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

Ace's vision for Siege's

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, srathor said:

I am fine with pvp windows. I am just mocking the pvpers who mock the gatherers who complain when they get ganked, but support their own carebare rules when it suits them. 

And gatherers get the shaft. Longest training trees in the game for the least effect. Their stuff looted as a design goal. The gear they make to help in the chosen role, has no combat stats. Dizzy down while gathering. Zoom while gathering. LOUD NOISES! Saying hey I am over here, distracted, come kill me and take my stuff. Hold F to Gather! Because F you that's why.

But no we have to do something special for the guilds precious! (Mocking see)

WoW that sounds rough lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stirred up a hornets nest.

Anyways, I said before I'm not necessarily against raid windows but a lot of people are saying things like "guilds should be expected to have to be on 24/7" this is true but then defences shouldn't be able to chosen 24/7 either. Can't really say it's ok for one but not the other. Also if people want Assaults and Defenses to happen when it's most likely for NA or EU to be on then maybe they should make it so other regions cannot join that server, you can't open a server to the world and then say it's only fair for a select few to play the entire game. Even in NA, EU, Sea, Oceanic you have people with different schedules, some work at night, some mid day, and some 9-5, this is a perfect example of it doesn't suit *me* so it shouldn't be allowed. Alarm clock raids are cheesy, I don't think anyone's denying that, but alarm clock defenses would be just as cheesy and unfair.

You can't (or shouldn't expect) to have it both ways, if it's ok to set a defense at 4:00 am then it should be fair to assault at 4:00am. Yes we've discussed that the defenders have a lot more to lose, but in the end what it comes down to is enjoying your playtime, regardless of what time that is. Solutions would be a lot more helpful then just saying "nope it's not fair" It's a 24/7 game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, srathor said:

I am fine with pvp windows. I am just mocking the pvpers who mock the gatherers who complain when they get ganked, but support their own carebare rules when it suits them. 

And gatherers get the shaft. Longest training trees in the game for the least effect. Their stuff looted as a design goal. The gear they make to help in the chosen role, has no combat stats. Dizzy down while gathering. Zoom while gathering. LOUD NOISES! Saying hey I am over here, distracted, come kill me and take my stuff. Hold F to Gather! Because F you that's why.

But no we have to do something special for the guilds precious! (Mocking see)

Then your argument should be with the Devs not fellow players. Don't use your own complaints and concerns against others' complaints and concerns, just bad form IMO. We all want the same thing overall, a good to great PvP game.

Wanting rules and mechanics that encourage PvP is the opposite of carebear. Being ok with 4am raids against walls and NPCs would be what I and probably others consider to be very much carebear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pang said:

But yeah you have this vision of Crowfall that doesn't really line up with reality.

How so?  My vision is equitable, not based on previous SB bias, founded in logic, and is consistent with the rest of the 'supposed' core idea of the game,  Siege windows are the aberration here. I asked for a simple, logical reason why they should be present, over biased, or opinion based arguments, and I see no logic based reasoning.

6 minutes ago, Dondagora said:
  • I don't think you're picking on anyone, and I'm not mad at you personally. I simply believe that your idea of 24/7 siege vulnerability and the reasoning behind it is both flawed and would negatively impact the game should it be implemented. So, the same as you, I am against an idea.

Starting here: awesome! I love the free exchange of ideas, I just understand how my 'arguments' are often perceived!

7 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

Let's go again:

  • You're right, not all mechanics are universally right for every game. However, Crowfall is a very direct successor to Shadowbane's intended style of game, thus a successor.
  • But SB eventually died.  I want...more, better...something.  Okay, what I really want is an open pvp environment with great mechanics, everything else is fluff to me. It worked, but it died.  Twist it, create something new, but the siege window seems out of line with the rest of the game, again, IMO.
  • Might I bring up Guild Wars 2's WvW, which had 24/7 vulnerability to sieges and is, for the most part [in my and probably many people's opinions] bad, at least as far as open-world PvP. There are various other things wrong with the game as well, but this is one of them. It allowed certain servers with Russian guilds to take over as it became a game of time coverage and not group strength or skill or strategy. 
  • To me, this is like comparing a rotting crab apple to a just-ripe red delicious....yes, they are both apples...but that's it...GW2 WvW  was horrifying for a variety of reasons, probably why I lasted a total of about 4 months in that game, it wasn't all that exciting on so many levels.
  • 24/7 Coverage means that friends and guilds will have to force themselves to be not playing with each other as a group. This, I find, is ridiculous.
  • I disagree. I believe this (24/7 everything) will lead to greater coordination and more complex logistics, which will be player driven.  This will give rise to great leaders and strategists, as well as many other dynamics.  But no, you won't be able to go hold hands and gather,then go hold hands and roam around looking for pvp, and then go "Oh, look, it's 5o'clock, time to go defend against a siege now, tra-la-la-la-la".
  • The carebear thing isn't an insult. I'm just correcting your, and many people's, incorrect usage of it. Carebears are people who want the game to cater to low-skill players. Time coverage has nothing to do with skill, thus carebear would not be the proper term to label people as. "Carebear", as an insult on these forums, is used so loosely to denounce design critique or suggestions which address legitimate concerns, often shielding these bad mechanics under the guise of "hardcore".
  • Urban dictionary disagrees with both of us :) My definition of care bear is different than yours, because skill has nothing to do with care bear.  Skill is literally defined as 'doing something well' (despite how it is tossed around on these forums); in this case the 'skill', from my perspective, is "effectively guarding/defending our town/castle/tree/etc", so that does include time coverage.  There is a plethora of ways this could be accomplished, I'm just against giving people the ideas for free ;)
  • I don't think you're picking on anyone, and I'm not mad at you personally. I simply believe that your idea of 24/7 siege vulnerability and the reasoning behind it is both flawed and would negatively impact the game should it be implemented. So, the same as you, I am against an idea.
  • <3
  • You should never build a game where you discourage the vast majority of your players from participating in major activities. Thus, I cannot standby your reasoning that if you don't have a guild willing to displace their lives daily for the sake of a game, you shouldn't be participating in the game the same way others do. This is extremely anti-small guilds, basically crippling all but the largest mega-guilds from being active forces in the game. Which is, though I hope this goes without saying, unhealthy for the game.
  • And from my perspective, everyone always has access to everything if it is open 24/7.  It's the least restrictive option, it fosters the most player interaction (both ally and enemy), it develops and drives more complex gameplay, as well as 'political' interaction.  You see it as restricting a guild, I see it as freeing.  I would also argue that this is the best possible scenario for 'smaller' organizations...imagine being a single group, or a solo player, and catching a bigger guild 'napping' in complacency, and you destroy/conquer their town...there are stories....whereas (hypothetical numbers thrown:) say the same 12 man guild was to challenge a 100 man behemoth to a siege...there is almost 0 opportunity for the 12 man to triumph, whereas 24/7, superior recon, planning, strategy, tactics, or blind luck, etc etc, they could pull off something big...something LEGENDARY players will tell tales of.  There will also be huge, epic battles we will tell tales of...
  • And also, let's not forget the additional fun if another (or more!) guilds/factions/groups/alliances, etc, hear about and decide to join in, or harass, or route, or anything, that siege going on...

These are a hint of my dreams, my goals, some of my ideas behind "Play to Crush"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, srathor said:

I am fine with pvp windows. I am just mocking the pvpers who mock the gatherers who complain when they get ganked, but support their own carebare rules when it suits them. 

And gatherers get the shaft. Longest training trees in the game for the least effect. Their stuff looted as a design goal. The gear they make to help in the chosen role, has no combat stats. Dizzy down while gathering. Zoom while gathering. LOUD NOISES! Saying hey I am over here, distracted, come kill me and take my stuff. Hold F to Gather! Because F you that's why.

But no we have to do something special for the guilds precious! (Mocking see)

So, here's what I'd do, and what I probably will do: Identify the key design of the game in regards to gathering. For instance, being more vulnerable than you'd normally otherwise be in exchange for gaining resource. Find these aspects and let them be. You can't fix what isn't broken. What you can do is recommend other mechanisms to add layers of depth to the system which may solve your issue. For instance, there is a minor rune, Peripheral Vision, made to lessen the vulnerabilities of the gatherer. Mechanics like traps and battle pets could also prevent you from being wholly vulnerable. The game is still in its making, so instead of complaining and hoping for a fix, you should attempt to constructively contribute to the idea pool regarding it all.

17 minutes ago, dolmar said:

WoW that sounds rough lol

This isn't helping, so try being unhelpful elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mivius said:

How so?  My vision is equitable, not based on previous SB bias, founded in logic, and is consistent with the rest of the 'supposed' core idea of the game,  Siege windows are the aberration here. I asked for a simple, logical reason why they should be present, over biased, or opinion based arguments, and I see no logic based reasoning.

 

Never played SB, never even heard of it until started following CF. You were given simple logical answers why. You simply disagree with them, that's fine, but repeating that I and other posters haven't isn't really being accurate or honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

So, here's what I'd do, and what I probably will do: Identify the key design of the game in regards to gathering. For instance, being more vulnerable than you'd normally otherwise be in exchange for gaining resource. Find these aspects and let them be. You can't fix what isn't broken. What you can do is recommend other mechanisms to add layers of depth to the system which may solve your issue. For instance, there is a minor rune, Peripheral Vision, made to lessen the vulnerabilities of the gatherer. Mechanics like traps and battle pets could also prevent you from being wholly vulnerable. The game is still in its making, so instead of complaining and hoping for a fix, you should attempt to constructively contribute to the idea pool regarding it all.

This isn't helping, so try being unhelpful elsewhere.

I think the design is to have groups out protecting the gatherer not just one person out doing it. Its supposed to be a team game work it as a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pang said:

Never played SB, never even heard of it until started following CF. You were given simple logical answers why. You simply disagree with them, that's fine, but repeating that I and other posters haven't isn't really being accurate or honest. 

Nor did I. But I have played a number of style of pvp games. However, again disclaiming apology before I do this, I have quote all of your responses to me in this thread (I think? I might have left out ones not related to the point here, but I think those were directed at others), and will illustrate how zero  logical arguments are presented, shall we?

3 hours ago, pang said:

Well, they already said a while ago there would be Windows of Opportunity when it comes to sieging so...yeah. This is the Dev's "because we say so", not a logical argument.

Sieging is huge focus of the game so allowing sieges to happen when players are not even online and able to participate in the actual content, isn't a good look either.

As previously stated, players literally have to be on line for a siege to happen, this is a 'fairness' or 'equality' style argument: IE you believe that defenders should be warned and schedule a siege, rather than being vulnerable 24/7. 

Next:

3 hours ago, pang said:

So only people with no lives, can log into a game at any time should partake in the games main content? Yeah that sounds like GREAT game design...Your logic goes the other way as well, don't have the skill, tactics etc. to take a fully defended keep? Then don't play a PvP game with a sieging mechanic. This is an emotional argument.  "people with no lives" is not the only option.

Sieging shouldn't be exempt from a negative experience, never implied that. Simply that any lose suffered (with regards to keeps/cities etc.) should be when players are actually able to participate in the content, not when they are sleeping or working etc. I would argue if the only way or best way you can see to take keeps/cites/objective is when the defenders are offline/low pop then this probably isn't the game for you. Again, an emotional/fairness/equality argument. To be a little more specific, you infer that sieging will only happen when it is inconvenient for the defending party (all of your argument are defender based, if you were somehow unaware).

Next:

 

2 hours ago, pang said:

Sieges are different because like already said its a pretty major point of the game and also the time/effort/teamwork it takes to build them and maintain them is greater then anything else in the game. This is opinion, without the systems all in place, theorycraft at best. The gather-craft-fight loop is a "pretty major point" too, and yet it doesn't get these special considerations.  (This again plays into logical argument, which I will finish with).

Also the game being more hardcore leaning doesn't mean players have to no life it to play its content. This isn't the 90's anymore games and Devs have evolved since those early games. Seems like its on you that is either misunderstanding the design of the game and taken a slogan and using it to shill your own preferences to the game. Play to Crush is a fine slogan to generate hype but its not at all a design document like you are using it as. Not really an argument in there, but definitively not a logical argument present.

I mean the games overarching concept is having different CWs with varying rules and objective's and ways of winning etc. But because you don't like this one concept oh now everything has to be the same across the board? Yeah sorry its fine if you don't like this mechanic but your logic seems a bit fuzzy and not at all consistent. Again, no siege mechanic argument here outside of disagreeing with my opinion at best.

Next:

1 hour ago, pang said:

The game has special rules all over the place, AGIAN its a major design concept of the game. Different CWs have different rules. The only argument here again is 'major design concept' (diff CW rules had already been addressed, as noted), which is not a logical argument, it's again a "Dev says so"

as for the rest of your post eh not going to go back and forth rehashing the same words over and over again. I already answered most and others have replied, refuted and countered them all already as well.

And the home stretch:

1 hour ago, pang said:

Just because you disagree doesn't make the point invalid or nonexistent. Nope, but not having a valid logic argument does, which is all I asked for, let's explore below:

But yeah you have this vision of Crowfall that doesn't really line up with reality.

So I realized sometime when I was writing this that it would likely be useful to define what a logical argument is, I'm going to steal from a quick Google search:

A logical argument (or just argument) is a process of creating a new statement from one or more existing statements.

An argument proceeds from a set of premises to a conclusion, by means of logical implication, via a procedure called logical inference.

(this is only part of it: find it all here-> https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Logical_Argument )

(The dictionary definition you can look up, but it's usually much more vague)

For my purposes I will simplify: I take a look at the systems we have, the systems we are 'promised', the information about the style and gameplay, and see that we are in an open, harsh, relatively unrestricted pvp environment, and then I look at a singular mechanic, in this case, sieges, and note the variance from literally everything else. To counter this, you would need to point out specific instance(s) where the existing mechanics support this as an A+B=C (over-simplification) equation, and that has not been done. Again, I harbor serious doubts that it can be done.

My logical argument says given the systems we have now, 24/7 destroy everything is the logical conclusion to that idea, to include sieges.  Yes, i could get into specifics, but I am already heavily verbose, and most don't care.

Nothing presented has been a logical argument to refute or correct anything I conclude, as briefly illustrated above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dolmar said:

I think the design is to have groups out protecting the gatherer not just one person out doing it. Its supposed to be a team game work it as a team.

Kind of like having groups out defending the castle? 

Oh and Dondagora I have post after post of crying, whining, and even helpful suggestions. Many hundred posts since I came back 4 months ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mivius said:

Nor did I. But I have played a number of style of pvp games. However, again disclaiming apology before I do this, I have quote all of your responses to me in this thread (I think? I might have left out ones not related to the point here, but I think those were directed at others), and will illustrate how zero  logical arguments are presented, shall we?

Next:

Next:

 

Next:

And the home stretch:

So I realized sometime when I was writing this that it would likely be useful to define what a logical argument is, I'm going to steal from a quick Google search:

A logical argument (or just argument) is a process of creating a new statement from one or more existing statements.

An argument proceeds from a set of premises to a conclusion, by means of logical implication, via a procedure called logical inference.

(this is only part of it: find it all here-> https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Logical_Argument )

(The dictionary definition you can look up, but it's usually much more vague)

For my purposes I will simplify: I take a look at the systems we have, the systems we are 'promised', the information about the style and gameplay, and see that we are in an open, harsh, relatively unrestricted pvp environment, and then I look at a singular mechanic, in this case, sieges, and note the variance from literally everything else. To counter this, you would need to point out specific instance(s) where the existing mechanics support this as an A+B=C (over-simplification) equation, and that has not been done. Again, I harbor serious doubts that it can be done.

My logical argument says given the systems we have now, 24/7 destroy everything is the logical conclusion to that idea, to include sieges.  Yes, i could get into specifics, but I am already heavily verbose, and most don't care.

Nothing presented has been a logical argument to refute or correct anything I conclude, as briefly illustrated above.

 

Firstly, to the post in response, I'd say that you don't really alleviate any of my points against your argument. Thus, I will place them down as "Cons" for your plan. Namely, the PvWall over PvP situation, being anti-grouping [in-game], and locking out a large majority of players from this very key part of the game [building castles] because they cannot fulfill the ridiculous [IMO] demand to provide 24/7 coverage to a castle.

Also, do not patronize arguments via "Holding hands" and "tralala~". It's insulting to our intelligence and a clear infantilization of our opinion. I critique the use of "carebear" for this exact reason: It does not contribute or attack an argument with logic or reason, just insults and demeans the person giving an opinion or thought. Stop it. 

I believe I have given various logical points, some previously mentioned in my first little paragraph here. I don't believe it's fair to blame Shadowbane's closing on a single aspect of the game. It was well-received and praised at release, losing a good cut of the playerbase due to technical issues plaguing the game, and likely closed due to inability to make a profit from keeping the servers up. That besides, it was not at all a bad game. This is based on a wikipedia search and not personal experience. Since you don't have personal experience, I'd suggest you not bring unfounded assertions into your argument.

And so, I believe you're ignoring the major issues which we find with your version of things, rationalizing them instead of accepting the critique.

And, if you want an argument, here it is: 24/7 Vulnerability hurts the majority game's playerbase. It makes it so that groups can take castles without ever fighting defenders, or at least their full force, because of the restrictions natural to all humans. And, even should 24/7 coverage be done, it prevents players from doing what they come to MMO's to do: join up with friends and go doing things. While it forces coordination, it works against the MMO genre and does not encourage the large battles people join Crowfall for. Because of these three major issues [PvWall, anti-grouping, absurd/anti-life standard for organization], I conclude that 24/7 vulnerability would be unhealthy for the game.

Can you still say that throughout this whole thing, no good point has been raised? That no logical argument is there for being against this idea? I'm all for considering alternatives to the siege window, but it has to be realistic [by which I mean not expecting something beyond common sense, such as ungodly coordination] and for the design [encourages the goals put forth by the Devs: PvP, group-oriented, etc.]. Right now, your plan has more cons than pros that I can see, so it is not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mivius said:

For my purposes I will simplify: I take a look at the systems we have, the systems we are 'promised', the information about the style and gameplay, and see that we are in an open, harsh, relatively unrestricted pvp environment, and then I look at a singular mechanic, in this case, sieges, and note the variance from literally everything else. To counter this, you would need to point out specific instance(s) where the existing mechanics support this as an A+B=C (over-simplification) equation, and that has not been done. Again, I harbor serious doubts that it can be done.

My logical argument says given the systems we have now, 24/7 destroy everything is the logical conclusion to that idea, to include sieges.  Yes, i could get into specifics, but I am already heavily verbose, and most don't care.

Nothing presented has been a logical argument to refute or correct anything I conclude, as briefly illustrated above.

In part you are correct. CF as a whole should/could support 24/7 siege and goes with the harsh style of open world PVP.

Regardless of this being logical or not, entertainment value usually takes front seat to what might make sense.

Would such a system support enough players to keep ACE's lights on? No clue, but I doubt it.

Can go down another road, permadeath. Why do we have no "skill" passive progression and character/resource retention in a game that is so "harsh?" You die, lose everything from day 1. Seems logical.

Why have EKs all safe and cozy? What is even their purpose? Seems like a safe haven to people to play interior decorator. Lets rid it and free up resources for the ways to kill each other better.

Why do we have dodges, retaliates, heals, and other easy mode abilities? Lets have 100% skill shot attacks that require top tier reflexes and aim.

While being a bit sarcastic, I've seen these or similar ideas proposed and they aren't wrong. However, there is no right or wrong in video games.

The promised options are what got me to back CF and stay interested.

There is no ONE way to do anything. Siege windows, win conditions, friendly fire, factions/FFA, import/export embargo, name tags over head, grouping, labeling nodes, autorun, etc etc.

I would likely not play on a 24/7 siege CW just as I likely wouldn't enjoy permadeath, at least not as my only option. If that makes me an insert colorful word, oh well. I'm looking for XYZ and hope that a particular ruleset will meet most of my expectations.

If someone wants to spend time building something up and have it open to be destroyed/taken when they are a sleep, so be it. I don't.

Has little to nothing to do with how logging into the world works, being attacked while holding F, or any other system. They all provide a different piece to an overall design, but aren't all treated the same.

I'm not a fan of logging in to be insta ganked and hope ACE thinks something up to deal with this. When it comes to gathering, team work and hopefully a provided set of options/skills make it a two sided experience, not always attacker wins, the end.

Siege windows absolutely make sense to me and what I want out of CF, which is just one way to experience it.

Ultimately, it doesn't all have to fit or make sense (bunch of body parts provide class skills?) and ACE will make the call on what they want and hopefully enough of us show up.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mivius said:

As previously stated, players literally have to be on line for a siege to happen, this is a 'fairness' or 'equality' style argument: IE you believe that defenders should be warned and schedule a siege, rather than being vulnerable 24/7.

 

 

Just going to respond to this as this is crux of argument. Rest of your post is just dismissive and repetitive by now as its already been rehashed several times.

Players need to be online for a siege to happen except the defenders of course a convenient part you keep leaving out. In your way defenders pretty much have zero input when a siege occurs. Point of vulnerability windows is to have BOTH attackers and defenders playing at the SAME time, not when its just convenient and/or easy for one (either) side like a 24/7 vulnerability will do. Yes for a siege, a proper siege to happen BOTH sides need to be online, otherwise its again just basically PvE because you'll be fighting mostly just walls and NPCs not actual players and for the defenders it'll be just staring into the game world waiting for an attack that likely won't come until they log off for the night. Doesn't sound at all like fun gameplay for either side. Its got nothing to do with having a warning or w/e for the 100th time its about BOTH sides being able to participate in the games major content loop against each other, you know pretty much the whole point of PvP. With 24/7 vulnerability the likelihood having that happen is greatly diminished.

So bottom line a point @Dondagora made earlier, "So tell me, between a mechanic which discourages PvP and one that encourages it, which do you think the Devs would prefer for their PvP-centric game?"  Like it or not, agree or not, believe it or not having mechanics that encourage PvP like vulnerability windows is better for this game then the alternative.

 

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I reiterate that I agree different CW should have different rules/mechanics.  I can see siege windows working in the 'softer' bands, faction, God's Reach, but sounds terribly out of place for Dregs, or even GvG world. And I agree there are many ways to approach something.

Here are some issues though:

18 hours ago, pang said:

Players need to be online for a siege to happen except the defenders of course a convenient part you keep leaving out. In your way defenders pretty much have zero input when a siege occurs. Point of vulnerability windows is to have BOTH attackers and defenders playing at the SAME time, not when its just convenient and/or easy for one (either) side like a 24/7 vulnerability will do. Yes for a siege, a proper siege to happen BOTH sides need to be online, otherwise its again just basically PvE because you'll be fighting mostly just walls and NPCs not actual players and for the defenders it'll be just staring into the game world waiting for an attack that likely won't come until they log off for the night.

First off, I do not leave out anyone, I use the blanket term 'players', which includes everyone who "plays the game". Attackers, defenders, abstainers, your crafting bot's alt bot harverster...everyone. Secondly, from a strictly technical standpoint, you do not have to have defenders for a siege; the point of a siege is to take-over (or destroy in some cases) whatever you are going after.  So this is your projection of your opinion on the masses, not a fact.

 

18 hours ago, pang said:

 Doesn't sound at all like fun gameplay for either side. Its got nothing to do with having a warning or w/e for the 100th time its about BOTH sides being able to participate in the games major content loop against each other, you know pretty much the whole point of PvP. With 24/7 vulnerability the likelihood having that happen is greatly diminished.

The fallacy here is that somehow this makes things balanced/fair/even for anyone, when in fact if you choose when you challenge, and can choose when to defend, both of those are exploitable (see Coolwater's Chinese Thanksgiving Day reference, or any of the other examples floated about middle of the night or during the work/school day).  Similarly, I have a little more hope/faith it will be more like item #6 in the Strategy FAQ (https://crowfall.com/en/faq/strategy/) Although that still is an artificially enforced mechanic, I would support that for Faction/God's Reach over players choosing, simply for the exploitability factor.

The assertion about the likelihood of having both sides being ready/available/participate/etc greatly diminished is again an opinion based guess at best, it may or may not be true, and we cannot scry into the future to tell.

However:

18 hours ago, pang said:

So bottom line a point @Dondagora made earlier, "So tell me, between a mechanic which discourages PvP and one that encourages it, which do you think the Devs would prefer for their PvP-centric game?"  Like it or not, agree or not, believe it or not having mechanics that encourage PvP like vulnerability windows is better for this game then the alternative.

 

19 hours ago, Dondagora said:

And, if you want an argument, here it is: 24/7 Vulnerability hurts the majority game's playerbase. It makes it so that groups can take castles without ever fighting defenders, or at least their full force, because of the restrictions natural to all humans. And, even should 24/7 coverage be done, it prevents players from doing what they come to MMO's to do: join up with friends and go doing things. While it forces coordination, it works against the MMO genre and does not encourage the large battles people join Crowfall for. Because of these three major issues [PvWall, anti-grouping, absurd/anti-life standard for organization], I conclude that 24/7 vulnerability would be unhealthy for the game.

Both of you consistently make this claim that 24/7 is somehow limiting, and hurts the player base, but offer no rational explanation as to why, or how you feel this will come about, and proffer them as fact, when this is not. But because @Dondagora did express his reasons, let's examine them:

"It makes it so that groups can take castles without ever fighting defenders, or at least their full force, because of the restrictions natural to all humans" -- The belief that an organization would build up a town/tree/whatever, and leave it undefended if it was vulnerable 24/7 would be a tactical mistake, deserving of losing the PoI. In a window scenario, you can leave it undefended, because now the game itself is artificially protecting your precious pixels.  Similarly, the likelihood of any sizable organization having their "full force" on for siege windows (player selected or time cycled) is also highly unlikely. While I concede in the realm of possibilities, both could occur, it would be highly unlikely organizations who were willing to take the risk to build in a 24/7 environment would be foolhardy enough to just leave it for people to tear down.  Once again reiterating that this endeavor is greater than 'self', and like all things outside of 'basic' in CF, will require a community of one sort or another to make happen (barring issues that would allow exploit/bad mechanics/etc to have it built up by one person, etc etc)

"And, even should 24/7 coverage be done, it prevents players from doing what they come to MMO's to do: join up with friends and go doing things"-- This is just patently false.  It forces you to make a choice, and that choice matters.  The game will not force you to go harvest, to go craft, to build up your castle/PoI, or defend the materials PoI, or any other aspect.  You could still join up with friends and do anything the game does not restrict you from doing, the choice still lies with  you.  Dev's have consistently said that your choices should matter and have consequences. And while I cannot detract from siege windows also forcing a different set of choices, 24/7 allows the greatest amount of freedom, whereas windows are limitations, and again, artificial and exploitable limitations (both selection and time based).

"While it forces coordination, it works against the MMO genre and does not encourage the large battles people join Crowfall for." -- This is again conjecture.  How  does it work against the MMO genre?  Because so many are theme-parks? Because of the general state of permanence that permeates most of them? We are given EK's for exactly that sense of permanence. Depending on how siege rulesets are handled, siege windows can be infinitely more restrictive...exactly who can participate? Are there number caps? In total? Per side? Can anyone come along when the vulnerability is open? Can you be betrayed by your own allies, faction, guildmates? The list goes on and on and on and on...The 24/7 vulnerability has none  of those questions, or issues, it's a blank slate, a clump of clay, something waiting for the players to mold it to their will and want; with windows you are at the mercy of the game itself, and possibly the opponent (in a 'selection' system).  I can easily argue that 24/7 fosters more player interaction and can lead to larger battles and more interesting dynamics, whereas windows may get 'stale' after a time (clearly just my opinion/theorycraft), it doesn't make one opinion more right than another, but we will get stuck with what they give us.

"Because of these three major issues [PvWall, anti-grouping, absurd/anti-life standard for organization], I conclude that 24/7 vulnerability would be unhealthy for the game." -- No PvWall, or if so, it's a mistake on the builder/defenders part: IE they lack the "skill" to defend their PoI. Not anti-grouping, again this is simply a choice, you view it in a certain light, but it is not fact. And there is nothing 'absurd/anti-life standard' as well, there are innumerable ways to tackle this "issue"/"problem", but let the players decide the solutions, or courses of action, not the game. None of these are facts.

 

But not one person has answered my "base" question: Why are/should these pixels be so special?

1) EVERYTHING, to include the world itself is impermanent...your gear, your body, everything; Why should these pixels be different?

2) EVERYTHING outside of 'basic' crafting requires a 'community' effort: As a Wood Worker I have to interact with a minimum of seven (7) different specialists to make a single book, and that is quite likely actually half of the number: (7 = 1 blacksmith, 1 ore specialist, 1 stone specialist, 1 wood specialist, 1 leather specialist, 1 rune maker, 1 leather worker) Because you are unlikely to use just one type of ore, and may also want variance in stone or leather, and I didn't include optional components at all...AND constructions get their very own special materials PoI's to speed up these processes...so why do we need an additional (artificial) protective mechanic for these pixels only?

3) NOTHING else in the game is afforded this 'special protection': why the discontinuity here?

Almost all attempts to justify this are either easily refuted, or unknowable opinion.  The exception being @APE presented a valid logical argument, and I can accept and appreciate that.

But that still doesn't answer my question: Why are/should these pixels be so special? Ultimately I have to accept whatever the Dev's implement, or move on.  I understand I likely cannot sway anyone, but I absolutely  could be, but how my mind works, I need a logical, rational, perhaps even "common sense" style answer to my base question. 

I also want to disclaim that I do understand where you are coming from, I honestly do, I just disagree with it for a good swathe of CF, as I feel for many CW bands that a window mechanic is wholly out of place. And again, my disclaimer: I apologize if I was insulting or perceived as such!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, the point of a PvP game with objectives and sieging is for ALL players to be able to compete against each other, so the Dev is going to make systems that support that philosophy. If you don't get that then you'll never understand why vulnerability windows are better for the game.

The fact that you don't need defenders to start a siege with 24/7 IS the problem and again if you can't see that you'll never get it.

 

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mivius said:

"Because of these three major issues [PvWall, anti-grouping, absurd/anti-life standard for organization], I conclude that 24/7 vulnerability would be unhealthy for the game." -- No PvWall, or if so, it's a mistake on the builder/defenders part: IE they lack the "skill" to defend their PoI. Not anti-grouping, again this is simply a choice, you view it in a certain light, but it is not fact. And there is nothing 'absurd/anti-life standard' as well, there are innumerable ways to tackle this "issue"/"problem", but let the players decide the solutions, or courses of action, not the game. None of these are facts.

PvWall, because coverage means taking shifts, taking shifts means having a fraction of one's normal force on at any given time. Thus, with no real contest in terms of numbers, the attackers main obstacle is not players, but simply the structure of the wall.

Anti-Grouping because splitting your forces up over a number of hours of the day will prevent most of you from being on at the same time. Because humans have natural limitations. You should not expect more than an average 2~5 hours of play per player per day. Any more would be unrealistic expectations. And thus, forcing guilds to spread this out over 24 hours every day to defend their keep is to prevent guilds from grouping up.

While in real life you'd of course want to take shifts to defend a thing, this is not real life. No person in their right mind will schedule their life around a game. Sorry, maybe there are a few. But you cannot expect it from the majority of even the so-called "hardcore" players here.

Also, you stated that the point of a siege was to take over? That's absurdly bias from the perspective of the attackers. For Defenders, sieges are times to defend and prevent take-over. Where is their chance in all this during a 24/7 vulnerability system?

These aren't facts, they're concerns. Many things are "technically" possible, but "practically" 24/7 vulnerability is a bad design choice. "Technically" you could organize 24/7 coverage, but "practically" it'd be ridiculous to expect.

You can dismiss these concerns all you want, but they're the reason 24/7 coverage will never be a thing. You offer no solutions to address them. Because this is all pointless [in that the devs won't be considering 24/7 vulnerability ever] I'll probably stop replying. I say this so you know that it isn't because I'm at a loss for words, but because I'm simply tired and bored of this redundant conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sigh* it's like having a conversation with a brick wall...

15 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

PvWall, because coverage means taking shifts, taking shifts means having a fraction of one's normal force on at any given time. Thus, with no real contest in terms of numbers, the attackers main obstacle is not players, but simply the structure of the wall.

 

Wrong. The walls and thralls would speed bumps to allow you the time to rally defensive forces.  You can't rally those forces? You failed at the skill of defending your PoI. You also are (which I thought too obvious to mention previously, but let me be explicit:) making the choice to attack with lower defenses if this is the case.  You do not have to attack at that time... you can wait until they are assembled and ready. You can make "Gentleman's agrements" and negotiate larger battles, there are, again, literally innumerable options if you leave it in the player's hands, you take that away if you place artificial restrictions.  However, again, this is about choice, and your (not just you, I am not trying to pick specifically) projection about how this will develop (ie being attacked when you are more/most vulnerable) actually says a lot about your views, perceptions, and interactions with the game world and community at large.  Those ideas are not absolutes, but each are constructs of what each and every one of us put into them ourselves.

20 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

Anti-Grouping because splitting your forces up over a number of hours of the day will prevent most of you from being on at the same time. Because humans have natural limitations. You should not expect more than an average 2~5 hours of play per player per day. Any more would be unrealistic expectations. And thus, forcing guilds to spread this out over 24 hours every day to defend their keep is to prevent guilds from grouping up.

 

Broken record, but let me re-frame: Are you forced by the game to do this?  And by forced I mean you have no choice?  Wait, it is, again, a choice.  You are again projecting in this statement.  The guild is not forced to do anything. If they want to keep the PoI, they make the choice to defend it, or not, and whom, and when.  And while this conversation has revolved mostly around singular PoI, what about spreading it through 3, 5, or 10 PoI/Castle/town/trees?  So now i can hold more land/area, risk free, because if I get to choose when to defend, I will never schedule 2 or more sieges at the same time. in 24/7, you have no such safety net, and if you have 5 castles, and a smart strategist organized forces to attack all 5 at once, well, now  you have to make hard choices (or maybe not so hard? guess it would depend on PoI's value). You (and again, not just you) are advocating more restrictive gameplay for the sake of the safety of one particular set of pixels.

 

27 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

While in real life you'd of course want to take shifts to defend a thing, this is not real life. No person in their right mind will schedule their life around a game. Sorry, maybe there are a few. But you cannot expect it from the majority of even the so-called "hardcore" players here.

Again, not  the only option, but the only one you are willing to recognize, or at least voice.

 

28 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

Also, you stated that the point of a siege was to take over? That's absurdly bias from the perspective of the attackers. For Defenders, sieges are times to defend and prevent take-over. Where is their chance in all this during a 24/7 vulnerability system?

Bias? Because I use the literal definition of 'siege'? The siege is solel an offensive effort, as those defending are 'under siege' or 'being laid siege to" or "besieged", etc etc etc. The siege is the act of doing the sieging, not defending against it. I know, silly me, using the words as they are defined and meant to be used.  Good try though.

They also have walls and thralls (I mean, maybe they don't, but that would just be silly...) to help make the force rally.  You want an agreed upon siege/defend scenario, you can  do that in 24/7, by player agreement, why do you need an artificial mechanic?  And the chance is in having a plan/strategy for defense...risk versus reward.

 

33 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

These aren't facts, they're concerns. Many things are "technically" possible, but "practically" 24/7 vulnerability is a bad design choice. "Technically" you could organize 24/7 coverage, but "practically" it'd be ridiculous to expect.

 

This is again your opinion as well, and not fact.  Please, explain why it's a bad design choice: again I see it as fostering more dynamics, more possibilities, more emergent game play, and a slew of other benefits I have both posted and not posted in this thread alone.

 

35 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

You can dismiss these concerns all you want, but they're the reason 24/7 coverage will never be a thing. You offer no solutions to address them. Because this is all pointless [in that the devs won't be considering 24/7 vulnerability ever] I'll probably stop replying. I say this so you know that it isn't because I'm at a loss for words, but because I'm simply tired and bored of this redundant conversation.

I'm going to be blunt, and somewhat insulting here, so my apologies.  I have stated and re-stated I have intentionally withheld many possible solution sets. This stems from this base idea: If you are not smart enough, logistically or strategically oriented enough, as either a leader and/or organization, to devise, implement, and refine your own defenses, you do not deserve to be able to hold your PoI/Castle/Tree/etc.  Think and organize for yourself, do not have your hand held by the game because you are too short-sighted to come up with solution(s).

42 minutes ago, pang said:

eh, the point of a PvP game with objectives and sieging is for ALL players to be able to compete against each other.

 

24/7 allows that, windows are restrictive.  Going back to 100 man guild versus a 12 man guild; in 24/7 everyone  can participate 100% of the time if they make that choice. In 24/7 a superior 12 man guild/force could potentially take-over a PoI from a 100 man behemoth through various methods. In the window scenario you are artificially limiting it to a numbers game. IE the 12 man guild could never (okay, maybe it's just really really really unlikely instead, but) directly take-on the 100 man behemoth in a window-drive siege.  It innately severely limits the options of smaller groups, and makes sieges much more about a numbers game than anything else.

And again, this is your opinion. Some people could care a crow's less about sieging.  And technically, all players can  still compete against each other, but what form that takes may vary.

48 minutes ago, pang said:

 If you don't get that then you'll never understand why vulnerability windows are better for the game.

 

Oh, then explain it to me, because all I see are a bunch of opinions trying to justify why the more restrictive option is better.  The problem is here I can actually think about things in objective, logical ways, and I'm not easily swayed by false assertions and strong-arm tactics. Unlike several of you, I absolutely give consideration to each idea you post, and give them both merits and flaws, and I have yet to see anything that is more than an opinion based on a notion of 'fairness'/'equal opportunity'/etc (again, the exception being APE, but his logical argument was previously acknowledged).

 

53 minutes ago, pang said:

 The fact that you don't need defenders to start a siege with 24/7 IS the problem and again if you can't see that you'll never get it.

 

Here we just disagree.  If it's undefended, the 'owners'/'controllers' of the PoI made a mistake: which, in my opinion, means they deserve to lose that PoI. I do have an issue with the game itself holding an organizations proverbial hand to make things easier..why? because they logged in faster? Took a day off from work and someone else couldn't/didn't? Or any other combination that could lead to them just claiming whatever they come across first and being able to hold it, not through their skill, organization, planning, coordination, etc, but simply because the game says so. 

Specifically, since you (again, not you only) rally this idea around the banner of 'people who have lives', this mechanic seems very anti-"people who have lives", because they may not be able to be the first person on the claim PoI's, and then are at the mercy of the 'windows'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mivius said:

Again, not  the only option, but the only one you are willing to recognize, or at least voice.

I hate it, but I'll bite. The example/option of 24 hour coverage is the only one you have provided. The rest of us, foolish fools that we are, DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS. So please, enlighten us.

4 minutes ago, mivius said:

This is again your opinion as well, and not fact.  Please, explain why it's a bad design choice: again I see it as fostering more dynamics, more possibilities, more emergent game play, and a slew of other benefits I have both posted and not posted in this thread alone.

I stated it wasn't fact. Fact means something is impossible. The things you state aren't impossible. They're just the worst option, in my opinion.

And I've stated why it is bad design. It discourages PvP from occurring, encouraging attacker to aim for times that the Defenders aren't around so much, and thus means battles will very rarely be both substantial in terms of prize while being populace in terms of players involved. This goes against the intent behind the gameplay as the Devs have put forth. This is also not saying that "because the devs said it", but more so "This is why the game exists in the first place". As I view it, your suggestion goes against the game's core intentions, two of which is massive battles and group play.

And stop with the "opinion, not fact" argument. Nothing either of us say can be fact without experimentation. Let's just use our common sense and imaginative skills to construct theoretical scenarios, alright?

Also, you say it's like talking to a brick wall? We feel the same. The very same. You dismiss our concerns as if they don't exist, and have the gull to assert that we're being unreasonable or stubborn. I've given you the reasons why I believe the concerns are valid, and you give nothing to say that they aren't except a "nuh-uh!" C'mon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the defenders made a mistake by having lives and jobs and families and not being able to play a video game 24/7 what a huge mistake they should never be able to play MMOs at all, those terrible people. You know how ridiculous you sound?

Also you're now confusing different objectives and mechanics. As far as we know POIs can be fought over whenever and there is not actual claiming mechanic you just take it over with your group, use it defend it and leave it, those will be PvP hotspots. What we are talking about is keep/cities with an actual claiming/building/repairing/maintaining system on them.

You've had it explained to you why windows are beneficial and better for this game for the last half a dozen pages and can read the rest of thread since the beginning of this thread, and still just dismiss and refuse to see the points being made and you're the one talking to a brick wall? Yeah that's rich. Anyways this will be the last reply to you on this topic, not out of concession but out of pure futility of arguing with someone like yourself. Besides the game WILL have vulnerability windows we've known that for a while now, so yeah its either on you to deal with or move on.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

I hate it, but I'll bite. The example/option of 24 hour coverage is the only one you have provided. The rest of us, foolish fools that we are, DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS. So please, enlighten us.

.

Of course you  should provide 24/7 protection if you have 24/7 vulnerability (not required, but should)., but, that is not what I was talking about, and succinctly illustrates why you have blinders on and/or have a myopic view, let's revisit:

1 hour ago, Dondagora said:

PvWall, because coverage means taking shifts, taking shifts means having a fraction of one's normal force on at any given time.

^^^ THIS IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION FOR COVERAGE. I mean, it's big and bold, can I be clearer?  Because NO I will not give you free ideas.

 

15 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

 It discourages PvP from occurring, encouraging attacker to aim for times that the Defenders aren't around so much

NO. YOU  would attack when there were fewer Defenders, so you  project your belief to everyone.  In competitive game scenarios there will always be a faction/sub-set of players who will look to make use of every possible advantage, to include the one you listed, but that will be the case regardless of mechanic: I have already pointed some of them out associated with siege windows.

 

18 minutes ago, Dondagora said:

And stop with the "opinion, not fact" argument. Nothing either of us say can be fact without experimentation. Let's just use our common sense and imaginative skills to construct theoretical scenarios, alright?

I attempt to, and I make a concerted effort to point out my opinions, but sometimes i miss them on first pass, and I rarely edit, so I'm human, sometimes I don't get it. I have made every effort to 'head nod' /acknowledge when I see the point of an idea, or agree with part of it, or recognize it as a possibility, again, being human, not perfect, fail sometimes. I see little to none of that from some of you in return, simply persistent denial/negativity in return, and often nothing in the way of example or explanation, outside of "people have lives".

16 minutes ago, pang said:

Yes the defenders made a mistake by having lives and jobs and families and not being able to play a video game 24/7 what a huge mistake they should never be able to play MMOs at all, those terrible people. You know how ridiculous you sound?

 

You are trying to put words in my mouth here, might I suggest a reading comprehension course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mivius I've read through the thread, and maybe my reading comprehension sucks but.. it's not at all clear to me how you think guilds could defend in a game with 24/7 vulnerability. It seems to me like that inevitably leads to a game where everything is easily destroyed, and building isn't worthwhile.

Assume the defending guild has plentiful numbers and they're well organized, and assume they have to protect their city against a guild with equal numbers. The attackers tell their guild "Set your alarms, be ready for the siege at [redacted] AM on [redacted] morning." How can a defender guard against that?

Even if the defender has a guy on watch, when the attackers show up at say.. 3am on Tuesday, I don't see a way for the defender to muster near equal numbers. Not when most of their members are naturally asleep and not expecting an attack, while the attackers can plan for this in advance and set their alarms.

Edited by Avloren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...