Sign in to follow this  
Rolf

Feedback On Pvp Update Tomorrow

Recommended Posts

These are the planned updates for tomorrow, trying to enable more PvP features. In general most changes should be what we strive for and desired, but some feature changes are the result of code limitations or clarity requirements, while some are effects of other feature changes:

A note: There are three different states a player can be in now: Allied, Non-Allied or Non-Citizen.

Alliances are there to let people group up and create a safe area against enemies.

Alliances will be at war automatically on Chaos. The main reason for this is to prevent spaghetti coding and make it obvious to everyone. Basically - if you want to be friends with someone let the alliance grow. Use the feature to exempt villages from your roles in the role settings.

Non-allied villages will be considered enemies of all alliances but they will not be enemies between themselves.

Non-Citizens will be killable as usual but not considered enemies (and have a red outline) to anyone unless their reputation goes down. Outlaws should be enemies to all villages.

Alliance war declarations have been removed since they should only war on Chaos. Village war declarations remain in case two villages want to war on a home server.

(New) player corpses will always be lootable on the Chaos server by everyone.

A bugged setting could make you lose reputation when attacking other players on the Chaos server. This was fixed.

Off deed structures can now be bashed with strength 21 on Chaos.

You may now take items from structures owned by players who are in a village which is your enemy on Chaos.

Embarking as a captain on a vehicle on Chaos now makes it your property if it's owned by a village which is your enemy. You should also be able to pick the lock of items and vehicles belonging to enemy villages and alliances.

You may now go unlawful on Chaos (except mayors and kings).

What did I forget?

I have no solution for watch towers at this point. There should be occassions where tower guards consider you enemies such as when they are on enemy deeds.

Area Spell Effects such as tentacles should work for enemies of your village (/alliance) and most other spells as well in case the target is considered hostile towards you.

The idea is to enable as many PvP features as possible but keep raiding of deeds disabled in order to let new players join a bit safer. In case you can lockpick your way onto deeds so be it - there should be a use for guards anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another step in the right direction i'd say but you're going to have to face the fact that raiding is and was a VERY big part of what makes wurms combat syetem. What's to stop me planting a deed right by JK lands right now, putting a few walls up so they can't get in and using it as a safe haven to harass as many players as i want?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the changes, BUT.

keep raiding of deeds disabled in order to let new players join a bit safer.
. Players will stay on their deeds and laugh at the enemy.

As Nadroj says, raiding is a big part of PVP.

Edited by Sharkin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raiding is only the fun in pvp. Raiding also bring more pvp than messing around to catch and kill players

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hypothetical question...

What about boats owned by players who are "non-citizens"? (eg a player who is not a member of any deed) what happens if someone picks the lock of thier boat and commands it?

from what i see above they arent considered an enemy, so the boat would not transfer ownership. This would indicate that having boats owned by an alt acct that isnt part of any village would protect boats from transferring ownership if stolen. While it wouldnt protect the boat itself from being taken, it would prevent enemies from getting full use of the boat?

I Have no personal interest in this, as i dont go to chaos, just curious what the game mechanics will do in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is to enable as many PvP features as possible but keep raiding of deeds disabled in order to let new players join a bit safer.

So full pvp isn't returning?

So there is no place in this game anymore for people who don't like epic easymode but do like to raid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, at last some good steps being taken towards fixing things.

I also want to bring up the raiding issues. Your idea is it will protect new players on the server. Thats not gonna work well. If they don't plant their deed anything they build ban be broken into until they do, and if they plant their deed first they become an enemy and can be killed and looted until they finish their walls. Both of those situations are going to be setbacks for most people.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it now, Wurm is a community game. Even on the crazy PvP world of Wild/Chaos you HAVE to learn to work with your neighbors in order to succeed.

The fact is most new players WILL have to join an established village in order to make the connections to get the help they require to defend themselves from anyone wanting to come after them while they set up their deed.

Allowing PvP without giving us the incentive of being able to take it to our enemies doorstep isn't going to be worth much.

Also for towers, if its within the realm of possibility I'd suggest doing something like how it used to be. Towers within 25-50 tiles of the perimeter of a deed "belong" to that deed and follow the KOS and enemy list of that deed. Any towers outside of a deeds influence do not attack anyone except for outlaws.

Edited by Brigander
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent updates.

Could we suggest alliances can raid each other? But add bonuses for being in alliances, such as a possible leader (king) and titles?

That way you don't have to be in an alliance if you don't want to risk being raided, yet it is still advantageous to be in an alliance (titles), so will make it risk (being raiding) vs reward (titles).

It will for sure make pvp happen, having proper alliance wars.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Red, THAT would be a step in the right direction. I vote for Alliance raiding too. Small villages will be safe.

Edited by Finnishpkt
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent updates.

Could we suggest alliances can raid each other? But add bonuses for being in alliances, such as a possible leader (king) and titles?

That way you don't have to be in an alliance if you don't want to risk being raided, yet it is still advantageous to be in an alliance (titles), so will make it risk (being raiding) vs reward (titles).

It will for sure make pvp happen, having proper alliance wars.

probably the most reasonable suggestion I have ever seen relating to pvp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a reasonable list of updates to have,

I still believe that adding full raiding to the server will only be detrimental and cause a worse stagnation and death of chaos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because raiding on a PVP server is a horrible thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a reasonable list of updates to have,

I still believe that adding full raiding to the server will only be detrimental and cause a worse stagnation and death of chaos.

Of course, however why not give an option to have full raiding for those that want it through the use of Alliance wars. You do not have to be in an alliance if you do not wish to be raided. It would allow those who want to raid and to be raided to do so, and also those who wish to move to Chaos to live there without the threat of being raided.

This idea caters for both sides - Those that want pvp with raiding, and those who do not. No one is forcing you to be in an alliance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, however why not give an option to have full raiding for those that want it through the use of Alliance wars. You do not have to be in an alliance if you do not wish to be raided. It would allow those who want to raid and to be raided to do so, and also those who wish to move to Chaos to live there without the threat of being raided.

This idea caters for both sides - Those that want pvp with raiding, and those who do not. No one is forcing you to be in an alliance.

+ A good solution for players that like to raid and players that don't want to be raided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a reasonable list of updates to have,

I still believe that adding full raiding to the server will only be detrimental and cause a worse stagnation and death of chaos.

So raiding should also be removed from epic then?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So raiding should also be removed from epic then?

Why would you mention epic? Its an entirely different system and set up to what there has ever been for Wild/Chaos and poses little merit in the situation at hand. However Epic has a population that far exceeds anything Wild has ever had with 137 currently online compared to Chaos with 38.

Of course, however why not give an option to have full raiding for those that want it through the use of Alliance wars. You do not have to be in an alliance if you do not wish to be raided. It would allow those who want to raid and to be raided to do so, and also those who wish to move to Chaos to live there without the threat of being raided.

This idea caters for both sides - Those that want pvp with raiding, and those who do not. No one is forcing you to be in an alliance.

That seems more ideal perhaps, though just because players want to have allies "friends" from other deeds they would get penalised? Thats where a big -1 comes from with that respect and would make people become more issolated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

137 is more than Wild ever had? thats some serious news to me (because its a lie). Chaos has 38 people online because its a pvp server thats been neutered.

I don't understand this weird idea people seem to be getting about "catering for everyone and what every person wants". Noone in the history of humanity has ever catered for EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS because everyone wants something different, it's called being an individual. That's why we had a wild server and freedom in the first place!

How about instead of trying to please everyone (which is an impossibility) we accept the fact that diversity is the better option rather than having more of the same, this is why chaos should be getting back to what it once was as the wild server because we've already got a bunch of freedom servers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you mention epic? Its an entirely different system and set up to what there has ever been for Wild/Chaos and poses little merit in the situation at hand. However Epic has a population that far exceeds anything Wild has ever had with 137 currently online compared to Chaos with 38.

Epic is a pvp server and the playercount is also dropping, so if removing raiding seems your solution to get new players...

And as you said it is a different playstyle, thats why many people on chaos don't like it and why they want their own full pvp server...

Alot of people have been waiting for full pvp to return (and not only people on chaos), yet now it is not returning. Disappointing alot of people is suposed to boost population?

Why not just bring full pvp back as rolf first said and see how it goes from there. The open border already made it alot of easier for people on freedom to come test pvp.

So far there has just been no pvp to test for those people...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The code won't be able to distinguish between villages belonging to an alliance and villages planted by alts on behalf of the alliance (in a convenient spot to serve the alliance or to block "the enemy"). It's tricky to decide if it's planted by an alt or a new player. It doesn't make much sense to re-implement all of the functionality of player made kingdoms with an alliance system.

There are plenty of ways players can be lured out of villages; Raiding is not required to get PVP if there are tasks to be done which require that players leave their village if those tasks are interesting enough and lure players to the same area. A lot of simple things can be added which would serve to distinguish Chaos from the Epic cluster. Example: Conquering of area by taking over towers; Instead of bashing and re-building, make it more fun and a bit easier to do. Having to kill all the guards and equipping new guards with weapons and armor might work. I'm sure you can come up with better things.

What is is that you like most about raiding? If raiding just serves as an anchor point to get players to meet and fight, there probably are far better ways to achieve that. You have to consider that the changes need to appeal to both the existing population and also be attractive to new players. A short-term boost of old players returning does not help brighten the future of Chaos. Whatever is done needs to be attractive to players who are new to the game, and if it's a carbon copy of what Epic offers, it will fail to attract a sufficient amount of interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non public flaming on the forums would be attractive to "freedumbers" as I see us called. If all we see of wilders is contradictive and vindictive posting, that's a "bad" advert for "the great comraderie" of wild we hear so much about but never see on the forums. Also I see a lot of blame placed on the "freedumbers" for wild's demise, this also is not encouraging new players to come on over and try it. A little changing of the way things are said would go a long way to making wild seem more appealing instead of "those dumb folk blaming us for their problems when we deal with their stupid pvp code in pve". See ?

Edited by Pingpong
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The code won't be able to distinguish between villages belonging to an alliance and villages planted by alts on behalf of the alliance (in a convenient spot to serve the alliance or to block "the enemy"). It's tricky to decide if it's planted by an alt or a new player. It doesn't make much sense to re-implement all of the functionality of player made kingdoms with an alliance system.

You mean like alt planting a deed where alliance members stay, even tho that village isn't in the alliance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The code won't be able to distinguish between villages belonging to an alliance and villages planted by alts on behalf of the alliance (in a convenient spot to serve the alliance or to block "the enemy"). It's tricky to decide if it's planted by an alt or a new player. It doesn't make much sense to re-implement all of the functionality of player made kingdoms with an alliance system.

Not sure if this is even possible, but hear me out....

How about some kind of alliance based influence, kinda like the old factions influence. Preventing deeding by a non-ally member within 100 or so tiles of the influence?

This influence could also possibly be extended by 'capturing' towers (how we capture I'll leave to your ideas). Maybe towers within 50 tiles of another alliance tower extend the influence further.

Captured towers could then act against non alliance members same as a KOS, not sure if it's possible for an Alliance wide KOS list to help with this, set from the Alliance capital maybe. Or perhaps just auto against non alliance members.

The whole act of capturing towers to both extend existing influence and maintain it, as well as disrupt enemy influence could actually give us something to fight over, encouraging PVP again on the server. Should also be able to destroy towers, any tower not in influence would be deemed neutral,

Edited by reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we possibly make it so deeds in alliances can be raided and drained, whereas deeds not in alliances can not be raided and drained?

I had a talk about this in kchat and alot of the freedomers that came over to chaos and discussed it with me really liked the idea as did a few wild oldies.

edit:

trying to figure out a way to make it distuingish between alts/newplayers deeds in/notin alliance.

Maybe we could make the guards of the non alliance deed attack everyone who is in an alliance?

Edited by Propheteer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this