Teleport on PvP servers.

[Battlepaw 585]

I think teleporting is fine. The only ###### that bothers me is when people log out and karma home when they log back in (which I've done) or similar cheesy border hopping shenanigans. 

 

Maybe this is one of those Chaos vs Epic things because I know that people on Chaos like to set a twig to every ###### bush on the server, but I don't really see why that's a problem. You can't teleport with a horse.

Heh yea, I do know many of our top tier fighters have quite a stack of twigs, but us average joes normally have to buy a twig and get someone to set it during a seige or pop one of the stockplile and then, its polite to reimburse if possible.   I normally consider it, paying to teleport into a fight where I'll likely die anyways if I make even the slightest mistake, always amusing to hear people say it's something that is pay to win, because I consider it pay to die in many cases or at least pay to teleport into a danger zone and work your butt off to keep the enemy out and get shot at. 

 

Either way it's better than sitting on your butt twiddling your thumbs and helplessly listening to PvP going on across the map.   If you want you can join in on the fun as it stands.   I've responded to sieges far more times conventionally by riding or sailing in than teleporting, but then again I'm either back tending my grape bushes on Chaos or I'm already at the front lines.  The teleport is a central part of how players operate here.   

 

There is a big conflict of perspective in here between Chaos and Epic, as Chaos does not have multiple PvP servers, its all one gigantic server compared to Epic that has smaller servers with different PvP tactics, and many different game mechanics.   I really wish the OP would have been specific about what server they are arguing to remove teleport from.   As it stands I'll take it at the word and consider the proposal is to remove all teleport from all servers.    

[madnezz 555]

Epic should have its on suggestion forum and be completely segregated from Chaos in both discussion and coding.  The exploits on Epic do not have nearly the same impact on Chaos to warrant blanket changes to both server types.

[SotG_is_OP 357]

Part of the assumption here is that which works for other games will work for Wurm, I'd like wurm to have mount and blade's combat system, and perhaps even LiF's skilling system but that dosen't change the reality of what we have to work with now.   I'd support your attitude if what wurm needed was your flavor of balance, but that would involve everyone being "fair" where you dictate the terms that define "fair"   

 

In this world that seems to exist somewhere in your head, where everything works in your mind we arn't playing wurm.    We are playing "fair".  Things are not player driven but forum driven, who cares about the actual situation on the ground right?  I know I you tend to say that you know that balance shouldn't be "fair" but what you say and what seems to actually end up in your rants as actual holy writ seem to be two different things.   

 

This topic is a wonderful example.    If I'm against it in your mind I'm not being "fair" but my position is not exactly how you make it out to be.  It's dependent on the reality of the server itself and as I've stated and my own suggestions are a hell a lot more feasible than trying to kick over playing board simply because I don't like one mechanic. its situational.

 

Unlike you I'm not trying to push to change something to where it will not fit into the situation we already have.    If I wanted to play a total realism game I'd have stayed playing the forest.  This isn't World of Warcraft, it isn't Mount and Blade, and it certainly isn't minecraft. 

 

At the moment what i want is to be able to play the game and actually get PvP, and when I raid I'm not afraid of the response and in fact enjoy the challenge of players being able to respond.    I've seen what happens during the lulls in activity here on Chaos over the years and there are in fact no players that can respond when we raid.  While this is quite lucritive, and makes raiding easier it is not what I like doing.  I do like to actually PvP on the PvP server.    

 

In the end the OP has the same effect low player population itself did, where an overwhelming force can have full control over the defender's ability to actually encourage pvp, or make the raid at least more challenging.    So, yes I like teleportation as "artificial" as it is, because there are no current alternatives that are better.    Instead of griping actually try being useful for once and suggest something that applies to er the actual situation, as I have several times.    

 

There are alternatives to teleportation, that includes having towers detect enemies, so that a kingdom can can get enough warning to try and get people to a deed in time.    It's not a very good one, but certainly you don't see me here pretending to be everyone's friend and hero of forum justice.  You see me here sharing my experiences and using what I know to suggest possible solutions.    

 

The principles of balance are universal. The mechanics to which they are applied are not.

 

I support viable options, avoidance of dominant strategy, promotion of player skill as opposed to account/character skill, risk vs. reward, and other universal game balance principles. I do not support adding guns or other gun powder based items (mechanics often seen in shooters). Just because I play first person shooters does not mean I want guns. By saying that "I want to make Wurm like other games", you are assuming that I am suggesting the latter of these two statements, which is completely false. I support the universal principles. They are then applied to existing mechanics or used to create new ones that fit the game and genre.

 

Example:

Wurm Online (MMORPG)

 

Mechanics:

> Gone

> Vibrant Light

> Saint

 

One of these is vastly superior to the other two. That is an imbalance. In terms of the universal principles, they all require the same effort to achieve but one is vastly superior (lack of viable options), meaning the majority of players use it (dominant strategy). None of them have a skill requirement on the part of the player (player skill imbalance vs. each other and lower level options) and there is no downside to them aside from not choosing the single best (risk vs. reward imbalance).

 

Battlefield 3 (FPS)

Mechanics:

> Engineer Kit

> Assault Kit

> Support Kit

> Recon Kit

> Vehicles

 

Because vehicles are very powerful and have few downsides, they need to be destroyed quickly (risk vs. reward imbalance). The only kit with the ability to destroy vehicles at range is the engineer, so most people play it on vehicle based maps (dominant strategy), which represent the majority of the maps in the game. Vehicles allow a player to increase his or her own defensive and offensive capabilities beyond the normal limits for infantry, but still artificially increase his or her ability. Each kit and vehicle in the game has its own player skill requirement, with some individual players being better with certain kits or certain vehicles. However, the vehicles are not limited to a sufficient extent to prevent unskilled players from becoming more powerful than they should or highly skilled players from becoming almost invincible (player skill requirement imbalance). Each kit and vehicle is supposed to maintain its own useful role, but the proliferation of vehicles makes the engineer almost a necessity, putting any other kit at a disadvantage (lack of viable options). 

 

As you can see, these very same principles of game balance are easily applied to very different mechanics of two very different games. I did choose something that is off topic, but I wanted to show how these principles are applied to the mechanics in any game using well known examples from these two titles. While no game will ever be completely balanced (white moves first in Chess, although variations exist to remove this advantage), that is certainly no excuse for a developer not to try to balance the game to the best of his or her ability, nor is it an excuse for the players to dismiss balance as irrelevant.

[Redd 4,281]

We have battlepaw. Your argument is invalid.

[Postinglels 1,270]

We have tldr. Your argument is more cogent and concise .

Ftfy

[Battlepaw 585]

I don't think anyone is ever going to dismiss balance as pointless, just that what works in other games doesn't necessarily work in wurm.   I've seen mechanics from other games get tacked on to wurm, and they often feel out of place.   Some examples are the new friend invite methods, etc.   I doesn't necessarily mean those kinds of things are a bad idea, just that not every form of balance can work and make wurm better for all parties.   

 

We are on the subject of teleports, not SOTG.   The mechanics for both have different uses and they fit into each server differently.   On Chaos, the server size can have a bigger effect on PvP, and we only have one server border here which really throws everything out of whack.    

 

For example, many MR players live in the far west of the map, but because most of the fighting is in the east, it makes it cumbersome to play, on the other hand you rarely see enemies in the lands around the west.   This wasn't like that before the server border in the east was opened up.  I regularly saw JK along the west coast raiding deeds.  Some examples are Blackwoods, Eden, etc.  Those raids would have a lower chance of happening because the focus is for jockeying for the East side of the map on the corners.   

 

How could you say that the same thing that would be balanced on say Epic would also be a blanket solution for Chaos?

 

If you would remove teleport from Epic, there may be much less of an effect on the players, due to the player distribution and the smaller sizes of the servers.   That's why I said that I don't think it would work with the sparse population we have on Chaos, for the server size.      If the entire map had a even distribution of players, like say perhaps Indy did before the border opened up, and PvP would happen more often and be localized to different areas, yea.  But honestly I don't think that would ever happen.  There are more reasons why we fight in the east other than the distribution.  Much of it also has to do with the HOTA located on that side of the central mountain range as well as the White Light.    

 

Balance is never universal in wurm simply because everything is completely player driven.   Players are always finding new ways to play the system and get around roadblocks that keep them from kicking the buttocks of thine enemy.     It's not saying you can't fix certain issues, certainly there are many things with the teleport system that need addressed, and some have already been fixed.   

 

What each playerbase needs to decide, is what is interfering with the progress of PvP.  That is the theory anyways.  Unfortunately we get people like you and others that do not understand everything we are talking about, and just assume we are bias.    Hell yes we are, bias towards Chaos itself,  but I highly doubt many of us are kingdom bias in this issue, since I've seen both MR and JK speak both for and against it.  In fact really if teleports were removed or restricted more it would likely favor MR rather than JK.

 

Yet here I am, trying to argue the case.    MR has a much more aggressive PvP style than JK.    We would completely wreck a ton of deeds, and if you think it's bad when we purposely hit them at low pop, think how much worse it would be if no defenders could respond without breaking through an entrenched raid group.    

 

I don't think that would be fun, hell, I enjoy the raids we go on that have PvP far more than spending hours breaking through an enemy deed just to loot it, while we kill alts and build bonfires out of JK spindles out of boredom.   

Edited January 25, 2015 by Battlepaw

[SotG_is_OP 357]

wall o' text

 

Can you please try reading my post again before saying the same "it won't work" crap yet again? The principles of balance (dominant strategies, risk vs. reward, etc.) are universal. The mechanics to which they are applied (meditating, priests, spells, archery, etc.) vary by game and by subdivisions of that game (different servers and clusters).

 

Dominant strategies are something that should be avoided in any game. It has nothing to do with making one game like another. One or a very small number of dominant strategies will emerge if the game isn't balanced. That is universal. What that strategy is and the mechanics of it vary by game. For Wurm, it would be stuff like longsword and large shield combo (outdated), shield of the gone, plate only (Epic), drake/scale only (Chaos), etc. These don't guarantee loss if you don't abide by them, but they put you at a severe disadvantage by no fault of your own. 

 

Apply this logic to the other principles. They are the same for every game. The application into that game's mechanics will differ greatly.

[Battlepaw 585]

Can you please try reading my post again before saying the same "it won't work" crap yet again? The principles of balance (dominant strategies, risk vs. reward, etc.) are universal. The mechanics to which they are applied (meditating, priests, spells, archery, etc.) vary by game and by subdivisions of that game (different servers and clusters).

 

Dominant strategies are something that should be avoided in any game. It has nothing to do with making one game like another. One or a very small number of dominant strategies will emerge if the game isn't balanced. That is universal. What that strategy is and the mechanics of it vary by game. For Wurm, it would be stuff like longsword and large shield combo (outdated), shield of the gone, plate only (Epic), drake/scale only (Chaos), etc. These don't guarantee loss if you don't abide by them, but they put you at a severe disadvantage by no fault of your own. 

 

Apply this logic to the other principles. They are the same for every game. The application into that game's mechanics will differ greatly.

 

Dominate strategy is situation, not a chain of players doing something because there is little choice, take the Chain to Plate evolution.   Teleport is not a dominate strategy, on Chaos. It is something that just gets used, however it is not the exclusive feature the players use.     When you attack a deed sometimes people teleport in, sometimes people are already there, sometimes people sail in, or ride in when they respond.  Often times, though if you hit them at a low population time, that is when people have to telport in.   It's not cut and dry to claim that is a dominate strategy, because tomorrow something may get tweaked and suddenly people find a better way of doing things.  

 

People will use what works.  I don't have any faith in the development team of actually releasing the other armors as they said they would months ago, but if they ever do the strategy will change.  You can't escape dominate strategies, or always blame them on game inbalance, because what may be an inbalance one one server may not be on another.    

 

You remove teleportation, the dominate strategy will be to hit deeds that can't respond.  It doesn't change the fact that people will use something else that works, or take advantage of being able to loot a deed with no realistic expectations of response.  If a large attack force does respond, the raiders often still have the advantage.    If defenders can teleport in, they can choose where and how to rush the enemy.    It puts them on better footing not to mention they can slow down the attack long enough for conventional response.    

 

The issue here is that you are not being specific, just claiming that all dominate strategy is a factor in measuring game balance.   (not to mention the whole point is ridiculous to bring up in regards to teleportation)  

Edited January 25, 2015 by Battlepaw

[pisingas 454]

Now thats what i call a forum pvp

Edited January 26, 2015 by pisingas

[SotG_is_OP 357]

Dominate strategy is situation, not a chain of players doing something because there is little choice, take the Chain to Plate evolution.   Teleport is not a dominate strategy, on Chaos. It is something that just gets used, however it is not the exclusive feature the players use.     When you attack a deed sometimes people teleport in, sometimes people are already there, sometimes people sail in, or ride in when they respond.  Often times, though if you hit them at a low population time, that is when people have to telport in.   It's not cut and dry to claim that is a dominate strategy, because tomorrow something may get tweaked and suddenly people find a better way of doing things.  

 

People will use what works.  I don't have any faith in the development team of actually releasing the other armors as they said they would months ago, but if they ever do the strategy will change.  You can't escape dominate strategies, or always blame them on game inbalance, because what may be an inbalance one one server may not be on another.    

 

You remove teleportation, the dominate strategy will be to hit deeds that can't respond.  It doesn't change the fact that people will use something else that works, or take advantage of being able to loot a deed with no realistic expectations of response.  If a large attack force does respond, the raiders often still have the advantage.    If defenders can teleport in, they can choose where and how to rush the enemy.    It puts them on better footing not to mention they can slow down the attack long enough for conventional response.    

 

The issue here is that you are not being specific, just claiming that all dominate strategy is a factor in measuring game balance.   (not to mention the whole point is ridiculous to bring up in regards to teleportation)  

 

1. Those are all dominant strategies. 

 

2. Dominant strategies do result from game imbalance (ie. weapons have been better balanced recently, removing the dominant strategy of the longsword/large shield combo).

 

3. Hitting ghost town deeds is a dominant strategy and always will be. Twitter feeds attempt to address this, but currently some players want these gone (contradiction much?)

 

4. Patches are supposed to address the situations present at any given time. "It will change, no patch needed" is a really poor and ignorant excuse because a game is always changing. If it weren't, we wouldn't need patches, rebalances, or fixes. 

 

5. Rolf, the developers, and many players have expressed a need to rework raiding and make it easier and/or less time consuming. Allowing defenders to teleport in from anywhere on the map moves in the opposite direction. People generally don't want to spend five or ten hours raiding when they know they will be met with more ridiculous defenses, none of which are actual players. The actual players will be logged off with loot.

 

6. This is a player skill and risk vs. reward imbalance. Attackers put tactical thought into choosing the time and place, entry route, escape route, method of attack, planning and acquiring supplies, gathering players, etc. By allowing mass teleporting of everyone who needs to defend, it removes a major tactical plan on the part of the defenders (movement). Now game mechanics have too much sway on the outcome and are overstepping where player skill should be the major factor.

 

7. This will be an indirect nerf to other ridiculous and abused mechanics, namely the portal/place holder deeds that are used almost exclusively to block tower capping in an absurdly large radius and to teleport in to nearby fights and to HotA. They aren't actual deeds that people live in or use for normal and legitimate purposes. They are pay to win mechanics that block tower capping and provide portals all over the server that are not normally available.

 

Battlepaw (and anyone else), I'd appreciate it if you would do some research about game balance and come back with an intelligible argument instead of outright denying what I'm saying without even understanding what I am saying. Things might actually get done on this cool kids club that we call the forum instead of meaningless stalemates of kingdoms hiveminding at each other to prevent any sort of change that may negatively affect them or positively affect their enemies, even if it might benefit the game overall.

[Battlepaw 585]

 

 

Battlepaw (and anyone else), I'd appreciate it if you would do some research about game balance and come back with an intelligible argument instead of outright denying what I'm saying without even understanding what I am saying. Things might actually get done on this cool kids club that we call the forum instead of meaningless stalemates of kingdoms hiveminding at each other to prevent any sort of change that may negatively affect them or positively affect their enemies, even if it might benefit the game overall.

 

I understand what you are saying all too well, and I know from many of your statements within that shopping list of ignorance you wrote that you have never ever been to a raid on chaos.   It's pretty much all I do when I pvp, is I'm with a raid group and its very apparent you are completely clueless as to how teleportation is actually used. 

 

The facts are an enemy will already have alts they can log in to secure loot (much of it is already on merchants, etc).  On deeds that do not respond with a large force, that's all you see.    When an enemy wants to fight or slow us down so they can get defenders people often teleport in first.   These are not alts, because alts do not have loads of Karma, enemies do not waste twigs on alts, they use teleports on players that can fight.   When they send alts to deeds to help repair, its either through suicide, or if its the first time, the village teleport feature.    That is one of the reasons I want village teleport changed.  

 

I don't follow how you make the assumption that a universal definition that may be used in games that are not player driven can be applied to a game that is completely player driven.    There is no such thing as an assumed definition of game balance in Wurm.   I've seen people try and balance things on Epic, and that same "balance" tweak screwed up things on Chaos.    

 

If the definition can't even be applied across the entire game as one unit, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you try to say like some sort of broken record, that balance is universal and you can apply themes from any game and make it work with positive results here in wurm? 

 

1. Those are all dominant strategies. 

 

2. Dominant strategies do result from game imbalance (ie. weapons have been better balanced recently, removing the dominant strategy of the longsword/large shield combo).

 

You make the complete assumption that the longsword/shield combo strategy was a result of a game inbalance.   Honestly, the reason why I use is is that I have nearly 90 longsword skill, and can't be asked to try another weapon.   Many other players have used it for years as well.  Its a decent combination for parry/block not damage.    Players that want to use damage use things like huge axe, large maul, or something along those lines.     

 

The combination has not been removed, players will still always use what works.  I don't have any serious issues with longsword/shield, It's just hard for me to get good crits with them and glance rates are higher than some weapons.     I don't see a ton of other players rushing off to try other weapon combinations.   I'll probably try huge axe next or large maul.    

 

The reason is availability.   Longswords are easy to find replacements for if you die, so are to an extent mauls, or larger weapons.  I don't see many players that make the other types of weapons, or many auctions on the freedom markets selling enchanted ones.   

 

Longswords are common as dirt though.   They provide reasonable defense, and a group of players with them adds up the DPS fast, provided they all have decent skill in it.   

 

 

 

3. Hitting ghost town deeds is a dominant strategy and always will be. Twitter feeds attempt to address this, but currently some players want these gone (contradiction much?)

 

4. Patches are supposed to address the situations present at any given time. "It will change, no patch needed" is a really poor and ignorant excuse because a game is always changing. If it weren't, we wouldn't need patches, rebalances, or fixes. 

 

5. Rolf, the developers, and many players have expressed a need to rework raiding and make it easier and/or less time consuming. Allowing defenders to teleport in from anywhere on the map moves in the opposite direction. People generally don't want to spend five or ten hours raiding when they know they will be met with more ridiculous defenses, none of which are actual players. The actual players will be logged off with loot.

 

 

There is a big difference between removing teleportation and trying to fix broken parts of it, like the village teleport or being able to teleport right after you move between servers.   

 

Just because something has always been a strategy doesn't mean it always won't be despite any attempt to try to change things.  It certainly won't be solved by removing a way players can teleport in and actually offer up resistance, and delay an attack force long enough to get people online and fighting the enemy.    You keep dodging around that particular issue,  and making the assumption that your glorious fix will not in fact break the game even more.    None of that has any bearing on teleportation or is a sound, much less convincing argument it needs to be removed.   

 

I don't see you making any counter arguments as to how teleportation does not in fact encourage pvp, other than saying it adds to the defenses of a deed.  Players will already have alts logged off with their gear, and that has no bearing on teleportation at all.  On chaos players also already store things on merchants, or until one recent incident used to collapse and reinforce in the deed vault.   

 

The way I see it, you want quick raids on defenseless deeds, and no hope of resistances, and you consider that PvP.    I just don't get your stupidity.  I don't think there is a cure for it, just people stupid enough  to take this game into oblivion along with you. 

 

 

 

 

6. This is a player skill and risk vs. reward imbalance. Attackers put tactical thought into choosing the time and place, entry route, escape route, method of attack, planning and acquiring supplies, gathering players, etc. By allowing mass teleporting of everyone who needs to defend, it removes a major tactical plan on the part of the defenders (movement). Now game mechanics have too much sway on the outcome and are overstepping where player skill should be the major factor.

 

7. This will be an indirect nerf to other ridiculous and abused mechanics, namely the portal/place holder deeds that are used almost exclusively to block tower capping in an absurdly large radius and to teleport in to nearby fights and to HotA. They aren't actual deeds that people live in or use for normal and legitimate purposes. They are pay to win mechanics that block tower capping and provide portals all over the server that are not normally available.

 

 

The deed block radius, is quite much farther than needed.    I can agree with that, and to a lesser extent that there are many deeds that are not actually defended but just used to block influence. These mechanics are a major issue.  I just don't see anything that has any bearing on teleportation.   Players will log in alts if they can't teleport.   If your going to ban teleportation are you going to ban alts next?    What is needed to break the stalemates kingdoms get into as a result of the whole deed chess thing going on in Chaos is the ability to do things other than just break down walls that can get easily repaired by a few alts.    

 

If you want to help solve these issues, make wall repair much less effective for players who are non-prem,  this encourages actual players with the ability to fight to respond to those deeds.   Make deeds increasingly more expensive the more times they are drained within a specific period of time, making the continuation of deeds that are not defended impractical.   When a deed is set to disband, it will appear in the local history.     This way if an enemy wants to disband and replant an enemy can try and take advantage.    

 

You can't expect risk vs reward to be defined as both sides being balanced, as if everyone was part of an instance and had the same number of players as another kingdom.    This as I've seen is rarely the case.  In many cases kingdoms are unable to field enough players in any one area to really have any effect on preserving roads or towers.     It's all based on the player actions.    Say you build a nearly defended road, well you can't deed the whole thing, and players could just way until you log off and go through and catapult all the gatehouses.  The tower guards have been nerfed so badly, its not hard at all to kill them anyways, much less just run a naked alt past them when you are scouting.       

 

You can't expect players to keep all the supply lines everywhere open, there are just not enough hours in a day to do so given the sheer size of Chaos.  That is why a very practical solution is to make towers act like radar, in that there is information being given to a kingdom twitter as to reports by towers of incursions.   

[SotG_is_OP 357]

I don't follow how you make the assumption that a universal definition that may be used in games that are not player driven can be applied to a game that is completely player driven.    There is no such thing as an assumed definition of game balance in Wurm.   I've seen people try and balance things on Epic, and that same "balance" tweak screwed up things on Chaos.    

 

I have tried to explain this through both definition and direct example. If you still don't get it, perhaps try to understand it before you post regarding this subject. The principles are universal. The mechanics are not.

 

By the way, this game is not entirely player driven. Skyrim and Arma (both very different from each other and from Wurm) are more player driven than Wurm. Where did DayZ come from? Arma players modified the game to make a new game. We would get banned for trying to truly drive this game. We simply work with the extensive collection of mechanics given to us by the developers. We have no say outside that. 

 

If the definition can't even be applied across the entire game as one unit, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you try to say like some sort of broken record, that balance is universal and you can apply themes from any game and make it work with positive results here in wurm? 

 

Balance is universal. Try reading a bit into the subject. Football, Chess, and Wurm Online [some other properly balanced MMORPG] are all three very different games, but they are balanced using the same design principles. No intelligible designer would take anyone seriously if they deny the long established principles.

 

You make the complete assumption that the longsword/shield combo strategy was a result of a game inbalance.   You make the assumption that people would almost exclusively use that combo for years if it wasn't unbalanced. Once again, look up the definition of a dominant strategy. If something is used the most or almost exclusively, there is a balance issue. It is unbalanced. If it weren't unbalanced, people would use other features and the dominant strategy would be lessened or removed. Once again, please research this or stop posting this uninformed nonsense while directly insulting me for disagreeing with your lack of knowledge.

 

When did people actually start using large axes? When it was given a parry rate. This was a balance change to make one option more viable, thus shifting the balance. Numerous other changes like this happened, and by your (lack of) logic they were bad changes. By universal design principle, they were great changes.

 

Please, before you post again: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions

 

If you feel that I cherry picked it, then feel free to use Google (I don't think I need to link that).

Edited January 27, 2015 by SotG_is_OP

[Battlepaw 585]

Are we arguing on game balance, or just trying to agree on a definition of balance?    I'm pretty sure you are so far off this whole topic, every time you post you are derailing into the next universe.  

 

Read the sections I put up on actual teleportation.   Every time I bring you to trying to debate teleport mechanics you go off into another ballpark.  You want anyone to take you seriously anywhere and you try to pull this crap?   Now you know why I keep jumping on your case for trying to justify your stupid theories with not anything actually going on in wurm, yet some hairbrained notion that every other game is a case study in how you want wurm to work or how you assume it changes.   

 

Wurm is player driven, the mechanics decidedly are to some extent developer based, but many of them are a result of bickering on the forums, and then finding ourselves stuck with something we didn't quite expect anyways.   Others, are a result of changes in gameplay along with mechanics, such as the changes to artifacts, etc.   In the same way you claim that DayZ is more player driven than wurm the players that play wurm have far more control over what actually takes place in most instances.   It is more along the lines of DayZ Epoch where your own player made creations change the battlespace.   

 

There are many examples of our fortifications, tunnels, and war deeds as well as doing things such as fortifying the White Light when it was bashed and moved to Eden have had massive impacts on game mechanics.   Fortification changes over the years has led to changes with surface mining, raising rock, placement of mine doors, etc.  All of this has added to an impressive amount of player driven strategy.   That is just one aspect of PvP that is player driven.

 

With teleportation you are not focusing on that.   The ability for players to actually attend PvP.   If you can't understand just how far it is from one deed to another deed in many areas of Chaos, you just don't deserve to be debating this issue. You deserve to be trying to ride hours to a war deed just to have the PvP over before you get there.   Then you have to decide if you want to stick around long enough to see if the enemy is willing to try again.  Or you can sit around and repair the deed, already knowing the enemy will just wait until you leave to hit it again, and not bother fighting even if it's just you there fixing things.    Now just imagine trying to apply that to supply lines that are on a whole order of magnitude larger and often harder to fix than war deeds.   

 

Why do you play on a PvP server anyways?  I don't get it.  You don't want pvp.   IF you did,  there are alternatives to just removing teleportation, like adding the ability for towers to detect enemies, giving warning of enemy activity. You could track activity and decide if they were hitting supply lines then.   This encourages a response and thus a greater chance for PvP.  

 

Adding more goal-oriented PvP is what would work better here rather then rewarding players for purposely trying to minimize an enemy response you create situations where the risk vs reward is better looking for fights and engaging players.  

Edited January 27, 2015 by Battlepaw

[SotG_is_OP 357]

Raiding =/= PvP

also running from sudden white name explosion =/= PvP

 

I thought I was the one who didn't know this stuff. My bad.

 

It doesn't matter if it creates PvP unless it creates fair PvP. Death tabs create PvP, but people don't like them because the early bird gets the worm, then is forced to regurgitate it to the hawk (backdooring). That's a debatable issue though. Server population metagaming also creates PvP, but it isn't fair PvP at all. A lot of things create PvP, but that can't be a reason to say "yeah OK it's balanced".

[Battlepaw 585]

Raiding =/= PvP

also running from sudden white name explosion =/= PvP

 

I thought I was the one who didn't know this stuff. My bad.

 

It doesn't matter if it creates PvP unless it creates fair PvP. Death tabs create PvP, but people don't like them because the early bird gets the worm, then is forced to regurgitate it to the hawk (backdooring). That's a debatable issue though. Server population metagaming also creates PvP, but it isn't fair PvP at all. A lot of things create PvP, but that can't be a reason to say "yeah OK it's balanced".

 

Is that your goal?  To create "fair" pvp?   I'm not sure If you are trolling or just a complete noob.  There never is fair pvp.  Even when both sides are matched, one side will often get lucky, have better organization, or has better weapons, has artifacts, or any of the massive number of different advantages you can have in Wurm pvp that includes terrain, defenses, etc.    Hell whenever I run into a white name, I always avoid pvp until I have the advantage even if I know I can take the player I'm wary of just lighting after them, because it could be an ambush.    That's just what you have to do when your running around as a tin brick.  

 

It doesn't matter what balance tweaks you do, how you mess with any given pvp mechanic, Players will fight on their own terms whenever possible, finding ways often that even the developers never imagined of destroying their enemies.  We tried to shift PvP from less conservative approaches a while back but the developers royally screwed that up with the fail loot code, there also was all that outcry by butthurt BL about the Mag Res bonus, etc.   

 

The result being the situation of removing teleports is still simulated every time there is a very low player count in Chaos, where there are actually no defenders to respond.    At least how it would work now.   IF the player count ever got high enough in addition to features that kingdoms could manage their land, creating more localized PvP it may be actually possible.  That hardly reflects the reality of the PvP situation as it stands even with the increase of JK's numbers from the collapse of epic and the end of the challenge cycle.    

Edited January 27, 2015 by Battlepaw

[MrGARY 12,421]

Raiding =/= PvP

also running from sudden white name explosion =/= PvP

 

I thought I was the one who didn't know this stuff. My bad.

 

It doesn't matter if it creates PvP unless it creates fair PvP. Death tabs create PvP, but people don't like them because the early bird gets the worm, then is forced to regurgitate it to the hawk (backdooring). That's a debatable issue though. Server population metagaming also creates PvP, but it isn't fair PvP at all. A lot of things create PvP, but that can't be a reason to say "yeah OK it's balanced".

 

So what is fair pvp?  Who can really define fairness in a game like wurm?

 

Is one really strong fighter vs two average fighters a fair fight?  You think maybe yes in the sense that 0.5+0.5=1?  On foot vs foot, the really strong guy will probably kill both fine.  On horse, now you're looking at probably 2 horses vs 4 horses, this is in favor of the 2 average guys.  What if it's just one horse for everyone?  That's still not fair to the lone guy.  But honestly, pure straight up on foot isn't fair to the 2 weak guys either.

 

Server crossings create unfair pvp?  Well, I can see why you think it's bad that the kingdom's fighters suddenly know to go chase home invaders but.. the otherside is people being able to secretly show up and kill noobs, and then run home or log off.  Is that fair?

[Klaa 4,872]

Fair smare

[Propheteer 7,139]

+1

 

Teleporting to capitol deeds was removed for a reason, teleporting to a deed thats being raided should be no different. It should be up to the defenders of that deed to have acquired a proper path to and from the deed, rather than just walking up into enemy lands, capping one tower and dropping a deed and never having to worry about building proper infrastructure.

 

It's also very frustrating when you chase someone for a long time, lose track of them for just 5 seconds and in that 5 seconds they dissapear from your local and teleport home.

 

It hurts the game, it adds further difficulty for anyone who wishes to do offensive actions, and makes the task of retaining land far easier than it should.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Propheteer

[Battlepaw 585]

+1

 

Teleporting to capitol deeds was removed for a reason, teleporting to a deed thats being raided should be no different. It should be up to the defenders of that deed to have acquired a proper path to and from the deed, rather than just walking up into enemy lands, capping one tower and dropping a deed and never having to worry about building proper infrastructure.

 

It's also very frustrating when you chase someone for a long time, lose track of them for just 5 seconds and in that 5 seconds they dissapear from your local and teleport home.

 

It hurts the game, it adds further difficulty for anyone who wishes to do offensive actions, and makes the task of retaining land far easier than it should.

 

I can't think of many deeds that MR has, that have no roads, tunnels, etc.   Much of the teleportation isn't done because players can't get to deeds or do not build roads to them, etc.    It's simply to teleport in and fight, where normally they aren't going to get to it in time to do anything.   Removing teleportation makes offensive raiding of enemy deeds easier.

 

We fixed the whole local teleport thing before, if you want to extend the time you still can't teleport away for a bit after an enemy has left, its something that we could suggest.   That is an obvious alternative to removing a feature that also removes spontaneous PvP.   And in fact increases the difficulty or at least lets attendance be better.   I've seen it suggested before, with mixed responses.  

 

When an enemy can already pick when and where they will hit infrastructure, and you don't have the players to keep it monitored, much less patrolled, and the tower guards can't do anything to protect it, there is little reason to build gatehouses if an enemy is just going to wait until you are logged out or occupied elsewhere to go through and wreck them.  

 

Infrastructure has no way to be held down much else than tower influence.   It's why you see a string of deeds along routes, or between major war deeds, as better outposts than trying to do anything to maintain a road other than making sure horses can pass over it.    Safe mines don't really work anymore and that was really the main way people used to use supply lines, because it wasn't a big deal if a safe mine was bashed, you just tack on a new door when you pass by next time, or pop in a new mine to replace sealed ones.    

 

It's why I suggested, when you successfully drain a deed it gets harder to maintain, more expensive.  That makes attacking deeds and successfully getting a drain very important, and encourages active defense to keep the deed cost from being shot up.    I would rather be fighting an active enemy than being constantly frustrated that an enemy only has to wait until everyone is gone, and not expect any serious opposition because only people logged off in the deed could respond when the alarm goes off.    Players won't be able to make a fight of it and be able to protect their deed properly.   IF the deed holders, and fighters are elsewhere they can't delay an enemy long enough to get that deed help.    

Edited January 28, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Propheteer 7,139]

I can't think of many deeds that MR has, that have no roads, tunnels, etc.   Much of the teleportation isn't done because players can't get to deeds or do not build roads to them, etc.    It's simply to teleport in and fight, where normally they aren't going to get to it in time to do anything.   Removing teleportation makes offensive raiding of enemy deeds easier.

 

We fixed the whole local teleport thing before, if you want to extend the time you still can't teleport away for a bit after an enemy has left, its something that we could suggest.   That is an obvious alternative to removing a feature that also removes spontaneous PvP.   And in fact increases the difficulty or at least lets attendance be better.   I've seen it suggested before, with mixed responses.  

 

When an enemy can already pick when and where they will hit infrastructure, and you don't have the players to keep it monitored, much less patrolled, and the tower guards can't do anything to protect it, there is little reason to build gatehouses if an enemy is just going to wait until you are logged out or occupied elsewhere to go through and wreck them.  

 

Infrastructure has no way to be held down much else than tower influence.   It's why you see a string of deeds along routes, or between major war deeds, as better outposts than trying to do anything to maintain a road other than making sure horses can pass over it.    Safe mines don't really work anymore and that was really the main way people used to use supply lines, because it wasn't a big deal if a safe mine was bashed, you just tack on a new door when you pass by next time, or pop in a new mine to replace sealed ones.    

 

It's why I suggested, when you successfully drain a deed it gets harder to maintain, more expensive.  That makes attacking deeds and successfully getting a drain very important, and encourages active defense to keep the deed cost from being shot up.    I would rather be fighting an active enemy than being constantly frustrated that an enemy only has to wait until everyone is gone, and not expect any serious opposition because only people logged off in the deed could respond when the alarm goes off.    Players won't be able to make a fight of it and be able to protect their deed properly.   IF the deed holders, and fighters are elsewhere they can't delay an enemy long enough to get that deed help.    

 

 

My main concern is how easy it is to defend now compared to how hard it is to attack.

 

With the huge change nerf to catapulting when multi story buildings came in, it gave defenders not only a lot more time to repair as winches are all screwy, it also made finding out proper winches much difficult. That means it takes longer to make it a risk for anyone inside the deed, which means it was already a buff to the defending side before teleporting was an issue, now that its an issue, its even further skewed for the defending side.

[Jukimo 234]

sounds like people are whining about game mechanics and trying to get them changed in their favor cause they are bad at the game

 

-1

[Battlepaw 585]

My main concern is how easy it is to defend now compared to how hard it is to attack.

 

With the huge change nerf to catapulting when multi story buildings came in, it gave defenders not only a lot more time to repair as winches are all screwy, it also made finding out proper winches much difficult. That means it takes longer to make it a risk for anyone inside the deed, which means it was already a buff to the defending side before teleporting was an issue, now that its an issue, its even further skewed for the defending side.

 

 

Yea I can agree with that particular issue.  However, its not best solved by removing players from the PvP, simply to make it easier on raiders.    What we need atm are more ways to raid a deed, and add more variety into a siege, such as the possibility of battering down doors etc.  Gatehop mechanics favor defenders, atm and that plays a big part in everything.     

 

An actual aiming mode for catapults would be nice, where you can be shown the trajectory of the shot, and can see the changes as you winch.   It's also a step in the right direction, making wurm more intuitive, and less guesswork.   There are schools of thought that wurm's intention is to be a mystery.   Not where something like that is concerned, it just make the game more clunky and frustrating.    

 

sounds like people are whining about game mechanics and trying to get them changed in their favor cause they are bad at the game

 

-1

 

And yea... I have to admit MR are better at catapulting that JK, and that may be part of it too, but there are finite restrictions on catapulting that have nothing to do with skill.     This is a serious flaw in the actual game mechanics and needs to be fixed.    I don't think any amount of fixing can teach JK how to build a proper ramp though

Edited January 28, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Propheteer 7,139]

Yea I can agree with that particular issue.  However, its not best solved by removing players from the PvP, simply to make it easier on raiders.    What we need atm are more ways to raid a deed, and add more variety into a siege, such as the possibility of battering down doors etc.  Gatehop mechanics favor defenders, atm and that plays a big part in everything.     

 

An actual aiming mode for catapults would be nice, where you can be shown the trajectory of the shot, and can see the changes as you winch.   It's also a step in the right direction, making wurm more intuitive, and less guesswork.   There are schools of thought that wurm's intention is to be a mystery.   Not where something like that is concerned, it just make the game more clunky and frustrating.    

 

 

And yea... I have to admit MR are better at catapulting that JK, and that may be part of it too, but there are finite restrictions on catapulting that have nothing to do with skill.     This is a serious flaw in the actual game mechanics and needs to be fixed.    I don't think any amount of fixing can teach JK how to build a proper ramp though

 

It's clearly a problem of skill, not just being bad mechanics. and i've clearly not been catapulting since before most of you even started the game.

 

By the way, w = d + (wall h - cata h)/55, round down. Knowing that, skill is no longer an issue if it was before.

 

The problem comes in with how unintuitive the actual catapulting is, not lining up the shot, or setting the winch. If you're forced to do a 15 winch, from 11 tiles away, thats 4 more seconds that the enemy gets to repair. As long as mechanics remain that are excessively clunky, adding in more mechanics that exaggerate the clunkiness and faultiness of the ones in line before it isn't the best plan, especially when some of the mechanics will obviously be further imbalanced as more players get into the game (teleporting for instance, if it was removed it would encourage PvP by letting people set up traps to deeds that are being attacked rather than people just teleporting in)

Edited January 28, 2015 by Propheteer

[Battlepaw 585]

It's clearly a problem of skill, not just being bad mechanics. and i've clearly not been catapulting since before most of you even started the game.

 

By the way, w = d + (wall h - cata h)/55, round down. Knowing that, skill is no longer an issue if it was before.

 

The problem comes in with how unintuitive the actual catapulting is, not lining up the shot, or setting the winch. If you're forced to do a 15 winch, from 11 tiles away, thats 4 more seconds that the enemy gets to repair. As long as mechanics remain that are excessively clunky, adding in more mechanics that exaggerate the clunkiness and faultiness of the ones in line before it isn't the best plan, especially when some of the mechanics will obviously be further imbalanced as more players get into the game (teleporting for instance, if it was removed it would encourage PvP by letting people set up traps to deeds that are being attacked rather than people just teleporting in)

 

Teleportation should not be a replacement entirely for travel on land.   I think I suggested a change in the Karma teleport, to encourage people who belong to a deed to be the ones who use that, not just be able to invite, and let people not in the village before an attack karma in during a raid.     Twigs are fine as they are a money sink, if people outside the village want to respond they should still be able to.    Removing teleports does not encourage PvP, you as a long time vet already should know very well exactly what happens when a kingdom's population goes so low they can rarely field enough defender to make a difference.  When it's low that teleport is used even more often because the PvP community is so thinly stretched over such a wide area.    Yet, response is very low either way because there just isn't anyone to teleport in much of the time.    

 

During many of Chaos's low points where players could not teleport in, there was a lot less PvP, and a lot of raiding, especially by us exactly because of that.     We got quite a bit of loot recently until JK activity picked up and they were able to actually respond better.    I prefer a response, but it is a bit frustrating as an attacker to have almost every card stacked against you.   I'd rather have more raid options for a more interesting fight than not have anyone to fight though.   That's kinda lame and I've been on way to many raids like that and it's harmful to retention sometimes, despite the epic lootz.   

 

As for the catapult mechanics themselves.... words do not describe how stupid they are.  We really need to start a topic on that subject alone.   

Edited January 28, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Miniroll 544]

sounds like people are whining about game mechanics and trying to get them changed in their favor cause they are bad at the game

-1

Agreed catapult buddy! We got that down perfectly, to the point where at the comm raid we managed to shoot and poof 1 wall with 5 shots xD

in the small window of opportunity it was fun to shoot a shot every 2seconds tho. Didnt really put it to full use :/