Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

What happens when you win? Safe zones must suffer too!

TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless ColumnistM, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

This is RVR! No one should be able to get out free because they are in a safe zone or starter zone right! When your relm is pushed back to it's safe border you have lost right? Well, what are the consequences?

It's been stated they will not get pillaged and burned, but they need to feel the pain. So how can me make that happen without sacking the main city/zone/safe area?

A few ideas:

1. Back in the day the Romans didn't always burn you down, salt the earth, and rebuild you as a Roman city...well unless you do what Carthage did...anyway it was often not worth the effort and loss so they just propose terms of surrender, you agreed, your taxes went up, your requirements were sometimes harsh, but you were left alone, alone to plot how to over throw them right ;) This could go as far as requiring X amount of X resources, X crafted items, X "sacrifices" etc. Once collected those items could be randomly distributed via a in game random program thingy.

2. What does a political city like Rome do to avoid being sacked, they do what all politicians do, they bribe. When barbarians were about to lay a beating on Rome, Rome paid them off. Maybe every Relm collects a small tax on everything sold. This tax goes into the funding for, well I dont know what, but maybe the victors get a nice big payoff to leave the big city intact.

3. A trial system like Archage has? Maybe we offer up one of our own, our military leader (aka the player or players with the highest PVP rank) for a public trial and potential public execution. Maybe we offer up a few for executions?

4. A gladiatorial fight, or a few of them. (Ok I think I just want to see gladiator colosseums where we can "practice" against one another hehe.

5. To save our relm from certain doom the gods send forth a protector, or a dragon, or etc. Once killed the opposing faction receive some rare resources and gold and leave the city safe out of respect for the champion they downed (or they get owned and lose some territory).

6. A combination of all of the above.

Something that is really interesting to me, if your relm is forced back into a starting safe area, you have a harder time getting to resources (if they exist on the battle field). This will cause prices to inflate as resources get more and more rare. Without resources your side can't produce weapons, so it can't fight as well, see where this is going? If an enemy holds you in your starting area long enough your relm might become handicapped. I wonder how they plan to balance that? I suppose the easy way is to make resources spawn in safe areas as well as battle areas? Just the idea of being under siege for months and watching your Relm start to struggle is exciting and scary.

In extreme cases where the game has been compromised and 1 side has total control for an excessive amount of time, many months maybe? I would like to see the Gods/Devs come down from the mountain top and create chaos (dev controlled character chaos) before disappearing into the unknown (and by chaos I mean mauling EVERYONE from all 3 Relms within a few capture points of your safe relm area so you have a chance to recapture them again). Bit this MUST be uber rare and only in the most dire of circumstances or whats the point right?

Thoughts and ideas? (I know it's a lot of info but please don't base your comments off my title alone)

«1

Comments

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,470Member Uncommon
    Your idea will cost the game players without adding any.  Therefore it is a bad suggestion.
  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

    It adds rewards and incentives to the relm that beat the other relm. I don't imagine it would be much fun to push your enemies back to their safe zone, where they run out, throw an attack, and run away in a never ending game of cat and mouse without getting some sore of victory reward and inflicting some sort of punishment on them. Without rewards and consequences everything is pointless right?

  • VoiidiinVoiidiin Barrow, AKPosts: 817Member
    Will not work, a defeated player of a game needs to have the hope of regrouping re organizing and making a come back, the safe zone has to be this. If you remove any hope of coming back to recoup your losses you will just get demoralized players who would rather leave then get annihilated.

    Lolipops !

  • tharkthark FalunPosts: 1,147Member Uncommon

    Hmm..

    The winning realm probably get a couple off global buffs for it's folks(players) while the loosers doesn't get any..I belive that is the punishment ...

     

  • kaliniskalinis Dexter, MEPosts: 1,428Member

    What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots. 

    I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Voiidiin
    Will not work, a defeated player of a game needs to have the hope of regrouping re organizing and making a come back, the safe zone has to be this. If you remove any hope of coming back to recoup your losses you will just get demoralized players who would rather leave then get annihilated.

    They can do all of those things, after one of the above situations happen. The above situations are a one time thing that happens as you lose control of everything but your safe zone. Once you pay the price, you go back to trying to recover.

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by kalinis
    What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots. I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 

    I'm not talking about the noobs, I'm talking about what happens when you reach the end of the map and drive your enemy to the end of the road.

  • alexisevicalexisevic Rochester, NYPosts: 41Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

     


    Originally posted by kalinis
    What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots. 

     

    I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 


     

    I'm not talking about the noobs, I'm talking about what happens when you reach the end of the map and drive your enemy to the end of the road.

    Then you reward the conquering or winning army.  But you never punish the losing team.  That's basic game design 101. Threatening players if they lose doesn't encourage those players to fight harder, it causes them to quit and go play other games.

  • MickleMickle Evansville, INPosts: 119Member Uncommon

    Both sides need to be buffed and debuffed. 

    The winning side needs to have their combat debuffed to make the game more of a challenge.  In return, they tend to get cash as a buff.

     

    Those that are pushed back need to get a large buff in combat.  Their buffs come from the safe zone.

     

    Never forget this is a game.  Nobody like to get beat over and over again.  Both sides need to have a fighting chance.

     

    Any Dev worth his salt should have tools in place for the times when the game gets out of ballance.  Those should include over/under population and dumb ass players that have no idea how to play the game.

  • NibsNibs .Posts: 216Member Uncommon

    Simple game psychology: reward winning, do not punish losing.

    There was never a punishment for losing your relics in DAoC, the captors received a realm-wide buff.

    The losers of a seige were never punished, the victors were rewarded.

    If your side was being held at the mile wall, or the portal keep, you weren't punished. The 'winners' in those instances weren't even rewarded by the game. But keeping the enemy locked in a place did allow you free reign to do what you wanted in their frontiers.

    A relic raid had choices: Take outlaying keeps to diminish the NPCs guards at the relic keep, but alerting the defending realm to your intent; go straight for the relic keep, hoping to get a good headstart before defenders arrived; blockade the portal keeps so the defenders couldn't even get out to defend.

    None of these options punished the losers.

    Reward victory. Do not punish defeat.

  • GaladournGaladourn AthensPosts: 1,052Member
    Realm Rank points is the prize to the winner; no need to make the game unplayable for the loser. And according to MJ's words, RR will be more than just titles so it'll be worth it.
  • ScalplessScalpless SnowballvillePosts: 1,395Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

    It's been stated [losing sides] will not get pillaged and burned, but they need to feel the pain.

    That's the premise of your post and it's wrong, because this isn't real life. When your race is cornered and about to get wiped out IRL, you get motivation to fight harder. When your realm is losing in a video game and getting punished for it, you switch to another realm. Sure, some hardcore PvPers will stick to their realm no matter what, but they're a minority.

  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon
    When you win, you then have to defend your winnings. That's what happens. The point of "safe" zones is that they're safe. The quickest way to make an underdog realm into a deserted realm is to let the superior realm into its safe zones. You want underdogs to band together and topple the champion not quit the server or the game. So no.

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • AethaerynAethaeryn Kitchener, ONPosts: 1,971Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

    It adds rewards and incentives to the relm that beat the other relm. I don't imagine it would be much fun to push your enemies back to their safe zone, where they run out, throw an attack, and run away in a never ending game of cat and mouse without getting some sore of victory reward and inflicting some sort of punishment on them. Without rewards and consequences everything is pointless right?

    It also gives new players a reason to jump ship and leave to the other side.  Punishing newbies in the safe zone so they feel their side sucks while not invested in a character is a bad idea for realm balance.

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • AethaerynAethaeryn Kitchener, ONPosts: 1,971Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by meddyck
    When you win, you then have to defend your winnings. That's what happens. The point of "safe" zones is that they're safe. The quickest way to make an underdog realm into a deserted realm is to let the superior realm into its safe zones. You want underdogs to band together and topple the champion not quit the server or the game. So no.

    My exact worry (as posted above).  Also agree with rewrading victor more for getting that far.  OP if you like the idea of punishing the loser so much I am guessing you would make sure you were on the winning side at this point.  Guessing of course. . maybe you like being the under dog.  I do. .but not if it means getting kicked in the BS constantly with no hope of reprisal.

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • AethaerynAethaeryn Kitchener, ONPosts: 1,971Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

     


    Originally posted by kalinis
    What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots. 

     

    I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 


     

    I'm not talking about the noobs, I'm talking about what happens when you reach the end of the map and drive your enemy to the end of the road.

    The "end of the road" or the safe zones are where noobs hang out and new players start.  I get the idea of what you are saying and think there should be something. . at least a pysical representation of what has happened etc.  

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen USA, GAPosts: 2,451Member Uncommon

    MJ already said there would be some safe zones so get over it OP. Ganking lowbies and is not pvp and it would basically be spawn camping the underdog realm and they'd have no chance to regroup, re-strategize, it would crush spirits and people would more often reroll to the most popular realm, leaving the underdog one deserted. Just a bad idea all the way around, it never works out good for the game.


    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Aethaeryn

    Originally posted by Xobdnas  

    Originally posted by kalinis What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots.    I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 
      I'm not talking about the noobs, I'm talking about what happens when you reach the end of the map and drive your enemy to the end of the road.
    The "end of the road" or the safe zones are where noobs hang out and new players start.  I get the idea of what you are saying and think there should be something. . at least a pysical representation of what has happened etc.  

    Ah, at last, someone actually read what I wrote rather than just responding to my title. You sir give me hope that the internet may not be entirely evil.

    I do not want noobs to get owned but I want them to get a sense of the loss, the ideas I proposed all revolve around the noob/safe zone NOT being compromised. It's like this, the horde is at our door, we pay them off they give us a couple keeps and retreat back a ways so we can rebuild. Loss felt, no one dies, we now have a couple keeps and a bonus buff to start rebuilding.

    As far as "basic game psych" dont punish loss, without loss there is no consequence, without consequence our in game actions mean nothing. The idea of you win you win, you lose you win (or worse yet you win more than the guy that beat you) is a fairly recent Gen Y idea (everyone gets a trophy right?). Back in my day when you lost your three lives you started over because Mario didn't have a save option...and last i checked those early games seem to have done ok. Do I want to see extremely negative consequences for losing, no. I just want them to get an idea that losing has consequences so rather than sit in the safe zone and pretend a War isn't happening they need to contribute to the War effort. It keeps the crafters involved, it gives them a reason to interact and invest in the War.

    As for a buff for losing, I assumed they would buff the repeated loser and debuff the repeated winners, but what I was trying to offer was a few alternative or additional options to make the game feel more real rather than me going oh, if I lose I get stronger, no big deal. Not to mention, at some point winning becomes pointless since your just hurting yourself and your chances of winning again, why would I go through the effort of winning if the end result is loss? The options I mention reward the conquerers with some cash etc so when they get that debuff they dont feel as bad.

  • fanglofanglo Virginia, VAPosts: 290Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

     


    Originally posted by Aethaeryn

    Originally posted by Xobdnas  

    Originally posted by kalinis What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots.    I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 
      I'm not talking about the noobs, I'm talking about what happens when you reach the end of the map and drive your enemy to the end of the road.
    The "end of the road" or the safe zones are where noobs hang out and new players start.  I get the idea of what you are saying and think there should be something. . at least a pysical representation of what has happened etc.  

     

    Ah, at last, someone actually read what I wrote rather than just responding to my title. You sir give me hope that the internet may not be entirely evil.

    I do not want noobs to get owned but I want them to get a sense of the loss, the ideas I proposed all revolve around the noob/safe zone NOT being compromised. It's like this, the horde is at our door, we pay them off they give us a couple keeps and retreat back a ways so we can rebuild. Loss felt, no one dies, we now have a couple keeps and a bonus buff to start rebuilding.

    As far as "basic game psych" dont punish loss, without loss there is no consequence, without consequence our in game actions mean nothing. The idea of you win you win, you lose you win (or worse yet you win more than the guy that beat you) is a fairly recent Gen Y idea (everyone gets a trophy right?). Back in my day when you lost your three lives you started over because Mario didn't have a save option...and last i checked those early games seem to have done ok. Do I want to see extremely negative consequences for losing, no. I just want them to get an idea that losing has consequences so rather than sit in the safe zone and pretend a War isn't happening they need to contribute to the War effort. It keeps the crafters involved, it gives them a reason to interact and invest in the War.

    As for a buff for losing, I assumed they would buff the repeated loser and debuff the repeated winners, but what I was trying to offer was a few alternative or additional options to make the game feel more real rather than me going oh, if I lose I get stronger, no big deal. Not to mention, at some point winning becomes pointless since your just hurting yourself and your chances of winning again, why would I go through the effort of winning if the end result is loss? The options I mention reward the conquerers with some cash etc so when they get that debuff they dont feel as bad.

    My idea of localized banking if implamented meant that if one realm was able to destroy every structure the other realm owned would be a big hit on that realms economy. The winning realm would also have super easy access to the best resources in the game with little worry of getting attacked (except by the 3rd realm)

    Anyway my idea is simple, allow players to build banks/vaults in structures. If you take over the structure you get everything in the bank/vault. The safer areas would have more rewards because players would feel safer putting stuff inside those banks. So the deeper you went into an enemy realms area the more rewards you would get. 

    Now there should always be a safer area for players to store their things but it would be far from the contested area and would take a while to get there from the contested area, but it should always be an option. That way you could not destroy another realm 100%.

    I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!

  • tleartlear Toronto, ONPosts: 142Member
    If you took over everything in one realm there is always the third one. This is why 3 sided RvR is key, 2 sides just dont work since one side will "win" and then server is done for
  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

    "My idea of localized banking if implamented meant that if one realm was able to destroy every structure the other realm owned would be a big hit on that realms economy. The winning realm would also have super easy access to the best resources in the game with little worry of getting attacked (except by the 3rd realm)

    Anyway my idea is simple, allow players to build banks/vaults in structures. If you take over the structure you get everything in the bank/vault. The safer areas would have more rewards because players would feel safer putting stuff inside those banks. So the deeper you went into an enemy realms area the more rewards you would get. 

    Now there should always be a safer area for players to store their things but it would be far from the contested area and would take a while to get there from the contested area, but it should always be an option. That way you could not destroy another realm 100%."

    That works perfectly and makes sense from boon and bane standpoint. Having stuff in a close bank is convenient, but less safe. Having stuff in a far bank makes for a longer travel time but it's very safe. I love it.

  • OdamanOdaman Satesboro, GAPosts: 194Member
    It won't happen. As others have stated and you've seemed to ignore, you can't punish the losing side. Taking resources, killing someone, looting banks... those are quick ways to lose population. Though with housing, it was mentioned that those will have bonuses in rvr and you can deny the losing faction of that. The losing side will feel pain from travel time alone, much like daoc when you were shut out in NF.
  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member
    Originally posted by alexisevic
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

    Originally posted by kalinis
    What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots. 

    I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 


    I'm not talking about the noobs, I'm talking about what happens when you reach the end of the map and drive your enemy to the end of the road.

    Then you reward the conquering or winning army.  But you never punish the losing team.  That's basic game design 101. Threatening players if they lose doesn't encourage those players to fight harder, it causes them to quit and go play other games.

    Hopefully Mark Jacobs of all people knows this and doesn't completely ruin his own new project.

  • fanglofanglo Virginia, VAPosts: 290Member
    Originally posted by BadSpock
    Originally posted by alexisevic
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

    Originally posted by kalinis
    What is it with the people who want to beat up on noobs. I don't understand why a max level player in any games gets any fun beating up on players who have no way to fight back . Or have an issue with players having a safe zone where they don't have to worry about being camped by idiots. 

    I mean really just how big a jackass do u have to be to want to gank noobs and camp them . 


    I'm not talking about the noobs, I'm talking about what happens when you reach the end of the map and drive your enemy to the end of the road.

    Then you reward the conquering or winning army.  But you never punish the losing team.  That's basic game design 101. Threatening players if they lose doesn't encourage those players to fight harder, it causes them to quit and go play other games.

    Hopefully Mark Jacobs of all people knows this and doesn't completely ruin his own new project.

    in EvE there is a huge penalty if you lose. players don't quit though, but you are somewhat correct it must be implemented correctly .

    I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!

  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member
    Originally posted by fanglo
    Originally posted by BadSpock
    Originally posted by alexisevic

    Then you reward the conquering or winning army.  But you never punish the losing team.  That's basic game design 101. Threatening players if they lose doesn't encourage those players to fight harder, it causes them to quit and go play other games.

    Hopefully Mark Jacobs of all people knows this and doesn't completely ruin his own new project.

    in EvE there is a huge penalty if you lose. players don't quit though, but you are somewhat correct it must be implemented correctly .

    Most of the time in EvE that penalty isn't that huge. Unless you aren't playing smart and fly something you can't afford to lose. There is a reason most players will never, ever lose a Navy BS in PvP...

    Their system still has a lot of flaws though. Namely that a single PLEX for $19.99 can mostly negate a whole host of stupid ship losses with zero in-game grind time.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.