I think this game needs to intentionally design it so there are almost never battles so pivotal that people are getting calls at 3 am to come fight them.
The PvP windows are a nice thing that will help this, but I really think the final solution is that sieges should be long drawn out processes that last anywhere from 24 hours to a week, with the expectation that people will be logging in and out and contributing as they can that entire time.
I'd say that it should be all about control points, objectives etc. Think think Star Wars Battlefront 2, The Ettenmoors, DotA etc. played out on a much grander and longer scale.
Not only will this solve the problem of midnight calls, it would also solve the problem of the server needing to handle 2000-3000 players all going at it in the same spot at once at any time except incredibly rare occasions.
Eve has protracted battles whereby stations go into reinforced mode and cannot be destroyed until the fuel runs out at a known time up to 24 hours later (of course if you had done eve null sec sovereignty you would know this so my apologies for teaching my grandmother to suck eggs).
This does not in anyway stop the 3am calls. Frankly the scenario you suggest is one of almost prearranged battles. It will be boring.
Goblin Squad Member
|
With 200 settlements, I think there will be room for everybody.
This is how I think it will probably end up:
At the top of the food chain will be 2-4 big nasty kingdoms (the Steelwings.) They will have the best settlements planned down to the color of the flowers in the gardens, and will be able to take out just about anyone with minimal effort. However, they will not be able to do much to another kingdom without leaving themselves wide open to the other Steelwings. So they are stuck with raiding.
Beneath them will be the let-everybody-ins, who will not be able to challenge a Steelwing themselves, but are big enough that them + a Steelwing can easily to nasty things to another Steelwing. So they survive, not because of what they can do, but what other people will do to people who do stuff to them.
Then it's the casuals, who probably won't be bigger than a single settlement, and will only have the pvp window open during times when most of them are on (eg, 6pm to 12pm.) Again, not big enough to harm a Steelwing, but still more trouble than they are worth.
At the bottom of the chain will be the lol-ers, so survive solely because what they got isn't worth anything.
The thing is that the 200 settlements wont be for a long long time, thats the mature 5-10 year game. EE and OE will have far less. not only that but large hardcore organizations arnt going to ignore casual settlements for last. They are going to go after them first. Why? Because they will be easy pickings compared to others. It will cost them less to do so and wont put them in as much danger to getting hurt so much that they can be easily taken over.
Remember all settlements and PoIs are worth something. If you have a settlement you have resources. Someone else will want those. Perhaps its so that they can have a settlement with more training, perhaps its so they can generate more resources through outposts (by having a base closer), maybe its because they want it and they have the power to take it.
The smaller less viable settlements will be the first to go. the larger organizations will do this to build up resources and power. Why go fight a superpower when you can kill someone without much effort.
3am seiges.....wont be an issue for those folks because 1) they are hardcore and will have their army there at 3am no questions asked 2) they will have people all around the globe.
Remember organizations like that arnt playing to be nice, they are playing to win and playing to win means they are bigger, control more resources, and are able to do what they want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eve has protracted battles whereby stations go into reinforced mode and cannot be destroyed until the fuel runs out at a known time up to 24 hours later (of course if you had done eve null sec sovereignty you would know this so my apologies for teaching my grandmother to suck eggs).
This does not in anyway stop the 3am calls. Frankly the scenario you suggest is one of almost prearranged battles. It will be boring.
What is there to do in-between the point the station goes invulnerable, and when it becomes vulnerable again? That's the key.
In Darkfall you have 24 hours warning before a siege happens. So you might not get a 3 am call, but you still need to be up at three am if that's when the siege happens.
It's because those battles all really revolve around one objective. Destroy the POS. Take the clan stone. etc. That happens within a relatively short time frame, and all those other systems do is add forewarning. They don't drag out the actual process very much at all.
Imagine instead the objective is there are 5 control points. You earn 100 victory points an hour for holding a control point as an attacker, and generate -100 victory points an hour for holding it as a defender. If the siege reaches 24,000 victory points the attackers win the siege. If it falls to -24,000 victory points the siege ends.
That's a very basic system but you get the jist. You can add in other complexities such as side objectives that give your side advantages / hurt the other side etc. Or resources each side has to spend to continue fighting. If you want PvP windows to make a difference then make it so that the closer to the window you are, the more victory points can be won or lost per hour.
Do it that way, and everyone is going to have to sleep at some point. Unless one side manages to completely shut the other down and conclude the siege within 24 hours. Sure. Some alliances are going to try to bully people into not doing anything other than fight in the siege for those 24 hours but someone who's going to log in and play 2 hours a day regardless of whether there is a siege or not is much more valuable to your effort under this system than someone who refuses to log in at 3 am if that's when the city comes under siege under a 1 objective system.
Also, the extended fighting would be a HUGE gear drain on the economy as many players will die dozens of times per siege. Very good for business.
Control points? Points for holding? You might as well come clean and suggest you want some sort of Arathi Basin type warfront where the winner takes all.
Sorry this is PVP red in tooth and nail not some airy fairy duel. You fight till you win. Don't like it ? Tough.
You want to fight in prearranged little matches between fair sides I suggest you go back to freelancer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Control points? Points for holding? You might as well come clean and suggest you want some sort of Arathi Basin type warfront where the winner takes all.
Sorry this is PVP red in tooth and nail not some airy fairy duel. You fight till you win. Don't like it ? Tough.
You want to fight in prearranged little matches between fair sides I suggest you go back to freelancer.
Venom aside, my way more authentic to what a siege actually was than a 20-60 minute assault at 3 am on Christmas morning.
There is nothing more carebarish about a prolonged fight that takes 24+ hours than a 3 am assault while everyone's asleep. My suggestion actually leads to more PvP so you can just shove it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope sieges are long and drawn out. A group losing it's Settlement shouldn't be something that is easy.
I also hope that groups like Steelwing's group from EVE don't take over the game. If that happens, casual players and those not Hard-Core are going to be driven away from PFO which will be a serious blow to Goblinwork's profit-margin.
Control points? Points for holding? You might as well come clean and suggest you want some sort of Arathi Basin type warfront where the winner takes all.
Sorry this is PVP red in tooth and nail not some airy fairy duel. You fight till you win. Don't like it ? Tough.
You want to fight in prearranged little matches between fair sides I suggest you go back to freelancer.
Venom aside, my way more authentic to what a siege actually was than a 20-60 minute assault at 3 am on Christmas morning.
There is nothing more carebarish about a prolonged fight that takes 24 hours than a 3 am assault while everyone's asleep so you can just shove it.
In Eve taking down a station takes a damn sight more than 20 to 60 minutes at 3am on a christmas morning.
First of all sovereignty blockade units must be anchored and onlined at over 50% of the stargates. Anchoring takes 5 minutes, onlining them takes 3 hours.
At this point the station and infrastructure hubs become vulnerable to attack. The station also has a reinforcement mode which goes into effect when its shields go down to 25% and this mode will give a timer before it can be taken down the rest of the way dependent on fuel available in the tower. This timer is not known by the attackers until it goes into reinforcement and could be any time up to 24 hours or so.
Only once the infrastructure hubs and stations have been taken does the TCU become vulnerable to attack.
That is hardly the 20 to 60 minutes now is it.
Now we dont know what Goblinworks has in store as they havent told us but I would certainly expect it to revolve around a lot more than zerg the gates and hope you win.
Aside from the fact the it's me posting and the "OMG IT REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING IN WoW!!!" factor I don't see any actual objections to my point.
I thought the objection was so obvious it didnt need spelling out. HAVING FAKE WIN PARAMETERS.
What is this you get enough points and the other side have to give up crap? Forget it you fight until one side goes away not till some artificial point limit gets reached that is themepark PVP battlegrounds all over
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Steelwing: it seems to me that a 60-minute fight to control a single point would look more like an arena-style PvP than a 24-hours siege would. Don't see what about Andius's suggestion does not constitute "fight til you win"; it seems obvious to me that it's a protracted fight until one side wins. Nothing about this system screams fair fights to me, either. A dedicated group would still steamroll a less organized or less dedicated group.
One scenario which would arise from a much longer siege, and which would in my opinion be crazy awesome, would be the World War type scenario, where an initiated invasion from one army precipitates allies on both sides into moving in and assisting, and the whole area becomes a frantic warzone of hundreds for an entire day or more. I say this scenario would be possible with a longer siege time because I expect fast travel to be much more limited in this game (compared to other fantasy MMO's, dunno how it is in EVE), so you'd need a longer amount of time than 1 hour for your allies and their allies to hop into the fray as well.
Can just picture it; Naked loot runners stealing from as many corpses as possible, settlements either jumping into the fray or attacking the now less defended other settlements for an upper hand, alliances being stretched thin and raw combat around every corner. Would be pretty epic.
Edit: What's so fake about accruing points compared to capturing a point or flag or whatever at the center of your enemy's base? Both seem to be unrealistic abstractions to me.
Double Edit: I suppose I'm looking moreso at the amount of time it takes to capture a settlement, rather than the actual capture mechanics. Do you think it's better to have a 24 hour siege event (or more), or something like 4-6 hours, and why?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aside from the fact the it's me posting and the "OMG IT REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING IN WoW!!!" factor I don't see any actual objections to my point.I thought the objection was so obvious it didnt need spelling out. HAVING FAKE WIN PARAMETERS.
You mean like when you attack someone and rather than winning as soon as you strike a lethal blow they lose by this "FAKE WIN PARAMETER" known as "health points!"
Yeah it's kind of like that. Because this is a video game and fake mechanics are implemented to make things more fun when realism isn't.
Steelwing: it seems to me that a 60-minute fight to control a single point would look more like an arena-style PvP than a 24-hours siege would. Don't see what about Andius's suggestion does not constitute "fight til you win"; it seems obvious to me that it's a protracted fight until one side wins. Nothing about this system screams fair fights to me, either. A dedicated group would still steamroll a less organized or less dedicated group.
One scenario which would arise from a much longer siege, and which would in my opinion be crazy awesome, would be the World War type scenario, where an initiated invasion from one army precipitates allies on both sides into moving in and assisting, and the whole area becomes a frantic warzone of hundreds for an entire day or more. I say this scenario would be possible with a longer siege time because I expect fast travel to be much more limited in this game (compared to other fantasy MMO's, dunno how it is in EVE), so you'd need a longer amount of time than 1 hour for your allies and their allies to hop into the fray as well.
Can just picture it; Naked loot runners stealing from as many corpses as possible, settlements either jumping into the fray or attacking the now less defended other settlements for an upper hand, alliances being stretched thin and raw combat around every corner. Would be pretty epic.
Edit: What's so fake about accruing points compared to capturing a point or flag or whatever at the center of your enemy's base? Both seem to be unrealistic abstractions to me.
As I pointed out Eve territorial fights arent like that anyway. Go read the brief description I gave and bear in mind I left quite a bit out as I wasn't writing a guide
The main problem with Andius's suggestion is the fake endpoint whereby attacker or defender has to give up even if they are prepared and ready to fight on.
Note in the eve scenario, just because I have destroyed the stations and your territorial control unit that does not end the fight for the defender unless he chooses to. I still have to install my own territorial control unit and stations etc before I take control of that system. It is certainly not unknown for a rally to occur and the attacker to be driven back at this point.
Andius made a suggestion which revolves around limited time fights as any sort of points system naturally comes down to. This is why themeparks use a victory points system in their battlegrounds. They provide a limited time battle. It is not a sandbox style sort of thing in my opinion. (While I am not familiar with darkfall I have just read up on their system in order to try and understand where Andius is coming from and frankly it seems very much the sort of system he advocates so I guess I can see where he gets it. It remains however a damn awful system and will be roundly condemned by many of the people who come from other sandbox pvp games)
Aside from the fact the it's me posting and the "OMG IT REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING IN WoW!!!" factor I don't see any actual objections to my point.I thought the objection was so obvious it didnt need spelling out. HAVING FAKE WIN PARAMETERS.You mean like when you attack someone and rather than winning as soon as you strike a lethal blow they lose by this "FAKE WIN PARAMETER" known as "health points!"
Yeah it's kind of like that. Because this is a video game and fake mechanics are implemented to make things more fun when realism isn't.
Completely irrelevant comparison.
Dying in a game with such a scant death penalty and loss of settlement are in no way comparable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, I do have to agree that something like having to disable X so you can access another attack point, etc, etc, would make for a better siege mechanic than accruing points. In this case it would likely be having to breach the wall or drop the gate in order to access the settlement, as opposed to dropping the shields to access the station, but I'd imagine something similar could be figured out. Let me make a more distinct example to show what point I feel is important:
The thing I liked about Andius's suggestion was that it would take at least a full day. If there was a system whereby you did things that actually make sense (i.e., start by cutting off supply lines, then attack the gate towers and/or attempt to breach the wall, then assault the main keep and attempt to gain control of it/destroy it through some mechanic), but the execution of it required steps that would take hours or even days to play out, do you think it would be better or worse than if it only took, say, 6 hours from start to finish?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the fact the it's me posting and the "OMG IT REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING IN WoW!!!" factor I don't see any actual objections to my point.I thought the objection was so obvious it didnt need spelling out. HAVING FAKE WIN PARAMETERS.You mean like when you attack someone and rather than winning as soon as you strike a lethal blow they lose by this "FAKE WIN PARAMETER" known as "health points!"
Yeah it's kind of like that. Because this is a video game and fake mechanics are implemented to make things more fun when realism isn't.
Completely irrelevant comparison.
Dying in a game with such a scant death penalty and loss of settlement are in no way comparable.
On the contrary it's extremely relevant.
Health points were implemented because dying too quickly isn't fun. People ragequit when they keep dying without a chance to react.
Victory points would be implemented because losing a settlement too quickly isn't fun. People ragequit when they lose their settlement while they were offline.
Okay, I do have to agree that something like having to disable X so you can access another attack point, etc, etc, would make for a better siege mechanic than accruing points. In this case it would likely be having to breach the wall or drop the gate in order to access the settlement, as opposed to dropping the shields to access the station, but I'd imagine something similar could be figured out. Let me make a more distinct example to show what point I feel is important:
The thing I liked about Andius's suggestion was that it would take at least a full day. If there was a system whereby you did things that actually make sense (i.e., start by cutting off supply lines, then attack the gate towers and/or attempt to breach the wall, then assault the main keep and attempt to gain control of it/destroy it through some mechanic), but the execution of it required steps that would take hours or even days to play out, do you think it would be better or worse than if it only took, say, 6 hours from start to finish?
The eve method usually takes more than a day (the exception being when an alliance has been negligent in fuelling their station so the reinforcement timer is unneccessarily short) indeed with stiff resistance it can easily takes days plural.
Just as as example to bring the sovereignty blockade units online takes 3 hours during which time they are vulnerable to attack. In a 5 gate system we need to do 3 of them.
So that is a base time of 3 hours only then does the station and hubs become open to attack. While attacking the station we also need to defend the SBU's as if any are destroyed we have to anchor and online another before we can continue.
To contrast for you the darkfall war if you are familiar with it is
Side A declares war and has to wait 21 hours
At hour 21 Side A places bindstones within a few hundred metres of the city to be attacked. Defender now gets an hour to try and destroy bindstones before city can be attacked
At hour 22 Side A can begin to destroy walls and once enough are destroyed can destroy enemy bindstone.
So the darkfall method takes about a day but most of that is time without fighting.
The difference between the eve model and what Andius is suggesting, in my opinion at least is down to the eve model is open ended. The attacker can continue to place SBU's and attack as long as he has the will to do so. He isn't forced to give up because the defenders have destroyed some arbitrary number of his ships or SBU's. Likewise the defender doesn't have to give up just because his POS has gone down he can still drive the attacker back and reclaim the system before the enemy can.
Aside from the fact the it's me posting and the "OMG IT REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING IN WoW!!!" factor I don't see any actual objections to my point.I thought the objection was so obvious it didnt need spelling out. HAVING FAKE WIN PARAMETERS.You mean like when you attack someone and rather than winning as soon as you strike a lethal blow they lose by this "FAKE WIN PARAMETER" known as "health points!"
Yeah it's kind of like that. Because this is a video game and fake mechanics are implemented to make things more fun when realism isn't.
Completely irrelevant comparison.
Dying in a game with such a scant death penalty and loss of settlement are in no way comparable.
On the contrary it's extremely relevant.
Health points were implemented because dying too quickly isn't fun. People ragequit when they keep dying without a chance to react.
Victory points would be implemented because losing a settlement too quickly isn't fun. People ragequit when they lose their settlement while they were offline.
Where have I suggested losing a settlement should happen quickly? Go on where is me saying that? Can't find a quote then don't go putting words into my mouth Andius.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good, it looks like we're in agreement that it should take a very long amount of time. It seems that the EVE sieges line up nicely with what I'd imagined; of course it'll look different as the setting is rather drastically different, but I do hope for something as you've described. :)
Good, it looks like we're in agreement that it should take a very long amount of time. It seems that the EVE sieges line up nicely with what I'd imagined; of course it'll look different as the setting is rather drastically different, but I do hope for something as you've described. :)
I wouldn't expect it to go much differently to Eve frankly. I would expect the sort of scenario would be
1) Take a number of POI's surrounding the city
2) Set up a siege camp and construct engines on those POI locations
3) Knock down walls
4) Enter city and destroy town hall
Of course we should be nice and let the enemy interfere in that little sequence :)
I think that one of the objections was that there should not be a way for the defender to win while the attacker still has the means and will to fight, and almost impossible for the attacker to do so.
Indeed this is my whole objection to points style system while a side has the will to fight on even when in a bad situation then let them do so and I will be the first to salute them. Indeed in Eve an enemy that has shown fire in their bellies will often be given a hand to rebuild their forces elsewhere
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where have I suggested losing a settlement should happen quickly? Go on where is me saying that? Can't find a quote then don't go putting words into my mouth Andius.
Both in EVE and Darkfall the sieges revolve around major pressure at a few pivotal moments. Yes those moments may take 20-60 minutes in the case of an assault, or three hours to setup blockades / take down walls.
That's really small change though. It results in people getting 3 am calls to take part in pivotal points in the battle.
I would much rather see a system that the victory or defeat is dependent upon constant pressure over a prolonged period of time. Things like PvP windows may be able to increase and decrease the importance of pressure at a certain time, but I don't think there should be points in the battle where everyone is just sitting around waiting for the next stage to happen, or the outcome of that particular point in the battle is so damned important that the major alliances will be going down a phone chain to interrupt people's Christmas dinner.
When you're city is under siege, or you are laying a siege, I'd like to see it so that if you have X hours to play that day, you get on, fight for X hours, and then go back to your normal life.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that one of the objections was that there should not be a way for the defender to win while the attacker still has the means and will to fight, and almost impossible for the attacker to do so.Indeed this is my whole objection to points style system while a side has the will to fight on even when in a bad situation then let them do so and I will be the first to salute them. Indeed in Eve an enemy that has shown fire in their bellies will often be given a hand to rebuild their forces elsewhere
Then take it, up it to 48000 points to win scrap the -24000 equals automatic loss, and sieges cost the attackers resources beyond the gear that is loss. You could probably make it cost both sides something but it should be more expensive for the attackers if they haven't managed to somehow block off supplies to the city.
That way, if you go in, and lay a siege, and have a fire in your belly, you can keep fighting until your funds dry up. Even if you really suck and stand no chance of winning.
Where have I suggested losing a settlement should happen quickly? Go on where is me saying that? Can't find a quote then don't go putting words into my mouth Andius.Both in EVE and Darkfall the sieges revolve around major pressure at a few pivotal moments. Yes those moments may take 20-60 minutes in the case of an assault, or three hours to setup blockades / take down walls.
That's small change really though. It results in people getting 3 am calls to take part in pivotal points in the battle.
I would much rather see a system that the victory or defeat is dependent upon constant pressure over a prolonged period of time. Things like PvP windows may be able to increase and decrease the importance of pressure at a certain time, but I don't think there should be points in the battle where everyone is just sitting around waiting for the next stage to happen, or the outcome of that particular point in the battle is so damned important that the major alliances will be going down a phone chain to interrupt people's Christmas dinner.
When you're city is under siege, or you are laying a siege, I'd like to see it so that if you have X hours to play that day, you get on, fight for X hours, and then go back to your normal life.
And you already have a mechanism to do that set your PVP window to the 4 hours you think you want to play just accept that you will have crappy DI as the system intended. There is never in EVE a pivotal 20 to 60 minutes. Darkfall frankly who knows or cares if it is the case
I think that one of the objections was that there should not be a way for the defender to win while the attacker still has the means and will to fight, and almost impossible for the attacker to do so.Indeed this is my whole objection to points style system while a side has the will to fight on even when in a bad situation then let them do so and I will be the first to salute them. Indeed in Eve an enemy that has shown fire in their bellies will often be given a hand to rebuild their forces elsewhereThen take it, up it to 48000 points to win scrap the -24000 equals automatic loss, and sieges cost the attackers resources beyond the gear that is loss. You could probably make it cost both sides something but it should be more expensive for the attackers if they haven't managed to somehow block off supplies to the city.
That way, if you go in, and lay a siege, and have a fire in your belly, you can keep fighting until your funds dry up. Even if you really suck and stand no chance of winning.
Or how about we just let both sides fight it out without the artificial barriers. Don't want to fight at odd hours then as I said before just set your PVP window accordingly. Thats what it is for Andius. You already have the system to protect your precious beauty sleep I suggest you use it.
Additionally one thing you are failing to remember
A convenient time for you does not mean a convenient time for everyone
You are I believe on Pacific standard Time where it is currently 9.11pm
A nice relaxing evening defending your outpost ahead of you.
However for the guys on EST it is 12:11 am just past midnight
For the euro's it is 5.11 am , 6.11 am or 7.11am depending on which country they are in.
There is no such thing in a large world as a convenient time for all a point which Dancey made to you a while back
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure. If I set my PvP window to the 4 hours I apparently consistently play during the same time every day, that will work. If I am my entire settlement.
Otherwise with peoples schedules that vary on a day to day basis and people scattered all across the world there will be no timeframe that you can pick that will work for everyone, every day of the week, every week of the year, every year they play this game.
Victory points to the defender are no more of an "artificial barrier" than health points on a station. When your defense fails had enough for a long enough period of time you lose. Game over. That's how sieges work in every game.
Sure. If I set my PvP window to the 4 hours I apparently consistently play during the same time every day, that will work. If I am my entire settlement.
Otherwise with peoples schedules that vary on a day to day basis and people scattered all across the world there will be no timeframe that you can pick that will work for everyone, every day of the week, every week of the year, every year they play this game.
Victory points to the defender are no more of an "artificial barrier" than health points on a station. When your defense fails had enough for a long enough period of time you lose. Game over. That's how sieges work in every game.
And as I pointed out destroying a station isnt the end in Eve the defenders still can fight on. Victory points however when they tick over that threshold its game over.
I want the war to end by player choice not by some dumb game mechanic. The question is why don't you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Additionally one thing you are failing to remember
A convenient time for you does not mean a convenient time for everyone
You are I believe on Pacific standard Time where it is currently 9.11pm
A nice relaxing evening defending your outpost ahead of you.However for the guys on EST it is 12:11 am just past midnight
For the euro's it is 5.11 am , 6.11 am or 7.11am depending on which country they are in.
There is no such thing in a large world as a convenient time for all a point which Dancey made to you a while back
No this is the point YOU are failing to forget. My system doesn't give a damn what timezone you live in. The siege is drawn out over a long enough period of time, with no points in that siege so critical that you can log on and fight at any time of the day that is good for you.
It is your settlement's consistent performance across the entire day that determined how you are doing, with the PvP window possibly determining which times make the most difference.
Additionally one thing you are failing to remember
A convenient time for you does not mean a convenient time for everyone
You are I believe on Pacific standard Time where it is currently 9.11pm
A nice relaxing evening defending your outpost ahead of you.However for the guys on EST it is 12:11 am just past midnight
For the euro's it is 5.11 am , 6.11 am or 7.11am depending on which country they are in.
There is no such thing in a large world as a convenient time for all a point which Dancey made to you a while back
No this is the point YOU are failing to forget. My system doesn't give a damn what timezone you live in. The siege is drawn out over a long enough period of time, with no points in that siege so critical that you can log on and fight at any time of the day that is good for you.
It is your settlement's consistent performance across the entire day that determined how you are doing, with the PvP window possibly determining which times make the most difference.
And the Eve system takes over a day as well. You do not need points make it last longer.
The point remains unanswered I want a battle to end by player choice because one side gives up not because some mechanic says so. Why don't you want this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And as I pointed out destroying a station isnt the end in Eve the defenders still can fight on.
When the final health point tick's the POS goes boom. As far as holding that particular POS goes, it's game over. Sure they can fight on to try to build a new POS rather than letting the opposing faction set one up, but whether or not that's allowed in this game has nothing to do with my system.
It's all about whether you get instant control of the settlement when you win a siege or not, and how much of that settlement will remain after a battle. I haven't said anything one way or the other about how that should work here.
I actually could support a system where much of the defenses and control structures are destroyed in the process of taking a settlement, and they must be rebuilt before any group gains full control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as I pointed out destroying a station isnt the end in Eve the defenders still can fight on.When the final health point tick's the POS goes boom. As far as holding that particular POS goes, it's game over. Sure they can fight on to try to build a new POS rather than letting the opposing faction set one up, but whether or not that's allowed in this game has nothing to do with my system.
It's all about whether you get instant control of the settlement when you win a siege or not, and how much of that settlement will remain after a battle. I haven't said anything one way or the other about how that should work here.
The pos going boom does not switch sovereignty it is no more than taking down the walls in the PfO scenario I outlined. Attackers still have to keep their SBU's defended,
Take out all the infrrastructure hubs
Take out the TCU
Anchor and online their own TCU
Anchor and online their own tower
Wait for sovereignty to switch over
All of this way the defenders can and do fight. When faced with the richness of this sort of battle you want to swap it out for a point system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of this way the defenders can and do fight. When faced with the richness of this sort of battle you want to swap it out for a point system.
Any system that results in me getting a call at 3 am or sitting around waiting for the next stage of a battle is tedious and overbearing. Not rich. Yes, my sleep is precious because my job and my relationships are more important to me than this, or any other game.
Ultimately if this game is controlled by factions that make people wake up at 3 am for battles it won't attract any greater of a population than null-sec did.
Eve is a success one which Dancey hopes to emulate.
If you can't be bothered to help defend your settlement then frankly the solution is as I said set your PVP window smaller. Dancey has given you the tools to make taking your settlement difficult outside of agreed upon hours feel free to use it and you can have your "by appointment wars". It really is no skin of my nose if you do so. What does really begin to irritate me though is you arguing because you don't want to do it the rest of us should be restricted so we don't get an advantage over you and let's face it this is what it boils down to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's nothing "appointed" about a system where you show up, lay siege, and then have to constantly maintain it for 24+ of real life time. You didn't set up an appointment. You didn't make an agreement. The only thing it is is prolonged. Something a lot of people will appreciate.
EVE may be a success. Null-sec is not.
Estimating EVE's subscriber count at 500,000 we can say with near 100% certainty that between 102,000 and 135,500 subscribed characters (As opposed to both players and accounts) are living in null sec and wormhole space combined.
I really think the freedom and authenticity null-sec offers is marketable to a much larger audience if you cut out all the s&%~ like rampant RPKing, 3 am calls, and every alliance being NBSI. Quite frankly I think your dreams are small, and holding back this style of title. We should by no means be looking to make EVE with a fantasy skin. We need to analyze what they got right and what they got wrong and building a game that incorporates the good while cutting the s**#. 3 am calls are something they got very wrong.
There's nothing "appointed" about a system where you show up, lay siege, and then have to constantly maintain it for 24+ of real life time. You didn't set up an appointment. You didn't make an agreement. The only thing it is is prolonged. Something a lot of people will appreciate.
EVE may be a success. Null-sec is not.
Estimating EVE's subscriber count at 500,000
We can say with near 100% certainty that between 102,000 and 135,500 subscribed accounts (As opposed to players since many of those are multi-boxed) living in null sec and wormhole space combined.
I really think the freedom and authenticity null-sec offers is marketable to a much larger audience if you cut out all the s**+ like rampant RPKing, 3 am calls, and every alliance being NBSI. Quite frankly I think your dreams are small, and holding back this style of title.
But you can't lay a siege anytime. Dancey has made it plain it is more or less a waste of time fighting you outside the pvp window.
As to your claims about null sec you really should stop talking about subjects which you patently have no knowledge of.
1) Rampant RPKing...how the hell do you have rampant RPKing when most systems are on a no intruders allowed basis...it is not random you are trespassing you will be shot
2) 3am calls...are there 3 am calls? Yes there are....how many well in 2012 I got called 7 times. I should point out I am not in the major time zone either so I got called more than most. Getting myself and the wife and kids out of bed to go defend 7 times in a year is not a huge deal frankly and to be honest I pity the attacker when he gets in the site of my daughter when she has scrambled out of bed at 3am
3) NBSI is the way Eve is built and the most efficient method of sovereignty holding which is why it is used. If goblinworks puts in good incentives not to be NBSI then it won't be used as much. It really is that simple as I have said over and over organisations like my alliance look at the mechanics and work efficiently. Make it more efficient to be NRDS and that is what we will do.
Now there are things I think Eve did wrong and that PfO are doing right. To name two making high level training require settlements and high level crafting require settlements. The thing Eve combat is lacking is logistics depths and this will go some way to supplying it.
As to small dreams....sorry you put out that piece of unmitigated offal called the treaty of rovagug and accuse me of small dreams?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) 3am calls...are there 3 am calls? Yes there are....how many well in 2012 I got called 7 times. I should point out I am not in the major time zone either so I got called more than most. Getting myself and the wife and kids out of bed to go defend 7 times in a year is not a huge deal frankly and to be honest I pity the attacker when he gets in the site of my daughter when she has scrambled out of bed at 3am
If I get called once every 10 years that's too much. Especially if I'm dragging the rest of my family out of bed with me. It's a damn video game.
Real live > Game
100% of the time, always. If I'm not playing a game, I have a reason to not be playing a game. I realize games like this have a time commitment but they damn well better not be dictating at what times I play the game.
As I've said. PvP windows are a partial solution to this problem. Making siege outcomes the product of consistent pressure over prolonged periods of time is a 100% solution to this problem.
And you can ignore that graph and say I don't know what I'm talking about if you want. It's made by CCP.
PS. On the subject of RPKing in null sec. <sarcasm>Yes I'm sure 100% of fight's in null sec take place between the owners of territory and trespassers. It's not at all like everyone in null-sec will shoot anyone they see who isn't allied, anywhere they encounter them.</sarcarsm>
Getting myself and the wife and kids out of bed to go defend 7 times in a year is not a huge deal frankly and to be honest I pity the attacker when he gets in the site of my daughter when she has scrambled out of bed at 3amThat is absurd.
The wife and kids choose to do it. I didn't suggest they became Eve players nor did I suggest they join my alliance. I should also note that I do not wake up any of them. All of us get the phone alerts. If they decide not to get up they won't get a word of reproach from me and they know it. Sometimes they don't. An example is recently my youngest didnt because she had an exam the following day.
However things it does teach kids which a lot of children now could do with learning frankly.
1) Teamwork and putting the welfare of the team before yourself (In this case being willing to sacrifice a little sleep a few times a year)
2) Self discipline. The ability to take orders and act on them without feeling the urge to discuss every little detail at the time the order needs to be enacted. Post mortem orders get dissected etc but when under fire they have learnt to trust and follow.
3) The confidence to step up to the plate and take command as needed. In a fairly recent alert my eldest was the highest ranking on intially, formed up a fleet and provided an effective defence until the main force came online. Indeed another 10 minutes and her smaller force would have routed the attackers.
That is education you can't get in schools and all they pay is a couple of hours lost sleep here and there
2) 3am calls...are there 3 am calls? Yes there are....how many well in 2012 I got called 7 times. I should point out I am not in the major time zone either so I got called more than most. Getting myself and the wife and kids out of bed to go defend 7 times in a year is not a huge deal frankly and to be honest I pity the attacker when he gets in the site of my daughter when she has scrambled out of bed at 3amIf I get called once every 10 years that's too much. Especially if I'm dragging the rest of my family out of bed with me. It's a damn video game.
Real live > Game
100% of the time, always. If I'm not playing a game, I have a reason to not be playing a game. I realize games like this have a time commitment but they damn well better not be dictating at what time's I play the game.
As I've said. PvP windows are a partial solution to this problem. Making siege outcomes the product of consistent pressure over prolonged periods of time is a 100% solution to this problem.
And you can ignore that graph and say I don't know what I'm talking about if you want. It's made by CCP.
I have given an answer to Drakhan you can read it or not. Frankly I don't care about your opinion either way
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) 3am calls...are there 3 am calls? Yes there are....how many well in 2012 I got called 7 times. I should point out I am not in the major time zone either so I got called more than most. Getting myself and the wife and kids out of bed to go defend 7 times in a year is not a huge deal frankly and to be honest I pity the attacker when he gets in the site of my daughter when she has scrambled out of bed at 3amIf I get called once every 10 years that's too much. Especially if I'm dragging the rest of my family out of bed with me. It's a damn video game.
Real live > Game
100% of the time, always. If I'm not playing a game, I have a reason to not be playing a game. I realize games like this have a time commitment but they damn well better not be dictating at what times I play the game.
As I've said. PvP windows are a partial solution to this problem. Making siege outcomes the product of consistent pressure over prolonged periods of time is a 100% solution to this problem.
To be fair to Steelwing, it's his Alliance doing this (calling at 3AM), not the game itself. He and his family could quite easily move to another Alliance that is less time intensive if it starts to intrude on their relationships.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, just curious for a ball park, how many people can you convince to get up at ungodly times in the morning? I don't personally plan on letting the game run my life like that, but it seems like quite an interesting study in human psychology and organizational patterns.We average about 70% to 80% depending on timing. It should be remembered though alliance expectations are heavily spelled out before you join. The sample therefore is self selecting and not applicable as a sample for the whole of humanity.
The most often cited reason for not being able to turn up is being at work not being asleep.
Almost forgot to reply to this. Would totally agree that it isn't a good sample for the whole of humanity; rather, I'd like to examine (or have someone more qualified than me examine) the bond these people have to their organization, and why they are fine with such demands whereas other people would consider a video game making demands on their personal life absurd. The different ways people operate can be very fascinating. :)
To be fair to Steelwing, it's his Alliance doing this (calling at 3AM), not the game itself. He and his family could quite easily move to another Alliance that is less time intensive if it starts to intrude on their relationships.2) 3am calls...are there 3 am calls? Yes there are....how many well in 2012 I got called 7 times. I should point out I am not in the major time zone either so I got called more than most. Getting myself and the wife and kids out of bed to go defend 7 times in a year is not a huge deal frankly and to be honest I pity the attacker when he gets in the site of my daughter when she has scrambled out of bed at 3amIf I get called once every 10 years that's too much. Especially if I'm dragging the rest of my family out of bed with me. It's a damn video game.
Real live > Game
100% of the time, always. If I'm not playing a game, I have a reason to not be playing a game. I realize games like this have a time commitment but they damn well better not be dictating at what times I play the game.
As I've said. PvP windows are a partial solution to this problem. Making siege outcomes the product of consistent pressure over prolonged periods of time is a 100% solution to this problem.
Indeed it is and as I was at pains to point out I have made clear to the family that I in no way shape or form expect anything from them in this regard.
My wife ironically got into Eve by wondering what got me out of bed at strange times of the night a few times a year....I expected her to play around in high sec for a few weeks then give up but she turned up in null sec.
The daughters got into Eve by watching us play...we never got the can we stay up late because such and such is on TV it was can we stay up to watch the fleet op. Both strangely have good grade averages and a social life.
Eve is one of the many things we do as a family and it binds us together in the way any shared hobby does.
Almost forgot to reply to this. Would totally agree that it isn't a good sample for the whole of humanity; rather, I'd like to examine (or have someone more qualified than me examine) the bond these people have to their organization, and why they are fine with such demands whereas other people would consider a video game making demands on their personal life absurd. The different ways people operate can be very fascinating. :)And, just curious for a ball park, how many people can you convince to get up at ungodly times in the morning? I don't personally plan on letting the game run my life like that, but it seems like quite an interesting study in human psychology and organizational patterns.We average about 70% to 80% depending on timing. It should be remembered though alliance expectations are heavily spelled out before you join. The sample therefore is self selecting and not applicable as a sample for the whole of humanity.
The most often cited reason for not being able to turn up is being at work not being asleep.
Long term Eve players are a strange breed it is true. I linked a paper a while ago that was mainly upon player retention but it did show some parts about long term eve players and I would expect the same to be true of PfO.
I can try and answer what binds me to these guys (corporation that is more than the alliance) I have played with most of them since 2003. In that time there has always been people there to talk to, willing to lend their expertise if you have a problem. It has been a huge extended family. When people have fallen on hard times people have contributed to help out. When a few years back one of the members died we had a huge turn out for the funeral with people flying from europe australia and asia.
While I cannot say for sure I would say I doubt our bonds would have been so tight in a game like WOW purely because you aren't reliant on people doing their bit to anything like the same extent. In eve if I am going in I don't even need to check if my wingmen are following me I know they have my back.They are a good bunch of guys and gals nothing more needs to be said
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the one bit of crowdforging: if there is a point at which control of a settlement passes from one person or group to a different one, (or is destroyed and must be rebuilt) it will necessarily be based on some number, somewhere. That number will be the focus of the attack, and every attacker and defender will be protecting that number. I fail to see why it matters if that number is some kind of 'hit point' counter that can go up and down, or if it is something which is less transparent.
Frankly, I'd prefer it if the easy way to take control of a settlement was to take actions which gradually reduced its DI, like gaining control of all of the PoI hexes around it and holding them for a week, or creating a situation such that no caravans got into the settlement from anywhere for a week, or anything that requires that the attacker and defender not only mobilize their players at some odd hour, but that they plan ahead and schedule shifts for their players over a longer period of time than any one person has the endurance to handle in one go.
That would allow people with an inflexible schedule to still provide some assistance, by telling the coordinator what times they can help with the event and filling those slots, while people who can be on-call and respond quickly to an unanticipated need remain valuable, and people who have no problem getting a phone call and showing up during dinnertime on the holiday still provide indispensable services.
Going back to the one bit of crowdforging: if there is a point at which control of a settlement passes from one person or group to a different one, (or is destroyed and must be rebuilt) it will necessarily be based on some number, somewhere. That number will be the focus of the attack, and every attacker and defender will be protecting that number. I fail to see why it matters if that number is some kind of 'hit point' counter that can go up and down, or if it is something which is less transparent.
Frankly, I'd prefer it if the easy way to take control of a settlement was to take actions which gradually reduced its DI, like gaining control of all of the PoI hexes around it and holding them for a week, or creating a situation such that no caravans got into the settlement from anywhere for a week, or anything that requires that the attacker and defender not only mobilize their players at some odd hour, but that they plan ahead and schedule shifts for their players over a longer period of time than any one person has the endurance to handle in one go.
That would allow people with an inflexible schedule to still provide some assistance, by telling the coordinator what times they can help with the event and filling those slots, while people who can be on-call and respond quickly to an unanticipated need remain valuable, and people who have no problem getting a phone call and showing up during dinnertime on the holiday still provide indispensable services.
What you are missing here is that in a situation where you have attacker A and defender B control shouldn't pass from A to B.
Control should be lost by B. Then A or any other group strong enough can establish control of that hex.
In short
B owns hex
A attacks hex and removes control from B
hex becomes neutral
A or B or another group manages to establish control of hex