I've heard suggestions like scheduling attack times and the like, but I've never liked the artificial restriction of not being able to attack.
This very mechanic works very well in EVE. In short any attack is split in two. You first attack and deal a lot af damage putting the structure into "reinforced" mode. The length of the reinforced mode is based on the ammount of a certain type of fuel present in the structure when it enters reinforced mode. The timer can be nearly up to two days max. Once the structure exits reinforced it can be killed off or repaired, depending on what happens at that time.
Is this an artificial limitation? Yes. Does it work? Oh, yes!
Destroyable player built landmarks such as walls or houses or what have you has got to be a huge mindcramp for developers. Probably why you see it so seldom in an mmo. The act of rebuilding more than once would be so tedious for players, unless the act of rebuilding took hardly any time at all. Then you have how long does it take for the destroyed landmark to disappear utterly. Nobody wants a landscape littered with destroyed houses sitting there forever. Say I build a house, it took me a month and the cost of materials to build. I go on a 2 week fishing vacation in Canada and come back to find the entire thing gone completely. I suppose a temporary account suspension could deal with situations like that where you have a notification system that I will be on vacation for x amount of time and nothing disappears in that time.
Originally posted by birdycephon In most cases its a lot easier to destroy than to build.
Not in Pink Floyd World...
Mother do you think they'll drop the bomb? Mother do you think they'll like this song? Mother do you think they'll try to break my balls? Oooh, ahh Mother should I build the wall? Mother should I run for President? Mother should I trust the government? Mother will they put me in the firing mine? Oooh ahh, Is it just a waste of time?
Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry. Mama's gonna make all your nightmares come true. Mama's gonna put all her fears into you. Mama's gonna keep you right here under her wing. She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing. Mama's gonna keep baby cozy and warm. Ooooh baby, ooooh baby, oooooh baby, Of course mama's gonna help build the wall.
Mother do you think she's good enough, for me? Mother do you think she's dangerous, to me? Mother will she tear your little boy apart? Ooooh ah, Mother will she break my heart?
Hush now baby, baby don't you cry. Mama's gonna check out all your girlfriends for you. Mama won't let anyone dirty get through. Mama's gonna wait up until you get in. Mama will always find out where you've been. Mama's gonna keep baby healthy and clean. Ooooh baby, oooh baby, oooh baby, You'll always be baby to me.
Mother, did it need to be so high?
+ 1 for causing a flashback.
+1 as well, haven't listened it since ages so I guess it's Floyd time now
and -1 for the misinterpretation, Pink has built the Wall in his whole life, and at the end he recognized it and wrecks it down (or at least I like to read this way, some optimism after the heavy journey with him), so it's long build, quick destroy. The exact reason why builders stay away from sandboxes with open ffa pvp
Hmm on a second thought you weren't talk about efficiency and speed, it was about "easy"... my bad, then it's correct, much easier to build your Wall than break it down... But the analogy with games still doesn't fit, since only you can destroy your Wall, a bunch of 'burn jita' A-holes cannot do it if you don't want to
Wow, lots of good thoughts here. An inteligent disussion on an interesting topic and no flaming. Wait, I'm I still on the internet ?
Seriously, I think a lot of it comes down to why? Why are you building and why destroy it. If we are talking about just player housing and crafting facilities than it should probally not be destroyable { is that a word?}. It will only annoy people and would serve no real purpose. And if it can be destroyed some pycho will do, just for fun. But if we are talking about control points that's another matter. Remember, historically most castles were not just built for defense. They were also made to control an area and as a base to launch attacks from. If one kingdom build a castle on there border, there neighbors could consider it an act of war. If it was within attack range. So if you build bases that gives you control over an area, than destroying it makes sense.
What might be interesting is if you/your faction/kingdom/whatever controls an area then any player house is not attackable. But if you lose control, {your base is captured/destroyed} than your player housing becomes vulnerable. Gives you a reason to build/repair/defend something and gives the enemy faction a reason to attack.
Originally posted by BahamutKaiser That destruction also applies to the attackers being killed... Another method of inhibiting foes from kamikaze attacking you is to take away their ability to try again without consequence. If the foe loses something or has to wait ever how long between siege attempts if he dies, he'll be less likely to stress your defense.
If the foes being flung at your walls are just gonna respawn, than your walls may as well to, there needs to be a balance between offense and defense in many respects.
This BahamutKaiser dude knows his stuff regarding the topic. He has some great post replies.
Would be nice if more devs put as much thought into their pvp.
The idea that explosives or magic easily beat fortifications is silly, it is partially true, but the real truth is once gunpowder becomes an asset, they don't even need strong structures because they can gun you down with ease, the attacker spends months in trenches trying to get close... The high ground and fortification puts offense and defense on the fortifications side in spades. Even magic blasting is equally met with magic defense... Naturally you'd expect stationary magic fortifications to be superior to mobile attack magics.
As for attacking while players arn't present. I feel battle MMOs should be including a lot more NPC assistance. Making your castle should be like making your own level, you place archers and wall soldiers on the defense, and mix NPC attackers into the attacking forces too. A good fortification should take time to beat, even several engagements. They may pace it out til the player is able to respond, and force the defender to engage the foe directly to stop the attack before their forces are depleted. Taking a structure should not be about breaking the walls, it should be about eliminating the forces. In this way your focused on breaking only infiltration points to take away their defensive advantage, and once you win you can claim the castle and its value instead of building your own.
That may not work for every game, but you can come up with creative alternatives for whatever you desire.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
I don't think a ratio is as important as another aspect, for MMORPGs. Although it still does have some importance.
That other aspect being the time frame of breaching defensive barriers, compared to the ability of players to be online to defend what's behind the barrier.
So I think you need a system that takes quite a while to breach walls, allowing the defenders to "be there" when the wall comes down by being able to predict the time. Furthermore, I think it would be a good idea to allow the defenders to manipulate this time to some degree, so that the attackers can't control it into a best case for themselves.
Just to add, in this case you'd also need a means for the attackers to "be there" in the same way in case of the defenders mounting an assault ouside their walls. I suggest here that attackers be able to build a mini-fortress to defend themselves just the same way. But this gets tricky, if you follow through the thinking. I'd talk re about it, but no one ever seems to want to get into my ideas much, so da'hellwithit.
Any ratio needs to consider what you want the game to be like. Especially in the building, and how that affects what else is going on in the area. I'd just as soon have the building be a major game play source, even if you never come under attack.
Comments
This very mechanic works very well in EVE. In short any attack is split in two. You first attack and deal a lot af damage putting the structure into "reinforced" mode. The length of the reinforced mode is based on the ammount of a certain type of fuel present in the structure when it enters reinforced mode. The timer can be nearly up to two days max. Once the structure exits reinforced it can be killed off or repaired, depending on what happens at that time.
Is this an artificial limitation? Yes. Does it work? Oh, yes!
It can take days, months or even years to build a wall.
5 minutes and the right explosives and the work is undone.
Why can't I listen to Pink Floyd while I'm at work...
It's just another brick in the wall...
+1 as well, haven't listened it since ages so I guess it's Floyd time now
and -1 for the misinterpretation, Pink has built the Wall in his whole life, and at the end he recognized it and wrecks it down (or at least I like to read this way, some optimism after the heavy journey with him), so it's long build, quick destroy. The exact reason why builders stay away from sandboxes with open ffa pvp
Hmm on a second thought you weren't talk about efficiency and speed, it was about "easy"... my bad, then it's correct, much easier to build your Wall than break it down... But the analogy with games still doesn't fit, since only you can destroy your Wall, a bunch of 'burn jita' A-holes cannot do it if you don't want to
Wow, lots of good thoughts here. An inteligent disussion on an interesting topic and no flaming. Wait, I'm I still on the internet ?
Seriously, I think a lot of it comes down to why? Why are you building and why destroy it. If we are talking about just player housing and crafting facilities than it should probally not be destroyable { is that a word?}. It will only annoy people and would serve no real purpose. And if it can be destroyed some pycho will do, just for fun. But if we are talking about control points that's another matter. Remember, historically most castles were not just built for defense. They were also made to control an area and as a base to launch attacks from. If one kingdom build a castle on there border, there neighbors could consider it an act of war. If it was within attack range. So if you build bases that gives you control over an area, than destroying it makes sense.
What might be interesting is if you/your faction/kingdom/whatever controls an area then any player house is not attackable. But if you lose control, {your base is captured/destroyed} than your player housing becomes vulnerable. Gives you a reason to build/repair/defend something and gives the enemy faction a reason to attack.
This BahamutKaiser dude knows his stuff regarding the topic. He has some great post replies.
Would be nice if more devs put as much thought into their pvp.
We are talking about games, not the real world. You can design to ANY time scale.
The idea that explosives or magic easily beat fortifications is silly, it is partially true, but the real truth is once gunpowder becomes an asset, they don't even need strong structures because they can gun you down with ease, the attacker spends months in trenches trying to get close... The high ground and fortification puts offense and defense on the fortifications side in spades. Even magic blasting is equally met with magic defense... Naturally you'd expect stationary magic fortifications to be superior to mobile attack magics.
As for attacking while players arn't present. I feel battle MMOs should be including a lot more NPC assistance. Making your castle should be like making your own level, you place archers and wall soldiers on the defense, and mix NPC attackers into the attacking forces too. A good fortification should take time to beat, even several engagements. They may pace it out til the player is able to respond, and force the defender to engage the foe directly to stop the attack before their forces are depleted. Taking a structure should not be about breaking the walls, it should be about eliminating the forces. In this way your focused on breaking only infiltration points to take away their defensive advantage, and once you win you can claim the castle and its value instead of building your own.
That may not work for every game, but you can come up with creative alternatives for whatever you desire.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
I don't think a ratio is as important as another aspect, for MMORPGs. Although it still does have some importance.
That other aspect being the time frame of breaching defensive barriers, compared to the ability of players to be online to defend what's behind the barrier.
So I think you need a system that takes quite a while to breach walls, allowing the defenders to "be there" when the wall comes down by being able to predict the time. Furthermore, I think it would be a good idea to allow the defenders to manipulate this time to some degree, so that the attackers can't control it into a best case for themselves.
Just to add, in this case you'd also need a means for the attackers to "be there" in the same way in case of the defenders mounting an assault ouside their walls. I suggest here that attackers be able to build a mini-fortress to defend themselves just the same way. But this gets tricky, if you follow through the thinking. I'd talk re about it, but no one ever seems to want to get into my ideas much, so da'hellwithit.
Any ratio needs to consider what you want the game to be like. Especially in the building, and how that affects what else is going on in the area. I'd just as soon have the building be a major game play source, even if you never come under attack.
Once upon a time....