Season #2
-
I think lowering the difficulty to get some score on the board is nice for newer players, but I'm pretty sure this isn't going to solve players getting wiped.
With the rule set proposed like this, I would definitely team up with 1 or 2 other players which ranked top 20 this round and still wipe all the smaller players in between. I would really urge to implement a mechanic which was proposed multiple times in the feedback topic to cluster the top 10 ambitious players together in the map center.
If you would just include that controllers in the sectors near the map center give you 10x the score, the sector sector at range 10-20 rooms 3x score and rooms further away 1x score I think you would perfectly solve this issue.
-
@qzarstb I am not sure top players would like to cooperate with each other. It is probably safer for them to have relationships with smaller players than with someone who competes for the same rating.
By the way, if you only cooperate with 1 or 2 players, you will not be able to score all resources.
-
@artch Top players will definitely work together unless they're competing for the same spot in the ranking during the later stage of the season.
If you work together with 1 other player you can fully control 6 sectors together if you just wipe all smaller players. You'll each have 10 rooms so if you pick those carefully you can together process 90% of everything spawning in those 6 sectors.
Compare that to working with 4 or 5 small players, it'll be a chaotic mess. It's true that you'll be able to process probably every type which gives you potentially a higher total score but you'll loose much more due to score which those other small players capture and "waste".
-
@qzarstb said in Season #2 concept:
I would really urge to implement a mechanic which was proposed multiple times in the feedback topic to cluster the top 10 ambitious players together in the map center. If you would just include that controllers in the sectors near the map center give you 10x the score, the sector sector at range 10-20 rooms 3x score and rooms further away 1x score I think you would perfectly solve this issue.
With this approach (top player cluster and distance-graded decoders) there's no point in entering since top10 can easily dominate all 8 sectors closest to center (while still wiping anything outside of it) and i'm really not sure if combat there would be 'worth their time'. It would end up more as a CK3 diplomacy and intrigue at top of a ranking instead.
I'd say that the map should be made BIG on purpouse, so in order to win, ppl would need to clump together
@artch said in Season #2 concept:
By the way, if you only cooperate with 1 or 2 players, you will not be able to score all resources.
Almost yes if all of them are at GCL7 (for 3 players cooperation)
2 another questions @artch :
- how the rewards ladder will look like
- do decoders have capacity/cooldown
-
@qzarstb You can only use decoders in owned rooms. Wiping the sector does not benefit you directly, since with your own rooms you can decode as many symbols as your GCL is.
-
@gadjung said in Season #2 concept:
Almost yes if all of them are at GCL7 (for 3 players cooperation)
But you will take GCL 7 only after a month. That means you will lose a lot during the first month.
2 another questions @artch :
how the rewards ladder will look like
do decoders have capacity/cooldown
Yet to be decided.
-
@artch said in Season #2 concept:
@qzarstb You can only use decoders in owned rooms. Wiping the sector does not benefit you directly, since you can decode as many symbols as your GCL is.
So if i decoded TAW,SIN,RES,PE and have GCL4 i cannot decode AYIN in someone elses owned room ?
-
@gadjung You can, but that someone should be alive and not wiped
-
@artch Yes but the score spawn in would still be similar as the current season right?
Let's assume I have 1 room myself and cleared my sector: I can gather all the score for 1 type and process it.
Let's assume I let my neighbours live and work together with 4 other players in my sector: We can process 5 types in total, but since we work together on AVG we only get 1/5 of each of those 5 types.
Both scenarios would give me the same amount of score.
-
@qzarstb Exactly. That means there is no direct benefit in killing them. You will simply waste resources on war. And if they happen to be not just dummies, you may waste a lot. You will only be inclined to allocate resources to that if they are your close competitors in ranking.
-
@artch You see it as no incentive to kill players, I see it as no incentive to keep them around. The amount of "dummies" which cost a minimal war investment to wipe them (at least pre-RCL8) is about 50% of the userbase. But we'll see, I don't expect Tigga/Geir/Rob etc to become good samaritans all of a sudden and it's just a small group of players responsible for like 90% of the players being wiped this round.
-
@qzarstb I think we will just create a bigger world this time and allow people to choose locations outside their reach, but at the same time close to each other to team up.
Also, no portals probably.
-
@artch Did you already decide on the duration of the second season?
-
@murphlaw The same, two months.
-
This concept is perfect. It give the co op that so many of us asked for, while also providing some nice natural ways for the lesser players to still have fun & score.
I am always in favor of smaller maps, as it gives more meaning to controlling territory. In a large map the question is not how to secure a given bit of score, but to spread as wide as possible and avoid all combat. The cost/benefit of fighting for what you know vs just spreading in the other direction is too far towards 'just spread'. In a large map, fighting just means both you and your sparring partner drop in the rankings, so you avoid fights. In a small map, everyone has to fight, and you have to figure out how to fight well. A good economic bot should get you in the top 100. Your combat code should determine top 10.
A smaller map benefits smaller players. In a large map, a top-10 player is only able to indirectly compete on the leaderboard by exerting total dominance over their holdings to maximize gains. They must maximize these gains better than their other top-10 counterparts, as that is the only path to victory. However, if portals and map size make them neighbors with their true competitors, then they can compete via directly fighting over rooms and score.
Finally, I think that when you allow lower players to score, even if they get wiped often, they will still enjoy the season. This mechanic will give them the option to be taken under the wing of a bigger player if they want a higher degree of safety. Even if you think a larger map makes smaller players not in an alliance less likely to get wiped, it's not necessary.
Also, an increased amount of score spawning will make it rapidly apparent that you need access to as many symbols as possible to be competitive. Alliances of larger players can hope to negotiate amongst themselves who places how high and wipe all the small players near them, but that won't remotely cut those players off from spawning elsewhere near more amenable players, which is all that matters. Seeing the wipes of this season, and thinking it apply under this new mechanic, is at best misguided. The incentive structure is completely different.
-
-
@cribbit said in Season #2 concept:
A good economic bot should get you in the top 100. Your combat code should determine top 10.
There's ~140 players in this season with less than 50% having scored.
@cribbit said in Season #2 concept:
In a large map, a top-10 player is only able to indirectly compete on the leaderboard by exerting total dominance over their holdings to maximize gains.
That's not true. in large map top10 player needs to cooperate with smaller players to get access to highRCL decoders.
In small map there is high risk of alliances, created by season1 top10-15 players, that will determine most of ranking.
Hypothetical Example
- 3 teams of 4 top15 players decide to take 6 sectors (2-3 sectors/player for optimal GCL-7/8 room setup), wipe anyone else within and 4-8 rooms around it, split code picking into assigned zones and do not fight with each-other (best in alliance wins, since breaking/fighting within alliance is too risky from ranking perspective for every member)
With big map it should reduce chance of top players clumping together. Example:
- Each of top15 players creates it's own kingdom with some smaller-player vassals as to not have to share code-picking with other top10 players
-
@gadjung said in Season #2 concept:
@cribbit said in Season #2 concept:
A good economic bot should get you in the top 100. Your combat code should determine top 10.
There's ~140 players in this season with less than 50% having scored.
Yes, and this new seasonal mechanic solves that bottom 50%.
@cribbit said in Season #2 concept:
In a large map, a top-10 player is only able to indirectly compete on the leaderboard by exerting total dominance over their holdings to maximize gains.
That's not true. in large map top10 player needs to cooperate with smaller players to get access to highRCL decoders.
All that matters is # of symbols accessible. Once you reach 22, the benefit of pushing anyone else out will inherently always outweigh the cost of letting them stay, if those are the only options. By introducing a 3rd option - direct combat against the players close to you on the leaderboard - you gain interesting interplay. Only in a small map do you have the 3rd option. This rationale stays the same no matter what the alliance is comprised of.
In small map there is high risk of alliances, created by season1 top10-15 players, that will determine most of ranking.
Hypothetical Example
- 3 teams of 4 top15 players decide to take 6 sectors (2-3 sectors/player for optimal GCL-7/8 room setup), wipe anyone else within and 4-8 rooms around it, split code picking into assigned zones and do not fight with each-other (best in alliance wins, since breaking/fighting within alliance is too risky from ranking perspective for every member)
With big map it should reduce chance of top players clumping together. Example:
- Each of top15 players creates it's own kingdom with some smaller-player vassals as to not have to share code-picking with other top10 players
We are acting like anyone getting wiped, ever, is a bad thing. Wipes happen. This game has PvP. The question is whether those players are able to find some area to exist after being wiped. Even if we disagree on how map size impacts that being able to happen, the seasonal mechanic guarantees that vassal states will exist.
A smaller map is more interesting, period. We agree that a larger map means less fighting between players that are close to each other on the leaderboard. This is a bad thing.
Seasonal does not need to allow bottom 50% players to exist in ignorance of the rest of the server.
-
Reposting interesting thoughts from slack:
Snowgoose 9:50 PM
I don’t think the top players need to make any deals, if they could kill you they can just take out your towers, or just heal there way to the collector
Snowgoose 9:52 PM
Once your towers are gone they can probably keep a room down with small creeps
Snowgoose 9:56 PM
Perhaps there is a way to tweak it so that if the room owner keeps the collector ‘awake’ then it is twice as efficient, so that barging in is worse than coop
QzarSTB 11:59 PM
Could force-assign players to a random sector to spawn in to remove premade teams
There was also a great discussion about boosting, especially late game. If the game mode promotes alliances, it's easy to imagine a situation where several players cooperate fully until some point, and after that whoever has the highest score gets a full boost from the others. The alliance that does it will win (ok technically their representative will but I'd still call it a win). Actually, the alliance which starts it earliest, should win...
-
It's great to see that the devs are open to exploring more co-op mechanics, but I fear that this may be a step in the wrong direction.
From a design goal perspective, I believe a couple of things would be good for the game's long term prospects:
- New players feel comfortable joining, learning, exploring, and improving their code in a safe environment.
- New players can spend time working solely on code and not interacting with other humans until they feel ready.
Comparing Screeps to a traditional MMO like WoW or similar, new players often experience social interactions in three distinct stages:
- Solo gameplay through tutorials and individual quests
- Co-op gameplay through multiplayer quests
- PvP gameplay
PvP gameplay often attracts the most hardcore players and is where much of the fame, glory, and best rewards lie. At the same time, PvP gameplay is not for everyone, nor does it need to be.
The reason I say this iteration on seasonal may be a step in the wrong direction is due to the added element of required social interactions with other players, meaning diplomacy, deal making, backstabbing, and more. Screeps is primarily a game for programmers, by programmers, and I believe that these forced social elements will further deter new players from joining the game.
This isn't to say that this Machiavellian gameplay isn't interesting or exciting. In fact, for some players, it may be some of the most satisfying and engaging type of gameplay. However, this type of audience is already (somewhat) being served by the vanilla Screeps experience. The audience that's severely being underserved right now is the set of players who want to learn how to program in a fun and nonconfrontational way through gameplay. This audience has the potential of being extraordinarily large, and the popularity of pseudo-programming experiences within Roblox and Minecraft hints at how large the market could be.
In the long run, I'd love to see Screeps move in a direction to serve this audience. For example:
- Building out visual scripting tools like Scratch or Unreal Engine's blueprints to greatly lower the barrier to entry, where players can gradually transition into "real" programming by directly editing code later on.
- Creating a robust set of solo goals to achieve in a safe environment with no hostile player interaction.
- Introducing friendly player interaction in the form of cooperative goals.
These are lofty goals, and certainly there's not a ton of time to develop massively different mechanics for Season. To that end, I'd advocate for targeting a goal for an explicit global co-op season some time in the distant future, with no hostile player interaction and a robust set of game mechanics to support it. After that, it might make sense to have a rotation of PvP seasons with some global co-op seasons in between.
This is all a lot of long term feedback, but I hope it helps inform future seasons, and the direction of Screeps as a whole.
