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

Say No to Shadowbane Style Mines


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Jah said:

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.

Maybe Dregs could have a siege window and RvR would not?  That would work fine with me personally, but I know Dregs is supposed to have the "hardcore" image and only being available certain hours of the day doesn't seem very hardcore to me.  But if that works for everyone else, that sounds good to me.

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

6 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

 

  • 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?

I actually like the above style of game that I listed.  Is this game not intended to support more than 5v5?  Is this more of a MOBA?  I'm honestly starting to wonder.

I'd honestly still play AO if it still had the player population and better graphics, and if lag could be improved a little, but it's still livable.  AO tower wars are awesome.  Definitely not a MOBA though...

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

Maybe Dregs could have a siege window and RvR would not?  That would work fine with me personally, but I know Dregs is supposed to have the "hardcore" image and only being available certain hours of the day doesn't seem very hardcore to me.  But if that works for everyone else, that sounds good to me.

People have different ideas about what is "hardcore" in a sandbox pvp game. You may think playing in off-hours and having free reign to bash sleeping people's castles is "hardcore" but I don't. It trivializes siege when the focus is on doing it when your opponent isn't there.

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea in Crowfall is that different types of objectives will have different capture mechanics. So one type might have a siege negotiation window for time (keeps that have the most investment in building up), another type might be capturable anytime (mini-tower).

tiPrpwh.png

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

People have different ideas about what is "hardcore" in a sandbox pvp game. You may think playing in off-hours and having free reign to bash sleeping people's castles is "hardcore" but I don't. It trivializes siege when the focus is on doing it when your opponent isn't there.

I've never said that's what I want to do.  I would like to play against other people, whenever I want.  That's all.

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

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.

What does this has to do with the topic? 

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.

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.

1.) Good luck is all I can say.

2.) You claimed that I didn't seem to understand what motivates MMO players, and I pointed you to a test that is based on a well studied, decades old, scientific theory about why people play MMO's.

3.) So pick a word.  I picked fun or pleasure.  What is the word you would want used, and I'll start responding within that context.

4.) Something tells me your planning on being in charge of hundreds, if not a thousand person guild.  That's a lofty ambition, and I wish you the best in that endeavor, but being part of a mega guild like that is not what I would call a good game design requirement. I suspect that the majority of players only have 5-8 close friends that want to hang out online together, have a few fun fights. 

I would almost go so far as to say what your describing sounds alot like a ZERG, something most people around here ... how shall I say this.... think is a game style with very little respect, and would like to see mechanics put into place to manage and restrict.

 

 

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

I've never said that's what I want to do.  I would like to play against other people, whenever I want.  That's all.

Well, you are in luck. Crowfall will have that.

You may not be able to siege my castle whenever you want, though. I may get some say in when that fight happens so that it is actually a fight, and not just you grinding against my walls while I sleep.

IhhQKY6.gif

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

Well, you are in luck. Crowfall will have that.

You may not be able to siege my castle whenever you want, though. I may get some say in when that fight happens so that it is actually a fight, and not just you grinding against my walls while I sleep.

I've only played a week, but I've never once had someone come up to me harvesting and say "Do you mind taking a break from that harvesting, put on your combat gear, let me know around what quality it is so I can gear down close to you, and then we can have a gentlemanly fight?"  But I'm glad this experience awaits me.  It's too bad I won't be able to participate in the massive PvP throne room simulator kingdom conquest game that I bought, but at least I can harvest crap for people to come gank me out of stealth and steal.  It's the hardcore pvp experience I've always dreamed of!

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

I actually like the above style of game that I listed.  Is this game not intended to support more than 5v5?  Is this more of a MOBA?  I'm honestly starting to wonder.

I'd honestly still play AO if it still had the player population and better graphics, and if lag could be improved a little, but it's still livable.  AO tower wars are awesome.  Definitely not a MOBA though...

It's actually a really good question.

The interdependency design seems to point to guilds of about 50 in size, or groups of 5 guilds with 8 close friends or so supporting each other. Reduce that size requirement by one, for every ALT account.

I suspect that what you are looking for will be far easier to find in faction campaigns, where your basically grouped with other players based on a 1-2-3 choice. In fact 24/7 vulnerability would be more fitting there, because the stakes are lower, being worlds with lower quality resources, and reinforcements more likely, with 1/3rd the server population able to rally to a resources defense.

Where the worlds don't force you into that choice, keeping a guild of 50+ players organized and working together is going to be.... challenging.

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

I've only played a week, but I've never once had someone come up to me harvesting and say "Do you mind taking a break from that harvesting, put on your combat gear, let me know around what quality it is so I can gear down close to you, and then we can have a gentlemanly fight?"  But I'm glad this experience awaits me.  It's too bad I won't be able to participate in the massive PvP throne room simulator kingdom conquest game that I bought, but at least I can harvest crap for people to come gank me out of stealth and steal.  It's the hardcore pvp experience I've always dreamed of!

You are going off the deep end here.

IhhQKY6.gif

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

It's actually a really good question.

The interdependency design seems to point to guilds of about 50 in size, or groups of 5 guilds with 8 close friends or so supporting each other. Reduce that size requirement by one, for every ALT account.

I suspect that what you are looking for will be far easier to find in faction campaigns, where your basically grouped with other players based on a 1-2-3 choice. In fact 24/7 vulnerability would be more fitting there, because the stakes are lower, being worlds with lower quality resources, and reinforcements more likely, with 1/3rd the server population able to rally to a resources defense.

Where the worlds don't force you into that choice, keeping a guild of 50+ players organized and working together is going to be.... challenging.

Yep, that's what I already said here above:

Quote

Maybe Dregs could have a siege window and RvR would not?  That would work fine with me personally, but I know Dregs is supposed to have the "hardcore" image and only being available certain hours of the day doesn't seem very hardcore to me.  But if that works for everyone else, that sounds good to me.

Maybe that's the best solution for everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 4:46 PM, Nyamo said:

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.

What does this has to do with the topic? 

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.

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.

If your answer to zerging is counter zerging it becomes a worthless point. The vast majority of us hate zergs. To reiterate: they create poorly made socks game play. No one here is asking for even sides, even gear, etc. What we are asking for is systems in place to discourage zerging. 

I speak only for myself when I say this, but I'ld being willing to wager Save the Kittens is going to have significant issues in the throne war come softlaunch. 

Edited by Zatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
I honestly don't understand half of what is going on in this thread, someone proposes an idea around how world events could work and it devolves into an huge argument about everyone's daily life and when people can play games or not.
 
If I understand things correctly the stated mechanics are:
  • Attacker declares the attack and picks the day of the attack
  • Defender picks the time window they will defend
 
I would say it is an accepted fact that the vast majority of players will play on the servers which give the best ping (local servers), right?
 
So the Defender will pick a time window that is likely in the primetime and/or weekend for that local server where players will fight players. In the event the Defenders pick some crazy off time period they will either not have to defend or face some nuts who never sleep and lose their keep.
 
What am I missing? If this is something to do with SB style mines then somebody should have fully explained what they were for those of us not in the know, otherwise what are you guys arguing about exactly?
 
  • I like the idea of the world of event popping up and players needing to drop a base nearby in order to participate.
  • I don't understand the idea behind debuffing non-participating players, why not just block them from entering the area?
  • I like the idea of having events the players can trigger.
 
There were a couple of other good ideas somewhere in here but I've lost them due to the bickering.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arcadi said:

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.

@KrakkenSmacken  Just wanted to make sure you saw this since you asked me to write it up and I spent some time thinking on it.  Didn't know if you were going to springboard off it or offer a counterproposal or if your original request was meant to be rhetorical or what...  Though again it sounds like having both 24x7 RvR campaigns (like old school AO or DAOC) and weekday prime time event Dregs campaigns (kind of Guild Wars arena style?) will satisfy everyone.  Should be enough interest to support both types of campaigns.

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

weekday prime time event Dregs campaigns (kind of Guild Wars arena style?) will satisfy everyone.

Either you have completely failed to understand the other side of the argument, or you think bashing strawmen is good rhetoric.

The Dregs will be a free for all sandbox with no predetermined sides. That is nothing like a Guild Wars arena. And its nothing like a MOBA. And it is nothing like gentlemanly fights.

If you want to have a productive debate, lay off the strawman arguments and try to understand the other side of the debate.

IhhQKY6.gif

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

@KrakkenSmacken  Just wanted to make sure you saw this since you asked me to write it up and I spent some time thinking on it.  Didn't know if you were going to springboard off it or offer a counterproposal or if your original request was meant to be rhetorical or what...  Though again it sounds like having both 24x7 RvR campaigns (like old school AO or DAOC) and weekday prime time event Dregs campaigns (kind of Guild Wars arena style?) will satisfy everyone.  Should be enough interest to support both types of campaigns.

yea I'll jump in when I get a few moments to give solid consideration.  Probably tomorow.

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

Either you have completely failed to understand the other side of the argument, or you think bashing strawmen is good rhetoric.

The Dregs will be a free for all sandbox with no predetermined sides. That is nothing like a Guild Wars arena. And its nothing like a MOBA. And it is nothing like gentlemanly fights.

If you want to have a productive debate, lay off the strawman arguments and try to understand the other side of the debate.

You're looking for a fight where there is none.  My point is we can have both.  I clearly don't understand what the Dregs will be like, I freely admit that.  I was just throwing those terms out as a best guess.  I even included a "?" on purpose, to indicate that I don't know.  I don't know how you can have a no rules sandbox with a GIANT RULE that says NO ATTACKING EXCEPT DURING THE HOURS OF 6 to 10 PM.  But that's fine.  I don't need to understand it.  As long as there is another sandbox that doesn't have that rule, I'm fine.  I'm pretty sure there can be both styles of campaigns, and it sounds like a lot of peoples arguing is because people are afraid the same ruleset will govern both of them.  People on the Dregs, where there are no factions, don't like the idea of 24x7 war.  They a want an attack window.  Great.  People doing RvR, don't like the idea of an attack window limiting when they get to play the game.  Great.  Sounds like the issue is resolved.  I'm really not trying to start anything.  I don't think either approach is better or worse than the other.  I do find some contradictions in the arguments I'm hearing, but I should stop poking fun at them, and just accept I don't understand that style of game, FFA but with limited attack windows, whatever it is.  As long as I can log on whenever I want, and play with all the different tools in the sandbox, with the other people who are there, I'm happy.  I don't like the idea of some of them being in a time locker.  Like many, the fear of missing out, FOMA, would destroy me and I would just play a different game.  Why invest the amount of time one does in MMOs if you would NEVER be able to participate in a siege?  Maybe you never will be in a siege, but that's different than saying you will never be able to, but while you are working unusual shifts other people are doing it, and getting more out of the game than you, for the same price tag.  But if a subset of servers want to use a ruleset like that, I don't mind at all.  I think it's great that the campaign system allows for many viable types of games.  Hopefully this has the population to support them.

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

yea I'll jump in when I get a few moments to give solid consideration.  Probably tomorow.

Cool, no worries.  I was just throwing it out as a starting point, not a finalized system or anything.  I know nothing about game design and don't envy anyone the task.  But I do think there's a lot of interesting space to explore and sometimes solutions that can appease both sides of an argument.

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

Nor, then, would it take must effort to stop them.  Might encourage guilds to have a couple players in weird time schedules here and there.  Have the bonus of promoting a little diversity.  Was my favorite part of AO, we had players all over the world, playing the strangest schedules.  Met so many great people.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, and hear your plight.  This is where I feel your logic breaks down however.

From what I read, you're coming from an RvR perspective instead of a GvG perspective.  It's a little easier to understand why you don't seem to quite get it.  That may be a little rude but no insult intended.

First I'd like to understand what you really want. 
From reading most of your comments you basically seem to want the ability to do anything at anytime. 
When you realized that, that might not be popular, you pitched the idea of multi-day sieging with windows changing to cover a 24 hour spawn.
To be clear.  You'd like this to be the primary ruleset for GvG/Dregs or an extra CW type?

I can only speak from my experience in Shadowbane and Darkfall Online, both of which at one point had 24 hour sieging.  24 hour sieging in this kind of game is a detriment to the experience.  How?  The attacker had far too great of an advantage.  It has nothing to do with balancing the makeup of your guild by timezone.  In GvG everything you own, especially something like a capital city, was made through great personal effort.  The level that things become personal when this is the case is extremely high.  Just look at this simple forum thread as an example, some of us have spent hours defending our argument and a lot of emotionally based words have been thrown.  That effect is off the chart when it comes to sieging in GvG. 

So, what was sieging like with 24 hour vulnerability?  My guild would plan in secret a day that we were all willing to either get up early, stay up late, take off work, etc. and siege our enemy at the most opportune time for us.  No matter how many people they had to support playing during that hour, there was no way they would be able to match the force of my entire guild.  Often times before they could react, and wake enough people up (sacrificing their own real life) the city would be under our control and now we would have the advantage of defending from inside the walls.

So what though right, once every so often you had to miss some work or sleep.  Not that big of a deal.  You have to understand though that when you use tactics like this to destroy something someone spent a month plus to create when you couldn't be there to defend it, personal is hardly sufficient to describe it.  You don't really care that much about anything except making the other peoples lives as miserable as possible.  The outcome of this was fake sieges.  People started to drop sieges at 3-4am, or during working hours forcing the enemy to muster a defense and simply not show up.  I saw that happen to some guilds dozens of times.  It didnt take many fake sieges for the enemies numbers to be much lower when you actually decided to attend one.

Because of the personal nature, and the time investment of these kinds of games, not showing up to defend your city is not really a choice, its a requirement.  Work is a little different but I don't think anyone in this thread would not sacrifice sleep to defend their guilds assets.  Many of us will do that to such an extent that it would greatly affect our personal lives.  That is why a game like Crowfall has to make an ethical choice to protect players from themselves.  Something has to give, and most likely it's going to be the population.  Siege windows were not something that were forced on us, they were something we asked for. 

Others in this thread were right, the tactics that I explained here were precisely done to avoid a good fight.  Windows ensure that the maximum number of people are able to participate.  Unfortunately that means that the minority now has a choice, to make the same kinds of sacrifices, or not play.  Either way, its a necessary evil.

I also urge you to stop making any reference to what is "historically accurate".  It doesn't matter.  Historically, people couldn't move their entire army to an enemies wall within 20 minutes, and log off, wait 6 hours until people have gone to bed, and log back in and immediately take down the city.  Historically, a person wouldn't go to bed in their room in a keep, and wake up the next morning standing on a pile of rubble.

 

Edited by tsp_maj

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tsp_maj said:

 

I also urge you to stop making any reference to what is "historically accurate".  It doesn't matter.  Historically, people couldn't move their entire army to an enemies wall within 20 minutes, and log off, wait 6 hours until people have gone to bed, and log back in and immediately take down the city.  Historically, a person wouldn't go to bed in their room in a keep, and wake up the next morning standing on a pile of rubble.

 

 

 

The reason I referred to historical modelling and simulation is because of the game's tagline as “a throne war simulator”.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, I very much appreciate what you write.  I am not certain why your allies don't defend you against these honorless guilds?  Or why people don't then punish these honorless guilds once they are actually all online?  Isn't this the idea of a FFA?  That people make their own rules?  Is truly the only solution to this problem -- which I recognize, especially in the case of coordinated vacation from work to siege someone -- to have a game design decision to not let people play the full game most hours of the day?

If people cannot police their own server and make griefers lives miserable enough that they give up griefing and go to a game where it is easier to do so (which I understand to be a tenet of FFA), then surely there are other design decisions that could address this without forcing people who don't work standard hours to feel even further distanced from society?

If we are ignoring all historical accuracy, why not get really creative.  When someone initiates a siege it saves the current state of the buildings -- before any destruction.  Then within 12 hours, there is the opportunity for the owning guild to "rechallenge".  A successful rechallenge results not only in capturing it back, but magically rewinding time to the state it was in before the attack.

--

Probably the most confusing part of your post to me was how it talked about all the time and effort of building the cities.  It's my understanding this won't even be in launch.  The only time and effort in building is in the instanced-housing-esque EK.  The campaigns are temporary and the destruction of everything is just a matter of time.  There are talks of allowing players to construct buildings WITHIN campaigns at some point in time long down the road, but that doesn't seem to be a design priority at all.  The territory being exchanged are all part of the map generation and all eventually going to be destroyed forever when the campaign ends.   So I'm not sure if it's really a 1-to-1 equivalence to the player cities you describe.  In the current campaign a single player can fully repair one of the forts or keeps in an hour or so, even at times 10 speed that investment is not terribly significant in MMO terms.

Edited by Arcadi
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...