Sign in to follow this  
Retrograde

PvP changes refined

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Retrograde said:
  •     Remove expanded Information minister functions removal of "x enters your territory" I wouldn't mind "x enters your territory" if it weren't so powerful and exploitable. It could still exist and be an interesting function, but it'd need a few changes: alt prevention methods so the information minister has to be an actual player (maybe use the new middle-of-the-screen text thing rather than putting it in event log), remove specific names from the alert so people can't spam locates on that person, add a cooldown so people can't use it to count numbers, and add a better (more avoidable) method of activating the alert than the simple mind logic check that exists now.
  •     Remove archery penalties or scale according to individual armour pieces. The reason this system is so unpopular is because wearing anything lighter than plate will get you targeted and killed immediately, so people have to take the penalty out of necessity. This penalty makes sense in the context of a proper, full armor rebalancing, but as a standalone penalty it does nothing positive for PvP. I say open this conversation back up once armor is in the process of being balanced.
  •     Addition of Archery keybinds. Nothing wrong with that, but can we consider making archery work with the same UI as melee combat? As in, simply target someone with a bow equipped and you'll auto-shoot until you notarget? I know that'd take more work than merely adding some binds, but it'd make archery a lot less of a headache (not to mention newbie-friendly).
  •     Have tower guards target whoever is trying to capture the tower. Require killing of guards before tower is captured. Removal of action timer and requiring a certain amount of guards killed within a ten minute timeframe Remove interruptable action timer and be reliant on triggering the capture, then requiring a certain amount of guards required to be slain in order to capture the tower, or simply all guards slain within the timeframe, possible to scale according to local player count If it scales according to local player count, make sure there's a minimum number of guards such that people aren't able to solo-cap towers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, rather have the friendly homeserver missions give 0 scenario points and 0 effect on the valrei board while still giving karma, missions was meant to create pvp by going into dangerous territories/situations, so saccing 5 spindles or creating a wooden shield from your starterdeed should have no factor in valrei, players still gain karma from it so new players has the ability to gain karma for later on like homeservers were intended, just a path to help towards the pvp, not a retirement home for freedomers.

Edited by changer
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, changer said:

also, rather have the friendly homeserver missions give 0 scenario points and 0 effect on the valrei board while still giving karma, missions was meant to create pvp by going into dangerous territories/situations, so saccing 5 spindles or creating a wooden shield from your starterdeed should have no factor in valrei

meh, i think they should still get some stuff.

100% pvp isnt for everyone and i think the game should still let people play a semi-pve lifestyle on homeservers while having valrei goals of their own, this is epic afterall.

But hostile server missions or elevation missions should obviously have far more reward/effect due to the element of danger and travel time.

Right now people doing the more pvp oriented missions dont stand a chance against the home server people spamming missions since they take far longer to achieve on average.

Edited by Zekezor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, changer said:

also, rather have the friendly homeserver missions give 0 scenario points and 0 effect on the valrei board while still giving karma, missions was meant to create pvp by going into dangerous territories/situations, so saccing 5 spindles or creating a wooden shield from your starterdeed should have no factor in valrei

 

All the crafting missions should be removed. They do nothing to encourage pvp, and actually make pvp less likely as it incentivises players to be on-deed crafting rather than moving around the server.

 

The missions that need to be removed from the home server mission pools are all the 'create 1 knarr', 'create 20 longswords', 'sacrifice 10 spindles', 'sacrifice 120 common wool hats'. All the other mission types give players a reason to be moving around the server, which puts them at risk of being attacked by any enemy on server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's why they still get karma, they just don't get a chance to get valrei items because they didn't put themselves in a dangerous situation

 

if you want a reward, there should be risk, teleporting to elevation starterdeed and saccing 2 spindles and then teleporting to the homeserver starterdeed and saccing a spindle isn't a dangerous situation, going 15 tiles away killing a crab on a server where there's 0 enemy deeds isn't dangerous (for the most part) either, going through an enemy homeserver with 0 safepoints, through numerous canals that can be blocked off by 50 dirt and 3 walls, and then draining a deed in local of their starterdeed is dangerous

Edited by changer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, changer said:

that's why they still get karma, they just don't get a chance to get valrei items because they didn't put themselves in a dangerous situation

 

if you want a reward, there should be risk, teleporting to elevation starterdeed and saccing 2 spindles and then teleporting to the homeserver starterdeed and saccing a spindle isn't a dangerous situation, going 15 tiles away killing a crab on a server where there's 0 enemy deeds isn't dangerous either

I don't think danger should be a requirement, but i think it should be a thing that GREATLY increase the benefit from completing the mission.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zekezor said:

I don't think danger should be a requirement, but i think it should be a thing that GREATLY increase the benefit from completing the mission.

maybe if they rework the system so that scenario points aren't meaningless, more than usual it's players with 12 points that wins all items as they killed 1 wildcat on their homeserver while a team of players out there did 59 missions deep inside enemy territories risking their ###### and got nothing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, changer said:

maybe if they rework the system so that scenario points aren't meaningless, more than usual it's players with 12 points that wins all items as they killed 1 wildcat on their homeserver while a team of players out there did 59 missions deep inside enemy territories risking their ###### and got nothing

Well the scenario reward system is bugged and devs were notified. so hopefully they sort that stuff soonish.

Edited by Zekezor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CaptainFightyPants said:

 

All the crafting missions should be removed. They do nothing to encourage pvp, and actually make pvp less likely as it incentivises players to be on-deed crafting rather than moving around the server.

 

The missions that need to be removed from the home server mission pools are all the 'create 1 knarr', 'create 20 longswords', 'sacrifice 10 spindles', 'sacrifice 120 common wool hats'. All the other mission types give players a reason to be moving around the server, which puts them at risk of being attacked by any enemy on server.

yeah, missions to cap a tower if its possible to cap, a global mission for all gods to do hota and the player which caps the last pillar decides which god it dedicates the mission to etc, do a ritual on an enemy tower which takes 10 minutes and it notifies the enemy kingdom if the ritual is being done

Edited by changer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, changer said:

power doesn't work against rt or lt attacks so that 30% is null once people use more rt weapons, realistically nobody would consider any other path if gone was 35%

 

No one will want to use RT though, because assuming not everyone is power, it's combining the wound making it easier to be healed more by lof/lt, and I've not tested so don't quote me to this but it makes sense that rt gives more aosp back.  I remember aflac using an rt huge axe and he took a huge amount of aosp damage.  Sure people are using web more now, but who knows if that changes with these changes?  LT doesn't really count here because it's already not doing the extra 30+% dmg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MrGARY said:

 

No one will want to use RT though, because assuming not everyone is power, it's combining the wound making it easier to be healed more by lof/lt, and I've not tested so don't quote me to this but it makes sense that rt gives more aosp back.  I remember aflac using an rt huge axe and he took a huge amount of aosp damage.  Sure people are using web more now, but who knows if that changes with these changes?  LT doesn't really count here because it's already not doing the extra 30+% dmg

I'd much rather have a 30% damage increase on someone than that there's a possibility of them having a fo priest with enough faith and good enough reaction time to cast a light of fo so that there's a possibility of that my 30% more damage wound is healed along with the arrow/cast wounds if its on boat or the 50 aosp wounds from damaging horses

 

against lt power does nothing, with insanity you still have the damage reduction from the physical damage, same goes for arrows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somethings wrong, I agree with what Red posted.

Edited by Stormcrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how the criticism against changes to teleport are of the MR perspective.  Oh, if they teleport in the village, we just change where we raid and they're stuck.   The bigger thing about removing information minister AND the teleport change is that MR deeds (theoretically) become more vulnerable.  I'm saying MR here not as a slight to MR but only because they travel in the largest groups for raids right now.  As someone pointed out, MR shows up with 20, defenders bring in 15, not 100; however, if JK or HOTS were to send 5-15 in on a MR deed, how likely is it that MR could/would be able to teleport in > #s?  Very, because they have the people.  

 

Now, use that same "pro-MR" argument about oh, you just change your point of attack -- that is again ignoring MR being the one under attack, and MR not using the overwhelming teleport.  JK attacks deedA with 15.  MR ports in 10, so JK decides to go to deedB.  MR can port in a different 10.  In both of those cases, the 10 porting in do NOT have to be the biggest-baddest because of how defense works.

 

Now that i've pointed that out -- I do want to say I'd prefer a different anti-teleport approach.  Leave the teleports (karma and vinvites) in.  Simply make it so that when a deed is "locked down/settlement alarm" is active, the village isn't allowed to invite anybody into it.  That way, at least true villagers who may be out on a raid can karma port home.  Removing the teleport entirely creates a situation where someone is on a raid and and can't leave without disrupting the raid (ala, taking a sailboat and ending the raid for 4 others, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Retrograde said:

    Remove stun/throw from valrei mobs.Until throwing/stun mechanics can be addressed

58b4677bb4.png

 

Instantly thrown off my mount followed by 1min and 40 sec of perma stun... Fun times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Retrograde said:

 Make nolocate on bodies work similar to jewellery with power determining % blocked. Cooldowns on searching for same person.30 second cooldown when Nolocate is effective, no nolo, no cooldown

 

One problem I see with this is that you can use it to check if someone is online. If no cooldown and no hit, the player is offline right?

 

Need some clarification! However, it would work just fine if the cooldown is not announced I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DrB said:

I love how the criticism against changes to teleport are of the MR perspective.  Oh, if they teleport in the village, we just change where we raid and they're stuck.   The bigger thing about removing information minister AND the teleport change is that MR deeds (theoretically) become more vulnerable.  I'm saying MR here not as a slight to MR but only because they travel in the largest groups for raids right now.  As someone pointed out, MR shows up with 20, defenders bring in 15, not 100; however, if JK or HOTS were to send 5-15 in on a MR deed, how likely is it that MR could/would be able to teleport in > #s?  Very, because they have the people.  

 

Now, use that same "pro-MR" argument about oh, you just change your point of attack -- that is again ignoring MR being the one under attack, and MR not using the overwhelming teleport.  JK attacks deedA with 15.  MR ports in 10, so JK decides to go to deedB.  MR can port in a different 10.  In both of those cases, the 10 porting in do NOT have to be the biggest-baddest because of how defense works.

 

Now that i've pointed that out -- I do want to say I'd prefer a different anti-teleport approach.  Leave the teleports (karma and vinvites) in.  Simply make it so that when a deed is "locked down/settlement alarm" is active, the village isn't allowed to invite anybody into it.  That way, at least true villagers who may be out on a raid can karma port home.  Removing the teleport entirely creates a situation where someone is on a raid and and can't leave without disrupting the raid (ala, taking a sailboat and ending the raid for 4 others, etc).

why should something be nerfed just because one kingdom is better then another? the reason for nerfs is because of game mechanics and you shouldn't base changes on "oh kingdom blah blah has this and this right now"

 

you don't like that we have more people? then step your recruiting game up son, and quit crying for nerfs.

Edited by TradingAlt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, DrB fails to realize that these changes would affect all kingdoms, not just MR.  It's not like the staff team is making the suggestion to only remove MR's information minister you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TradingAlt said:

why should something be nerfed just because one kingdom is better then another? the reason for nerfs is because of game mechanics and you shouldn't base changes on "oh kingdom blah blah has this and this right now"

 

you don't like that we have more people? then step your recruiting game up son, and quit crying for nerfs.

 

You do realise that continuously pointing out a particular kingdom's strengths singles them out for nerfing lol. Perhaps player caps should be looked at longterm 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Postinglels said:

 

You do realise that continuously pointing out a particular kingdom's strengths singles them out for nerfing lol. Perhaps player caps should be looked at longterm 

yeah cause thats a good idea in a game that already has several things that turn players away, tell your friends oh yeah you can't join us because the game has a cap on members sorry

Edited by TradingAlt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sole reason I personally dislike teleporting in to deed is because it massively encourages war deeds in the middle of no where, that no body actively lives at, in places you're unable to get hold normally, to box in a kingdom with cheap deeds. Personally, I was okay with twigs/stones as they are extremely limited (but I guess it's p2w)

 

The only other change I'm confused with is the tower guards / capping system. I probably missed the discussion on the other topic but does the method on capping need to be changed? To make it harder? To discourage grabbing land you can not hold? To balance that it would need a whole tower system rework lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TradingAlt said:

yeah cause thats a good idea in a game that already has several things that turn players away, tell your friends oh yeah you can't join us because the game has a cap on members sorry

It's good for balance though. Much easier to balance around a specific number. And lots of things have caps on how many people you can have, so don't use that as an excuse. Villages a few years ago had caps on players who could be villagers (real cap not this crazy amount of people now) and it worked well. Stop using excuses like this to keep stuff in that's not fair to other kingdoms who are smaller. Give me a reason why, for balance reasons, smaller kingdoms would be bad. I can think of many for why it's not.

Edited by bloodmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bloodmaster said:

It's good for balance though. Much easier to balance around a specific number. And lots of things have caps on how many people you can have, so don't use that as an excuse. Villages a few years ago had caps on players who could be villagers (real cap not this crazy amount of people now) and it worked well.

this wouldn't prevent anything.. unless the cap was like super low like 5-10? you could just temporarily remove all the alts/priests and reinvite them after the pvp.

 

Also if the member cap was based off of village size, you could just bash enemy towers and have deeds being as big as the situation requires.

Edited by TradingAlt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TradingAlt said:

this wouldn't prevent anything.. unless the cap was like super low like 5-10? you could just temporarily remove all the alts/priests and reinvite them after the pvp.

 

Also if the member cap was based off of village size, you could just bash enemy towers and have deeds being as big as the situation requires.

How would it at all? That is such a rubbish claim. How many people does MR have, include your alts and such too. I know Macedon before had probably 50 if you include accounts and I imagine MR has plenty more than us. If you remove alts and priests to bypass the system you put them on a timer to rejoin that same kingdom to prevent that. I'm still waiting for a reason why small kingdoms would be unbalanced, you can't argue to keep a system where numbers rule the game. It causes an imbalance in Wurm pvp, it always has. Every kingdom has felt the effects over the years and it isn't fun.

 

And I didn't say based on village size, that would be silly. I explained that deeds used to have a limit to the number of people who could join them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bloodmaster said:

How would it at all? That is such a rubbish claim. How many people does MR have, include your alts and such too. I know Macedon before had probably 50 if you include accounts and I imagine MR has plenty more than us. If you remove alts and priests to bypass the system you put them on a timer to rejoin that same kingdom to prevent that. I'm still waiting for a reason why small kingdoms would be unbalanced, you can't argue to keep a system where numbers rule the game. It causes an imbalance in Wurm pvp, it always has. Every kingdom has felt the effects over the years and it isn't fun.

 

And I didn't say based on village size, that would be silly. I explained that deeds used to have a limit to the number of people who could join them.

Never implied that small kingdoms would be an imbalance, I just stated it would be dumb because you'd have to tell your friends they can't play with you.

 

As far as the joining timer goes, that goes off of joining a kingdom not being removed from one.

 

It is very difficult to make changes like this on a case by case bases. Its pretty redundant that people go, Oh this group is too strong, lets make it harder for them even though they are doing everything legitimately under current mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TradingAlt said:

Never implied that small kingdoms would be an imbalance, I just stated it would be dumb because you'd have to tell your friends they can't play with you.

 

As far as the joining timer goes, that goes off of joining a kingdom not being removed from one.

 

It is very difficult to make changes like this on a case by case bases. Its pretty redundant that people go, Oh this group is too strong, lets make it harder for them even though they are doing everything legitimately under current mechanics.

Yeah it is a difficult change to make. And it's not targetted at MR as I know in the past both HoTS and JK have been super strong. I have been part of both groups and yeah it does feel unfair as the larger group to get negative changes. I never said it wasn't that way. But if it helps the game in the long run, people coming back like myself and a lot of other people I know of then that change is the right one.

 

Lots of things sometimes prevent you from playing with friends and it sucks. But it should never be a reason to allow imbalance in a game. Yeah it may been seen as unfair and targeted changes but as someone who had played this game for so many years, pvp is not going well compared to the past years. In the wise words of George Bernard Shaw: "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." How will Chaos ever change from what it is now if people keep making petty arguments against when such a change will really help out the game? The super biased views of certain players really does cause harm the game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this