Game Development: The Danger Zone

Announcements about major changes in Haven & Hearth.

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Astarisk » Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:57 pm

loftar wrote:
APXEOLOG wrote:Oh, please. We had similar story with brick corner ram block in old hnh. You can do it, but noone was mad enough to do such things

So this whole problem was merely a problem of rams being too cheap?


When it comes to hafen, you could make the rams cost gold and people would still be able to afford to spam them. In regards to salem, from friends I've heard they hated trial by fire, but my best guess would be the lack of teleports and incentive to drop them at a frequent pace, and I suppose all the walls and brazier's might help to provide a natural defense. Those mechanics might have worked in salem, but I don't think they'd work in hafen.
IRC/IGN: Rawrz
User avatar
Astarisk
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:08 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby MagicManICT » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:19 pm

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, you can only place one trial in a given area. It's not an area of the game I played with, and haven't really done much other than watch the forums the last year hoping for a few specific changes (which don't look like they're ever going to happen).

@Rye: thanks for reading through that wall of text. You're right and I did consider that, but if that's the case, it's not much different than the current rules, and nobody seems to want to camp rams 24 hours currently.
K'thulu for President 2020!! Why vote for the lesser evil?
User avatar
MagicManICT
 
Posts: 15722
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:47 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby loftar » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:22 pm

MagicManICT wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, you can only place one trial in a given area.

As far as I can tell from the code, at least, that was not the case.
"Object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing." -- Rob Pike
User avatar
loftar
 
Posts: 7421
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:05 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby APXEOLOG » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:22 pm

loftar wrote:
APXEOLOG wrote:Oh, please. We had similar story with brick corner ram block in old hnh. You can do it, but noone was mad enough to do such things

So this whole problem was merely a problem of rams being too cheap?

I don't know. Actually i like Salem siege system. But farmers will not love it i think
W10 Meme Plot | W9 Mantis Garden | W8 Core | W7 Ofir | W6 the City of Dis | W5 Vitterstad | W4 A.D. | W3 Mirniy
jorb wrote:All your characters will be deleted, and I will level every village any one of them were ever members of.
User avatar
APXEOLOG
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Russia, Saint Petersburg

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby venatorvenator » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:22 pm

loftar wrote:So this whole problem was merely a problem of rams being too cheap?

You still don't see that changing costs doesn't hinder abuse? Large groups will always have enough materials to ignore those hindrances while casual villages will struggle to keep up with the increased costs to perform some actions. All it does is increase the gap between hermits, casual players, and raiding factions. Pvp features can only be balanced by adding a factor that is constant to all players.
Xcom wrote:Most good things last only a short time
venatorvenator
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:59 pm

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Gordon » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:30 pm

loftar wrote:
APXEOLOG wrote:Oh, please. We had similar story with brick corner ram block in old hnh. You can do it, but noone was mad enough to do such things

So this whole problem was merely a problem of rams being too cheap?


Make rams to require fated items ¦]
Gordon
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:13 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby DDDsDD999 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:50 pm

loftar wrote:I do have to say, though, that while I see the problems with the ram destruction thing, I am left wondering why this wasn't a problem in Salem, where Trials by Fire had almost the exact same mechanic, only they were even only destructible 4 hours in advance.

Why are you basing (thoughts of) game mechanics off of Salem? That's the worst possible thing you can do.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Jorb, you're literally hitler.
User avatar
DDDsDD999
 
Posts: 4826
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:31 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby Vert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:51 pm

When we build a battering ram we choose time when we want to start the siege. The other side of the conflict do not want to fight in this time and trying to avoid battle. If before the siege of the village by a ram parties of the conflict were to take part in several battles in different times it would have increased the chances of defending.
So we build battering ram and after 36 hours come to fight.
The winners can choose time for next battle +18 hours or +6 hours.
Winners of the second battle can choose time for final battle. +9 hours or + 3 hours When The ram will finally ready.
Vert
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:59 am

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby rye130 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:53 pm

MagicManICT wrote:@Rye: thanks for reading through that wall of text. You're right and I did consider that, but if that's the case, it's not much different than the current rules, and nobody seems to want to camp rams 24 hours currently.


The big difference, at least to me, is that it used to require 24 hours of constant protection. If the raider stopped paying attention or took a break at any point, the defender could attempt to break it. Now, the raider need to merely place and check a ram every couple hours (much less effort on their part) to force the defender into basically constant babysitting (much more effort on their part).
User avatar
rye130
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:41 pm

Re: Game Development: The Danger Zone

Postby lachlaan » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:59 pm

Vert wrote:When we build a battering ram we choose time when we want to start the siege. The other side of the conflict do not want to fight in this time and trying to avoid battle. If before the siege of the village by a ram parties of the conflict were to take part in several battles in different times it would have increased the chances of defending.
So we build battering ram and after 36 hours come to fight.
The winners can choose time for next battle +18 hours or +6 hours.
Winners of the second battle can choose time for final battle. +9 hours or + 3 hours When The ram will finally ready.


Something like this sounds the best , and I think it is also along the lines of something I suggested in the big siege / kingdoms discussion thread. The only way to make siege fair timewise is to split it into a sort of multiple stage domination / area control phases. The timings suggested above might not be the optimal ones, but perhaps the ram's various components could dry at different rates, leaving several half hour windows open during the drying duration where people can either "tend to it", or sabotage it.

During the half hour you could get a full 10 attempts to hinder or hasten its progress actively, a sort of active action that lasts 10-30 seconds and stops when attacked. Not quite sure how to reconcile the possibility of multiple campers defending the ram from 1-2 members of a small village / hermit camp. Perhaps shorter cast times on the sabotage attempts, or fenced zones that only take 1 attacker or 1 defender. Choose your champions sort of thing.
lachlaan
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FuriousFox, pppp and 6 guests