PDA

View Full Version : Solution for Large Scale Battles



Brumby66
06-02-2013, 05:53 PM
Large scale PvE battles are important to the success of the PvE portion of the game. It encourages more guild involvement and enhances the longevity of this type of content. The current problem with large scale battles is that people are worried about having to wait for each player to finish. This is a reasonable concern, but I believe there is a better way of implementing large scale battles.

Large scale battles should be linked between all participating players and implemented in real time. Each player can be playing a game, but the bosses' life total would reflect all damage from each member. Even during your turn you are seeing the bosses' life dropping due to other people's damage. The goal would not be to win your individual game, but to be successful as a collective group.

grey0one
06-02-2013, 06:00 PM
In the Angry Joe video, Cory talks about how waiting for too many players to finish their turn lead to a negative experince. To an extent, waiting for everyone to finish their match to move on to the next boss match leads to the same issue. You may be able to do it for one off bosses, but not for most raids.

hoodieblanket
06-02-2013, 06:00 PM
sounds pretty cool but i always envisioned their raids and boss battles as being similar to final fantasy.

Whereas you would have to deal with individual parts of the boss before being able to do any vital damage. Such as the first battle being against the tail, the next the horns, or the carapace etc before it reveals their vital parts. That way boss battles are handled with objectives and relies heavily on each player being able to handle their part.

Tyrfang
06-02-2013, 06:01 PM
In my opinion, the only way to have tons more players at once would be to have asynchronous phases in addition to allowing multiple cards to be played at the same time. It'd be pretty difficult to implement, if not impossible, without making significant adjustments to the engine.

You can have smaller battles occurring at the same time, though...

Brumby66
06-02-2013, 06:06 PM
In the Angry Joe video, Cory talks about how waiting for too many players to finish their turn lead to a negative experince. To an extent, waiting for everyone to finish their match to move on to the next boss match leads to the same issue. You may be able to do it for one off bosses, but not for most raids.

This takes care of both waiting for the turn or the match. One person not finishing their turn is not ideal for the dps of the group, but it would in no way cause downtime. The boss' life would be in real time for each person (even during your turn the life is changing.) You would not have to wait for anyone. The goal is not to finish the turn or the match. It is to deal enough damage collectively before each participating member is slain.

Tyrfang
06-02-2013, 06:10 PM
This topic was basically covered here:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=24476

Brumby66
06-02-2013, 06:16 PM
This topic was basically covered here:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=24476

Yeah I let that thread die, because although this can be implemented in an open world concept, it is also ideal for "instanced" type play. I think open world bosses would be great, but I think large scale battles are a must for successful PvE. I don't think 3 man raids will be enough to hold the attention of the population. I have already seen so many "3 people is a raid? Wtf?!" Comments. If we are trying to appeal to mmo and tcg players alike, then larger battles are a must. Basically I felt like I was trying to push multiple ideas instead of isolating them.

Skirovik
06-02-2013, 06:27 PM
I really quite like this idea.

The idea that people will be waiting is only if they run out of cards. Since you keep playing until the boss dies, there is no "I have finished but Joe and the others have not". You all keep playing until the boss dies.

Tyrfang
06-02-2013, 06:28 PM
...off-topic, but I want to see 1v1 raid deck battles.

Brumby66
06-02-2013, 08:25 PM
I really quite like this idea.

The idea that people will be waiting is only if they run out of cards. Since you keep playing until the boss dies, there is no "I have finished but Joe and the others have not". You all keep playing until the boss dies.

Or until the boss murders everyone with a global effect. ;)

Brumby66
06-03-2013, 03:38 AM
Cryptozoic Entertainment says:
"Hello Shea,

Interesting idea. I'll pass this along to the team.

Thanks."


*We'll see if something comes of this.

RobHaven
06-03-2013, 08:24 AM
I've been thinking about this whole thing a lot. At first I came up with an idea that involves an hour long event where people queue up and fight (1-on-1) soldiers of the world boss (as frequently as they'd like within the hour). Wins and losses in the 1-on-1s will add advantages or handicaps to the boss fight. After the hour long period, the boss becomes available for 30 minutes. Players who registered at least one full battle in the 1-on-1s can queue up again, this time for a chance to fight the world boss. (Groups of two and three can queue up together.) Once you register a win against the world boss, you're no longer eligible to queue during this specific event. Your total plunder would depend on your total wins/losses contribution.

Then I thought about it more... The whole point to being in a massive battle is the feel of being in a massive battle. Any solution that involves people contributing to a larger cause would be great, but it's not really scratching the itch in the right place. What we need is a means to have something like a 4-on-4 or 8 player ffa be executed without it being boring or chaotic.

- 4 on 4
The major prohibitive factor here is coordination. If all four players share a life pool and attack and defend together/simultaneously, there wouldn't be much waiting. It'd just be really, really hard to keep everyone on the same page. Assigning blockers would be a nightmare, as would resolving batches of spells. Even if you could do this, I don't see it being much fun.

- 8 player FFA
The only way I can see this happening is if you loosen up the definition of "turn based." You would have to set it to timers, basically. So two players take their turn, then 15 seconds later the next two take theirs, then 15 seconds later the next two, and 15 seconds later the final two. One minute after you've taken your first turn, your new turn begins. Damage sustained by your troops won't reset until your new turn begins, and exhausted troops won't untap until your turn as well. You're essentially responding to attacks in real-time. This would feel chaotic, but chaotic in a good way. The longest you're waiting to take your turn is a minute. Decks would probably need to be larger than 60 cards, and players would be constantly responding to threats. It'd be insane.
Thinking on it more, there would need to be some measure of balance. Maybe at the start of each players first turn, any player who has not taken a turn yet gets a colorless 0/1 (raceless, classless) troop that can not have an attack above 0 or a defense above 1? (So the fourth pair of players to go will have three 0/1s by the time they start their turn; the sole purpose is to offset the handicap of being vulnerable to three waves of attacks before you can even start.)

RobHaven
06-03-2013, 08:24 AM
I kind of responded to both threads in the same thought. My bad. But you can see where I'm headed with all this...