Territory Control / Assets: Gates, they sucked. [Poll]

[Kaemik]

A. If hybrid doesn't work then replace every mention of hybrid in that post with an MA and it does. Seriously. You don't have to be a genius to figure this shit out.

B. I don't share a full-spreadsheet too often, but honestly if your guild doesn't already have this info you're no threat anyway. Anyone running full armor should have multiple viable builds that can run them down.

 

[Kaemik]

Basically. Whining that you can't confirm kills while running all FF is for trash tier scrub gankers. Learn the information surrounding your role. Get a proper team composition, adapt. Stop sucking at your role and then complaining you can't do well at it.

The game doesn't owe you easy-mode just because you want to be a ganker. You want to confirm kills as a foot fighter? Lower your armor weight to 15. Want to be a kill-confirmer and be fully effective against other foot-fighters. Tough shit.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

I dislike the tactic where people say things so incredibly dumb, they invite you to correct them. You gain frustration, they gain knowledge.

Just, no. You're missing the point entirely.

A lot of fights HAPPEN at gates because people can spam open / close them to avoid dying.

I'm proposing gates don't do that, because gates don't actually work like that anyway.

If you open your gate, it shouldn't be able to close instantly. It's just dumb.



I mean you don't have to. Lol?



Ayep.

Groups should have risk involved when opening their gates. The way it was before was terrible.

Totally agree. This was a discussion at TC launch. Gates with no keys, auto open/close, not needing to dismount to open, passwords, etc. Simply making keys necessary and abundant would have dramatically changed the risk calculation of walls for the better. Was a bad call then, agree it is a bad call now.

@Sebastian Persson

 

[Rorry]

A. If hybrid doesn't work then replace every mention of hybrid in that post with an MA and it does. Seriously. You don't have to be a genius to figure this shit out.

B. I don't share a full-spreadsheet too often, but honestly if your guild doesn't already have this info you're no threat anyway:

View attachment 733

You are right, that is the problem. Everyone decides it is just easier to go mounted and then that is all we get. I do not enjoy playing mounted so when that is all there is it makes me sad.

Not sure why you post your spreadsheet since both sides will be wearing armor and will both be affected. If you are saying that my footfighter will regen stam slower than your hybrid, you are wrong. My foot fighter wears 14.99 kg (a very common weight for foot fighters) armor and regens at the same rate as your 9.99wt hybrid.

 

[Kaemik]

Then don't play mounted. Have ONE FUCKING DUDE in your entire group who plays mounted or a high con alvarin archer with armor weight 15, or fucking anything that's faster than your average opponent. The hybrid is just an example. The point is you only need one kill comfirmer per group. Jesus Christ dude. You get so hung up on the hybrid part you don't even understand the fucking point of the post.

If YOU want to play a slower build then YOU don't get to be a kill confirmer. That doesn't mean your group can't. And if YOU want to be a solo PvPer who does everything then welcome to fucking MMOs. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Kaemik]

*Plays a Total War Game*

*Enemy routes*

*They all get away*

Friend: "You consider running some cav or skirmishers to confirm kills?"

"Screw you dude! Not everyone should have to play cav!!!"

Friend: "You just need like a unit or two I didn't say you have to run all cav"

"Not everyone should need to be cav! And this one particular type of skirmishers doesn't even work!!! Game is borked! Make it so my very heavy infantry can confirm kills!"

 

[Rorry]

I do understand your point, I just don't agree that your idea reflects the actual conditions in game.
If gates operate the way they did in MO1, a majority of our fights will be mounted fights or gate fights or guard zone fights or a combination just like they were in MO1.
We even had gate fights at guard zones and double gate fights which started at the gate of 1 keep and ended at the gate of another.

 

[Kaemik]

If a fight starts at the gate of one keep, and ends at another, I'm going to loot the guys I killed, let my opponent retreat into their keep and lick their wounds while I divide out the gear of the guys they lost and recover the gear of the guys I lost.

That being said, the map is larger, and keep locations are limited. These are HUGE differences when you're talking MO1 vs. MO2 that should have dramatic impacts on the distances between keeps. And unless you can stick a keep next to a dungeon or inside tephra crater right next to people's keeps isn't where I will go when I am looking for spoils. I'm going to kill people where the resources are.

A. Because those locations should be a moderate distance from a keep meaning they can't easily escape if I do my job well.
B. Because unless these idiots are running full cronite or ohg for daily activities I'm more interested in their tephra or dungeon loot than the rest of their loot anyway.

As I said before you find people where you look for them. And if there is nobody at the most valuable resources in the game and they are instead all hanging around their keeps then the root of the problem is one of the importance and allocation of resources. Not the strength of keeps.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

If a fight starts at the gate of one keep, and ends at another, I'm going to loot the guys I killed, let my opponent retreat into their keep and lick their wounds while I divide out the gear of the guys they lost and recover the gear of the guys I lost.

That being said, the map is larger, and keep locations are limited. These are HUGE differences when you're talking MO1 vs. MO2 that should have dramatic impacts on the distances between keeps. And unless you can stick a keep next to a dungeon or inside tephra crater right next to people's keeps isn't where I will go when I am looking for spoils. I'm going to kill people where the resources are.

A. Because those locations should be a moderate distance from a keep meaning they can't easily escape if I do my job well.
B. Because unless these idiots are running full cronite or ohg for daily activities I'm more interested in their tephra or dungeon loot than the rest of their loot anyway.

You do realize this topic is dedicated to the idea of changing gates from being instant safe zones, right?

In MO1, people sat inside of walls and continually cycled in / out of the their gates to stay alive of a group trying to fight them. There was no way to get inside without just 'suiciding' (i.e. run in and be trapped or ganked) plus guards just shot you through walls.

Reverting gates back to an earlier version where keys were needed, or even when gates could be blown up and taken over - needs to come back.

I don't think you understand how easy it is to just deny people fights, and make the games PvP die super quick.

People need ways to get inside of walled areas, changing the way gates work would be a good start.

 

[Kaemik]

In MO1, people sat inside of walls and continually cycled in / out of the their gates to stay alive of a group trying to fight them.

My point is, unless this topic is purely limited to the context of siege balancing, I don't care. Keeps SHOULD be literally the worst place to go looking for fights as an aggressor. In the context of say a 5v5, if you reach your keep alive it should pretty much mean you are home free and clear and your enemy will get cut down by your guards if they try to fight you in-range of your walls. In the context of larger group fights the advantage should be less overwhelming but still a factor. I'd prefer mechanics like guards to mean more than gate games but the general problem you seem to be trying to address (keeps are too strong and shouldn't save you if you retreat to them) isn't something I agree is a problem.

If I can stick a keep right outside dungeon exists, that's a problem. If there are several hundred feet of nothing and/or basic woods and granum between my keep and the nearest resources of significant value, and a considerably longer distance to things like tephra and dungeons, I don't see how it's still a problem.

Also, my outpost suggestion would mean that if enemies hole up in their keep 24/7 you can sweep their outposts and they'll eventually lose their keeps. So if you want a fight with a particular group you just start flipping outposts until they address it or lose their keep. I think that's a line of thought far more worth pursing than nerfing keeps because we're afraid people will hide inside them.

TL : DR - If you are fighting next to someone's keep and didn't come fully prepared for an all-out-siege and you DON'T feel hugely disadvantaged, I would consider that a problem.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

My point is, unless this topic is purely limited to the context of siege balancing, I don't care. Keeps SHOULD be literally the worst place to go looking for fights as an aggressor. In the context of say a 5v5, if you reach your keep alive it should pretty much mean you are home free and clear and your enemy will get cut down by your guards if they try to fight you in-range of your walls. In the context of larger group fights the advantage should be less overwhelming but still a factor. I'd prefer mechanics like guards to mean more than gate games but the general problem you seem to be trying to address (keeps are too strong and shouldn't save you if you retreat to them) isn't something I agree is a problem.

If I can stick a keep right outside dungeon exists, that's a problem. If there are several hundred feet of nothing and/or basic woods and granum between my keep and the nearest resources of significant value, and a considerably longer distance to things like tephra and dungeons, I don't see how it's still a problem.

Also, my outpost suggestion would mean that if enemies hole up in their keep 24/7 you can sweep their outposts and they'll eventually lose their keeps. So if you want a fight with a particular group you just start flipping outposts until they address it or lose their keep. I think that's a line of thought far more worth pursing than nerfing keeps because we're afraid people will hide inside them.

TL : DR - If you are fighting next to someone's keep and didn't come fully prepared for an all-out-siege and you DON'T feel hugely disadvantaged, I would consider that a problem.

What.

 

[ElPerro]

What.

Gate fighting good. Pvp bad

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Gate fighting good. Pvp bad

Apparently PvP'ing at a keep isn't allowed unless I'm ready to siege it with everything I have.

 

[Kaemik]

It's not uncommon in games with territorial control to have defenses that will shoot at enemies and/or quick ways to get to safety when you fall back to your base. Most games that feature territory control don't make it simple to screw with someone in a well-designed base. It's not anti-PvP so long as the base isn't something people can just permanently live inside.

Your intentional obfuscation of this simple point leads me to believe you're just jealous of groups that will actually get to control anything, and want TC nerfed since you'll never have the resources to build, or strength to defend a base of your own.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

It's not uncommon in games with territorial control to have defenses that will shoot at enemies and/or quick ways to get to safety when you fall back to your base. Most games that feature territory control don't make it simple to screw with someone in a well-designed base. It's not anti-PvP so long as the base isn't something people can just permanently live inside.

Your intentional obfuscation of this simple point leads me to believe you're just jealous of groups that will actually get to control anything, and want TC nerfed since you'll never have the resources to build, or strength to defend a base of your own.

?????????????????????????????

 

[Solairerection]

1.) Gates have a 'use' timer. Gates do not open instantly. You must use it for 'X' amount of time.
2.) Gates do not auto-close. They must be manually closed via suggestion number '1'.

I think this will be enough, I don't think there needs to be a cooldown per se but I think the time it takes for the gate to open and close should be longer than it currently is.

I remember quite well being able to ride up to a gate, open it, and ride in quite fluently with very little downtime and hassle. You'd have to be an ambush-god if you wanted to catch someone off-guard.

I agree fully that gates shouldn't be a safety net. At their core, gates and walls do exactly what they are supposed to do: keep enemies out. If you don't want enemies to come in then don't open your fucking gates. Make sure it's secure outside before you open, and if it's not, either kill or lead the threat away, including kiting away from the keep in order to shake off attackers.

 

[ElPerro]

It's not uncommon in games with territorial control to have defenses that will shoot at enemies and/or quick ways to get to safety when you fall back to your base. Most games that feature territory control don't make it simple to screw with someone in a well-designed base. It's not anti-PvP so long as the base isn't something people can just permanently live inside.

Your intentional obfuscation of this simple point leads me to believe you're just jealous of groups that will actually get to control anything, and want TC nerfed since you'll never have the resources to build, or strength to defend a base of your own.

Been there done that. Its the reason MO1 died pretty much. Maybe you should try playing it before coming in with your enlightened suggestions dismissing every vet on this thread. Unless your just trolling, I cant tell anymore...

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Been there done that. Its the reason MO1 died pretty much. Maybe you should try playing it before coming in with your enlightened suggestions dismissing every vet on this thread. Unless your just trolling, I cant tell anymore...

I've just opted to ignore it or put very low amounts of efforts into responses because unless I read a compelling point I don't give it much attention.

 

[Kaemik]

Been there done that. Its the reason MO1 died pretty much. Maybe you should try playing it before coming in with your enlightened suggestions dismissing every vet on this thread. Unless your just trolling, I cant tell anymore...

Nice. I assume that's what killed EVE as well then given all you have to do in null sec to avoid ganks is align to station, jump when someone who isn't blue hits local, and be damn near entirely safe 100% of the time.

Oh wait, EVE isn't dead? It's the most successful Open World PvP MMO on the market and has been for many years now? Hmmm strange.

Sounds like something other than having player-owned-structures being a good fall back point is the culprit of MO1's death then given that things like seeing people in local are far beyond what I'm suggesting in terms of your ability to avoid getting ganked. Heck in EVE I enjoyed that level of safety while mining things like Arkanor and Mecoxit or doing super high-value complexes one in-system jump from complete safety. The precise opposite of what I'm saying we should be able to do here when I say things like tephra and dungeons should be nowhere near keeps.

So how precisely did it kill MO1 while EVE thrives with such mechanics?

Maybe the problem is so many of MO1s vet community are morons that gave SV bad advice for a decade and letting all their stupid bullshit stand uncontested is the worst thing that could happen to this game.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Or maybe comparing Eve to MO is pointless when they aren't even that alike.