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

Siege Windows - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Staff said:

why are people mad about this, how does this hurt, ill give a full legendary set to the first person to give me reasonable arguments for why this is worse then what we have now

Reasons.  I’ll take my leather healing set for my Templar now.  Thank you. 


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
30 minutes ago, Jah said:

Way to completely fail to understand the change.

 

16 minutes ago, Staff said:

why are people mad about this, how does this hurt, ill give a full legendary set to the first person to give me reasonable arguments for why this is worse then what we have now

 

Simply put, this is a major deviation from the concept of freedom and emergent gameplay.  Yes, this is a solution to a problem.  But I like to believe there are solutions that do not deviate so far from the original vision.

 

@Jah You can shake your head and tell me that I don't understand the change, or you can form a rebuttal to my, albeit sarcastic, extremely valid argument. 


Nazdar

Proud member of The Hunger

Share this post


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

 

 

Simply put, this is a major deviation from the concept of freedom and emergent gameplay.  Yes, this is a solution to a problem.  But I like to believe there are solutions that do not deviate so far from the original vision.

 

@Jah You can shake your head and tell me that I don't understand the change, or you can form a rebuttal to my, albeit sarcastic, extremely valid argument. 

The emergent gameplay of forts was boring and the freedom made avoiding fighting over objectives the superior tactic.

Freedom is less important than ensuring a contested PvP objective score in your PvP game is actually contested by PvP more than who has the most Australians standing in circles alone at 4AM.

Online games have rules to drive players in to meaningful interactions with each other. The forts were failing at doing so.


PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Share this post


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

Simply put, this is a major deviation from the concept of freedom and emergent gameplay.  

 

@Jah You can shake your head and tell me that I don't understand the change, or you can form a rebuttal to my, albeit sarcastic, extremely valid argument. 

That's a false dichotomy. Emergent gameplay comes from within the rules that guild gameplay, not from free for all unlimited behavior.

League of legends has very emergent gameplay, yet the maps never change, and the goal is always the same. The rules of engagement are very fixed, yet from the champion select phase to the building of gear as the game progresses, a very emergent game process develops.

Magic the Gathering also has very emergent gameplay, despite being highly structured and organized.  (Must have at least 60 cards in a deck, cannot have more than 4 of any non-basic land, can only lay one land a turn, etc)

Next time you have a game of Risk, try just picking up and chucking pieces at the other players, or take two turns in a row, and see how "free and emergent" the other players consider that to be. 

Bottom line, no matter the game, there are rules, from how long it takes to mine gear, to when/where the best time/places to attack are. The more you limit options, the more creative players have to become.

 

Quote

Lesson #18: Restrictions breed creativity

Of all my lessons, this is the one I'm most associated with. In fact, if you're a longtime reader, you've heard me say it many times in this very column. This lesson is tied into a myth about creativity. Many people believe that the more options available, the more creative a person can be. This is a myth because it contradicts what we know about how the brain works. The brain is an amazing organ. It's very smart. When asked to solve a problem, most brains check their data banks and ask "Have I solved this before?" If the answer is yes, the brain solves the problem the exact same way it solved it last time.

Most of the time, this is efficient. It lets you avoid relearning tasks each time you do them, but it causes a problem with creative thought. You see, if you use the same neural pathways, you get to the same answers, and with creativity, that's not your goal. So here's the trick I've learned. If you want your brain to get to new places, start from somewhere you've never started before. That's why I make sure to begin each expansion from a new vantage point. This forces me to think in different ways and create new problems to solve, which results in new ideas and new solutions. What this means is that restrictions aren't an obstacle but rather a valuable tool. You can make use of restrictions to help you be more creative.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nazdar said:

@Jah You can shake your head and tell me that I don't understand the change, or you can form a rebuttal to my, albeit sarcastic, extremely valid argument. 

If you want me to put more effort into rebutting you, you will need to put more effort into your criticism of the mechanic. What you said is so far removed from the actual topic that it is enough to point that out and move on.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tavarian said:

It's taking away that organic feel of a real war.

The organic feel of a real war is spending 99% of your time bored. Defending forts in real life is an exceptionally boring activity. The vast majority of the time there is no action, just standing around. To make defending forts fun, the game mechanics need to promote activity during the time that players are defending. Siege windows do that.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurry up and wait. 

Embrace the suck.

 

Been told both of those a few times in my life. 


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
Just now, Staff said:

very well i will meet you in game, alone, in a corner, with 10 of my friends

This sounds like the time @ZombieGandhi asked me to Mino Prom. 


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
1 minute ago, Staff said:

did you accept his offer?

Yes, he was an mino eunuch and a gentleman. 


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
22 hours ago, miraluna said:

Dregs will need siege scheduling in some format - no one wants to have to defend their keep 24/7.  Hopefully this is a system they can build on to let Guilds control the windows for objectives they own in Dregs.

Seriously hope this is a bane system similar to Shadowbane. And not some arbitrary timer.

Share this post


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

The organic feel of a real war is spending 99% of your time bored. Defending forts in real life is an exceptionally boring activity. To make defending forts fun, the game mechanics need to promote activity during the time that players are defending. Siege windows do that.

This.

Always on vulnerability systems have been tried and have failed over and over and over again in mmos for this exact reason. Defending against an attack that might never come is boring, and attacking an undefended thing is easier and more rewarding than a defended thing.

The fact of the matter is that your game will *never* have enough players to make "just get enough friends to defend it 24/7" a reasonable design goal because unlike real soldiers in a real war, the soldiers in your virtual war only have a few hours a day to actually fight and literally do not exist to defend even their primary base of operations for the majority of the conflict.

World PvP being always on is fine. It is an immediate loop of "I am here doing a thing and I can be overtaken and looted"

In world PvP you are necessarily always present to defend yourself.

Structure PvP assumes that structures are populated, but due to the reality of the world being a part-time amusement for its inhabitants it can not possibly guarantee that.

There are a lot of ways to handle that problem and personally I preferred the shadowbane method of "handshaking" with a banestone where both teams have to kinda compromise of the vuln time. However this doesn't work in a faction based system where nobody is in charge to make that decision for the faction, and it also doesn't work for more frequent daily objectives like forts.

Setting automatic vuln windows on a large number of structures based upon player activity metrics only is a solid way to go about this in a faction campaign. I'd expect there to be a more customized system in dregs as people actually own and control objectives there, the the UI that tracks the vuln timers and alerts players will still be extremely useful in dregs so its still a net gain for the game.

I try to avoid fighting fair as much as possible, I love running away from overwhelming odds, and I love stealing stuff from lazy people. However, that doesn't mean the game should be built around that being the optimal strategy for everything, especially not structures designed to function as forward bases and defensive positions.


PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a necessary step. It isn't going to add to or change the reasons people fight but it will help to increase the fighting overall. 

People fight over things in games for different reasons. Some will not care, some will do it for the points, others will become emotionally attached and defend their territory simply because it is theirs. This mechanic does not change that. It just makes the fighting that was already there easier to find.

Personally, I view the faction campaigns like I do Battle Royale's and MOBA's. There is no emotional investment or attachment. Forts are points that serve a specific goal; to win. Easy come, easy go. This works well for certain personalities and playstyles. 

I expect the Guild vs. Guild and Dregs campaigns to offer a different option for commitment and investment. I want to protect my home and defend it. Not because of points but because there is a sense of ownership and responsibility. Assets in these campaigns should not be easy come, easy go. Here, we should feel the need to invest in them, rule them, and defend them.

TL;DR: A siege window will work fine in both types of campaigns. It is not the deciding factor for what drives people to fight, all it will do is make it easier to find one.

Edited by Mytherceria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PopeUrban @KrakkenSmacken Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.  You bring up good and valid points.

@Jah  My opinion of your non-rebuttal remains unchanged.  Lazy.  Trite.

Let me break it down:

This solution successfully encourages PvP in controlled times/places.  Despite the accusations, I think everyone here gets that.  However, it comes at a cost.  There are other game design solutions that could have had the same effect without over-regulating the tempo of the game.

This change literally moves the game in the direction of a match-based game.  If you look at the announcement, you will see screenshots that literally resemble a lobby for a match-based game.  While sarcastic, it seems entirely reasonable to complain that design is shifting (in an unhealthy way) towards being more of a MOBA than an MMO.

The false dichotomy here is that was the best and only solution to the problem.  With a little creativity, I believe we could have the best of both worlds.

 

Also, you may think me a troll, but I complain because I care.


Nazdar

Proud member of The Hunger

Share this post


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

@Jah  My opinion of your non-rebuttal remains unchanged.  Lazy.  Trite.

Sounds like my rebuttal was of a similar quality to your criticism of the siege windows.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Nazdar said:

@PopeUrban @KrakkenSmacken Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.  You bring up good and valid points.

@Jah  My opinion of your non-rebuttal remains unchanged.  Lazy.  Trite.

Let me break it down:

This solution successfully encourages PvP in controlled times/places.  Despite the accusations, I think everyone here gets that.  However, it comes at a cost.  There are other game design solutions that could have had the same effect without over-regulating the tempo of the game.

This change literally moves the game in the direction of a match-based game.  If you look at the announcement, you will see screenshots that literally resemble a lobby for a match-based game.  While sarcastic, it seems entirely reasonable to complain that design is shifting (in an unhealthy way) towards being more of a MOBA than an MMO.

The false dichotomy here is that was the best and only solution to the problem.  With a little creativity, I believe we could have the best of both worlds.

 

Also, you may think me a troll, but I complain because I care.

It was always a match based game. That's literally the hook for it. Crowfall is an mmo broken up in to matches.

You say there are other solutions, but literally nobody has ever come up with one that didn't result in the exact same problem: That avoiding a fight is the superior tactic in a system designed to create large fights.

If you've got a better solution, any better solution, I'd love to hear it.


PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nazdar said:

@PopeUrban @KrakkenSmacken Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.  You bring up good and valid points.

@Jah  My opinion of your non-rebuttal remains unchanged.  Lazy.  Trite.

Let me break it down:

This solution successfully encourages PvP in controlled times/places.  Despite the accusations, I think everyone here gets that.  However, it comes at a cost.  There are other game design solutions that could have had the same effect without over-regulating the tempo of the game.

This change literally moves the game in the direction of a match-based game.  If you look at the announcement, you will see screenshots that literally resemble a lobby for a match-based game.  While sarcastic, it seems entirely reasonable to complain that design is shifting (in an unhealthy way) towards being more of a MOBA than an MMO.

The false dichotomy here is that was the best and only solution to the problem.  With a little creativity, I believe we could have the best of both worlds.

 

Also, you may think me a troll, but I complain because I care.

I never said it was the "best" solution to the problem.  ACE has to live within a time, development, and historically built systems restrictions. 

There may be better ideas for solutions that could eventually emerge from more dialog that may not actually be viable, or even possible.  Given the current state of development, and the need to eventually release.  Signal to noise ratio is real, and ACE very often has to guess what is in fact the best solution, when multiple possible options are available, given their unknown internal limits.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...