Altvaulting: Stealing from Hearthfires

[burgingham]

No Im afraid this is not a good idea. Alt-vaulting does happen but it is already regulated by the number of spaces you have to store. You certainly can not store equipment and huge amounts of materials but it is possible to save some seeds precious tools and maybe even a few bars of metal to restart if some raider decides to grief your place. In which case it is a good mechanic for the solo or small group to have.

You don't know what people are capable of... I mean I am a lazy person but back in world 3 I don't know how many alt vaults I had and that was probably pretty innocent compared to people who are actually determined.

As mentioned, there also needs to be a countermeasure to redistribute the balance between attackers and defenders. With only this idea, essentially nothing is safe from attackers, master keys, best quality seeds, everyone is at the mercy of the raiders. Defender needs a mean to store items, not abusable with alts that exist on another plane but can be access with subterfuge actions and not brute forced by raiders.

How about a magical giant chest, which can be built only 1-2 per village? 48 slot, store your gold, tokens, instuments and etc. in it, but not everything.
Or a hearth container, 1 per personal claim. The size depends on how big is the personal claim. Devs won't even need to make special models to do that. You could place the container next to the pclaim, use an option on the pclaim to assign the hearth box. The box could be moved around, but cannot be carried away the pclaim. That is to prevent the boxes to be used to block gates and etc.
So if you got a basic claim 5x5, your container would be a crate or a basket size.
If it is 25x25, would be a small chest and etc.

I do like this idea. It seems to prevent most possible abuse options. Just have to make sure a setup like gate->claim pole then chest in front of gate are not possible.

At least for bigger groups even implementing nothing like strongboxes at all would work fine. People build their towns in layers already and I guess historically all the goodies were not somewhere behind the outer city walls but in a stronghold anyway. So if we get castles of some sort that might just work fine too. Because if the attackers actually manage to get into your stronghold, well they should be rewarded. But then we are back to a new siege system which remains very much speculation at this point.

[LadyV]

No Im afraid this is not a good idea. Alt-vaulting does happen but it is already regulated by the number of spaces you have to store. You certainly can not store equipment and huge amounts of materials but it is possible to save some seeds precious tools and maybe even a few bars of metal to restart if some raider decides to grief your place. In which case it is a good mechanic for the solo or small group to have.

You don't know what people are capable of... I mean I am a lazy person but back in world 3 I don't know how many alt vaults I had and that was probably pretty innocent compared to people who are actually determined.

I do know. But the point is do we punish the smaller and innocent who's only option to save things is to alt-vault? Have you seen the attempt to completely level entire villages destroy every cabinets and container? No image removing the last safe storage area people have. Multiply this by the people who are paying to play a game. Now extract hose who give up and haven loses more revenue. Quite simply there has to be more give on people preserving things than balance. It's a game competing with many others. Pure hardcore and permadeath is fine if your a free game but not if your a paying one.

[Avu]

Poor poor raiders.

[Vaku]

Have you seen the attempt to completely level entire villages destroy every cabinets and container?

Everyone should take a moment to watch some of this video:
https://youtu.be/hVTie_LZs7A?t=122

While LadyGoo's suggestion appears to grant everything to would-be-raiders, by mitigating alt-vaults, losses on an alt vault can be otherwise a drop in the bucket compared to the severe damage many attackers are willing to commit.

In the above video, the destruction of those brick stockpiles and structures represent no less than 2 days of digging clay, burning bricks, creating wrought for the finery forge, etc.
Additionally, the cupboards destroyed represent 1 hr of construction time, and the cupboard contents represent anywhere from a 3 days to 10.5 days of gathering.
The destruction of the trellis structures, and other agriculture, result in approximately 2 days of losses.
Inbetween all these listed times, there is character movement for passing between locations, feedings one's character, drinking, and other activities.

It is safe to say that this attack resulted in 1 - 3 weeks of damage.
To make repairs, this means this hermit must spend ANOTHER 1 - 3 weeks to regain their status before the raid.
That means that in total, losses are always DOUBLED.
This time would be even greater if important skills or tools were lost, i.e. Yeomanry, Metal axes, saws, etc.



Considering ALL this damage, rather than this player rejoicing the inventory saved within an Alt Vault, the likeliest event is that this player quit the game for the duration of the world.



I am breaking this all down, because, I think that fundamentally, Alt-vaulting is an Exploit, yet one that is driven by the necessity to mitigate damage, such as that shown above.
The destruction witnessed in that video is completed in less than an hour.

Most noob losses are in the realm of Days lost, while mid-to-late-game losses are in the realm of Weeks or Months.
Considering this, alt-vault losses are almost inconsequential. I want Alt-Vaulting gone on principle that it's an exploit.

But more importantly, it needs to be coupled with a better approach on mitigating severe losses, that aggressive playstyles really don't give a second thought toward (just listen to all of the giggling in the video).

Hopefully the Stat Cap adds a level of balance that this game has been sorely missing—because, given the opportunity to retaliate under balanced conditions, many players would fight back, and have a fun story to tell, about how they actually tried to defend against their aggressors, rather than a story about how they were compelled to quit, because they had no chance.

Anyways, this is all food for thought.
I doubt any changes toward alt vaulting will come in the next month or two, but i'm hopeful, because I think the stat cap is a step in the right direction to support this idea.

[LadyV]

@Vaku

First of all your times are wrong for the casual player. More so if they are new.

As for the why and such we can not make people change they must do so on their own. You know I can understand destroying a fierce rivals equipment and things so you just dont have to deal with war all the time. But when this attitude is applied to hermits, small groups, and those who bother no one it is purely griefing. Since the culture refuses to change I hardly see it worth eliminating a safe place to store seeds a tree pot precious tools... that makes my repair options easier and i dont have to take weeks to just get back to metals alone.

You are quite wrong. Alt-vault can be abused but until a solution or the attitudes about how we fight one another change it is a perfectly good tool to have.

[Vaku]

@Vaku
First of all your times are wrong for the casual player.

The times are relatively precise, in that, they're calculated with time spent IN-GAME, and DOING those activities. So, I can definitely see the disconnect.

If you're playing 3 hours a day, on weekends, you're going to have many more "DAYS" of progress lost.

The days I cited were LITERAL days of doing those activities—So yes, this individual ACTUALLY spent around 4.5 Hours in-game to dig approximately 2,720 balls of clay, and burn those balls of clay into 2,720 bricks over several hours, to create 34 Brick Stockpiles of approx. 80 bricks each.


So if this person was a casual player,
and this person played 3 hours Saturday, 3 hours Sunday, and kept this schedule...
To merely create those stockpiles, he or she must engage in about 8 sessions of play. This would be over the course of nearly 1 Month Real Time, which includes time spent in-game.

24hrs Playing (1 Session of Play / 3hrs Playing)( 1wk / 2 Sessions of Play)( 1 month / 4wks)( 30 Days / 1 month) = 30 Days

(This is done with 1 Kiln in use, which I saw in the video. With two kilns, overall time is reduced to 17.5 Days.
The time can keep going down for the brick burning duration, but no less than 4 hrs 32 mins, which is the time required to dig the clay in the first place.
However, using 10 kilns brings this to a reasonable brick burning duration of 2 hrs.
So if 10 kilns were used, and 1 person did all the digging, it'd be basically 2 play sessions, or 2 days of work, or 6 hrs.
But don't forget to add all the scouring of resources, replenishing energy, etc.)

So, my point stands, even with an INCREASE of progress lost, items lost without the ability to alt vault any longer, will still remain a drop in the bucket, comparatively—because of this: someone who plays so infrequently should carry similar attachment to their gains as someone who plays frequently. I know I would gripe, similarly, if I spent 16 hrs playing, then subsequently lost 16 hrs of work. Simply because I could replenish that work the following day, eating another 16hrs, doesn't make the loss any nicer, because all the effort is still there.

I do understand how attachment can mature over time, but attachment is something for a player to balance, not the developer.

Competitive edge, which has value in and of itself, tends to go out the window when you decide to be a casual player instead of a hardcore player. Jorb & Loftar understand this:

It has since occurred to us... that the most important resource a player has at his disposal is his own time and effort spent in the game

The only way to balance the competitive edge that time gives, completely, is to make the game turn-based. Board games shine in that regard, not MMOs. Thus, we should really put it out of our minds, "O woe is the life of a casual player, who doesn't play much," because that mindset gets in the way of understanding that their time is theirs to give.

This doesn't mean there isn't a balance to strike between casual and hardcore players, but it's really a matter of addressing other issues that don't compromise the integrity of a full-loot environment.

Right now, removing the most valuable items through exploitation of creating limitless and impenetrable storage, through characters on alternate accounts: alt-vaults, flies in the face of the full-loot environment. That, in and of itself, means this change should take place, on principle.

Yet, of course, people aren't always online to react to a raid, and that should be taken into account with difficult to penetrate, but not impenetrable, storage. Strong boxes (which require a key) are something someone had suggested—but given this change, as LadyGoo proposed it, keys would be lootable from the Inventory Bag (Tab button).

The only problem I see with LadyGoo's idea is KEYS.

I would suggest, make keys and keyrings equipable. This would make those items (which are needed to open lockboxes) safe while logged out, along with the rest of your equipped inventory (Ctrl+E). However, the problem exists where, to prevent Boss Keys from being stolen, people would still create key alts to safeguard boss keys.


Anyways, this post is getting too long to offer a solution to the key problem. Because, really, that's probably the only thing that gives a mechanical hiccup with LadyGoo's suggestion.

(Lol, glad I checked the math in this post before someone else did. Don't be silent if you see a major screw up).

[Avu]

Have you seen the attempt to completely level entire villages destroy every cabinets and container?

Everyone should take a moment to watch some of this video:
https://youtu.be/hVTie_LZs7A?t=122

While LadyGoo's suggestion appears to grant everything to would-be-raiders, by mitigating alt-vaults, losses on an alt vault can be otherwise a drop in the bucket compared to the severe damage many attackers are willing to commit.

In the above video, the destruction of those brick stockpiles and structures represent no less than 2 days of digging clay, burning bricks, creating wrought for the finery forge, etc.
Additionally, the cupboards destroyed represent 1 hr of construction time, and the cupboard contents represent anywhere from a 3 days to 10.5 days of gathering.
The destruction of the trellis structures, and other agriculture, result in approximately 2 days of losses.
Inbetween all these listed times, there is character movement for passing between locations, feedings one's character, drinking, and other activities.

It is safe to say that this attack resulted in 1 - 3 weeks of damage.
To make repairs, this means this hermit must spend ANOTHER 1 - 3 weeks to regain their status before the raid.
That means that in total, losses are always DOUBLED.
This time would be even greater if important skills or tools were lost, i.e. Yeomanry, Metal axes, saws, etc.



Considering ALL this damage, rather than this player rejoicing the inventory saved within an Alt Vault, the likeliest event is that this player quit the game for the duration of the world.



I am breaking this all down, because, I think that fundamentally, Alt-vaulting is an Exploit, yet one that is driven by the necessity to mitigate damage, such as that shown above.
The destruction witnessed in that video is completed in less than an hour.

Most noob losses are in the realm of Days lost, while mid-to-late-game losses are in the realm of Weeks or Months.
Considering this, alt-vault losses are almost inconsequential. I want Alt-Vaulting gone on principle that it's an exploit.

But more importantly, it needs to be coupled with a better approach on mitigating severe losses, that aggressive playstyles really don't give a second thought toward (just listen to all of the giggling in the video).

Hopefully the Stat Cap adds a level of balance that this game has been sorely missing—because, given the opportunity to retaliate under balanced conditions, many players would fight back, and have a fun story to tell, about how they actually tried to defend against their aggressors, rather than a story about how they were compelled to quit, because they had no chance.

Anyways, this is all food for thought.
I doubt any changes toward alt vaulting will come in the next month or two, but i'm hopeful, because I think the stat cap is a step in the right direction to support this idea.

What this guy said since he could be bothered to say it again because it has been said so many times. Defenders lose everything if a defense fails, attackers lose almost fuck all. When the costs are a bit more in line then we can cry about the poor poor raiders.

[Kalacia]

I want Alt-Vaulting gone on principle that it's an exploit.

But more importantly, it needs to be coupled with a better approach on mitigating severe losses, that aggressive playstyles really don't give a second thought toward (just listen to all of the giggling in the video).

Alt vaulting seems like an exploit, but has jorbtar stated that owning multiple accounts or having bank characters is against game policy? (actual question not sarcasm).


yes we could allow raiders to steal and destroy everything. But then just like in real life, that player is dead... no more loot, no more interaction. They probably won't play HnH again, they are done. Simple. No money for Jorbtar, more stringent changes to the pay system that people will bitch and moan about.

if raiders are to be able to completely raise a settlement to the dirt, in such a short period of time compared to the time invested to build.... People won't pay for that shit. It's not a free game anymore and people want something tangible to see as an achievement, something they have worked towards. Not to see that thing, wiped out by some body who has no idea on a big issue within the game.

Lets take Eve online as an example. It is ruthless in its low sec areas... corps(guilds) can spent years and real world money building a fleet to have it obliterated in a single pitched battle. However, for people who dont want this, who just want to plod about... can sit in a protected sector. People who kill in the protected sector are wanted by a form of game police.

Now im not saying that the Eve way is correct here. Im saying that even with a very high risk game. Non PvP players can still exist... but you cant just allow people to kill eveybody in sight without retribution.

But i suppose the rest of that argument is for another day.

[LadyV]

So, my point stands

Fine Im not going to debate over it any more. You want to break the system even more by all means. This game needs balance, like it or not. Removing alt-vaults without a sensible solution is just as broken as it is and much more harmful.

[Vaku]

@LadyV

I want Alt-Vaulting gone on principle that it's an exploit.

But more importantly, it needs to be coupled with a better approach on mitigating severe losses, that aggressive playstyles really don't give a second thought toward (just listen to all of the giggling in the video).

You're making it as though we're in conflict. Our points are more or less identical. I'm not saying get rid of alt-vaulting now, I'm saying: make such an update, either paired with or following,

a better approach on mitigating severe losses, that aggressive playstyles really don't give a second thought toward.

@Kalacia

Alt vaulting seems like an exploit, but has jorbtar stated that owning multiple accounts or having bank characters is against game policy? (actual question not sarcasm).

yes we could allow raiders to steal and destroy everything. But then just like in real life, that player is dead... no more loot, no more interaction. They probably won't play HnH again, they are done.

In the thread, Some thoughts on Siege, Jorb addresses a similar point:

But as Avu said, the problem is fundamental here. Once the wall falls it is game over. There is no coming back when your 10th generation livestock, raised for weeks/months, is killed. When your spiraled tools are destroyed. When your character dies.

What kind of a person will kill another player, knowing fully that they will lose their entire progress and most probably quit the game altogether? Is this your core audience you want to attract?

So remove permanent death entirely?

I think it is a problem that you cannot establish law and order presently. If you wish to avoid punishment for a crime you can just vault it up and hide in perfect safety. Is this desirable?

I think the takeaway here, is that the devs recognize some serious hurdles in making loss, in such a harsh system, a fun experience.

Permanent death (which really isn't permanent) and full-loot, could be said, to not be to everybody's taste, but I think that over the years, they've been doing well to strike a balance between reward, survival, and loss, to create an overall fun experience.


So to answer plainly, "is this desirable," in Jorb's words, to "just vault it up?" I don't think so.
And I think Jorb writes the above quote with Seatribe's trademark interest and cryptic sarcasm, as seen here:

next idea(which is annoying but not limiting): energysystem -> actions ingame cost energy x and when its empty you have to wait, or: pay $$$ to replenish

Are you serious? You would seriously in your heart of hearts prefer this?

and here:

It could work for the map border I guess, make the world a big island with a few tiles of water near all the edges.

And disable all ability to expand the world in the future? Great idea.

So I think it's safe to say that neither does Jorb find the ability to "just vault it up" desirable, and as a game feature, it'd be thereby unintended, and thus an exploit to just vault precious items up with alternate accounts.