Id like to take a closer look on a current Ilum pvp problems basing on the game theory to analyze it weaknesses and check for a possible solutions. For anyone not interested with wall of text of theoretical digressions, just head to the second post for more practical solutions. For other topics on pvp subject check the third posts

 

First of all what is game theory? It's not necessarily related to the typical computer games, but rather it's a study of the economic interactions between different subjects. Below I present some random google link with a simple and understandable example of game theory use:

 

http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/game-theory-1.jpeg

 

Even though game theory was not created with computer games in consideration it's an excellent tool and a must know for all self-respecting game developers. It's due to the fact that it accurately models behavior of economically rational entities.

 

At this point I want to debunk a myth of a guilt of all players that are looking for the fastest way to get rewarded. Such behavior is a perfect example of economically rational decisions (and a point they're seeking is called Nash Equilibrium). A well designed system should anticipate and take advantage of it to influence users behavior into desired direction.

 

Also, even though most of the players are typical economically rational persons, it's worth noting that we have some portion of users (regulators) that will forfeit their own immediate benefit in order to preserve system stability (of course hoping that their actions will pay of eventually). System will benefit on them, but should not solely depend on them. That's why I won't focus on them here.

 

Now, after the long introduction, moving to the point of this thread - what are the Ilum problems and how to fight them ?

To start up, I'd like to say thanks to SWToR team. You have the will and determination to take on the world pvp concept. It's not an easy job and will cause some headaches in a future probably. Just don't give up and you'll get it fine.

 

Getting to the pre 1.1 patch situation, probably most of the players believed it was the matter of common sense to see it won't work. Such conclusion was also achievable with the use of game theory : that simple picture I've linked above can be easily altered to Republic vs Imperials and "Fight" and "Don't fight" actions for pre 1.1 patch to see (after altering payoffs) that non violent objective trading was the Nash Equilibrium in this situation (and thus it'll be pursued by economically rational entities - players).

 

Currently we do have 1.1 and while this specific problem is solved we still have others, mainly faction population imbalance issues.Generally as far as pvp on Ilum goes, player can choose one of the 3 strategies:

 

Fight (F) - fight in Ilum.

Don't participate (D) - ignore Ilum, sticking with WZ only.

Rerol ® - rerol and play Ilum as the opposite faction

 

Benefits (benefit - general satisfaction combined with specific valor per hour amount) gained from a chosen strategy will differ for a various population ratios (by population ratio I mean population spread in Ilum zone at a given moment).

Also please note, that numbers here are not specific values - that would require a lot more time for researching - but just examples to show the trends.

 

Pop Ratio 3:1 | 2:1 | 1,5:1 | 1,2:1 | 1:1 | 1:1,2 | 1:1,5 | 1:2 | 1:3 | 1:5 | 1:10

 

F _______ 7 _|_ 8 _|_ 9 _ | _ 8 _ |_ 7 _| _ 6 _ | _ 5 _ |_ 4 _|_3 _|_ 2 _|_ 1

D_______ 5 _|_ 5 _|_ 5 _ | _ 5 _ |_ 5 _| _ 5 _ | _ 5 _ |_ 5 _|_ 5 _|_ 5 _|_5

R _______ 1_|_ 1 _|_ 1 _ | _ 2 _ | _ 3 _| _ 4 _| _ 5 _ |_ 6 _|_ 7 _|_ 8 _|_ 9

 

How to read it? The bigger number the bigger benefit player gains Starting from the 1:1 population ratio, participating in all content (opposed to WZ only strategy) is most beneficial. In theory switching to the other side would result in identical play, though there's overhead of getting again to 50 and gearing up, hence the penalty.

As soon as population switch into a favor of one of the factions other strategies become viable. In this example, when outnumbered by 2 to 1, players start leaning to more beneficial strategies, like only playing WZ that are not very much affected by faction imbalance, or even thinking about reroling. That causes the imbalance to go deeper and deeper forcing more players to drop Fight strategy as less and less profitable. That's all pretty obvious.

 

Looking at the image, solution to the imbalance is not hard to find. For instance it can be shaped this way:

 

 

Pop Ratio 3:1 | 2:1 | 1,5:1 | 1,2:1 | 1:1 | 1:1,2 | 1:1,5 | 1:2 | 1:3 | 1:5 | 1:10

 

F _______ 3 _|_ 4 _|_ 5 _ | _ 6 _ |_ 7 _| _ 8 _ | _ 9 _ |_10_|_10_|_10_|_10

D_______ 5 _|_ 5 _|_ 5 _ | _ 5 _ |_ 5 _| _ 5 _ | _ 5 _ |_ 5 _|_ 5 _|_ 5 _|_5

R _______ 6_|_ 6 _|_ 5 _ | _ 4 _ | _ 3 _| _ 2 _| _ 1 _ |_ 1 _|_ 1 _|_ 1 _|_ 1

 

Again the numbers are just examples and they're not as much important as the general trend. What is shown here is a self regulating system that fights imbalances by design rather than encourages it.

The above example says that if being a less populated side is the source of benefit rather than loses, economically rational players will choose that route (That way they'll automatically fight the imbalance).

Of course real life is never as easy as simple theoretical models. Different players will have bit different benefit values in their strategies, however that does not influence overall trend.

 

How to turn theory into practice? That I'll try to explain it in a next post.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Izmaeth

Now from theory to practice, what should be done in order to give potentially higher benefit to the outnumbered side:

 

1. First and most important - dynamically scaling rewards that will encourage playing even (or rather especially) when outnumbered:

 

a) Scoring a kill when outnumbering 3 to 1 should not be rewarded equally as in the opposite situation. It comes however with possible issue, when adding valor penalty for to overpopulated side. Some players might get hostile attitude against their faction mates, as they're "stealing their rewards" by coming to Ilum. Safest approach is to just to provide bigger boost to outnumbered faction.

 

b) Scoring a kill on weak, under-geared opponent is not as big achievement as taking down strong one (weak/strong should be relative, depending on the difference between opponents). It should be a general rule that valor reward is increased when performing harder tasks and lowered for easier ones.

 

2. Minor buffs:

 

a) Ilum buff - this is not obligatory and should not be game breaking for smaller scale combat - probably somewhere from 1 to no more than 10% expertise bonus (dynamically scaling).

 

b) Leveling XP buff (maybe bit higer buff for the ones that were already owning level 50) - again that's just auxiliary, not obligatory, solution to lessen rerol penalty.

 

3. Multiple and different objectives depending on the current situation. This is the true "pvp meat" and needs to be worked on with great effort. In general:

 

a) Weaker side needs more incentive on guerrilla tactics - sabotaging enemy outposts, breaking line of supply and leeching on enemy supplies.

 

b) Stronger side needs more incentive on pushing forward and acquiring more ground control - sacking enemy base (but NOT the spawning point) might be their ultimate goal - but at the same time it's imperative that they prevent enemy from cutting their supply lines.

 

Purpose of multiple, different objectives is to stretch stronger faction and disperse zergs. That's the same basic concept as in Alderaan or an old, excellent Arathi Basin. The only difference is that it HAVE to take into account faction imbalances, so that weaker needs to achieve less and stronger more to get the same rewards.

 

Those above are for now just ideas and I'll elaborate on them further (especially on point 3 as it's the true pvp content).

Bottom line is that a proper implementation of just points 1 and 3 can grant enjoyable play even when outnumbered 5:1

Edited January 22, 2012 by Izmaeth

Here I'll put the links to other topics that I've created (and other interesting ones) that treat about pvp changes:

 

1. PvP gear progression: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=2203736#post2203736

2. PVP rewards: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=2114096#post2114096

Edited January 26, 2012 by Izmaeth

As an economics major, I approve this post.

As someone who appreciates intellectual discourse, I also approve. The trick will be finding a dev who comes across this post and feels the same.

all is fine but what kills Ilum right now is LAG!

 

oh and I also approve

This post needs a bump.

Nice post!

At this point I want to debunk a myth of a guilt of all players that are looking for the fastest way to get rewarded. Such behavior is a perfect example of economically rational decisions (and a point they're seeking is called Nash Equilibrium). A well designed system should anticipate take advantage of it to influence users behavior into desired direction.

 

There is some poor grammar making this not very understandable.

 

What does this mean?

There is some poor grammar making this not very understandable.

 

What does this mean?

 

Um,

 

Not understanding ≠ bad grammar

There is some poor grammar making this not very understandable.

 

What does this mean?

 

Means anyone in a game situation will try to "win" or get rewarded as fast as possible. So the game in question should be aware of that and adjust accordingly.

Interesting ideas.

bump I approve

I like your post. Your really put some thought into it. Yes Ilum needs to be fixed. One idea I thought of was some NPCs spawning on the side that heavily outnumbered. Also maybe they could add a pvp daily where you have to destroy enemy objectives. Even if I am outnumbered I could still find time to shoot my rocket launcher at 30 targets. Just a thought.

There is some poor grammar making this not very understandable.

 

What does this mean?

 

Well, there should be "and" between "anticipate take ". I've lost it somehow. I'm not sure if there are more things that are unclear, but thankfully others have already explained whole thought nicely.

One of the best posts I've seen in a while. I agree with a lot of your points. For whoever mentioned it, if you're having trouble understanding some odd grammatical choices in the OP, read it once or twice more. I know he chose some unusual wording and structure, but it isn't too difficult to grasp the overall concept. Edited January 24, 2012 by vindianajones

Granted I was skimming the first time, but I'm totally upvoting this.

 

I do have to say, can't BioWare start steering Ilum's PvP mechanic towards how RvR was in Dark Age of Camelot? Mythic actually got that right in that game, so why not apply that here? All it seems is that people go there to get gear...heck, that's the only time guildmates ever reference Ilum: to get gear.

 

Heck, my main toon is lvl 30, so I'm not there yet; however, I see no major incentive to go there beyond gear cause things a borked.

 

Just my two cents. Good discourse I say.

This is an absolutely awesome post. Thanks so much for taking the time to spell that out.

 

I knew and felt those principles in my head, but you made it academic and helped to solidify the simple theories behind what I was already thinking. I really do appreciate it.

 

The real question is, why was Ilum implemented so simplistically? It truly makes me question the developers behind it. There's no other way to say it other than: it's extremely poorly designed.

Edited January 24, 2012 by JediMasterShake

posting to rate (5)

 

b) Scoring a kill on weak, under-geared opponent is not as big achievement as taking down strong one (weak/strong should be relative, depending on the difference between opponents). It should be a general rule that valor reward is increased when performing harder tasks and lowered for easier ones.

 

 

WoW had a ranking system in place in vanilla, the higher the rank you killed the higher the reward.

It's nice to see a constructive thread actually being kept near the top and getting some attention instead of being buried under QQ.

 

*rated 5 stars*

Edited January 24, 2012 by Scoobings

This is an absolutely awesome post. Thanks so much for taking the time to spell that out.

 

I knew and felt those principles in my head, but you made it academic and helped to solidify the simple theories behind what I was already thinking. I really do appreciate it.

 

The real question is, why was Ilum implemented so simplistically? It truly makes me question the developers behind it. There's no other way to say it other than: it's extremely poorly designed.

 

I think it was due to a ruched time table, but that doesn't mean it can't still be amazing.

Sounds good, but maybe the people who work @ um you know where should have college degree's and think like this...

 

Not trying to be mean, but come on basic common sense would have told you that currently ilum isn't going to work.

 

It did work, but just need incentive to kill people. You should have just activated valor for kills!

a) Scoring a kill when outnumbering 3 to 1 should not be rewarded equally as in the opposite situation. It comes however with possible issue, when adding valor penalty for to overpopulated side. Some players might get hostile attitude against their faction mates, as they're "stealing their rewards" by coming to Ilum. Safest approach is to just to provide bigger boost to outnumbered faction.

 

That's basically all that needs to happen, and it needs to apply to daily updates as well as Valor.

 

I'm not a fan of the buff ideas, and diminishing returns can make enemies that are dying a lot less rewarding. The objectives could be cool, but obviously it'd be difficult to pull off, and ultimately Ilum could still be a lot of fun without them.

I've been looking for a thread that would be good to compile constructive thoughts on what we would like to see in Ilum as players. maybe this is a good spot, here are mine:

 

Map improvements:

 

1 - Each “Assault Area” should be different, but currently every Assault Area is exactly the same. This means that fighting from one Assault Area to the next is no different. One Area could have the walkers and transports up and fighting, while another area has them broken on the ground with cargo/parts all over the place. This could give us a lot of LoS forcing close combat giving melee the advantage on that field.

 

2 - The walkers and transports need to be able to be walked under and cause LoS.

 

3 - One or two more Flight Paths might be nice.

 

Different Objectives:

 

While I believe that killing should stay the main objective, it could be cool to have some objectives on the map that are specific to the fighting area. These objectives also need to give added benefits to the fight in the area and possibly across the zone; making it valuable to take it back.

 

1 – The middle zone could be king of the hill. Since the middle could be a good point for a sustained conflict to occur this would be an idea spot for “King of the hill.” The hill should only give its zone/area benefit if someone is holding it. It should be a base with a wall or debris around it that the opposing team has to storm to take over and hold. There could also be cannons or something that should make it easier for a few people to hold against a horde.

 

2 – “Resource Grab” – Since some of the transports could be crashed or broken, it could be cool to have a resource grab objective where the different factions would grab resources and try to run them to the end of the area for zone wide benefits depending on the number of resources collected. This benefit should expire creating the need to repeat the task.

 

Ranks and Bonuses:

 

There needs to be incentive for people to stay for longer than however long it takes to do the daily, and the increase valor doesn’t seem to be enough. There should be a daily ranking system that gives you access to cool toys and prestige.

 

1 – “Ranks” in the spirit of keeping killing the main objective I propose a daily ranking system based on the number of kills you have gotten. This ranking system should give you a day long title a slightly faster mount then 110% that can be used in Ilum for the day, and access to cool toys 

 

1 – “Cool Toys” as a reward for ones participation in the ongoing Ilum conflict a player should receive daily access to Bonus Items and Toys with and a Day expiration. At a certain rank a vendor should open up in the factions’ main base giving increasing access to items that can aid the war effort and make the PVP a little more fun.

 

Low rank rewards - Ilum health pots, exp. Pots, stims, and buff scrolls, Fast Ilum mount

Middle rank rank – speed pots, vanishing pots, free action pots, absorb pots

High rank rewards - access to vehicles, guns, VIP flight paths, VIP Spawn points

 

Balancing:

 

"The republic and Empire have discovered a new mind controlling agent which can influence you allegiance for a short period causing you to fight for the opposing faction while under its effects."

 

Then just take a zone tally and each time someone enters the PvP area they are added to one of the sides as balance, combining both sides.

 

I know that some of these changes are drastic, and maybe people won’t like all of them. But, when I go into Ilum I want to enter the “Magical World of PVP” and I don’t think it’s too much to ask. The PVP voice is a strong one. And while these and other good ideas and changes may not happen tonight, I believe they will listen and accommodate, because the happier we are the more we play, and the more we play the more we pay.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Nilxain