Sometimes I get the feeling that some people really truly do want PFO to be a clone of EVE with swords and spells instead.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people want to make this game ridiculously easy for groups like mine to dominate in. This is precisely what a maximum needed pvp window of 8 hours would entail.
Goblin Squad Member
|
8hrs per settlement still would not be easy mode for any group, unless you set a single vulnerability timer once you form a nation.
At 8hrs per settlement. given four settlements you would have:
-8hrs where all settlements are vulnerable, and you chance your holdings being demolished in one swoop.
-24hrs where at least one settlement is in danger of being destroyed.
-A balance where two settlements are in danger, two are safe during a 24hr day.
Single settlements would be safer, but unless I am missing something nations would still likely be making those 3am calls.
I could be wrong, and I certainly have no dog in this debate. In the end we will play the game delivered to us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
threading has to do with what items you can keep when you die and respawn points, so its not really related to hardcoreness. the only real reason that would change would be if controlling territory meant more respawn options, so you could respawn closer and get into the fight faster.
Another area is that the more hardcore folks will invest more in the game, meaning that they wont run around with a fighter/gatherer. They will have a fighter character, then a gatherer character, and a different other character. In addition to that they will optimize their characters for whatever roles they decide for it and they will pick only what skills directly improve that the most.
it does sorta interact in that how much gear can you afford to constantly replace. If you have 1 T3 set, 3 t2 sets, and 10 t1 sets, and I have 8 T3 sets, 15 T2 sets, and 50 T1 sets I may be able to get you to the point where you are no longer able to keep yourself in equipment as well as I can. So where I am still wearing my T3 set you now find your group having to fight in T1 sets, which again puts the balance in my favor.
However the biggest thing about hardcore folks that you cannot balance is how much time they put into the game and their willingness to be in the game no matter what time of day it is.
8hrs per settlement still would not be easy mode for any group, unless you set a single vulnerability timer once you form a nation.
At 8hrs per settlement. given four settlements you would have:
-8hrs where all settlements are vulnerable, and you chance your holdings being demolished in one swoop.
-24hrs where at least one settlement is in danger of being destroyed.
-A balance where two settlements are in danger, two are safe during a 24hr day.
Single settlements would be safer, but unless I am missing something nations would still likely be making those 3am calls.
I could be wrong, and I certainly have no dog in this debate. In the end we will play the game delivered to us.
The reason an 8 hour maximum makes life easy is simple.
We will look at the number of people logged on through the 24 hour cycle and we will pick an 8 hour window that is the most inconvenient for the maximum number. Probably a similar time to eve's quiet period Eve players
We already know many are unwilling to put themselves out for their groups so it makes us a lot safer from their attacks. It also means that their chance of attacking two or more settlements with any chance of success is a lot less. We know we can muster people to defend at these times however.
We can then simply keep taking settlements and setting them to the PVP window as described and the casual groups may as well give up.
With a window for maximum DI having to be 24 hours it means the more casual player is free to attack us at a time convenient for them and not one necessarily that makes life easier for us.
Meanwhile the casual groups can continue to set their windows to the short time that is convenient for them though they just have to accept there is a downside to their DI.
The reason we (my group) probably wouldn't bother playing if the max window needed was 8 hours or so is frankly it would make life very easy for us and one thing we want in a game is some degree of competition. It would be to our mind merely another obstacle to getting that competition
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to turn around and say it will be something like a maximum of 8 hours per day will get you full DI then players like me can go laugh about it and completely ignore the game as not being worth playing.
I'm not sure if that would be a feature or a bug.
RyanD
threading has to do with what items you can keep when you die and respawn points, so its not really related to hardcoreness. the only real reason that would change would be if controlling territory meant more respawn options, so you could respawn closer and get into the fight faster.
Another area is that the more hardcore folks will invest more in the game, meaning that they wont run around with a fighter/gatherer. They will have a fighter character, then a gatherer character, and a different other character. In addition to that they will optimize their characters for whatever roles they decide for it and they will pick only what skills directly improve that the most.
it does sorta interact in that how much gear can you afford to constantly replace. If you have 1 T3 set, 3 t2 sets, and 10 t1 sets, and I have 8 T3 sets, 15 T2 sets, and 50 T1 sets I may be able to get you to the point where you are no longer able to keep yourself in equipment as well as I can. So where I am still wearing my T3 set you now find your group having to fight in T1 sets, which again puts the balance in my favor.
However the biggest thing about hardcore folks that you cannot balance is how much time they put into the game and their willingness to be in the game no matter what time of day it is.
We as a group would certainly be looking to run gear replacement schemes much as we do ship replacement schemes in Eve for official ops. This means in effect that no one will be worrying about losing T3 armour as it will be supplied to them and when we goto war you can bet we will have a stockpile ready to roll out to the troops
If you are going to turn around and say it will be something like a maximum of 8 hours per day will get you full DI then players like me can go laugh about it and completely ignore the game as not being worth playing.I'm not sure if that would be a feature or a bug.
RyanD
I am sure your investors would love you for making the game unattractive for the large Eve groups. By all means though do so as I have pointed out before yours is not the only game in town and we are in no hurry to jump into a game unless it is actually any good
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
8hrs per settlement still would not be easy mode for any group, unless you set a single vulnerability timer once you form a nation.
At 8hrs per settlement. given four settlements you would have:
-8hrs where all settlements are vulnerable, and you chance your holdings being demolished in one swoop.
-24hrs where at least one settlement is in danger of being destroyed.
-A balance where two settlements are in danger, two are safe during a 24hr day.
Single settlements would be safer, but unless I am missing something nations would still likely be making those 3am calls.
I could be wrong, and I certainly have no dog in this debate. In the end we will play the game delivered to us.
The reason an 8 hour maximum makes life easy is simple.
We will look at the number of people logged on through the 24 hour cycle and we will pick an 8 hour window that is the most inconvenient for the maximum number. Probably a similar time to eve's quiet period Eve players
Do you expect to be the people who are online anyway during the least-convenient hours for the most people, or will you choose to have to log on during those hours in order to defend yourself from them? In the first case, you have to get your people online in their less-convenient times in order to attack anybody; in the second case, you have to keep them online in order to defend.
Do you expect to be the people who are online anyway during the least-convenient hours for the most people, or will you choose to have to log on during those hours in order to defend yourself from them? In the first case, you have to get your people online in their less-convenient times in order to attack anybody; in the second case, you have to keep them online in order to defend.8hrs per settlement still would not be easy mode for any group, unless you set a single vulnerability timer once you form a nation.
At 8hrs per settlement. given four settlements you would have:
-8hrs where all settlements are vulnerable, and you chance your holdings being demolished in one swoop.
-24hrs where at least one settlement is in danger of being destroyed.
-A balance where two settlements are in danger, two are safe during a 24hr day.
Single settlements would be safer, but unless I am missing something nations would still likely be making those 3am calls.
I could be wrong, and I certainly have no dog in this debate. In the end we will play the game delivered to us.
The reason an 8 hour maximum makes life easy is simple.
We will look at the number of people logged on through the 24 hour cycle and we will pick an 8 hour window that is the most inconvenient for the maximum number. Probably a similar time to eve's quiet period Eve players
Our people are willing to get online when needed for either attack or defence. We will have people online for the entire 24 hour period (less if there is a daily downtime such as in eve). Those people will have access to the phone alert system in case of unexpected defence needs.
In the case of attacking other settlements that will be preplanned ops so people will get forewarning of when they are needed
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So it looks like that settlement warfare will be handled on a schedule, where the settlement can make some adjustments within that schedule to optimize what time is best for them.
As a result I have a question for ryan. What is your view on during the non-scheduled warfare period targeting a settlement's crafters, gatherers, and merchants so that they dont have supplies necessary to withstand the siege when it happens?
I just dont want the game to end up that pvp is only acceptable or basically able to happen during scheduled times like iROs WoE.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if that would be a feature or a bug.We are in no hurry to jump into a game unless it is actually any good
I would say that the tenor of your posts and their content doesn't give me confidence you'd be a good judge of the "good or bad" qualities of the game we're making. So I don't really consider you a gatekeeper.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it looks like that settlement warfare will be handled on a schedule, where the settlement can make some adjustments within that schedule to optimize what time is best for them.
The window won't be open 1x24 either.
They can "optimize" but the higher their DI, the less "optimization" they'll get. The length of the window has to be large enough to make it a meaningful tradeoff.
As a result I have a question for ryan. What is your view on during the non-scheduled warfare period targeting a settlement's crafters, gatherers, and merchants so that they dont have supplies necessary to withstand the siege when it happens?
I would see that as the game working as intended.
RyanD
I would say that the tenor of your posts and their content doesn't give me confidence you'd be a good judge of the "good or bad" qualities of the game we're making. So I don't really consider you a gatekeeper.I'm not sure if that would be a feature or a bug.We are in no hurry to jump into a game unless it is actually any good
But you are wrong indeed. I am precisely the gatekeeper for my group as I go back and gives a thumbs up or down.
On the other hand you can make what you consider the best game in the world. That doesn't make you right the proof of whether the game is any good is if people come and play it not whether the developers think the game is A1.
I am almost positive that funcom thought age of conan was a good game. The players thought differently.
Frankly your attitude is pretty poor as a supposed marketing person, this is the second time I have asked a perfectly reasonable question (in this case asking for clarification of what your intentions were if not 24/7) and you have come back with snarky comments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to turn around and say it will be something like a maximum of 8 hours per day will get you full DI then players like me can go laugh about it and completely ignore the game as not being worth playing.I'm not sure if that would be a feature or a bug.
RyanD
Based on the number of people favoriting this post, I'd say it's a feature.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that the tenor of your posts and their content doesn't give me confidence you'd be a good judge of the "good or bad" qualities of the game we're making. So I don't really consider you a gatekeeper.But you are wrong indeed. I am precisely the gatekeeper for my group as I go back and gives a thumbs up or down.
I don't believe you. Well, I believe you are going to tell your friends if you like the game or not. I don't believe it will have much influence on if they decide to try it or not. I think that like most such groups some folks will want their own independent opinions. And no big group is coming for months and months after Early Enrollment begins - we just don't have headroom for them. So there will be plenty of time for many different people to render an opinion on the way the game is developing before any sizable group activity can be accommodated. And Territorial Warfare is going to be the thing that we implement at the boundary between Early Enrollment and Open Enrollment so there will have been a very long time for those opinions to be formed based on what the Crowdforging process actually helps to implement. As opposed to theoretical rough sketches which is what we have today.
Frankly your attitude is pretty poor as a supposed marketing person, this is the second time I have asked a perfectly reasonable question (in this case asking for clarification of what your intentions were if not 24/7) and you have come back with snarky comments.
You may reflect on the fact that you get unsatisfactory answers as a function of asking unsatisfactory questions.
RyanD
You may reflect on the fact that you get unsatisfactory answers as a function of asking unsatisfactory questions.
RyanD
Care to point out what is so unsatisfactory or unreasonable about
"It should be 24/7 but tell us your views on what it will be not what it is not. "
Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me but I guess in your mind prospective customers asking for details on the product you want to sell them is such an imposition.
Asking for specific implementation details in the middle of the design process is kind of unreasonable, isn't it?
Either he knows or he doesn't. He obviously knows enough to comment it wont be 24/7. Regardless of whether or not it is set in stone he could quite reasonably reply that it is still on the drawing board but the current thinking is "x hours as the minimum then each additional hour allows the DI to grow by a certain amount until x+y hours. However this is still subject to change"
That is a professional response which just gives an indication of current thinking without locking it in stone. Dancey instead decided to go the snark route.
You may be prepared to tolerate it but frankly I am not. It is attitudes like that of toleration that allows companies like EA to get away with the crap they do.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may reflect on the fact that you get unsatisfactory answers as a function of asking unsatisfactory questions.Care to point out what is so unsatisfactory or unreasonable about
"It should be 24/7 but tell us your views on what it will be not what it is not. "
Sure!
First, you assert a primacy of game design, which is our role, not yours. "Should be" implies that there's a definitively correct answer and if the answer is not that answer we are wrong. That obviously overlooks the fact that there is a fractal space of potential answers, in which there may be several "right" answers which achieve our design objectives in ways satisfactory to our target market. Some of those answers are likely not "24/7", ergo, your approach suffers from myopia.
Don't be a game designer. Be a Crowdforger. Don't assert; advocate.
Second, I'll include the portion you omitted:
If you are going to turn around and say it will be something like a maximum of 8 hours per day will get you full DI then players like me can go laugh about it and completely ignore the game as not being worth playing.
Now you have moved past design (where you shouldn't be anyway) and into threatening behavior. This is the kind of toxic activities we want to eliminate from our public discourse. It helps nobody and makes others think the environment will be hostile to their general enjoyment of the game.
And this is not an aberration on your part; it's pretty much how you approach every interaction you have with other members of the community here on these forums.
So to make the point absolutely clear: I don't have much respect for you, your opinions, or your presentation of your opinions. And I think that by showing my disrespect, I act as an antidote to your poor behavior by showing others that we won't allow you to define what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Since you showed up, the trajectory of my respect for you has been an almost uninterrupted negative curve. I'm forced to ask myself why you would act in the way you act? What possible benefit could it give you? I'm nonplussed.
You may reflect on the fact that you get unsatisfactory answers as a function of asking unsatisfactory questions.Care to point out what is so unsatisfactory or unreasonable about
"It should be 24/7 but tell us your views on what it will be not what it is not. "
Sure!
First, you assert a primacy of game design, which is our role, not yours. "Should be" implies that there's a definitively correct answer and if the answer is not that answer we are wrong. That obviously overlooks the fact that there is a fractal space of potential answers, in which there may be several "right" answers which achieve our design objectives in ways satisfactory to our target market. Some of those answers are likely not "24/7", ergo, your approach suffers from myopia.
Don't be a game designer. Be a Crowdforger. Don't assert; advocate.
Second, I'll include the portion you omitted:
If you are going to turn around and say it will be something like a maximum of 8 hours per day will get you full DI then players like me can go laugh about it and completely ignore the game as not being worth playing.Now you have moved past design (where you shouldn't be anyway) and into threatening behavior. This is the kind of toxic activities we want to eliminate from our public discourse. It helps nobody and makes others think the environment will be hostile to their general enjoyment of the game.
And this is not an aberration on your part; it's pretty much how you approach every interaction you have with other members of the community here on these forums.
So to make the point absolutely clear: I don't have much respect for you, your opinions, or your presentation of your opinions. And I think that by showing my disrespect, I act as an antidote to your poor behavior by showing others that we won't allow you to define what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Since you showed up, the trajectory of my respect for you has been an...
And just like most posters here there is an unspoken "in my opinion it " in front of should be.
In terms of what you think of as a threat no thats a statement of fact, I also in the next few posts detailed exactly why I considered an 8 hour di window would be a bad thing. Yes this is my opinion that is what crowd forging is giving opinions on design.
There are interactions I have with certain members of this community that are combative that is true. It is however a long way from all of them and I can point in most cases at least (not bothering to go back and check whether it is all or not) to where they have been aggressive to me first. There are also many people on this forum I have perfectly reasonable relations with and we exchange opposing opinions perfectly amicably.
As to you, I think it is obvious and has always been obvious that I share the same views as many Eve players on the subject of Ryan Dancey. Your opinion of me is of therefore of little import and certainly something I am unlikely to be losing sleep over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The window won't be open 1x24 either.They can "optimize" but the higher their DI, the less "optimization" they'll get. The length of the window has to be large enough to make it a meaningful tradeoff.
As a result I have a question for ryan. What is your view on during the non-scheduled warfare period targeting a settlement's crafters, gatherers, and merchants so that they dont have supplies necessary to withstand the siege when it happens?I would see that as the game working as intended.
RyanD
ok, so the large, and as a result the more robust, a settlement gets the more its in danger of being attacked. the reason for this is to provide some protection to smaller organizations so that they cannot just get steamrolled and have the entire map controlled by a couple of really big organizations.
That makes sense to me.
My worry was that the window for the settlements would be so small that we end up with a iRO WoE style of settlement control rather than a system that encourages people to be active in between those times.
I also like that targeting a settlement through their ability to harvest/produce goods is considered valid forms of pvp and not griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is still what I see as an issue that Quandry uncovered, at least in my reading if it wasn't the intent. If only superpowers can achieve the highest tier training, then their superpoweredness will be magnified further.
Though I might have just as much experience built up as another player member to a superpower, will I have any way to be competitive without also being a vassal of a superpower?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is still what I see as an issue that Quandry uncovered, at least in my reading if it wasn't the intent. If only superpowers can achieve the highest tier training, then their superpoweredness will be magnified further.
Though I might have just as much experience built up as another player member to a superpower, will I have any way to be competitive without also being a vassal of a superpower?
I think that what a lot of casual player (myself included) are worried about...
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I might have just as much experience built up as another player member to a superpower, will I have any way to be competitive without also being a vassal of a superpower?
Competitive implies a zero-sum game, which this isn't. You can play it in a zero-sum mentality: "If someone, somewhere can do something better than me, they're winning", and in that case, yes, you'll need to figure out how to be a part of a group that has the highest end facilities for the thing you care about. But if your mentality is "I can do the things I want to do even if I am not the best on the server at doing them" then there's a wide range of power levels you can accept and still be happy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being It's like the WoW example, I guess. I was never interested enough in that magnificent end-game raid loot to do endless raids. Was I "competitive"? No. Did I have plenty of fun? Sure.
A lot of players are going to have tier 2 gear and skills. Some heroes will have tier 3 gear and skills. Can we play and contribute without being in the top tier? I'd expect so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
if the power curve is as gentle as one of the blogs suggested, then yes, being lower geared and skilled will allow for assisting and supporting other players. It will not be like WOW and others where being geared and leveled is everything. You can still help, and still support despite not being "top geared". You might not be able to solo as well or be as versatile or as effective as someone in t3 gear, but you won't be a pushover either. We will really see once in game, but there should always be a place for everyone, casual/hardcore, well-geared/not well-geared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What does "iRO WoE style" mean? I don't recognize the acronyms.
Ragnarok Online is a pve game. There guilds take over castles and if your guild owns one you get certain things and there are some items that require you to have one. These castles are contested on a set scheduled. So at such and such time they become vulnerable to attack and basically the last one to hold it gets to keep it until the next time the event happens. So its instanced pvp but only happens when the players are specifically looking for it (as it happens instanced you have to go there to take part).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am sure your investors would love you for making the game unattractive for the large Eve groups.
Your words may be more true than you hoped. At least, among contributors they appear to be.
Online games have been wrestling with the problems caused by social toxicity since the early days of BBS MUDs.
Not few investment capitalists and other financially well-endowed persons are socially conscientious individuals who are interested in socially progressive evolution in various human communities, including online game communities.
I'm firmly in the camp that the future of human international relations sit at keyboards playing online games across the globe today. That is something to consider for anyone interested in human well-being.
It may be that there is an overestimation of self-worth by some quarters, present company perhaps excepted.
We need fewer totalitarians in the world, not more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Steelwing ,Steelwing wrote: "As to you, I think it is obvious and has always been obvious that I share the same views as many Eve players on the subject of Ryan Dancey. Your opinion of me is of therefore of little import and certainly something I am unlikely to be losing sleep over."
I have tried to stay out of your personal vendetta against the CEO of GW but at this point I am sick of you going after Ryan and you need to stop it. You make it a point to be disrespectful to Ryan while trying to sound like you are some important person whose opinion can effect PFO's success, because of the mystery group you claim will listen to you, it is nonsense.
Your attitude toward Ryan Dancey is wrong and it needs to stop. It amazes me that you came here and act like you are the CEO's judge and probation officer, it all looks like some sort of petty revenge on your part. You do not rank above the CEO of GW ,but you act like you do. If we are going to score importance Ryan is a 1000 and you are a .001 .
I really am sick of your obvious contempt for the CEO of a game I care about, makes me think you don't care about PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Though I might have just as much experience built up as another player member to a superpower, will I have any way to be competitive without also being a vassal of a superpower?Competitive implies a zero-sum game, which this isn't. You can play it in a zero-sum mentality: "If someone, somewhere can do something better than me, they're winning", and in that case, yes, you'll need to figure out how to be a part of a group that has the highest end facilities for the thing you care about. But if your mentality is "I can do the things I want to do even if I am not the best on the server at doing them" then there's a wide range of power levels you can accept and still be happy.
I for one really appreciate this answer as I think it reinforces the intent (for me anyway) of what Ryan and GW is trying to accomplish here.
By definition most non-hardcore players aren't worried about being super-competitive. It sounds like GW is commited to the principle that those players should still be able to go out, have fun, explore different aspects of the game, participate and still be somewhat effective at what they want to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I totally forgot about PI. Mainly because I couldn't figure it out without going through some long wiki article that kinda made my head hurt. I did some research into POSs, but never got that off the ground. Overview filters still baffle me. Sometimes things disappear that I didn't intend to make disappear and I can't figure out how to bring them back.The UI is not nearly as bad as Ryan is describing...It is if you want to run a corporation. That interface is still arcane as hell.Yeah, he's nuts. The interface for Planetary Interaction is bizarre. The interface for setting up Player Owned Stations is bizarre. The interface for moon goo extraction is bizarre. The overview is bizarre in the extreme - it's like no other UI element you've ever seen in an MMO or even in a single player strategy game.
Sometimes you can get so close to something you don't realize how bizarre it is.
LOL, put a little effort into it. Eve has a high learning curve, but once you understand it there is no problem.
I mad the mistake of doing all of these for a while. I didnt stop doing them because they were complicated... I didnt think they were. I stopped doing all these because it is BORING.
I guess these kind of interfaces come easy for me... I program Robots for a living.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may reflect on the fact that you get unsatisfactory answers as a function of asking unsatisfactory questions.Care to point out what is so unsatisfactory or unreasonable about
"It should be 24/7 but tell us your views on what it will be not what it is not. "
Sure!
First, you assert a primacy of game design, which is our role, not yours. "Should be" implies that there's a definitively correct answer and if the answer is not that answer we are wrong. That obviously overlooks the fact that there is a fractal space of potential answers, in which there may be several "right" answers which achieve our design objectives in ways satisfactory to our target market. Some of those answers are likely not "24/7", ergo, your approach suffers from myopia.
Don't be a game designer. Be a Crowdforger. Don't assert; advocate.
Second, I'll include the portion you omitted:
If you are going to turn around and say it will be something like a maximum of 8 hours per day will get you full DI then players like me can go laugh about it and completely ignore the game as not being worth playing.Now you have moved past design (where you shouldn't be anyway) and into threatening behavior. This is the kind of toxic activities we want to eliminate from our public discourse. It helps nobody and makes others think the environment will be hostile to their general enjoyment of the game.
And this is not an aberration on your part; it's pretty much how you approach every interaction you have with other members of the community here on these forums.
So to make the point absolutely clear: I don't have much respect for you, your opinions, or your presentation of your opinions. And I think that by showing my disrespect, I act as an antidote to your poor behavior by showing others that we won't allow you to define what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Since you showed up, the trajectory of my respect for you has been an...
A friendly suggestion...
The snarky responses to Steelwing is the kind of toxic behavior you are talking about. Its the kind of toxic behavior you say exists in Eve. You have attacked him as much as he has attacked you. The difference is that you are the CEO of the company, he is a potential customer. He is a potential customer that is just like many other customers to come.
You doing this back and forth with him right here on the forums will push players away as much as anything else.
I suggest thinking about it a bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You doing this back and forth with him right here on the forums will push players away as much as anything else.
Have you considered that Ryan may be--very very explicitly, with deliberate wordsmithing--trying to make it clear, as the CEO of Goblinworks, what types of players he'll lose no sleep over, if they decide not to play his company's game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You doing this back and forth with him right here on the forums will push players away as much as anything else.Have you considered that Ryan may be--very very explicitly, with deliberate wordsmithing--trying to make it clear, as the CEO of Goblinworks, what types of players he'll lose no sleep over, if they decide not to play his company's game?
What I am saying is that it will effect more then just that focus group.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Steelwing brings up some good points that need to be payed attention to. Whether anyone likes the way he writes them or not.
Such as? All I recall seeing is objections without a strong basis and demands for changes to decisions without the expected discourse of "These are the reasons that I think you made this decision, these are the reasons I don't think you considered, and this is what I think that the best decision is." style of useful discourse.
For example, in his blackmail about PvP windows, Steelwing didn't mention what reasons he thought the window was created for, didn't provide any reasons why a universal window would be better, and made threats if the change he was demanding wasn't made.
I don't expect a typical person to always use perfect communication, but getting it almost perfectly wrong all the time is pretty strong evidence of intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think anything Steelwing brought up has been ignored. I doubt his input will soon be forgotten. I'm less convinced his points were new or particularly revelatory, but it may be I didn't catch an implication or innuendo. I cannot know more than I can, and my mindreading skills apparently deteriorate with distance.
We here have a shared reality perceived from subjective viewpoints. His impressions have value even if his tenor does not.
Also, Steelwing brings up some good points that need to be payed attention to. Whether anyone likes the way he writes them or not.Such as? All I recall seeing is objections without a strong basis and demands for changes to decisions without the expected discourse of "These are the reasons that I think you made this decision, these are the reasons I don't think you considered, and this is what I think that the best decision is." style of useful discourse.
For example, in his blackmail about PvP windows, Steelwing didn't mention what reasons he thought the window was created for, didn't provide any reasons why a universal window would be better, and made threats if the change he was demanding wasn't made.
I don't expect a typical person to always use perfect communication, but getting it almost perfectly wrong all the time is pretty strong evidence of intent.
you mean apart from the bit where I explained here
8hrs per settlement still would not be easy mode for any group, unless you set a single vulnerability timer once you form a nation.
At 8hrs per settlement. given four settlements you would have:
-8hrs where all settlements are vulnerable, and you chance your holdings being demolished in one swoop.
-24hrs where at least one settlement is in danger of being destroyed.
-A balance where two settlements are in danger, two are safe during a 24hr day.
Single settlements would be safer, but unless I am missing something nations would still likely be making those 3am calls.
I could be wrong, and I certainly have no dog in this debate. In the end we will play the game delivered to us.
The reason an 8 hour maximum makes life easy is simple.
We will look at the number of people logged on through the 24 hour cycle and we will pick an 8 hour window that is the most inconvenient for the maximum number. Probably a similar time to eve's quiet period Eve players
We already know many are unwilling to put themselves out for their groups so it makes us a lot safer from their attacks. It also means that their chance of attacking two or more settlements with any chance of success is a lot less. We know we can muster people to defend at these times however.
We can then simply keep taking settlements and setting them to the PVP window as described and the casual groups may as well give up.
With a window for maximum DI having to be 24 hours it means the more casual player is free to attack us at a time convenient for them and not one necessarily that makes life easier for us.
Meanwhile the casual groups can continue to set their windows to the short time that is convenient for them though they just have to accept there is a downside to their DI.
The reason we (my group) probably wouldn't bother playing if the max window needed was 8 hours or so is frankly it would make life very easy for us and one...
and I wasn't asking for a change to PVP windows I was asserting that to get maximum DI boost from the PVP window it should be required to be 24 hours a day.
That isn't asking for a change to the mechanics of PVP windows or saying everyone needs to set 24 hour PVP windows.
8 Hour PVP windows favours organised groups it is as simple as that and makes life to easy for them
What do you think was the reason for vulnerability windows, and what is wrong with favoring large, well-organized groups, and why is 24/7 better than 167/week.
The reason for PVP windows is to give small groups a chance to get established and gradually widen the window as they get bigger. No where have I raised any issues with that.
The only issue I have raised is that it is in the more casual section of the player base interests if groups like mine have to leave our settlements open to attack on a pretty much constant basis.
24/7 167/week really doesnt make a lot of difference
Until Dancey's statement people I think had pretty much assumed PVP windows ranged from 1 hour a day to all day. As usual though in stead of using his statement to clarify all he did was muddy the waters by only stating what it wasn't and leaving everyone to guess what the intention is.
I preempted calls for needing a maximum of 8 hours a day which I could forsee coming from those who have expressed a desire (which I do not condemn them for) of not having to get up at 3am to have a maximum set at 8 hours thinking that would favour the more casual playstyle.
This is what my above answer addressed in what I consider a fairly reasonable and concise matter. You are however correct if they turn round and said 20/7 then I wouldn't be too concerned as that still gives large groups a wide vulnerability while allowing casual groups to launch attacks at times convenient to them. Much less than 20 hours though and I think you begin to run into the difficulties I describe where we can base our PVP windows around the least popular play times which is advantageous to us and disadvantageous to the casual play style.
As I missed out one
What is the wrong with favoring large well organized groups?
I would have thought that was obvious. Being a large well organized group is an advantage in itself. Why would you even want to stack the deck further in its favour against the casual player groups?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note, as this seems to be lost on some in this conversation: a settlement PvP window shows when it is easiest to attack the settlement as it'll have the least amount of NPC assistance. If the window is closed, you can still attack a settlement; if there's very few PC's online at the moment (say, because it's 3 AM their time and they don't want to get up to defend) it becomes very formulaic for the attackers in determining whether they have sufficient force to destroy the defender's NPC guards. In other words, if you attack at 3 AM and the settlement fields no defenders you can be certain about whether you will win or lose the battle because you are basically doing scripted PvE at that point.
Just because a settlement does not have a 24-hour PvP window does not mean it can't be attacked, just means you'll likely have to bring more guys to the fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note, as this seems to be lost on some in this conversation: a settlement PvP window shows when it is easiest to attack the settlement as it'll have the least amount of NPC assistance. If the window is closed, you can still attack a settlement; if there's very few PC's online at the moment (say, because it's 3 AM their time and they don't want to get up to defend) it becomes very formulaic for the attackers in determining whether they have sufficient force to destroy the defender's NPC guards. In other words, if you attack at 3 AM and the settlement fields no defenders you can be certain about whether you will win or lose the battle because you are basically doing scripted PvE at that point.
tl;dr, just because a settlement does not have a 24-hour PvP window does not mean it can't be attacked, just means you'll likely have to bring more guys to the fight.
While it is true I would expect them to make it hugely difficult to attack a settlement outside of the PVP window purely because if it is not several times more difficult the point of having a PVP window is lost.
For the record I am actually a supporter of the PVP window idea and think it is something Goblinworks is doing right.I would be the first to agree that it is hard for a smaller group to break into Eve null sec sov games without joining a larger power bloc. PVP windows provide a good risk reward scenario by size affecting DI.
I am merely against the PVP window maximum size being set to small because it does little to benefit the little guys but helps the big guys immensely
I am merely against capping the maximum
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Steelwing brings up some good points that need to be payed attention to. Whether anyone likes the way he writes them or not.
You didn't pay any attention to what the CEO said about Steelwing and called the CEO toxic, as if you decide what is toxic instead of GW.
Ryan did not mince words, he explained what is toxic for the community and what they will do about it. Are you trying to crowdforge who has authority over PFO to decide what is toxic? That is like sailing your ship at the lighthouse and telling it ,you need to move because you are in my way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with steelwing, the largest organizations should be open to pvp 24/7 as part of the risk/reward of running such an organization as well as the fact that during the non pvp window the settlement needs to be heavily guarded by NPCs so that the largest organizations dont just dive the settlement and take it over while accepting higher losses.