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

tsp_maj

ACE Development Partners
  • Content Count

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tsp_maj

  1. @Nyamo 死んだ馬を打っていそうだ。
  2. I'll agree with anything you say, just make it better.
  3. For some reason this made me smile. Sounds like you've got a lot of gaming experience but not really in this type of game. Even without that experience you've realized one of the biggest challenges, and possibly downfalls of the sandbox PvP style MMO. That alone should give you some extra respect for the challenges they are facing in attempting to make it work despite what seems like a crippling flaw in the design. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this idea, but I've spent a ton of time trying to come up with a system that would be a viable compromise. I encourage the brainstorm though. Maybe you'll solve it.
  4. So an alliance of 120 is ok as long as it’s broken up into 4 guilds? How is that any different then just allowing a 120 man guild in? I could formulate that team right now.
  5. That includes you right? That part of my suggestion is more of a brainstorm. I knew it was controversial when I suggested it, pretty sure I’ve been convinced that it’s better to not have it, though I still have concerns that don’t have any attempted solution.
  6. I don't want to keep on this path of 20 questions but don't you feel like you went from "Free world, do what you want" to a lot of very specific restrictions? Is there going to be a tribunal that presides over cases of a 3rd party guild coming in mid fight and wiping one team from behind? Whos to say that they werent working together?
  7. Seems like a lot more assumptions then I feel comfortable with. How do you stop a 60 man guild from splitting into two groups and dominating by working together?
  8. How do you account for the difference in activity between guilds with very active players and guilds with lesser levels of activity?
  9. Truth, above all I've learned that population is everything in an MMO. The best game mechanics in the world are worthless without players. When it comes to PvP when there is only one P left, it doesnt really work.
  10. I still think you're missing something here. There have been no real decisions announced and the majority of playtime will be doing things that are not within a window. I'm also going to be overseas for a year after CF launches. No big deal man, if you need someone to run with hit me up and I'll make sure you get your fair share of the action.
  11. I mean the cap of 300 is likely an arbitrary number and its not really worth using as a point of reference as I doubt they put much thought into it at the time and its likely to change. I guess my question would be, if there is a server that is made for 30 man guilds, how do you stop a 150 man guild from playing on it? If you can solve that problem I think you may be onto something (though I think most of the people in our community would revolt against any attempt at restriction).
  12. Fair point, I take back what I said. Sorry. Again, scream away. I know you dont see it the same way, but Crowfall is one big community. The more people that play on your server the less will be playing on mine. I'll grant you that you will also attract a few more players only interested in what you're talking about. What it boils down to is that I only see epic failure coming out of the server you're suggesting, you're trying to repeat so many mistakes that have lead to the downfall of previous play to crush style games. There is some grandure and romance in the ideas you suggest which will be attractive for some players, but when the server fails you're going to take most of them with you. That's basically my only point. Do I think it'll make a major impact? It depends really, worst case is the server is very popular at first and the implodes. The large initial population will attract most PVPers as we tend to flock. Most likely however, I think it'll just end up being a waste of time and the minimal impacts that it would have are not worth it. You're certainly not the first person that wants to zerg in our community. In Darkfall people went in approaching 3000 strong. It played out just like everyone expected, as I tried to describe above. The rest of us had to plus up to compete, I think our Alliance topped out at around 800 and we were the 6th largest. I do think that bringing up the zerg discussion is a worthy topic of conversation, though I don't think there is really a solution. If there is no restriction to zerging, which I doubt there will be, people will zerg to survive. Its the cycle of life.
  13. All, probably just some arbitrary number made up on the fly.
  14. Do you know something I dont? I've never seen them mention a guild cap, and I have a feeling that most people would not be in favor of it. The main reason is that 50 hardcore players will never equal 50 casual players. Typically hardcore players are few and like to stick together using tightly controlled tactics, this generally keeps their numbers low, say 30/50 members play each night as an example. On the other hand a casual guild may have 150 players but only 50 on each night. If they were to fight I'd put my money on the more cooredinated group of 30. I'm sure you can see how this is a delicate balance, and like most things in this style of game there is no perfect answer.
  15. You post a lot for a guy that claimed he didn't waste time in these meaningless arguments like 8 pages ago. Screaming this is a Throne War Simulator is pointless. There is no actual definition to what that means. Your mentality is very destructive to the game, and that's why we're trying to guide you down a different path. The only true counter to a zerg is another zerg, and that's the problem. You start the game on a cycle where numbers are the thing that matters most. How big will a zerg get you ask? I can tell you fairly precicely. A zerg will grow up until the point where the server cant handle it anymore, it doesn't matter what the actual number is. At that point you'll have epicly large in scale zerg battles in which everyone is lagged out, you frequently crash the server and nobody truely has any fun. The only result from that is masses of people quitting the game. Alternately, if a zerg is allowed to grow without everyone else being forced to zerg as a counter, they will simply walk all over everyone else due to numbers alone. The only outcome to that is that everyone will be wiped off the map except for the mega zerg, and then the mega zerg is left with nobody to fight. Once again, leading to masses of people quitting the game. Just so there isn't any confusion by the way. The majority of guilds in this dicussion are going to be fielding 100 plus players once the game goes live.
  16. I suppose we have different opinions what A Throne War means. I take it in a very arcade sense, and in no way historically. Not a very important point either way. In regards to "why didn't you", that's a very complicated question, but interesting I suppose. I don't think I can truely give you a suitable answer but I'll try to express my observation. The short answer is, we did, all of those things. Frankly, being young at the time and not really caring about high school I look back very fondly at that era. It was everything a "throne war" should be, enemies hated eachother, people were sneaking spies into eachothers guilds, politics were a major factor as people would gesture and plot, and alliances rose and fell on things like betrayal. Honor in a game like this is very fickle, its existance balances on the misguided thought that all care about something greater then their own enjoyment in the game. Why didn't someone do something about the guilds that were doing late night sieges? Because the most powerful guilds were out to win, and players like us will do anything to win. There were no guilds that could counter that tactic because everyone with any kind of power was doing it. It's been my experience that the most hardcore players are not the type of players that care about fake rules in a game. They care only about staying at the top. (This is less true as populations decline and they start to realize that their actions have real impact on the future of the game.) As far as getting the most out of a 24 hour day goes, I think we're talking about different things here. Though city sieges will be a major part of the game (which by the way I was under the opposite impression, fairly sure that guild cities will be in at launch though I have no evidence to back that up), its not the whole game. In the other games sieging was for the most part fairly rare, perhaps one or two nights a month. The majority of the time you would just engage in PVP throughout the world at any time of the day as you worked towards advancing. Where I do have a real concern, in line with your thought, is that in Shadowbane as populations dwindled it became harder and hard to find a fight. When they introduced mines (with windows) everyone knew that they could find a fight at 6pm and that became the only time other then a siege that the game was worth playing. This was a product of a population that had decreased below a saturation level in my book though, and if Crowfall can maintain an ample playerbase it shouldn't be an issue. Though I do like that you're being more creative with your ideas, not a fan of the rechallenge concept. Windows already solve the problem and they don't bother me. If everyone had no real life obligations 24 hour sieging would be great. Unfortunately I now work for a living and I already have to face the fact that early sieges on the east coast will be while I'm at work on the west coast.
  17. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and hear your plight. This is where I feel your logic breaks down however. From what I read, you're coming from an RvR perspective instead of a GvG perspective. It's a little easier to understand why you don't seem to quite get it. That may be a little rude but no insult intended. First I'd like to understand what you really want. From reading most of your comments you basically seem to want the ability to do anything at anytime. When you realized that, that might not be popular, you pitched the idea of multi-day sieging with windows changing to cover a 24 hour spawn. To be clear. You'd like this to be the primary ruleset for GvG/Dregs or an extra CW type? I can only speak from my experience in Shadowbane and Darkfall Online, both of which at one point had 24 hour sieging. 24 hour sieging in this kind of game is a detriment to the experience. How? The attacker had far too great of an advantage. It has nothing to do with balancing the makeup of your guild by timezone. In GvG everything you own, especially something like a capital city, was made through great personal effort. The level that things become personal when this is the case is extremely high. Just look at this simple forum thread as an example, some of us have spent hours defending our argument and a lot of emotionally based words have been thrown. That effect is off the chart when it comes to sieging in GvG. So, what was sieging like with 24 hour vulnerability? My guild would plan in secret a day that we were all willing to either get up early, stay up late, take off work, etc. and siege our enemy at the most opportune time for us. No matter how many people they had to support playing during that hour, there was no way they would be able to match the force of my entire guild. Often times before they could react, and wake enough people up (sacrificing their own real life) the city would be under our control and now we would have the advantage of defending from inside the walls. So what though right, once every so often you had to miss some work or sleep. Not that big of a deal. You have to understand though that when you use tactics like this to destroy something someone spent a month plus to create when you couldn't be there to defend it, personal is hardly sufficient to describe it. You don't really care that much about anything except making the other peoples lives as miserable as possible. The outcome of this was fake sieges. People started to drop sieges at 3-4am, or during working hours forcing the enemy to muster a defense and simply not show up. I saw that happen to some guilds dozens of times. It didnt take many fake sieges for the enemies numbers to be much lower when you actually decided to attend one. Because of the personal nature, and the time investment of these kinds of games, not showing up to defend your city is not really a choice, its a requirement. Work is a little different but I don't think anyone in this thread would not sacrifice sleep to defend their guilds assets. Many of us will do that to such an extent that it would greatly affect our personal lives. That is why a game like Crowfall has to make an ethical choice to protect players from themselves. Something has to give, and most likely it's going to be the population. Siege windows were not something that were forced on us, they were something we asked for. Others in this thread were right, the tactics that I explained here were precisely done to avoid a good fight. Windows ensure that the maximum number of people are able to participate. Unfortunately that means that the minority now has a choice, to make the same kinds of sacrifices, or not play. Either way, its a necessary evil. I also urge you to stop making any reference to what is "historically accurate". It doesn't matter. Historically, people couldn't move their entire army to an enemies wall within 20 minutes, and log off, wait 6 hours until people have gone to bed, and log back in and immediately take down the city. Historically, a person wouldn't go to bed in their room in a keep, and wake up the next morning standing on a pile of rubble.
  18. Hmm, having the event last more then a few hours starts to complicate things in my book. With that system, from the moment the event spawns in the world, until its over there is potentially constant action. Why not just start a new PoI event the next day? A multi-day event would have a lull period over night that would sap energy out of it. While I understand your logic, I only marginally agree that to an extent that the overall meta should be getting material to win the campaign. The truth is, a lot of people are not going to have much of a chance at winning a campaign. What's going to keep them coming back campaign after campaign is going to be the enjoyment of the day to day fighting. That said, I dont think they are mutually exclusive. The trigger for the engagement is the lure of profiting from the PoI, the mechanism for claiming the prize just happens to put players in a situation that has a high likelyhood of being a meaningful, challenging engagement. I can see that you're concerned with the windows lasting long enough to span time zones a bit more. The way I see it, the PoI's would begin within a window of time, some earlier and some later. While each day the event wouldn't be at the perfect time for everyone, there would be enough of a variation that you would get to participate in events 3 or 4 times a week. I suspect that these events would end up something along the lines of raids in PVE games, with powerhouse guilds doing them nightly, and more casual guilds doing them a few times a week.
  19. Other things aside, someone convince me that throwing down strongholds outside of a PoI inorder to capture it and or reap its rewards isn't the ideal way to handle these nightly events. Here's why I think it's the best solution. **#1 you create a very high likelyhood that fighting will last for the duration of prime-time in that area. (This means that players that only have 30 minutes to play, can participate.) **We build stuff in the world that has meaning. **We just created a localized respawn point. **We've now put two+ teams in a localized area. **If we're pushed back we can regroup, in reletive safety, within the walls. (More fighting, over longer periods) **Your team works on building siege equipment within the walls. **The closer you fight from your stronghold the greater advantage you have. (Creates a yoyo effect that prolongs conflict) **Scouting for strongholds going up becomes important. **Final stage is you're sieging an asset that someone built, something pride alone will make worth defending. **Crafters come to the front line to build upgrades and siege at the forward asset. We can talk about supply lines and building blocks all you want. Lets not forget the point of the PoI. Its a carrot to bring large groups together, for the purpose of combat. The value is the fight, not the pixels you get out of it. Everything I tried to focus on goes towards that goal but sometimes I get caught up in the details and just throw out ideas. Problems I see with this idea: (My suggestions) **Respawn Rush (Respawning should take a recovery period, instead of respawning with full health, food and armor) **Long fights, doesn't address people like Salamar that may log in an hour after fighting began. (Players in a guild with a stronghold should be able to fast travel to the fight within reason) **May require extra programming. (Worth it) **Building on the cheap. The cost of building a stronghold would have to be reasonable enough to make this viable. (Doesn't bother me to be honest, but it will some) To conclude: Taking a pre-fab Keep has no meaning. PoI's, where you have to run who knows how far to get to, in the current concept will only provide one decent fight in a night. We have all been on, and know what happens, when you get all dressed up for a fight, run 30 minutes to a region, and get rolled. It's a lot harder to restart that engine once it has stalled. There's always that awkward silence that peters off into an empty discord. If you allow the same team to run to an area, put down roots, develop their frontline as people log on, if and when they die thoughts will be of protecting their walls and regrouping because the enemy is likely going to press. Suddenly you've turned a single fight into a drawn out event.
  20. Usually when people have a failing argument the resort to personal attacks. It seems you've run out of counter points with any substance. I respect that you want to get your point across to the Devs, as do we all, for your sake I hope you get what you want out of Crowfall.
  21. First, that control would have to be programmed. It could be difficult or easy depending on several variables. Then the server would have to be set up and monitored. Not to mention balancing decisions would have to take this ruleset into consideration. Of course your not wrong that if they see profit in it they would allocate resources, but once again you just made my argument for me. Allocation of resources toward this project by its very nature means you're allocating them from something else. Regardless, to make my point clear, I view this server has having an extremely low population as I think you're the only person I've seen in the community that has been pushing for it. In my world there is no chance that they will see value in this and therefor I'm less arguing against having such a server, and more trying to explain to you why you shouldn't get your hopes up. You argue that people with friends overseas will want to play on this server. What server are they going to play on if this server doesnt exist? Once again you counter your own arguments. While some people may prefer to play on a server like that, to imply that they simply wont play the game if it doesn't exist is misguided at best. To answer to your highlighted rhetorical question without a question mark, still the vast minority, and even then majority of them will want to play with their friends that dont fit into those sample cases.
  22. The current ruleset is only the way it is because there are huge pieces to the game missing still. They basically made it just playable enough to test things. I think what we're trying to say is that, although you think that having a special ruleset that I wont play on wont affect me, in reality it will. One, in the loss of development time towards other projects that are more vital to the game, and another in the form of splitting a population even more. I mean you made your own case against yourself in my eyes. How many italian people, living in japan, that are interested in playing crowfall, that are interested in having no event windows on major activities in the game are there? I get it, that is a bit ridiculous but the facts remain. Ping is a major issue, and regional publishers is a major issue.
  23. If they solved the latency problem in the world I could see your argument, and would definately love to play on a truely international server. Unfortunately I'm not willing to play with a 150+ ping anymore and I wouldnt expect less from anyone else in the world. I'm not against trying out a ruleset CW that does it but I think people are more likely to go where the population is, and this server would be a novalty at best.
  24. I want to be on your side, and I'm willing to scrap the idea, but I think that this is a case of a design that sounds ideal, is detrimental in reality. The implication that I'm asking for this for my own gain is short sighted at best. What I would like to see is lines drawn and wagers made. There is a price to entry, nobody gets something for nothing. There is no need for small scale PVP teams being in the large scale PVP fights. There are mechanics being made specifically for their group size, that will aid in maximizing their fun for the night. To me when you have two rival powers, that are fighting over bragging rights and conquest, you only hurt the game by cheapening that battle by having people, thats only interest is to get a few kills or score some loot, interfere. If were in a 50v50 over a resource node for the night, that fight could last hours. If a 20 man group rolls in and flanks either side, especially in the middle or towards the end of our fight, whoever they plow into first is going to lose. How exactly did you want to handle that? Bring 70 next time? This is why I think your concept of merit is misguided. Even under my plan this could happen, but the 20 man guild would have had to build a keep themselves and risk assets to do it.
  25. Your first sentence is chest beating nonsense. Restriction is present everywhere in the game, and also in every form of real contest, including the ultimate form of War itself. This kind of rhetoric is what ruins a game. SB had many chances for revival, each time it was several contributing factors that lead to its downfall. Depending on what era you played in primarily I can see how you would attribute its downfall to various other things. I don't disagree and I'm not proposing that it would work dramatically different on different CW rulesets. I understood that they said that RVR was the first ruleset to work on because it was the most challenging to program. I think perhaps where we differ is I believe that the majority of the games players will be playing in the GVG CW's and I also believe that the ideally mechanic for GVG should be adapted for RVR and not the other way around. Weakening a persons effective fighting capability in a certain area is far from procluding them from being there, it would just make it so that they would likely be more successful somewhere else. Since kickstarter Crowfall development has been highlighted with the concept that they are making a game for specific types of people, and if you don't like it, play another game. So that concept does not scare me. If your playstyle is dramatically different then what I think will make for a sustainable population in the kind of game I hope CF will be, I couldn't care less. That said, I feel like I'm more willing then most people to sacrifice my ideal game for the sake of population, because ultimately people are what matters in this type of game.
×
×
  • Create New...