Lack of offline protection will cost the game

[Kaemik]

And if you want to take a keep, you should also need a large army. The conquerors of Myrland should be great lords with armies numerous. Unlike a lot of siege systems I've seen.

I agree timers are a bad way to solve the problem. But if there is a disparity in the power needed to defend, and the power needed to destroy, it is a problem.

 

[Ibarruri]

I never said it wasn't dirty but it's apart of the game. The game is all about risks. Should I be protected when I'm transporting 1k gold as well?

I invite you use my transfer gold service! You no will need move with risk your gold and i will put the cash where you need!

ROYAL BANK OF TINDREM GOLD TRANSFER SYSTEM (soon)

ROYAL BANK OF TINDREM (SOON) GOLD TRANSFER SYSTEM Discord: Ibarruri#0121 WHAT IS THE GOLD TRANSFER SYSTEM In old Myrland (MO1) RBT designed and developed a capital transfer system, which allowed players to use RBT service to move their gold without risk. They simply sent RBT their gold plus...

mortalonline2.com

 

[Zerotrigger]

If they add offline protection to buildings, you will instantly lose half of the community, probably more.

Offline protection crosses a line that goes against their core tenet of RISK/REWARD. The player should be aware that when they invest in TC, it can be attacked by anyone at anytime.

Having TC is a responsibility and a commitment. Paying taxes, repairing and managing, and defending are all part of that commitment. If you feel like you are unable to routinely fulfil these commitments, then maybe owning TC isn't for you. That is the main reason I personally never owned TC in mo1, and just supported the TC of my friends/guild when I could.

 

[Dominatrixx]

If you have no time and no human resources to protect your territory, then you shouldn't own it. I remember we used to protect our holdings literally 24/7 in Darkfall Online.

 

[Kaemik]

So in Crowfall, I built an exceptionally tanky character that I could go stand on the control points of forts and solo-cap them. I'd spend all night just running around capturing forts and outposts for my faction. I actually at one point was running 4 clients with characters I built as solo cappers running around capping 4 points in 4 different areas of the map at a time.

I assume everyone can agree, if I could do that in MO2, that's bullcrap.

Some level of offline protection of literally all assets is merited IMO. Be that guards that fight back and aren't trash / exploitable, or just incredibly high HP that makes them difficult to destroy. If I don't need to group up to participate in territorial control that feels like a problem. But on the other hand if that static protection is TOO strong, it biases things so heavily in the defenders favor that five guys can hold off 50.

There has to be a balance between those two extreme positions. I think the answer is considering territory control in its totality with a system that encourages defenders to hold many smaller/easier to take points, and attackers to take those points. So maybe you can hold off 50 guys with 5 or even 0 if they just march straight for your keep. But that if they control most the territory around your keep for a certain period of time then your keep will fall rather easily.

 

[Dracu]

Ninja sieges are laaaaaaame.
Like wtf if you want that keep? Then fight the owners for it. Give both a fair chance xD siege windows gogo, that will lead to massive siege battles where mercenarys become much more valuable to increase numbers to get a succesfull siege done or defense. I mean why get other guilds and allys when you can just do it in the enemys off time. Offline sieges are booooo. Who wants to get a message at 3am that keep is getting sieged.

 

[Rhias]

So in Crowfall, I built an exceptionally tanky character that I could go stand on the control points of forts and solo-cap them. I'd spend all night just running around capturing forts and outposts for my faction. I actually at one point was running 4 clients with characters I built as solo cappers running around capping 4 points in 4 different areas of the map at a time.

I assume everyone can agree, if I could do that in MO2, that's bullcrap.

Some level of offline protection of literally all assets is merited IMO. Be that guards that fight back and aren't trash / exploitable, or just incredibly high HP that makes them difficult to destroy. If I don't need to group up to participate in territorial control that feels like a problem. But on the other hand if that static protection is TOO strong, it biases things so heavily in the defenders favor that five guys can hold off 50.

There has to be a balance between those two extreme positions. I think the answer is considering territory control in its totality with a system that encourages defenders to hold many smaller/easier to take points, and attackers to take those points. So maybe you can hold off 50 guys with 5 or even 0 if they just march straight for your keep. But that if they control most the territory around your keep for a certain period of time then your keep will fall rather easily.

Well, hopefully the thing you need to do to siege a village in MO2 is not only standing in a control point and wait for a certain time.

 

[Kaemik]

Well, hopefully the thing you need to do to siege a village in MO2 is not only standing in a control point and wait for a certain time.

Agreed. I hope it's also more than throwing a few cheap mauls or axes in your inventory and spamming an attack at a building though too. Especially since we know some people are going to macro that. I think guards that put up a decent fight are one of the more engaging ways to create a static defense that prevents solo-capping.

 

[Rhias]

Agreed. I hope it's also more than throwing a few cheap mauls or axes in your inventory and spamming an attack at a building though too. Especially since we know some people are going to macro that. I think guards that put up a decent fight are one of the more engaging ways to create a static defense that prevents solo-capping.

I totally agree with the first part.
But I also totally disagree with the second part. I hate guards.
You could as well make operating the siege weapons more complicated/challenging.

 

[Kaemik]

I've played games with challenging siege weapon mechanics but they're really only challenging until you get the hang of them. Like the first time operating a treb in Conan Exiles is a bit tricky. The 10th time is not. The only way to keep it an ongoing challenge to experienced players would seem to be to make the target move around or something. Which of course buildings don't move around.

I really don't understand the aversion to guards. They have to considerably tighten down the existing mechanics for bandits and town guards anyway. Assuming those get tightened down to a level they can't be exploited having guards that pose a challenge to 2-3 people at smaller outposts and more at larger holdings seems like the most engaging way to have some kind of barrier that prevents solo capping. Does that give the defender an advantage? Yes. But a pretty small one if people are actually doing TC with groups of 5+ as should generally be the case, and defenders having the advantage seems reasonable. Attackers have the advantage of determining when and where the battle will take place and will likely have all the guards dead before players show up in most cases.

If guards are so powerful it prevents all keeps from being taken that is an issue and obviously, you've made them too strong. But in Crowfall there were guards when I was solo capping too. I just effortlessly slaughtered them all or tanked through their damage depending on the patch and my build. In one patch guards had perma-death but you could flip a point without killing them so I capped with a crusader and tanked to keep the guards alive for our faction. In another, you had to kill them all so I used a paladin and cut through them. In every version they were so easy I could easily solo them on a solid character with halfway decent gear. Obviously, there is room for something between those.

 

[Jackdstripper]

There are other ways to prevent ninja sieges besides siege timers. For starters getting rid of offline boulder holders. Having only 1 character will help with this but SV can go further and make boulders drop to the ground if you log off with them in your inventory. Or making boulder take up more space in characters inventory, so that you can only hold 6 or 8 instead of 36. Seriously, offline boulder holders are the stupidest game mechanic ever and so easy to fix.

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

When FGC is the hardest out here

hardest yeah hardest

 

[Avenoma]

I think hiring guards is enough. The economics of this are going to interesting.

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

The Sentinels guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, 24/7/365.

 

[Yeonan]

Offline protections would eliminate a large part of politics, which would not be good for the game.

You should have options in protecting your keep or territory:

Armies
Wealth
Politics

I have no opinions on guards, never used them.

 

[Rorry]

Funny, some of you all who are pushing the virtue of having an army big enough to cover all time zones were the same who criticized us for having one in MO1.
The mechanics of siegeing were so bad that if they aren't radically different this time then there will be plenty of ninja sieges and it will be a wasted opportunity to make the game more fun.
Siege windows under the old system would be terrible. With a new system it could be great. Too much is unknown to really make a judgment.

 

[Teknique]

Funny, some of you all who are pushing the virtue of having an army big enough to cover all time zones were the same who criticized us for having one in MO1.
The mechanics of siegeing were so bad that if they aren't radically different this time then there will be plenty of ninja sieges and it will be a wasted opportunity to make the game more fun.
Siege windows under the old system would be terrible. With a new system it could be great. Too much is unknown to really make a judgment.

Don't support siege windows at all, but definitely support siege balance.

 

[Rorry]

Don't support siege windows at all, but definitely support siege balance.

I got ninja sieged a lot of times and missed a lot of fights/sleep and also blasted almost daily for how big my guild was.

 

[Sev]

Every mmo and survival game that has let you offline raid, in my experience, has only made people meta game to attack the most, when they knew their enemy was offline. I understand that some of you mo1 veterans can feel very strongly about things being changed about a game you love, but how is encouraging offline raiding, enhancing anyone's experience? Wouldn't it be more engaging for both sides if both were online to fight?

 

[Teknique]

I got ninja sieged a lot of times and missed a lot of fights/sleep and also blasted almost daily for how big my guild was.

If people aren't blasting you, then you probably aren't winning or doing well. What do you do when someone kills you "Ah that kids shit zerg kid".

Every mmo and survival game that has let you offline raid, in my experience, has only made people meta game to attack the most, when they knew their enemy was offline. I understand that some of you mo1 veterans can feel very strongly about things being changed about a game you love, but how is encouraging offline raiding, enhancing anyone's experience? Wouldn't it be more engaging for both sides if both were online to fight?

The issue, in my opinion, is that it completely changes the dynamic of the game. Now the biggest zerg in the siege window wins, only guilds who are from the siege window time can participate, encourages afking and just logging on for siege window, guilds that would otherwise perish may be incredibly strong upsetting the balance of power.