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

Ace's vision for Siege's

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, mivius said:

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:

^^^ 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.

 

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.

 

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".

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

You insult me yet fail again to address any concerns. Won't give me ideas? By God, man, get a hold of yourself. I don't want your ideas to copy, I want concerns alleviated. So far I'm convinced shifts would be the only way, a way which is unrealistic and sucks for those involved. Prove me wrong. Convince me there's another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read all of this thread, but personally, I think keeps should be attackable 24/7. There could be a number of systems in place that will make it harder to attack and destroy a keep during certain times. Those systems can be both server time based and player controlled.

So for example, if the player controlled system (fortification that takes some time to build and is applied for a certain time period for example) is applied at the same time as the server time based system, attacking a keep will just be a failed suicide attack.

Also, I really dislike the "Hey, sign up for a siege" thing that other games did. It just feels so uninspired. Having enemy siege weapons being brought into the territory around your keep could be simply discovered by your thrall scouts (if they exist), automatically sending a raven to the keep. 

 

Having "official" siege time windows is probably the easiest solution to balance this, but would also reduce the amount of strategic decision you have to make if it wasn't there. Everyone would just go out and harvest, fight, hunt, craft, etc. and then head back to the Keep during siege times in case the enemy appears or to prepare an attack.

Share this post


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

Haven't read all of this thread, but personally, I think keeps should be attackable 24/7. There could be a number of systems in place that will make it harder to attack and destroy a keep during certain times. Those systems can be both server time based and player controlled.

So for example, if the player controlled system (fortification that takes some time to build and is applied for a certain time period for example) is applied at the same time as the server time based system, attacking a keep will just be a failed suicide attack.

Also, I really dislike the "Hey, sign up for a siege" thing that other games did. It just feels so uninspired. Having enemy siege weapons being brought into the territory around your keep could be simply discovered by your thrall scouts (if they exist), automatically sending a raven to the keep. 

 

Having "official" siege time windows is probably the easiest solution to balance this, but would also reduce the amount of strategic decision you have to make if it wasn't there. Everyone would just go out and harvest, fight, hunt, craft, etc. and then head back to the Keep during siege times in case the enemy appears or to prepare an attack.

That's a big part of this discussion people are either missing or choosing to ignore, when Defenders get to choose when to defend a large part of the Assaults strategy gets thrown out the window. Catching defenders off guard or with their pants down is one of the single most valuable strategies the Assaulter have. I'm not talking about hitting a Structure at 4 am when their all logged off, I'm talking about the Defenders being preoccupied with something else whatever that may be, they then would have to weigh the choices, continue doing what they are doing (could be assaulting a keep themselves) or abandon ship and go defend. Giving them the option to set a Defense takes so much away from the game. Find a way to prevent alarm clock Assaults and Defenses if that's what needs to be done but don't strip away strategy, lets not dumb down the game especially a major part of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking at night was a time honored strategy. But it did take time to move assets into place. Have a in game steward npc that can wake up the players with an email. Bane stone has been sighted near the keep. An attack commences within the hour.  

Then you wake or not. If not I guess the keep was not all that important to you. Keep track of who took your poorly made socks and kill them back. 

Scheduling assaults is so out of character for these games it is silly. 

Share this post


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

That's a big part of this discussion people are either missing or choosing to ignore, when Defenders get to choose when to defend a large part of the Assaults strategy gets thrown out the window. Catching defenders off guard or with their pants down is one of the single most valuable strategies the Assaulter have. I'm not talking about hitting a Structure at 4 am when their all logged off, I'm talking about the Defenders being preoccupied with something else whatever that may be, they then would have to weigh the choices, continue doing what they are doing (could be assaulting a keep themselves) or abandon ship and go defend. Giving them the option to set a Defense takes so much away from the game. Find a way to prevent alarm clock Assaults and Defenses if that's what needs to be done but don't strip away strategy, lets not dumb down the game especially a major part of the game. 

Something I didn't see posted or I probably missed since I got glassy eyed through a couple of pages, is how are attackers going to get their siege equipment there? We've already seen in the siege testing that the catapults are fairly mobile, but what about the other traditional siege weapons? A lot of this would go into planning a proper siege around not only the time active window (or lack there of) windows for attacking a castle, keep, mountain, your heavily fortified cottage on a hill,  but getting the mats and resources there to get the attack going in the first place. That would to an extent prevent the alarm clock assaults that are described since it can put a huge road block in the way of attackers getting their stuff there, especially if it has to be built on the spot with large amounts of mats, etc. without some hard-core dedication and desire to burn your cottage down over night presuming that you have more than just wooden walls surrounding it.

That being said perhaps a some bait to tempt players to expand their open windows for daily siege would be in order much like the idea behind the blood stone rule set where players set an open time that the longer it is increases the blood stones spawned, allowing a group to potentially increasing the window for the potential to rapidly increase your score for the win.

Could also mask the banes after drop for a few days and a surrounding area to allow attackers to build up their siege so they can attack when the window opens as well.

Just some suggestions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, srathor said:

Attacking at night was a time honored strategy. But it did take time to move assets into place. Have a in game steward npc that can wake up the players with an email. Bane stone has been sighted near the keep. An attack commences within the hour.  

Then you wake or not. If not I guess the keep was not all that important to you. Keep track of who took your poorly made socks and kill them back. 

Scheduling assaults is so out of character for these games it is silly. 

Yeah lol.... Sorry Boss I gotta leave work early today I gotta go home and play a video game, its super important!

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Avloren said:

@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.

Okay, I will attempt to frame it better for you. (As an FYI I have not read the next page of posts, but appreciated your format and thought it deserved a thoughtful response)

Let's start off with the base premise:

24/7 vulnerability (caveat, again, not all CW bands necessarily, but say GvG & Dregs at the least) is the least restrictive option. All counter-arguments have stated that this option is 'restrictive' in some manner, discouraging gameplay or pvp.  However, 'siege windows' are the restrictive ones, as you are now up against the game-mechanics themselves as a restriction (ie you cannot attack/take over said PoI). Most arguments for the window revolve around some sense of "fairness"/"equal opportunity" waving the rally-flag of "people have lives" (which also infers some people do not), which is borne of the bias from theorycraft or prior experience (or both potentially).  However, 24/7 vulnerability, by it's nature, is the least restrictive option possible: we, as players, will only get out of siege mechanics (PoI acquisition, or whatever else you would like to label it) what we, the players, put into it. 24/7 being the least restrictive option available is the only fact we can point to at this time.

While I respect @APE desire 'not to have something I built destroyed while I sleep' (not exact quote), that is what we have EK's for, that sense of permanence in what we build.  CW's are impermanent, as with everything else, by design.

Then look at Risk versus Reward. PoI's are slated to have reward associated with them, be it materials, places to craft, whatever.  This is asking for at least one subset of PoI's (perhaps all, because we don't know the full extent of how PoI's will work, be taken over, etc etc) to literally have the Risk associated with the inherit reward to be extremely mitigated.  So in some aspect (again, dependent upon how pervasive the mechanic is in relation to all PoI's) you create an sizable imbalance in Risk versus Reward.

Siege windows are an artificial restriction, the game sets the 'pace'.  24/7 vulnerability the players control every aspect of the gameplay surrounding it, and it can be a constantly evolving 'thing'.

Bonus: If there are no artificial mechanics a) dev's don't have to take time and resources to create those mechanics b ) dev's don't have to fix bugs/issues with those mechanics c)  those mechanics cannot be exploited (either via bug or it's own nature)

There are also numerous other potential issues with siege windows, as well as a lot of questions, but I've rehashed enough I think to start to answer you.

"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."

So, I want to start with the second half of the above quote: As noted above, PoI's have a built-in reward system (or, to be clearer, it has been stated they are supposed to), therefore, even if 'destroyed' that will likely be a temporary state, as some organization will look to make use of that reward.

As stated in previous posts I am not going to detail any of the various ways that 24/7 defense could/would/should/may/is/etc possible.  Here's the kicker, for me at least.  In many corners of this (and every MMO I've ever played or read anything about) 'game' is the prolific reference to that ever foggy idea of skill (which, in literal terms is defined as "doing something well"). The interesting thing with 24/7 vulnerability is that it is one of the few aspects of the 'game' that will allow for actual use of some real-world skill(s).  To defend something on a 24/7 basis "should" take one, or a combination, of at least some of these real-world skills: leadership, organization, strategy, and/or logistics. This goes beyond the simple "button pushing" that defines the vast majority of what people deem "skill" in any given MMO.  As a quick example, anyone can throw together a guild, but we have seen (assumption on my part that people have played at least a handful of other MMO's) countless guilds fall apart for numerous reasons, but leadership, as a skill, is not as common as one would think: some don't have the temperment, the intellect, the attitude, the tact, the charisma, or any other of countless potential qualities.

A siege window takes far less 'skill'. If the window is chosen or time based can reduce the skill required further. Siege windows also make it tend towards a numbers game over player skill (the in-game kind).

To put the answer more succinctly to this part: You will adapt and overcome using actual skills and organization.

Not everyone or every guild will hold PoI's (well, I mean, I guess they could if there were enough of them, but big, strong guilds tend not to like to share their 'toys').

" 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? "

If you have the manpower to take and hold a PoI, would it not make sense to have a plan to hold/defend that PoI, in some way other than the game holding your hand and making it invulnerable for you?  While I am hesitant to put this out there, I notice a general assumption people keep making...that the only way for a guild to hold a PoI is to have just that guild hold that PoI...that's patently silly...there's a free hint for the day.

However, this again comes down to the same real-world skill set(s) I mentioned above. "How DO you defend a PoI 24/7?"....us, the player base, devising, refining, changing, innovating, etc, those answers, for ourselves, is interesting, dynamics, and conducive to emergent game play. (Opinion, clearly, as some people want their hand held to protect their precious, ultimately impermanent anyhow pixels).

" 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. "

It seems to me that many people think that just showing up at some off-hour is like an "I win" button for the attackers, this is not true. As previously discussed, at least some siegable PoI's are supposed to have walls, and thrall-guards.  That's not to mention that an active guild, in control of valuable PoI's would be foolish to just all play on the same schedule (it's also almost impossible from a human standpoint). If you have the appropriate skill-set(s) you will have a plan, and a back-up plan, and probably at least one more back-up plan. 

It also gets so much more interesting if you are talking about holding multiple PoI's.  With siege windows multiple PoI's are infinitely more defensible, and defenses can be more or less standardized.

Everything I hear in response is based on  the fear that somehow "I" won't be able to participate in sieges, or "I" will lose my PoI while me/my guild sleeps/works/etc, it's not fair to "me"/my guild. I have taken into consideration the game as a whole, the fact that not everyone will be holding onto PoI's (again, my assumption based on the limited information available), advantages and disadvantages to each style (as far as can be with what information we currently have), and the restrictions, potential for bugs, and potential for exploitation: it's not about "me", it's about a healthy, vibrant, interesting, brutal Crowfall.

Also, this is an ongoing war.  All is fair in Love and War...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to correct something real quick: PoI refer to specific things. Keeps and castles which go under siege are not considered PoI. Factories and graveyards and the like are PoI. PoI are 24/7 vulnerable. Keeps and castles are considered, well, let's call them "territory" since they aren't called PoI by ACE, last time I checked. I don't have the time at the moment to give my speech again about why 24/7 vulnerability would discourage player interaction, but wanted to come in real quick to correct the misstatement.

Share this post


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

I would like to correct something real quick: PoI refer to specific things. Keeps and castles which go under siege are not considered PoI. Factories and graveyards and the like are PoI. PoI are 24/7 vulnerable. Keeps and castles are considered, well, let's call them "territory" since they aren't called PoI by ACE, last time I checked. I don't have the time at the moment to give my speech again about why 24/7 vulnerability would discourage player interaction, but wanted to come in real quick to correct the misstatement.

Semantics.  Factories are going to have to be set up where? Oh, Keeps, castles, or towns is the plan? The semantics of how you label a castle, keep, town, etc, is relatively unimportant, as it is a "point of interest", whether they are officially labelled as such or not.  Why?  Because to the players they are going to be Points of Interest.

Plus, simply because you are argumentative and insulting continually (I don't care how you dent or try to frame those facts), I am going to quote the FAQ to prove you wrong, again, from https://crowfall.com/en/faq/economy/#4:

4. WHAT IS A POINT OF INTEREST?

Our worlds contain many structures that have strategic and/or economic value. We call these structures “points of interest” or POIs.  There are other types of POIs, as well: strongholds, temples and graveyards. Each serves a different purpose, but all of them fall under the “POI” designation. Some of these POIs are for personal use while others are more strategic and really exist to facilitate (and, in some cases, fuel) the game of territorial conquest.

 

(I added the bold to 'strongholds' to make it clear).

I don't dismiss your arguments because I "don't understand", I dismiss them because they are bad ideas, or are wrong, plain and simple.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mivius said:

Semantics.  Factories are going to have to be set up where? Oh, Keeps, castles, or towns is the plan? The semantics of how you label a castle, keep, town, etc, is relatively unimportant, as it is a "point of interest", whether they are officially labelled as such or not.  Why?  Because to the players they are going to be Points of Interest.

Plus, simply because you are argumentative and insulting continually (I don't care how you dent or try to frame those facts), I am going to quote the FAQ to prove you wrong, again, from https://crowfall.com/en/faq/economy/#4:

4. WHAT IS A POINT OF INTEREST?

Our worlds contain many structures that have strategic and/or economic value. We call these structures “points of interest” or POIs.  There are other types of POIs, as well: strongholds, temples and graveyards. Each serves a different purpose, but all of them fall under the “POI” designation. Some of these POIs are for personal use while others are more strategic and really exist to facilitate (and, in some cases, fuel) the game of territorial conquest.

 

(I added the bold to 'strongholds' to make it clear).

I don't dismiss your arguments because I "don't understand", I dismiss them because they are bad ideas, or are wrong, plain and simple.

 

I stand corrected. Strongholds are PoI. Oh, and by "factories", I mean PoI which generate resources, not literal factories which are producing equipment and such.

Also, I don't know when I've been insulting. You're the one who keeps calling us carebears and selfish because we don't think your idea would work practically in the game [all the while you won't even humor us with examples of how it could]. 

And same reason we dismiss 24/7 vulnerability. It's a bad idea. We cannot see it working. Again, you refuse to enlighten us on any way it could.

 

1 hour ago, mivius said:

Okay, I will attempt to frame it better for you. (As an FYI I have not read the next page of posts, but appreciated your format and thought it deserved a thoughtful response)

Let's start off with the base premise:

24/7 vulnerability (caveat, again, not all CW bands necessarily, but say GvG & Dregs at the least) is the least restrictive option. All counter-arguments have stated that this option is 'restrictive' in some manner, discouraging gameplay or pvp.  However, 'siege windows' are the restrictive ones, as you are now up against the game-mechanics themselves as a restriction (ie you cannot attack/take over said PoI). Most arguments for the window revolve around some sense of "fairness"/"equal opportunity" waving the rally-flag of "people have lives" (which also infers some people do not), which is borne of the bias from theorycraft or prior experience (or both potentially).  However, 24/7 vulnerability, by it's nature, is the least restrictive option possible: we, as players, will only get out of siege mechanics (PoI acquisition, or whatever else you would like to label it) what we, the players, put into it. 24/7 being the least restrictive option available is the only fact we can point to at this time.

While I respect @APE desire 'not to have something I built destroyed while I sleep' (not exact quote), that is what we have EK's for, that sense of permanence in what we build.  CW's are impermanent, as with everything else, by design.

Then look at Risk versus Reward. PoI's are slated to have reward associated with them, be it materials, places to craft, whatever.  This is asking for at least one subset of PoI's (perhaps all, because we don't know the full extent of how PoI's will work, be taken over, etc etc) to literally have the Risk associated with the inherit reward to be extremely mitigated.  So in some aspect (again, dependent upon how pervasive the mechanic is in relation to all PoI's) you create an sizable imbalance in Risk versus Reward.

Siege windows are an artificial restriction, the game sets the 'pace'.  24/7 vulnerability the players control every aspect of the gameplay surrounding it, and it can be a constantly evolving 'thing'.

Bonus: If there are no artificial mechanics a) dev's don't have to take time and resources to create those mechanics b ) dev's don't have to fix bugs/issues with those mechanics c)  those mechanics cannot be exploited (either via bug or it's own nature)

There are also numerous other potential issues with siege windows, as well as a lot of questions, but I've rehashed enough I think to start to answer you.

"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."

So, I want to start with the second half of the above quote: As noted above, PoI's have a built-in reward system (or, to be clearer, it has been stated they are supposed to), therefore, even if 'destroyed' that will likely be a temporary state, as some organization will look to make use of that reward.

As stated in previous posts I am not going to detail any of the various ways that 24/7 defense could/would/should/may/is/etc possible.  Here's the kicker, for me at least.  In many corners of this (and every MMO I've ever played or read anything about) 'game' is the prolific reference to that ever foggy idea of skill (which, in literal terms is defined as "doing something well"). The interesting thing with 24/7 vulnerability is that it is one of the few aspects of the 'game' that will allow for actual use of some real-world skill(s).  To defend something on a 24/7 basis "should" take one, or a combination, of at least some of these real-world skills: leadership, organization, strategy, and/or logistics. This goes beyond the simple "button pushing" that defines the vast majority of what people deem "skill" in any given MMO.  As a quick example, anyone can throw together a guild, but we have seen (assumption on my part that people have played at least a handful of other MMO's) countless guilds fall apart for numerous reasons, but leadership, as a skill, is not as common as one would think: some don't have the temperment, the intellect, the attitude, the tact, the charisma, or any other of countless potential qualities.

A siege window takes far less 'skill'. If the window is chosen or time based can reduce the skill required further. Siege windows also make it tend towards a numbers game over player skill (the in-game kind).

To put the answer more succinctly to this part: You will adapt and overcome using actual skills and organization.

Not everyone or every guild will hold PoI's (well, I mean, I guess they could if there were enough of them, but big, strong guilds tend not to like to share their 'toys').

" 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? "

If you have the manpower to take and hold a PoI, would it not make sense to have a plan to hold/defend that PoI, in some way other than the game holding your hand and making it invulnerable for you?  While I am hesitant to put this out there, I notice a general assumption people keep making...that the only way for a guild to hold a PoI is to have just that guild hold that PoI...that's patently silly...there's a free hint for the day.

However, this again comes down to the same real-world skill set(s) I mentioned above. "How DO you defend a PoI 24/7?"....us, the player base, devising, refining, changing, innovating, etc, those answers, for ourselves, is interesting, dynamics, and conducive to emergent game play. (Opinion, clearly, as some people want their hand held to protect their precious, ultimately impermanent anyhow pixels).

" 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. "

It seems to me that many people think that just showing up at some off-hour is like an "I win" button for the attackers, this is not true. As previously discussed, at least some siegable PoI's are supposed to have walls, and thrall-guards.  That's not to mention that an active guild, in control of valuable PoI's would be foolish to just all play on the same schedule (it's also almost impossible from a human standpoint). If you have the appropriate skill-set(s) you will have a plan, and a back-up plan, and probably at least one more back-up plan. 

It also gets so much more interesting if you are talking about holding multiple PoI's.  With siege windows multiple PoI's are infinitely more defensible, and defenses can be more or less standardized.

Everything I hear in response is based on  the fear that somehow "I" won't be able to participate in sieges, or "I" will lose my PoI while me/my guild sleeps/works/etc, it's not fair to "me"/my guild. I have taken into consideration the game as a whole, the fact that not everyone will be holding onto PoI's (again, my assumption based on the limited information available), advantages and disadvantages to each style (as far as can be with what information we currently have), and the restrictions, potential for bugs, and potential for exploitation: it's not about "me", it's about a healthy, vibrant, interesting, brutal Crowfall.

Also, this is an ongoing war.  All is fair in Love and War...

Ok, I have time. I'm assuming you're talking about using other guilds, AKA alliances, to help hold a fort or castle. That's cool and all, but still sets the threshold ridiculously high. You know how some servers in Guild Wars 2 won their WvW games? They hired Russian-based guilds who played while they slept. It was ridiculous and made the game unfun. For hours, one side may conquer and hold and upgrade and strengthen their fortifications and objectives. Then, the next day, because of their sleeping patterns, they lose everything over night.

I'm not saying contracting help from other guilds and alliances is bad. I'm saying that the solutions here are ridiculously high-threshold, and not in the "hardcore" way, but in the "why the hell should I go through all this trouble?" way. And this isn't about MEMEME. This is about the game as a whole. We're all arguing for the healthiness of the game, do not presume to assume, in self-righteousness, that you are the only one thinking about its best interests.

As for restrictiveness, I agree your way is the least restrictive... in theory. In practice, as you've said, it limits the number of options you have in terms of how you can defend 24/7. You're forced to create alliances with foreign guilds [not that there's anything wrong with the innately] or some such. This is a issue of meta. While you have the option to not do it, by choosing to not you are choosing defeat. Such is no real choice.

You continue to demean our opinions on the matter as "handholding", but for us your solution is simply "absurdity". Common-sense-wise, I find 24/7 vulnerability to be an unfun mechanic which will hurt the majority of the player base. I've already told you why numerous times, but for some reason [I assume the common writer's issue of "I'll be so clever when I do this, but I can't tell you what it is or else you'll plagiarize me!"] you do not seem to be inclined to provide us with any examples of how 24/7 vulnerability could work well. Which is why, unsurprisingly enough, we cannot hope to understand what you see in such a system. And this isn't meant to be insulting, however I cannot comprehend the logic of expecting us to be convinced when you refuse to provide us proper practical explanation of how it would work. Please, I hate to be redundant, but please share your enlightened thoughts with us foolish fools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Apok said:

Find a way to prevent alarm clock Assaults and Defenses if that's what needs to be done but don't strip away strategy, lets not dumb down the game especially a major part of the game. 

This is what EvE does in POS warfare (or at least it was, not sure how takedowns happen now).  The attackers could attack at any time, but would put the station into a reinforced mode, then depending a timer the attackers would have to come back x hours later when the station came out of reinforced mode.  The defenders set the timer limit and then both sides know when round two will take place.  This allowed the attackers the flexibility to initially attack whenever they wanted to, but also allowed the defenders to fight back and actually defend.


lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've not read this thread.

disregarding arguments of "fairness" and "time commitments"

fundamentally a siege where there are little to no people (or heavily outnumbered) on either side is boring for either a attacker or defender

windows concentrate activity

just look at the current tests for example of that...[compare them to say the more focused 1.5 hour test windows in the past in terms of concentrated action etc]

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


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

i've not read this thread.

disregarding arguments of "fairness" and "time commitments"

fundamentally a siege where there are little to no people (or heavily outnumbered) on either side is boring for either a attacker or defender

windows concentrate activity

just look at the current tests for example of that...[compare them to say the more focused 1.5 hour test windows in the past in terms of concentrated action etc]

Yep that's been the crux of the whole issue as I see it. To me the point of a PvP game, especially a competitive siege/objective based PvP game like Crowfall will be, making it so sieges happen when BOTH sides can participate and compete against each at the same time is the better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to make one more attempt to explain.  In this I ask a favor, in your internal monologue please read this as a favorite teacher trying to explain a concept to you. Thank you in advance.

As I commonly do, I will explain piecemeal.

1 hour ago, Dondagora said:

I stand corrected. Strongholds are PoI. Oh, and by "factories", I mean PoI which generate resources, not literal factories which are producing equipment and such.

 

See, communications breakdown. With the (promised) future implementation of actual factories, there would be no way for me, or anyone else, to have discerned this information, I appreciate the clarification. 

1 hour ago, Dondagora said:

Also, I don't know when I've been insulting.

I recognize that you may not recognize when you are being insulting.  Every time you tell me i misuse or misunderstand a statement/idea/word, you are being patronizing, which is insulting.  You do not know what my experience(s) are any more than I do yours.  Every time you twist a statement (going to point to the next section about carebear as an example here), also sometimes called "putting words in my mouth", it is insulting, as I have decent command of the English language, and I try and tend to use the terms and words I actually mean, usually in a very literal way (but not always).

To that end:

1 hour ago, Dondagora said:

 You're the one who keeps calling us carebears and selfish because we don't think your idea would work practically in the game [all the while you won't even humor us with examples of how it could].

I never call you, nor anyone else, carebear.  I do call siege windows carebear. As such, I am going to quote every instance I use carebear in this thread, and please note I have not edited a single post, so it is all verifiable:

" It goes against literally every other aspect of the game to care-bear up the siege mechanics.  "

" Play to Crush, except during seiges, Care Bear Stare! " (not really relevant, but included to be thorough)

" Down with the care bear sieges. "

" It's their game, they can do whatever they want, but again, seems very backwards to present a 'hardcore style' pvp game, and then care-bear up one of the core game principles/ideas/designs for some false sense of 'fairness'. "

" Siege windows are care-bear, especially in CF context.  "

" My definition of care bear is different than yours, because skill has nothing to do with care bear.  "

...and that is it. Please note I also stopped using the term after you deemed it "insulting", despite me not referencing a person.  However, if you have a quote of me calling anyone carebear, please do.

See the twist there? I never call anyone carebear, I don't call anyone selfish either, it's other people "reading between the lines", when there are no lines to read between. I do say, infer, mention, etc, that a lot of the arguments are from the me/my/I perspective/stance.  That's not selfish, it's human nature to put self first in most  (but not all) situations, and I understand this too.  So you have explicitly stated: "You're the one who keeps calling us carebears and selfish", calling me out directly, with two entirely untrue statements, can you see how that is/could be insulting?

2 hours ago, Dondagora said:

Ok, I have time. I'm assuming you're talking about using other guilds, AKA alliances, to help hold a fort or castle. That's cool and all, but still sets the threshold ridiculously high. You know how some servers in Guild Wars 2 won their WvW games? They hired Russian-based guilds who played while they slept. It was ridiculous and made the game unfun. For hours, one side may conquer and hold and upgrade and strengthen their fortifications and objectives. Then, the next day, because of their sleeping patterns, they lose everything over night.

Let's start here: "It was ridiculous and made the game unfun" So this is a poignant example of something I have been consistently talking about, the me/my/I/self perspective. For you, and I think I can safely extrapolate for a number of others, it was unfun. Do you think the "winners", the ones that hired the Russian-based guild(s) would say it was "unfun" for them?  Can we agree they would say it was fun for them then?

So do me a favor (not just you, any and everyone who reads this), put aside your personal feelings for just a moment, okay?  If you think about this from an objective standpoint, 'you' were outmaneuvered.  Someone had better leadership, negotiation, strategy...something...skill, and innovated a way to win.  That bid was, by your account, successful.  Remember that Winners Write History. If we look at a well-known example, let's parallel The Trojan Horse...do you think Troy would characterize the Greek tactic as 'fair', or anything else other than underhanded, deceitful, etc?  This was a decade-long siege they held out of, to have their mighty defenses negated by a superior tactic, one which history touts as a brilliant strategic move...and why do we not know what the Trojan's thought, or how they would characterize it? They lost, it has become unimportant.

Something else I find interesting, again, knowing nothing more than the information you have presented, is that it seemed not only did this tactic win the day, but it demoralized "you".  It sounds like people gave up, rather than come up with a counter-tactic, such as (without over-thinking) hiring Oceanic-based guilds, or come up with something completely new. 

The "winners" worked within the mechanics presented to achieve 'victory'. Any sense of 'fairness' is subjective, not absolute. (Again I would like to reference @coolwaters Thanksgiving day comment). 

2 hours ago, Dondagora said:

I'm not saying contracting help from other guilds and alliances is bad. I'm saying that the solutions here are ridiculously high-threshold, and not in the "hardcore" way, but in the "why the hell should I go through all this trouble?" way. And this isn't about MEMEME. This is about the game as a whole. We're all arguing for the healthiness of the game, do not presume to assume, in self-righteousness, that you are the only one thinking about its best interests.

Have you noted that I never use the term "hardcore"?

Let's start with: "why the hell should I go through all this trouble?" .  As I have made a point of repeatedly, it's a choice.  Choices should have substance, they should matter, and the Dev's have repeatedly expressed this as well.  If you want the reward/benefit from the PoI, you make the choice to accept the risk. 

24/7 vulnerability would (okay, "should" really, user experience may differ) have a cascading effect on capturing and maintaining multiple PoI's, especially as geographical distances between those points grow...ie, you might get stretched too thin.

Also note, there are still a myriad of alternative solutions I can think of, and I am not unique.

2 hours ago, Dondagora said:

As for restrictiveness, I agree your way is the least restrictive... in theory. In practice, as you've said, it limits the number of options you have in terms of how you can defend 24/7. You're forced to create alliances with foreign guilds [not that there's anything wrong with the innately] or some such. This is a issue of meta. While you have the option to not do it, by choosing to not you are choosing defeat. Such is no real choice.

I never said it limits options, I said it creates them, and opportunities, and...you get the point I hope? "In practice" is a misnomer, as we cannot use those mechanics, it's all theory. I recognize my way may be a total failure, but I'd much rather start at the "least restrictive" end of the spectrum and have the "knobs" adjusted if it does create problems, rather start with more restrictive.

Siege windows take options away, restricts gameplay, and has other effects, some of which we have listed.

2 hours ago, Dondagora said:

 

You continue to demean our opinions on the matter as "handholding", but for us your solution is simply "absurdity". Common-sense-wise, I find 24/7 vulnerability to be an unfun mechanic which will hurt the majority of the player base. I've already told you why numerous times, but for some reason [I assume the common writer's issue of "I'll be so clever when I do this, but I can't tell you what it is or else you'll plagiarize me!"] you do not seem to be inclined to provide us with any examples of how 24/7 vulnerability could work well. Which is why, unsurprisingly enough, we cannot hope to understand what you see in such a system. And this isn't meant to be insulting, however I cannot comprehend the logic of expecting us to be convinced when you refuse to provide us proper practical explanation of how it would work. Please, I hate to be redundant, but please share your enlightened thoughts with us foolish fools!

1 hour ago, pang said:

 

 

I am sorry you feel demeaned.  I made considerable effort to illustrate why I felt the ideas were bad, and not in line with what I perceive as the 'spirit' of the game.

When the game itself divinely protects your pixel assets I use the reference 'hand holding', or 'carebear', etc, clearly mistakenly thinking I could use a shorter reference than having to go: a mechanic by which the game artificially restricts your ability to participate in one or more aspects of player versus player combat in an open player versus player environment in which no other assets are afforded the same protections, advantages, and benefits, which will decidedly favor one set of players in a false attempt to balance a perception of 'fairness'..... I mean, do you really want to read that, or something more verbose...every...single...time?

I disagree with assertion of hurting the player base. I believe I have made enough salient points as to why.  'You' may not agree, but we need not agree.

I hope by now you understand it's not about you that I don't part with ideas about how to defend in a 24/7 environment.  Look at it from this perspective a moment, please.  If you and others cannot fathom/see/etc what these ideas are, or might be, etc, then the sub-set of players who not only have ideas, but can successfully implement them, become a very valuable asset.  This is a 'public' forum, I'll not give those ideas away for free (well, not the good ones anyhow) to the masses, sorry (not sorry :P ).

Thank you.

 

Share this post


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

Okay, I will attempt to frame it better for you. (As an FYI I have not read the next page of posts, but appreciated your format and thought it deserved a thoughtful response)

Thanks, I appreciate the detailed response. I think some of those points got lost somewhere in the arguing.

So I did read it all, but this part in particular jumped out at me:

5 hours ago, mivius said:

Then look at Risk versus Reward. PoI's are slated to have reward associated with them, be it materials, places to craft, whatever.  This is asking for at least one subset of PoI's (perhaps all, because we don't know the full extent of how PoI's will work, be taken over, etc etc) to literally have the Risk associated with the inherit reward to be extremely mitigated.  So in some aspect (again, dependent upon how pervasive the mechanic is in relation to all PoI's) you create an sizable imbalance in Risk versus Reward.

I agree that Risk vs. Reward needs to enter the discussion when considering what protections (if any) PoIs require.

If we're talking about a quarry, where you can show up and collect essentially free resources - plenty of reward vs. very little risk involved - then 24/7 vulnerability makes sense to me. You don't have a lot at stake there; sure you would prefer to deny the quarry to other guilds if you can manage it, but it won't ruin your campaign if someone slips in at 3am and makes off with a caravan of slate. In fact I favor 24/7 vulnerability along with no walls or guards in this case, it shouldn't be too easy IMO to deny smaller guilds that 3am raid.

I consider player-built cities to be a different kind of PoI, however. The risk here is much higher: guilds will probably spend weeks or even months developing cities, using Shadowbane as a baseline. If that can be destroyed unexpectedly at offpeak hours when the guild is asleep, I still don't see a way for guilds to guard against that without some form of protection mechanic.

Technically walls and NPC guards could count as that "protection mechanic," but practically speaking they never seem to match up to players in any game. I'd love to be proven wrong, so if ACE provides us with guards that actually work as 3am-defenders I'll applaud them and not ask for any further protection.

But based on experience, I expect that some kind of (limited) immunity is going to be needed. I'm not saying the Shadowbane system is the best possible solution (ToLs that provide immunity to X buildings, with banes and siege windows that remove it) - but it's a proven system that worked out well. I also like an idea  @Koerpermilch mentioned earlier, something about building fortifications that provide a temporary window of defense. If guilds had something expensive that provided 12 hours of immunity, could only be placed once per day, and had to be actively crafted and placed every day to get the benefit, it would give defenders a tool to at least limit their vulnerability to a time when they're awake (at a high, logistically-demanding cost rather than something cheap and permanent). I think solutions like this could blur the line between 24/7 vulnerability and dev-imposed siege windows, achieving a balance between offense and defense somewhere in the middle.

Edited by Avloren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siege windows based on the server time? East prime time for east coast. EU eu prime time siege window. and so on and so forth.

I am not saying walls should not be able to be blown up in off time in siege prep.

Resource PoI should be open all the time. But owning guild should get a alert to get there for defense . With like a hour cool down if someone nabs it.

Edited by dolmar

Share this post


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

I'm going to make one more attempt to explain.  In this I ask a favor, in your internal monologue please read this as a favorite teacher trying to explain a concept to you. Thank you in advance.

As I commonly do, I will explain piecemeal.

See, communications breakdown. With the (promised) future implementation of actual factories, there would be no way for me, or anyone else, to have discerned this information, I appreciate the clarification. 

I recognize that you may not recognize when you are being insulting.  Every time you tell me i misuse or misunderstand a statement/idea/word, you are being patronizing, which is insulting.  You do not know what my experience(s) are any more than I do yours.  Every time you twist a statement (going to point to the next section about carebear as an example here), also sometimes called "putting words in my mouth", it is insulting, as I have decent command of the English language, and I try and tend to use the terms and words I actually mean, usually in a very literal way (but not always).

To that end:

I never call you, nor anyone else, carebear.  I do call siege windows carebear. As such, I am going to quote every instance I use carebear in this thread, and please note I have not edited a single post, so it is all verifiable:

" It goes against literally every other aspect of the game to care-bear up the siege mechanics.  "

" Play to Crush, except during seiges, Care Bear Stare! " (not really relevant, but included to be thorough)

" Down with the care bear sieges. "

" It's their game, they can do whatever they want, but again, seems very backwards to present a 'hardcore style' pvp game, and then care-bear up one of the core game principles/ideas/designs for some false sense of 'fairness'. "

" Siege windows are care-bear, especially in CF context.  "

" My definition of care bear is different than yours, because skill has nothing to do with care bear.  "

...and that is it. Please note I also stopped using the term after you deemed it "insulting", despite me not referencing a person.  However, if you have a quote of me calling anyone carebear, please do.

See the twist there? I never call anyone carebear, I don't call anyone selfish either, it's other people "reading between the lines", when there are no lines to read between. I do say, infer, mention, etc, that a lot of the arguments are from the me/my/I perspective/stance.  That's not selfish, it's human nature to put self first in most  (but not all) situations, and I understand this too.  So you have explicitly stated: "You're the one who keeps calling us carebears and selfish", calling me out directly, with two entirely untrue statements, can you see how that is/could be insulting?

Let's start here: "It was ridiculous and made the game unfun" So this is a poignant example of something I have been consistently talking about, the me/my/I/self perspective. For you, and I think I can safely extrapolate for a number of others, it was unfun. Do you think the "winners", the ones that hired the Russian-based guild(s) would say it was "unfun" for them?  Can we agree they would say it was fun for them then?

So do me a favor (not just you, any and everyone who reads this), put aside your personal feelings for just a moment, okay?  If you think about this from an objective standpoint, 'you' were outmaneuvered.  Someone had better leadership, negotiation, strategy...something...skill, and innovated a way to win.  That bid was, by your account, successful.  Remember that Winners Write History. If we look at a well-known example, let's parallel The Trojan Horse...do you think Troy would characterize the Greek tactic as 'fair', or anything else other than underhanded, deceitful, etc?  This was a decade-long siege they held out of, to have their mighty defenses negated by a superior tactic, one which history touts as a brilliant strategic move...and why do we not know what the Trojan's thought, or how they would characterize it? They lost, it has become unimportant.

Something else I find interesting, again, knowing nothing more than the information you have presented, is that it seemed not only did this tactic win the day, but it demoralized "you".  It sounds like people gave up, rather than come up with a counter-tactic, such as (without over-thinking) hiring Oceanic-based guilds, or come up with something completely new. 

The "winners" worked within the mechanics presented to achieve 'victory'. Any sense of 'fairness' is subjective, not absolute. (Again I would like to reference @coolwaters Thanksgiving day comment). 

Have you noted that I never use the term "hardcore"?

Let's start with: "why the hell should I go through all this trouble?" .  As I have made a point of repeatedly, it's a choice.  Choices should have substance, they should matter, and the Dev's have repeatedly expressed this as well.  If you want the reward/benefit from the PoI, you make the choice to accept the risk. 

24/7 vulnerability would (okay, "should" really, user experience may differ) have a cascading effect on capturing and maintaining multiple PoI's, especially as geographical distances between those points grow...ie, you might get stretched too thin.

Also note, there are still a myriad of alternative solutions I can think of, and I am not unique.

I never said it limits options, I said it creates them, and opportunities, and...you get the point I hope? "In practice" is a misnomer, as we cannot use those mechanics, it's all theory. I recognize my way may be a total failure, but I'd much rather start at the "least restrictive" end of the spectrum and have the "knobs" adjusted if it does create problems, rather start with more restrictive.

Siege windows take options away, restricts gameplay, and has other effects, some of which we have listed.

I am sorry you feel demeaned.  I made considerable effort to illustrate why I felt the ideas were bad, and not in line with what I perceive as the 'spirit' of the game.

When the game itself divinely protects your pixel assets I use the reference 'hand holding', or 'carebear', etc, clearly mistakenly thinking I could use a shorter reference than having to go: a mechanic by which the game artificially restricts your ability to participate in one or more aspects of player versus player combat in an open player versus player environment in which no other assets are afforded the same protections, advantages, and benefits, which will decidedly favor one set of players in a false attempt to balance a perception of 'fairness'..... I mean, do you really want to read that, or something more verbose...every...single...time?

I disagree with assertion of hurting the player base. I believe I have made enough salient points as to why.  'You' may not agree, but we need not agree.

I hope by now you understand it's not about you that I don't part with ideas about how to defend in a 24/7 environment.  Look at it from this perspective a moment, please.  If you and others cannot fathom/see/etc what these ideas are, or might be, etc, then the sub-set of players who not only have ideas, but can successfully implement them, become a very valuable asset.  This is a 'public' forum, I'll not give those ideas away for free (well, not the good ones anyhow) to the masses, sorry (not sorry :P ).

Thank you.

 

Alright. I'll agree to disagree. And, as for the whole idea thing, you're being way too paranoid. The moment they're implemented, they'll be copied anyway. I'm done attempting to pry the ideas out of you [for the sake of argument, I do not actually want them for my own use or whatever]. Again, no point arguing since it'll never happen anyway [as I am 99% sure the Devs see this issue my way]. To that point, I'd be interested to see, Post-launch, a campaign that tests 24/7 vulnerability and see how it goes.

Toodaloo.

Share this post


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

Alright. I'll agree to disagree. And, as for the whole idea thing, you're being way too paranoid. The moment they're implemented, they'll be copied anyway. I'm done attempting to pry the ideas out of you [for the sake of argument, I do not actually want them for my own use or whatever]. Again, no point arguing since it'll never happen anyway [as I am 99% sure the Devs see this issue my way]. To that point, I'd be interested to see, Post-launch, a campaign that tests 24/7 vulnerability and see how it goes.

Toodaloo.

THAT is the best answer.

Try all these theroy craft models in specific campaigns, join the ones you like, and see how well each is received by the audience. 

How I love CW architecture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, this aint going anywhere. The guy is totally set on having 24/7 vulnerability. It wouldnt be fun. It sounds stupid but no argument can win that.

You dont just ignore the fact if the players will enjoy something when making a game. I can totally see people raging about losing their stuff while they sleep. All the hate and negativity it would generate. Sigh If you cant see why that is BAD there is no saving you.

I dont see rulesets with this also being a thing. I dont think it would have enough players out there that would enjoy it.

 

Edited by BarriaKarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

Yep, this aint going anywhere. The guy is totally set on having 24/7 vulnerability. It wouldnt be fun. It sounds stupid but no argument can win that.

You dont just ignore the fact if the players will enjoy something when making a game. I can totally see people raging about losing their stuff while they sleep. All the hate and negavity it would generate. Sigh If you cant see why that is BAD there is no saving you.

I dont see rulesets with this also being a thing. I dont think it would have enough players out there that would enjoy it.

 

I'm agreeing with you; it's the reason why Shadowbane changed their siege mechanics to 3 day banestones, and limited how long a bane could last.  It sounds great at first, but after a few longterm banes it gets really exhausting.


lUvvzPy.png

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...