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

Ace's vision for Siege's

Recommended Posts

45 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.

 

Saw 24/7 vulnerability tried in Naval Action, with it being part of the ability to flip control of ports.  Was a total mess.

All night, one europe or night owl team would roll ports undefended, next day an opposing team would flip what ports they could undefended.

Was a total disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dolmar said:

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.

Yeah I suggested the "prime time" windows earlier in the thread as well. Basically it would work like any other MMO whereby the server upon being brought up gets labeled with its region ie East, West, EU, etc and based on that determines when siege windows can be set. That way as lame as the 4am PvE base raid is, Defenders can't set times where the attackers would be low pop as well.

and yes its a restriction on the gameplay, but when the result is better gameplay for all involved its for the best. Its not different than the game already having restrictions on type and amount of gear being able to be looted on death or restriction on number of Disc runes and passives we can have active or amount of skill lines we can train at a time (current debate on how many we should be able to train at a time notwithstanding). Its all in the interest of making the game better gamplay wise for the players.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my 2c, i think POIs that are able to produce goods for owner with minimal / no interaction on part of owner (like say a quarry or crop plot that generates resources every x mins) should be capturable / destroyable at anytime in general.  But player built bases / forts really need siege windows. I have played many survival games with 24/7 base destruction and can recall the number of exciting / enjoyable pvp encounters from them on one hand.  In the short term you may feel fueled to seek revenge on the people who burned your base while you slept, but generally people can only take picking up stones and building / breaking walls each day without any actual "fighting" for so long.  It becomes extremely monotonous and an ironic joke of how little actual pvp there is in the so called "hardcore pvp" game.

Edited by Sekcbaba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Saw 24/7 vulnerability tried in Naval Action, with it being part of the ability to flip control of ports.  Was a total mess.

All night, one europe or night owl team would roll ports undefended, next day an opposing team would flip what ports they could undefended.

Was a total disaster.

You can also see this right now in Elder Scrolls Online, unless they've changed it since I quit.

There are multiple server shards, but none of them have anything resembling healthy competition. Each instance is either unilaterally controlled by one of the three factions and is where people of that faction go to complete quests, or is constantly yo-yoing back and forth depending on what time it is, since the European guilds wake up as the Americans go to bed and vice versa, with each side undoing all the work of the previous 12 hours.

If you want anything resembling actual large-scale siege PVP in that game, you need a time machine.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎02 at 3:25 PM, 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 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.

 

People would definitely be disgruntled off and with good reason, I know you weren't referring to me but my point is it, as an Assaulter I may not be losing weeks of work in the form of a Castle/Keep but why would I want to play a game that allows Defenders to set a Defense with the same premise of having no opposition? Would there even be a point to play if you could never Assault the enemy because they would consistently set Defense for 4:00am to bolster their chances of winning and avoid having to actually Defend?

The original intent of this thread was to get ACE's view on what they would like to see, from there it just kind of blew up. The entire debate going on in this thread is really productive imo, people may not agree with one another or may even be getting to the point where they want to strangle another poster but the base concerns from both sides are imo very important to what I view as a major part of the game.

No one wants to lose weeks/months of work because of a 4:00am raid, and on the flip side we all want the choice to participate regardless of whether you're defending or assaulting. People are so busy arguing their points they're not giving any suggestions that may or may not be a good compromise for both Assaulters and Defenders. I think we have established that the majority of people here do not want to see 4:00am raids OR Defenses. So what do we do to ensure this doesn't happen while still taking into account Strategy, Different play schedules, and participation?

Share this post


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

No one wants to lose weeks/months of work because of a 4:00am raid, and on the flip side we all want the choice to participate regardless of whether you're defending or assaulting. People are so busy arguing their points they're not giving any suggestions that may or may not be a good compromise for both Assaulters and Defenders. I think we have established that the majority of people here do not want to see 4:00am raids OR Defenses. So what do we do to ensure this doesn't happen while still taking into account Strategy, Different play schedules, and participation?

Siege windows seems like the best way to go. Make them based on server time, say from 9 PM till 2 AM should be enough for most players.

People playing on different time-zones will suffer but you really cant solve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Mon-Thurs it's 5:00 pm EST - 2:00 am EST, this gives a fairly decent window that covers EST-PST throughout the week, then they could try (not sure if it would work or not) 24/7 starting Friday at 5:00 pm EST - 2:00 am Sunday (technically Monday Morning).

It could all be adjusted accordingly, they (ACE) should also be able to track activity, they should be able to tell after the first month or two if there is a decent enough population at X time to warrant Sieging.

Edited by Apok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imho .. only player that are to scared to actually fight, and win with pvp tactics, skill want 24/7 vulnerability, so no lifing can win you a campaing without having to fight for it ;) 

Share this post


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

imho .. only player that are to scared to actually fight, and win with pvp tactics, skill want 24/7 vulnerability, so no lifing can win you a campaing without having to fight for it ;) 

This is not true at all, I've pointed out that my work schedule is later then most so I am not always able to get on for Prime Time but I still want to play the game to the full extent. I've conceded that 24/7 isn't a good idea, I don't want to attack a defenseless keep but I did want the option to be able to Siege. It's also been noted that there is some strategy that goes into hitting the enemy when they have their pants around their ankles. There would definitely be those people who do it because it's an easy win, there is always those people who will exploit every aspect of the game so it's in their favor, there is no denying that. But it is not the only reason, there are guilds out there with literally rosters in the high hundreds to low thousands that can produce 24/7 coverage, when facing one of these types of guilds it's not necessarily about avoiding PvP it's about hitting them at their weakest point so you actually stand a chance against those type of odds. Granted those guilds are few and far between and maybe they won't even be playing CF but if a couple rear their heads in CF then we may see just how difficult it is to Siege a fortification when they have 1,000,000 defender vs your 50.

Share this post


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

This is not true at all, I've pointed out that my work schedule is later then most so I am not always able to get on for Prime Time but I still want to play the game to the full extent. I've conceded that 24/7 isn't a good idea, I don't want to attack a defenseless keep but I did want the option to be able to Siege. It's also been noted that there is some strategy that goes into hitting the enemy when they have their pants around their ankles. There would definitely be those people who do it because it's an easy win, there is always those people who will exploit every aspect of the game so it's in their favor, there is no denying that. But it is not the only reason, there are guilds out there with literally rosters in the high hundreds to low thousands that can produce 24/7 coverage, when facing one of these types of guilds it's not necessarily about avoiding PvP it's about hitting them at their weakest point so you actually stand a chance against those type of odds. Granted those guilds are few and far between and maybe they won't even be playing CF but if a couple rear their heads in CF then we may see just how difficult it is to Siege a fortification when they have 1,000,000 defender vs your 50.

it wasnt meant against you, and i do understand your concernes, but as you mentioned there are other ways to make that able that ppl that work shifts, have other work shedule and stuff can also participate.

and about the 1,000 ppl guilds vs. 50, well there are ways to limit the benefit of numbers. But i dont know how the policy from ACE is about that and so... so i dont want to go into that to much right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Xetic said:

it wasnt meant against you, and i do understand your concernes, but as you mentioned there are other ways to make that able that ppl that work shifts, have other work shedule and stuff can also participate.

and about the 1,000 ppl guilds vs. 50, well there are ways to limit the benefit of numbers. But i dont know how the policy from ACE is about that and so... so i dont want to go into that to much right now

I didn't take it personally I was just pointing out the flaw in your statement. As for the 1000 man guilds I don't think anyone want to get into that, I was just using it as an example where sieging off hours may very well be a viable tactic for a legitimate reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Apok said:

I didn't take it personally I was just pointing out the flaw in your statement. As for the 1000 man guilds I don't think anyone want to get into that, I was just using it as an example where sieging off hours may very well be a viable tactic for a legitimate reason.

Though, there's another idea: If you have off-days, you can place the Banestone to be timed so that you can pick the day where you have the most time. May limit you to, say, 1 Siege a week at tops, but that's a reasonable amount.

Share this post


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

Though, there's another idea: If you have off-days, you can place the Banestone to be timed so that you can pick the day where you have the most time. May limit you to, say, 1 Siege a week at tops, but that's a reasonable amount.

Not sure if I'm just not grasping what you're saying but wouldn't that still give the Defenders the choice of Defense time and defeat the purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly than that, they need to make sure you can harass towns significantly even outside of siege windows so that a guild can't just afk most of the time then show up once a week. 

If not then strongholds become code protected safe zones most of the time. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

More importantly than that, they need to make sure you can harass towns significantly even outside of siege windows so that a guild can't just afk most of the time then show up once a week. 

If not then strongholds become code protected safe zones most of the time. 

Pretty sure that taxes and building degradation rates will prevent large buildings from being able to sit unsupported for any long periods of time.

May even need to feed the trees that protect them on a regular basis.

Share this post


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

More importantly than that, they need to make sure you can harass towns significantly even outside of siege windows so that a guild can't just afk most of the time then show up once a week. 

If not then strongholds become code protected safe zones most of the time. 

Yeah like a maintenance fee, the walls decay and you need a steady stream of resources to keep them up, food stores for your NPC thrall guards and such needs to be kept stocked. Those things can be disrupted by attacking at the POIs sources and taking out the carvans.

Edited by pang

Share this post


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

Not sure if I'm just not grasping what you're saying but wouldn't that still give the Defenders the choice of Defense time and defeat the purpose.

It would, but you said that your working hours limited your playing time. If you have days off from work, such as weekends, you can choose one of those days. Thus, your working hours no longer prevent you from being time-locked so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dondagora said:

It would, but you said that your working hours limited your playing time. If you have days off from work, such as weekends, you can choose one of those days. Thus, your working hours no longer prevent you from being time-locked so much.

Ok that makes more sense, I suppose that could work but not ideal, I still stand firm on that if it's not ok for you to attack at 4 am then it's not ok for you to choose to defend at 4 am you can't have it both ways it's either ok for both or you insert windows and limit when either or can happen. But I don't want to get into that debate again so yes your statement is an option.

Share this post


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

Maybe Mon-Thurs it's 5:00 pm EST - 2:00 am EST, this gives a fairly decent window that covers EST-PST throughout the week, then they could try (not sure if it would work or not) 24/7 starting Friday at 5:00 pm EST - 2:00 am Sunday (technically Monday Morning).

It could all be adjusted accordingly, they (ACE) should also be able to track activity, they should be able to tell after the first month or two if there is a decent enough population at X time to warrant Sieging.

2:00 AM is far too late IMO. More like 5:00 - 12:00 AM would be more logical IMO. Weekends shouldn't be 24/7 either though, just because its the weekend doesn't mean 4am raids should be ok during those times. Maybe longer windows like 12PM to 12AM Sat and Sun but no not 24/7.

Edited by pang

Share this post


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

imho .. only player that are to scared to actually fight, and win with pvp tactics, skill want 24/7 vulnerability, so no lifing can win you a campaing without having to fight for it ;) 

I'm going to assume this is a prod and goad towards me.  Again, I feel this is a reflection on your mindset and how you perceive and interact with the world-at-large. 

But I'll bite.

I want whatever is going to be the most fun for the game, viable for ACE, allows the least amount of restrictions, and allows the most people to participate on thier own schedule. I want the most options available for player choice, risk versus reward, emergent gameplay, skill, and tactics, coupled with logistics and strategy, amongst other qualities.

I do not see starting off with more restrictions and safe-time as the logical starting point. Additional mechanics also open sieges up to potential additional bugs and/or exploits.

I am fortunate, I have a flexible enough job that when the time comes, I can siege or defend with the guild at any hour of the day or night.  Having done MMO "call lists" before, calling me at 2, 3 or 4 AM to get on won't put me out of sorts.

24/7 may not be the answer, but again, I see the most freedom, least restriction, as the way to start (again, in what I perceive as "more competitive bands -GvG/Dregs"), adjusting as needed, if needed.

I do not  support defender-less take-overs, but at the same time would consider a defender-less stronghold a mistake on the defenders part if there was 24/7 vulnerability, same as it would be to not show up to a pre-arranged banestone defense window.

I do not consider head-to-head arranged engagements shining examples of "pvp tactics", but rather a much more narrow subset of tactics that reduces overall pvp 'skill' level.

Campaigns may or may not have siegable PoI's as part of the win condition, I see that as a very minor point in comparison to the effect of sieges on other aspects of the game and game play.

I see huge issues with siege windows that are basically shrugged off by people who support them. I offered what I see as the least restrictive (in an absolute sense) option, 24/7 vulnerability: this is not the only option though. People make broad claims about bad pvp, Pv(inanimate), worried about losing their pixels while they sleep, etc, etc, with no proof or basis in fact under CF mechanics.  I also concede there are no siege window experience under CF mechanics either, but my concerns (I have 5 major ones listed in the other similar thread, which are scattered in this thread too, with more than those) are not detracted from, nor have solutions proposed.

I also feel that siege windows are very much against the "spirit" of CF.

I also have some solution suggestions, but honestly, have largely pulled back from suggestions because they seem a lot less heeded and weighted than a series of concerns may be.  I don't care what the solution is, as long as the concerns are addressed.

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...