Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:44 am
@Unibot
Here's my take on compelling targets:
1. Valuable targets put effort into security. That's just how it works. Frontiers will probably function a lot like feeders and sinkers do now, and yes, this will make them harder to invade. However, I personally think the existence of targets of value is worth it, even if it comes with a defense network. There's not really a way to create valuable targets that people won't put effort into defending.
2. I suppose for defenders you are correct. That is the angle you think of things from, and playing like that would match defender goals. However, I don't think this is how raiders will play. They are the ones taking the initiative for conflict, and defenders react. And unlike defenders, raiders may not have a stake in a frontier at all. So they wouldn't care about defending an ally anyways. Their goal is to attack a target - any target - because that's what they find fun. The moment they start stationing troops in "allied" territory, they are no longer raiders, but some kind of independent or imperialist entity.
3. Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I am critical of correlating spawn share with endorsement count. It heavily disincentivizes participation in any military operation - and that's not the kind of thing we want. In fact, the goal should be to reward frontiers for invading each other: For example, what if frontiers could direct a portion of their spawns to another frontier? Do you think something like that would be enough to keep gameplay going?
Here's my take on compelling targets:
1. Valuable targets put effort into security. That's just how it works. Frontiers will probably function a lot like feeders and sinkers do now, and yes, this will make them harder to invade. However, I personally think the existence of targets of value is worth it, even if it comes with a defense network. There's not really a way to create valuable targets that people won't put effort into defending.
2. I suppose for defenders you are correct. That is the angle you think of things from, and playing like that would match defender goals. However, I don't think this is how raiders will play. They are the ones taking the initiative for conflict, and defenders react. And unlike defenders, raiders may not have a stake in a frontier at all. So they wouldn't care about defending an ally anyways. Their goal is to attack a target - any target - because that's what they find fun. The moment they start stationing troops in "allied" territory, they are no longer raiders, but some kind of independent or imperialist entity.
3. Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I am critical of correlating spawn share with endorsement count. It heavily disincentivizes participation in any military operation - and that's not the kind of thing we want. In fact, the goal should be to reward frontiers for invading each other: For example, what if frontiers could direct a portion of their spawns to another frontier? Do you think something like that would be enough to keep gameplay going?