Game Development: Seated in Valhalla

[jordancoles]

[LostJustice]

don't have a slightest idea

I've noticed. Maybe think about the full picture. What it solves. What it actually changes. How it actually affects people. Original purpose of the game.

Your adding a toggle which only prevents people from going somewhere which doesn't sound like a good idea in general. The safe Palis are still there. That is the major issue. Your solution doesn't solve it. Not to mention a lot of ways to get around the issue or people will be able to circumvent it.

Helloooo?! We're not talking about some random idea. This is the alternative to gates doing THE EXACT SAME THING. "Preventing people from going somewhere". Devs described that problem in the opening post. And proposed gate idea. I am giving an alternative that does the same with one exception. It doesn't fuck up hermits, sprucecaps and other people in the process. The ones that are not able to defend themselves and will lose even slightest protection of their nearby walls cuz they simply won't be able to get into their bases if attacked. Or, if the gates will have different types, most likely they will open the one with no visitor debuff, run in with their chaser and still get KOd but now the attacker is inside without visitor and can loot them/wait to KO again, pretty much raids them with no cost.
So how about you yourself try thinking? At least a little bit. The game is too carebear, I'm not arguing that. But the change with gates will have 2 effects.
1: Big strong guys that are the reason for that change will have to adjust their fighting tactics.
2: Small and weak guys will lose even the glimmer of hope to get to their bases and hide there if they are attacked, they either can't or nearly guaranteed to run in with the guy they are trying to run away from.
So here comes the double gate system or, more precisely, triple gate: inner visitor gate and 2 outer gates. That way they are still KOd and looted but at least they won't let enemy into the base itself. What happens next? Player interaction drops. Is that good? Not for me, personally. Maybe you do want to loot weak guys easier, raid the ones that didn't build 2 gates, etc. But I see it as a problem. And that's why I'm trying to suggest an alternative. I'm not saying it's great, perfect and polished idea. But maybe, just MAYBE, it is worth to consider.

Your adding a toggle does sound like a good idea in general.

Thx for your support. See, I can take words out of context too! Yay!
So, also let's sum up your arguments: rage alts abuse just like it is going on now. Completely irrelevant but I guess you couldn't think of anything better. "Thank you" to a guy that said about carebear. Which means you agree with that and for some fucking reason saw carebearing in there somewhere but still neither you nor that guy managed to provide me with an example of that awful awful carebearing with pvp state. And now you just said some generic phrases about seeing the big picture. No facts, no thoughts. Just a fortune cookie level of insight. And then you argued about the change itself(gates and pvp state alike since they both do the same). Ok, maybe on that part you're right and there shouldn't be a system that blocks gates. But if there must be one to fix forts, I'd very much rather it would some system that doesn't make the weaker population of players pay for it.

You have to edit my posts to agree with yours. I have to say that is a new first, Ive seen. Here let me lay it down for you, your idea doesn’t help spruce caps at all. Actually mind you I haven’t even seen you fighting at all to try helping any group. Your idea doesn’t help and practically doesn’t solve the issue at hand and would I like to remind you the Devs noted the issue was “forts” aka safe palis. Not a PvP toggle or the PvP which in itself is its own issue. But for the big boys who can actually PvP it is an issue. If your running around outside you always have a risk of getting Koed or killed even if you got stats and a PvP pro, it part of the game. The issue is when people gank each other and hide behind a pali negating their effects of using scents and acts, much like hearth vaulting back in older worlds. It is annoying to deal with when one group of pvpers gank poor noobs and you have to twiddle your thumbs and be like welp their going to hide because siege mechanics are shit and safe palis liter the world. Adding your little “PvP toggle” fixes none of that and you have yet to even come close to providing any means on how safe palis will be fixed because of your “toggle”.

[MagicManICT]

Let me cut this short: if you want to craft an idea and defend it to your death: take it to C&I instead of cluttering it up here. You made your suggestion. Everyone but you hates it. Let it go or move elsewhere with the arguments. The fact is such toggles only work in certain games, and they suck ass in those games, too. Pretty much every "theme park" MMO I've played goes this route, and it's just downright sad. (Those that didn't have it.... just didn't have PvP.)

Yes, there are some great advantages by having this sort of consensual combat relation, but in a world where players can stake a piece for their own, it will never work. You'll end up getting griefed out of the game. If you can't accept that fact...


*I'm a little miffed that they went that route in WoW. At least with the PvP servers you knew everyone was participating... now hardly anyone is.

[LaserSaysPew]

Let me cut this short: if you want to craft an idea and defend it to your death: take it to C&I instead of cluttering it up here. You made your suggestion. Everyone but you hates it. Let it go or move elsewhere with the arguments. The fact is such toggles only work in certain games, and they suck ass in those games, too. Pretty much every "theme park" MMO I've played goes this route, and it's just downright sad. (Those that didn't have it.... just didn't have PvP.)

Yes, there are some great advantages by having this sort of consensual combat relation, but in a world where players can stake a piece for their own, it will never work. You'll end up getting griefed out of the game. If you can't accept that fact...


*I'm a little miffed that they went that route in WoW. At least with the PvP servers you knew everyone was participating... now hardly anyone is.

Ok, I give up, you guys win. It was a mistake to include words like pvp and toggle in the name. Noone bothers to read and thinks it's an actual toggle even though I tried to explain that it's not a "consensual combat relation" in the slightest. Guess it's either who failed to explain it or you who failed to read. Maybe both. Have a nice day, guys.

[dafels]

Ok, I give up, you guys win. It was a mistake to include words like pvp and toggle in the name. Noone bothers to read and thinks it's an actual toggle even though I tried to explain that it's not a "consensual combat relation" in the slightest. Guess it's either who failed to explain it or you who failed to read. Maybe both. Have a nice day, guys.

stop whining and make your own thread with this idea as the wise moderator is saying

[jorb]

No patch tonight. Aiming for Thursday.

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

From Monday to Thursday? That's like taking Christmas and moving it to June! D:

[Mario_Demorez]

No patch tonight. Aiming for Thursday.

The updates are the only thing that made Monday positive for me. Monday back to being the worst day of the week.

[Jalpha]

Ok, I give up, you guys win.

You can take it to C&I. Just keep in mind the PvP playerbase is pretty hardcore. Usually ideas get shot down because they don't fit into the game, they are overly complicated or just plain unnecessary. When I was discussing this in discord I suggested removing claims entirely so there's plenty of bad ideas around.

[SaltyCrate]

Then simply make hearthfires unable to be built by outlaws. Force them to put their HF in those presumably "less safe" areas before they commit the crimes, so they're forced to defend that area if they want to be protected from repercussions. This again, would require adding back in HF summoning to prevent them from simply putting their HF somewhere else, and camping their character in their village until outlaw expires.

The presumption that those areas would be less safe is wrong. Let me explain in a bit more detail what I meant by pocket inside village claim. Imagine a village territory made in such a way that there is an opening inside of it which is not covered by the village claim. It is surrounded by village claim and is inside village walls, there also may be separate personal claim covering it, but technically it is not part of the village itself. And thus hearthfires placed there won't be a negative factor when siege of the village is attempted.

PVP toggle stae idea

Yeah, I know that discussion is sort of over, but I want to mention couple of things. First is that your idea does kinda fix the safe pali problem and it seems a lot of people couldn't achieve necessary reading comprehension to grasp it. However, I find that this

What do you do when that alt starts bashing your roads just for shits and giggles? If you go out to stop it, you have to toggle PvP on, and then you get ganked and die because you can't run back inside.

is a legitimate concern. You kind of started ranting about carebearing in response to that when carebearing wasn't even mentioned?
I can imagine a number of scenarios where the goal of attackers would be to force other (quite possibly unaware) side to turn PVP state on, and then proceed to kill them, while they would be unable to reach safety. There is a difference to what was proposed in the OP in that if the rule preventing you to run inside is attached to the gate, then it is somewhat feasible to stall for some time and wait while some villagemate will change the gate state thus allowing you to run inside and quickly close it. When the rule is attached to your person there is no such hope. Maybe this could be solved with additional tweaks, or maybe it is an acceptable change, or maybe it should be treated as separate problem. Nonetheless, I think you should not ignore it if you would continue disccusion of this idea in C&I later.