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

Say No to Shadowbane Style Mines


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

they go play on the servers with the siege time windows usually set for the time they play.

You are now making it only a real-time issue. You are forgetting that there are people that do not like the idea of having artificially imposed time-frames when they play and hence do not like the system of prime time raiding as a whole. For me honestly is a combination of both. I find it really themeparked-mmo. Hey guys it's 8PM!!! Everyone group up for the show!!! Is this a sandbox, right? Let me DECIDE when i want to siege and WHEN i want to defend.

 

1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

or that somehow magically people from different time zones are going to create unbreakable friendship bonds even though they play at completely different times

Magically? No. with an appropriate structure and group effort? More likely.

 

1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I can't imagine a shift greater than 6 hours, or the impact it would have.

Just because you can't imagine it, it doesn't mean that there aren't player out there that desire this playstyle.

 

1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

we can all watch that server whither and die while people figure out the servers with active population closer to home time, and good ping, are just more fun to play on

Again... it is not only about fun. Some people just can't nor wont and they are willing to sacrifice "fun" and "ping" to meet other needs. You are tunnel visioning if you think that fun is the only thing people are looking in a mmo.

 

59 minutes ago, ShadowwBoi13 said:

JTC has already seen that players like you are very scarce and there are not enough of you to keep a game running

You are quoting or referring to JTC. Do you have a source for what you are saying? A link or something? A twitter?

 

57 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Do you so desperately want to avoid major conflict?  Stop hiding in the off time for a server and play on CW that matches your availability. 

See Mandalore, you lack empathy and you think we all care for honor in the battle field. Or that we are so scared to avoid a "major" conflict. Try to think inside other people heads more. You are such a wit and clever person, but sometimes your "passion" for the fight in the field makes you tunnel vision. Back on topic, apart real life issues, which for now i will set aside since we are talking about "honor" "epeen" and "conflict", I actually enjoy the strategical depth to protect and organize a guild in trying to defend some assets on a 24h time spawn. So, Mandalore, I am not afraid of conflict, I want it available 24/7 and not only when you or the devs decide it is best for me to play.

Is it is so hard for you to understand that there are players out there that enjoy something slightly different from what you think is the ultimate best pvp experience?

 

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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

5 minutes ago, Arcadi said:

Nor, then, would it take must effort to stop them.

I think you underestimate how much work is involved in running a gaming guild that has enough population to defend assets 24x7. It would be hell of a lot more effort than it takes an individual to burn down an undefended asset.

IhhQKY6.gif

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

I think you underestimate how much work is involved in running a gaming guild that has enough population to defend assets 24x7. It would be hell of a lot more effort than it takes an individual to burn down an undefended asset.

Hmm, that sounds more like a game design flaw.  Why are assets so much easier to take than defend?  That's basically the opposite of what a siege was historically.  How have they become modeled so poorly?  Maybe there is a better fix where all players win, if sieges were redesigend...

The rotating windows sounds the best to me.  You only have to be vulnerable to attack a few hours a day, but those few hours change every day, covering all times.  In the time windows that your guild only has one or two people to defend, surely other guilds will be similarly short staffed.  And you'll have the defensive advantage.

Are keeps really just going to fall over when a kid home from school with a cold sneezes on them?

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

I think you underestimate how much work is involved in running a gaming guild that has enough population to defend assets 24x7. It would be hell of a lot more effort than it takes an individual to burn down an undefended asset.

Thank you Jah for this. I would like to expand on this if you don't mind.

Some players like the management aspect of pvp guilds. While these forums seems populated by "warriors" and "fighters" there are players that like to be the "managers" or the "politicians" or the "organizers" of the warriors. Trying to manage somethign that requires an insane amount of work and group effort is another way to enjoy pvp mmo. 

Not everything is in the battlefield.

I do agree players like this are a "minority" but that's just because the normal "ratio" between guild leader and guild members (in the mean that there will always less guild leader than guild members by definition unless the scenario of 1 man guild).

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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

I actually enjoy the strategical depth to protect and organize a guild in trying to defend some assets on a 24h time spawn. So, Mandalore, I am not afraid of conflict, I want it available 24/7 and not only when you or the devs decide it is best for me to play.

Is it is so hard for you to understand that there are players out there that enjoy something slightly different from what you think is the ultimate best pvp experience?

 

I've definitely enjoyed my experience with such systems in the past.  It's fun to coordinate round the clock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if some of the difference is coming from GvG mindset vs RvR mindset?  My past has mostly been RvR with 24 hour conflict can happen at any time.  Guilds were often rewarded with spoils based on participation and owned various plots, but other guilds on the same time ALWAYS came to their defense and FREQUENTLY aided in their attacks even if they weren't promised any land out of it.  Maybe part of the conflict is people's different backgrounds.  I basically skipped all the arena-style games, so I know little about all these 4v4 5v5 league of legends style stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Arcadi said:

Hmm, that sounds more like a game design flaw.  Why are assets so much easier to take than defend?

They aren't, unless there are no defenders. Having defenders available 24x7 requires more effort than is required to just find a defenseless thing and bash it.

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, this is one reason why sieges were historically quite difficult too.  Allies would almost always aid in defense, but would rarely assist in offensive campaigns without very specific promises of spoils.

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

 

They aren't, unless there are no defenders. Having defenders available 24x7 requires more effort than is required to just find a defenseless thing and bash it.

Surely these assets aren't designed to be soloable?  Or defenseless?  Unless they have little value.

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

You are now making it only a real-time issue. You are forgetting that there are people that do not like the idea of having artificially imposed time-frames when they play and hence do not like the system of prime time raiding as a whole. For me honestly is a combination of both. I find it really themeparked-mmo. Hey guys it's 8PM!!! Everyone group up for the show!!! Is this a sandbox, right? Let me DECIDE when i want to siege and WHEN i want to defend.

 

In your scenario, there is only one person that gets to make the choice, the attacker. With a 24/7 attack window the defender is alway on their heels, and always at the mercy of the attacker.

But I suspect you will have to have first hand experience with getting your ass handed to you repeatedly while you slept before you could understand the frustration of it.

8 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

Again... it is not only about fun. Some people just can't nor wont and they are willing to sacrifice "fun" and "ping" to meet other needs. You are tunnel visioning if you think that fun is the only thing people are looking in a mmo.

Go ahead, take the test, then let us know why you play an MMO game.

Oh, and it is fun that people look for in an MMO or perhaps it's possible to defined as pleasure, but fun is just easier to understand. 

It's that different people have different views of what type of the fun they are seeking. 

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

Surely these assets aren't designed to be soloable?  Or defenseless?  Unless they have little value.

The intent is for players to defend them. Not for the keeps to defend themselves.

IhhQKY6.gif

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

The intent is for players to defend them. Not for the keeps to defend themselves.

That's really not historically accurate.  People sieged places they knew would be weak because of various intel and those places held out as long as possible until they could be reinforced by allies or their own troupes if they were out on sortie.  Making it require a certain amount of time to claim a new asset allows allies to rally and people to log in etc.

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

That's really not historically accurate.  People sieged places they knew would be weak because of various intel and those places held out as long as possible until they could be reinforced by allies or their own troupes if they were out on sortie.  Making it require a certain amount of time to claim a new asset allows allies to rally and people to log in etc.

Giving people time to rally makes for a more interesting pvp experience. No one remembers the time they pvd, but everyone remembers the big sieges the attacked/defended in.

Edited by Zatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arcadi said:

That's really not historically accurate.  People sieged places they knew would be weak because of various intel and those places held out as long as possible until they could be reinforced by allies or their own troupes if they were out on sortie.  Making it require a certain amount of time to claim a new asset allows allies to rally and people to log in etc.

Please convert this statement into a viable game mechanic. 

  • How much time while defended?
  • How much time when nobody is defending?
  • How much lead up time to the start of the attack?
  • How much effort?
  • How many deaths on both sides would create a time gap from the start of siege to conquest/final push back?
  • What is the reinforcement window?

It's easy to say "I wan't X".  It's hard to suggest mechanics that will actually provide that without it causing negative side consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really finding the various mindsets here quite fascinating and I look for analogies in my game history.  It's quite possible I misinterpreted the various buzzwords they used in their marketing literature for this game.  To me the gamestyle I describe is what I think of as an open world PvP RvR game.  But a lot of what I'm hearing is more of an event-driven style.  Kind of like the Chinese-MMOs where every night at 6pm is "PvP time" and people all gather on the battlefront for a neat little arena-style minigame?  Don't a lot of existing games already deliver this experience?  Is that what this is supposed to be, just another clone of such games?  People can use the other time to "gear up" and do their practice "scrims" or take care of their RL errands before every nights "event"?  Is this what MMOs are now?  Why would anyone play one instead of Overwatch or similar that does that model so much better?  Do people no longer remember what 24/7 persistent worlds were like?

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

I'm really finding the various mindsets here quite fascinating and I look for analogies in my game history.  It's quite possible I misinterpreted the various buzzwords they used in their marketing literature for this game.  To me the gamestyle I describe is what I think of as an open world PvP RvR game.  But a lot of what I'm hearing is more of an event-driven style.  Kind of like the Chinese-MMOs where every night at 6pm is "PvP time" and people all gather on the battlefront for a neat little arena-style minigame?  Don't a lot of existing games already deliver this experience?  Is that what this is supposed to be, just another clone of such games?  People can use the other time to "gear up" and do their practice "scrims" or take care of their RL errands before every nights "event"?  Is this what MMOs are now?  Why would anyone play one instead of Overwatch or similar that does that model so much better?  Do people no longer remember what 24/7 persistent worlds were like?

24/7 persistent worlds lead to a scenario where guilds located in different time zones have the ability to kill each others stuff while the other guild doesn't have the opportunity to defend them. This leads to a game world where people play player vs door: its not interesting, it's not pvp, and it's not fun for everyone. 

The game mechanics should facilitate players fighting other players. In a 24/7 system a significant portion of your time will be spent recovering and destroying assets through zero meaningful pvp. 

 

Edited by Zatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Arcadi said:

I'm really finding the various mindsets here quite fascinating and I look for analogies in my game history.  It's quite possible I misinterpreted the various buzzwords they used in their marketing literature for this game.  To me the gamestyle I describe is what I think of as an open world PvP RvR game.  But a lot of what I'm hearing is more of an event-driven style.  Kind of like the Chinese-MMOs where every night at 6pm is "PvP time" and people all gather on the battlefront for a neat little arena-style minigame?  Don't a lot of existing games already deliver this experience?  Is that what this is supposed to be, just another clone of such games?  People can use the other time to "gear up" and do their practice "scrims" or take care of their RL errands before every nights "event"?  Is this what MMOs are now?  Why would anyone play one instead of Overwatch or similar that does that model so much better?  Do people no longer remember what 24/7 persistent worlds were like?

I think you are very mistaken about the mindset of the people you are debating with. I don't think it is intentional, but I think you are setting up a strawman here.

People aren't arguing against 24/7 persistent worlds. They are arguing against having to play 24x7 in order to build and hold in-game assets like keeps.

Another thing you don't seem to appreciate is that many of the people in this thread aren't talking about RvR. They plan to play on FFA servers. I don't know or much care how siege windows of opportunity will work on RvR campaigns.

On Dregs campaigns, where you don't have a whole faction that is automatically on your side, achieving 24x7 coverage would be a major effort, and its not something everyone wants to do.

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Arcadi said:

I'm really finding the various mindsets here quite fascinating and I look for analogies in my game history.  It's quite possible I misinterpreted the various buzzwords they used in their marketing literature for this game.  To me the gamestyle I describe is what I think of as an open world PvP RvR game.  But a lot of what I'm hearing is more of an event-driven style.  Kind of like the Chinese-MMOs where every night at 6pm is "PvP time" and people all gather on the battlefront for a neat little arena-style minigame?  Don't a lot of existing games already deliver this experience?  Is that what this is supposed to be, just another clone of such games?  People can use the other time to "gear up" and do their practice "scrims" or take care of their RL errands before every nights "event"?  Is this what MMOs are now?  Why would anyone play one instead of Overwatch or similar that does that model so much better?  Do people no longer remember what 24/7 persistent worlds were like?

I do.  Every one that I played on that even remotely worked had some mechanic in place to offer defence while you slept. Be it 

  • AI and automated defenses that were on par with what players could bring to the table, so if an actual player showed up the defenders had a strong advantage.
  • Very limited damage could be done while the players were "away".  So the world didn't change that much.
  • Very large build up/tear down time.  If you got attacked at night, it was very unlikely the attacker could finish you off in a single night.
  • Territory didn't matter.  Gaining or losing fortifications was a goal without meaning, and just something to trigger PvP.
  • Lot's of warning.  Games like Travian, you tried to clear out enemies in a large area so that you had plenty of time warning that an attack was coming. Close threats were the first things to get wiped out, so you ended up with a few different battle lines.
  • The game was designed around huge player numbers with the ability to distribute all aspects of the game around time zones. Forced three team factions and the like.

Just curious, what game and experiences are you remembering?  What MMO's did there used to be that provided what you are talking about, that actually worked?

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

Please convert this statement into a viable game mechanic. 

  • How much time while defended?
  • How much time when nobody is defending?
  • How much lead up time to the start of the attack?
  • How much effort?
  • How many deaths on both sides would create a time gap from the start of siege to conquest/final push back?
  • What is the reinforcement window?

It's easy to say "I wan't X".  It's hard to suggest mechanics that will actually provide that without it causing negative side consequences.

Sure, in order to initiate an attempt to claim someone else's property you must first prepare to attack.  These maneuvers would be noticed by enemy scouts and intel so in game you would declare your intention to attack their property either by interacting with something within geographical vicinity of that asset or an in-game popup menu.  This declares that you CAN attack after 30 minutes and MUST DESTROY at least one wall/tower/etc exterior defense within 60 minutes or the entire attack fails and becomes unattackable with a 12 hour cooldown.

Not only the enemy guild but their entire faction gets notified of the oncoming attack and can rally accordingly.  Perhaps well liked guilds will get better turn outs, but generally people like to help defend because it is easier and it builds favors.  Additionally if owned assets provide benefits not only to the owning guild but the entire faction, which I think is a good design choice, this encourages people to protect them.  To make defense even easier, defenders get a portal to get INSIDE the asset being attacked which appears either in their beachhead or ability bar and lasts until the first structural damage is done.  Attackers receive no such portal.

The amount of damage to destroy one wall should be resource expensive for siege equipment so people do not do so lightly, the exact amount will depend on the economy.  There will also be exterior facing defenses either manned or unmanned so that their equipment can be lost or damaged if they don't attack quickly enough or in large enough numbers.  The best exterior facing defenses would be manned by allies who ported in before the attack.  Once breached there is no more need for siege equpment, but still have damage dealing defense (npcs or medeival lasers like burning oil pots etc) that can't really be survived without a well geared group of 5+ and even then very slowly.  To win the siege you will have to hold the objective for at least 30 minutes, a timer that is reset to 0 any time you do not have a presence in the occupancy zone, from when the first person of your faction begins to be present there.  Furthermore after that 30 minutes you still don't win the siege until there is no defending presence, so you must at least kill them faster than they spawn and run back.

At this stage you can now start using the keep, but you are not allowed to START rebuild the defenses you destroyed in taking it for another 2 hours.  This represents a vulnerability to counterattack during the initial period of instability.  Furthermore, in this state the asset can be attacked by either opposing factions (the original possessor or the third party) WITHOUT an official declaration of siege and the rules that go with it above.  If you survive this period, you can then START to rebuild defenses, however long that process takes.

Something like this seems a reasonable starting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

But I suspect you will have to have first hand experience with getting your ass handed to you repeatedly while you slept before you could understand the frustration of it.

Frustration??? But that is the definition of fun for a player like me!! Being able to organize a guild against a 24/7  threat and danger is what makes guild management interesting.

27 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:
42 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

 

Go ahead, take the test, then let us know why you play an MMO game.

What does this has to do with the topic? 

27 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

but fun is just easier to understand.

Yes but it is also so vague that leads to multiple interpretations. I like to chose words that convey what I am saying (with the limits of my limited knowledge of english allows) to the most accurate way.

9 minutes ago, Zatch said:

24/7 persistent worlds lead to a scenario where guilds located in different time zones have the ability to kill each others stuff while the other guild doesn't have the opportunity to defend them.

Make alliances or merge with a guild able to cover. like you can't do everything alone in this game (like harvest, craft, pvp all from day one), guilds should also grow and get stronger in order to defend themselves.

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

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...