Game Development: The Danger Zone

Announcements about major changes in Haven & Hearth.

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Kaios » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:42 pm

jorb wrote:
Kaios wrote:Now you have to focus on getting players back


I don't agree with that. I think we should focus on making the game good, quite simply. Being outcome oriented is rarely a good thing.


Aren't you just saying the same thing as me with different words? Even if you aren't being outcome oriented, having an actual plan for development set in place months ago rather than just talking about all the planned updates that ended up never coming to fruition would have likely been helpful.
User avatar
Kaios
 
Posts: 8703
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Bowshot125 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:18 am

Jorb can we at least focus on getting old content in before you release all this new stuff man? Ive been like waiting for bone clay, gray clay, cave clay, etc. Get old stuff in first then release more content. D=
User avatar
Bowshot125
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:31 pm
Location: In tanning fluid limbo

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby FerrousToast » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:22 am

it was several pages old, but I just felt the need to respond. Jorb suggested a once a week 8 hour raider free for all. Not only would that mean everyone in the world needs to play haven like a day job once a week, and it also means any free players if they wanted to defend their bases couldn't stay for the full seige hours, and literally can't play any other time of the week then when his base requires defending. I feel like a lot of this is forgetting about players who don't no life the game. I don't see an issue with playing for 8 hours, I've played longer D&D sessions, but I know people who if you suggested they should play more than 2 hours would be disgusted with you, because they like doing this mysterious thing called "moving around" and "living real life"
Image
User avatar
FerrousToast
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Raffeh » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:23 am

My 2 Cents. - Please read J&L - I think it could be a viable solution.

I like Ladygoo's initial idea on page 3.

LadyGoo wrote:Maybe extend the ram drying time for a few days, within which there would be several windows, when defending players could hit it? + would it be possible to have a smaller hitbox for the ram itself, but bigger hitbox for building it? Or make it passable, like hearthfires when it is invulnerable.


Extending the time period to 2 days and having multiple 4 hour periods where it is bash able.

This will force attackers to keep coming back to the ram to protect it and give defenders multiple windows to destroy.

The 4 hour periods would have gaps of 12 hours meaning it wouldn't be at the same time everyday giving people options to bash even with rl commitments. - this 12 hours then 4 hours (16 hours per rotation) will rotate perfectly to form 3, 4 hour gaps at different parts of the 2 days ( 16 hours x 3 = 48 hours )

Of course the ram will be unbashable for 3, 12 hour periods, but remove the hitbox for the rams while they are unbreakable so the blocking ram with ram issue is resolved and blocking gates.

This will resolve all the issues i have seen pointed out in this thread so far. including the dropping 10 rams every hour because defenders have 3 different times to clean them up. So attackers would have to keep changing what times they turned up to protect the ram depending on what rams were bashed etc.

Please see example below.

PLANT RAM
9pm
unbashable - 12 hrs
9am
bashable - 4 hrs
1pm
unbashable - 12 hrs
1am
bashable - 4 hrs
5am
unbashable - 12 hours
5pm
bashable - 4 hours --- This is would personally be my prime time<< but depending on what your timezone is you would be more viable for the other time periods.
9pm
RAM USEABLE


I hope this helps. I noticed you didnt want yes or no answers.

I really like the fishing up items update also.
TRAITORS WILL BE SHOT.
User avatar
Raffeh
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:16 pm

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby DaniAngione » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:34 am

I'll be honest right ahead and say that I'm not really an expert in siege warfare and such. I'm not a number cruncher nor anything.

I do see it from the perspective of defenders, though - and based on what Jorb stated, the way effort and time are linked means that balance is an incredibly difficult thing since it will almost always mean that those able to spare the necessary effort and time will always also be the strongest ones and so it will result in endless (and pointless) noob stomping while the usual haven end-game* will go on for the big villages.

* shouting curses over walls at each other


That said, do I know how to balance things out?
No.

Do I have a better idea?
Not at all.

Do I bring forth a good suggestion?
Nope.

What I do think I know, however, is a good direction to aim to: Something I've learned from years of EVE Online, after tutoring a lot of new players into the game, I always hear the same question:

"Why should I fly a frigate (small ship)? Won't I be crushed by big ships? I will fly a big ship!"

What's better? A small ship? Or a big ship? EVE faced this question for a few years, and the answer seemed obvious: big ships can stomp small ships. Why would anyone care about small ships? I'd say this problem is similar to what Haven has ahead of its development: How can we balance things out to make it fair and a fun gaming experience for every niche of Haven players? How can we make the big ships and the small ships - hardcore, big villages and casuals, hermits, larpers - all share the same universe, face the same rules and the balance of one not get in the way of the other?

Well, as I said - I don't know. But I do like the way EVE took things. It scaled things, in what they call "battles within battles". Small ships face other small ships, big ships face other big ships... Big ships have so much trouble going after small ships that they rather not care, small ships barely damage big ships so they don't care either.

I think that's the balance Haven should aim for:
Big villages should be concerned about other big villages
Small villages should be concerned about other small villages
&tc.

Of couse, all of this is quite... relative...

But I don't see a way - based on how things are right now - that big villages can wage their wars without giving them the tools to steamroll over smaller folk... And there's also no way smaller folk can be 'safer' without completely hindering war efforts for big villages.
Do I believe that "war time windows" and such are the way? Not really. I think that's all about game systems and balance. Not easy, I know... but at least these are my two cents. Maybe we should looks less into the siege itself and more into the 'realities' and situations of those that can siege and those that can be sieged.

I come and go in peace o7
Stay safe, folks \o/
W15 ???
W14 Proud defender of Kakariko Village
W13 Sporadic member of Ravka
W12 Occasional member of Lake Town
W11 Inactive member of Yggdrasill
W10 King of The Northern Kingdom
W9 The Revenant of Wulf's Retreat
W8 Lawspeaker of New Thotoshire
W7 Lawspeaker of Esteldín
User avatar
DaniAngione
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:22 am
Location: The Hearthlands

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby pheonix » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:55 am

IMO we should be looking at adding more content to the game in the form of more industries, curios, weapons, armor types etc so that we have more to play with while at the same time actually encouraging people to wanna fight and come after you for your goodies. atm i cant envision anyone wasting time to raid me for example and getting a hold of my crap, i think i have 1 flotsam somewhere in my crap vs days of yor where you could find cupboards of such awesome curios to snack on all day.

I know some people will say raiding is fun for the sake of it or raiding for grudges against each other, but i believe you would get more interactions if there was more stuff for people to go after and create a system that would encourage more fights.This is the point that we can look at the system again because we will have more interactions going on to try out tests.

Our current situation is stagnation as most hermits and small towns have pretty basic crap they might have a bit of low q metal some curios low q armor maybe a bit of high q Armour they traded for recently. Due to fate system (1 shitty curio a month or 6 month), the rare curios you might find 1 or 2 or take the persons skull, besides that nothing rare or great to boast about. "FUCK YEAH I raided this nob and got a blue bell praise me" vs "holy crap this guy had made toolbelts, x type weapons, x type hard to make or find curios". In summary add more stuff for us to whittle away on, than more ways to break into pathetic bases.
pheonix
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:32 pm

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Ethan » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:58 am

jorb wrote:One thought we've had is that it'd be nice if there were symmetry between attacker and defender in that: If you go on the offense, your production line is left vulnerable. However, this ambition is easily foiled by the creation of specific war villages, or the like, by which the symmetrical risk the attacker takes through attacking is partitioned away to a meaningless alt village without meaningful production lines.

Please discuss.


Just had another thought along the lines of the "buffer" of actions mentioned by Loftar. If the same buffer/pool was used for both aggression and defenses being aggressive would mean you would have less in the pool to spend on defensive actions, which would leave you vulnerable.

This however doesn't help the alt village problem... Unless there is a way to balance it so being extremely aggressive with an alt village leaves it too vulnerable to bother? As I suspect naturally small villages wouldn't tend to be aggressive normally.
Ethan
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:14 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Jalpha » Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:08 am

Give us an expensive tool and process which allows us to resurrect fallen characters at least once. You can cap the stats a resurrected player can have. If this process is expensive enough to expect that only larger factions can afford it, then anyone who is not part of a larger faction or alliance will be pushed towards joining an alliance or faction if they want to live again. It's likely that they would want retribution, and this would give them the means to that end.

I think stopping the bad guys from killing noobs may be the wrong way of going about things. Instead give those of us who are sympathetic to the plight of the noob a toolset allowing us to assist them for mutual gain. The dark and dangerous lining of Haven has made it what it is, I think it would be a mistake to throw that away.

This, I think, would go a long way towards linking the newer players of Haven with the veterans. Both will benefit without restricting existing playstyles.

PS. Kudos for working on siege, even if you are making a temporary mess of it.
Laying flat.
User avatar
Jalpha
Under curfew
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:16 pm

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby sabinati » Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:11 am

Jalpha wrote:Give us an expensive tool and process which allows us to resurrect fallen characters at least once.


sometimes, dead is better
User avatar
sabinati
 
Posts: 15497
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:25 am
Location: View active topics

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Jalpha » Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:13 am

Sometimes it is, I don't think anyone should get an unlimited number of lives. Maybe acts of kindness could increase their chances of being resurrected.
Laying flat.
User avatar
Jalpha
Under curfew
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Python-Requests [Bot] and 16 guests