Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Pann

The Strategy Game - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

This has been stated several times already. People who play during prime time--an arbitrary number represented by the population's numbers peaking according to their day time schedules with jobs/school/etc that allow them all to be on for a duration at once--their time is not more valuable than others. Which I point out because any system trying to place greater emphasis on one time frame over another isn't taking into account the changing nature of schedules, especially based on weekends/holidays/gaining or losing players. I don't care what argument you want to use to pretend otherwise. I am a late night person, the time I put in is just as valuable as anyone else.

Furthermore, this restricts the power in the players hand to choose to be more active at a certain time for strategic values. We seen this quite a lot in Shadowbane. If a larger force was attacking a smaller guild, but that larger force had more players on during the evening rather than late night, the defending guild could try a strategy of allowing the bane to occur late night, hoping that some of the attacking guild's members wouldn't be on because of real life schedules. They could get their guild to commit to a later night defense, and some people could change their schedules to accommodate.

This is a video game that needs to stand alone from concepts such as players schedules and allow for the same time of play regardless throughout the full day/night, except for concerns such as keeps because we cannot choose the time for the bane to go live. This gives the players the most control to choose how their time will best be spent. Is there a chance that your faction could catch up and overtake another factions? How about asking more of your guild members if they could possibly make room to be on a certain time to make a late night push to capture a bunch of things.

People can change schedules. They can decide if instead of 6 pm - 12 am they play 10 pm - 4 am. And this should not be restricted because someone thinks because the server is Virginia EAST that the most impact needs to happen from 6 pm EST - 12 am EST. Not everyone on the server are near eastern standard time or even in the same country for that matter.

Night-capping 

As Veeshan already stated, night-capping issues doesn't like in the fact that there is the ability to night cap, but that current populations do no support the numbers to have people take forts at night. With the changes to it is much harder to take a fort with a smaller group. But that does NOT mean that all factions aren't having the same numbers on during those times. Which gives every faction the same ability to accomplish any  task. The issue lies in the absurd idea that if you take a fort, literally minutes later, another force can roll in and take it back. There is no permanence, there is no semi permanence, and there is nothing keeping those people from being able to roll in and do that except if their group can handle the guards.

Forts

Back-capping forts is boring game-play, plain and simple. It's trash that kept me from playing WvWvW in GW2 when that came out; the moment I seen that first objective taken right after capping it in the first place. It's what makes ESO's PvP trash. I think capturing things for points in the first place is just boring game-play for PvP, but at least if you chase points it shouldn't be a never ending dog chasing it's tail moment from no permanence.

There is literally no incentive to build up the walls for a fort, because NORMAL PLAYER WEAPONS can hack them down in moments. It takes some actual work to build those things up, unless you had the foresight to spirit bank a LOT of timber and boulders. Then in comes a small group bashing on a corner with their normal weapons invalidating all that works in moments. 

While they can also teleport through walls, I don't think that kind of game-play in necessarily bad, as it takes a specialized type of group to do this, whom may not have access to a great composition once inside to take the fort that easily. In Shadowbane it was much easier to bypass walls with Wizard's group teleport, Fury's group flight, or personal teleport. But then they weren't capturing anything by  doing that either.

Walls need to ONLY be damaged by siege equipment OR some new type of siege disciplines which would allow someone to buff themselves to allow their weapons to attack the wall, or maybe buff the group to do the same. I think letting them apply this debuff to the wall itself would lead too easily into multiple groups abusing only 1 person having the discipline.

Rolling vulnerability is an iffy thing. Big fights are fun, but turning gaining points into never ending big fights against people could easily burn them out on playing the point capture game. It's all find when once a night you have this huge, fun siege battle against many opponents (crappy performance aside). But when you have that, and every single fort fight become the same because the fort can only be hit at a specific time, this will draw in the keep siege size forces for all these events without getting keep sized siege rewards. I get it, people want more reasons to fight. But I don't necessarily think ACE needs to force this by coding it into the game. Other options to slow the back-capping for forts would be better, as I will outline below.

Outposts

I'm totally against needing to take outposts just to be able to attack forts. I get it that people need more time to response, but there are other things that can go into make fort harder to just steamroll.

1) Having it so that the maps generate a certain amount of outposts around each fort, so that in every situation there will be 4-8 outposts directly linked to what affects the fort.

2) Now that every fort has a certain number of outposts that directly affects them. Make it so that these outposts buff the defenses of the fort. 

3) The guards in the forts have a base rank. Each linked outpost you control will +1 to the rank of guards AND add more guards in general.

  •      All outposts = R10 guards in center cap area, R10 guards in the fort confines, R10 guards in corner archer towers, R10 guards on wall catwalks.
  •      No outpost = R6 guards in center cap area only
  •      Half outposts = R8 guards in center cap area, fort confines
  •      etc

4) Balance it how it makes sense. But the idea here is if you are a big group, you can roll in and maybe fights the R10 guards as they are, using siege buffed weapons to get past walls and fighting through R10s and players who defend to cap. 

5) NOW it's yours, but instead of running off to capture the next fort, you will--if you didn't elect to capture outposts first--capture the linked outposts to completely buff your guard defenses up. You will build the walls because they will actually be worth the effort to do it and make sure the fort is as good as it can be, before running off til the next one.

6) Or, if it's late night and groups can't handle R10 guards like that, a smaller groups can run around capturing the linked outposts first, debuffing the fort defenses to be weak enough for a smaller force to take. But NOW the messages saying you are losing outposts alert people who are online, and they have plenty of time to arrive to fight because they have the time it takes to take all the outposts, beat down the wall, cap and build them back up to respond to the attackers.

7) This makes it a choice on what fort you want to take, the kind of force needed to take the fort, the choice in how much defenses your group can handle while possibly fighting players at the same time. And now gives a reason to build walls back up, and build up your defenders, without locking out smaller groups from being able to fight for the forts at night.

8) If you don't build up the walls, then the outposts can't spawn the tower and wall guards to defend. Which means if you want the most defended fort before leaving it, you will need to build up the walls in addition. But if you are a small group and building up the walls are too much for the size of the group, you can still have all the outposts generate stronger guards for center capping area and fort confines. Or you can get all the timber and boulders you will need and bring it with you, hoping you can build the walls once you get it (this is obviously thinking past the point spirit banking is fixed).

Now there is something in place to delay the fast back-capping of forts already taken, and give time to defenders to respond to an attack call. You can make strategic choices to how much defense you want to leave to keep the fort from being retaken so easily so you can move on slower/faster to the next spot to do the same. It also alerts what fort might be the next target based on proximity to another fort or runegate.

Giving players choices without forcing specific times only that things can be vulnerable is much more interesting and fun gameplay than giving just another keep type defense window that will draw the whole server into massive protracted fights. Not every pvp instance needs to be a huge fight between everyone. Forts are not meant to draw this type of fighting.

I feel fixing forts and connected outposts with this kind of system can accomplish what is needed, without just making it so that outposts make a fort vulnerable period. Means massive groups can take take a fort quicker, while smaller groups have to go through the whole process to take a fort at night, giving people much longer to respond.

Conclusion

Even with the above mentioned changes, this is based on ACE making people even want points. I'm a firm believer in that players should make the reason for pvp,  and pvp for pvp sake. But having the mechanics in game to invite pvp will only entice people if there is a reason for it. If winning the campaign with 3 million points at the end means nothing but bragging rights, many people are going to ignore the system and not care about capping anything, regardless of what you put in place for day time capping, night time capping, or the argument people have for why they think the point gains are fair.

Population plays a big part of what's going on. And unless the numbers are completely imbalanced, there is no different from the forces available during the day and those available at night. I don't think night time capping is the issue people think it is, and even if it's contributing factor is because people aren't compelled to bother doing anything at night. So it leaves what the day time people did during the evening to pop on in the morning and pick up. This could completely change, given a reason to even care about what your point score is and will almost certainly compel guilds to start to play with gaming schedules to take advantage of these things. And there should NOT be a restriction from this kind of strategy, or having people on at night who are not EST people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Navystylz said:

This has been stated several times already. People who play during prime time--an arbitrary number represented by the population's numbers peaking according to their day time schedules with jobs/school/etc that allow them all to be on for a duration at once--their time is not more valuable than others. Which I point out because any system trying to place greater emphasis on one time frame over another isn't taking into account the changing nature of schedules, especially based on weekends/holidays/gaining or losing players. I don't care what argument you want to use to pretend otherwise. I am a late night person, the time I put in is just as valuable as anyone else.

Furthermore, this restricts the power in the players hand to choose to be more active at a certain time for strategic values. We seen this quite a lot in Shadowbane. If a larger force was attacking a smaller guild, but that larger force had more players on during the evening rather than late night, the defending guild could try a strategy of allowing the bane to occur late night, hoping that some of the attacking guild's members wouldn't be on because of real life schedules. They could get their guild to commit to a later night defense, and some people could change their schedules to accommodate.

This is a video game that needs to stand alone from concepts such as players schedules and allow for the same time of play regardless throughout the full day/night, except for concerns such as keeps because we cannot choose the time for the bane to go live. This gives the players the most control to choose how their time will best be spent. Is there a chance that your faction could catch up and overtake another factions? How about asking more of your guild members if they could possibly make room to be on a certain time to make a late night push to capture a bunch of things.

People can change schedules. They can decide if instead of 6 pm - 12 am they play 10 pm - 4 am. And this should not be restricted because someone thinks because the server is Virginia EAST that the most impact needs to happen from 6 pm EST - 12 am EST. Not everyone on the server are near eastern standard time or even in the same country for that matter.

Night-capping 

As Veeshan already stated, night-capping issues doesn't like in the fact that there is the ability to night cap, but that current populations do no support the numbers to have people take forts at night. With the changes to it is much harder to take a fort with a smaller group. But that does NOT mean that all factions aren't having the same numbers on during those times. Which gives every faction the same ability to accomplish any  task. The issue lies in the absurd idea that if you take a fort, literally minutes later, another force can roll in and take it back. There is no permanence, there is no semi permanence, and there is nothing keeping those people from being able to roll in and do that except if their group can handle the guards.

Forts

Back-capping forts is boring game-play, plain and simple. It's trash that kept me from playing WvWvW in GW2 when that came out; the moment I seen that first objective taken right after capping it in the first place. It's what makes ESO's PvP trash. I think capturing things for points in the first place is just boring game-play for PvP, but at least if you chase points it shouldn't be a never ending dog chasing it's tail moment from no permanence.

There is literally no incentive to build up the walls for a fort, because NORMAL PLAYER WEAPONS can hack them down in moments. It takes some actual work to build those things up, unless you had the foresight to spirit bank a LOT of timber and boulders. Then in comes a small group bashing on a corner with their normal weapons invalidating all that works in moments. 

While they can also teleport through walls, I don't think that kind of game-play in necessarily bad, as it takes a specialized type of group to do this, whom may not have access to a great composition once inside to take the fort that easily. In Shadowbane it was much easier to bypass walls with Wizard's group teleport, Fury's group flight, or personal teleport. But then they weren't capturing anything by  doing that either.

Walls need to ONLY be damaged by siege equipment OR some new type of siege disciplines which would allow someone to buff themselves to allow their weapons to attack the wall, or maybe buff the group to do the same. I think letting them apply this debuff to the wall itself would lead too easily into multiple groups abusing only 1 person having the discipline.

Rolling vulnerability is an iffy thing. Big fights are fun, but turning gaining points into never ending big fights against people could easily burn them out on playing the point capture game. It's all find when once a night you have this huge, fun siege battle against many opponents (crappy performance aside). But when you have that, and every single fort fight become the same because the fort can only be hit at a specific time, this will draw in the keep siege size forces for all these events without getting keep sized siege rewards. I get it, people want more reasons to fight. But I don't necessarily think ACE needs to force this by coding it into the game. Other options to slow the back-capping for forts would be better, as I will outline below.

Outposts

I'm totally against needing to take outposts just to be able to attack forts. I get it that people need more time to response, but there are other things that can go into make fort harder to just steamroll.

1) Having it so that the maps generate a certain amount of outposts around each fort, so that in every situation there will be 4-8 outposts directly linked to what affects the fort.

2) Now that every fort has a certain number of outposts that directly affects them. Make it so that these outposts buff the defenses of the fort. 

3) The guards in the forts have a base rank. Each linked outpost you control will +1 to the rank of guards AND add more guards in general.

  •      All outposts = R10 guards in center cap area, R10 guards in the fort confines, R10 guards in corner archer towers, R10 guards on wall catwalks.
  •      No outpost = R6 guards in center cap area only
  •      Half outposts = R8 guards in center cap area, fort confines
  •      etc

4) Balance it how it makes sense. But the idea here is if you are a big group, you can roll in and maybe fights the R10 guards as they are, using siege buffed weapons to get past walls and fighting through R10s and players who defend to cap. 

5) NOW it's yours, but instead of running off to capture the next fort, you will--if you didn't elect to capture outposts first--capture the linked outposts to completely buff your guard defenses up. You will build the walls because they will actually be worth the effort to do it and make sure the fort is as good as it can be, before running off til the next one.

6) Or, if it's late night and groups can't handle R10 guards like that, a smaller groups can run around capturing the linked outposts first, debuffing the fort defenses to be weak enough for a smaller force to take. But NOW the messages saying you are losing outposts alert people who are online, and they have plenty of time to arrive to fight because they have the time it takes to take all the outposts, beat down the wall, cap and build them back up to respond to the attackers.

7) This makes it a choice on what fort you want to take, the kind of force needed to take the fort, the choice in how much defenses your group can handle while possibly fighting players at the same time. And now gives a reason to build walls back up, and build up your defenders, without locking out smaller groups from being able to fight for the forts at night.

8) If you don't build up the walls, then the outposts can't spawn the tower and wall guards to defend. Which means if you want the most defended fort before leaving it, you will need to build up the walls in addition. But if you are a small group and building up the walls are too much for the size of the group, you can still have all the outposts generate stronger guards for center capping area and fort confines. Or you can get all the timber and boulders you will need and bring it with you, hoping you can build the walls once you get it (this is obviously thinking past the point spirit banking is fixed).

Now there is something in place to delay the fast back-capping of forts already taken, and give time to defenders to respond to an attack call. You can make strategic choices to how much defense you want to leave to keep the fort from being retaken so easily so you can move on slower/faster to the next spot to do the same. It also alerts what fort might be the next target based on proximity to another fort or runegate.

Giving players choices without forcing specific times only that things can be vulnerable is much more interesting and fun gameplay than giving just another keep type defense window that will draw the whole server into massive protracted fights. Not every pvp instance needs to be a huge fight between everyone. Forts are not meant to draw this type of fighting.

I feel fixing forts and connected outposts with this kind of system can accomplish what is needed, without just making it so that outposts make a fort vulnerable period. Means massive groups can take take a fort quicker, while smaller groups have to go through the whole process to take a fort at night, giving people much longer to respond.

Conclusion

Even with the above mentioned changes, this is based on ACE making people even want points. I'm a firm believer in that players should make the reason for pvp,  and pvp for pvp sake. But having the mechanics in game to invite pvp will only entice people if there is a reason for it. If winning the campaign with 3 million points at the end means nothing but bragging rights, many people are going to ignore the system and not care about capping anything, regardless of what you put in place for day time capping, night time capping, or the argument people have for why they think the point gains are fair.

Population plays a big part of what's going on. And unless the numbers are completely imbalanced, there is no different from the forces available during the day and those available at night. I don't think night time capping is the issue people think it is, and even if it's contributing factor is because people aren't compelled to bother doing anything at night. So it leaves what the day time people did during the evening to pop on in the morning and pick up. This could completely change, given a reason to even care about what your point score is and will almost certainly compel guilds to start to play with gaming schedules to take advantage of these things. And there should NOT be a restriction from this kind of strategy, or having people on at night who are not EST people.

 

Or you could just play in an optimal server for your play time instead of benefiting from a system than punishes the majority because you have an alternative schedule that lets you maximize points while dealing with less resistance and pvp in general. 


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mandalore said:

Or you could just play in an optimal server for your play time instead of benefiting from a system than punishes the majority because you have an alternative schedule that lets you maximize points while dealing with less resistance and pvp in general. 

Which I've mentioned several times throughout my post. But if they are set on changing things, since they are taking the time to have a discussion in discord, those are my thoughts.

At the very least, the dog chasing it's tail kind of play-style needs to go anyway. It's a bad style of pvp and just isn't fun. Walls regardless need to mean something for the effort to get the materials and bring them back to build. Especially once you can't spirit bank on the fly. Anything changed now to fix this can also be used in dregs play. Walls shouldn't be as worthless when players can build them anywhere in dregs either. Upgrading your fort/keep is even more needed when it's your base of operations.

EDIT: Also, Chaos was able to pull ahead of Order without seemingly being too punished :rolleyes:

Edited by Navystylz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They buffed the lower rank guards a little too much. They can shoot through walls and destroy you before you can even fight back. Time to kill and effort for no reason. Why would anyone take forts at night?

People can choose not to cap them right before bed, since no one is going to take them at night either. And boom... no night capping issues that rewards early risers who take forts. The few that actually even care to worry about this aspect of gameplay.

Share this post


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

Or you could just play in an optimal server for your play time instead of benefiting from a system than punishes the majority because you have an alternative schedule that lets you maximize points while dealing with less resistance and pvp in general. 

Ok where do you want people who play from australia to play on then? or where do you want Americans that do shift work where there at work during prime time. Even if there an oceanic server for thos aussies most of them have been playing in US guilds for years since there usualy no oceanic server so they tend to go to US servers and then they find guilds there.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


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

Or you could just play in an optimal server for your play time instead of benefiting from a system than punishes the majority because you have an alternative schedule that lets you maximize points while dealing with less resistance and pvp in general. 

The solution is addressing the problem(not enough players on online during certain time frames) and not making adjustments to fix symptoms like night capping. Adding a mechanic that effectively punishes some players and not others is depressing. Can't we as players support everyone that plays crowfall at anytime? I want the worlds to feel alive and active 24/7. 

Share this post


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

The solution is addressing the problem(not enough players on online during certain time frames) and not making adjustments to fix symptoms like night capping. Adding a mechanic that effectively punishes some players and not others is depressing. Can't we as players support everyone that plays crowfall at anytime? I want the worlds to feel alive and active 24/7. 

I also want the worlds to feel alive but majority of people don’t play in the middle of the night or during the day because we have jobs that are more normal in work hours.  That’s not a jab at mid shift or late night workers.  People should pick the server that best for them to play in their available time, not pick a server where then can dodge fights and night cap defenseless structures.  Pick a server where you’re the prime time, otherwise you’re shorting yourself and others.  


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, 

I dont usually post on forums, as there are other folks who enjoy that more than I do but I had to say a few words here: 

I came from GuildWars 2 where I played WvWvW only, and therefore words like nightcapping give me PTSD :D

people say that they should be able to play whenever, that it is wrong to put penalties on folks who play off-time (like 4am) and that is true, but you have to realize that (in my estimation) between 50-80% of players will play in prime time (8pm +/-3hours in a given time zone) - this is definitely true for me and my friends - as Mandalore said, folks have jobs and families and thats the time they can actually come together as a guild and play... 

if you play outside of prime time then you have nothing to complain about, stuff you capture and points you make will have a significant impact on the outcome of the campaign....

Also, I really like the idea of siege windows being opened during primetime only, as majority of players play in that time period

...victory should be achieved via player skill, tactics, strategy and coordination of one faction, not purely by coverage as it was in GW2 - example: few years back in the EU matchup the Spanish-speaking faction had a massive advantage because they had a guild or two from Latin America which basically backcapped everything in offhours and even though that faction was pretty weak player-skill-wise, they still managed to stay on top, simply because they had 20-40 players who played on pretty much empty map when other players were at work or sleeping and generated lots of points that way... even though they were next to useless in any pvp fight in prime time

I really like JTodds approach (minimize potential for griefing) and hence I strongly support the idea of main forts being invulnerable in off hours, as it makes no sense to me that 3 people could capture a massive castle, not via in-game skill, tactics or trickery but only because they can play at weird hours...THAT DOES NOT PROMOTE PVP AT ALL...

points (and victory) should be gained based on player skill, not the time on the clock

Share this post


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

if you play outside of prime time then you have nothing to complain about, stuff you capture and points you make will have a significant impact on the outcome of the campaign....

Also, I really like the idea of siege windows being opened during primetime only, as majority of players play in that time period

 

Would mean only primetime players can siege, that coupled with getting reduced points for the same activities depending on play time sure will help promote a vibrant 24/7 game world. Please think of other players game enjoyment, players should be treated equally by game mechanics at all times, not just 1/3 of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Takamal said:

Hello, 

I dont usually post on forums, as there are other folks who enjoy that more than I do but I had to say a few words here: 

I came from GuildWars 2 

Guild Wars 2 had a poorly made socksty PvP system. And is why I specifically call it out in this game. That was nothing more than a glorified battleground where what you take is taken moments later. I already detest that this game is using a similar approach. Putting further limitations you suggest on it is ludicrous. 

No, the answer is to have a better system. And stop saying custard all to people who don't play primetime. Not gonna rehash my post above. But you people need stop being so damn selfish.

Not good enough that you have the most impact during prime time, but no, you want to have ALL the impact with more restrictions in a game that's supposed to be a persistent living world, not an instance battleground where fights and territory acquisition happen only when it's convenient for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Navystylz said:

Not good enough that you have the most impact during prime time, but no, you want to have ALL the impact with more restrictions in a game that's supposed to be a persistent living world, not an instance battleground where fights and territory acquisition happen only when it's convenient for you. 

The claim that prime time players have the most impact is dubious when farming and capturing are both easier to do when there is less competition.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

The claim that prime time players have the most impact is dubious when farming and capturing are both easier to do when there is less competition.

If there are less people online then it would stand to reason that there would also be less on your team to help capture and farm. While I agree with you in substance I think the impact currently does not justify introducing a new mechanic to try and fix a problem consisting mainly of playerbase vs world size/objective number. 

Share this post


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

If there are less people online then it would stand to reason that there would also be less on your team to help capture and farm.

 

No, US-centric guilds send whole groups to the EU server when it is mostly empty to go farm resources. It is optimal play because you get interrupted less often, assuming you are optimizing for harvesting output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 4:28 AM, Navystylz said:

Oh boy, more artificial restrictions on okay because someone can't be awake at certain times? Points are worthless yet people are so worried about what happens at night with backcapping. 

I swear people these days can't handle anything without being told what to do, when they can do it, and what restrictions there must be.

 

Points are clearly not worthless to everyone, since certain specific guilds work pretty hard to consistently accrue as many as possible, so why make such a useless generalization?

https://www.wikihow.com/Perform-Well-in-a-Debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, DocHollidaze said:

 

Points are clearly not worthless to everyone, since certain specific guilds work pretty hard to consistently accrue as many as possible, so why make such a useless generalization?

https://www.wikihow.com/Perform-Well-in-a-Debate

You get nothing material in game from accruing points. So are virtually worthless. That some people want to put the time into them regardless of that changes little.  

Share this post


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

The claim that prime time players have the most impact is dubious when farming and capturing are both easier to do when there is less competition.

Except it's not. Guards are too strong. Unless someone is making the effort for their group to be online in those hours. Which is a valid strategy that any other group can equally employ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Navystylz said:

Except it's not. Guards are too strong. Unless someone is making the effort for their group to be online in those hours. Which is a valid strategy that any other group can equally employ. 

The guards on most outposts and forts are really not too strong for a solo player or small group.

I think it is debatable whether all groups can equally employ the strategy of playing during their normal working, sleeping, or school hours.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

 

No, US-centric guilds send whole groups to the EU server when it is mostly empty to go farm resources. It is optimal play because you get interrupted less often, assuming you are optimizing for harvesting output.

I cant argue with that since its human nature to take the most efficient path to goal especially for repetitive tasks. If this is a problem it can be addressed within import/export mechanic instead of with differing rewards and game mechanics for those that play outside of primetimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 2:00 AM, Jah said:

The guards on most outposts and forts are really not too strong for a solo player or small group.

I think it is debatable whether all groups can equally employ the strategy of playing during their normal working, sleeping, or school hours.

Saying something is debatable isn't making an argument. Don't throw around words like "equally" while advocating prime time needs to have the most impact. As it is, what prime timers do before bed dictate the amount of points that can be gained in the morning when those players decide to wake up and recap. 

At the end of the day the devs will do what they think is best. And if that is to poorly made socks on the people who don't play prime time by making our time even more restricted when we don't have access to the larger pool of people to do bigger things, well then I just won't play the game. That simple. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Fort Vulnerability Windows devalue off hours players. It's important to keep in mind there would ALWAYS be vulnerable fort(s) no matter what time of day it is. Vulnerability Windows are designed to help improve everyone's gaming experience by centralizing conflict. I think most will agree that it is not enjoyable capturing empty objectives - the fun comes from fighting over them. 

If there are 1 hour vulnerability windows and whoever owns the fort at the end of the window keeps it until the next window that means Fort Capture will be decided at the end of each window. Players can only be in one place at a time. For this reason, each individual player during off hours will still have the same impact during each fort vulnerability window as a player during prime time will. There will simply be less choices of forts to attack/defend so that the lower population during off hours is concentrated. Therefore, I do not think fort vulnerability windows devalue off hours players. FWIW, I play off hours a fair amount myself (particularly weekend mornings). 

Once the window is over and a new one starts, players will need time to rebuild the walls, resupply and travel to the next fort. Due to the nature of walls and guards there's a clear defenders advantage by holding a location so it'll be unwise to just try to only attack or defend a fort the last few minutes of the vulnerability window. 

Improved toast messages that were mentioned in the discord stream on Thursday will also improve things. The other thing I think we need is better scaling on the outposts and fort capture timers.

Forts can cap very quickly with enough people whereas Outposts feel painfully long. These objectives need to be scaled for the number of people they intend to fight over them. Here's what I suggest: 

  • Fort Capture Times - keep in mind this is for player differential meaning if there are 20 attackers fighting 10 defenders inside of the capture circle that's the same as 10 players capturing an uncontested capture location. 
    • 10 or more players takes 5 minutes from Full Red to Full Green
    • 9 Players = 6 minutes, 8 players = 6:30, 7 players = 7:00, 6 Players = 7:30, 5 Players = 8:00, 4 Players = 8:30, 3 Players = 9:00, 2 Players = 9:30, 1 Player = 10:00
  • Outpost (Camp/Tower) Capture Timers - same thing goes for player differential as Forts. 
    • 1 player = 5 minutes, 2 players = 4 minutes, 3 or more players = 3 minutes for Full Red to Full Green Capture. 

I for one am looking forward to the potential of this feature and all of the great Fort Fights that it will bring! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...