PDA

View Full Version : Concern about Keep Defense



eioi
06-21-2013, 11:26 AM
When I last thought about Keep Defense I fealt realy uneasy, cause I can't think about a way they can make it so that the System of how you attack can't be missused or would be unfair to casual players.

If they implement it the way that everyone can attack an Keep simultaneously it can be missused to multiply gold. If 10 People attack nearly simultaneously and the Decks in the keep are build to be defeated easily then all 10 People get the same high Goldreward out of the Keep which is surely higher than the Gold the owner of the Keep originaly give away for the Keep.
If they would give the reward only to the first in this scenario it would also be realy unfair, cause if someone build 3 realy hard to beat decks and the Keep gets more reward and then 2 players beat the decks (maybe the first was already at the 3 deck when the second player begins) it would be unfair to the second who maybe spent up to an hour (if they started at nearly the same time and for one deck you need 20 min to beat) and get nothing for his time.

The second method to run Keep defense would be that only one person can attack a Keep at one time. It would be fair cause nobody spent unnessesary time and get nothing out of it. But with this method you can save a Keep which give a lot of Gold for the winner with a group of people which tag it only for the duration they can for better players which are the best in the group so that they can get the reward (if you maybe have a cooldown on attacking a spezific Keep or you need to redo your deck to beat the 3 Keeper Decks) so normaly the others player outside this group will most unlikely see this keep to attack cause only people in this group knew when the keep open up again.
To have a queue for this would also be not (casual) player friendly, cause who has up to a few hours to wait to get to fight a keep maybe (only if the people before one hasn't beat it, else you waited for nothing).

What are your thougths about this matter or maybe i have overlooked a way for it to run?

P.s.: Sorry for my bad english and for my sometime confusing thinking process.

Avaian
06-21-2013, 11:36 AM
Last I heard the Keep Defense is very much a work in progress, until it is closer to being completed I would save my worries.

However I feel it should be the winner gets everything if they beat it, however if you beat it and there are a couple other players attempting the keep at the same time, it would wait to give you the reward, stop others from attempting it, and if any of the other players attempting it beat it, you would then receive your entry fee + the reward divided by the number of people who beat it.

BossHoss
06-21-2013, 11:40 AM
It should be queued as there will be 10,000+ keeps available to be raided so just find another...

jaxsonbateman
06-21-2013, 11:42 AM
IMO, it should just be first in, best dressed. Perhaps I'm a bit too hard-nosed on this, but I look at it like a race - and just because a racer finished the course very shortly after the winner, they still came second.

But if it becomes a problem of people blowing expensive Spectral Lotuses on attempts, winning, and then not getting the reward because they were second, perhaps give them consolation Spectral Lotuses equal to the amount they used.

Or yeah, queues work fine.

cavench
06-21-2013, 11:45 AM
1. Attacker prompted with Queue "There is X assaults ahead of you, continue?"
2. Attacker clicks continue and grabs a number that is tracked internally, say he is attacker #2.
3. Attacker #2 proceeds and defeats the keep...
4a. If Attacker #1 did not defeat the keep, then Attacker #2 grabs the whole pot.
4b. If Attacker #1 and #2 both defeats the keep, AND Attacker #2 did it first, then pot is shared between both #1 and #2.
4c. If Attacker #1 and #2 both defeats the keep, BUT Attacker #1 did it first, then pot goes to #1.

This allows no wait time, and provides a sense of urgency in fear that someone behind you may defeat the keep faster. This is something I cooked up in seconds, so I'm sure there should be better solutions than this one.

ossuary
06-21-2013, 11:53 AM
Remember that time the same bank was robbed by 2 sets of crooks in the same day? It was really nice of the first set of robbers to share half their take with the guys who came in after them... ;)

First one in, wins. If you were making an attempt and don't finish first... well, bad luck, try again another day.

Hatts
06-21-2013, 12:04 PM
I don't think you need to add a Queue, if someone beats the keep and gets the jackpot before you then you will have to live with it.

Unhurtable
06-21-2013, 12:09 PM
Keep Defence is essentially "beat this first to get the gold". If you have a deck that beats the keep faster than somebody else, then you should get the gold if you start at the same time since you are the first person to beat the keep.

A queue system is unnecessary as it will cause more frustration than good. Imagine the 10 people who have waited for the past 30 minutes who are told that "somebody has beaten the keep".

Lastly, even if 10 people near simultaneously beat the keep, the system would still only need a check that looks if the keep has already been beaten.

odjn
06-21-2013, 12:34 PM
Would it be possible for Hex to put up a portion of the winnings to those individuals who were also attacking the keep and managed to beat the deck with diminishing returns based on place in beating the deck, i.e. 1st to beat it receives the reward from the player offering, second place receives 25% of the reward rounded up from Hex, third 15%, fourth on down 5%. Rather than a queue, when attacking a keep, the game could inform the attacker of how many other players are attacking and for how long (like seeing how long your buddies have been in-game in LoL). No one attacking a castle could fail to notice one or more other armies already assaulting it, and his or her well-trained spies should be able to go in and discover how long said army(ies) have been banging that drum.

eioi
06-21-2013, 11:35 PM
Last I heard the Keep Defense is very much a work in progress, until it is closer to being completed I would save my worries.

I wrote this cause nobody can think on all possibilities and maybe this thread helps them to decide how they will implement this feature, cause when they have implemented it it would be harder to change it.


So to sum up the argument/possible solution (hope I don't forget somebody and classify you correctly)

1. If Somebody beat it then stop new players from attempting and if somebody from the already attemting people beat it too then split the reward. (from Avaian)
2. Queued. (from BossHoss and jaxsonbateman)
3. Only first get all (backtransformation from Spectral Lotuses if you were not the first (idea addition from jaxsonbateman)). (from jaxsonbateman, ossuary, Hatts and Unhurtable)
4. Show how much attacker are before you and Splitreward if you beat the Keep before the Players before you when they also beat the Keep. (from cavench)
5. Give reward with decreasing reward for the later one. (from odjn)

So my contra to them:
1. When you win aggain a hard Keep after a long time playing which is worth a massive amount and this ammount get splitted you would maybe feel cheated, cause you only spend this time because you want to get the full reward.
2. Like Unhurtable say a queue is Problematic in the way that you maybe wait time for nothing and for myself find queue not so funny for casual players like myself which have only a limited time and would therefor be detained to try such Keeps and the bigger reward keep would have most likely always such a big queue. Also th Problem with queue is that if you have 10 players (or more) with you like nobody would try to get in when 10 people are before oneself and as such you could block off the bigger reward dungeon for your guild to try...
3. This would be discourage many casual players from trying the harder Keeps, cause it would be most likely that even when you have cleared it after an hour (or more) that somebody was faster than you and so the better player would clear one Keep defense after another and the casual player would most liekly don't use this feature cause it would be a timegrave tto attack.
@Unhurtable even when you have the fastest deck to beat this Keep (and spent much of time for it) in say 5 min than you could also be beaten from a 'slow' deck which need an hour cause when you start the game with the fast deck he played already 57min.
4. It's like 3 without the wait time (in terms of how it can be missused).
5. The Problem I see with this solution is that you can duplicate Gold with it, cause if you have enough players you get more out of it as it where in it.


From all the possible solution which can't be missused to block an Keep or to duplicate Gold (1, 3) the first would be for me the best, cause it would even allow casual players to participate in it.
But if you would make solution 5 so that you only come to 100% Gold from the keep than this would be by far the best in my opinion.
Like I say I don't like solution 3 only because it would discourage casual players from trying the harder Keeps, cause the most time you would get nothing out of even beating it.

Thats all my opinion, maybe you can say good reason against it or can give a possible solution which wasn't already given.

jaxsonbateman
06-21-2013, 11:39 PM
While I feel for more casual players, keep defense is a competition. In competitions, there are winners and losers. The only danger to someone attempting a keep and someone else beating it mid-attempt is Spectral Lotus (so potentially un-transform), and the initial buy-in (so potentially refund that).

As they say, to the victor go the spoils. Not to the runner-up. ;-)

volkmar77
06-22-2013, 12:56 AM
Keep Defence is essentially "beat this first to get the gold". If you have a deck that beats the keep faster than somebody else, then you should get the gold if you start at the same time since you are the first person to beat the keep.

A queue system is unnecessary as it will cause more frustration than good. Imagine the 10 people who have waited for the past 30 minutes who are told that "somebody has beaten the keep".

Lastly, even if 10 people near simultaneously beat the keep, the system would still only need a check that looks if the keep has already been beaten.

Really?
so of the these two scenarios:

A) you have been in queue for half an hour and then get a message saying "the keep was beaten".

AND

B) you have been attacking the keep for X hours only to find out somebody else beat the keep and you get squat. Oh, also your entry fee just went to whoever beat the Keep before you, how awesome is that??

You seriously prefer B??

I assume you can do other things while in the queue, you do not have to twirl your beard glaring at the screen the whole time. So A) seems a lot more preferable to me. with B) you just lost a lot of time (and gold), during which you were not doing anything else, for 0 reward. Yes, you were playing the game and maybe that was fun, but nothing stop you from playing the game while in the queue like in scenario A).

Honestly, though, even the queue system does not work well. I would rather have a list of keeps available and you choose one to attack and the keep remain locked for as long as you are attacking. That way, there is no A nor B, there is just:

C) you attack the keep and spend X hours. if you win, you get the reward.

To avoid the scenario of a group of people keeping a keep locked, simply make sure that a keep remain unattackable for X minutes/hours after a failed attempt and the time is random. If there is a group of people so dedicated to raze that keep that they are willingly to continuosly check the list of available keeps until it unlocks to then attack it again... well, let them, I guess. A lot of time they are wasting for nothing really, just some gold. Bots program should be fairly easy to detect in such a case and banned.

Unhurtable
06-22-2013, 02:51 AM
Really?
so of the these two scenarios:

A) you have been in queue for half an hour and then get a message saying "the keep was beaten".

AND

B) you have been attacking the keep for X hours only to find out somebody else beat the keep and you get squat. Oh, also your entry fee just went to whoever beat the Keep before you, how awesome is that??

You seriously prefer B??

I assume you can do other things while in the queue, you do not have to twirl your beard glaring at the screen the whole time. So A) seems a lot more preferable to me. with B) you just lost a lot of time (and gold), during which you were not doing anything else, for 0 reward. Yes, you were playing the game and maybe that was fun, but nothing stop you from playing the game while in the queue like in scenario A).

Honestly, though, even the queue system does not work well. I would rather have a list of keeps available and you choose one to attack and the keep remain locked for as long as you are attacking. That way, there is no A nor B, there is just:

C) you attack the keep and spend X hours. if you win, you get the reward.

To avoid the scenario of a group of people keeping a keep locked, simply make sure that a keep remain unattackable for X minutes/hours after a failed attempt and the time is random. If there is a group of people so dedicated to raze that keep that they are willingly to continuosly check the list of available keeps until it unlocks to then attack it again... well, let them, I guess. A lot of time they are wasting for nothing really, just some gold. Bots program should be fairly easy to detect in such a case and banned.

1. You are assuming you will lose the gold before you lose to the keep. It could just be a "stake" that you put in beforehand. In order words, trying to beat the keep and then getting the message that is has been beaten does not automatically mean that you lost your "stake".

2. Yes, I would honestly have at least a chance to get the goldz instead of not having the chance. Wouldn't you?

3. C has the same problem that A has. People do not have the chance to beat the keep if they are capable of doing so (that is, having the free time to play the game and a deck that is capable). The frustration does not come from sitting in the queue, but comes from the fact that you have to randomly check for availability in the case there is a special, high-value keep that you want to attack. Yes, the random time is implemented to prevent people from "clogging" a keep, which is a positive, but in the case of lucrative keeps the interest of even wanting to attempt to attack it. If 100 people are interested in attacking Keep X, what are the odds that you will find the keep open first? About 1 in 100? In other words, you could go for days without even getting a shot at beating the keep only to see someone else getting there first. The essential different between C and A is that C is a queue that is based on chance. C is "The lucky goes first" and A is "The early goes first".

majin
06-22-2013, 04:04 PM
I don't know yet how long it will take to attack a keep but they can simply 'lock' a keep that's being attacked. this will also all these issues. an iOS game called Clash of Clans have this feature.

They can then either create a queue of you can just keep checking every x minutes/seconds if the keep is free to attack

All players will have their own keep though not all might set it up for keep defense / will be attractive enough (rewards) to be attacked but with thousands of keeps out there, people will have a lot of choices on whom to attack

And this is also just one of the feature of the game so you can do raids, dungeon farming, PvP while a keep you want to attach is 'locked'

I know it's not ideal but it is a great solution for me to prevent these conflicts about loot sharing / who wins the reward issues

KeplerVerge
06-22-2013, 05:26 PM
My guess is more than likely they will have a list of keeps available to attack or an auto-queue. If there is a specific keep you wish to attack, you'll be able to queue individually for it. I don't see keeps being attackable by multiple users at once.

ossuary
06-22-2013, 07:40 PM
I would assume that your entrance fee isn't officially added to the "pot" until you complete your attempt. So if you are in the middle of attacking the keep, but someone else beats you to the victory screen, they get the pot, your game ends immediately with a message explaining what happened, and you get your entrance fee back.

No offense to my man Jax, but I don't think you should get back any consumed Lotuses, either. When you play the game of thrones, you either win, or you die.

funktion
06-22-2013, 07:46 PM
Haven't read through all the replies yet, but...


If 10 People attack nearly simultaneously and the Decks in the keep are build to be defeated easily then all 10 People get the same high Goldreward out of the Keep which is surely higher than the Gold the owner of the Keep originaly give away for the Keep.

Why would that ever be the case? As soon as one person conquers it, the reward will drop... if you're saying that there's 10 people coordinating on a voice chat client so that they all win at the exact same moment, well first off that's not worth the effort it would take, and second off the game will still be able to determine who did it first....

majin
06-22-2013, 07:50 PM
I would assume that your entrance fee isn't officially added to the "pot" until you complete your attempt. So if you are in the middle of attacking the keep, but someone else beats you to the victory screen, they get the pot, your game ends immediately with a message explaining what happened, and you get your entrance fee back.

if they allow multiple attacks at the same time, this is a good idea / solution too

d00dz
06-23-2013, 02:49 AM
An alternative solution is to have the Keep defender select up to how many attackers there could be at the same time. The more attackers, the faster the pot increases and driving more traffic in but the higher the chance that someone would defeat it.

To solve the concerns on splitting the pot, something like this could be implemented:

1. Players 1 and 2 both are currently attacking the keep
2. Player 1 wins

a. Player 2 continues his attack, pot still not given to anyone. All other players queued will get a notice that the keep is defeated


i. Player 2 wins



(a) Players 1 and 2 split the pot. Queued players informed


ii. Player 2 loses



(a) Player 1 gets the whole pot. Queued players informed
3. Player 1 loses

a. Next person in queue takes Player 1's place

b. Repeat

ossuary
06-23-2013, 05:00 AM
Why would a pot EVER be split? If you are the first to take something, it's not still there for someone else to take. It's not about being fair to all applicants, it's about "to the winner go the spoils."

majin
06-23-2013, 09:47 AM
An alternative solution is to have the Keep defender select up to how many attackers there could be at the same time. The more attackers, the faster the pot increases and driving more traffic in but the higher the chance that someone would defeat it.

To solve the concerns on splitting the pot, something like this could be implemented:

1. Players 1 and 2 both are currently attacking the keep
2. Player 1 wins
a. Player 2 continues his attack, pot still not given to anyone. All other players queued will get a notice that the keep is defeated



i. Player 2 wins




(a) Players 1 and 2 split the pot. Queued players informed




ii. Player 2 loses




(a) Player 1 gets the whole pot. Queued players informed


3. Player 1 loses
a. Next person in queue takes Player 1's place

b. Repeat


great idea but i don't want to split my winning with anyone :)

it might be selfish but i like that kind of challenge on games, either i win and gets everything or lose and returns home empty handed :P

Sholynyk
06-25-2013, 02:16 PM
Considering we do not have an idea about how the finding of keeps works, what if they just have them in a list, you can find them alphabetically by keep name/ player name, treasure value, or success rate value, once one person challenges the keep in question, it disappears from that list or just says, occupied. The players then have the option of a) waiting to see if the pot got bigger, or b) challenging another keep on the list with potentially a similar prize.