The Ghost of Christmas Future, II

[bitza]

in my opinion, the state of walls isn't the problem (though there's definitely room for improvement there), but the primary issue is the lack of true permadeath. under the old lp system (action-based), it was rare for someone to have more than one or two developed characters, so people had to put a lot more thought into the risks associated with commiting crimes. with curiosities we see a lot of people training up alts in tandem for crafting, fighting, foraging, and even disposable theft/vandal alts. coupled with hearth vaults, this style of play leads to more #yoloswag noob stomping vs. considerations of your production center and your friends being put at risk by the crimes you commit.

characters should take more investment than is needed currently, especially at higher levels, and steps should be taken to minimize the rewards of individuals creating an army of alts for any conceivable purpose. this will solve many problems with game balance that we see today.

[Kearn]

@Kearn
manpower means having more time to play gives you more security ? (i ask just to make sure that i got your idea right)

Yes, whether that be in sheer numbers of people or some dude clickspamming for 20 hours a day. I'd like to see the game focus more on people scaling their defences with their numbers instead of giving everyone and their uncle equally potent and uninteresting walls.

[venatorvenator]

in my opinion, the state of walls isn't the problem, but the primary issue is the lack of true permadeath.

Came here just to requote this. Please make death less meaningless.

[Saxony4]

My idea is still the only decisive solution.

No amount of stop gaps or work arounds is going to fix the actual problem at it's source; the player.

That doesn't address the issue of why walls are necessary though, that just punishes people for playing the game.

They are only necessary to help prevent players from committing crimes against another, and they do a very shitty job(or at least palis do).
There is absolutely no need for them if a criminal justice system is put in place.

Muturally Assured Destruction/Mutually Assured Respect


I prefer to not use the term 'punish'
I believe the correct wording would be preventing the player from committing anti-social acts.

I hardly think jorbtar's idea of playing the game is to go around looting and killing everyone in sight.

[Kearn]

My idea is still the only decisive solution.
There is absolutely no need for them if a criminal justice system is put in place.

It's kind of unfortunate that the only apparent use people saw for the current system was teleporting around. If anything, it's only harmful to the good guys since they leave scents whenever they take down a criminal. It definitely needs to be reworked.

[DDDsDD999]

stuff

I like the ideas and feel they could actually work and be fun, but it just seems like a completely different game.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

That doesn't address the issue of why walls are necessary though, that just punishes people for playing the game. We still suffer all of the same circumstances that years worth of work can be destroyed in a day or two. If anything, by just weakening walls we make it so that you don't even have that day or two of buffer, your belongings are as ethereal as the wind.

But are walls actually necessary? Of course they are right now. They are the only thing stopping you from being murdered, and you losing everything you own. Everyone needs them, because without them, game over.
But why not implement an alternative system to adopt defense in a more dynamic way?

Make walls permeable.

Everything is claimed. If someone takes your things, and they have the same nerfed walls, reclaiming your things is as simple as traveling to their place with fire and pitchfork and exacting proper vengeance. Have they destroyed your belongings and murdered your flock? You may not get your sheep back, but you can have retribution. Make friends, provide tribute if you are a farmville-esque player, do what you need to do to have the assurance of protection if someone does come break your furniture. People will think twice about vandalizing and destroying everything you own just because they can.

A world where people are more vulnerable, but protected by this nebulous threat of retaliation, may be riskier than it is now. But I propose, under the current system, it is too bifurcated - You don't have a bwall? Your fucked. Someone will kill you eventually, without fail. Do you have a double bwall? Assuming you ramcheck and haven't introduced some fatal flaw to your defenses, you are absolutely invulnerable from attack, and free to kill other people without risk of retaliation.

I submit this "alternate reality Haven where murder potentially has consequences" will open a wider variety of playstyles, and promote group play. Enough players sheltered together in a singular location would be able to exact vengeance (or war) and leave the scent of murder on their foes without fear of someone breaking into their city and killing them in retaliation. But even large groups of players, if they become infamous enough, may see smaller forces unite against them to exact vengeance.

Does nerfing the impermeability of walls make it possible to lose things? Yes. But it also stops Haven from being a game where the predominant focus is to build a brickwall and kill all the other players that don't have a proper brickwall. Crimes, defenses, suddenly rely on the human element as much as a game mechanic. This will give rise to emergent gameplay.

You can argue that it is unreasonable that every player be at risk of losing everything they own.
I don't think you start that discussion by standing firm that absolute invulnerability is the right answer. Other forms of passive defense should be explored, or avenues to force attackers to act when defenders have the capability of responding actively.

[LadyV]

I really don't think there is one concise answer to walls. You have to design a system that defends groups and single players. That alone is a wide disparity. Toss in organized factions vs. just small groups of friends and it get even wider.

First we need security for every door and chest. We need selective permissions on exactly what you can or can not do. Village mechanics are weak. We need to emphasize structure over massive fortifications. Heavy fortifications need to have an expense that limits their use else everyone will have them. We need society/government beyond village.

If Im a single player, merchant, or warlord in the world I should be able to lock my door and chests. This gives basic security.

When we establish claims, personal or village we should be able to define exactly what people can or can not do with permissions. This does not prevent raiders from doing their normal but it does shore up villages for jerks and griefers who join for chaos. It is a reasonable request as a group should be able to assign duties or access. Its a game so we cant always have guards posted as we would in real society. Villages alone need great expansion, rights, and specialized structures or items.

Structures need focus over walls. If Im a farmer who can bar my door and cellar, hide secret rooms, or even have fortified windows to shoot from then even the lowly cabin can be a source of defence. Timber houses become stronger and mansions are nicely fortified buildings. Upgradeable doors from simple to heavy to fortified, and maybe even metal prevent a harder and harder barrier to prevent forceful entry.

If we add new structures like towers, forts, castles, and outposts you create a siege mechanic vs. buildings and not walls. I see no reason why we cant ram fortified structures directly to gain entry. Make it so those breeches can be repaired as well.

With structure you must add new construction materials and grant them each benefits and penalties. Make each good vs certain weapons or siege styles so they all have value.

Make heavily fortified walls, as they are now, the rare defence rather than the common one. The number of bricks for a such wall needs increased, same with metal amounts. And no they don't need more difficulty to breech. The cost needs to represent the benefit. Maybe even only grant them to be constructed by village or even a new level of city. If we look at who actually used to build them it was usually very large groups not a common farmer.

Finally we need society/ governments above village. If you start thinking beyond village you begin to band together society by mutual benefit and need. Why raid the peaceful farmer when you can protect and foster them as part of your faction, coalition, kingdom... You create expanded resource capability by doing this and the ability to upgrade those who defend your realm.

Even new players can grow from this. If they spawn near an existing kingdom it promotes a reason to teach them becasue even a new player can gather resources to help. We create groups without forcing a city lifestyle upon those who do not want it. The rural players contribute to the kingdom with materials or labor, maybe even fighting if they enjoy that. They can scout far faster than a small group as they are in their local areas all the time. They are the backbone of expansion.

If you change the game mechanics to allow society to form rather than hinder it at the village level then much of this random griefing and raiding disappears. It becomes kingdom vs. kingdom. It balances its self because the kingdom head who does not protect and foster those in his or her realm will quickly see resources dry up , allegiances switch, and outright revolts that tie up your warriors. Unified kingdoms become stronger.

We then change raiding to focus on towers, guard posts, forts, castles, and fortified cities. Risking war with a kingdom to raid one farm now becomes deterred for fear of retaliation on a grander scale.

Along with these steps you begin to truly allow trade to flourish much like the Hanseatic league. Trade towns or cities can form. Those same military buildings can serve as trade houses.

The discussion is about walls, I know, but their change and removal affects a whole change of things that have long been unaddressed. I knwo this has become a book of text and I say this alot but Variety!!!!!

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Make heavily fortified walls, as they are now, the rare defence rather than the common one. The number of bricks for a such wall needs increased, same with metal amounts. And no they don't need more difficulty to breech. The cost needs to represent the benefit. Maybe even only grant them to be constructed by village or even a new level of city. If we look at who actually used to build them it was usually very large groups not a common farmer.

As TeckXKnight said, this would simply allow the large/botty groups to obtain walls.
I would add this would serve as a death sentence for everyone else.

As long as walls exist in their current state, where they grant impermeability to people that ram check, I don't think you will ever get away from the cycle of Bwall'ed players relentlessly murdering all the players that aren't bwalled, because there is no chance for retaliation.

I think this dynamic of murder/vandalism without any risk of consequence is the primary reason why criminal acts are so prevalent.

[Ninijutsu]

I don't know how this would be implemented but perhaps scents in inventory could be used to weaken the soak of structures in the general vicinity of a perpetrator's hearthfire, allowing for trivial hand-bashing of brick walls if the perp left an enormous number of scents.