Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


ACE Investor & Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Duffy

  1. Duffy


    We know, we fought a decent guard a bit lately, and have fought ranked up ones in the past. Their strength ranges from a joke at lower levels to very strong, it's a wide range of strength. Ultimately though that's besides the point of the conversation, we already know their strong and how that works out. The conversation is about whether they should be and by extension what purpose they are supposed to serve which will directly correspond to what their strength ends up being. If their supposed to be a weak joke, then they should just remove them and save the CPU cycles wasted on them. If their supposed to be a deterrent then theirs a question of how they should scale and to what numbers.
  2. Duffy


    Those are somewhat contrary ideas. If the guards are of any value they need to be at least as dangerous as a player, but at the same time the guards AI can be easily manipulated, hence why their damage sponges and heavy hitters in the first place, it compensates for their lack of ability to mimic players and to avoid overloading the area with NPCs. So if 5 players can blow someone up in 2 seconds, why can't a couple of easily manipulated guards do the same thing? Obviously if you can fight with the guards it's better for both you and the guards, but since the guards are dumb and can get kited out of position, or just stand still, fighting with them is also possibly a death sentence as we are relatively fragile. So if you make them too weak with the assumption they'll fight with players, their easy to pick off and their worthless, if you make them strong enough they can't be ignored, their too strong. Ultimately though if all you have to worry about is wading through the guards and not the players behind them, you've already won. The rest is just a formality, fighting the players was never going to be the challenge in the first place. So the that kinda swings back around to the core question: what are the guards supposed to actually do? Be a deterrent or just canaries in the mine shaft? If the former, their strength is warranted, if the latter then they are too strong. Something else to keep in mind, most healing is only a bit better than 50% power and without buffs we're far from the max mitigations we can get, so in the long run we will be much tankier than we are today. Guards may be tuned with that in mind.
  3. Only private bounty systems work, open public bounty systems are quickly scammed and become unused.
  4. Duffy


    Counter question: how fast do you think a guard should die? What purpose do they serve? General Theory About Guards: Since they are extremely limited in general capabilities (they can’t move smartly or utilize player coordination) they make up for this in their ability to soak and deal damage. This creates a bit of a soft check on the attacking force, if they can’t handle the guards they can’t take the location. This also creates a force multiplier effect for the defenders, giving them a bit of an advantage, something that’s generally missing without the guards. This also means you can’t just run over the location, you need to take out guards and control space as you move deeper into it, creating more thought than just piling in. Something folks wanted more of instead of just circle standing, guards are possibly a way to add some of that. Personally I think the guards are starting to add a bit more startegy to capture locations, unfortunately they only seem to do it at higher levels. I’d propose making their base level stronger and evening out the curve as they are leveled. I’m not sure what the actual level cap is, but lowering it with such a change may also make sense.
  5. I play to play the game and win, cards are a part of it so they should be part of the motivation/consideration for mechanics. While there are other reasons to take a holding, it doesn’t negate that the goal of the game is to do the things requires to win. If you wanna play your own sub game that ignores that, you do you, but suggestions gotta work within the context of the game’s rules and goals.
  6. Yes, you could make it easy for large groups to attack other large groups. The issue with handshakes is it pushes out other groups from taking advantage of the conflicts, and from my understanding you could stagger the siege times which again reduces he game to “bring everyone here and fight” again. Given the trivial force projection we’ve seen so far it would simplify the strategic choices. If this was more a traditional forever sandbox something like handshakes would be fine as they curb conflict from getting out of hand, but this is limited and finite campaigns about ongoing conflict - handshakes reduce the overall conflict later too much.
  7. Would need to balance it against the destruction cards. Would need to count partial destruction for cards, otherwise it’s too difficult to ever actually get that card as they can repair between sieges.
  8. Disagree on handshakes, they dumb down startegy and empower larger/richer groups. It will stagnate the holdings side of the game. Picking our own window, possibly within a larger restricted range, and having all holdings (alliance wide when added) be vulnerable at the same time is important to encouraging strategic/opportunistic play and putting downward pressure on the incentives to get big and grab as much as possible. Couple that with fixing walls to only be damaged by siege equipment and making siege equipment the “cost wager” to attack a holdings you should see more startegic play than relying on a siege handshake that turns everything into pre arranged battleground like events. Additionally it may be advisable to make repairing buildings less of a complete rebuild, perhaps tier loss per destruction or some % based. But that depends more on final building costs and available resources, will know more after the forts are changed.
  9. Sorry forgot not to share our opinions that are contrary to other opinions so the devs see everything through a single vocal viewpoint. oh look you continued/escalated the bickering!
  10. I don’t think I said anything about last nights siege? I know damn well it was composition and not numbers. That was the first night we got a solid attack we were able to see what your group was doing and we are already talking about adjusting to the more AoE centric approach we’ve been dabbling in. That has nothing to do with the rest of my points, the idea that any group can win is true if they can hit whatever the current competitive numbers and tactics are. Last campaign we couldn’t field the numbers to do so, this campaign we could (mostly) but lacked the meta composition to do so effectively. But we won plenty of smaller fights so I don’t feel too bad about it, you learn and adjust. Obviously in our case losing hasn’t caused us to quit after idk 2-3 years of going back and forth now? We’re still here while “winners” keep quitting or talking about quitting the game. As to my greater points: theirs always gonna be winners and losers for different reasons, the hard part is keeping those losing engaged or moving forward. When you’re already at the upper end it’s easier to do that cause you know your competitive already and just need to adjust. But when your’re just entering it can be a bit of a climb and without that progress to show, it’s hard to maintain interest. Making it so only those already at the upper competitive edge are the only ones experiencing progress or chances of success in campaign as they snowball through big wins is a way to decrease engagement. Divine Favor has already show us to be effective at curbing that particular problem. If we’re all out quietly farming victory points via PvE why isn’t anyone attacking us to disrupt our farming? I think most of it is a population issue not a mechanical one. The PvE side of the game should be driving PvP, not the other way around. If PvP drives PvE you run into winning creating strong snowball effects. If you’re really not seeing much conflict while doing the PvE activities that’s a sign of two problems in my opinion: low population or dominance. I think right now it’s mostly the former, but the latter will still influence some people’s decision making. Edit: forgot to add that once alliances are in things should get more interesting as we can ease some of the population issues both when factions get out of numbers with each other and with an easier time focusing efforts across multiple activities without relying on the same people to do everything.
  11. And yet we not only had to PvP almost every 15-20 mins while “farming” for most of yesterday, we had some of the better non - “lol rolled” fights of the campaign. And even the fights we won are still a setback, cause that was less time collecting our “points”. Yes the PvE centric things aren’t big grand slam PvP wins, but every point of conflict around them is an opportunity to get closer or farther away from the win, it’s just more gradual than a siege win/loss and requires more work than showing up at the designated fighting location on behalf of not only those farming the objectives but those interfering as well. And why does anyone expect people to fight fights they know their gonna lose? If your’re being PvP dodged get better at it, if you can only fight at a scheduled event idk what to tell ya. Most days we can’t get more than a few mins of any activity before we’re fighting someone over something, and that’s with low populations. (Off hours is a bit of a problem, but that’s mostly due to low population being even lower at such times) And if people are avoiding you? If you’re handily winning that’s not a big surprise, why would people that can’t beat you slam their faces against you and make no progress? Where’s the fun in that for them? What’s their incentive to set themselves up to lose? As for buildings you don’t need is that generally true or a side effect of short campaigns and not crafting in them? Longer campaigns would decrease a lot of the grind feeling, at least around fort/keep build up. But then again having to rebuild destroyed stuff has a chance to make the grind bad again, needs some tweaking there. Maybe each destruction knocks it down a level or something? Not sure.
  12. Divine Favor is the only reason to even bother playing. Every guild that’s made a big deal about quitting has been a dominant one that’s feedback boils down to “I want to login and keep winning at big events” which means someone else is losing. If the losing side can’t progress, they by extension have no reason to login to provide the dominant group content. Bit of a catch 22 there. I agree on the balance issues and current meta needing some fixes. But the general gameplay loop is finally starting to look like something besides slamming your head into constant siege blobs or circle capping forts endlessly, some tweaks and a feature or two would certainly improve it, but if all you are gonna do is login to PvP...what’s the point? What are you fighting over? What’s the purpose to the action? Mind as well go play a lobby shooter/MOBA or Battleground centric game if you’re just looking for constant action, someone needs to be doing the PvE/Farming or theirs no point to any of this. If everything is decided by scheduled fights why bother if you’re not winning? You have no real chance to progress or incentive to login. Getting crafters usable faster would help a ton too, but I think we’ve all been saying that since dregs patch hit.
  13. It hurts my soul every time someone mentions the map is too big and then expects this game to be fun with 2000 players in the same campaign map we have today...the poorly made dergsshow that would become... Force projection is just way too easy right now. (Even if performance was perfect)
  14. The desire for big wins out weighs the reality that big wins also mean big losses. If every objective is a big win/loss the game gets boring really quick. Every single PvE objective can be disrupted by PvP, go find and kill them. Interrupt their activities that slows down their gains (or steals them in some cases). We may have never had to fight for our keep in a big win/loss scenario last campaign, but we were borderline shut out from competeing for wealth from lack of ability to run pack pigs, there was just too much intereference. That’s PvP doing it’s job of interfering in the small ways and not just big win/loss scenarios. It’s important to have scale like that. Even if you chase a group around the map and never catch them...you still stopped them from doing what they wanted, that can just as easily be a win that was driven by the sheer threat of PvP alone.
  15. You seem to confuse avoiding PvP with avoiding losing battles. You should mitigate risk and avoid losses that set you back, that’s PvP 101. Minimize risk and loss, like setting up a good collection fort location. I had a few DIS players running from me while trying to gank them (poorly I might add) during early morning pig runs. I don’t blame them for running it was the smart thing to do. (I later got friends to come by and we got a few before more collapsed on us and whooped us) You don’t dive into fights you’re unlikely to win AND set you back. That’s just a waste of time and energy. Which is why DIS lost in the end, they never bothered to use PvP to actually win, they just used it for entertainment. They rode a numbers advantage and looked for random PvP and killing easy targets while letting the real threats to winning build up their victory. When you start viewing PvP as a tool instead of a reward for logging in and adjust your strategy you’ll find much more consistent results. Fighting to fight without paying attention to competing objectives will result in “confusing outcomes” that make you think scoring is broken like last campaign.
  16. The personal scores by themselves don’t show anything useful, they don’t show anything to do with the ability to accomplish objectives. By themselves all they show is the ability to brawl successfully. And yes I expect the larger group that’s roaming the map looking for brawls to have good KDA numbers. But again that’s one of the reasons objectives matter over KDA: de-emphasize numbers and sidestep the conceits of a video game where we all respawn. And again as I said in the other thread: when you hold a dominant position other groups are busy defending themselves from you’re gonna have an easier time doing the PvE activities, that doesn’t mean the overall game is too safe or easy. Using my own group as an example: last campaign we couldn’t farm for more than 2mins without having to fight someone, we never got an “easy PvE experience”. And we weren’t gonna waste time trying to purposefully target the group several times our size doing those activities at most moments, cause when we do they just collapse onto us or call more people cause content. Kind of a victim of your own success.
  17. I don’t even recall building a slaughterhouse anywhere, wonder if it was there when we took it. I know we had one or two for caps we didn’t really bother to hold.
  18. @SAM_BUKA To be fair every time I went out to do pigs we were hounded by groups, including yours that is at least twice our size. Holding a dominant position and numbers gives you a strong advantage in splitting manpower while still suppressing other groups. This is an example of winning making winning easier and skewing a viewpoint. This is key to why I think the pig notifications need to go as it makes it too easy to maintain a dominant position which makes suppressesing competition too easy to accomplish. You say easy PvE grinding made it boring, my experience was literally the opposite.
  19. Another problem is your particular experience is not indicative of everyone else: we rarely got any "peaceful" farming at all which definitely slowed down our ability to compete in PvE grinding, which seems to indicate the system working as intended. We had to do everything in groups and fight almost constantly to make any real progress. So my experience was mostly the opposite of quietly solo farming, and we weren't even particularly in the running. Those who got away with quietly solo farming could have been lucky, ignored, or purposefully avoided because they weren't as easy or viable targets. And to my greater point, a quick count just from this campaign's seasonal cards shows at least 45 points that could have taken/prevented simply by PvPing over each other's forts/keeps. How much built up stuff actually changed hands or was destroyed by the top couple of guilds? (I really don't know, it seems like not much from what I can tell, it looks like most things did not change hands but some input from those guilds would give us insight). If their was fighting/destruction over those objectives add in the knock on effects from those fights to the Top cards and PvP can swing things pretty wildly. I also think it's important that the big announced/scheduled things should be more important moments of conflict, the big binary win/loss effects. Interrupting farming with PvP should be a mild setback, not an ending competition one. This creates varying scales of conflict because as I keep on harping: PvP is a means to an ends, not the ends. If you treat it as the ends you create a game with no strategy, no winning, no depth, and no variety.
  20. Did any of the top guilds actually try to fight each other over score cards or did they just try to look for general fights or avoid fights? Avoiding a fight is as important a part of strategy as engaging in one, especially if it's one you know you can't win. Concentrated strategic effort could have mitigated how much effort was directly tied to PvE (plus with longer seasons and several sieges per season to act on those potential scoring targets). Right now the timeline is too condensed which creates an emphasis on PvE instead of an ebb and flow of PvP to nab things, PvE with chance of PvP to build them up, and then PvP to take those objectives or destroy them before they count for scoring. There needs to be a flow to the actions and strategic choices, just running around brawling anyone and everything should never be the path to victory, you should be making important choices. Likewise PvE alone should not be able to gain you a win, and technically that seems true for the most part. We'll know for sure when theirs longer campaigns with more time to act.
  21. We did figure it out, the weird bit is that Top cards are broken into Quartiles based on those who scored in those areas. What's weird is that if you tie with someone you both get the better quartile and it's possible in certain scenarios (when only 5 guilds qualify) for it to then skip one of the quartiles. This seemed to happen in Fall for Top Wealth, it rewarded +5, +4, +4, +2, and +1. Skipping +3 since two guilds tied. Still seems a little weird to me, but I think that's what happened.
  22. Overall I like the Divine Favor system. It needs some clarity, and I would prefer not having to infer who scored on what bits (and it would be nice if the Top cards were clearly explained). One thing I have noticed that I think is super important: People aren't trying to knock each other's scores down very much. This is a critical strategic failure on behalf of the player base. Instead of trying to insure wins, we seem to be focusing more on blindly trying to out PvE each other. Some of this is our fault as we're not making the moves we should be to compete, but a good chunk of it is the condensed campaign timelines and lack of useful intel. For example, not having multiple siege windows (or even 1!) before wealth is scored prevents us from trying to reduce our opponents ability to score by destroying buildings. With longer campaigns I think we'll see more strategic PvP occur and less focus on just pure PvE. I say it a lot but PvP is the means to the ends, not the ends itself. It's a tool to beat your opponents and it's definitely capable of it with the Divine Favor system, but due to circumstances it's a tool that's rarely being used strategically to try and win. It's more being used as entertainment itself, which is what creates a sense that the game is all about PvE when it comes to Divine Favor. However even with that mentality, the Divine Favor system does have cards that are even more nebulous to counter, primarily kill X or sacrifice X cards. All of the cards showing an approximate ranking or current value would help drive conflict as groups can decide to chase certain cards or groups as needed. This is the sort of intel that drives the big strategic PvP side of things, this is the sort of intel we need access to if you want to create good PvP, not the stuff like pack pigs and who's attacking guard outposts.
  23. Eh maybe, but Caravans are also the only reasonable way to get into forts/keeps which means their an entry path to the basics of competing in the campaign that is easily checked by their opponents. As numbers increase and theirs more people around to fight over them it makes an already dicey prospect turn into insuring those already winning can keep winning. Caravans are only super valuable because they made the mistake of allowing you to get large amounts of desired crafting materials from them. If they were just part of the campaign system for competing, they'd be seen as less valuable. Problem is how do you balance the attackers? By default they have nothing to lose but time, and they were already wagering that time by looking for targets instead of doing it themselves. Whereas the pig runners wager both time and the prospective haul. I'd like there to be a fair wager on both sides of the equation, but I don't think one is going to appear. But at the very least they could tone down or remove a system that only benefits the side of the equation that is already risking the least. I'm already seeing this turn into circle capping forts like the old days where you chase each other around until someone gets bored and logs off, which is always a bad type of mechanic. Every point of conflict and mechanics cannot be "definitive" as it creates a dependency chain that prohibits entry into the competition and ends up stifling it over time, especially as the population gets larger.
  24. If it only announced spawns (and add in Chiefs and Kings) I would see less of a problem with it, as your inferring information and given opportunities to investigate or not, it doesn't tell you exactly whats happening.
  25. There's not really that much you can do if theirs enough players running around. The spawn locations are known, the world banks are known, the refinery locations are known, the speed and ways to cross the zone are pretty easily known. And again, I don't really care about the whole solo running thing, that's a non-factor itself. The issue I'm pointing out is as problematic as running pigs with 1 person as it is with 20 people. It's arguably worse at larger numbers as it's easier to cover multiple options and chase down folks in the few areas you can try longer paths to avoid trouble. It's kinda like /who all over again but worse! After spending a few hours wandering around and watching people run pigs and taking some potshots at them here and there I'm pretty confident in the patterns required to be successful, and most of them are very bland or boring in my opinion. Ultimately my problem is it's treating PvP not as a means to an end, but as the end that gives you the means, and that's the problem with the system.
  • Create New...