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

Please be careful with overuse of Windows of Opportunity Mechanic

Recommended Posts

Shadowbane had no Windows of Opportunity for months on end and some cities in that time stood for months on end. It is not a "Grab a POI one day, lose it over night, and then grab another the next time you play." (Jah)

 

Though there would be some places on the world map that would likely see such trading of territory objectives because of location and value of objective. Also both of us have some assertions in some of our argument points but that being the case it was not always that just large guilds that could hold cities when there were no windows of opportunity. 

 

I know of many cities when there were no WoOs that existed without being destroyed and I myself ended up with several 1-3 pop cities uncontested as well as my Guilds city of Hing that was not just overnight destroyed whenever the small number of us logged out.

 

What I am arguing over is that it is my view that arbitrary magical protections diminish the sandbox elements of the game. I would much rather the players police the actions they want or dislike rather then having the developers create outside forces. I brought up the point that right now the information is that you commit to a campaign and this unto itself creates a drastic possible consequence for any actions taken in game.

 

Consider this even more enforced when you think of how the Dregs server will function allowing full loot besides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowbane had no Windows of Opportunity for months on end and some cities in that time stood for months on end. It is not a "Grab a POI one day, lose it over night, and then grab another the next time you play." (Jah)

 

They didn't have a mechanic explicit called "Windows of Oppurtunity" until later, but if you think about it the Bane mechanic incorporated windows of opportunity from the beginning.

 

You could not burn down a city without dropping a bane stone on it and letting the defenders pick the time when the siege would happen. Anything that could be torn down at will 24x7 generally was short lived.  It was possible to place assets in  a way that left them vulnerable 24x7 but people almost never did that.  And if they did, other people burned that stuff down while they slept.

 

I know of many cities when there were no WoOs that existed without being destroyed and I myself ended up with several 1-3 pop cities uncontested as well as my Guilds city of Hing that was not just overnight destroyed whenever the small number of us logged out.

 

 

Did you not realize that your cities could not be burned in the middle of the night when you logged out?  They were not vulnerable 24x7. People had to schedule a bane to burn them down, and you would have time to prepare and could select when that happened. How could you not remember that?

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowbane had no Windows of Opportunity for months on end and some cities in that time stood for months on end. It is not a "Grab a POI one day, lose it over night, and then grab another the next time you play." (Jah)

 

Though there would be some places on the world map that would likely see such trading of territory objectives because of location and value of objective. Also both of us have some assertions in some of our argument points but that being the case it was not always that just large guilds that could hold cities when there were no windows of opportunity. 

 

I know of many cities when there were no WoOs that existed without being destroyed and I myself ended up with several 1-3 pop cities uncontested as well as my Guilds city of Hing that was not just overnight destroyed whenever the small number of us logged out.

 

What I am arguing over is that it is my view that arbitrary magical protections diminish the sandbox elements of the game. I would much rather the players police the actions they want or dislike rather then having the developers create outside forces. I brought up the point that right now the information is that you commit to a campaign and this unto itself creates a drastic possible consequence for any actions taken in game.

 

Consider this even more enforced when you think of how the Dregs server will function allowing full loot besides.

 

Ahh Hing...Hing of the Thanksgiving Day bane. The epitome of 'bane to get as small a fight as possible'...It all makes sense now. carry on.

Edited by dubanka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It boggles the mind that people would oppose using various times or specific days for advantage. Ever hear of the Tet Offensive,Yom Kippur War, and the battle of Trenton? (e.g., Asian new year, Holiest day in Judaism, and Christmas day).

 

The art of war is about attacking a foe when they are weakest, to take advantage of times and special days. I am going to continue harping on this, if my Crowfall territory and structure control fights all fall into a 5pm to 9pm window (example) then we have tourney style banes and mines.

 

Do we just turn the servers off at the extreme or log off because the reward for being online is done outside the Windows of Oppurtunity times? How about leave open more unexpectedness, leave open the chance to raid a larger foe when they are not prepared, leave open the chance for more destruction, and more risk for both sides.

Edited by nomadmerc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It boggles the mind that people would appose using various times or specific days for advantage. Ever hear of the Tet Offensive,Yom Kippur War, and the battle of Trenton? (e.g., Asian new year, Holiest day in Judaism, and Christmas day).

 

The art of war is about attacking a foe when they are weakest, to take advantage of times and special days. I am going to continue harping on this, if my Crowfall territory and structure control fights all fall into a 5pm to 9pm window (example) then we have tourney style banes and mines.

 

Do we just turn the servers off at the extreme or log off because the reward for being online is done outside the Windows of Oppurtunity times? How about leave open more unexpectedness, leave open the chance to raid a larger foe when they are not prepared, leave open the chance for more destruction, and more risk for both sides.

You're missing the idea entirely. If you need someone defending your stuff every day, 24/7, then you need a huge zerg to do it, and you are going to bore people into quitting the game. We all (hopefully) have lives, jobs, and family. That's why having 24/7 full asset destruction is a terrible idea.


CF_Van.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a assertion ;p Many games namely one example from my own personal experience are muds that have had full asset destruction for twenty years 24/7 and things have worked out. It works out to allow smaller groups of players to engage each other and for emergent gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much having campaign parameters will help? What if you have to put in your main play time, and it sort of "matchmakes" you with other people who will be playing around roughly the sames times? I mean, ideally, you just make it really easy to defend a keep unless a huge force is attacking it in an organized fashion. So, your natural window of opportunity becomes "whenever a bunch of people on my team are online." Ideally, you'd have everyone in a campaign asleep during roughly the same period (not necessarily EXACTLY the same, but roughly), and everyone online at roughly the same times. Or, at the very least, if one side (of a two-faction campaign, for example) had 100 people who play usually before noon, you'd have the other side have the same number of people who play during that same time, etc.

 

I say that knowing you're never going to achieve an ideal, but, how can you design a machine with less friction if your goal isn't "0 friction"? You have to move toward something. 8P


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a assertion ;p Many games namely one example from my own personal experience are muds that have had full asset destruction for twenty years 24/7 and things have worked out. It works out to allow smaller groups of players to engage each other and for emergent gameplay.

How many of those muds make enough money to support a couple dozen employees for the next decade? :)


CF_Van.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a assertion ;p Many games namely one example from my own personal experience are muds that have had full asset destruction for twenty years 24/7 and things have worked out. It works out to allow smaller groups of players to engage each other and for emergent gameplay.

 

nah, this is just you building your case for getting your rocks off bashing on an undefended wall at 3am.

 

oooh they gonnna be sooo mad when they see their stuff all broken in tomorrow hahahahehehe -- ooh someone on track better run away until they're gone.

Edited by dubanka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a assertion ;p Many games namely one example from my own personal experience are muds that have had full asset destruction for twenty years 24/7 and things have worked out. It works out to allow smaller groups of players to engage each other and for emergent gameplay.

Absolutely. You have to allow random groups of elites to make game play difficult if not impossible for the goal oriented. Otherwise they'll spend all their time building assets and engaging in PvP for meaningful purposes instead of zerging up to farm and protect their pixels. If we can't drive those people out of the game or force them to ally up they'll play it and build a community and engage in politics. Zero accountability is the only viable emergent game play. If you have a life of any sort outside of  Crowfall you're not worthy. Any company that sacrifices the only true form of emergent game play, nihilistic anarchy, on the altar of profit should go back to making hello kitty wow clones. You're just not hardcore enough to engage in warfare against unprotected assets. Everyone knows ambushing farming groups with superior numbers is the only true PvP.

Edited by zymurgeist

CF_Osgyth.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again please step away from emotions and terms akin to "you have no life if, or driving people away from the game, nihilistic anarchy etc." Instead learn that you as a player can have freedom to interact with the gameworld. If a certain gameplay bothers you, you have the option to work to convince other players to enforce consequences.

 

Again keep in mind players are locked into a campaign, and on certain server rulesets there is limited up to full loot. Let the players be the consequences not arbitrary non player created rule(s).  Let the game be a sandbox and not a sandpark (e.g., sandbox has little to no rules and has player consequences, sandpark is instead you wait your turn to get on a ride and the rides are governed by arbitrary rules).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What emotions? There's no crying in MMOs. Logically we need the scorched earth philosophy to emulate total warfare. Sun Tzu said You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. War isn't a polite game of chess it's the killing fields of Cambodia.


CF_Osgyth.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

admittedly, I have not read every post in this thread.  I have several thoughts on this. 

 

From a guild management stand point, I would require members to be on for the times needed.  If not, they would be moved to the bottom of the list for crafting gear.  Almost like a DKP system based on participation.   For the record I hate this type of management and hope I will not have to do this in CrowFall. 

 

From a players perspective I hate being married to a computer specific times of the day.  Hence, I hate these windows of opportunity meta games.  I am currently playing Black Gold and my two biggest complaints are having to be in game specific time of the day and the pay to win aspect of the game.

 

So as many have said, there are both sides of the coin here.....I do understand the dilemma the ACE team is faced with.  I have not seen many solutions offered in this thread though.  As a starting point for meaningful discussion,  What if the opportunity to attack someone's fort was triggered based on some other mechanic within the game.  Say if you wanted to attack my fort you needed to throw resources at some object near my base to build up say a siege weapon.  If you managed to throw enough resources at this object, then it starts a series of events that triggers your ability to attack.

 

This would force someone to make a decision to either use their resources to gain favor within the campaign or attack my stronghold.  It makes it random times based on effort put forth.  It enhances PvP, because I will have to dedicate certain amount of players to stopping you from completing the cycle to attack.  If I don't attack you I know what your doing and have to make arrangements to counter the attack. 

 

I believe attacking an enemy stronghold should be a decision that is not taken lightly and should require some effort to both attack and defend.  In the old days armies would camp outside an enemy strong hold for days allowing both sides to prepare for a battle to the death.

Edited by nakawe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoO create activity time slots. When a WoO is active, people log in en masse to play. Outside that window player count drops as there is no "objective" to win or defend. Though this is good for the casual crowd, the diehards have large moments of boredom as everyone logs off in between WoO. It's tough to balance. You can't make WoO too meaningless otherwise people simply won't care. If you make them super pivotal then you get the above. Creating the ability for people, whenever they login, to feel like they're making a real difference in the world is the challenge.


AwnHQvT.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoO create activity time slots. When a WoO is active, people log in en masse to play. Outside that window player count drops as there is no "objective" to win or defend. Though this is good for the casual crowd, the diehards have large moments of boredom as everyone logs off in between WoO. It's tough to balance. You can't make WoO too meaningless otherwise people simply won't care. If you make them super pivotal then you get the above. Creating the ability for people, whenever they login, to feel like they're making a real difference in the world is the challenge.

Yeah that's more of an overall design issue. If the PvP is shallow in that the only things worth fighting over are the main objectives that would be subject to WoO than that's a design flaw IMO. Only things under WoO should be things like player cities and major keeps. But all around those should be other objectives and POIs that are fought over anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 What if the opportunity to attack someone's fort was triggered based on some other mechanic within the game.  Say if you wanted to attack my fort you needed to throw resources at some object near my base to build up say a siege weapon.  If you managed to throw enough resources at this object, then it starts a series of events that triggers your ability to attack.

 

This would force someone to make a decision to either use their resources to gain favor within the campaign or attack my stronghold.  It makes it random times based on effort put forth.  It enhances PvP, because I will have to dedicate certain amount of players to stopping you from completing the cycle to attack.  If I don't attack you I know what your doing and have to make arrangements to counter the attack. 

 

 

 

 

I like the idea you have there. We know there are both mines and forts as well as of course the city structures. If you had to claim one or both the mine and the fort then invest some resource amount to attack the city that could work. There could be several conditional options for this as you suggest.

 

Another example that comes to mind is a certain threshold in a territory of points gained by doing objectives. Either successfully bringing resources from a mine to a capture point to rack up a certain total that triggers the option to "sack" the city but not capture it or gain more points and have the ability to capture it as well. 

 

Another example could be rack up a certain point total of guild players killed in a territory. Hit one threshold can "sack the city" but not take it while reaching another total and you can siege the city for the traditional capture mechanic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If campaigns are going to last up to 6 months, I think WoO would work where it rotates every day by the duration of the WoO (i.e. if it is two hours long, the next day is starts two hours later).

 

What I do not want to see is the WoO being the only real objective of the campaign.  It should be an event worth a lot itself towards winning the campaign (plurality of points), but a minority of the possible daily points from other objectives/mass combat.

 

the problem with everything open 24/7 is that the objectives will just constantly change hands with little resistance based on which part of the real world the majority of players are on.  Since EU and Oceanics like to gather on servers/alliance, this always happens to be the case.

Edited by thestarsareright

Entropy is not what it used to be.  I am a servant of The Nothing.. The Hunger!

 

https://38.media.tumblr.com/c8b3da04c46297fe112a98ab12ad8e09/tumblr_n5l2imj4NF1qzm5g7o1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as had been said ad nauseum...there is a balance to be had...from zero control, to maximum control.

 

ideally we have engaging daily activity for the 24x7 'so hard core i dont have time for RL crowd', and some focused content/objectives for the '...the kids are in bed and i got 4 hours to play before i cut into my 5 hour minimum sleep window...' as was posted above, an environment that evolved to 'only' stuff happening during a certain woo...well that's a design flaw and hopefully doesn't exist.

 

i'm also hoping there is also a balance for the 24x7 pvw crowd...i hope we can build assets just about anywhere...but only certain number/footprint/whatever are protected. So i can build a watch tower, a tree house, junk hut, whatever, out in the wilds...but because the were out of the protection area, they would have zero protection.

 

hopefully we'll get a solution that works for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoO should be initiated by players/guilds themselves, so you have the benefit of WoO without having to hang around defending something 'Just in case' because you know people are gunning for you.

 

I remember EvE had a mechanic between corps where one could declare war on the other, but it would cost the attacking corp a considerable amount of ISK to do so, forcing them to play in a WoO they created themselves. Maybe CF could implement something similar?


532c836f2a.png

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...