible. But we won't be highly segregated by level or pvp'ers even have the ability to do more than ballpark skills visually.

One of the things Tork specifically mentioned was keeping the WoT programming as simple as possible to accomplish it's purpose of substitute territory control activity so I doubt tiered towers would be instituted. If they were I'd be more conservative than you and call the 6 surrounding each protosettlement basic and all other towers advanced or elite when in monster hexes.

[Nihimon]

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

... I would be more inclined to have a number of NPC Guards that spawn in your towers with that number being smaller the more towers you have.

Or proximity based. Towers under the control of an immediately-neighbouring settlement spawn NPC guards, while those not controlled by an immediately touching hex do not.

(edit) although, again, this makes it harder for allies to fight with you, unless the guards can identify allies, whether declared or not.

I'm very receptive to the challenge that any proposed mechanic would need to be very simple to implement. I don't know if they already have any tech for NPC Guards that recognize the legitimate holders of territory, but it wouldn't be throwaway code if they built it now.

I would think the simplest solution to the problem described is a mechanic where NPC Guards spawn in the Claim Area and attack anyone inside the Claim Area who doesn't already control the tower. We've already been told that allies who want to assist you should stay outside the Claim Area, so there's no need to worry about how to declare allies, etc.