Spiral Knights - Colliseum: Lockdown custom matches

Colliseum: Lockdown custom matches

12 replies [Last post]

Fri, 04/03/2015 - 00:02

Bullpig

if you've ever played CoD you know about custom games. custom games are matches that you can set up with many different variations (i.e. pick the map, limit or chose everyone's loadouts aka gear, select number of players per team, leave/join at will in the middle of a match, chose the match's availability, pick the game type, chose the time limit, set a # of stock/life, set certain health restrictions, turn on NPCs, etc.)

=====possibilities=====

gambling: what if there was a way to bet on matches or players in a safe and controlled way? they could make it so that each player gives a certain amount of energy, crowns, or item (bets would be displayed to avoid scamming), and be sure that the winner would receive their prize (applicable for 1v1s as well as gvg fights).

training: if you wanted one-on-one training from a friend, and you didn't feel like trying to train in a RLD match where you would just be killed constantly while typing "dude stop we're doing something! go away we are trying to train," you could set up a private match or lobby with just the two of you and practice. respawn limits can be turned off or on and set at certain times in CoD, so why not LD? you could also take your guild into a 6v6 with NPCs set at high or low difficulty to practice strategy without needing another online guild.

events: setting up 1v1s and tournaments has always been a hassle, forcing players to leave guilds and be reinvited to their own, looking for subs, waiting for enough players to be online, yada yada yada. but who needs a 6-man team when the only people participating are the two players and a judge? this reduces guilds gaining random leaderboard points and the redistribution of crowns at the end of a match that was only won because it had to end sometime. this would also take away the need to cap two bases simultaneously, which often fails and makes everyone rage (lol). having custom matches also removes the need to purchase certain uvs or gear, since uvs could be turned off/on with a button, damage bonuses could be set or reduced, gear level could be changed lower, higher, or set equal, etc. (this brings up a few problems such as people never buying ce or farming fsc/arcade for cr since they don't need to buy they own gear for LD matches. on the other hand, a system could be put in place that only eliminates advantages, but does not give them i.e. take away uvs, not give them to everyone).

restrictions: custom matches would not count towards the leaderboards, nor would they cost any cr to play, unless however someone is betting. auto-target WOULD be a controllable variable. latency and ping would NOT. handicaps, or undistributed game limits could be set to one team or the other; each team would not be required to have similar sets of rules or loadouts, however, a party leader who controls the rules could be assigned to matches.

ideas? i'd be interested to know what anyone thinks. (btw, "that's stupid" or "that will never happen so stfu" is not an idea!!)

Fri, 04/03/2015 - 12:23

Skiino

+1 !!!

If without AT, even better! °-°

Fri, 04/03/2015 - 12:37

Bullpig

@Skinoo

like i said, the party leader could control the game settings, i.e. turn it off universally for all players in the match, making recording matches a thing of the past and making it possible for people with bad connections to 1v1 finally (since recording lags them too much)

Sat, 04/04/2015 - 05:13

Mookie-Cookie

Blah

turn on NPCs
So you're also suggesting the addition of LD/BN AI?

latency and ping would NOT
To be fair, the only way latency would be somewhat controllable is if the server the match sits on was client-based, not server-based.
You haven't mentioned that detail, so I'm assuming they would be server-based.

Anyhow, what's the visibility of these matches? Are they private and/or public?
If private-only, it caters for everything you've suggested, but disallows custom RLDs. As in, you and your friend pop into a 4v4, and let others join your match (ie. get rid of the annoying process of trying to join the same match).

Sat, 04/04/2015 - 15:53

Bullpig

@Mookie-Cookie

yes, sorry, i don't know if i was being clear :/ i was trying to say that since people complain about these things they would probably want a way to make them equal, but custom matches would not be able to control this.

and i think the party leader should be able to turn spectate from public/private, in a similar way that one can set up a party for clockworks. however, these matches would not be featured in the current spectate tab, as players might confuse them with real matches.

Sun, 04/05/2015 - 18:48

Blandaxt

Sounds

Sounds good. i like it. Though, i feel there should be more variety to ld besides custom matches. Like simple things like capture the flag, king of the hill, free for all ect. It's crazy how long we are stuck on the same type of game. sigh,..

Mon, 04/06/2015 - 15:44

Bullpig

@Blandaxt

thank you! and i agree about that. i'll make another thread with a few game mode suggestions! i'd love to have your help/input

Mon, 04/06/2015 - 19:48

Deleted-Knight

+1 for whatever that's worth

I like everything except the gambling.

I think a good way to implement this is to revamp Lockdown parties to behave like clockwork parties.
When someone starts a party, a panel will come up forcing them to select settings (tier level, restrict UV/AT, etc.). Obviously they can only select settings that fit their loadouts. These settings cannot be changed once the party is created.

A person can only join a party if their specs satisfy the party settings. If it doesn't match, a message box will pop up showing the party settings.
The party leader can make a game private so only those invited can join. This actually gives more freedom than guild matches and saves the hassle of having to leave a guild to sub for a GvG.

The party lobby would be a training room where everyone can attack each other and no teams are assigned. When a player dies, he/she will respawn instantly (like infinite emergency revives). There are stations where shields can be changed. The party lobby should be spacious, like the clockwork terminals.

Once everyone is ready, they step on the elevator which takes them into a Lockdown game. The elevator will not go down unless there are at least 8 people. If there's an odd number of people, one team will have an advantage (it's basically like someone leaving before the game begins in RLD). The 200 crowns is paid when the elevator goes down.

The "Coliseum" tab will then be similar to the "Find Party" tab. A list of available parties will show up. Some can be for blast network, some for Lockdown. There can still be a side button for spectating.

Tue, 04/07/2015 - 11:17

Fangel

Oooh joy

One line stuck out to me like a sore thumb, the one that essentially says "CoD did it, why can't SK?"
Please please please try to avoid saying things like that in the future. Using other games as an example of what you want is fine, but the technicalities behind them can often be years apart.

Now despite that, this suggestion itself has been suggested many times, and it does have a purpose in this game. I'll try to reflect on what I see as new - the ranking system change. In the past usually these suggestions don't mention leaderboards, but with this suggestion we don't rank custom games, which is a great addition! I assume you do not gain any Krogmo coins from playing custom games as well, so ranked games still would be the norm for any players who wanted to turn a profit or gain krogmo coins.
From doing this, perhaps we could have a "ranked" tab and an "unranked" tab in the coliseum menu, so that we will join games of certain types. If you want to join a specific type of game, you either create one or type in what you're looking for. A "party finder"-esk menu will pop up and tell you how many settings you typed in that matched, how many players are in that lobby, etc. Also, in the pre-game lobby, have a whiteboard that, when interacted with, tells the players what settings are active, or have some way to check the lobby's settings at any time.

Gambling sounded iffy to me at first, then I realized it would be the only way to turn a profit in custom games, so I think I'll let it slide. However, in order to gamble correctly, 2% of all crowns bet will be "absorbed" by the coliseum. If you give 200 crowns, only 196 will be available to the winning team. All crowns are split evenly to the winning team, and any remaining crowns are, again, absorbed by the coliseum. Items are iffy to be gambled, since there are limited numbers of players per team. It could give the item to the highest scoring player of the winning team (some sort of system for score - my own system is that captures are worth 5k damage and defends 3k damage, with each point of damage being one point towards this score. Three Rings can balance accordingly). After items are "given" to their new knight, the knight can opt to "gift" the item to any other player on their team for one minute after the match ends. After this time, a new match will begin, or enter "we need more players" mode.
All energy gambled will be retained and none will be absorbed into the coliseum.

Tue, 04/07/2015 - 13:28

Bullpig

@Deleted-Knight

A person can only join a party if their specs satisfy the party settings. If it doesn't match, a message box will pop up showing the party settings.

— I like this idea a lot! thanks for your input.

— I also really like this idea, however it's not very necessary to the structure of the custom matches, although it is cool. I'm not sure if you meant for this to be a holding cell until a match starts, or the new and improved custom lockdown match lobbies that also work as the spawn/home base in a match.

— I don't think that 8 people should be required, as I mentioned NPCs could be turned on/off. Also, this defeats the purpose of only needing 2 people for a 1v1, as you would still need 8 online players to even begin the match (which is the main reason for my suggestion of custom match sizes).

@Fangel

Please please please try to avoid saying things like that in the future. Using other games as an example of what you want is fine, but the technicalities behind them can often be years apart.

— Noted. I understand what you're saying about the difference between this game and a completely different console game.

In the past usually these suggestions don't mention leaderboards, but with this suggestion we don't rank custom games, which is a great addition!

— Thanks! I've actually suggested it once before myself but it was poorly worded and under detailed. Consequently, I got a lot of flack about the "Ranking points" and the "Crown distribution."

Gambling sounded iffy to me at first, then I realized it would be the only way to turn a profit in custom games, so I think I'll let it slide.

— To me, I think the current fee to play a match of Lockdown is kind of pointless. If you're a regular player then you can probably afford to play a match anyway, but no one does Lockdown to make their cash; there simply isn't a way, as of now, to be able to provide for yourself solely from Lockdown. And I got to thinking about the dumb payouts at the end of a match, and wondered what it'd be like to actually get paid a fair sum after a match (with added risks of course).

Items are iffy to be gambled, since there are limited numbers of players per team. It could give the item to the highest scoring player of the winning team

— Hmm I do see an issue with that. I was mainly thinking about 1v1s when I typed this and didn't even think to mention what would happen if an item were gambled with more than 2 players present. I think that item gambling could have restrictions to when it would be available, i.e. items can only be gambled during GvG or 1v1s. If it were to be a guild that won and received an item, I think that the item risked should be given to the guild as a whole, whether that means giving it to the highest ranking guild master and letting them decide, or to put the item in the guild treasury (of course, there would then be no way to retrieve the item and would render it useless). Maybe items would just be taken out all together. I just always thought it would be cool to fight someone for the chance to win a Twilight Aura, or something of that sort.

Tue, 04/07/2015 - 16:14

#10

Fangel

Understandable

I understand the premise behind gambling, but the only things those really work with are crowns and maybe energy. With items you might be able to put restrictions on, else have a scoring system and have the top scoring player win the reward. I thought about random distribution of the item, but that seemed sorta bad (however they would be like the old material drops). Only bad part about giving it to the best performing player is that the "best" players will win all the items. Some of these players won't have a use for these items. However, giving captures and defends high "point" values gives incentive to actually guard points instead of farming damage points.

But I digress, having item "bounties" could be a 1v1 or GvG option only. Perhaps if a player on the other team put up an item, if you put up an item of the same star level and type (i.e., 5* sword for 5* sword, 2* material for 2* material), you would gain a "bias" in the system for that item. From there, you get +1 bias point for every thing you top in on your team (+1 for most damage, +1 for most captures, +1 for most defends). If players end up with equal bias, then RNG kicks in and randomly chooses a recipient. Otherwise, the player with the most bias wins the item.
The reason I said we could allow players to "gift" the spoils to other members of their team afterwards is if these people are humble and want to give the item up, they can. Who knows, maybe they don't even want the item! Alternatively, there could be a team veto button - for every bit of "bias" a player has, one more player than the amount of bias they have (i.e., 2 bias requires 3 players) can veto the item distribution, the item would then be randomly distributed among the other players. Vetoing sets your own bias to 0 however, so veto wisely! (or for guild shenanigans, that would be fun)

Tue, 04/07/2015 - 18:44

#11

Bullpig

@Fangel

the bias idea isn't bad actually. That way the person risking has the advantage. But perhaps there could be an option for just two people to bet on certain things (i.e. the winner of the match, the higher damage, the most caps, more defends, etc.) and have the winner of the two receive the item without the rest of the party having to be involved? Could work either way honestly!

Wed, 04/08/2015 - 10:49

#12

Fangel

Possibly.

There could be a multi-layer system, in that all players that bet are equally able to receive an item from any other betters. Layer one could be "betters receive bet rewards" and layer two would be "teams split the bet spoils". By default it would be on layer two because crowns and items have the bias system.

Layer one would be the default for 1v1 things however. 1v1s should not be encouraged in teamplay however, especially if this suggestion is introduced.

Only reason I bring up a veto on that part is if the player who got the most "bias" was really a terrible sport and generally made their own team sad that they won - eg. spawncamping and being a player who capped the first 3-5 initial points. Vetoes would be anonymous. Since there are a max of 6 players per team, it would take a full team of vetoes to successfully veto a player who has complete bias.

Search

Colliseum: Lockdown custom matches