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

Say No to Shadowbane Style Mines


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, tsp_maj said:

Other things aside, someone convince me that throwing down strongholds outside of a PoI inorder to capture it and or reap its rewards isn't the ideal way to handle these nightly events.  Here's why I think it's the best solution.

**#1 you create a very high likelyhood that fighting will last for the duration of prime-time in that area. (This means that players that only have 30 minutes to play, can participate.)
**We build stuff in the world that has meaning.
**We just created a localized respawn point.
**We've now put two+ teams in a localized area.
**If we're pushed back we can regroup, in reletive safety, within the walls. (More fighting, over longer periods)
**Your team works on building siege equipment within the walls.
**The closer you fight from your stronghold the greater advantage you have. (Creates a yoyo effect that prolongs conflict)
**Scouting for strongholds going up becomes important.
**Final stage is you're sieging an asset that someone built, something pride alone will make worth defending.
**Crafters come to the front line to build upgrades and siege at the forward asset.

We can talk about supply lines and building blocks all you want.  Lets not forget the point of the PoI.  Its a carrot to bring large groups together, for the purpose of combat.  The value is the fight, not the pixels you get out of it.    Everything I tried to focus on goes towards that goal but sometimes I get caught up in the details and just throw out ideas. 

Problems I see with this idea: (My suggestions)

**Respawn Rush (Respawning should take a recovery period, instead of respawning with full health, food and armor)
**Long fights, doesn't address people like Salamar that may log in an hour after fighting began.  (Players in a guild with a stronghold should be able to fast travel to the fight within reason)
**May require extra programming. (Worth it)
**Building on the cheap.  The cost of building a stronghold would have to be reasonable enough to make this viable. (Doesn't bother me to be honest, but it will some)

To conclude:
Taking a pre-fab Keep has no meaning.  PoI's, where you have to run who knows how far to get to, in the current concept will only provide one decent fight in a night.  We have all been on, and know what happens, when get all dressed up for a fight, run 30 minutes to a region, and get rolled.  It's a lot harder to restart that engine once it has stalled.  There's always that awkward silence that peters off into an empty discord.  If you allow the same team to run to an area, put down roots, develop their frontline as people log on, if and when they die thoughts will be of protecting their walls, regrouping because the enemy is likely going to press.  Suddenly you've turned a single fight into a drawn out event.  

Overall I think what you have is a decent start, I'd add that the overall meta for Crowfall should be about the logistics of winning a campaign versus having a good fight. With that in mind I'd like to see POIs have enough of a gameplay loop to last multiple days versus a few hours.  Building a fort/respawn should take longer the farther it is from your capital city, and the entire capture/extraction process should occur multiple times throughout the day. This would drive pvp throughout the fort building process and resource acquisition over a multitude of playimes. 

Further I like randomized spawn timers and locations for POIs. I think it greatly contributes to the scout play style, and adds a level of chaos to the political progression of a campaign. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Getting back on track, I can't stress enough that hitting rocks for hours isn't how I want to spend my game time, and that seems to be necessary for supplying crafters with what they need to keep ever

Ok, I stopped reading this thread around page 8 (and didn't read each post meticulously), so forgive me for addressing the elephant in the room if it's already been addressed...   Nyamo, do

First, I like the idea. But, the key to PvP health is variety, in my opinion. This should be in, SB style mines should be in, 24-hour active mines that cannot be captured should be in, hot spots

33 minutes ago, Zatch said:

Overall I think what you have is a decent start, I'd add that the overall meta for Crowfall should be about the logistics of winning a campaign versus having a good fight. With that in mind I'd like to see POIs have enough of a gameplay loop to last multiple days versus a few hours.  Building a fort/respawn should take longer the farther it is from your capital city, and the entire capture/extraction process should occur multiple times throughout the day. This would drive pvp throughout the fort building process and resource acquisition over a multitude of playimes. 

Further I like randomized spawn timers and locations for POIs. I think it greatly contributes to the scout play style, and adds a level of chaos to the political progression of a campaign. 

Hmm, having the event last more then a few hours starts to complicate things in my book.  With that system, from the moment the event spawns in the world, until its over there is potentially constant action.  Why not just start a new PoI event the next day?  A multi-day event would have a lull period over night that would sap energy out of it.

While I understand your logic, I only marginally agree that to an extent that the overall meta should be getting material to win the campaign.  The truth is, a lot of people are not going to have much of a chance at winning a campaign.  What's going to keep them coming back campaign after campaign is going to be the enjoyment of the day to day fighting.  That said, I dont think they are mutually exclusive.  The trigger for the engagement is the lure of profiting from the PoI, the mechanism for claiming the prize just happens to put players in a situation that has a high likelyhood of being a meaningful, challenging engagement.

I can see that you're concerned with the windows lasting long enough to span time zones a bit more.  The way I see it, the PoI's would begin within a window of time, some earlier and some later.  While each day the event wouldn't be at the perfect time for everyone, there would be enough of a variation that you would get to participate in events 3 or 4 times a week.

I suspect that these events would end up something along the lines of raids in PVE games, with powerhouse guilds doing them nightly, and more casual guilds doing them a few times a week.

 

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 2:13 AM, Nyamo said:

Get a better structure. An international one, with people in different time zones. We have to stop thinking we have to keep playing with people of our same country and embrace a worldwide organization to protect our structures. If a guild alliance can't do this should perish to alliances that are willing to embrace the efforts taken in keeping a 24/h raiding structure. Is this a game of throne, right? Let's get into politics more instead for asking for a lazy game mechanic like scheduled keeps assaults. In particular, people doing in-real life night shifts or that have an irregular play schedule should be able to enjoy the game in the same way you do.

Anyway I really hope that we will see different rule-set for the campaigns. Like 24/h non-stop siege campaigns to fri/sat/sun night only campaigns. So everyone is happy here and if a guild isn't able to make alliances with guilds in other part of the globe that guild can still enjoy the game. But please let's stop fixing problems that players can fix by themselves by adding artificial barriers to players freedom.

This is an idea that only works in theory. In a real, live game, it has been an abject failure literally every time it has been tried. The reason is pretty simple:

There are not enough people in your game to cover your assets 24/7, even if the server is evenly split in to two teams. It doesn't matter what your game is. It doesn't matter how popular it is. We cover assets 24/7 in real life because we pay people to literally devote their lives to showing up at scheduled times to protect things and people literally die or starve to death (permanently) if they can not.

Any system with 24/7 vulnerability quickly devolves in to an excercise in avoiding fighting over the things the game is ostensibly designed around fighting over because hitting an undefended wall is the lowest risk, highest reward action.

This means either you're okay with that (and thus the objectives must be both quick to flip and trivial to lose) or you actually want people to invest time and effort in to the construction and maintainence of such things (in which players expect to have a chance to meet the enemy.

This is a classic example of realism taking a back seat to fun because systems which encourage attacking undefended structures are fun for neither the defender (who is not there) or the attacker (who gets to fight a wall or a few guards at best.)

Your assertion that "people should get coverage" displays an imperfect understanding of how players actually play territory conquest games, and how many people actually play them. Your objective can have either massive battles or 24/7 vulnerability. It can not have both. This is why some (less important) crowfall objectives are vulnerable 24/7 and some (more important and costly) objectives do not.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

There are not enough people in your game to cover your assets 24/7

We used to do this in Travian (a web browser game) for months!! We had people taking turns and we always manage to at least be present when there was a fight. Sure, we lost some fights because we had to fight more numerous troops than ours, but we have always been present at the fights. What makes you think some guilds can't pull it off? You accuse me to make assumptions while you present no data neither.  In particularly look at his:

32 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

it has been an abject failure literally every time it has been tried

You write such a bold thing without even providing data. You wrote this based on what? your personal experience? Some people complaining on the forums? Or by some 20 year analisys of online mmo with in depth insights of player behaviours? Your is a bias based on no real evidence. 

Now you may have said something more sincere an honest, like that when you had to play 24/7 sieges you didn't find them funny nor enjoyable, which would have been a more modest, humble and sincere approach to the discussion. Instead you are here trying to convince me that what you say is the absolute truth without even providing any single data to backup your assumptions. Assumption that, without data I am not going to believe.

At least I was more sincere explaining that what i request is related to a real life need and I humbly asked for a campaign with a different rule set. Campaign that, if you don't like the rules, you can completely skip and play another campaign with ruleset that matches your needs. Or I have said that I will force everyone to play this campaign with a 24/7 ruleset? Also, what could a campaign with a different ruleset affect you if you do not play it at all? Considering that dregs will have no imports (at lest they shouldn't if i remember correctly otherwise please correct me), how can this affect your gaming experience or another non-import dregs campaign?

Come on Pope Urban. Next time bring facts please, or try to word your sentences in a way to present them for what they really are. Your opinions on the matter.

 

Edited by Nyamo
grammar, always grammar...

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

We used to do this in Travian (a web browser game) for months!! We had people taking turns and we always manage to at least be present when there was a fight. Sure, we lost some fights because we had to fight more numerous troops than ours, but we have always been present at the fights. What makes you think some guilds can't pull it off? You accuse me to make assumptions while you present no data neither.  In particularly look at his:

You write such a bold thing without even providing data. You wrote this based on what? your personal experience? Some people complaining on the forums? Or by some 20 year analisys of online mmo with in depth insights of player behaviours? Your is a false bias based on no real evidence. 

Now you may have said something more sincere an honest, like that when you had to play 24/7 sieges you didn't find them funny nor enjoyable, which would have been a more modest, humble and sincere approach to the discussion. Instead you are here trying to convince me that what you say is the absolute truth without even providing any single data to backup your assumptions. Assumption that, without data I am not going to believe.

At least I was more sincere explaining that what i request is related to a real life need and I humbly asked for a campaign with a different rule set. Campaign that, if you don't like the rules, you can completely skip and play another campaign with ruleset that matches your needs. Or I have said that I will force everyone to play this campaign with a 24/7 ruleset? Also, what could a campaign with a different ruleset affect you if you do not play it at all? Considering that dregs will he no imports (at lest they shouldn't if i remember correctly otherwise please correct me), how can this affect your gaming experience or another non-import dregs campaign?

Come on Pope Urban. Next time bring facts please, or try to word your sentences in a way to present them for what they really are. Your opinions on the matter.

 

Travian is an ansynchronous multiplayer game in which combat is simulated without player interaction. When it doesn't matter if the player is online or not, and one can simply park defenders it works fine. You effectively have defending armies present 24/7 whether players are present or not.

That isn't the sort of game crowfall is. You can not simply camp a defender at a point and log out, or click a destination and go to bed to read the battle report in the morning. You do not merely point an army in a direction and wait for the result. You are the army, and you and tens or hundreds of other players must be logged in to both attack and defend.

You are making an apples and oranges comparison.

This was tried in shadowbane (at launch) in planetside (for the entire game) in planetside 2 (for the entire game) In UO (for the entire game) in mortal online (for the entire game) It was also tried in many neuvo-survival games with base building elements like: Ark, Rust, H1z1 survival mode

In all of these cases massive changes to the combat system, hot zones, softer penalties for failure, or a complete abandoning of the goal of creating massive player battles was enacted. In those systems that remain, the vast majority of structure based combat (as in nearly all of it) occurs when the structure's owner can not defend it.

Now, if you'd like to present an example of such a system, in a real time combat system, both providing players a reasonable opportunity to defend their structures and requiring players to invest substantial time and effort in building and maintaining them I would love to hear it. I'd love to be proven wrong here. I'd love to find out about a game in which this actually works and players have round the clock schedules for defense and just log in to do nothing but defend against attacks that may never come. I feel like I would love that game. However I have searched long and hard for it, and unless you know something I do not I am quite sure it does not exist.

If you'd like my PREFERRED method, What the shadowbane team implemented is IMO the best system. the atter declared intent to attack (in SB's case by dropping a bane stone, which are bane "trees" in crowfall) the defender has a week from from moment to set the time the battle commences, with a three day lock out (so the defender can not initiate vulnerability the moment it is declared and avoid a fight)

Gaming the other team's schedule was part of that system because gaming the other team's schedule is an inevitability, but the actual time of battle was set be a combination of a broad window of attack (by the attacker) and a specific window for when the battle actually happens (by the defender)

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

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

I'd love to find out about a game in which this actually works and players have round the clock schedules for defense and just log in to do nothing but defend against attacks that may never come

But if attacks never come you do something else Pope!!! You go hit a rock and farm!!! If they don't come even better!!!!! All time in which you can go do other stuff like farm cats or harvest ores!!! Or even crating!!!

And if there is an attack, well you defend!!.

3 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Now, if you'd like to present an example of such a system, in a real time combat system

Crowfall. We are talking about Crowfall, right, so let this game be Crowfall.

4 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

, both providing players a reasonable opportunity to defend their structures and requiring players to invest substantial time and effort in building and maintaining them I would love to hear it

Be part of an international guild with players from all over the globe. Or make alliances with guilds of a time zone different than yours. Simple lol.

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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

But if attacks never come you do something else Pope!!! You go hit a rock and farm!!! If they don't come even better!!!!! All time in which you can go do other stuff like farm cats or harvest ores!!! Or even crating!!!

And if there is an attack, well you defend!!.

Crowfall. We are talking about Crowfall, right, so let this game be Crowfall.

Be part of an international guild with players from all over the globe. Or make alliances with guilds of a time zone different than yours. Simple lol.

If it were that simple, why did no group of players ever do this once, ever, in any of these systems?

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

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

If it were that simple, why did no group of players ever do this once, ever, in any of these systems?

How do you assume that they never did ONCE???

Do you have data of all the players of all the above games?

Again, you are presenting your assumptions like facts. Bring me a proof than no one ever did it ONCE.

To me, someone probably did it, it is statistic. May it be 1% but there is still a small statistical chance they could have pulled it of... and they  passed unnoticed to you.

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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

How do you assume that they never did ONCE???

Do you have data of all the players of all the above games?

Again, you are presenting your assumptions like facts. Bring me a proof than no one ever did it ONCE.

To me, someone probably did it, it is statistic. May it be 1% but there is still a small statistical chance they could have pulled it of... and they  passed unnoticed to you.

So you're saying "they probably did it once, even though I've never seen it happen"

Are you certain a thing that someone maybe did once in such an eldritch and forgotten time that even you, who are a staunch advocate of this implementation can not find evidence of it happening is a good basis upon which to design a siege mechanic?

This is not an assumption. This is on record as literally the reason many, many games have completely altered their siege mechanics, by the developers of said games. I think I trust that data a little more than your vague assumption that a thing may have happened once.

Again, I would love to be proven wrong. However, in a system of real time combat what you're asking for is a practical impossibility unless the goal of the game is to allow players to defend their holdings while AFK.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

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

So you're saying "they probably did it once, even though I've never seen it happen"

Are you certain a thing that someone maybe did once in such an eldritch and forgotten time that even you, who are a staunch advocate of this implementation can not find evidence of it happening is a good basis upon which to design a siege mechanic?

This is not an assumption. This is on record as literally the reason many, many games have completely altered their siege mechanics, by the developers of said games. I think I trust that data a little more than your vague assumption that a thing may have happened once.

Again, I would love to be proven wrong. However, in a system of real time combat what you're asking for is a practical impossibility unless the goal of the game is to allow players to defend their holdings while AFK.

Hey Pope, in the mobile phone at the moment so sorry for poor formatting and eventual typos. I will try to edit grammar when i get back home.

Since i have problem quoting part of your message i will split my reply in 2 points:

 

1. ... cannot find evidence of it happening... till the end of the sentence

 

and 

 

2. ... the reason many many games have altered their siege mechanics parts.

 

Regarding point 1, nor me nor you have the complete data of all the playerbases of the games you mentioned. So what we are both doing is called “educated guess”.

My educated guess is that there was, due to a statistical probability, the chance that this has been pulled off. Your us that “since they had to change the game mechanics” no one ever pulled it off.

Probably (and again this is my educated guess) there was indeed a huge problem of siege mechanics that was affecting the majority of the population so, even if there was a small part of the population who successfully managed to achieve success it was irrelevant to the whole game population as whole, that’s why the changed the siege mechanics, to fix the problem for the majority if the players.

Now since nor me nor you have the data you can’t say my educated guess is “less valid” than yours. They are both what they are. Educated guesses.

 

Now back on point 2, which i find way more interesting and relevant to the discussion. See, all the aforementioned games did not have campaigns, but crowfall has them.

 

Now, you are still thinking I am advocatinng a 24/7 siege for the whole crowfall population while I am not. I am saying let’s just have different campaigns, prime time siege ones and 24/7 and let the player decide where they want to join. I still do not understand why having both kind of campaigns are  on a game that supports different ruleset is so witch-hunted by so many people here. You don’t like it? Good. Let the people who enjoy 24/7 have it on their separate campaign.

 

That’s all i am saying. And i have expressed my point on that matter on lot of previous posts not only with you but with other players as well.

 

Sorry for the typos, my mobile hates me

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it is impossible that this has ever been a thing. I'm saying if it has been, it is such a rarity that it merits no consideration when designing systems built to serve the broader player population.

I'd also like to note that as far as the information we have been furnished goes, the "any time attack" objectives are intended to be the less valuable ones, namely the forts and outposts.

In theory we could have any campaign settings you like, but my point is that your assumption of how such a thing would play out seems grossly off the mark given the historical context of player behavior patterns.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a consequence-light any time approach. GW2's WvW mode uses this approach, which it cribbed from DAOC. This is also how the current testing environment functions. However it merits repeating that the investment in said structures must be part and parcel with the ease of taking them. The "easy to get and easy to lose" approach to siege mechanics is the standard in most MMO PvP at the moment for this reason. It also isn't the focal point of crowfall's underlying desgin where long term planning, gain, and loss have been advertised heavily as the underpinnings of the campaign model.

But hey, some people are still advocating for a battle royale mode, can't stop them. However I do wonder why people put good money in to an unfinished game sold as "not your meaningless PvP" and proceed to advocate for making it that same easy come easy go system when so many other games are both feature complete and have much larger populations that already do exactly this.

For the record, I think that the vision you have in your head of how such a campaign would play out, and how it would actually play out are two vastly different things, and that the current testing environment is an accurate representation of what you'd find, lots of claiming empty objectives. Far be it from be to define your fun, I just don't find "log in and fight over stuff that I don't have any investment in" all that much fun.

But hey, that's just me. Best wishes on your campaign.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

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

However I do wonder why people put good money in to an unfinished game sold as "not your meaningless PvP" and proceed to advocate for making it that same easy come easy go system when so many other games are both feature complete and have much larger populations that already do exactly this.

See you are missing the point completely.

I am not advocating this system because it is "better" or because it is "funnier". I am just saying that putting an arbitrarily time wall and schedule on players activity will inevitably cut off a part of the player base who can't join these activities in that time frame. (On a side note I personally prefer the 24h system because deciding when to attack is part of the strategy, but i keep this out of the discussion cause it is not my point)

If you make sieging possible only in the "prime time", all people that work at night, live in different time zones, or that simply don't like the "prime-time" system because they like to spend time with their wives on prime time  will end up abandoning the game since they are cut off one of the most important part of the game. 

Now, you have two choice:

1. Tell these players: this is not the game for you because we are building the ultimate pvp experience and so gtfo you "non purist pvper" (and then renounce to their sales and profits as a company)
2. Make a separate campaign for these kind of players (and by doing so, keeping them customers).

It has nothing about good siege design. It is about the fact that not everyone can play or want to play in prime time. And giving these players a choice you keep them happy, and as a company you both have the "hardcore" population happy with their prime time sieges and the "casuals" (or hardcores that simply cant attend) in the game as well on their separate campaign.

1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

Best wishes on your campaign

Thank you, I appreciate.

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see ACE stick to their original vision in the early design videos where PoI's provide material blocks that can be hauled back to forts/keeps via caravans that can be refined into resources for armor/weapons. That's such a cool system. I think once crafting factories come online we will need a mass production harvesting component to match the mass production crafting component. I'd like to see the PoI's give toast messages that alerts everyone in that zone that they've refilled to drive conflict. I feel like this is a feature Crowfall needs to bring PVP players into the harvesting/crafting loop. 

As far as the Shadowbane style mines -  I think forts should serve the once daily PVP activity. Right now they're flipped back and forth constantly. If this continues then the win condition will become who can stay up the latest at night to flip the forts. I'd rather see a daily window of opportunity for forts so that those fights are more concentrated and consequential. The forts would also serve as outposts for PoI caravans and tie in nicely with that system. 

That's the vision I'd love to see ACE follow through on. 

 

Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tsp_maj said:

Hmm, having the event last more then a few hours starts to complicate things in my book.  With that system, from the moment the event spawns in the world, until its over there is potentially constant action.  Why not just start a new PoI event the next day?  A multi-day event would have a lull period over night that would sap energy out of it.

While I understand your logic, I only marginally agree that to an extent that the overall meta should be getting material to win the campaign.  The truth is, a lot of people are not going to have much of a chance at winning a campaign.  What's going to keep them coming back campaign after campaign is going to be the enjoyment of the day to day fighting.  That said, I dont think they are mutually exclusive.  The trigger for the engagement is the lure of profiting from the PoI, the mechanism for claiming the prize just happens to put players in a situation that has a high likelyhood of being a meaningful, challenging engagement.

I can see that you're concerned with the windows lasting long enough to span time zones a bit more.  The way I see it, the PoI's would begin within a window of time, some earlier and some later.  While each day the event wouldn't be at the perfect time for everyone, there would be enough of a variation that you would get to participate in events 3 or 4 times a week.

I suspect that these events would end up something along the lines of raids in PVE games, with powerhouse guilds doing them nightly, and more casual guilds doing them a few times a week.

 

Having a POI capture/extraction occurring over multiple days versus a few hours  generally adds to the strategic element of campaigns. You're right in saying the vast majority of guilds will never have a chance to win a campaign, however the illusion to win/contribute in a meaningful way will drive player retention/guild pride/player activity. 

I don't think a nightly lull is such a bad thing. It allows the victorious guild to reap the rewards of a win, but doesn't wipe the loser out of the fight. I'm hoping forts/respawn locations are fairly resource intensive to build, and as a result shouldn't be destroyable on a daily basis. Also having important pvp activities that occur outside the scheduled fights is never a bad thing. I do appreciate games having a system where I can log on whenever I want, and having a system where I'm contributing in a meaningful way to my guilds progression. 

At the end of the day I guess I'm just adverse to a scheduled play system. After raiding for many years in other MMOs, I don't want to play at x time on y day for z time even though I actually do that thing.  The strategic element and actually winning a campaign will be significant drivers for player activity in Crowfall. While I agree that Crowfall needs to have nightly drivers of activity it should have multiple tiers of activity that evolve to work like a battle. These tiered  activities should have a variable strategic value, and should have some level of randomization with how they begin.  

Edited by Zatch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a little more flavor to the conversation: 

Conditions for spawning a resource poi (rpoi?) could include being above a threshold of one weeks average server population.

Will only spawn in the unoccupied areas between rival factions or un allied guilds.

Hunger mechanics come into play 20 minutes after a rpoi spawns which begin depleting the resource, encouraging forces to mobilize quickly.

Rpoi to outpost travel time is around 30 minutes for a caravan, allowing for multiple (2 or 3) engagements by an opposing force.

Higher yields from the rpoi slow the caravan and allow attackers more time, the defenders have to choose between quick runs with fewer resources or going all in for a sustained period of vulnerability. Giving players options is a good thing.

Rpoi has enough yield to support multiple caravans forcing defenders to cover multiple places. Defend the rpoi, defend the caravan, or defend the outpost.

I really love the idea of building our own outposts even though this requires resources to build your defenses. Its skin in the game and gives stonemasons a higher purpose. This would also allow us to build our defenses to suit us and engage crafters in the fights. Limit the number of defensive slots on the outpost parcel to counter overbuilding, allow for only a certain type (fort only) and adjust the cost of the pieces accordingly because

Hunger mechanics affect the outpost after a certain period of inactivity or when certain conditions have been met. These outposts should be temporary to discourage rpoi farming

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nyamo said:

We used to do this in Travian (a web browser game) for months!! We had people taking turns and we always manage to at least be present when there was a fight. Sure, we lost some fights because we had to fight more numerous troops than ours, but we have always been present at the fights. What makes you think some guilds can't pull it off? You accuse me to make assumptions while you present no data neither.  In particularly look at his:

You write such a bold thing without even providing data. You wrote this based on what? your personal experience? Some people complaining on the forums? Or by some 20 year analisys of online mmo with in depth insights of player behaviours? Your is a bias based on no real evidence. 

Now you may have said something more sincere an honest, like that when you had to play 24/7 sieges you didn't find them funny nor enjoyable, which would have been a more modest, humble and sincere approach to the discussion. Instead you are here trying to convince me that what you say is the absolute truth without even providing any single data to backup your assumptions. Assumption that, without data I am not going to believe.

At least I was more sincere explaining that what i request is related to a real life need and I humbly asked for a campaign with a different rule set. Campaign that, if you don't like the rules, you can completely skip and play another campaign with ruleset that matches your needs. Or I have said that I will force everyone to play this campaign with a 24/7 ruleset? Also, what could a campaign with a different ruleset affect you if you do not play it at all? Considering that dregs will have no imports (at lest they shouldn't if i remember correctly otherwise please correct me), how can this affect your gaming experience or another non-import dregs campaign?

Come on Pope Urban. Next time bring facts please, or try to word your sentences in a way to present them for what they really are. Your opinions on the matter.

 

I've played that game (Travian) , and done the same. Now, Travian isn't a simple as you make it out to be.  First, you can dodge attacks, if you know they are not sending catapults.  You see no siege being sent, based on walk time, and you know all you really need to do is not be there for the fight, and empty your stores so they don't steal too much food.  

Fighting to hold a wonder build burns you out, HARD and QUICK.  One campaign, and your ready for a couple month break before starting up the early game farming process.  

Let me provide some data then on what round the clock territory flipping will do to a game like CF from over 600 hours of playtime in a game called Naval Action.

The TLDR, it destroys it.

Great game mechanics when you were fighting, port battles were engaging if there were combatants, and with the personal skill factor, which was a huge due to the ability to actually control the sails and change angles, turn speeds, and push your enemy "flat aback" if they were not paying attention, well piloted weaker forces were very capable of taking on and driving back larger force aggressors. 

Large european and US player base on the same map, so you would think that 24/7 would be a workable model for them.

They had port flipping 24/7 for a while. All you needed to do was drop some gold, get a flag and a few friends (3 in good ships could handle the towers.), and go run a port assault.  If the port was undefended, it was trivial to flip (3 in good ships could handle the towers in a game with 25v25 fights.) .  The port then went on a 24/hr cool down timer, and someone else could flip it. Toast messages were solid, as was the ability for local defenders to show. The flag purchase triggered a one hour countdown timer everyone could see, and the person who bought the flag had to sail it from the port it was purchased at, to the port they wanted to capture.  It was very much a race to get there, and there was some open sea pre-port battle strategy to try to "tag" (drag the ship into an open sea combat instance and delay movement towards the port) and sink the flag carrier, before they even got to the port.  With players actually playing it was very engaging.

But....

Basically what happened, is eventually everyone, and I mean everyone, knew what ports to flip to play the clock.  You would find the European players area, know they were tucked into bed, and then blow their ports.  Because sailing time was an issue, you would drive them as deep and hard back on territory in one night.  

The well organized Europeans groups, would return the favor when they were up, and the whole thing degraded to a nightly port flip push-pull against trivial to defeat AI defenses.  If you did try to engage with an actual fight, you were guaranteed to lose ground because the enemy wasn't going to wait for it. Very often you would see multiple flag buys at the same time, against multiple ports the enemy owned, so they couldn't guess where the "real" fight was going to be.  It became very much cat/mouse rather than cat/cat.

They tried all sorts of things to fix it.  Port windows, different cool downs, piles of things.  You can follow the link above to see just how much growth they have had in two years.

Bottom line, what you think is fun and fair, is actually boring and terrible.  It may work for Travian, partly because it is in fact a browser game which does not rely on twitch, which means that ping is not as big a deal, so that someone from the other side of the world can in fact realistically work in the same guild.

CF however, like any other real time game, needs sub 100 ping on average, which means people from the same time zone will be playing together for the most part, which means that 24/7 flipping would be a "who can stay up the latest" contest.

It's just a bad idea, and has been demonstrated to be a bad idea, on many other games that have tried it.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

CF however, like any other real time game, needs sub 100 ping on average, which means people from the same time zone will be playing together for the most part, which means that 24/7 flipping would be a "who can stay up the latest" contest.

It's just a bad idea, and has been demonstrated to be a bad idea, on many other games that have tried it.

^

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said zatch. 

Having tiers of activities is great in my opinion. Layers of gameplay breaks up the monotony.

Having stronger keeps us a good idea, I was thinking that you can make the outposts temporary and easy to build, with the keeps being the more static structures

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pondering this a bit more, and the availability to attack windows, there is a mechanic I have never seen tried, but would possibly fit in here.  Take action to extend your window.

So if buildings, or the tree of life, or whatever, could be upgraded, at a significant cost, perhaps the way to handle vulnerability windows could be based on the effort put into the upgrade.

When you first take a keep, you have a 2 hour safe window. 

Then, if you haul materials, and fortify the building, once done, it will add another X hours of invulnerability to the clock, say 2. Give the keeps 10 levels you can build, with each being more expensive.  This closing vulnerability window would simulate the effect of stronger walls and better "defenses", in a way that more AI guards and stronger walls, never really could.

If you maximally fortify your keep, once finished it will only have a 2 hour window (or a day), which you picked by how you placed a fortification timer.

Don't build up the keep, and it's vulnerable all the time.  Build it to maximal value, it's got a 2 hour window, (or do it by the day/night cycle).  So to get your protection up, you have to spend effort.  

To take out a keep, you can only knock down one of the build up levels at a time, BUT, when you do, you pick the hour set you just made vulnerable by doing so, so you can chain together the time and maintain a constant siege assault until it falls. 

This could be done for all the POI's and other territory. Maybe make them cheaper to fortify, but also give them less levels to build, so they are more vulnerable more often.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I like the idea.

But, the key to PvP health is variety, in my opinion. This should be in, SB style mines should be in, 24-hour active mines that cannot be captured should be in, hot spots should be in, geographical distribution of resources should be in, etc. The more this can be embraced, the more opportunities there are to PvP with different sized groups, different organization, and different risk/reward - lowering the barriers to entry into the most central game mechanic.

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...