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

My Death Star sized worry about Crowfalls PvP campaign

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, recatek said:

I guess I'm non-traditional, but if someone on the street asked me what "extreme pvp" was, I'd at least expect it to involve people fighting other people rather than waking up at 4am to fight defenseless buildings.

Call me old school but if you are engaged in extreme pvp on "the street" you are probably going to wake up in the hospital asking what is going on.  Or picking out your white robes and gold harp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2017 at 9:54 AM, recatek said:

I guess I'm non-traditional, but if someone on the street asked me what "extreme pvp" was, I'd at least expect it to involve people fighting other people rather than waking up at 4am to fight defenseless buildings.

That's extreme play requirements, but not particularly extreme pvp, that's for sure. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lengthy Discussion about this in this

thread. It doesn't cover much about thralls but there are some pretty heated debates about coverage and Siege windows ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course starting with the caveat that different CW's should have different rule sets and potentially mechanics (as in siege mechanics), I also believe that what I perceive as "more competitive" CW's (GvG, Dregs) that the mechanics should allow for more risk and vulnerability to reap the rewards of the siegable PoI's.

I have made no bones about calling banestone, either through choice or time-cycles, a carebear mechanic, and this is why:

1) Siege windows, chosen or time cycled, are exploitable,  To what degree remains to be seen.  This is what I consider the top issue.

2) It excludes a good number of people from one of the game's core concepts/points/attraction.  Some will/have argued that it limits it, however, this view is based on the "same as me" principle. A significant number of people, at least in the US, and I would assume world-wide, have non-traditional schedules; they work nights, weekends, odd shifts, etc.  Whether or not that will translate into the same in CF population is yet to be seen.  I know this concern stems from the fact my RL best friend had to work nights and weekends for a decade before he had enough seniority to switch to days: gaming with him was nigh on impossible. 

3) It does not fit with Risk versus Reward, nor the theme of impermanence with everything else in CF.  There are associated benefits with siegable PoI's, these benefits should not be protected by the game, but rather primarily by the players.  Similarly, some people who advocate the relative permanence on Siegable PoI's in the June Q&A thread specifically mention the impermanence of things, and it's thread throughout CF.  It befuddles me how you advocate for one, and rally against the same mechanic for one set of pixels (this is 100% related to their personal feelings of 'fairness'/'equality'/'equity' in being able to protect their assets in CW).

4) It supports a "first come first served" mentality.  Oh, so my guild is able to log in earlier than your guild and start securing a siegable PoI? Great, now we get the protection of the server and have to do absolutely nothing to protect it, except in the small windows the game provides! So we get there before you, it's a temporary "I win" button, that puts the defenders at an advantage.

5) It forces sieges to tend towards a numbers game rather than a skill game.  While there are questions left about who else can participate in these windows (just the attacker and defender, anyone, certain factions, sub-guilds, mercenary units, rando's, etc?), when, "win" conditions, or availability (Can only the guild that places the banestone take over the siegable PoI? Anyone? etc?), this will evolve into who can bring the bigger numbers to the fight.  While not eliminating, it detracts greatly from skill and tactics, as this is now more-or-less a head-on, "Hey, we're over here and we're coming, prepare to defend yourself!" fight than any other option. It's option limiting.

I have seen again in this thread arguments about it promoting bad pvp (unsupported, and assumes that only sieges are pvp, at least how the arguments are worded), and PvWall or some version (as if thralls won't exist, or a thriving town will somehow be empty and undefended because everyone plays and sleeps on the same schedule...), and it is somehow an instant "I win" button for attackers.  But there are a myriad of options to tackle what I see as the top issues with siege windows without detracting from other aspects of gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue with Mivius here about why 24/7 siege vulnerability is a bad idea again, but I'd encourage you to go to the thread that Apok linked. It has Mivius's statements, as well counterpoints to it.

Real quickly, for a balanced discussion on this point here:

As for how 24/7 vulnerability is bad, it promotes attacking at the oddest hours possible to fight the least amount of players as possible, thus PvWall.

It does not exclude people from the main mechanics [sieging] of the game, because there's a balance in scheduling the siege window: The Attackers, those who are initiating the siege, are able to define any 24 hour period for the siege to take place within. This means they have the ability to define the day, and choose the most convenient day for their group to siege. The Defenders, such that they aren't getting their things stolen while they're sleeping or have other plans, get to define the hour in which is convenient for them to log in. Thus, the attackers would be more likely than not able to meet during the siege time [assuming they chose a day where they would have the most time available to play] while having 3 days or so to schedule things around for it. A balance so that unreasonable loss does not occur. (Reasonable loss is alright. If a small guild gets smashed by a mega guild, that is reasonable because both were present for the smashing to occur. Getting smashed when you aren't present is unreasonable. IMO, of course.)

And it does not exclude skill. While numbers are always a variable, and taking on a larger army head-on is always a stupid idea, there are alternative methods for victory. For instance, an attacking force of smaller numbers can focus mainly on defense so the siege cannot be ended and thus drain the defenders' resources [players and food and so forth]. Or, a smaller defending force can use tactics to draw defenses of the attackers to attack the Banestone and thus force the siege to end before numbers can crush them.

But I [IMO, again] don't count skill as being able to attack when nobodies home. That doesn't take skill, or even a decent amount of intellect or coordination. And it isn't fun for any side, which is also an important aspect of a game [Attackers never fighting players, Defenders never getting a chance to defend].

So these are my counter points to Mivius's, such that his post isn't alone in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dondagora said:

I'd argue with Mivius here about why 24/7 siege vulnerability is a bad idea again, but I'd encourage you to go to the thread that Apok linked. It has Mivius's statements, as well counterpoints to it. Agreed.

Real quickly, for a balanced discussion on this point here:

As for how 24/7 vulnerability is bad, it promotes attacking at the oddest hours possible to fight the least amount of players as possible, thus PvWall. Counterpoint is this is unproven given CF's systems. Less restrictions > more restrictions as a starting point. Adjust after.

It does not exclude people from the main mechanics [sieging] of the game, because there's a balance in scheduling the siege window: The Attackers, those who are initiating the siege, are able to define any 24 hour period for the siege to take place within. This is, again, exploitable.  You will choose based on two factors: what is most convenient for you and what is least convenient for your enemy (applies equally to attack or defend).  This will likely lead to a fair number of people who will not be able to participate.  Similarly this will also start a trend towards "mega" guilds, as size will matter, and if you are a smaller entity, you are all but excluded from participation: a guild of 12 is unlikely to fight a 100 man guild head-on, and even less likely to "win" or have positive outcome (ie it's not worth risking your gear, even if just the durability loss, of decent gear, so I would categorize this as a "funzy" siege if it occurred).

This means they have the ability to define the day, and choose the most convenient day for their group to siege.

The Defenders, such that they aren't getting their things stolen while they're sleeping or have other plans, get to define the hour in which is convenient for them to log in. Thus, the attackers would be more likely than not able to meet during the siege time [assuming they chose a day where they would have the most time available to play] while having 3 days or so to schedule things around for it. A balance so that unreasonable loss does not occur. (Reasonable loss is alright. If a small guild gets smashed by a mega guild, that is reasonable because both were present for the smashing to occur. Getting smashed when you aren't present is unreasonable. IMO, of course.) Again, based on the principle of what is "Unreasonable" or "reasonable" to someone, in a game that is centered around CW impermanence, risk versus reward, and player choice supposing to matter, this seems out of place.

And it does not exclude skill. I never say excludes: " While not eliminating, it detracts greatly from skill and tactics", there is a large difference between knowing your enemy is coming at a preordained time and place, and having to be adaptable to various dynamics that could come about.  Having to defend your siegable PoI during certain windows is a completely different experience and set of logistics, tactics, etc, etc, from having to actually defend yourself from all comers at all times.

While numbers are always a variable, and taking on a larger army head-on is always a stupid idea, there are alternative methods for victory. For instance, an attacking force of smaller numbers can focus mainly on defense so the siege cannot be ended and thus drain the defenders' resources [players and food and so forth]. Or, a smaller defending force can use tactics to draw defenses of the attackers to attack the Banestone and thus force the siege to end before numbers can crush them. Yes, but people will always bring the most they can, again, tending towards numbers being the "thing" that will matter the most. Ron White has a great quote in one of his routines: " I don't know how many of them it would take to kick my a--, but I knew how many they were going to use."

But I [IMO, again] don't count skill as being able to attack when nobodies home. Does anyone? Inferring that is insulting. That doesn't take skill, or even a decent amount of intellect or coordination. And it isn't fun for any side True, which is also an important aspect of a game [Attackers never fighting players, Defenders never getting a chance to defend].But neither is never getting to participate (or how about just very very rarely) because you are not on during X window cycles, or can't be on when C, D, or E guild choose the siege windows, or you don't play enough/have a skill to join mega-guild Q, R, or S.

So these are my counter points to Mivius's, such that his post isn't alone in this thread.

Again, while I do throw out 24/7 as the least-restrictive start point, I am not blind to possible negative experiences that may or may not arise. 

Similarly, there are multiple variations that could also appease many's sense of "reasonable loss"...a stronger innate defense period upon initial attack (30 or 60 minutes to rally the troops, "protected" area takes say 5 or 10% of regular damage in this time)...or a "natural" defense (think thralls with magic and bows) that is "strong enough" to allow an off-hour window to rally (again, I would advocate a maximum of 30-60 minutes, but who knows how that might work out?)...or other solutions. 

I want whatever is fun & viable for CF, what I don't want is one set of pixels protected by the game because they are somehow viewed as "more valuable" (reason irrelevant tbh).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the often used solutions when setting a window is limiting how and when it can be changed to decrease the ability of folks playing manipulative games in response to an upcoming attack. Finding out there is an attack and changing the window should be restricted since it should always have been set to your 'ideal' time anyways. If you did not set it for your prime time and cannot simply change it in response to an attack then you risk getting caught off guard by a group that is off hours for your timezone. This allows viable planning for the attacker, even if the hours are not great for them.

That reduces the problem down to some people just being perpetually off hours from the 'prime' activity time, but that can be just as problematic with no windows. One of the hopes with these sort of systems is that the population will be big enough that their should be windows and groups playing across multiple major time zones without making everything tied to one major timezone.

That said, ideally the game should offer enough incentive for high level cooperation that if your particular group can't target a location due to offset timezones you should be able to muster up an ally to help, essentially swapping effort across time zones while still giving the defender a chance to defend against the attack. You might argue that the opposite should be true for the defender, but I would counter that it's far easier to plan an attack then to arrange an off hours defense team in response to an attack.

Edit: And just to clear about the "we don't know if it would be a problem/looser mechanics are better" argument: If there was a 24/7 window I can assure you beyond a doubt I would abuse it by targeting anyone off hours from me without a second thought. I highly doubt I'm the only one. Almost everything encourages mega grouping, but 24/7 makes it a requirement.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, waging war at night was a good tactic. Using siege to destroy keeps while most people were sleeping was great.  It doesn't translate very well in the digital world.

 

You'll probably want sub-guilds or alliances that are up and able to defend the keep while others are sleeping/working/schooling.


etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jetah said:

Realistically, waging war at night was a good tactic. Using siege to destroy keeps while most people were sleeping was great.  It doesn't translate very well in the digital world.

 

You'll probably want sub-guilds or alliances that are up and able to defend the keep while others are sleeping/working/schooling.

Right well thankfully they are making a video game here that will need to be fun, not a medieval castle siege simulator.

Speaking of "realistic" I don't think it is very realistic to expect every guild that wants to siege to be part of mega sized guilds or international alliances. You'd be cutting off a TON of people from the games main content.

 

 

Share this post


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

Right well thankfully they are making a video game here that will need to be fun, not a medieval castle siege simulator.

Speaking of "realistic" I don't think it is very realistic to expect every guild that wants to siege to be part of mega sized guilds or international alliances. You'd be cutting off a TON of people from the games main content.

This is a Massive Multi-Player game, not a couch co-op. In the scenario presented, I doubt if 50 people alone could control most of the POI. They'd have to have alliances of some type for defense or even professions. Even Eve Online has international alliances to help defend their control.


etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carebear? I don't need some moron thinking that the meaning of this word hasn't become obvious to me after reading it used here just a few times. But it's also obvious you people are overusing it just like you overuse salty. As the wise Glitz once said, "Real life comes first, after the gate is closed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe make it where you can have a personal Thrall that gets a bonus to combat stats based on your combat stats, as long as you're logged off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-6-5 at 9:30 PM, Zachchaffin said:

Let's pretend that i'm a guild master in a Guild Vs Guild campaign. Me and my 50 guild-mates have spent a lot of time and effort to build a keep, and control the local POI's. what's to stop a neighboring guild (from a different time zone) from waiting until we're all (or mostly) offline before attacking our bases and destroying all of our hard work without any way for us to stop them? Is there a system in place where we can recruit soldiers? i know thralls can act as shop keepers, but can they be soldiers? if so i seriously doubt they'll be common/strong enough to defend against a persistent attacker. If there's no solution then that's a pretty big oversight, and my guild will literally exploit that and just act as bandits raiding all the other defenseless guilds instead of trying to hold territory.

 

Same things happen in EVE Online, that is why you form alliances with other guilds from other time zones, so you can protect each others stuff.  Easy answer.  They also have mechanics which people above me have pointed out which establish pre-defined time windows where your stuff is vulnerable and you're expected to defend it, if you can't, again make sure you have allies who can.


My hubris is the size of a 2 by 4 nailed to the side of a YF-12 jet barrel rolling into a volcano piloted by a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how you assume that when you are asleep, that I should be asleep as well.  I like how you think that you are entitled to special treatment and protection for your assets.  I like how you think your time building something should be more important than someone's time spent counteracting your efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, zolaz said:

I like how you assume that when you are asleep, that I should be asleep as well.  I like how you think that you are entitled to special treatment and protection for your assets.  I like how you think your time building something should be more important than someone's time spent counteracting your efforts.

Well it applies to everyone, so technically everyone's efforts get the same amount of 'protection'. That said, the window based game-play ends up being far more engaging than the anything goes game-play by virtue of accessibility. By avoiding disrupting players lives (average diehard gamer for this sort of thing is getting old and can't or won't drop everything no matter how much we enjoy a game), giving them somewhat predictable windows, and decreasing the emphasis on blobbing up across time-zones more people engage in the content at various scales and thus generate more content. The barrier for entry is lowered, creating large widespread engagement instead of niche level engagement (in an already niche game).

Of course there is no right answer, there's only desired preference and target audience. Based on some of the dev comments it seems they're aiming for some sort of window based system which implies they are favoring more controls than not. Thus you should probably expect the audience here to favor that particular style.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Duffy said:

Well it applies to everyone, so technically everyone's efforts get the same amount of 'protection'. That said, the window based game-play ends up being far more engaging than the anything goes game-play by virtue of accessibility. By avoiding disrupting players lives (average diehard gamer for this sort of thing is getting old and can't or won't drop everything no matter how much we enjoy a game), giving them somewhat predictable windows, and decreasing the emphasis on blobbing up across time-zones more people engage in the content at various scales and thus generate more content. The barrier for entry is lowered, creating large widespread engagement instead of niche level engagement (in an already niche game).

Of course there is no right answer, there's only desired preference and target audience. Based on some of the dev comments it seems they're aiming for some sort of window based system which implies they are favoring more controls than not. Thus you should probably expect the audience here to favor that particular style.

I like how you agree with me in your first sentence and then the rest is why you should get better treatment.

Share this post


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

I like how you agree with me in your first sentence and then the rest is why you should get better treatment.

You seem to be very confused about what I said, everyone gets the same treatment regardless of the system's specifics. No one is 'treated' better unless your planning to ignore aspects of the game in your particular game-play; which I could maybe see that line of argument, but then again that's a player's choice, not the game design's choice and thus it's up to the individual to reconcile that choice with their interests.

The systems they picked favors a particular style, preference, and audience (which is not a firm construct). It boils down to subjective opinion, there is no ultimate truth at play here. Everyone likes different things for different reasons, that's fine. No one is entitled to anything in entertainment land, that includes me just as much as that includes you. We gravitate to things that tickle our fancy, it looks like this game will be targeting those that like window systems over 24/7 systems. There are perks and cons to both styles depending on what angle you want to approach them from. I'm not claiming either is subjectively superior, they are simply different for different audiences which are made up of people with very granular mixes of interests and thus can match many folks from many different games' audiences. Hence why we even have these sort of conversations, crossover audiences are the root of most conflict like this, but alas few embrace things simply as what they are. 

For example, I hate EVE's combat but I like it's market and exploration systems, so I only play a tiny fraction of the game, doesn't mean EVE is an inherently flawed game or anything, it's just about hitting enough preferences for something to be entertaining to a person in some capacity.

 

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the OP post a topic and never responds to comments post in their topic.


etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Warboss_Thrakka_Snazzfingas said:

HMM... WUT IF YOUZ HIRE SUM BOYZ FROM AN ALLIED CLAN TO DEFEND YA GATES WHEN YOU AN YER BOYZ PASS DA ZOG OUT? OR DO WUT I DID AND RECRUIT BOYZ FROM EVERY TIME ZONE HEHAAAA!!

I've tried Google Translate and it didn't know, sorry.


etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

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...