Consider Implementing Some Things to Balance Conquest

[ArcherSquid]

Over the past few conquest fights I came up with a few ideas that could help balance conquest. Feel free to add criticisms and ideas.

Spectral Module:
The spectral modules has been in a weird spot since the start of conquest 3.0. At first it was too overpowered and it is still pretty powerful after the downgrade. Invisibility potions have been rendered basically useless under the module as it just completely wipes it. I think that once you go out of the spectral range, your invisibility should come back at what ever time you entered the zone. i.e enter spectral area with 6:00 and exit with 6:00. This in my opinion would help not waste the invis potion.

Inhibitors:
I love the changes in conquest 3.0 such as the inhibitor modules which do help balance it a lot. I think that it needs to buffed a bit as well. The defenders have 4 modules along with a core which are very hard to get down, if a defense is wiped they have a bigger chance to win the fight then opposed to the attackers. It takes 20 charges to enter the core of a t-gen however it only takes 20 for a inhibitor for the attackers to lose the battle. I agree that attacking should be harder however I think there should be a buff for the attackers. My suggestion is to either change the inhibs design to make it harder to get charges, such as the old one in conquest 2.0 or add a core mechanic to the inhibitors, maybe even add more charges to the inhib than tgen.

 

[DFG1125]

@ArcherSquid In reference to the Spectral mod, I am whole heatedly in favor of this; as someone who doesn't have a lot of potions it would be nice to not have to worry about them being wasted.

As for the Inhibitors, I'm unsure how to feel. There was already a new feature added to buff them and as I haven't been on an attacking side much I can't say whether or not that has leveled the playing field at all.

 

[Sparky___]

Inhibitors:
I agree that attacking should be harder however I think there should be a buff for the attackers. My suggestion is to either change the inhibs design to make it harder to get charges, such as the old one in conquest 2.0 or add a core mechanic to the inhibitors, maybe even add more charges to the inhib than tgen.

I'm not sure I completely understand your complaint about the imbalance of attacking compared to defending. I've only been on the attacking side a few times in recent time, so it might not be as obvious to me.

Is it that the current design makes it unrealistic to get charges off? (If so how does this differ from getting charges off a TGen, since they now have similar designs around the lamps).

I'm also unsure about the introduction of a core mechanic for inhibitors. Especially since it still seems that once you breach a core the gig is pretty much up anyways (even with the recent introduction of the bomb). I think this would be more so the case with inhibitors since they are so open (but that is probably subject to debate). Just hoping we can elaborate more on this, because it is not immediately clear to me that the disparity between attacking and defending is outside of acceptable limits (or even what those limits are).

 

[Adzy]

Yes give us our invis back big scam skyman!

 

[koi0001]

Throw back to the 2.0 20v20 invis fights where people had to make resource packs for fights

edit: but please add a way for us to tell people apart even if it was just a buff. In my opinion it'd be useful to allow spectral to show who's side people are on instead of making invis useless.

 

[ModernMozart1787]

I agree on the first point, but I already think attacking and defending are pretty balanced, for the reason that you don't get to pick when you're attacked, only when you attack, except in a large vuln window. For instance, you can plan an attack for when you have most of your good pvpers on, but you can't plan a defence for when your good pvpers are on.

 

[ArcherSquid]

I'm not sure I completely understand your complaint about the imbalance of attacking compared to defending. I've only been on the attacking side a few times in recent time, so it might not be as obvious to me.

Is it that the current design makes it unrealistic to get charges off? (If so how does this differ from getting charges off a TGen, since they now have similar designs around the lamps).

I'm also unsure about the introduction of a core mechanic for inhibitors. Especially since it still seems that once you breach a core the gig is pretty much up anyways (even with the recent introduction of the bomb). I think this would be more so the case with inhibitors since they are so open (but that is probably subject to debate). Just hoping we can elaborate more on this, because it is not immediately clear to me that the disparity between attacking and defending is outside of acceptable limits (or even what those limits are).

I agree with what you're saying but let me reiterate and answer a few of your questions. I believe that there is a slight imbalance even though changes have been made. As the attackers you are forced to push (as it should be) so there is a bigger chance of the attackers side getting wiped. If you spread out your charges right, you can end the fight in mere minutes (as defenders) . As for the attackers, lets say the defenders are wiped during a fight, they have a lower chance of winning since they have to deal with the modules firing at them along with the core. The core can fire events such as the lava floor, sub cores, wither, and others which help buy time for the defenders to warp back. This is non existent for the attackers as they lose the fight after 20 charges. As for the getting charges on a tgen/inhib, I think that playing objective has been overshadowed by now you have wipe the other side enough so that you can get charges. It is simply impossible to get a charge with the new designs when there are 15-20 people knocking you off with knock back swords and bows. Back with the old designs you could easily run in for a charge, get it and then regroup. Now you have to wipe the other side. As a person who has went to nearly 250 conquest fights I think that there needs to be something done to the designs as playing objective doesn't reward you as much anymore. You can take a look at the old streams on https://www.twitch.tv/lokaminecraft with the old designs on the tgens/inhibs. A lot of people were playing more objective based which I feel was better. Again, feel free to prove me wrong this is just a suggestion

 

[Cryptite]

Back with the old designs you could easily run in for a charge, get it and then regroup. Now you have to wipe the other side

This was the very point of the new designs. There may be room for some sort of a middle ground, but the fact that 1 single person could run into a corner, shield up, and grab a charge despite the fact that 20-30+ defenders were still alive (and even 8+ people were trying to push the charger off) was pretty dumb and was something the community heavily complained about.

Fights still have a push and pull behavior to them, but the big difference now is that a lot of the fight revolves around actually killing the other team. Yes there is a natural imbalance (on purpose) of attacking vs defense, but there is a bigger issue here.

We don't really have much data on big fights. The big fights of late have been between the same two sides, each both on offense and defense:

• There have been 7 "big fights" this month. One side has won every single one. 5 of those were fairly even in numbers (+-4 or so players extra on one side) this month, with the winners having been on Attack 2 times, Defense 3 times.
• Objectively speaking, none of these fights have been very close. With every single fight, the losing side has at best gotten off only 5/20 charges (defense or offense).
• Simply put, we don't have enough data for anybody to legitimately claim attacking is too hard.

Now I think it's fair to discuss a middle ground like I said before, but frankly it feels to me like the big problem right now has nothing to do with the way the system works. One side is objectively winning, regardless of the landscape of the battle. I don't think any changes to the system would alter that fact at this time.

 

[DeceitfulPear]

• Simply put, we don't have enough data for anybody to legitimately claim attacking is too hard.

The sides now seem to be more balanced in terms of skill luckily, as long as Nova stops stealing shulkers from allies, we should be able to get a better idea on what is and isn't balanced

 

[Magpieman]

So I see two issues that you have brought up, neither involve the attack vs defence 'imbalance'. These are that you can kill an inhib/Tgen before the other team can warp back, (if they wipe) and that charges are too difficult to get off in combat. Both have very simple solutions.

If getting wiped is too punishing then we can increase the spawn time of golems, that way even if the enemies spread the charges between lamps, there won't be enough time to completely destroy a structure before your team comes back. If charges are too difficult to get off then we can simply reduce the time you have to stand by a lamp in order to destroy it.

This was the reason for the redesign of structures in C3. There was a fundamental issue in the old system where people were able to get charges off with no counterplay. Now we can tweak numbers to balance the game of conquest without worrying about 'cheese' tactics used to get charges off. Up to this point, I don't think we have changed the original numbers since C3. (charge times, golems respawn etc.) Changing these small things can have a huge impact on how fights play out. I don't feel there is a need to redesign the system, to fix a problem that doesn't exist. With that in mind would love to hear where you think we could tweak numbers to improve the conquest experience. That coupled with data will dictate how we tweak conquest balance.

Also to note I think your Spectral Module suggestion is a fair change. Though there is a risk of making the module too weak.

 

[DFG1125]

In my opinion it'd be useful to allow spectral to show who's side people are on instead of making invis useless.

You don't need spectral to see who's on what side, by default armor color is changed for you depending on what side you're on.

Now we can tweak numbers to balance the game of conquest without worrying about 'cheese' tactics used to get charges off.

Would it be possible to have different timers ect depending on the scale of a fight, because obviously a 20v20 fight will be different than a 4v4. I think that having different timers would be a benefit to everyone.

Also, I think if you REALLY wanted to add a core mechanic, here's a middle ground I came up with just now, instead of there being a core, when you're on the last 1-2 lamps you will have a chance of getting one of the effects; obviously some wouldn't be do-able and others might need to be modified to fit but I think it could be pretty cool. This is one I thought up just now: Lamp Lock down, so imagine you're about to go put a charge on a lamp, and then it locks down. So you have to go put it on the other lamp instead. Which I guess would require having 2 lamps left, but it's still pretty cool ;P

 

[Magpieman]

Would it be possible to have different timers ect depending on the scale of a fight, because obviously a 20v20 fight will be different than a 4v4. I think that having different timers would be a benefit to everyone.

I mean it's possible and been discussed internally in the past. There are potential problems with it. Since players can keep joining the fight after the start, the numbers would have to keep changing. With that there is huge cheese potential if we are not careful. Players can work out the optimum number of players to send to a fight to give them the biggest advantage, whether that's soloing a gen as fast as possible or slowing down their opponent.

 

[Cryptite]

I do believe we reduced Golem respawn timers from 45s -> 35s to account for the increased number (and faster) charges required. Perhaps this is merely too fast.

 

[Magpieman]

I do believe we reduced Golem respawn timers from 45s -> 35s to account for the increased number (and faster) charges required. Perhaps this is merely too fast.

Yes this was due to C3 now requiring 5 charges per lamp instead of 3.

 

[Adzy]

Orange trees will balance everything...