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

Siege Windows - Official discussion thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, PopeUrban said:

 

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

Especially the faction rulesets, which these siege windows are specifically designed for.

If people are looking for less of a match based game, they will be more interested in the Dregs ruleset, where the siege rules will be different.

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Introducing siege windows for major control points FULL STORY

Siege timers on everything is a great way to turn campaigns into a ghosttown non-primetime, will absolutely kill any chance of a playerbase outside of where the server is located, so unless you intend

I dont like the fact that they are dictating when and where I should PvP... I thought this game was full pvp but instead looks like they are starting to breakdown to carebears that would cry losing th

In general I don't like system scheduled windows. Albion Online is the game I played recently with timers on territory objectives, and it was not fun. It does not make a game feel like a dynamic virtual world controlled by players. And it can provide a big advantage to larger, hardcore guilds who are willing to do whatever it takes to beat the artificial system.

Why is this a problem, isn't the game supposed to be play2crush?  It's a potential problem in the 3-faction ruleset, that's intended to be the place in the CF universe for more casual players, and less organized communities. If it's too easy for an Uncle Bob scenario to happen and 1-2 factions to get pushed off the map, or if casual players are feeling locked out of content that's not a positive. GW2 WvW and DAoC frontiers both worked well for 3-faction pvp format - neither had a timer system on forts.

Everyone seems to forget we are testing, not playing a launched game. It's not easy  judge the pvp activity based around the small testing population - we have 200 players instead of 2000 players on a campaign. Also different rulesets should play differently based on the risk vs reward, and may need different systems.

It's good to test the windows however - maybe it will work better than I expect. It seems like a helpful tool for the designers, and if it doesn't have the intended results in  3-faction gameplay I'm sure the devs will make adjustments.

tiPrpwh.png

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

Are you just going for post count at this point?

-raises hand to interject-  

You’re just arguing to argue a minority perspective.  Siege windows were amazing in JtoddColemans previous sieges game SB (the spiritual predecessor to CF).  If you want instant, meaningless and always accessible PvP there’s a dozen MOBA’s in that market.  This is a persistent world RPG and off hour players shouldn't have more power than most of the concurrent players in that servers time zone.   

Edited by mandalore
40 minutes ago, Andius said:

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

wiDfyPp.png

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

-raises hand to interject-  

You’re just arguing to argue a minority perspective.  Siege windows were amazing in JtoddColemans previous sieges game SB (the spiritual predecessor to CF).  If you want instant, meaningless and always accessible PvP there’s a dozen MOBA’s in that market.  This is a persistent world RPG and off hour players should have more power than most of the concurrent players in that servers time zone.   

Sorry, I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here.  What do you mean by off-hour players?  Can you clarify?

Nazdar

Proud member of The Hunger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a comment about Dregs play vs 3-faction:

Dregs absolutely needs a siege window system because it's a different style of play, with a higher level of guild investment in "owning" a territory objective. The ideal system for Dregs would a be a siege negotiation - where dropping a bane sets a day, and the defenders pick the hour. This is not a system-scheduled window, so it would still meets the criteria of a dynamic virtual world controlled by players.

tiPrpwh.png

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

Sorry, I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here.  What do you mean by off-hour players?  Can you clarify?

Well I was on my phone but I meant to say shouldn’t.  

In this example let’s say we are talking about an east coast server and most of its pop is easy coast for both latency and time reasons.  Should a smaller minority of the population be able to threaten every asset on the map and mostly unchallenged because the majority of the server isn’t on.  Windows of opportunity are meant to protect the majority of your players and state an intended time of play.  They plan of having dozens+ of servers.  People should play on the server that best works for them.  What we have without the system is just endless back capping with no fights and no contestation of the assets.  This change is intended to funnel us into fights and they plan on fights being attuned to population play times. 

Edited by mandalore
40 minutes ago, Andius said:

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

wiDfyPp.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

It's a guaranteed access bank and set of crafting tables closer to whatever you're doing.

There is no situation in which you bank supplies in the fort and then become unable to use them as long as you pay attention to the vuln window, and you are encouraged rather than discouraged to defend these forward bases because doing so doesn't mean you have to just... wait there.

It encourages investment in fort guards as an effective deterrent bevause a small group can't just flip the fort and replace them during the 30 minutes you're out farming.

It virtually eliminates back capping and ensures that when you do fight over a fort it is an earned victory and your scores are more representitive of opposed combat.

Keeps see a lot of traffic and much more fight participation for this very reason, not just because the tables are better.

In addition this fort mechanism makes gaming them specifically for respawn distance a viable strategy as teams have the ability to set a closer and more defensible staging and rally point for the less frequent keep battles.

Everything you mentioned about forts is in game right now other then the timer.  Not picking on you, just saying if there was a actually compelling reason for forts people would be fighting over them now. With timers other then the higher possibility of pvp what will forts bring that they dont have now?

Everything you need is outside of keeps (expect leather and most people skip it how annoying it is to get skin) and keeps have banks and a crafting tables with a crafting buff. If i dont own a keep ill still go and farm around it and just recall when i become to fat. That why i have no interest in forts what so ever. No keep so no crafting? Nope got a bench in my ek.

Keeps have a lot of people showing up to them but its slowly shrinking. I really doubt because once a day is to frequent  and people cant handle that much fun every day for a hour so they need to make sieges for keeps once every 3 days. So they are slapping the same mechanic people are getting bored doing on a daily basis now onto forts that people already couldn't care less about.

These timers are a stone throw away from just queuing up for a battle. It just feels the wrong solution for what should be a open world mmo.

 

 

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

Everyone seems to forget we are testing, not playing a launched game. It's not easy  judge the pvp activity based around the small testing population - we have 200 players instead of 2000 players on a campaign. 

I agree. A lot of issues with the game stem from low concurrent testing player base. Creating new systems and mechanics to fix gameplay issues linked to this issue is ridiculous and should be avoided until larger concurrency. If this game had more limited testing windows instead of 24/7, I believe we would not have some of these issues that ACE is attempting to fix. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on my part I am ok with the changes, if they are implemented right. It will give objectives for realm vs realm battles while keeping the night capping away.

If they implant the change right, it will still be possible to sneak in forts to attack crafters and gatherers thus keeping small group ambushes/harassment in. The only limit is that after looting the city, the group won't be able to cap it. Even better, crafter and gatherers will tend to concentrate their activities in fort that are protected, making the potential loot from a sneak attack eveb more attractive! It could even become a strategy for a group to skip siege to roam the protected cities in search of juicy crafters!

As long as the walls can still be destroyed and that protected forts don't become non pvp zones, the system they proposing is good and will create more pvp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more looking for the "connected" forts and keeps solution that has been explored on this forum. For example, in order to capture the castle you need to capture the surrounding forts - even to the extent of stretching across zones. 

Edited by ilogos
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 7:45 PM, miraluna said:

There should also be more strategic reasons to hold forts, totally agree with that. I have some concerns about windows (will it always favor Uncle Bob?) but willing to test it and see how it plays.

 

18 hours ago, miraluna said:

In general I don't like system scheduled windows. Albion Online is the game I played recently with timers on territory objectives, and it was not fun. It does not make a game feel like a dynamic virtual world controlled by players. And it can provide a big advantage to larger, hardcore guilds who are willing to do whatever it takes to beat the artificial system.

This is exactly what I said when I heard they'd add time windows to forts as well, several weeks ago. This will absolutely favor Uncle Bob, although granted, it'll diminish the issue of night capping as well, which is present in most RvRvR games I played. I like the system games like DAoC, ESO, etc. had in place: you can't take forts willy nilly, you need to follow a map "track" of sorts, from outer outposts towards the more valuable inner keeps; so players could read the map and make strategical decisions accordingly. Prime time was always a laggy, unplayable clustercustard (and I have no reason to believe CF will be any different), so most of the best pvp was usually found during random hours when a guild attempted to make a move for emperor or something like that. As you said, the low population in CF's pre-alpha is skewing our view of things and leading to kneejerk reactions. 

 

 

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

I was more looking for the "connected" forts and keeps solution that has been explored on this forum. For example, in order to capture the castle you need to capture the surrounding forts - even to the extent of stretching across zones. 

They do not have the tech to do that and that would cost them a ton of money, time and resources.  The parcels are not built to have communication from one to another.  In short, this isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever. 

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

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

wiDfyPp.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours 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 think the entire concept of this game has always been part MOBA/RTS, and part Open World PvP MMO.

The thing is that if the system is too restrictive you take away some of what makes an Open World PvP MMO a desirable genre. The advantage to Open World PvP MMOs is that you and 5 of your buddies can run around PvPing against multi-thousand member organizations and successfully being successful. I don't need to be able to take on all of Goonswarm to drop out of WH space into a Goon system and gank a couple goons.

If we have a system that goes around and rotates what we can take groups will single stack and run from point of interest to point of interest. In the end, when you have a 20 stack of one faction, and the other faction couldn't muster more than 10 at that time of night if they tried, and there is no opportunity to stay ahead of the larger force with smaller ones. The net effect will be LESS PvP because people are going to stop trying.

That being said, there are 12 forts and like 150ish outposts in this game. We can restrict the number of options to increase the likelihood of PvP without making it impractical to go capping with 5 of your buddies.

It's about finding a proper balance.

Edited by Andius

"To hell with honor. Win."

A Beginner's Guide to Crowfall (5.8.5 Edition)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Andius said:

I think the entire concept of this game has always been part MOBA/RTS, and part Open World PvP MMO.

The thing is that if the system is too restrictive you take away some of what makes an Open World PvP MMO a desirable genre. The advantage to Open World PvP MMOs is that you and 5 of your buddies can run around PvPing against multi-thousand member organizations and successfully being successful. I don't need to be able to take on all of Goonswarm to drop out of WH space into a Goon system and gank a couple goons.

If we have a system that goes around and rotates what we can take groups will single stack and run from point of interest to point of interest. In the end, when you have a 20 stack of one faction, and the other faction couldn't muster more than 10 at that time of night if they tried, and there is no opportunity to stay ahead of the larger force with smaller ones. The net effect will be LESS PvP because people are going to stop trying.

That being said, there are 12 forts and like 150ish outposts in this game. We can restrict the number of options to increase the likelihood of PvP without making it impractical to go capping with 5 of your buddies.

It's about finding a proper balance.

I don't think the game should be balanced for 5 people, its a group siege game.  If you're losing because of numbers you have options, you're just choosing to lose. 

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

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

wiDfyPp.png

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

If you're losing because of numbers you have options, you're just choosing to lose. 

Said the Persians after defeating the Greeks at the battle of Thermopylae. 

Any Open World PvP MMO that doesn't allow for enjoyable small group PvP will fail. I think ArtCraft is smart enough to see that so I doubt my position needs much more explanation for their benefit, and I don't think any amount of explanation would enable you to see things from any perspective but your own.

Edited by Andius

"To hell with honor. Win."

A Beginner's Guide to Crowfall (5.8.5 Edition)

 

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

Said the Persians after defeating the Greeks at the battle of Thermopylae. 

Any Open World PvP that doesn't allow for enjoyable small group PvP will fail. I think ArtCraft is smart enough to see that so I doubt my position needs much more explanation for their benefit, and I don't think any amount of explanation would enable you to see things from any perspective but your own.

You didn't say anything relative to my point.  You quoted me and then started talking about something I didn't even comment on.  Small scale skirmishes are vitally important to the game but those are skirmishes, not fights over key assets that are defended by dozens or more people.  I'm 100% on board for ganking, skirmishes, irregular troops, guerrilla warfare  and all the side things of warfare but if you find yourself vastly out numbered while defending your assets then that was 100% avoidable.  If you find yourself out numbered in an important fight then you allowed that to happen. 

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

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

wiDfyPp.png

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

You didn't say anything relative to my point.  You quoted me and then started talking about something I didn't even comment on.  Small scale skirmishes are vitally important to the game but those are skirmishes, not fights over key assets that are defended by dozens or more people.  I'm 100% on board for ganking, skirmishes, irregular troops, guerrilla warfare  and all the side things of warfare but if you find yourself vastly out numbered while defending your assets then that was 100% avoidable.  If you find yourself out numbered in an important fight then you allowed that to happen. 

We're talking about outposts and forts. Do you think outposts and forts are considered "vital assets" intended to regularly be guarded by a dozen or more people?

Because I would say that's the point of nightly keep fights, and that outposts are specifically intended to cater to small groups.

You're the one who quoted me as saying "I don't think the game should be balanced for 5 people, its a group siege game."

I'm arguing that if you can't get a group of five together to go take the smallest unit of point of interest (outposts), specifically catered to small groups, and have a reasonable chance of success, that the new capture system will be a fundamental failure.

Honestly though, I highly doubt AC will do that so it's a rather pointless debate to have with you.

Edited by Andius

"To hell with honor. Win."

A Beginner's Guide to Crowfall (5.8.5 Edition)

 

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

I'm arguing that if you can't get a group of five together to go take the smallest unit of point of interest (outposts), specifically catered to small groups, and have a reasonable chance of success, that the new capture system will be a fundamental failure.

Outposts aren't going on a window, they will all be capture-able at all times.  Your 5 man outpost squad is 100% safe from these siege windows. 

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

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

wiDfyPp.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda agree with those who say the timer on forts isn't the answer.  I personally don't know the benefit of owning a fort atm other than points.  I have not entered a fort in some while NOT because they were controlled by another but because there was no reason to.  I run around outside of forts all the time harvesting to my hearts content and it doesn't matter if my faction controls the fort or not.  I am rarely ever accosted and when I am full, I simply teleport out.  No reason to enter the forts.  That's part of the answer in my humble opinion.  Make it beneficial to control a fort other than points.  Make reason for the for to exist other than points and bank space..

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...