Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2021, 02:33:33 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Think Darkfalls Siege System will fare better than SB? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Think Darkfalls Siege System will fare better than SB?  (Read 18443 times)
waylander
Terracotta Army
Posts: 526


on: April 06, 2004, 11:40:28 AM

Darkfall Siege Comments

Quote

1. Player cities are protected by a "clanstone" which grants magical protections to buildings around it (this is exactly how it works in Shadowbane only the "clanstone" is called a Tree of Life).

2. If an attacking army wants to seige a city, they build a seige fort close to their target.

3. The attackers must now "defend" the seige fort while it is the construction phase. The owners of the beseiged city can sally forth and destroy the seige fort while it is being constructed.

4. Once the seige fort is up, the attackers can now build "gloomers" which neutralize the power of the clanstone for short periods of time, and allows the attacking army to damage it during these periods of neutralization. This acts almost exactly like a Bane Circle does in Shadowbane.

5. If the attacking force can destroy the defending forces clanstone during a period of neutralization, the attacking army wins and can take control of the area and put up another clanstone, which we assume will allow the new owners to decide if what burns (structures that are already there) and what stays.


Don't know if there will be any land resources worth fighting over.

This siege fort stuff sort of reminds me of when a guild could rally and they had an hour to destroy a bane circle placed on their city back in the early SB days.  It gives the defenders a reason to hang around and to protect their work.

In pre-release SB, we had bindable siege tents and vulnerable bane circles.  We also had mobile trebs, which produced a need for people to be out scouting their territory.  Now in SB it takes hours to place and construct bulwarks/trebs, you can't destroy a bane before siege time, and the current system doesn't create a need to really patrol your nation borders.

These two games will probably be the competitors for this type of audience, and L2 is likely to be tossed in the trash bin.  Perhaps as a result, we'll see some innovative things done in each game that will bring a fun and strategical factor back to this audience.

Lords of the Dead
Gaming Press - Retired
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 41997

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #1 on: April 06, 2004, 11:47:16 AM

If there is nothing more to the siege system than that, well... same as it ever was. Unless they build on some of the weaknesses of the SB system (such as the necessity to be on 24/7 to protect your city), it will suck.

Mr_PeaCH
Terracotta Army
Posts: 382


Reply #2 on: April 06, 2004, 12:45:31 PM

Does Guild Wars have any proposed siege-level stuff or will it principally be PvP and group skirmishing w/o war engines and fortifications, etc.

Darkfall does seem to be taking its "end game" cue entirely from SB... which is a shame.  While Lin2 may be destined for the dungheap at least they have some different ideas on sieging.  How they'll work here in the U.S. remains to be seen and of course the first huge hurdle is for Lin2 players to level up themselves and their guild for this level of activity.

***************

COME ON YOU SPURS!
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2742


Reply #3 on: April 06, 2004, 02:50:38 PM

Wow, I suggested something similar to this many times over the course of a year in beta, glad SOMEONE finally listened (or got the same idea), too bad it wasn't WP.

Having the attackers required to build and defend siege infrastructure is MUCH better and more realististic than WP's stupid solution of silly scheduled bane times. Also it won't be a stupidly expensive and vulnerable structure (bulwarks, siege tents), but an actual fort that attackers will have to maintain a miltary presence in, but assuming the fort is actually good, won't have to worry about suicide rushes or surprise zerg attacks. There could actually be fun battles to take it down while the "gloomers" do their thing.

Haemish, the problem with SB was the cities' walls were useless and could easily be bypassed at 4am (or anytime, as 50 people could easily rush fly/teleport over them in a span of minutes) allowed raiders to take out valuable unprotected buildings quickly and easy camp the guild's spawn point so they couldn't rally.

Shadowbane had an almost perfect siege system, but a few boneheaded design decisions made the whole thing unfun for everyone. Hopefully Darkfall can execute it properly.
squirrel
Contributor
Posts: 1767


Reply #4 on: April 06, 2004, 03:18:40 PM

Quote from: Speedy Cerviche
Haemish, the problem with SB was the cities' walls were useless and could easily be bypassed at 4am (or anytime, as 50 people could easily rush fly/teleport over them in a span of minutes) allowed raiders to take out valuable unprotected buildings quickly and easy camp the guild's spawn point so they couldn't rally.


Which doesn't happen much anymore. Any city worth defending has spires that block flight and translocate/passwall. Unfortunately they're too expensive to keep on all the time but it helps.

Speaking of marketing, we're out of milk.
waylander
Terracotta Army
Posts: 526


Reply #5 on: April 06, 2004, 03:24:00 PM

Quote from: squirrel
Quote from: Speedy Cerviche
Haemish, the problem with SB was the cities' walls were useless and could easily be bypassed at 4am (or anytime, as 50 people could easily rush fly/teleport over them in a span of minutes) allowed raiders to take out valuable unprotected buildings quickly and easy camp the guild's spawn point so they couldn't rally.


Which doesn't happen much anymore. Any city worth defending has spires that block flight and translocate/passwall. Unfortunately they're too expensive to keep on all the time but it helps.


I hope SB gets a land based resource system up that can help with maintenance costs, and toss out some benefits worth fighting for. If so, we could see more interesting city sieges and perhaps some other forms of PvP.

Lords of the Dead
Gaming Press - Retired
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 41997

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #6 on: April 06, 2004, 03:32:19 PM

Without resource control, terrain effects such as height coming into play, it will degenerate into SB silliness. Flight was a major pooch screw to walls being effective, but guards being totally cheesable didn't help either.

There were a lot of things wrong with SB's siege system. The fort idea is interesting, but I don't see enough in that list to tell me it's anything much than more of the same.

And it sure doesn't say anything about dealing with the 4 am raid syndrome.

Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2742


Reply #7 on: April 06, 2004, 04:43:23 PM

From their FAQ:

Quote
Can I have pets or NPC hirelings in Darkfall?
You can have pets and NPC hirelings in Darkfall, ranging from tamed animals and monsters, to summoned skeletons, charmed animals and monsters, hired NPC merchants, hired NPC guards, etc.

What can my NPC hirelings do?
NPC hirelings can follow you around and fight with you, they can carry your loot, they can perform skills and spells to aid you, etc. NPC hirelings can do pretty much everything that player friends can do. In addition, NPC hirelings can be given advanced orders such as patrolling your city, looking for enemies, criminals, and thieves. They can be a vendor in your shop that you have set up, they can mine for minerals in a mine, they can go out into the forest and chop wood for you, or stand on the banks of a river fishing for you all day.


There's the resource system.

Haemish, they said buildings are protected when not sieged like in SB. We'll just assume these DF aren't dummies and won't limit it to 10 protection slots.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 41997

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #8 on: April 06, 2004, 04:51:43 PM

I probably sound more pessimistic about DF than I should be. It's one of the few MMOG in production that I have any hope about, and one of the few PVP MMOG's in production period. I just would hate to see them follow the oh-so-obvious mistakes of the past.

New fuckups, plzkthx.

Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #9 on: April 06, 2004, 07:55:38 PM

SB siege idea wasnt bad by itself - just implementation was horrible . Siege itself was unfun, buggy and laggy. You had also to waste a lot of time on them ( "bane weeks " -when we had more than 10 banes per week was exhausting and horrible) . If DF make siege itself fun and friendly to casual gamer (cause even hardcore ppl get bored and tired very fast with SBs borring sieging) it could be nice end game .If not....
Romp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 140


Reply #10 on: April 06, 2004, 11:18:32 PM

there will be a resource system in DF.  

The main thing I dislike about the siege system is that it doesnt prevent 3am attacks.

I think the defenders should be able to set the times at which their town is vulnerable or at least set the time for the siege like in SB.

Those comments are about a year old in any case and are very basic so hopefully its nowhere near the full extent of the system.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11582


Reply #11 on: April 07, 2004, 07:54:34 AM

Surely either...

Siege construction takes more than a single evening, in which case it will be impossible for attackers to succeed, and annoying for defenders who will feel slighted at having to stay up till 4am to clear out the upcoming siege equipment.

or...

Siege construction cannot be interfered with until complete, in which case everyone can 4am raid 4tehwin.

or...

Siege construction is possible within a few hours, in which case towns get wiped overnight; at least until everyone stops building the damn things out of frustration.

I'm not sure it's possible to do sieges without either pre-declared 'siege time' or 4am victories for one side or the other.

Whenever I read about Darkfall, I find myself asking about basic holes like this one.

Either the devs are *really* smart and are hiding all the really clever ideas till nearer launch, or they haven't learnt a thing from EQ/UO/DAOC/SB and countless others.

Hmmm, which is more likely?

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #12 on: April 07, 2004, 06:08:38 PM

Quote

I'm not sure it's possible to do sieges without either pre-declared 'siege time' or 4am victories for one side or the other.


 I do not see anything wrong with predetermined siege time . Problem was that  enemy could "raid" your town at any time- inflicting signifacnt damage .

 You could very well have 3 sieges in one day with "serial baning" - your ,one of your ally , one of your enemy, one of your enemy ally . Next day another 3 sieges -etc .etc.

Thats exhausting .  Add drained resources very hard (means  obligatory farming during your best  leisure time instead of having fun)

 And in the end all those sieges wasnt very fun either  massing ppl for 3 hours ,than 5-30 minutes fight (thats a major one) . Or 1 hours  getting there ,5 minutes  fight (thats a small scale) .


 Siege dynamics was broken .Also just siege and raid  is not enough -there should be other types of PvP conflicts (such as fight for resources and territory) -SB lacked severly on both fronts. "Fight for resources" was raiding farmers ,and occasional fight over 4 hours spawn. "Fight for territory" -was non existent - it was purpose of sieging (to get territory you had to bane/drive form the game  all ppl in the area).
 Actually all Pvp dynamics was broken in SB - time sinks mostly ( unlike AC:DT or UO).
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 41997

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #13 on: April 08, 2004, 10:39:42 AM

One other thing wrong with SB's siege dynamics was the ease of actually planting a tree. Sure, it cost a lot of gold, but frankly, that was easy to get, especially for someone who already had a city. Guilds who wanted to pester the fuck out of their enemies would just plant a rank 1 tree near their enemy's town, open it up to every fucktard on the server to bind to it, and leave it alone. The enemy guild would either have to bane the goddamn thing, which took at least as much money as planting the tree did, and a lot more time, or have every griefer PK killing their farming parties. In the end, it became more of a hassle to bane them than to just leave them there.

Raising a city, even just a bind point, should not at all be easy, especially not if that bind point can be used as an easy teleportation point. Then you have a map filled with fucking trees that aren't even being used.

WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19239


Reply #14 on: April 08, 2004, 11:16:14 AM

Quote from: HaemishM
One other thing wrong with SB's siege dynamics was the ease of actually planting a tree. Sure, it cost a lot of gold, but frankly, that was easy to get, especially for someone who already had a city. Guilds who wanted to pester the fuck out of their enemies would just plant a rank 1 tree near their enemy's town, open it up to every fucktard on the server to bind to it, and leave it alone. The enemy guild would either have to bane the goddamn thing, which took at least as much money as planting the tree did, and a lot more time, or have every griefer PK killing their farming parties. In the end, it became more of a hassle to bane them than to just leave them there.

Raising a city, even just a bind point, should not at all be easy, especially not if that bind point can be used as an easy teleportation point. Then you have a map filled with fucking trees that aren't even being used.



Jesus, my blood pressure shot through the roof just remembering that stupid shit. It made for some interesting tactical games, but strategically it was a giant pain in the ass.

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
Claus
Developers
Posts: 19

Razorwax


Reply #15 on: April 13, 2004, 12:32:16 PM

Since this information was released, the Darkfall siege system has been playtested, altered and tuned.

Our main concerns have been:
- Countering/balancing 3AM raids
- Countering/balancing the use of Zerg tactics
- Increasing the risk and investment of the aggressors
- Lessening the penalty for loosing a city

There has been significant changes to the system since its first implementation, and we'll expand on this as soon as we're done with the initial testing.

Claus Grovdal
Lead Designer/Producer
Darkfall
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 41997

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #16 on: April 13, 2004, 12:40:16 PM

Keep us informed, Claus. I am a grumpy old bastard, but I do long for a good fantasy PVP game. I've just seen so many fuckups in this genre, I expect one until I'm proven wrong.

waylander
Terracotta Army
Posts: 526


Reply #17 on: April 14, 2004, 07:29:19 AM

Quote from: Claus
Since this information was released, the Darkfall siege system has been playtested, altered and tuned.

Our main concerns have been:
- Countering/balancing 3AM raids
- Countering/balancing the use of Zerg tactics
- Increasing the risk and investment of the aggressors
- Lessening the penalty for loosing a city

There has been significant changes to the system since its first implementation, and we'll expand on this as soon as we're done with the initial testing.


That will be interesting to see then.  Balancing zerg tactics is as simple as not giving people in incentive to form huge alliances/nations/etc in the first place.  The rest falls into the old risk vs reward category, but maybe you've got  some fresh ideas.

Lords of the Dead
Gaming Press - Retired
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #18 on: April 14, 2004, 04:23:03 PM

Quote from: Claus
Since this information was released, the Darkfall siege system has been playtested, altered and tuned.

Our main concerns have been:
- Countering/balancing 3AM raids
- Countering/balancing the use of Zerg tactics
- Increasing the risk and investment of the aggressors
- Lessening the penalty for loosing a city

There has been significant changes to the system since its first implementation, and we'll expand on this as soon as we're done with the initial testing.
 

"- Countering/balancing the use of Zerg tactics" - that a very contradictory issue . "True" balance only possible in instancing and then it benefits the most hardcore of the hardcore - or you think 10 hardcore catasses vs 10 casuals is even fight?
   
  On the other hand "zerg" usually involves true player skill of politics and organization (you have to make those ppl work together and follow common goal - not as easy task as it may sound :) )  - it has some side effects such as making an effort of individual player less significant .But so it is in real life.

 Imho the soltuion is to provide better tools for everybody in-game , not only exclusively to powergamers and hardcore who create infrastructure themselves using 3d party tools . When casual Joe can hop in game and be alsmot as efficient cog as some catass .
Romp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 140


Reply #19 on: April 16, 2004, 01:38:31 AM

there are ways to limit numbers besides instancing

for example have some kind of soft or hard cap on the numbers of people that can be in 1 guild and then make it so that in a siege it is very difficult for non guild members to take part.  For example by only allowing guild members to bind near the city at a fort or something like that.  Have no summon or travelling spells and it comes down to pretty much guild vs guild who will be just about evenly matched.  Others can take part of course but if they die they may have to run for 30 mins to get back to the battlefield.

There are plenty of other ways too I'm sure, this is just one that sprung to mind.
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #20 on: April 16, 2004, 09:51:25 AM

Quote from: Romp
there are ways to limit numbers besides instancing

for example have some kind of soft or hard cap on the numbers of people that can be in 1 guild and then make it so that in a siege it is very difficult for non guild members to take part.
There are plenty of other ways too I'm sure, this is just one that sprung to mind.


 Well and you will end with few hardcore guilds pwning everyone . No newbie or casual players will be able to participate (cause every memebr will matter).

  Joining good guild in SB was hard enough for new  player - barring  fun content for him . Wiht ahrd cap on guild numbers  there won't be  any  way for new  players (e.g.75 %  of game population) to enjoy the game. -the only they will have is being  targets  for others.

 Ask how fun was for newbies was to compete with beta guilds in SB ,now multiply this problem ten fold and you will see the fun  factor fading away to nothing.
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2742


Reply #21 on: April 16, 2004, 11:02:07 AM

Limiting guild numbers with hard caps would be stupid. There were plenty of very large guilds in SB that were mostly casual players aka sheep. And during a major siege, they could probably rally the same amount of members as a hardcore guild that technically was only 1/3 their size.

If they weren't allowed to group together in large numbers they wouldn't even be remotely competitive, and limiting guilds to a cap of say 100 or 50 would mean the guild of 50 hardcores would just roll guilds 50 casuals left and right.

MadMax is right, just provide the more casual types with proper tools so they can compete and limit the advantages hardcore types get from massive amounts of playtime (extremely powerful characters).
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11582


Reply #22 on: April 16, 2004, 01:49:53 PM

Quote from: Romp


for example have some kind of soft or hard cap on the numbers of people that can be in 1 guild and then make it so that in a siege it is very difficult for non guild members to take part.  For example by only allowing guild members to bind near the city at a fort or something like that.  Have no summon or travelling spells and it comes down to pretty much guild vs guild who will be just about evenly matched.  Others can take part of course but if they die they may have to run for 30 mins to get back to the battlefield.


This is terrible idea unless you want the server 'leadership' to feel an absolute need to lock more casual players out of their guilds/groups/raids.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Romp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 140


Reply #23 on: April 16, 2004, 08:16:25 PM

lineage2 has a hardcap to guildsize, so does Knight Online.

I agree it would suck for casual players but only for casual players who were unable to log on for sieges.  If defenders were able to know ahead of time like in SB when the siege was going to take place then even casual gamers would be valuable if they could log on for the siege.

An alternative might be not to actually cap guild numbers but cap the number of bind spots.  So you could have a guild of 100 but only 50 could bind for the siege, so if half your guild was casual gamers then it wouldnt matter if they didnt show up.

Its not ideal but a lot of people would prefer that than zerg warfare.  Zerg warfare not only reduces warfare to whoever can recruit the most people but also results in a huge lagfest esp when in DF they plan to have 10k people per server, that means you could have 2000 people turning up for a siege.

DF is goign to be aimed at hardcore gamers in any case, the pvp is going to be skilful and non consensual, and usually casual gamers dont enjoy that kind of pvp because it means they get owned too easily by hardcore players.

Instancing would also have the same problem of not allowing everyone to participate too I would imagine.  I think instancing is how they are doing their siege system in Dragon Empires.
Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542

Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.


Reply #24 on: April 16, 2004, 08:31:38 PM

An interesting but hugely problematic and probably unpopular methodology would be automated instancing based on playtime and XP. Once you reach a particular threshold, whoosh, off to the next most catass instance you go. Unpopular because if the complexities of the system were appropriately balanced, the unskilled would be grossly exposed...

The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #25 on: April 16, 2004, 08:48:16 PM

Quote from: Romp
lineage2 has a hardcap to guildsize, so does Knight Online.



 And both imho are for catasses who  jerk off at their levels and virtual items.

Quote


I agree it would suck for casual players but only for casual players who were unable to log on for sieges.  If defenders were able to know ahead of time like in SB when the siege was going to take place then even casual gamers would be valuable if they could log on for the siege.


 In SB there was a lot of time I was unable to log- on for siege. -You know job ,sleep ,some social life for god's sake.


Quote


An alternative might be not to actually cap guild numbers but cap the number of bind spots.  So you could have a guild of 100 but only 50 could bind for the siege, so if half your guild was casual gamers then it wouldnt matter if they didnt show up.


 That actually has some sense. But only if this amount is large enouhg and will allow every1 who wants to participate in it.


Quote


Its not ideal but a lot of people would prefer that than zerg warfare.  Zerg warfare not only reduces warfare to whoever can recruit the most people


 thats called politics :) . And its trtue players skill to rally people to your cause ,especailyl when they are from other guilds .


Quote

but also results in a huge lagfest esp when in DF they plan to have 10k people per server, that means you could have 2000 people turning up for a siege.


Thats probably a biggest problem . Though even SB managed to finally have 400 ppl battles with acceptable lag. I beleive with technically superior engine even 1000 is realistic.  And rallying 1000 ppl to your cause should't be easy :) -In SB ppl didnt have any real competing grounds ( disc droppers and mob zones does not really count )   - when you will have to fight over resources with your neighbour I would think it will be harder to make huge alliances for long time.

 In any case you can limit amount of particpating ppl with other methods - like AC's portal storm for example - but I believe limitation is only neccessary when its technically impossible to supoprt major amount of ppl.

Quote


DF is goign to be aimed at hardcore gamers in any case, the pvp is going to be skilful and non consensual, and usually casual gamers dont enjoy that kind of pvp because it means they get owned too easily by hardcore players.


 I also hope taht DF devs are aiming at pvpers - not catasses .

 In skillfull pvp causual have more edge over catasses. -I can fire up Counter Strike I didnt touch for about a year and I bet in a few evenings I will have 3:1 ratio again. I just started playing JKA again after a break and have no problems duel against players who play every day.


 Non -consensual anarchy is also a very dumb developing decision ,with proper system casual pvpers wont suffer from UO,AC:DT newbie griefing syndrom. open pvp doe not equal  lawless PVP.

Quote

Instancing would also have the same problem of not allowing everyone to participate too I would imagine.  I think instancing is how they are doing their siege system in Dragon Empires.

 
 And imho pvp in DE will be a joke- partially because of instancing ,partially because of their carebear/outlaw system. I saw some instanced pvp in Fung Wan  online - and I would say that was one of the most boring pvp ever.
Romp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 140


Reply #26 on: April 16, 2004, 10:48:19 PM

Quote
In skillfull pvp causual have more edge over catasses. -I can fire up Counter Strike I didnt touch for about a year and I bet in a few evenings I will have 3:1 ratio again. I just started playing JKA again after a break and have no problems duel against players who play every day.


though this may be the case in your own experience but overall, I think its not going to benefit casual gamers.  In my experience  hardcore gamers are also the most skilfull, mostly because they play so much they get more practice but also because well, why spend so much time doing something you arent good at?  

I think in a game like SB where your skill in pvp = your template, thats a lot more friendly for casual gamers than a game where your skill in pvp = your skill as a player.  Esp if you can eventually max out your character fairly easily, then you are basically the same as everyoen else, even if they played 5x as much as you.

Thats why so many people hated pvp in UO because it required skill and the hardcore pvpers just owned the casual nonpvping populace.

Yea there is the old casual gamers who is naturally skilled at gaming but there are a lot more who arent .

As far as zerging goes, I still think its a worthwhile thing to try and limit it, I mean do people really prefer fighting in a 200v200 lagged battle where what they do doesnt realy mean much or in a 50v50 battle?  

Any way that you do try to limit it is probably going to meant that some people could miss out but hopefully there would be enough sieges for everyone to get a turn.
Sairon
Terracotta Army
Posts: 866


Reply #27 on: April 17, 2004, 12:24:58 PM

I can't think of any way it's possible for the causal player to be better than the hardcore player, if the causal player isn't gifted. I mean, with practice as you said, comes skill.

The only way a causal gamer can be truely competetive in a game, I belive, is if some more or less untrainable ability is used. Intelligence directly comes to my mind, but how would one design a MMORPG which truely requires intelligence?

Perhaps a game where strategy and tactics is cruical. Siege done right might provide it, but I highly doubt Darkfall will succeed in creating siege where these elements truely are cruical.
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #28 on: April 17, 2004, 07:02:20 PM

Quote

hough this may be the case in your own experience but overall, I think its not going to benefit casual gamers. In my experience hardcore gamers are also the most skilfull, mostly because they play so much they get more practice but also because well, why spend so much time doing something you arent good at?


 yes they will be alwasy "top dogs" -25% of ppl "owning" 75% of popualtion . -As its just human nature that in any field of human activity there are winners and losers.

 Point is game should be fun for 100% of players . Even if you lose , fight itself should be worth it .

 MMORPGs have good inclination for  implementing fun fight - as you can mask individual lack of skill /intelligence  by good leadership (which is essentially impossible in FPS , unless you play clan matches) . IF and only IF there leading is possible - so far NO MMORPG provided effective leadership/grunt system within the game itself.



Quote from: Sairon

The only way a causal gamer can be truely competetive in a game, I belive, is if some more or less untrainable ability is used. Intelligence directly comes to my mind, but how would one design a MMORPG which truely requires intelligence?

Perhaps a game where strategy and tactics is cruical. Siege done right might provide it, but I highly doubt Darkfall will succeed in creating siege where these elements truely are cruical.


 Thing is that the majority of humans are just plain dumb ;)   Template building could be considered "truely requring" intelligence if character builder is compelx enough, yet the majority of players are not able to desing a good template -they just flock to published template of the month/hype of the month. (and a snowball of whining /nerfing usually follows :) ) .

Quote

The only way a causal gamer can be truely competetive in a game



Its not a bout retarded Joe Blow  being a true competiotion for old vet .Its about that Joe the newbie has fun with the game ,as well as hardcore  Vet.

 
In a system where hardcore vets are leaders(those 25%)   with grunts as the rest of population it could be fun. -As the grunts fight with other grunts , and the elite competes between themeselves.

 -Hardcore players would be natural leaders and in my  system their efforts would be aimed to compete for power with other leaders ,not with their own grunts.
Sairon
Terracotta Army
Posts: 866


Reply #29 on: April 18, 2004, 04:21:14 AM

Quote from: Dark_MadMax

Quote

The only way a causal gamer can be truely competetive in a game



Its not a bout retarded Joe Blow  being a true competiotion for old vet .Its about that Joe the newbie has fun with the game ,as well as hardcore  Vet.

 
In a system where hardcore vets are leaders(those 25%)   with grunts as the rest of population it could be fun. -As the grunts fight with other grunts , and the elite competes between themeselves.

 -Hardcore players would be natural leaders and in my  system their efforts would be aimed to compete for power with other leaders ,not with their own grunts.


I don't think the majority of players will settle with being a grunt, they want to be up there competing with the best.

Personaly I think it's a little rideclous because the causal gamer which puts less effort, and generally is less skilled than the hardcore player, shouldn't logicaly be better than the hardcore player. I mean a system where puting less effort and being less skilled makes you better seems all fucked up to me.
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2742


Reply #30 on: April 18, 2004, 11:12:44 AM

Quote from: Sairon
I can't think of any way it's possible for the causal player to be better than the hardcore player, if the causal player isn't gifted. I mean, with practice as you said, comes skill.

The only way a causal gamer can be truely competetive in a game, I believe, is if some more or less untrainable ability is used. Intelligence directly comes to my mind, but how would one design a MMORPG which truely requires intelligence?

Perhaps a game where strategy and tactics is cruical. Siege done right might provide it, but I highly doubt Darkfall will succeed in creating siege where these elements truely are cruical.


Some classes could require more intelligence while others could require more game skill. Darkfall is going to be heavily twitched based I believe, that means there's going to be a lot of FPS skill required which as others have pointed out, doesn't give everyone a chance, but it does shift the advantage from those almost exclusively those who catass a lot and always have class of the month at MAX level to people with good FPS/action game skill (which there are a lot more of, as the popularity of counter-strike and other FPS' can attest).

This of course might alienate a lot of RPGers who play RPGs because they don't have the high degree of reflexes/hand eye coordination needed to be good at FPS games, but the DF devs can mitigate this problem a bit by adding classes that are effective with less twitch skills required.

Some classes like a Ninja Archer or something might be all about strafing/jumping all over and require sniper like aim to be effective, and that's fine for the more skilled people who want to maybe own 1 on 1, but since DF is aiming for SB-esque massive battles with combined arms necessary to succeed, there's a lot of room for other classes to find their niche. Two that spring to mind that could give less twitch skilled players a chance would be 1) a juggernaught type heavy infantry class. Slow moving, tough as hell with heavy armourl (so super twitch dodgeing reflexes arent required), big axe or hammer that swings slowly and has a wipe arc (so constant precision aim isn't required). 2) Mage artillery, a powerful support caster that has large AOE type spells that take a long time to cast. Like 60 seconds maybe, to put up a big firewall (maybe that requires 30 seconds of maintanence casting every 60 seconds), this type of char would require intelligence and strategy (you don't want a dummy casting it into your own force) but not much twitch as the char would generally be protected or else dead.

Those are just 2 examples I thought of, Im sure a pro game designer type could do better, but in a twitch game like DF they require relatively few twitch skills to be effective.

There's also logistics management which was a big job in SB, and DF with it's resource system and equipment looting is going to require and even higher degree of management for large guilds, but hopefully without the eye bleedingly frustrating interface SB had and the resulting mindless repetion it unneccessarly caused.
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #31 on: April 18, 2004, 11:20:48 AM

Quote

Quote from: Sairon

 -Hardcore players would be natural leaders and in my  system their efforts would be aimed to compete for power with other leaders ,not with their own grunts.


I don't think the majority of players will settle with being a grunt, they want to be up there competing with the best.



 Umm no - majority of players are always happy grunts. They need nothing but to log in and have fun. They don't bother with creating  clans/guilds, participating in ladders .  Majority of players and humanity in general) are very well happy to be a dog on the leash as long as they are fed up ,have comfortable place to live and have somebody to fuck.

 

Quote

Personaly I think it's a little rideclous because the causal gamer which puts less effort, and generally is less skilled than the hardcore player, shouldn't logicaly be better than the hardcore player. I mean a system where puting less effort and being less skilled makes you better seems all fucked up to me.


 I didnt say being less skilled makes you better. I said with  reasonable time investment (10-20 hours a  week)  if you are not retarded  you should be able to compete on par with other players. I find ridicolous  systems requiring to catass for 1000 hours ("putting effort")  -as they favor no-life pieces of shit over regular people.
Sairon
Terracotta Army
Posts: 866


Reply #32 on: April 19, 2004, 07:09:14 AM

Quote from: Dark_MadMax
Quote

Quote

Personaly I think it's a little rideclous because the causal gamer which puts less effort, and generally is less skilled than the hardcore player, shouldn't logicaly be better than the hardcore player. I mean a system where puting less effort and being less skilled makes you better seems all fucked up to me.


 I didnt say being less skilled makes you better. I said with  reasonable time investment (10-20 hours a  week)  if you are not retarded  you should be able to compete on par with other players. I find ridicolous  systems requiring to catass for 1000 hours ("putting effort")  -as they favor no-life pieces of shit over regular people.


Yes I agree with that, catassing is absolutely not the way to go.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 41997

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #33 on: April 19, 2004, 11:14:59 AM

Quote from: Dark_MadMax

 Umm no - majority of players are always happy grunts. They need nothing but to log in and have fun. They don't bother with creating  clans/guilds, participating in ladders .


I don't necessarily agree with that. Most of the time they are happy with being grunts because they don't want to put in the time and thankless effort to do the job leadership requires. Guild management is perhaps the worst time sink of all in MMOG's.

TheBigBadWolf
Guest


Email
Reply #34 on: April 21, 2004, 01:23:38 AM

Quote
Some classes could require more intelligence while others could require more game skill.

DF is set to be a "skill based" game rather than a level/class/exp game.  To gain skill in a skill then you must use it ( swing a longsword, cast a fireball, ect) so PLing will also be a slight issue.  No more standing by while the uber druid levels you and you are at the mall.  If you dont actually use it you get no points for it.

Quote
Darkfall is going to be heavily twitched based I believe, that means there's going to be a lot of FPS skill required which as others have pointed out, doesn't give everyone a chance, but it does shift the advantage from those almost exclusively those who catass a lot and always have class of the month at MAX level to people with good FPS/action game skill (which there are a lot more of, as the popularity of counter-strike and other FPS' can attest).

Direct damage spells and missile weapons will be in fps/twitch mode.   You will have to aim them.  AOE's will not be.  Melee will switch to 3rd person.

There are also no classes in DF.  Let me correct that.  There are bundled skills call "classes", i.e.- druid, knight, assassin., but you dont need them to play.  There are SUPPOSED to be upwards of 350 skills and 500 spells in game.  While there will be a softcap, you can custimize your charater as you see fit.  Except for racially restricted skills, you can learn (or unlearn) what you want.

Terrain is said to actually have an effect (direct dev statement) so running up a hill in a swampy or muddy area will be slow goin.   If you dont have "climbing" then goin through the mountains will require a pass or to go around.

No flight.
No teleport/summons.
Grueling recall cost and casting time.
Walls and tactics will have meaning.
No all-seeing radar.  Maybe only terrain.  Maybe no map at all.

It may take some searching, but most info about the game has actually been linked or talked about on the forums.
http://forums.darkfallonline.com/
It does sound like the have learned alot from SB
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Think Darkfalls Siege System will fare better than SB?  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC