All this argueing doesnt change the fact that the amount of Resource points, Forts and Battlekeeps are too small to prevent the creation of a few Mega Guilds per server. By a few I am specifying 3 or MAYBE 4. Sucks doesnt it? But the snowball effect is real and it has happened. Shadowbane did a good job of preventing this with a large number of resource points. How many guilds are on a server you reckon, vs what 9 BK's? It simply doesnt balance, period.
Plus since theres 3 BK's in one region a guild can probably get large enough to hold one complete region, meaning all 3 BK's. That means that 3 Mega guilds will form and guess what? None of them will want to risk losing their stuff so they may open raids to minor guilds to prevent maintanence costs from going up but in general the whole server would turn into one giant stalemate. GG AoC.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Ghost12
All this argueing doesnt change the fact that the amount of Resource points, Forts and Battlekeeps are too small to prevent the creation of a few Mega Guilds per server. By a few I am specifying 3 or MAYBE 4. Sucks doesnt it? But the snowball effect is real and it has happened. Shadowbane did a good job of preventing this with a large number of resource points. How many guilds are on a server you reckon, vs what 9 BK's? It simply doesnt balance, period. Plus since theres 3 BK's in one region a guild can probably get large enough to hold one complete region, meaning all 3 BK's. That means that 3 Mega guilds will form and guess what? None of them will want to risk losing their stuff so they may open raids to minor guilds to prevent maintanence costs from going up but in general the whole server would turn into one giant stalemate. GG AoC.
Im sure this was answered in the link I provided. Well reasons for the amount of BK.
*Shakes Magic 8 Ball* - "its gonna be doom I tell ya"
It balances very well per server population if you do the math and look into the amount of people per server.
Did you know a few of the devs played ShadowBane extensively? which leads you too say ....
The only thing Athelan says is that it balances well with the "early calculations on server population". But they do limit one guild to one keep, so okay that kind of eliminates one guild domination, but you could always create a sub guild or a permanent allied guild to take over another...eh well. I dont see why they cant increase the number of Battlekeep's per server to like 15 or 18. (THAT would be pretty sick) Im not going to go any further, its too early to go this deep into speculation. I'll wait for the game to release to see what happens.
They limit one guild to "owning" one keep. But what's to stop the largest guild from repeatedly sieging other people's keeps just for fun.
No they can't own it, but they can sure burn it down.
Also to Avery. Balancing something based on early calculations doesn't really mean anything. That's on paper.
If they said "It balances well in the beta" then I"d be convinced that it's extremely likely to balance well.
On paper is called theory, and theories are often reworked or proven to be absolutely false.
--------------------------------------------- I live to fight, and fight to live.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Ghost12
The only thing Athelan says is that it balances well with the "early calculations on server population". But they do limit one guild to one keep, so okay that kind of eliminates one guild domination, but you could always create a sub guild or a permanent allied guild to take over another...eh well. I dont see why they cant increase the number of Battlekeep's per server to like 15 or 18. (THAT would be pretty sick) Im not going to go any further, its too early to go this deep into speculation. I'll wait for the game to release to see what happens.
Oh I agree, we will have to wait and see about the sub guild thing. And I agree about the number of BattleKeep's 9 per server does seem a little on the low side, but competition will be rife.
Originally posted by checkthis500
They limit one guild to "owning" one keep. But what's to stop the largest guild from repeatedly sieging other people's keeps just for fun. No they can't own it, but they can sure burn it down. Also to Avery. Balancing something based on early calculations doesn't really mean anything. That's on paper. If they said "It balances well in the beta" then I"d be convinced that it's extremely likely to balance well. On paper is called theory, and theories are often reworked or proven to be absolutely false.
I think that because of the amount of Keeps per server, your just as in danger of being attacked at every opportunity the mechanics allow for. So I think its designed around the fact that repairs and fortifications are just as important.
Remember also, to have a BattleKeep you must have a PvE city, the City is also under attack from N.P.C's and is also used to help your Keep progress. Is it not hard to see that there are lots of things to do?
By your own admission theory are often reworked or proven false, I hope you keep that in mind with your "backfire" proposition.
Anyway, some new Guild U.I. screens from ingame:
Remember it costs to have a Keep. Plus PvE City is tied into it all as well.
Also this shows a nice depth to guild options, the whole point being is that your free to fight whom ever, when ever you want (within reason) I prefer this style of play than having a computer pick or control where to go or my team mates.
Ok for a guild to hold a whole bk region it must have created 2 alt guilds because one guild can only hold 1 bk.Now if the chars in the alt guilds are alts how can they protect all 3 bks if they are attacked at the same time?They simply cannot because they dont have the real numbers to do so.
That leaves us only with the possibility that a guild is so big that even divided by 3 parts each one of that part can defend itself and can act completly autonomous if needed.I dont think making such a guild and maintaning its unity is very likely the most probable thing that will happen is that guilds will create alliances like in other games with similar pvp systems.
Now the only thing that you must ask yourself is if you like this system and the politics involved or not.I prefer it tbh its much more realistic and i always want to be able to choose my enemies and allies instead fighting anyone for the only reason that they rolled a different race than me in cc.A GvG system will make stronger bonds with your guild and to an extend a better comunnity feeling because you will have to be sure that the guild you choose is mostly composed of like minded players with the same goals.
Every system has its ups and downs and everyone can choose what they like best but i feel that if too many restrictions are placed in the game to prevent possible scenarios of guild domination it will do more harm than good in the long run.
(I agree btw: i think player run politics is like ly to be more amusing and absorbing than the "good guys/badguys" world-dominaton thru evil lost artifacts model .. sigh)
but i often have the impression that someone somewhere has the idea that
OH NO IF WE LET THE PAYERS RUN THIS ASYLUM THEY MAY DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE AND IRREVERSIBLE TO OUR WORLD...
to which i say.. SO?
thats what happens when you invite people to play in your sandbox.
And SO WHAT? its a fantasy world.
And its JUST one server (instance) of the fantasy world ANYWAY. not like the events were going to be canon.
Whats the worst thing that happens? it could come to an end?
Like none of us have ever rebooted a game before
Its the games that weren't enough fun to reboot that one should be concerned about.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by badgerbadger
A point if I may about the last post: (I agree btw: i think player run politics is like ly to be more amusing and absorbing than the "good guys/badguys" world-dominaton thru evil lost artifacts model .. sigh)
but i often have the impression that someone somewhere has the idea that OH NO IF WE LET THE PAYERS RUN THIS ASYLUM THEY MAY DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE AND IRREVERSIBLE TO OUR WORLD...
to which i say.. SO? thats what happens when you invite people to play in your sandbox. And SO WHAT? its a fantasy world.
And its JUST one server (instance) of the fantasy world ANYWAY. not like the events were going to be canon. Whats the worst thing that happens? it could come to an end? Like none of us have ever rebooted a game before Its the games that weren't enough fun to reboot that one should be concerned about.
Well said! In My opinion it looks like there is sufficient content to keep me interested for long periods of time.
A point if I may about the last post: (I agree btw: i think player run politics is like ly to be more amusing and absorbing than the "good guys/badguys" world-dominaton thru evil lost artifacts model .. sigh)
but i often have the impression that someone somewhere has the idea that OH NO IF WE LET THE PAYERS RUN THIS ASYLUM THEY MAY DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE AND IRREVERSIBLE TO OUR WORLD...
to which i say.. SO? thats what happens when you invite people to play in your sandbox. And SO WHAT? its a fantasy world.
And its JUST one server (instance) of the fantasy world ANYWAY. not like the events were going to be canon. Whats the worst thing that happens? it could come to an end? Like none of us have ever rebooted a game before Its the games that weren't enough fun to reboot that one should be concerned about.
Well said! In My opinion it looks like there is sufficient content to keep me interested for long periods of time.
I believe this as well which is why I am choosing AoC first over other potentially good MMORPGs. I just find it to be the most interesting.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Remali
A GvG system will make stronger bonds with your guild and to an extend a better comunnity feeling because you will have to be sure that the guild you choose is mostly composed of like minded players with the same goals. Every system has its ups and downs and everyone can choose what they like best but i feel that if too many restrictions are placed in the game to prevent possible scenarios of guild domination it will do more harm than good in the long run.
Quite accurate in my opinion! A guild can chose its players in GvG this is one the best types of game types to play in Open Seige Warfare. The flexibililty and diversity it offers are proven time and time again.
I agree about the restrictions too, although some should be there, it will hopefully be a system that lets guilds flourish at their own pace.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Some more information and points of view from a developer:
Now what we have is king of the hill, and the chaos on one hand may favor the defender, but if 10 guilds attack the keep, wipe out the defenders quickly, then start bickering amongst themselves, the winner will be the fresh big guild, or huge zerg, that comes in dur the last ½ an hour –or possibly 15 mins- and cleans up the rabble and holds on till the last…
Now this might be an effective strategy for the defender: Hold on initially as long as possible, then fall back and let the rabble fight it out, then regroup and come in strong at the very end hoping the initial hold and the final time will add up to an overall win.
While this may be fun for a while, attrition is going to cause a lot of people to feel this chaotic gankfest is a malaise rather than a strategic conquest.
Now, this is just my pessimism talking, the major factors to me will be the mechanics of NPC guards/guard shacks (will they be worth the effort? Or just useless meat like in SB after they got nerfed) and defensive offense like catapults, and walls/etc…
I just want to get my hands on this cause city building and sieging were the biggest reasons I came to this forum in the first place, right up there w/ being an REH fan.
I guess you just don't understand the explanation. the best method of gaining tickets is to have constructed the capture object. A defending guild has the advantage of that and upgrading it as well as having outer defenses and walls, if anything I see it will be a challenge for attackers to break through fast enough to stem the defenders flow of tickets.
Sure a big guild could come in after some other guild had already broken through the walls and try to just take the keep but that sounds like a tactical move to me.
Chaotic gankfest vs strategic conquest? Come on now, I find it perhaps terribly humorous that you complain of a gankfest when people cry for so long about wanting open PvP that I put the strategic objectives in an open PvP environment.
If you dont want "ganking" when it comes to attacking players then you must want instantiated keep battles which is not something I am for.
Strategy is not "dying" to someone during a keep battle, the battles themself mano a mano will probably be quite chaotic in many cases, the strategy is in do you hold which forts nearby for respawn, do you attack from the left or the right, do you enlist mercenaries, do you try to wait until someone else has breached the wall then charge them from the rear, etc etc etc
The size of an enemies army will only affect their ability to kill the other players there. It's not like it gains them more tickets to bring 500 or 5.
__________________
Athelan-NPC/Monster Designer, Behavioral Control Center/Combat Guru, Age of Conan
Seriously I thought what I laid out was pretty simple and self explanatory
There is no declaration system, it uses the vulnerability window and the tickets systems period.
A guild can hold numerous resources/forts but only one Keep. If they "win" a siege on another keep they would simply gain an additional set of bonus's for an amount of time not a second keep.
You need tickets to win
You won't gain tickets until you at the very least destroy the current capture object or "victory" point as someone else called it.
You gain nothing as long as someone else has the victory point built
You gain little if you control the area and NO victory point is built
You gain a lot if you control and have built the victory point.
With Battlekeeps on a week long cycle timer and as I said a total of 3 in a region and maybe 9 on a server. It is highly unlikely you would see 50 guilds go for one and 3 go for another. If thats the case then boohoo they go after something else next time. I don't see that as a problem. Players can handle their own situations through combat and player diplomacy.
Resources have small watchtowers
Forts have the gatehouse in the walls
Battlekeeps have the top of the central keep structure
Each objective has a constructible PvP object needed to be built to best gain control tickets.
__________________
Athelan-NPC/Monster Designer, Behavioral Control Center/Combat Guru, Age of Conan
If that needs to be addressed later that is fine. But the more you try to hold onto the more things slip through your fingers. If a big guild really wants to put effort into defending a lot of small things everyday then fine ok, but that doesnt mean small guilds wont have a shot at taking them and benefiting from it. With some approx 18 resources in three different regions of the border kingdoms to be fought over each day and lets say a 2 hour vulnerability window out of 24 hours in the day -8 hours for lockout periods you would still be looking at 18 resources in 16 hours needing to be contended over meaning at any given time you could have 2 or even 3 being active for fighting. Personally as a member of a big guild the only things I would care about holding would be any near my keep that would be potentially giving an attacker a close respawn point.
__________________
Athelan-NPC/Monster Designer, Behavioral Control Center/Combat Guru, Age of Conan
Chaotic gankfest vs strategic conquest? Come on now, I find it perhaps terribly humorous that you complain of a gankfest when people cry for so long about wanting open PvP that I put the strategic objectives in an open PvP environment.
You have to wonder how Devs put up with the lunacy from their customers. You find tons of people complaining about a lack of open-world PvP in MMORPGs today and then you have them complaining that they don't want to deal with the consequences of open world PvP. It's like some little kid crying that they want to ride the pony AND the rollercoaster at the same time
It's like all the people who come out complaining for a perma-death 'hardcore' game and whining about how no developer is trying to use those game mechanics. You know that any developer stupid enough to listen to them would have all those very same whiners leaving the game in first week while complaining that it sucked.
Avery - that is an AMAZING post - thank you for those of us not knowing our way around well enough yet to have seenthat on our own...
"gank- fest"...
"Chaos!"...? OH NO!
i call that opportunism... the basis of many tactics
i return to my previous comment..
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by badgerbadger
Avery - that is an AMAZING post - thank you for those of us not knowing our way around well enough yet to have seenthat on our own... "gank- fest"... "Chaos!"...? OH NO! i call that opportunism... the basis of many tactics i return to my previous comment..
Cheers
my favourite and in relation to the topic part was -
"The size of an enemies army will only affect their ability to kill the other players there. It's not like it gains them more tickets to bring 500 or 5."
oh and if people didnt see it before
"There is no declaration system, it uses the vulnerability window and the tickets systems period."
Should put down or counter arguments
Whats left? - To see if it all comes to fruition and if its true to word. Lets hope so.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Alienovrlord
I rather liked this quote: Chaotic gankfest vs strategic conquest? Come on now, I find it perhaps terribly humorous that you complain of a gankfest when people cry for so long about wanting open PvP that I put the strategic objectives in an open PvP environment. You have to wonder how Devs put up with the lunacy from their customers. You find tons of people complaining about a lack of open-world PvP in MMORPGs today and then you have them complaining that they don't want to deal with the consequences of open world PvP. It's like some little kid crying that they want to ride the pony AND the rollercoaster at the same time It's like all the people who come out complaining for a perma-death 'hardcore' game and whining about how no developer is trying to use those game mechanics. You know that any developer stupid enough to listen to them would have all those very same whiners leaving the game in first week while complaining that it sucked. Makes me glad I'm not a game developer.
From the discussion in the "Suggestions" area proves your points right
I rather liked this quote: Chaotic gankfest vs strategic conquest? Come on now, I find it perhaps terribly humorous that you complain of a gankfest when people cry for so long about wanting open PvP that I put the strategic objectives in an open PvP environment. You have to wonder how Devs put up with the lunacy from their customers. You find tons of people complaining about a lack of open-world PvP in MMORPGs today and then you have them complaining that they don't want to deal with the consequences of open world PvP. It's like some little kid crying that they want to ride the pony AND the rollercoaster at the same time It's like all the people who come out complaining for a perma-death 'hardcore' game and whining about how no developer is trying to use those game mechanics. You know that any developer stupid enough to listen to them would have all those very same whiners leaving the game in first week while complaining that it sucked. Makes me glad I'm not a game developer.
From the discussion in the "Suggestions" area proves your points right
SO SO TRUE.
Thats why the make different servers with different rulesets.
Open PvP, Play at your OWN risk!!! Here Be Dragons!!!
Seriously Perma-Death is the single most worse idea ever. It'd be like real life, and Real Life, ISN'T as entertaining. If I want to worry about dieing I would Drive FAST, Take Risks, and all that fun sh$t.
Even most hardcore Pk'rs dont like the idea of permadeath. I know I dont. Permadeath is just going too far, I would not want to lose my character all cause I didnt watch my back and I got ganked. Now I really dont see the fun in that. FFA pvP, ok, full loot, okay, loss of character? Way too far.
Comments
All this argueing doesnt change the fact that the amount of Resource points, Forts and Battlekeeps are too small to prevent the creation of a few Mega Guilds per server. By a few I am specifying 3 or MAYBE 4. Sucks doesnt it? But the snowball effect is real and it has happened. Shadowbane did a good job of preventing this with a large number of resource points. How many guilds are on a server you reckon, vs what 9 BK's? It simply doesnt balance, period.
Plus since theres 3 BK's in one region a guild can probably get large enough to hold one complete region, meaning all 3 BK's. That means that 3 Mega guilds will form and guess what? None of them will want to risk losing their stuff so they may open raids to minor guilds to prevent maintanence costs from going up but in general the whole server would turn into one giant stalemate. GG AoC.
Im sure this was answered in the link I provided. Well reasons for the amount of BK.
*Shakes Magic 8 Ball* - "its gonna be doom I tell ya"
It balances very well per server population if you do the math and look into the amount of people per server.
Did you know a few of the devs played ShadowBane extensively? which leads you too say ....
The only thing Athelan says is that it balances well with the "early calculations on server population". But they do limit one guild to one keep, so okay that kind of eliminates one guild domination, but you could always create a sub guild or a permanent allied guild to take over another...eh well. I dont see why they cant increase the number of Battlekeep's per server to like 15 or 18. (THAT would be pretty sick) Im not going to go any further, its too early to go this deep into speculation. I'll wait for the game to release to see what happens.
They limit one guild to "owning" one keep. But what's to stop the largest guild from repeatedly sieging other people's keeps just for fun.
No they can't own it, but they can sure burn it down.
Also to Avery. Balancing something based on early calculations doesn't really mean anything. That's on paper.
If they said "It balances well in the beta" then I"d be convinced that it's extremely likely to balance well.
On paper is called theory, and theories are often reworked or proven to be absolutely false.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
Oh I agree, we will have to wait and see about the sub guild thing. And I agree about the number of BattleKeep's 9 per server does seem a little on the low side, but competition will be rife.
I think that because of the amount of Keeps per server, your just as in danger of being attacked at every opportunity the mechanics allow for. So I think its designed around the fact that repairs and fortifications are just as important.
Remember also, to have a BattleKeep you must have a PvE city, the City is also under attack from N.P.C's and is also used to help your Keep progress. Is it not hard to see that there are lots of things to do?
By your own admission theory are often reworked or proven false, I hope you keep that in mind with your "backfire" proposition.
Anyway, some new Guild U.I. screens from ingame:
Remember it costs to have a Keep. Plus PvE City is tied into it all as well.
Also this shows a nice depth to guild options, the whole point being is that your free to fight whom ever, when ever you want (within reason) I prefer this style of play than having a computer pick or control where to go or my team mates.
For my 2 cents...
The "faction" friction you allude to - and the fellow who might play to disrupt these super-guild factions -
sound like they very possibly will be more fun than the THIN stories meant to progress most "role Playing" games...
just a tiny tinny shout from the peanut gallery
Ok for a guild to hold a whole bk region it must have created 2 alt guilds because one guild can only hold 1 bk.Now if the chars in the alt guilds are alts how can they protect all 3 bks if they are attacked at the same time?They simply cannot because they dont have the real numbers to do so.
That leaves us only with the possibility that a guild is so big that even divided by 3 parts each one of that part can defend itself and can act completly autonomous if needed.I dont think making such a guild and maintaning its unity is very likely the most probable thing that will happen is that guilds will create alliances like in other games with similar pvp systems.
Now the only thing that you must ask yourself is if you like this system and the politics involved or not.I prefer it tbh its much more realistic and i always want to be able to choose my enemies and allies instead fighting anyone for the only reason that they rolled a different race than me in cc.A GvG system will make stronger bonds with your guild and to an extend a better comunnity feeling because you will have to be sure that the guild you choose is mostly composed of like minded players with the same goals.
Every system has its ups and downs and everyone can choose what they like best but i feel that if too many restrictions are placed in the game to prevent possible scenarios of guild domination it will do more harm than good in the long run.
A point if I may about the last post:
(I agree btw: i think player run politics is like ly to be more amusing and absorbing than the "good guys/badguys" world-dominaton thru evil lost artifacts model .. sigh)
but i often have the impression that someone somewhere has the idea that
OH NO IF WE LET THE PAYERS RUN THIS ASYLUM THEY MAY DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE AND IRREVERSIBLE TO OUR WORLD...
to which i say.. SO?
thats what happens when you invite people to play in your sandbox.
And SO WHAT? its a fantasy world.
And its JUST one server (instance) of the fantasy world ANYWAY. not like the events were going to be canon.
Whats the worst thing that happens? it could come to an end?
Like none of us have ever rebooted a game before
Its the games that weren't enough fun to reboot that one should be concerned about.
Well said! In My opinion it looks like there is sufficient content to keep me interested for long periods of time.
Well said! In My opinion it looks like there is sufficient content to keep me interested for long periods of time.
I believe this as well which is why I am choosing AoC first over other potentially good MMORPGs. I just find it to be the most interesting.
Quite accurate in my opinion! A guild can chose its players in GvG this is one the best types of game types to play in Open Seige Warfare. The flexibililty and diversity it offers are proven time and time again.
I agree about the restrictions too, although some should be there, it will hopefully be a system that lets guilds flourish at their own pace.
Some more information and points of view from a developer:
vbmenu_register("postmenu_936052", true);
Now what we have is king of the hill, and the chaos on one hand may favor the defender, but if 10 guilds attack the keep, wipe out the defenders quickly, then start bickering amongst themselves, the winner will be the fresh big guild, or huge zerg, that comes in dur the last ½ an hour –or possibly 15 mins- and cleans up the rabble and holds on till the last…
Now this might be an effective strategy for the defender: Hold on initially as long as possible, then fall back and let the rabble fight it out, then regroup and come in strong at the very end hoping the initial hold and the final time will add up to an overall win.
While this may be fun for a while, attrition is going to cause a lot of people to feel this chaotic gankfest is a malaise rather than a strategic conquest.
Now, this is just my pessimism talking, the major factors to me will be the mechanics of NPC guards/guard shacks (will they be worth the effort? Or just useless meat like in SB after they got nerfed) and defensive offense like catapults, and walls/etc…
I just want to get my hands on this cause city building and sieging were the biggest reasons I came to this forum in the first place, right up there w/ being an REH fan.
I guess you just don't understand the explanation. the best method of gaining tickets is to have constructed the capture object. A defending guild has the advantage of that and upgrading it as well as having outer defenses and walls, if anything I see it will be a challenge for attackers to break through fast enough to stem the defenders flow of tickets.
Sure a big guild could come in after some other guild had already broken through the walls and try to just take the keep but that sounds like a tactical move to me.
Chaotic gankfest vs strategic conquest? Come on now, I find it perhaps terribly humorous that you complain of a gankfest when people cry for so long about wanting open PvP that I put the strategic objectives in an open PvP environment.
If you dont want "ganking" when it comes to attacking players then you must want instantiated keep battles which is not something I am for.
Strategy is not "dying" to someone during a keep battle, the battles themself mano a mano will probably be quite chaotic in many cases, the strategy is in do you hold which forts nearby for respawn, do you attack from the left or the right, do you enlist mercenaries, do you try to wait until someone else has breached the wall then charge them from the rear, etc etc etc
The size of an enemies army will only affect their ability to kill the other players there. It's not like it gains them more tickets to bring 500 or 5.
vbmenu_register("postmenu_936318", true);
There is no declaration system, it uses the vulnerability window and the tickets systems period.
A guild can hold numerous resources/forts but only one Keep. If they "win" a siege on another keep they would simply gain an additional set of bonus's for an amount of time not a second keep.
You need tickets to win
You won't gain tickets until you at the very least destroy the current capture object or "victory" point as someone else called it.
You gain nothing as long as someone else has the victory point built
You gain little if you control the area and NO victory point is built
You gain a lot if you control and have built the victory point.
With Battlekeeps on a week long cycle timer and as I said a total of 3 in a region and maybe 9 on a server. It is highly unlikely you would see 50 guilds go for one and 3 go for another. If thats the case then boohoo they go after something else next time. I don't see that as a problem. Players can handle their own situations through combat and player diplomacy.
Resources have small watchtowers
Forts have the gatehouse in the walls
Battlekeeps have the top of the central keep structure
Each objective has a constructible PvP object needed to be built to best gain control tickets.
vbmenu_register("postmenu_936354", true);
Hope this info finds your guy well
I rather liked this quote:
Chaotic gankfest vs strategic conquest? Come on now, I find it perhaps terribly humorous that you complain of a gankfest when people cry for so long about wanting open PvP that I put the strategic objectives in an open PvP environment.
You have to wonder how Devs put up with the lunacy from their customers. You find tons of people complaining about a lack of open-world PvP in MMORPGs today and then you have them complaining that they don't want to deal with the consequences of open world PvP. It's like some little kid crying that they want to ride the pony AND the rollercoaster at the same time
It's like all the people who come out complaining for a perma-death 'hardcore' game and whining about how no developer is trying to use those game mechanics. You know that any developer stupid enough to listen to them would have all those very same whiners leaving the game in first week while complaining that it sucked.
Makes me glad I'm not a game developer.
Avery - that is an AMAZING post - thank you for those of us not knowing our way around well enough yet to have seenthat on our own...
"gank- fest"...
"Chaos!"...? OH NO!
i call that opportunism... the basis of many tactics
i return to my previous comment..
Cheers
my favourite and in relation to the topic part was -
"The size of an enemies army will only affect their ability to kill the other players there. It's not like it gains them more tickets to bring 500 or 5."
oh and if people didnt see it before
"There is no declaration system, it uses the vulnerability window and the tickets systems period."
Should put down or counter arguments
Whats left? - To see if it all comes to fruition and if its true to word. Lets hope so.
From the discussion in the "Suggestions" area proves your points right
From the discussion in the "Suggestions" area proves your points right
SO SO TRUE.
Thats why the make different servers with different rulesets.
Open PvP, Play at your OWN risk!!! Here Be Dragons!!!
Seriously Perma-Death is the single most worse idea ever. It'd be like real life, and Real Life, ISN'T as entertaining. If I want to worry about dieing I would Drive FAST, Take Risks, and all that fun sh$t.
Even most hardcore Pk'rs dont like the idea of permadeath. I know I dont. Permadeath is just going too far, I would not want to lose my character all cause I didnt watch my back and I got ganked. Now I really dont see the fun in that. FFA pvP, ok, full loot, okay, loss of character? Way too far.