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

Faction control of outpost locations

Recommended Posts

This idea came up in another thread, but I figured it should be seen in the official suggestion thread:

Let factions determine where outposts should go!

Want to see more action between sieges? What if we could place outposts near high tier resource nodes!  That way, gatherers can have the benefit of some protection if they're willing to hire NPC guards at the outpost (because let's be honest, no human player wants to stare at another player swinging a pick for 3 hours).

This will make outposts high-valuable targets.  Not necessarily for campaign points, but because of the benefits they provide to the faction that owns them.  Plus, this will increase the liklihood of there being actual players around when an outpost is contested.

Share this post


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

Let factions determine where outposts should go!

If a faction potentially has hundreds of players, who decides? Maybe simply paying for them would be fine and those with the gold to burn could place them.

I hope/imagine this will be how Dregs work with guilds deciding/building what they want and where they want. 

3 hours ago, Tiberius_Invictus said:

because let's be honest, no human player wants to stare at another player swinging a pick for 3 hours

This appears to be something ACE imagines we'll enjoy doing. Which is also probably why they gave everyone 2 exploration slots. Instead of just watching, fighters swing a pick as well. Same as those grinding mobs. We can watch or we can help. As a PVP focused player, not sure I'll be okay with this if it is that simplistic. PVP is a by product of PVE unfortunately.

3 hours ago, Tiberius_Invictus said:

This will make outposts high-valuable targets.  Not necessarily for campaign points, but because of the benefits they provide to the faction that owns them.  Plus, this will increase the liklihood of there being actual players around when an outpost is contested.

Several had suggested adding buffs, requiring X to be taken before Y, and other things to increase the value of outposts. If they provided a area harvest/craft/mob damage buff or other such things, would make them more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, APE said:
3 hours ago, Tiberius_Invictus said:

because let's be honest, no human player wants to stare at another player swinging a pick for 3 hours

This appears to be something ACE imagines we'll enjoy doing. Which is also probably why they gave everyone 2 exploration slots. Instead of just watching, fighters swing a pick as well. Same as those grinding mobs. We can watch or we can help. As a PVP focused player, not sure I'll be okay with this if it is that simplistic. PVP is a by product of PVE unfortunately.

No way can ACE think folks will do this more then a couple times till the novelty wears off. They might as well plan for gatherers to not have guards the vast majority of time. I think we should just go full loot and put everyone in the same boat if they die. 

Share this post


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

No way can ACE think folks will do this more then a couple times till the novelty wears off. They might as well plan for gatherers to not have guards the vast majority of time. I think we should just go full loot and put everyone in the same boat if they die. 

Unless they come up with some other things to do, not sure what combat focused will be doing. Typically harvest/crafters are a minority population but are majority roles in this game so either we watch them or join them. Caravans are supposed to be a thing but no idea really. Seems like wait for timers or stand in circles, with whatever fights with little direct value tossed in. Full loot and making it more easy come/easy go might spice it up. Still need more objectives and strategy besides KOTH and glorified dueling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, APE said:

Unless they come up with some other things to do, not sure what combat focused will be doing. Typically harvest/crafters are a minority population but are majority roles in this game so either we watch them or join them. Caravans are supposed to be a thing but no idea really. Seems like wait for timers or stand in circles, with whatever fights with little direct value tossed in. Full loot and making it more easy come/easy go might spice it up. Still need more objectives and strategy besides KOTH and glorified dueling. 

No thanks on the full loot. It sounds all cool and realistic but the end result is its just a bigger pain in the ass for what essentially ends up being a worse version of what we have now. Its just durability with more bank space and more time crafting really, and absolutely tanks any demand whatsoever for anything more costly than the mean average gear, making the "rare and hard to acquire" tier of gear basically a design dead end.

I mean I know some people like it, and I know they wanna run it to see how popular it is so go nuts. Having experienced both this model and full loot models I view this model as the "vulnerability window" compromise of loot that ensures the soul of pvp looting (you want to kill people with full pockets) remains intact while providing vital QOL that makes people want to actually use it and making sure its parts function as intended. Its less realistic "video game logic" but overall results in less wasted time and more people actually using and building super high end stuff and being less skittish about pvp.

They've already done everything they need to do to ensure harvesters don't actually need guards. Harvesters are fully functional combat characters and if built to avoid fights are pretty much impossible to catch anyway.

AND they're giving them a few more tricks apperantly because having a fae assassin with escape artist and juggernaut do your harvesting still requires you to press 3 buttons to escape a gank and that's too hard.

Violence is always a means to an end, naturally. You don't get a reward if you punch someone in the face, and governments don't deploy troops simply to blow stuff up. You punch someone in the face so you can steal their wallet, or you deploy troops to impose an ideology or control resources. In a "Throne War Simulator" I don't expect to be given a cookie just because I stabbed some random enemy soldier standing in a field. I expect that to be a waste of my time that potentially alerts his allies to my presence that I might want to avoid unless there's a logical gain for stabbing the guy.

I don't want to play a game where killing people is its own reward. That just leads to a bunch of people killing each other over nothing I'm not here for 24/7 whizbang pvp. I'm here for a long term simulation of fantasy warfare. I can go play quake for instant action, have more fun with it, and farm less.

I 100% agree with you about more interesting objectives though, and I wouldn't even be opposed to some form of automated harvesting, assuming its less efficient than player harvesting and capped at, lets say blue resources with no rare component drops. 

Edited by PopeUrban

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
15 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I 100% agree with you about more interesting objectives though

What better way to make outposts more interesting than to place them near rank 10 nodes? Everbody wins.  There will more likely be people around when outposts become contested, and outposts have strategic importance (good for PvPers), harvesters can gain protection from NPC guards if their faction owns the nearby outpost (good for harvesters), and the purchase of guards is a nice gold sink (good for the economy).

Share this post


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

just a bigger pain in the ass for what essentially ends up being a worse version of what we have now.

EVE, UO, and most survival games are full loot and apparently ACE looks to them for inspiration. Darfall(s) were enjoyed by many. Albion Online seems to be doing fine.

Having returned to AO recently, can say that good gear is still a thing and people aren't only running around in rags. Although it applies risk v reward quite a bit more than what ACE appears to want with Crowfall (little to none). Gear matters a lot more then just stats.

As is, there is little reason to run with anything of value that can be looted. Which turns PVP more into glorified dueling or durability sinks. Super high end gear is nice but it's just more stat stacking to show who can grind longer.

If fighters don't even need to guard/participate in the PVE side of things most the time, what are they to do? There really isn't much PVP beyond killing people with full pockets aka ganking. Which no doubt can be fun and rewarding, but definitely isn't very competitive or skill based in a lot of situations. To me it's like doing a race and tripping the guy next to you. Sure it puts you a head but sad that is what is considered skill play.

You don't expect to be given a cookie for attacking/killing someone, but are you fine with killing a couple NPCs and standing in a circle? I'd much rather be given a reward for outplaying someone or even ganking them and not losing.

At this point I don't know what long term sim warfare looks like in CF. Seems like who can grind the most and do the same repetitive circle standing, basic siege over and over. There are no mult-layered systems to work with. If factions/dregs don't end up like the current Trials then I'll be surprised.

You seem more concerned with crafting and the economy, but some people are likely looking at this game for PVP. Currently it seems like an afterthought.

Full loot makes PVP a risk/reward situation. It takes items out of the economy if done well. It promotes/increases crafting and harvesting needs. It turns gear choice into strategy and not just a race to the finish line. Going for the extra % is rewarded if skillfully used. Not sure it would work in CF, but it does add more than it subtracts IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, APE said:

EVE, UO, and most survival games are full loot and apparently ACE looks to them for inspiration. Darfall(s) were enjoyed by many. Albion Online seems to be doing fine.

Having returned to AO recently, can say that good gear is still a thing and people aren't only running around in rags. Although it applies risk v reward quite a bit more than what ACE appears to want with Crowfall (little to none). Gear matters a lot more then just stats.

As is, there is little reason to run with anything of value that can be looted. Which turns PVP more into glorified dueling or durability sinks. Super high end gear is nice but it's just more stat stacking to show who can grind longer.

If fighters don't even need to guard/participate in the PVE side of things most the time, what are they to do? There really isn't much PVP beyond killing people with full pockets aka ganking. Which no doubt can be fun and rewarding, but definitely isn't very competitive or skill based in a lot of situations. To me it's like doing a race and tripping the guy next to you. Sure it puts you a head but sad that is what is considered skill play.

You don't expect to be given a cookie for attacking/killing someone, but are you fine with killing a couple NPCs and standing in a circle? I'd much rather be given a reward for outplaying someone or even ganking them and not losing.

At this point I don't know what long term sim warfare looks like in CF. Seems like who can grind the most and do the same repetitive circle standing, basic siege over and over. There are no mult-layered systems to work with. If factions/dregs don't end up like the current Trials then I'll be surprised.

You seem more concerned with crafting and the economy, but some people are likely looking at this game for PVP. Currently it seems like an afterthought.

Full loot makes PVP a risk/reward situation. It takes items out of the economy if done well. It promotes/increases crafting and harvesting needs. It turns gear choice into strategy and not just a race to the finish line. Going for the extra % is rewarded if skillfully used. Not sure it would work in CF, but it does add more than it subtracts IMO.

In what universe do people actually fly their super rare top end tournament ships in EVE? They don't. Ever. These ships are stupidly OP and their cost and rarity make them essentially unusable.

In what universe to people use their super rare top end officer modules for anything but PvE incursion content in safe space in EVE? They don't. The only time you see rare officer mods in use in combat is when someone decides to suicide gank incursion runners.

Like I said, I'm sure some people love the idea of full loot, but in practice its an annoying slog that clamps rarity to "do I have 20 of this thing" rather than "do I have one" and severely constrains the design space or player's desire for anything other than average gear. It accomplishes nothing but cluttering up banks and creating such a huge incentive to avoid PvP and such an overwhelming state of "win more" that the entire game becomes more about avoiding pvp than participating in it for everyone that's not already filthy rich.

I never bought a high end officer mod in EVE. The stats were good but the price simply couldn't justify the risk for what I'd be doing with it. Unless I could afford 20 of a thing, that thing simply wasn't worth buying. Especially for PvP. I'm never going to pay off that officer mod in PvP.

I'd happily buy and use an amazing legendary item in CF because I know I'm going to get to use it and its not going to explode if I get surprised by a 5:1 numbered fight one time. Because its open PvP and these things happen, and pretending risk/reward actually justified chasing items of that rarity is simply not true. Durability is already risk/reward.

And again, I absolutely agree we need better objectives. Killing a few NPCs and standing in a circle is boring because nobody wants to fight over them. That's not a justification for more PvP rewards. That's a justification for more rewarding objectives. There are:

  • Too many circles
  • Not enough players
  • Not any intrinsic incentive beyond score to take or own said circles

Again, I absolutely don't care about your narrow definition of "skill" nor the fallacious defense of any point which invokes it.

Every game is "skill based."

People who complain about a lack of skill simply lack the skills the game actually asks of them and want the game to conform to what they're already good at so they don't need to improve at what the game is actually about.

This idea that EVERYONE should want to fight EVERYONE ELSE, not just when there's something important to fight over, but ALL OF THE TIME to WAVE YOUR EPEEN AROUND is an invocation of chaos rather than measured and thoughtfully applied violence. Its boring. I can go reinstall call of duty for this experience.

You seem to want less crating, less pve, less harvesting, but paradoxically also want full loot as the default standard. These are mutually exclusive needs IMO. In both UO and EVE it was literally infeasible to PvP without significant amounts of farming or subsidizing farming, and your need to farm could EXPLODE after a single night of losses. That's not at all a good way to encourage people to PvP.

EVE PvP, specifically, is more about avoiding anything but an overwhelming fight than rolling the dice on what may be an even matchup because of the extreme logistical hurdles to replace a fit. People don't fight in EVE unless they've got not one, but ten backups, and people don't fight in EVE unless they already know they've mechanically won their objective. I've played EVE, a lot, and the reality of EVE is that death is such a huge pain in the ass that 70% of all PvP is actually tricking people in to committing to PvP. This is such a huge part of the game there's an entire combat role, for which a player in the group is dedicated, and which has items, entire ship types, and deployable objects devoted to it, specifically to keep people from running away.

Because EVE is not built around encouraging combat outside of objectives, and those objectives are designed to be a DRAIN on the economy that REQUIRES a large war chest to contest them. Its built around avoiding it to such an extreme degree that "tackling" is a more important job than healing if you actually want to kill anyone. EVE isn't a game built around PvP. It's a game built around raw economics with PvP as a tool in that toolbox.

Full loot doesn't make PvP a risk/reward situation in practice. It makes PvP an exercise in hoarding and win-more balance. People in EVE (and UO for that matter) aren't running around looking for single combat with other combatants. They're looking for weak opponents with large pockets or killing enemies that are doing the same. They're fighting over something that matters, generally something that reduces their farm or increases the safety of their farm.

That's the current problem with most objectives. They're useless *for farming*

People don't fight you over the circles because *the circles don't help them farm*

These games you seem to think are about PvP… well they aren't. They're about farming. All MMOs are about farming. PvP MMOs are just about farming that other people can take away from you through occupation or direct theft. People that log in to these games to find PvP just looking for "the skilled fights" will always be disappointed because, quite frankly, that's never the point of the game, and the genre is not designed for it.

FWIW I see the point you're trying to make here, but having played both systems in multiple games now, I find the assertion that full loot creates more pvp laughable. It does the exact opposite. It creates such an extreme incentive to flee any battle that doesn't seem easily winnable that the game begins to revolve more around "how to get people to commit to a fight" than actually fighting people.

Edited by PopeUrban

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
13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

In what universe do people actually fly their super rare top end tournament ships in EVE? They don't. Ever. These ships are stupidly OP and their cost and rarity make them essentially unusable.

In what universe to people use their super rare top end officer modules for anything but PvE incursion content in safe space in EVE? They don't. The only time you see rare officer mods in use in combat is when someone decides to suicide gank incursion runners.

That is a design issue or whatever one wants to call it. Just because that game has OP stuff that no one uses doesn't mean other games would or have to follow. If the power gap wasn't that massive, rare, difficult to achieve, this wouldn't be an issue or at least not as much. Still, if someone wanted to go hard into getting whatever sword of godslaying and actually wants to use it, awesome. Risk v Reward. Beyond vanity, why put so much effort into something that isn't used?

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Like I said, I'm sure some people love the idea of full loot, but in practice its an annoying slog that clamps rarity to "do I have 20 of this thing" rather than "do I have one" and severely constrains the design space or player's desire for anything other than average gear. It accomplishes nothing but cluttering up banks and creating such a huge incentive to avoid PvP and such an overwhelming state of "win more" that the entire game becomes more about avoiding pvp than participating in it for everyone that's not already filthy rich.

Again this seems more like a design issue that players have to work around. If a pair of boots didn't require 1000 random items then space wouldn't be such a hassle. If gear came and go at a even pace, then we wouldn't need to have 50 pairs of boots at the ready. If there was an actual player economy with gear not being guild exclusive, this is also less of a concern.

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

I never bought a high end officer mod in EVE. The stats were good but the price simply couldn't justify the risk for what I'd be doing with it. Unless I could afford 20 of a thing, that thing simply wasn't worth buying. Especially for PvP. I'm never going to pay off that officer mod in PvP.

I'd happily buy and use an amazing legendary item in CF because I know I'm going to get to use it and its not going to explode if I get surprised by a 5:1 numbered fight one time. Because its open PvP and these things happen, and pretending risk/reward actually justified chasing items of that rarity is simply not true. Durability is already risk/reward.

Sounds like you prefer a safer model which is fine, but doesn't mean a risk/reward design can't or doesn't work if done well. It's when the gap between what is garbage, okay, standard, OMG SUPER HIGH END that things fall apart.

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Again, I absolutely don't care about your narrow definition of "skill" nor the fallacious defense of any point which invokes it.

Every game is "skill based."

People who complain about a lack of skill simply lack the skills the game actually asks of them and want the game to conform to what they're already good at so they don't need to improve at what the game is actually about.

I agree that skill comes in many flavors but for ACE to hype this up as a player conflict, PVP game, Throne War, GoT, insert whatever hype video they are creating (bet you it isn't 5 min of banging on rocks), I expect this particular type of skill to matter. Not that it doesn't at all, but other things seem to carry more weight maybe a bit too much.

If people are fine with it coming down to who grinds more, I won't cry about it. I'm just as good at banging on rocks and smacking mindless AI, but if that's what I wanted to do I'd play a game that does it better. Stat stacking and riding the meta to victory is nothing new.

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

This idea that EVERYONE should want to fight EVERYONE ELSE, not just when there's something important to fight over, but ALL OF THE TIME to WAVE YOUR EPEEN AROUND is an invocation of chaos rather than measured and thoughtfully applied violence. Its boring. I can go reinstall call of duty for this experience.

I agree. That's why I want objectives and things to do that get players engaged. I'd rather have more things to do beyond combat itself that still revolve around conflict. If this is supposedly a "sandbox" where I can do whatever, why isn't meaningful conflict an option all of the time like non-combat roles?

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

You seem to want less crating, less pve, less harvesting, but paradoxically also want full loot as the default standard. These are mutually exclusive needs IMO. In both UO and EVE it was literally infeasible to PvP without significant amounts of farming or subsidizing farming, and your need to farm could EXPLODE after a single night of losses. That's not at all a good way to encourage people to PvP.

Oh no, I want to keep what there is but want more things to do. The balance of roles and what is meaningful is swayed too much towards PVE IMO. Just seems to lack content and expecting us to make it up (visual storytelling...) doesn't cut it. "If you want PVP go gank people doing PVE" is an option but a lame one for me.

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

EVE PvP, specifically, is more about avoiding anything but an overwhelming fight than rolling the dice on what may be an even matchup because of the extreme logistical hurdles to replace a fit. People don't fight in EVE unless they've got not one, but ten backups, and people don't fight in EVE unless they already know they've mechanically won their objective. I've played EVE, a lot, and the reality of EVE is that death is such a huge pain in the ass that 70% of all PvP is actually tricking people in to committing to PvP. This is such a huge part of the game there's an entire combat role, for which a player in the group is dedicated, and which has items, entire ship types, and deployable objects devoted to it, specifically to keep people from running away.

Because EVE is not built around encouraging combat outside of objectives, and those objectives are designed to be a DRAIN on the economy that REQUIRES a large war chest to contest them. Its built around avoiding it to such an extreme degree that "tackling" is a more important job than healing if you actually want to kill anyone. EVE isn't a game built around PvP. It's a game built around raw economics with PvP as a tool in that toolbox.

Once again, seems like a game design "issue" and one that clearly some really enjoy. Albion Online does not have this issue, at least not nearly as much. I've won/lost plenty of fights with no regrets. The economy and progression system are established enough that players shouldn't need to run away due to fear or only engage when a victory is certain. Which might be the smart play, but I don't find it challenging.

If I always wanted to win I'd just play solitaire alone and cheat at it.

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Full loot doesn't make PvP a risk/reward situation in practice. It makes PvP an exercise in hoarding and win-more balance. People in EVE (and UO for that matter) aren't running around looking for single combat with other combatants. They're looking for weak opponents with large pockets or killing enemies that are doing the same. They're fighting over something that matters, generally something that reduces their farm or increases the safety of their farm.

This depends on the player/group and game design. Some go for the smart play and others go for the fun play.

I get the value of EVE's system, but don't see CF having a similar model enough that it will work the same regardless if that is what players want or not.

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

These games you seem to think are about PvP… well they aren't. They're about farming. All MMOs are about farming. PvP MMOs are just about farming that other people can take away from you through occupation or direct theft. People that log in to these games to find PvP just looking for "the skilled fights" will always be disappointed because, quite frankly, that's never the point of the game, and the genre is not designed for it.

Which is likely why I mostly play competitive PVP games these days. Farming Sims don't challenge me. I just believe they can coexist. I dislike dueling and am not only seeking "skilled fights" but I do like to compete for larger/complex objectives and reasons that reward skilled play in more variations then just straight forward grinds. Conflict can come in many shapes beyond stabbing one another, but so far CF seems rather simplistic across the board. 

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

FWIW I see the point you're trying to make here, but having played both systems in multiple games now, I find the assertion that full loot creates more pvp laughable. It does the exact opposite. It creates such an extreme incentive to flee any battle that doesn't seem easily winnable that the game begins to revolve more around "how to get people to commit to a fight" than actually fighting people.

Agree to disagree. To me it comes down to the game's design and how players play with it. If I believe I have any chance at winning (sometimes even when I don't), I engage or at least make my flee/death entertaining. Others don't and that's why these things are interesting. We approach them differently. If there is only one way to play, I'll just take a nap instead.

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...