|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 17, 2015 10:52:23 GMT
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 17, 2015 11:14:34 GMT
Oh fucking waaaaa
It's how Eve works. It's a way to push people out of a system ie resources. Anyway there's something more pressing.
Womdy and themo stfu. The people have a history of deposing leaders when they don't shape up? When the fuck in the history of Australia did this happen? Are you talking about the blatant assault on our democracy by the upper leaders of the labor party? Who do not hold seats are not elected officials but dictate party policy? Ie rudd guillard bullshit.
Or how about the lack of care for the better of the Commonwealth and again people inside a collective disposing a prime minister who was elected by the public to one of their choosing? A man who was a dreadful opposition leader and failed at his portfolio. But it's OK he's an arrogant self made millionaire.
The point is democracy in Australia is dead. The people are oppressed. The media dictates policy. Our vote means nothing but if we dont vote we're are fined!
I'm forced to read fucking opinions of dumbarse twats and somehow the public gobbles it up and asks more please.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 17, 2015 11:35:07 GMT
I guess I don't agree and don't think it's a bug.
If a person decides to join a guild, typically it's because that guild is for or against PvP. You join accordingly. 2nd - if the guild leader is that terrible that they would just declare war without getting the group consensus, he is a jerk and people should leave his guild.
I don't think it's something that needs addressing by design in other words. But maybe I'm just being short sighted. I really don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 17, 2015 12:31:52 GMT
Yes I think you know that I jest by saying exploit or bug The guild thing should stand as is. Part of being in a guild. The part that sucks for a lot of casual gamers is the insta-flag design of the current system. If you were standing in a crowd of 10 people, all 10 could flag over TS and be on your ass like white on rice. No cool-downs, no penalties, just insta-flag. That be broken for the casual. As for the not casual gamers, I'm guessing this is a most welcome feature haha.
|
|
|
Post by fossil on Dec 17, 2015 15:59:33 GMT
When building a game of PvP the game has to be as a whole a PvP game. You build around that idea. Everything else is just for fun stuff todo it's just a game within a game. True PvP people want to know all the factors into who or why you died and go about fixing that. This game doesn't present that and with the card combat it makes it worse. This game needs to focus on a single aspect and that aspect is not PvP. If they want PvP they need to basically go back to start and build it back up from square one.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 17, 2015 17:09:20 GMT
The only way I see this feature as exploitable is if a person, who is guild master, recruits a lot of newbies at once, declares war and lets the warring guild kill them all to loot them. Other than that, I really don't see a problem here. The fact I'm agreeing with Envy in that thread is a bad sign though.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 17, 2015 17:22:14 GMT
He must not be familiar with a lot of MMOs, because that's pretty standard. In ESO, I was invited constantly by someone just running by and it was annoying. But it doesn't have to be a problem. They could just have a feature to turn off invites. Problem solved.I was invited, multiple times, to Britannia Mining Company guild. For all they knew, I was debating them in the forum. They didn't care, they just wanted bodies. I would never have joined their guild because of that. I don't understand why anyone would unless they were a lonely person who just wanted to be included (at any cost?). The only reason I (unknowingly) joined Blake Blackstone's guild was because of my neighbor. He was carrying too many stones and couldn't move, nor could he drop items to move (a lot of people have understandably complained about this). So either that or destroy some of the items (he was a crafter and had wood). That is something they should solve in a game. Anyway, I held the items so he could put them in his house. He was very grateful, and we chatted awhile. He helped me by making me some items for my house, from the wood I helped him carry. Next thing I know, he invited me to the guild. I mean, I could've run with the items instead of giving them back, so proved I could be trusted. I joined the guild because of him. But Blake didn't care, he had a crapton of guild members (I found when scrolling the list). Most were never logged on. Ever. Plus I could quit that guild any time I wanted. But I was surprised that, even after wipes, I was still in the guild. I found that strange. But that explained why Blake had such a big list of guild members who never logged on.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 17, 2015 17:30:26 GMT
Wondering what crack Drocis is smoking.
The guild master can make anyone any level of leader, with complete control of guild master abilities. I know, because Blake elected everyone to have the same abilities and permissions as he had. Yes, even me.
Maybe only the one GM can declare war. I don't know because I never saw that feature.
But to not join a guild and test the guild features? Made up of random people on the internet? lol He needs to stick to SPO if he doesn't want to interact with all those random people. lol He doesn't realize you don't get hacked simply because someone (yes, those random people) is in your guild.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 17, 2015 17:45:24 GMT
Another bad sign: I'm agreeing with Ravicus in that thread.
I didn't understand that a guild flagging PvP with another guild meant it automatically flags a person for Open PvP. This subverts, and renders useless, the need to go to the Oracle.
What is the point of warring guilds if people are flagged Open PvP? You automatically fight anyone that wants to fight - warring guilds or loners.
They really need to work on that, because now the PvP crowd is up in arms. Again.
What a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Dec 17, 2015 19:42:03 GMT
The Open-PvP flag is the main issue for me with guild-warring. You shouldn't go red for warring with a guild.
|
|
|
Post by fossil on Dec 17, 2015 20:40:55 GMT
The Open-PvP flag is the main issue for me with guild-warring. You shouldn't go red for warring with a guild. As per what dodgy said it's an EVE mechanic. The thing about that though as I stated earlier is this games not built around PvP. Has soo many random factors in being able to control the environment that it doesn't have appeal. The flagging system can work but this games not a PvP game. The mechanic doesn't bother me but they need to decide if they want a PvP game or a PvE game with a PvP gamemode within it.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 17, 2015 20:50:33 GMT
You are only flagged open PvP to the enemy guild not everyone.
Pretty standard.
Why even have guild wars then if this aint the case?
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 17, 2015 21:14:57 GMT
You are only flagged open PvP to the enemy guild not everyone. Pretty standard. Why even have guild wars then if this aint the case? From what people are saying, you are flagged for everyone at that point, not just the warring guild. That's the complaint. At least, that's the way I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by fossil on Dec 17, 2015 21:18:14 GMT
You are only flagged open PvP to the enemy guild not everyone. Pretty standard. Why even have guild wars then if this aint the case? From what people are saying, you are flagged for everyone at that point, not just the warring guild. That's the complaint. At least, that's the way I understand it. Lol if that's true, griefers galore
|
|
|
Post by fossil on Dec 17, 2015 21:20:00 GMT
You are only flagged open PvP to the enemy guild not everyone. Pretty standard. Why even have guild wars then if this aint the case? Do you think they can make a hybrid on Eve mechanics? I don't... that has todo with the combat though.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Dec 18, 2015 1:46:27 GMT
I don't have much to add to this topic, but Chris "Dippy Dragon" Spears made a fine post on it over on the SotA forum Guys, it isn't as simple as dueling between guilds. The result of just simplifying that will just make it infuriating in actual practice. Players will just roam grouped with unguilded people and use them as impervious healers. Temp flagging them as hostile towards a guild instantly turns into a fuster cluck. You can even have situations where a player in your group is in the guild you're at war with and then you encounter someone from your guild. If you help your party mate you get flagged as hostile to your own guild? If not, then there is now an impervious healer you can't retaliate against. If you're going to discuss it then please talk through all the implications. This is a way for two guilds at war to keep score and earn trophies for their victories. Most games just have guild warfare that is not even systemized and just left in the player's hands. The games that do have guild warfare usually have the war fought in contested spaces. We're open to ideas but "Dueling for guilds" doesn't work. We could make it work with a ton of rules for edge cases but then we end up with another over complicated system that alienates new users. In the end making it open PVP resulted in the fewest exploits, the simplest design, and also pushed more people to PVP. If someone is in a guild that declares war then they are open to PVP and can be ganked at any moment even if we have the duel rules. Now if you mean duel rules as in there is no ransom generated then you've opened up whole other loop holes because you've created ways to avoid ransom in PVP or you block Open PVP people in warring guilds from truly fighting each other as they are used to. Expanding it to full open PVP and only scoring kills vs the other guild was the simplest design and the one with the fewest exploits and issues. If people want to talk through the issues make sure to include the logic of how parties, multiple guilds wars at once, and also people who are already open PVP. Again, we're open to ideas but I have yet to see one that doesn't cause more issues than it solves.
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Dec 18, 2015 1:57:48 GMT
...uh, if you're at war with another guild, you can't be healed by non-allies/guildmates to prevent "impervious healers". You're welcome.
PS: UO did it 11 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Dec 18, 2015 2:00:08 GMT
Argyle made a thread that asked what we would do if given control over SotA's development today. I'd like to post a similar question for guild warfare. Unfortunately, our answers won't be tempered by technical developer knowledge, but we can try and find holes in our own answers at least. Here's what I'm thinking: Guilds can war with other guilds, as well as ally with guilds against others (or just ally without warring). Blue healing is out, completely. You don't flag PvP if you heal a PvPer- instead, you can't heal them until you go flag. The same would apply for guilds: you can't heal someone in a guildwar unless you are in that guildwar. You can even have situations where a player in your group is in the guild you're at war with and then you encounter someone from your guild. If you help your party mate you get flagged as hostile to your own guild? If not, then there is now an impervious healer you can't retaliate against. In this case, such is the punishment for grouping with someone that you are at war with. If you defend the enemy, then you are betraying your guild, and should become hostile to them. If you help your friend, then you are affirming the war. With regards to healing your grouped friend from the other guild, upon flagging for guild war, you should be allowed to attack your own guild members. I'd like to hear alternative ideas on this as well as criticisms of my suggestion. Where does it fall short and what does it fail to address? I wish we could get Chris in hear to provide the dev's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by fossil on Dec 18, 2015 2:13:27 GMT
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Post by titsup on Dec 18, 2015 2:19:45 GMT
...uh, if you're at war with another guild, you can't be healed by non-allies/guildmates to prevent "impervious healers". You're welcome. PS: UO did it 11 years ago. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path." Have to blaze those trails for the sake of blazing!
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 18, 2015 2:27:43 GMT
All this "faction" bullshit I believe is why so many PvP players tend to call for "Open PvP." There is something blissful about UO's ignorance of faction PvP initially.
Anything could happen. Your buddy could stab you in the back, you could infiltrate other groups and make quite a large impact in doing so. This is the sort of thing that I actually do really miss about UO.
I would lean on heavily relaxing the rules between guild warfare and define "winning." How does one win now? You'd have to RP it, and while that could be interesting for some it doesn't attract a lot either. Find a good way to define winning, territory, siege mechanics especially for POTs owned by guild members, total gold looted/players killed, anything.
A last man standing kind of deal would be very cool, I don't think I've seen in an RPG yet. It would be interesting, once killed(in any way including PvE) then you would be booted from the "war" by a flag and can no longer participate. Then your guildmates have to continue on. First guild with all players killed loses, or you can define other ways to win based on many things. Obviously things would need to be put in place to prevent people from hiding, maybe even a timer on every skirmish, or even a king of the hill deal where the two guilds need to fight each other to go get something.
I'm just bored of this sack-less bullshit faction PvP.
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Dec 18, 2015 2:29:58 GMT
"Guild incest" is a problem that I've seen kill entire communities (and entire shards) in the freeserver realm on UO. It's a little more meta but has a far harsher penalty than flagging goes. "I don't want to fight him." "Why the fuck not?" "He's my friend." "...he's our ENEMY!" "But he's my friend. I'll heal him if you attack him in front of me."
The reason my guilds stayed relatively rock solid is I just cut losses like that immediately. "Your call," I'd say before booting them out of party or voip or anything else, make the call, kill 'em all. It didn't always go over smoothly with people who liked the guy in the guild, but then again, I only recruited people that would see the bigger picture: allowing that shit to carry on will cause cracks in what we're doing, how we play, how we fight. Things get awkward, the fun and competition is interrupted by "who likes who in what guild from what game who hangs out in which teamspeak".
I say that because it's a bigger issue than flagging. But, mechanics-wise, flagging is simultaneously a simple matter and, in games that revolve around it (ie, sandboxes), is the most important one.
Anyone who's read my thoughts here or from the SotA forums knows my stance on repercussions and consequences in gameplay. You also know I don't believe in simple "x = x". If X is 5 hours of item acquisition/training lost upon death, then X isn't weighed the same for someone who plays 40 hours a week versus someone who plays 3 1/2 hours a week. Therefore flagging rules and consequences for engaging in non-consensual PvP (in the most basic definition - not including building trading empires and snuffing out competition by undercutting their sales, bullying their clients with mercenaries, marketing and slander) have to be well-rounded and deep.
Chris himself says:
What he fails to understand is that for a system to be inherently understandable and robust, it must be exceptionally complicated to cover all possibilities - including "edge cases" - or overly simplified in that it only allows for two or three different flagging states. Example, you can either be innocent, criminal, or warred. Innocents cannot be attacked unless in certain areas. Criminals can be attacked anywhere (and you become criminal by attacking innocents in FFA zones). Warred means you can attack or be attacked anywhere when other warred people are involved.
Is it robust? Is it realistic? Of course not, but you won't get that if you cut corners and refuse to acknowledge "edge cases". So you have to deal with this: you're warred, you PvP, and you cannot be healed by non-guildies or allies (who must also be warred with the same enemies, or again, you have the problem of impervious healing allies). "But what about friends who want to help you PvM?" Too bad. You can't have nice things because you didn't work hard for them. If you spend more time on social mechanics (which flagging is a huge part of) instead of fetch quests and POTs, then you, too, could have a robust social/criminal flagging system.
I'll end it with this major flaw in his thought process. "Edge cases". Do you know what I call "edge cases" in flagging?
Exploits. Beautiful, delicious, griefing exploits.
Whether you attack your buddy outside of town guards to go grey to lure a newbie to attack you in town, run for 2 minutes, flag blue globally but remain highlighted to your attacker, then fight back with all your buddies cross-healing you while the lone, upstanding citizen tries to fight against a foe that only has to attack while his seventeen buddies heal, cure and block the good Samaritan from escaping, or you flag temporary while healing a warred friend in the circumstances where you outnumber your foe (and thus if he attacks both the warred character as well as the temporarily flagged character he will be retaliated by both), it's still the same end result: shitty flagging rules alienates new users.
"Why can he kill me in town? He's a criminal!"
"Well, his global criminal timer ran out, and now he's only specifically flagged to you due to self-defense."
"HE WAS RAPING A FRESH CORPSE IN THE BACK ALLEY!"
"And he went grey for two minutes for it. 'Cause, y'know, justice."
So if you want your flagging rules to be welcoming to new users and long-time gamers alike (because let's face it, new users will learn the system after a few tries), then you get to have deep, engrossing social mechanics or Fisher Price's My First Flagging Rules.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 18, 2015 2:42:22 GMT
What he fails to understand is that for a system to be inherently understandable and robust, it must be exceptionally complicated to cover all possibilities - including "edge cases" - or overly simplified in that it only allows for two or three different flagging states. This. I think most of us here would want complicated, but since I am not sure the devs can code complicated and today's gamer can sit down long enough to learn the complication due to their inability to focus on something that isn't shiny or instantly gratifying I don't know if we can ever have one of these systems. If you can't have complicated, then I would say give us open pvp so we can sort the mess out ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Dec 18, 2015 2:50:02 GMT
If you can't have complicated, then I would say give us open pvp so we can sort the mess out ourselves. These games have no permanence, though. No game provides that open combat aspect - like Mortal Online, Gloria Victis, DayZ, RUST, classic UO, etc. - and also provides balanced, deep gameplay for all. You end up, then, with one big arena and looting rules, thinly disguised as "a living, breathing world" (drink when you read that in the marketing for any MMO, and you'll end up in the hospital). Your playerbase will consist of mostly PvPers and PKers; the problem is, you can't keep wolves entertained without sheep (not to imply non-PvPers are sheep, an issue most of these games make early on). Likewise, without the "fluff" casual and social gamers (like role-players and bank sitters) bring to an MMO, the world becomes dull and just a series of crudely random battles with little to no consequence which might as well have taken place between warring guilds. In these situations, instanced, temporary, meaningless battles (see any FPS game with time limits) with incredible terrain, destructible environments, intriguing objectives and colorful scenarios are more enjoyable than wandering around roads looking for people to gank. In the end, D E A D G A M E.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 18, 2015 2:56:19 GMT
In the end, D E A D G A M E. Yes. It has been written on the wall for a while. I don't think there is really a way to save this for non-social gamers without going into far left field options at this point.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 18, 2015 7:59:02 GMT
OK how is flagging to open pvp a guild war?
That's simply lazy, retarded and lack of ability.
Hot tip Albion has it. It's on Unity. Whats your excuse?
I'm sorry to those I implied were idiots for not understanding guild wars. This is not guild war. This is nothing. This is a joke. I can't belief they are touting this as a feature.
Once again Chris showing is l337 skillz
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 18, 2015 8:13:02 GMT
Dewd forget the Grey stuff.
You will always be able to manipulate those rules. UO EVE any game with pvp fundamentally has these loop holes .
What you are asking for is pure open world and pvp where we have an online society with own laws police etc.
Would be an amazing thing to see.
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Dec 18, 2015 8:31:46 GMT
Dewd forget the Grey stuff. You will always be able to manipulate those rules. UO EVE any game with pvp fundamentally has these loop holes . What you are asking for is pure open world and pvp where we have an online society with own laws police etc. Would be an amazing thing to see. It's actually relatively simple to create deep flagging rules and consequences within the game setting, and still maintain a sense of fairness for all players and gamestyles. But it's an all-or-nothing approach; you cannot half-ass it. The game cannot be set up to follow the rehashed tropes of 2002-era MMOs with a complex flagging system tacked on. The entire game has to be based around the social interaction of the players, with actual organic incentives to take part in it. The problem with open world PvP is there has never been a reason for it in a game organically. If it wasn't for role-playing, I would not have found any fun in these games; the reason I still take to trying games like Mortal Online and Gloria Victis and Star Citizen is because of the immersion and role-play opportunities that present itself. But I'm not fool enough to believe that the fun I had was because of the game; the fun I had was because of my personal ambitions in the game, and bending the mechanics to create interesting circumstances and interactions. Otherwise, it's just another dull game with uninspired mechanics; any MMO has a significantly more fun counterpart, both single player and multi-player, that outdoes it on nearly every level. The only one that I can think of that might not be outdone is Star Citizen, and again, it's because of the depth of the game; any one part might be found lacking in comparison to other game, but as a whole, it's doubtful. We simply haven't seen a project like this done before, but because of it, I hope we see more that push the boundaries of what a game can be. And on that note, I do hope they figure out how flagging and reputation will work for SC sooner rather than later; otherwise it'll be a huge clusterfuck.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 18, 2015 8:34:17 GMT
Dewd forget the Grey stuff. You will always be able to manipulate those rules. UO EVE any game with pvp fundamentally has these loop holes . What you are asking for is pure open world and pvp where we have an online society with own laws police etc. Would be an amazing thing to see. It's actually relatively simple to create deep flagging rules and consequences within the game setting, and still maintain a sense of fairness for all players and gamestyles. But it's an all-or-nothing approach; you cannot half-ass it. The game cannot be set up to follow the rehashed tropes of 2002-era MMOs with a complex flagging system tacked on. The entire game has to be based around the social interaction of the players, with actual organic incentives to take part in it. The problem with open world PvP is there has never been a reason for it in a game organically. If it wasn't for role-playing, I would not have found any fun in these games; the reason I still take to trying games like Mortal Online and Gloria Victis and Star Citizen is because of the immersion and role-play opportunities that present itself. But I'm not fool enough to believe that the fun I had was because of the game; the fun I had was because of my personal ambitions in the game, and bending the mechanics to create interesting circumstances and interactions. Otherwise, it's just another dull game with uninspired mechanics; any MMO has a significantly more fun counterpart, both single player and multi-player, that outdoes it on nearly every level. The only one that I can think of that might not be outdone is Star Citizen, and again, it's because of the depth of the game; any one part might be found lacking in comparison to other game, but as a whole, it's doubtful. We simply haven't seen a project like this done before, but because of it, I hope we see more that push the boundaries of what a game can be. And on that note, I do hope they figure out how flagging and reputation will work for SC sooner rather than later; otherwise it'll be a huge clusterfuck. Not saying otherwise. It was your RP sense of justice. It's just not always going to be 100% . There will always be ways to cause grief. =)
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 18, 2015 15:04:27 GMT
Chris claims took uo years/decade to get guild wars in.
Try 2001/2 fuckwit for factions
Stop spinning utter bullshit and false stories.
You can't code we get it. It doesn't make money on the add on store.
The people left aren't pvpers. You go else where. Let's be brutally honest.
|
|