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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nomadmerc

  1. I would rather not see bunny hopping, circle jumping, etc type game play.
  2. Many of us are here because creating a vibrant political system early is vital to a great pvp experience. The forums help sift that out by creating personality, forming potential allies, rallying possible troops, and to pass time till the game launches.
  3. Replied to this thread there early on (SoJhin). To recap the OP there did not come across as a person who even played Shadowbane and because of which had little understanding how archtypes and limits on skills actually both creates more templates and more complexity rather then less.
  4. I do not mind there being if... 1. General *Que as long as it is under 15 minutes. 2. Combat *Downed state if there are also immunities to it happening too often. *Hard CC if there is akin to Shadowbane stun/powerblock immunities. *Tab targeting. I have enjoyed tab targeting in games more then games that did not have it. *Revive if there is a deathshroud type negative combat related determinant. 4. PvE grinding/farming if it is part of the economy and is 'reasonable' in time frame (i.e., enough time to make it a meaningful difference between a person who did it and who did not so perhaps a 5-10 percent edge in skills). 7. *As long as it is based on the gameworld economy I do not mind. I add also I am all for both localized inflation/deflation and global inflation/deflation if it is tied to player actions (everyone craft just swords then sword prices plummet etc).
  5. I like the idea you have there. We know there are both mines and forts as well as of course the city structures. If you had to claim one or both the mine and the fort then invest some resource amount to attack the city that could work. There could be several conditional options for this as you suggest. Another example that comes to mind is a certain threshold in a territory of points gained by doing objectives. Either successfully bringing resources from a mine to a capture point to rack up a certain total that triggers the option to "sack" the city but not capture it or gain more points and have the ability to capture it as well. Another example could be rack up a certain point total of guild players killed in a territory. Hit one threshold can "sack the city" but not take it while reaching another total and you can siege the city for the traditional capture mechanic.
  6. I would go as far as having "aspects or something (Rayvne13)." Consider that these are the some of the people who brought us Shadowbane though before you ask for shapeshifting and it never worked out there when it was for in combat roles.
  7. No thanks. The locked in the campaign rule allows better consequences in game. You can be the villain and have the fame and possible pain that come with it. Choose instead the hero, or whatever, but your character actions will build a rep that because it is one character will make the game have more meaningful consequences. If we had the option you want we would have the return of the less meaningful player interactions of the past where you just relog anew alt on the server and be anonymous to the other characters actions on the same server.
  8. Again please step away from emotions and terms akin to "you have no life if, or driving people away from the game, nihilistic anarchy etc." Instead learn that you as a player can have freedom to interact with the gameworld. If a certain gameplay bothers you, you have the option to work to convince other players to enforce consequences. Again keep in mind players are locked into a campaign, and on certain server rulesets there is limited up to full loot. Let the players be the consequences not arbitrary non player created rule(s). Let the game be a sandbox and not a sandpark (e.g., sandbox has little to no rules and has player consequences, sandpark is instead you wait your turn to get on a ride and the rides are governed by arbitrary rules).
  9. That is a assertion ;p Many games namely one example from my own personal experience are muds that have had full asset destruction for twenty years 24/7 and things have worked out. It works out to allow smaller groups of players to engage each other and for emergent gameplay.
  10. It boggles the mind that people would oppose using various times or specific days for advantage. Ever hear of the Tet Offensive,Yom Kippur War, and the battle of Trenton? (e.g., Asian new year, Holiest day in Judaism, and Christmas day). The art of war is about attacking a foe when they are weakest, to take advantage of times and special days. I am going to continue harping on this, if my Crowfall territory and structure control fights all fall into a 5pm to 9pm window (example) then we have tourney style banes and mines. Do we just turn the servers off at the extreme or log off because the reward for being online is done outside the Windows of Oppurtunity times? How about leave open more unexpectedness, leave open the chance to raid a larger foe when they are not prepared, leave open the chance for more destruction, and more risk for both sides.
  11. Shadowbane had no Windows of Opportunity for months on end and some cities in that time stood for months on end. It is not a "Grab a POI one day, lose it over night, and then grab another the next time you play." (Jah) Though there would be some places on the world map that would likely see such trading of territory objectives because of location and value of objective. Also both of us have some assertions in some of our argument points but that being the case it was not always that just large guilds that could hold cities when there were no windows of opportunity. I know of many cities when there were no WoOs that existed without being destroyed and I myself ended up with several 1-3 pop cities uncontested as well as my Guilds city of Hing that was not just overnight destroyed whenever the small number of us logged out. What I am arguing over is that it is my view that arbitrary magical protections diminish the sandbox elements of the game. I would much rather the players police the actions they want or dislike rather then having the developers create outside forces. I brought up the point that right now the information is that you commit to a campaign and this unto itself creates a drastic possible consequence for any actions taken in game. Consider this even more enforced when you think of how the Dregs server will function allowing full loot besides.
  12. Seeing how Crowfall is bringing in Shadowbane players whom myself included at points early on had 5 active sub accounts I am quite against labor system akin to Archage. Let the available resources and time to produce items etc be used instead of labor systems.
  13. I'm all for destructive chaos. The Dregs will be my guilds home alongside likely most of Shadowbane elite. If resources are meaningful then the more destruction the better. The freedom to destroy does not necessarily equal no risk for the attacker or too much risk for the person with structures on the map. I think that is what is lost in this argument. Let the players on a server set the rules? Is that not the current thinking of the Devs when they are already considering allowing people to vote for map rulesets. I can concede the point that perhaps the absence of a WoO would only work on the Dregs server to begin with as you do need a certain mindset to handle losing ones gear which is already a stated goal of that server. The pro WoO crowd should step back from the logic that it is all fire and brimstone if there is 24/7 asset destruction. There has been dozens of successful muds running for twenty years now that have had full destruction 24/7 and if the right balance is set in the worth of resources compared to both gear and structures then it is not all doom and gloom. Let players decide how to punish people or guilds that do asset destruction. Remember atm people are locked into a campaign on a server and this already promotes much more consequences for said actions that people on the server can enact themselves.
  14. In the end the argument boils down to one side wants a mechanic in place to stop or hinder gameplay they consider "unfair." The other side has much more variability with perhaps the extreme view that there should be zero mechanics by the developer to protect pixels. Let the game be a sandbox with little to zero restrictions and to more degree mirror the wide range of available options one sees in actual warfare. Will we see a early morning raid across a river through fog (clearly sooo not fair to attack your enemy when they are sleeping) with a small force against a larger force that is largely sleeping in Crowfall? (i.e., George Washington's attack on Trenton) Combat allowed 24/7 vs structures and players allows people to tactically exploit weaknesses with higher risk vs reward. It can be used to demoralize a enemy prior to secondary battle, gain temporary territory, and many more reasons. Removing this option and having sieges at more routine set times narrows the game down to the level of a tourney.
  15. Holy crap our mine, our caravan, our guild members, our experience camp, our ...*grins* roleplay event, our whatever is under attack. Or the reverse our scouts have seen the above and we have a limited time to attack the above options etc.
  16. Favor less than ten percent for critical attack ranges for most classes and perhaps more for some with said classes having drawbacks for the increase of crit ranges.
  17. I would guess that the structures that produce gear will have a limited amount that can be made at any time and this in turn governed by how much available resources one has. This in turn can be governed by how long gear lasts until it breaks and on some servers that have looting options governed by the rate of loss of items. Having instead a more arbitrary labor system instead of the above is really not needed.
  18. We had npc garrisons in Shadowbane and the spectrum of their usage had some interesting swings in power and numbers to say the least. There were also runemasteres that protected a certain amount of buildings. I am not in favor of either of these mechanics. Let the pixels burn as much as possible. Think of Shadowbane and the two primary resources of wood and stone. They were worthless at times 100 to 1 ratio to the value of resources that went to build gear. The stone and wood mines alike were worthless and with the option to turn these mines into gold producers that was the primary usage for the most part instead of wood/stone. This in turn accelerated the worthlessness of stone/wood. Add in protected buildings and WoO and it was even worst. Let the economy have destruction more often and allow territory control to be governed and resource acquisition matter more. The capture mechanics can be adjusted to have people build objects that take time to construct and or require a lengthy caravan trip and or require adjusted levels of resources. You can break but not take then perhaps because of the costs. (example of this) ... The mines payout production time that the bundled resources can be sent to the cities at a limited WoO, and cities produce gear at certain times. This makes the destruction of both places for best reward when the product or gear is nearly or already produced and the incentive then is favoring waiting for these most lucrative times of attack. (further examples) You want to attack the corn harvest when its ripe. Attack the military targets when the weapons of war are there etc. Also in turn to destroy a object we can go similar to the Shadowbane route and make it so players need a siege hammer or trebuchet. These two and or more things required to break structures require resources to make which to some degree narrows the potential risk vs reward dynamic.
  19. Great post. Thankfully the Sandbox world that may be realized in Crowfall may very well allow that "compelling gameplay" that many of us crave. To the OP. I think that Crowfall because it seems to have bucked the focus group tested, "is this fun, is this not fun" mantra may return those gaming experiences you speak to that allow those wider range of emotions.
  20. Do players want to build their "Maginot line" pixels and only have their enemies attack it when they say so? If that is the case then the player vs player interaction does not allow as many blitzkrieg options does it? I have played a mud called Carrionfields now for some twenty years that allows full loot, item destruction, item decay, limited lives until perma dead, full cabal destruction. Have you ever had the rush of a real pvp fight where you lost everything including the character you are playing and or caused another person to face the same reverse? That is the highest rush gaming allows. On the point of windows of opportunity. They did not exist in Shadowbane for quite a while early on. I started Shadowbane during one of the late beta phases. Stole my first seed from Ewle Ebonlore in the first week of Shadowbane live before I even knew what a tree seed was. Had a large 100+ guild "midnight" siege that toll I planted some three weeks later after I had luck rolled decent sets of gear. I lost that city and it was a tremendous fun experience. The planning I had to do to enact revenge was sweet. I had to scout and learn numbers, times, and various other information. I learned after that how to use a treb alongside six friends and demolished that guilds city. Did that guild die? No they moved on. Were people mad? Sure. Was it a gaming experience five of my friends still remember to this day? Yes!
  21. The "fantasy" I'm living in is who sets the rules of engagement? A magical command that says a player cannot do something interferes with freedom. And I do not care for these personal attacks of "you would be the first one to quit." I'm a shadowbane vet here who lost dozens of cities I personally designed and destroyed many dozen. I stick to my guns on this one. Let the pixels be unprotected as much as possible. Another thing I dislike these strawman arguments that are used against lessening or altogether not having WoO and see some of it from the desire to have some 'fantasy' chivalry type pvp only.
  22. And I prefer no mechanics to avoid pvp thus little or no WoO. More blown up stuff and a healthy economy. Less deflation of resources etc.
  23. That thinking is part of the problem. Too fixated on pixels. Let them be destroyed more often! The overall territory control can have some limited WoO perhaps but in game 'magical developer based protections' on structures leads to deflated economy
  • Create New...