Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Go down

Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by Sabre on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:13 am

Since this topic hasn't really been discussed for a while, I feel like it's a good time to bring it up.

As we all know, Conquest generally focuses on the battling. Maybe you're fine with that, but maybe you aren't. Personally I think it's OK to have battles but the RP has seemed to centralize around those. I know it's supposed to focus around battles, but of course it seems these take away from the draw of roleplaying in a warlike scenario. The main solution for this is to emphasize roleplaying, but this has been extremely hard to implement and really comes down to adding new things instead of changing things, which a lot of people argue go unused (eg Wanderers, Trading). You also can't add anything like a line minimum because that's strictly against the room fundamentals.

So I was thinking, maybe instead of emphasizing roleplaying, we could de-emphasize battling. Ideally, this would strike a balance between battling and rping. This technically exists in Conquest now, but isn't used to its fullest extent. What we could do is open up more opportunities for rping in the existing framework of the game without changing the fundamentals of Conquest. Only problem is that this often leaves people without any ideas.

So the best things we can do are to de-emphasize battling or open up more ways to rp how you like, or go back to the old ways of "fixing" CQ via adding more mechanics. Here are some of my ideas:

- Some sort of influence system. This may be something like wanderers, but with types influencing other types to do their bidding. Could lead to some interesting scenarios and some shady-type kingdoms. Of course, there would need to be a price, which could be the gold system or something else. Maybe if a kingdom amasses enough "favors" for another they can use the power they accumulated to annex the other. Or basically, do enough favors and you get to annex someone. Could make types that are fearful of others a little less scared.
- A Coalition mechanic? If a type has a certain number of CQs (maybe 5 or so), then a group of types can team up, defying alliances to challenge the conqueror in a series of battles, maybe with the other types not sacrificing their kingdoms. This would probably lead to better strategy and could dissuade extreme conquest.
- Casus Bellis (War Goals)? This would probably be a weird concept to implement, but basically if you come up with a good reason for conquest you can get more things? Only problem is what would these things be. Extra Pokemon to steal? Maybe. This is a good topic for discussion imo.
- Optional maps? May add some realism, probably not something i see coming in
- Revanchism? This means a "striking back". There are existing rules to prevent this, but what if you get some sort of bonus if someone attacks an ally? Broad, hard to develop topic imo

Those are just my ideas. Please post any ideas you have about conquest here, and don't be afraid to critique others' ideas (but keep it civil). And mine. Please critique and add to mine.

_________________

Poison for life!
OC's:
Kraljica Svinec - Naganadel
avatar
Sabre

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 1140
Join date : 2014-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by Claw(Garchomp) on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:31 am

I believe another possible way to decrease the amount of battles is to have an extended Grace Period only to affect what people would call "weakness hunts", basically attacking the type that is weak to you.
It's certainly possible and might have an increased chance for one to immediately attack a type that is weak to yours for a quick and easy CQ. Perhaps have 10 to 30 more minutes for potential roleplays that may be carried out by those who would normally be targetted.
avatar
Claw(Garchomp)

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 21
Join date : 2015-08-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by SleekzZero on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:33 am

Sabre wrote:- Some sort of influence system. This may be something like wanderers, but with types influencing other types to do their bidding. Could lead to some interesting scenarios and some shady-type kingdoms. Of course, there would need to be a price, which could be the gold system or something else. Maybe if a kingdom amasses enough "favors" for another they can use the power they accumulated to annex the other. Or basically, do enough favors and you get to annex someone. Could make types that are fearful of others a little less scared.

I think this is unnecessary. By technicality, vassalization exists in its simple form to “annex” others and extend their superiority. Though this is grounded on the idea of battle, I’d like to hopefully see another way we could implement this through roleplay.

Sabre wrote:- A Coalition mechanic? If a type has a certain number of CQs (maybe 5 or so), then a group of types can team up, defying alliances to challenge the conqueror in a series of battles, maybe with the other types not sacrificing their kingdoms. This would probably lead to better strategy and could dissuade extreme conquest.

Not that I think of this in a negative way, but won’t this give the grouped types an “unfair advantage” against the type they wish to face? For example, if Steel has amassed a certain amount of CQ’s, then its weaknesses can gang up against it and defeat it easily. Though this is just a case-to-case scenario, the probability of this being exploited for the benefit of others is high.

Sabre wrote:- Casus Bellis (War Goals)? This would probably be a weird concept to implement, but basically if you come up with a good reason for conquest you can get more things? Only problem is what would these things be. Extra Pokemon to steal? Maybe. This is a good topic for discussion imo.

I think this is a good concept to implement to further bring out the “roleplaying” aspect of Conquest. Maybe we can further deepen the lore and context of Conquest so that we can establish a standard setting of the lands asides from the one already given and so that more people will be able to understand that Conquest isn’t set in modern times, but in a rather medieval-like fantasy setting.

Sabre wrote:- Optional maps? May add some realism, probably not something i see coming in

Maybe not in PS Battles (as it would not make much significance), but in RP battles, it might make an impact, such as using the environment to their advantage, environment changes (like Sun, Rain, Trick Room set beforehand in the duration of the battle, and the likes). I think it can make the battles more engaging than usual and create a better roleplaying atmosphere to challenge the players and their capacity to devise a good starategy.

Sabre wrote:- Revanchism? This means a "striking back". There are existing rules to prevent this, but what if you get some sort of bonus if someone attacks an ally? Broad, hard to develop topic imo

I also don’t really understand the concept of Revanchism, and a bonus given to you when someone attacks an ally might give your type another unfair advantage if overused.

These ideas you gave out are interesting to pursure. I’d actually like to see them in the future if ever these make it through.
avatar
SleekzZero

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by Sabre on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:37 am

The influence system could mean Type A hiring Type B to conquer the threatening Type C, but with Type B taking over C. There would also be a victory mechanic with gold or whatever is rewarded, so players wanting to go down that path will have an opportunity to do so.

You make a good point with the coalition system. Maybe a Coalition could be limited in size, or not be allowed to contained more than 1 effective type against the targeted type?

_________________

Poison for life!
OC's:
Kraljica Svinec - Naganadel
avatar
Sabre

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 1140
Join date : 2014-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Follow-up on CQ

Post by Conversationist on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:57 am

CoG here.

After having discussed with Sabre a bit, I've decided to share my thoughts to make CQ a viable RP for RPers and battlers as well. CQ, to me, is one of my absolute favorite RPs for the sole reason of it being an integrated RP - it appeals to the sensibilities of both types of player and participant. But to see it getting bogged down by the desire to 'win' and a competitiveness that often takes away from the key aspect of fun is very sad.

Firstly, in response to the ideas that Sabre has presented:

1) Absolutely love the influence system. If presented properly, it becomes a stratagem for people who like CQ as a battle front. Furthermore, it presents roleplaying advantages as well. Favors involve interactions between Kingdoms that don't necessarily end in the death of either of them. If there's anything we need, it's more peaceful activity. For Kingdoms whose Warlords or Knights are not as great in the Monotype sphere, it offers them an out as well, making it friendly for different levels of expertise. (Plus, who doesn't love having someone in one's debt?) This might seem similar to vassalization and the like, but the key distinction is that the Kingdoms don't need to be affliated in advance or afterwards.

2) Coalitions seem interesting. Once again, it's a way to introduce friendly interactions between Kingdoms that aren't just ally relationships, and it evens the playing field between juggernauts and battling pros, versus the masses of people who can't claim that battling skill. Strength in numbers and the like. Suitable penalties will have to be drawn up in the case of victory or defeat for the challenged lord, but rest assured that can come in due time. (Perhaps, something along the lines of the kingdoms losing their knights. Just an idea.)

3) Neat thought, though the implementation of War Goals seems very tricky. This will tie in with my suggestions for CQ presented after the analysis of Sabre's points, so stay tuned.

4) and 5) do not seem as great ideas to me. Optional maps are great, don't get me wrong! And fleshing out the world this is set in is great. However, it is a sad reality that optional maps are not given as much attention to, and there is the potential restriction of creativity that arises from this. Revanchism is also an idea I disagree with, but for different reasons. As I said, one of the key problems of CQ in my eyes is the excessive competitiveness, and striking back is the kind of fuel that will spark this competition and make it uglier.

Now then, for those who've made it this far, haha. Here is my suggestion for how to gameify CQ in a way that may be more conducive to RP. The key idea here is that 'conquering all 18 Kingdoms' should not be the only metric of success. We need other forms of victory - 'Economic Victory' (and potentially, a 'Diplomatic Victory' in the future. For now I'll only discuss the economic front.)

Each Kingdom starts off with starting capital (and potentially an income as well, every X minutes, but this is just speculative.) When a Kingdom conquers another and succeeds, they earn a certain amount of money - this money will be evaluated with respect to the number of Kingdoms under the attacker's belt, the number of Kingdoms under the defender's belt, the allies on either end, and the type matchup between then. By establishing a weighted formula, we have now a different, more strategic goal - staying alive, while earning as much as possible.

Keep in mind, this has the potential to foster more RP, because now there's a penalty to attacking that's more than just 'oh, I died, welp'. In fact, you don't necessarily have to DIE after losing. That's right, the economic penalty is in fact what's keeping you behind and away from winning. There could easily be a penalty set for a Kingdom to kill another Kingdom's warlord, and separate penalties for vassalization and trades. The amount of money one has can tie into the Influence idea mentioned earlier, and can also be a War Goal of sorts.

Understandably, yes, this can get complicated, but it's good to sketch out a fair system that promotes battle AND RP, so that once we derive some sort of weighted formula that takes all this factors into account, all we need is a Google Sheets set up that does the calculations and the hard work for the host so that they don't have to worry about the math.

Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. If we can figure out a good way to establish 'Diplomatic Victory' too, as opposed to 'Economic Victory' alone, I wouldn't be opposed to see how it would be possible to set that up / integrate that with the ideas presented here / do something different entirely. All I want is for CQ to be made fun for everyone, not just good battlers. And if we can achieve that, that's all I care about.
avatar
Conversationist

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 3
Join date : 2016-12-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by Rico on Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:17 am

Okay so I take issue with a fair bit of what is posted in this thread and I want to pay proper attention to each point raised, so this is going to be a long post.

Sabre wrote:Since this topic hasn't really been discussed for a while, I feel like it's a good time to bring it up.

As we all know, Conquest generally focuses on the battling. Maybe you're fine with that, but maybe you aren't. Personally I think it's OK to have battles but the RP has seemed to centralize around those. I know it's supposed to focus around battles, but of course it seems these take away from the draw of roleplaying in a warlike scenario. The main solution for this is to emphasize roleplaying, but this has been extremely hard to implement and really comes down to adding new things instead of changing things, which a lot of people argue go unused (eg Wanderers, Trading). You also can't add anything like a line minimum because that's strictly against the room fundamentals.

So I was thinking, maybe instead of emphasizing roleplaying, we could de-emphasize battling. Ideally, this would strike a balance between battling and rping. This technically exists in Conquest now, but isn't used to its fullest extent. What we could do is open up more opportunities for rping in the existing framework of the game without changing the fundamentals of Conquest. Only problem is that this often leaves people without any ideas.

My first issue is that as you say, there's systems in place already to try and maintain a balance between RP and Battle, but they aren't being used enough to make a big enough difference. What is adding more things going to do to offset that core problem? People don't like new shit.

Sabre wrote:
So the best things we can do are to de-emphasize battling or open up more ways to rp how you like, or go back to the old ways of "fixing" CQ via adding more mechanics. Here are some of my ideas:

- Some sort of influence system. This may be something like wanderers, but with types influencing other types to do their bidding. Could lead to some interesting scenarios and some shady-type kingdoms. Of course, there would need to be a price, which could be the gold system or something else. Maybe if a kingdom amasses enough "favors" for another they can use the power they accumulated to annex the other. Or basically, do enough favors and you get to annex someone. Could make types that are fearful of others a little less scared.
This sounds almost identical to the wanderer system except it's for warlords. I won't go on about wanderers though, and try my best to express why this doesn't work the same way for warlords.
First and foremost, there are groups of very good (and some awful) conquest players who already co-ordinate between themselves. To prevent these people from cheating as they so often try to do, we would need to first restrict this system to "You may EITHER ally OR use this system". At this point, you are essentially a wanderer style warlord.
The next issue is the same issue that wanderers already face which is why use it? There's not really any other missions or 'favors' you could do that the wanderer system isn't already doing, and it is somewhat under utilised. Shifting this off wanderers and on to kingdoms would firstly significantly increase host load (they have to keep track of EVERY kingdom's gold total) but also essentially end the use of wanderers altogether.

Sabre wrote:- A Coalition mechanic? If a type has a certain number of CQs (maybe 5 or so), then a group of types can team up, defying alliances to challenge the conqueror in a series of battles, maybe with the other types not sacrificing their kingdoms. This would probably lead to better strategy and could dissuade extreme conquest.
While I like this idea in principle, a conquerer gains nothing for excessive conquest, except bringing the game closer to an end. Essentially this would just be a hard limit on how much you can conquer before the rest of the game can just say you've had enough, because all it takes is one somewhat luck based battle and it's all over.
To make this fair, I think we'd need to lift some restrictions on larger kingdoms, enabling their knights to be somewhere between a knight and a lord in strength or something else that will make it possible for them to battle evenly with literally every remaining type all at once. That, or you forfeit the coalition protection of sacrificing kingdom on loss and essentially it becomes a way for the game to either suddenly end or go on. Perhaps on that, but I think people would get pretty salty about it and it gets pretty close to a battle royale/tournament thing then.



Sabre wrote:- Casus Bellis (War Goals)? This would probably be a weird concept to implement, but basically if you come up with a good reason for conquest you can get more things? Only problem is what would these things be. Extra Pokemon to steal? Maybe. This is a good topic for discussion imo.
- Optional maps? May add some realism, probably not something i see coming in
This is personal RP choice. Basis of conquest is that you are all at war. Why is up to you, and if you want a map, feel free to draw one up for use when you host.
I also do not think people should necessarily be given boons based on their RPing in a short term battle based game. Nothing major anyway, and I don't think anything minor could be done in the PS battle system. It would also require host interaction which I mentioned earlier as being something that should probably not be part of a solution.

Sabre wrote:- Revanchism? This means a "striking back". There are existing rules to prevent this, but what if you get some sort of bonus if someone attacks an ally? Broad, hard to develop topic imo
We're restricted by the PS battle engine, so we can't do something like "You're attacking in revenge, your team has a permanent magic room in effect" or something. It'd be cool, but it's just not feasible on PS. In battleless sure. The main rules preventing this kind of thing is just about you actually losing when you lose, and no you can't come back and try to take out the person who killed your precious oc.
Stuff for allies though, I do think would be cool but there's just nothing in-rp that is both fair and possible.

Claw(Garchomp) wrote:I believe another possible way to decrease the amount of battles is to have an extended Grace Period only to affect what people would call "weakness hunts", basically attacking the type that is weak to you.
It's certainly possible and might have an increased chance for one to immediately attack a type that is weak to yours for a quick and easy CQ. Perhaps have 10 to 30 more minutes for potential roleplays that may be carried out by those who would normally be targetted.

I would be cautious about extending the grace period by much more than it already is. It should be over, for instance, by the time the first endpoll can be made (30 minutes). If you're concerned about weakness hunting perhaps invest in an ally during that grace period who can help handle your weaknesses. Weakness hunts will ALWAYS be a problem (both legitimate and simply "omg you have a pokemon that is strong against me you weakness hunter!") and the only way to make them go away is to make everyone play normal stabmons.

Conversationist wrote:CoG here.

After having discussed with Sabre a bit, I've decided to share my thoughts to make CQ a viable RP for RPers and battlers as well. CQ, to me, is one of my absolute favorite RPs for the sole reason of it being an integrated RP - it appeals to the sensibilities of both types of player and participant. But to see it getting bogged down by the desire to 'win' and a competitiveness that often takes away from the key aspect of fun is very sad.

I'm just going to put this out there, but to me the point of playing a game is to eventually win it. If I want to just RP a kingdom based thing, I would go to Kingdom or Freeroam and do it there, but conquest is a game with a clear objective, and I don't think that should change, nor should the people trying to achieve that objective be looked down on.

Conversationist wrote:Now then, for those who've made it this far, haha. Here is my suggestion for how to gameify CQ in a way that may be more conducive to RP. The key idea here is that 'conquering all 18 Kingdoms' should not be the only metric of success. We need other forms of victory - 'Economic Victory' (and potentially, a 'Diplomatic Victory' in the future. For now I'll only discuss the economic front.)
Diplomatic Victory exists in the form of alliances. There is absolutely no way anyone should win by a vote from other players in the game, based partly on what I said above but also because I simply don't think it will be fair on anybody. Economic Victory is implemented in part with the Wanderer system, if you want to play the economic game then that's where it's located. Yes, it's still battle focused for the most part and to succeed you must do battle, but that's war.

Conversationist wrote:Each Kingdom starts off with starting capital (and potentially an income as well, every X minutes, but this is just speculative.) When a Kingdom conquers another and succeeds, they earn a certain amount of money - this money will be evaluated with respect to the number of Kingdoms under the attacker's belt, the number of Kingdoms under the defender's belt, the allies on either end, and the type matchup between then. By establishing a weighted formula, we have now a different, more strategic goal - staying alive, while earning as much as possible.

Keep in mind, this has the potential to foster more RP, because now there's a penalty to attacking that's more than just 'oh, I died, welp'. In fact, you don't necessarily have to DIE after losing. That's right, the economic penalty is in fact what's keeping you behind and away from winning. There could easily be a penalty set for a Kingdom to kill another Kingdom's warlord, and separate penalties for vassalization and trades. The amount of money one has can tie into the Influence idea mentioned earlier, and can also be a War Goal of sorts.

This sounds like it will slow the RP down by a lot. Conquest is already pretty slow, I don't think I'd want to see it even slower. Also see above re: Overworked hosts. We'd have to actually have host polls again and worry about quality hosts. Bleh.



Note that this isn't a "No you can never do this ever omg". It's a "This is why I don't think this is a good idea". I'm not personally involved in running conquest, it's not my thing. I'd probably like a slower version that takes a few months to get anything done, or one in a defined RP system without all the bullshit of type imbalance, but I don't really enjoy what Conquest is. That doesn't mean Conquest has to change, it just means it's not for me.
avatar
Rico
Room Owner
Room Owner

Status :
Swinging the Ban Hammer
Keep Stalking.

Posts : 609
Join date : 2014-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by ADHD⧓Tux on Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:43 am

I have an idea, but I don't know if everyone will like it. I will demonstrate with an example.

Let's say in a hypothetical run of CQ that Rock conquers Ground. Far-fetched, I know. Since Rock won, they have a bonus point to spend. This point can be spent to:

i) Remove an occupation. If this is done by Rock at the last minute of an occupation attempt just to troll someone, their kingdom will be given to the occupier.

ii) Deny a conquest attempt, and that kingdom will not be able to challenge them until Rock conquers another kingdom or attacks/attempt to occupy the denied kingdom.

iii) Steal a Pokemon from a knight or wanderer that unsuccessfully attacks them. The Pokemon in question must be used by Rock for the rest of their time as lord.

iv) Force-vassal a member of a current enemy alliance into service. If Rock has just CQ'd the final member of an alliance, they do not need to spend the point. If the conquered lord refuses to be vassalized, Rock may kill the lord.

v) Free a type that is not in Rock's alliance from a nation that they have conquered. Rock is then allowed to force-vassal them. If not, then Rock is allowed to kill the freed lord.

vi) Force a living lord into an alliance with them.

I hope some of you take the time to read these and critique/suggest ways to improve these ideas. Smile
avatar
ADHD⧓Tux

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 14
Join date : 2017-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by Cozy Chiaki on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:13 pm

I think a decent way to improve Conquest may be to maybe tighten the screws around shitposting, because that seems to be a common problem that people have called out. I also feel that removing, or at least discouraging character death wouldn't be an awful idea either.
avatar
Cozy Chiaki

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 16
Join date : 2017-12-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Revisiting Conquest: Battling vs Roleplaying (Insert Your Ideas)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum