Ideally there would be enough of a player base for keep owning guilds to be able to recruit members from all over the world. That way they could cover the different timezones with actual players.
Last edited:
Lack of offline protection will cost the game
- Thread starter Wesley Snipes
- Start date
I'd rather see an NA continent, an EU continent, and an Oceanic continent that are all part of the same world so people always have at least one place they can play the game with a decent ping. This wouldn't end international guilds. There's still several good reasons to be in another continent's guild if that were implemented. But it would tend to make people gravitate toward guilds on their area's continent.
that, politics, guards, buildings and sieging costs... everything else is nonsense.
So LIF survived because of players like you?100% agree. This and making logging out difficult will only make MO a niche game for WEEBS who have no real life/friends/job or family.
The community will be toxic with only these degenerates and the game will die like MO1
and Mortal never made it to its 11th anniversary because of players like us?
MO1 has been on life support for nearly its entire existence. It's alive but it's never been something I would define as successful. The most hardcore mechanic we see for sieging in a successful MMO is in EVE where there is a substantial timer between when a POS is first attacked, and when it can actually be destroyed.
Even in EVE, something like 90% of players live in high sec. That's because when you have groups that have dozens or hundreds of players building up a holding over weeks or months and then they guild told something like "Hey I know you have work but you need to come defend the station at 3am" you're excluding everyone who has a life from meaningful participation.
If EVE only had null sec it would be on life support too.
IMO, the goal of a good siege system should be to make the investment of both time and resources needed to take territory more comparable to the cost to build it, and to give as many people as possible the ability to participate at some level in it's defense.
I think there should be player-owned structures that you can easily take in minutes or hours. I just don't think they should be built-up keeps. I think when you have something on the level of a built-up keep losing it should be a climactic event that is the result of consistent pressure against smaller holdings culminating a drawn-out expensive battle the defenders finally get overwhelmed. Or maybe shorter if their empire is in complete shambles by the time you reach their keep.
Even in EVE, something like 90% of players live in high sec. That's because when you have groups that have dozens or hundreds of players building up a holding over weeks or months and then they guild told something like "Hey I know you have work but you need to come defend the station at 3am" you're excluding everyone who has a life from meaningful participation.
If EVE only had null sec it would be on life support too.
IMO, the goal of a good siege system should be to make the investment of both time and resources needed to take territory more comparable to the cost to build it, and to give as many people as possible the ability to participate at some level in it's defense.
I think there should be player-owned structures that you can easily take in minutes or hours. I just don't think they should be built-up keeps. I think when you have something on the level of a built-up keep losing it should be a climactic event that is the result of consistent pressure against smaller holdings culminating a drawn-out expensive battle the defenders finally get overwhelmed. Or maybe shorter if their empire is in complete shambles by the time you reach their keep.
Last edited:
I don't know how guards or sieged mechanics worked in MO1 so I have to speak from experiences in other games, but overall, having a specific vulnerability window ultimately drives lower player activity.
The problem with timers is that only part of your guild/allies will usually be on for that period of time. If you are allowed to set the timer window, you will always pick times to your advantage, and players will start limiting their activity to 'defending the base', making it a chore rather than logging in because they want to play at that particular moment. Then, when nothing happens and the timer expires, they log out feeling disgruntled, that they wasted their time. A few times of this and the negative energy they bring with them builds to the point that they start avoiding the game. Then, on the oft chance something does happen and they are not around (or heaven forbid, are out having fun elsewhere in the game), frustration builds with everyone else because they were not logged in to help defend.
If the occurrence of timers is not that often or a majority of players know when a siege is likely, the general area is flooded with players when the target becomes vulnerable causing massive lag issues for everyone around. It doesn't matter if they are attacking, defending, or looking for opportunities to harass either side, most players effected by the lag will blame the devs for not having a system that can support hundreds of players in a small area, all at once.
Timers just don't work well. Its an artificial rule to enforce a certain play style. If there was a problem in the past around destroying too many assets or driving too many players from the game because they were constantly being harassed then the solution is in the game design (tougher assets, tougher guards, better in game or out of game alerts, an increase difficulty in delivering siege weapons to a site, etc).
The problem with timers is that only part of your guild/allies will usually be on for that period of time. If you are allowed to set the timer window, you will always pick times to your advantage, and players will start limiting their activity to 'defending the base', making it a chore rather than logging in because they want to play at that particular moment. Then, when nothing happens and the timer expires, they log out feeling disgruntled, that they wasted their time. A few times of this and the negative energy they bring with them builds to the point that they start avoiding the game. Then, on the oft chance something does happen and they are not around (or heaven forbid, are out having fun elsewhere in the game), frustration builds with everyone else because they were not logged in to help defend.
If the occurrence of timers is not that often or a majority of players know when a siege is likely, the general area is flooded with players when the target becomes vulnerable causing massive lag issues for everyone around. It doesn't matter if they are attacking, defending, or looking for opportunities to harass either side, most players effected by the lag will blame the devs for not having a system that can support hundreds of players in a small area, all at once.
Timers just don't work well. Its an artificial rule to enforce a certain play style. If there was a problem in the past around destroying too many assets or driving too many players from the game because they were constantly being harassed then the solution is in the game design (tougher assets, tougher guards, better in game or out of game alerts, an increase difficulty in delivering siege weapons to a site, etc).
I don't think EvE is a good example, and I played EvE for many years, mostly in null sec. In point of fact, I felt safer in null sec than I ever did in high sec because I always had friends and allies nearby. I was also part of attacking or defending territory in null sec many, many times, and though necessary for that game, timers did not make it a better experience.
The funny thing is, by the end of MO 1, sieges were generally considered impossible to complete. Most of the frustration resulted from NOT being able to siege.
If you ask anyone they'll tell you the sheer amount of guards and the fire arrow combo made it basically impossible.
The game was arguably most alive before the "aralis patch" that nerfed spider queen pulls, buffed fire arrows, added resistances to structures, and doubled guard range.
This resulted in people quitting when their sieges failed and then also quitting when they got sieged succesfully.
Interestingly there was one guild that I may or may not have been a part of that had a near 100% success rate on sieges.
People will tell you this was because of ninja sieging and zerging, which definitely did occur, however since keep sieges generally took the entire day when things are going moderately well and weeks to months of multiple siege attempts when met with a lot of resistance the ninja siege argument seems weird to me. Especially when you consider that it only takes about 4-5 players with fire arrows to stop a siege. There were a few tricks to sieging that people didn't use that had nothing to do with the timing of the siege.
I think the issue is people just can't handle losing and I really don't know how to help that.
In MO1 we had a plethora of offline guards and mercenary mages, this led to complaints that players simply don't bother to defend their keeps.
I would say the proper way to resolve the issue of ninja sieges is, if you're going to build a keep or anything of significant value, make sure you have the means to defend it without relying entirely on AI guards.
Set up a rotating roster of trustworthy guildmates from different timezones. Arrange clandestine spies and agents to infiltrate, disrupt and mess with enemy morale, and things of that nature.
I would say the proper way to resolve the issue of ninja sieges is, if you're going to build a keep or anything of significant value, make sure you have the means to defend it without relying entirely on AI guards.
Set up a rotating roster of trustworthy guildmates from different timezones. Arrange clandestine spies and agents to infiltrate, disrupt and mess with enemy morale, and things of that nature.
I think you might find it enlightening if you read through my suggestions. First off, I agree, timers are not good. My suggestion plays with the length of sieges and not when they happen.
But secondly, my suggestion is very different from making sieges super difficult in terms of it makes very easy for defenders to win AFK with guards. In the system I suggest say big Zerg guild A has a keep you really want. Rather than telling all your guys to stay up until their off hours so you can hit them when they are offline, you would start to put consistent pressure on their smaller holdings like outposts which would be critical points for generating the troops they need to defend their keeps.
If you consistently pressure them long enough, and they are not putting up a consistent/active defense over a prolonged period of time, you would put them in a position you can easily topple their keep. If you put consistent pressure on them, and they put consistent pressure back, but they're slightly disadvantaged in that fight. You might still be able to take their keep with a large enough investment of effort and troops.
If they consistently work to defend and hold their smaller holdings, and you wage a campaign of half-hearted harassments, you'll set them back slightly and have zero hope of taking their larger holdings without the assistance of a group that fights as hard as they do.
In the 3am siege scenario a much smaller group that puts forth much less consistent effort can take keeps they really have no business taking if they pick the right hours to do so. For instance in many games I can think of veteran players would max characters and then only show up for sieges. It's not healthy to have players like that mean too much.
Mind you my scenario does very much favor the group that puts the most hours into the game. But a casual member that puts for a few hours here and there helping the group take and defend territory is actually more valuable than they are in a scenario where they have zero effect on fights if they aren't on at the right time. And that's the point. Casuals shouldn't mean as much as hardcore members but they should still be able to participate, have fun, and help their group. That's how you grow a game.
But secondly, my suggestion is very different from making sieges super difficult in terms of it makes very easy for defenders to win AFK with guards. In the system I suggest say big Zerg guild A has a keep you really want. Rather than telling all your guys to stay up until their off hours so you can hit them when they are offline, you would start to put consistent pressure on their smaller holdings like outposts which would be critical points for generating the troops they need to defend their keeps.
If you consistently pressure them long enough, and they are not putting up a consistent/active defense over a prolonged period of time, you would put them in a position you can easily topple their keep. If you put consistent pressure on them, and they put consistent pressure back, but they're slightly disadvantaged in that fight. You might still be able to take their keep with a large enough investment of effort and troops.
If they consistently work to defend and hold their smaller holdings, and you wage a campaign of half-hearted harassments, you'll set them back slightly and have zero hope of taking their larger holdings without the assistance of a group that fights as hard as they do.
In the 3am siege scenario a much smaller group that puts forth much less consistent effort can take keeps they really have no business taking if they pick the right hours to do so. For instance in many games I can think of veteran players would max characters and then only show up for sieges. It's not healthy to have players like that mean too much.
Mind you my scenario does very much favor the group that puts the most hours into the game. But a casual member that puts for a few hours here and there helping the group take and defend territory is actually more valuable than they are in a scenario where they have zero effect on fights if they aren't on at the right time. And that's the point. Casuals shouldn't mean as much as hardcore members but they should still be able to participate, have fun, and help their group. That's how you grow a game.
Last edited:
Yes null sec does feel safer than any other area of the game if you live within your alliance's territory. Even along the borders it isn't too bad if you watch local.
That's not the point. The point is, is that some of the top alliances literally require you to wake up and come defend your territory when they tell you to if you want to remain in that alliance.
And I think that has a lot to do with why so many people live in high sec instead. Because they have jobs and families they work their video game hours around, not video game hours they work the rest of their life around. Null sec can be safer and is certainly more profitable, but high sec is more casual so that's where the vast majority of players live.
Because casuals dramatically outnumber no-lifers in every successful game ever.
Last edited:
I wouldn't really say wanting 3 am sieges to be a thing makes you hard.
"Set up a rotating roster of trustworthy guildmates from different timezones. Arrange clandestine spies and agents to infiltrate, disrupt and mess with enemy morale, and things of that nature."
This is an incredible amount of work that you have to put forth consistently every day or else you could lose something you spent months on.
By contrast, if I can organize a few guys to go hit a group when I know they have the fewest members on and blow up all their crap. That is a very low effort way to destroy something that my enemies spent months building.
The disparity between those two levels of effort is MASSIVE. It shouldn't be.
It's a system that favors groups that are able to put forth a little bit of effort for a very brief period of time and punishes groups that work hard on a daily basis if there is even a slight gap in that activity for awhile. It's not realistic. It's not fun for 90% of the people you're going to need to target if you want this game to be successful. And I wouldn't really rate it as hardcore either.
It just caters very heavily to a very specific subset of gamers that can't float, and have not ever floated a successful MMO. But honestly I'm guessing those same people would actually thrive under the system I propose if they are indeed looking for fights as you could fight over outposts 24/7 to advance your cause.
"Set up a rotating roster of trustworthy guildmates from different timezones. Arrange clandestine spies and agents to infiltrate, disrupt and mess with enemy morale, and things of that nature."
This is an incredible amount of work that you have to put forth consistently every day or else you could lose something you spent months on.
By contrast, if I can organize a few guys to go hit a group when I know they have the fewest members on and blow up all their crap. That is a very low effort way to destroy something that my enemies spent months building.
The disparity between those two levels of effort is MASSIVE. It shouldn't be.
It's a system that favors groups that are able to put forth a little bit of effort for a very brief period of time and punishes groups that work hard on a daily basis if there is even a slight gap in that activity for awhile. It's not realistic. It's not fun for 90% of the people you're going to need to target if you want this game to be successful. And I wouldn't really rate it as hardcore either.
It just caters very heavily to a very specific subset of gamers that can't float, and have not ever floated a successful MMO. But honestly I'm guessing those same people would actually thrive under the system I propose if they are indeed looking for fights as you could fight over outposts 24/7 to advance your cause.
Last edited:
I actually somewhat reject the premise of the 3 am siege. I'm not contesting that it did happen, but I, and for my own curiosity as well, challenge someone to name a keep bearing guild that was felled via ninja siege. I personally can not think of any. If there were any, it was before my time and certainly before the "tc fixes".
Rather many were destroyed via inactivity due to siege's being too difficult and gates starving out all pvp.
Any keep siege that starts at 3 am, likely doesn't conclude until 5 pm earliest as well.
Also being from the guild that supposedly ninja sieged everyone at 3 am, the only one that I can recall, and forgive the video quality, was this one that actually occured at 8 am eastern, and had plenty of defenders
as for outposts, while not implemented well, there were structures that provided 5% defense on the keep and were generally required to be destroyed before planning an attack on the keep.
A war was rarely if ever concluded in a single day, it generally took months.
That doesn't mean i'm against any changes to the siegeing system. I just think the ninja siege issue was greatly exaggerated and the real issue was you can stop a siege with 3 people if the people conducting the siege didn't know how to deal with the awful guard system and fire arrows.
Resulting in the inability for people to say "ah i'm a bot and I dragged my mang into a soldier guard and thats why I lost, it must have been ninja siege that caused them to out range our guards and block our fire arrows".
I've participated in sieges and/or base destruction in Darkfall / DFUW, EVE, Survival games such as Atlas, ArcheAge, Wurm Online and probably a few others I'm forgetting. I'm not speaking to the specifics of the MO1 system only on what I view as good/bad siege mechanics.
A system where there are outposts that buff keeps and a direct assault on a keep is near impossible before the outposts fall is much simpler than what I was thinking, but a massive step in the right direction. I could see where going with something like that at launch and then fleshing it out over time would be a darn near ideal solution.
A system where there are outposts that buff keeps and a direct assault on a keep is near impossible before the outposts fall is much simpler than what I was thinking, but a massive step in the right direction. I could see where going with something like that at launch and then fleshing it out over time would be a darn near ideal solution.
Siege windows are a shitty idea. When I play with an international guild this window will most likely be suitable for the majority of the guild, e.g. US players. This means for EU players that they either need to stand up in the middle of their night to defend, or if they won't they are locked out of that content.
Also one strategy for protecting a house wasn't mentioned. Build a base somewhere hidden. Had a house for a long time next to MohKi in the mountain. Even when ID was still controlling it. And I was RPK. So basically in war with them. They just didn't knew it was mine.
Also one strategy for protecting a house wasn't mentioned. Build a base somewhere hidden. Had a house for a long time next to MohKi in the mountain. Even when ID was still controlling it. And I was RPK. So basically in war with them. They just didn't knew it was mine.
Last edited:
In MO1 I had like 9 villas and 3 keeps. 3 of the villas were besieged and destroyed and 1 keep was besieged and destroyed. The other two I sold. What I learned after losing my assets is that you cannot claim to land and defend your fortress, if you do not have the appropriate military resources to defend them. If you don't have enough soldiers to back you up, and you want to be a lord, then you should hire a guild of mercenaries to watch over and protect your lands and your fortress. If you don't have the money to hire them ... then you can't be a lord. The only solution so that you do not lose your assets is to be part of an alliance, or have a large army supporting you, with people from different time slots. This way you will always have people ready to fight for your guild and defend your assets. I don't like the idea of NPC guards at all. It must be the players who create armies and defend their lands and fortresses. IF you are not able to defend your assets, then you must not have assets. It's a lesson that I learned bitterly as a trader. The future of Myrland will be in the hands of the great lords, with armies numerous. Only they can have strengths.
100% agree. This and making logging out difficult will only make MO a niche game for WEEBS who have no real life/friends/job or family.
The community will be toxic with only these degenerates and the game will die like MO1
I don't think the MO1 community was toxic. I met great friends and incredible people. Many had family, girlfriends, friends, and jobs but played for the love of the game. I have a job, family and I like to play and enjoy the game. I don't think that the people who play this great world are nerds, they are people who are looking for a sandbox with total freedom and have a great medieval adventure. I think it's time to put the toxicity and criticism of this community behind us and look back with pride. This community created a great world that gave me many hours of fun.