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

[Godkin Veratas]

I mostly just troll and usually dont engage in attemps to derail SV from their ideas. I do not have vast knowledge of other mmo mechanics or any psychological insight in their players reasons for playing them. But I know that MO is the only mmorpg I ever truly enjoyed. I know that after MO1 TC the game started to become less fun. I always played with the safe fallback of npc towns. With free wall placement safe fallbacks became one player farming stations, the landscape became horribly scarred with ugly walls, traffic decreased and so did pvp and the exciting danger of travelling. Make shit too safe and you kill the game for everyone casual or random pvp oriented. If "safezones"(who was safe in tindrem? no one, it was the most exciting town to live in cause of all the thieves and murderers) are only at keeps and npc towns I think balance between playstyles are kept. If safezones are avaivable to anyone who farm enough, it will kill the fun for a large part of the players.

It's interesting that houses always existed but it never felt too safe, or as though pvp was being choked. People could always retreat to homes, lock the door and be safe. But a key always existed. Some risk that they might get caught and it was great. It was only when the -walls- of the "home" were extended hundreds of meters, at the same time keys were removed and autogates added, that the game felt domestic and boring. I really like the insight of this OP, I think a lack of keys was a subtle but very important flaw in the TC implementation.

 

[Teknique]

Ok so then I’ll lead by example and talk about what I do know
The idea that any one of the players you suggest killed the game in this thread got stuff that they wanted is objectively false we never got a nerf to walls. On the contrary tc got much much stronger

We’re just getting it now in mo 2.

Therefore you’re assigning blame where none exists and are therefore not credible

 

[Kaemik]

Gotchya. So because you can provide one example of an instance where you didn't get what you want, that clearly means nobody here ever said anything that had any impact on the MO1 for the entirety of its existence.

Makes perfect sense. Like how if you give a spoiled child what they want the majority of the time but there is that one instance you spanked them because they cried after not getting candy then you never give them anything they want and clearly don't love them.

I think by the time you were getting into the game, perhaps SV was starting to wise up to the fact that if they only ever give diehard vets the things they want instead of focusing on new-player experience, then they're only ever going to have a tiny core of diehard fans.

In this thread the nuance isn't hard to read. Zeal, BWB, these are tiny groups that will never have the power to participate in TC on a meaningful level, so they don't want it to mean anything. Half the people talking about how you need people on 24/7 to control territory have zero intent of actually doing it themselves. Easier to complain about how things were in MO1 to drive that point home then address the fact most their concerns have already been addressed when they were granted walls being confined to keeps, and keeps restricted to certain spots.

 

[grendel]

It's interesting that houses always existed but it never felt too safe, or as though pvp was being chocked. People could always retreat to homes, lock the door and be safe. But a key always existed. Some risk that they might get caught and it was great. It was only when the -walls- of the "home" were extended hundreds of meters, at the same time keys were removed and autogates added, that the game felt domestic and boring. I really like the insight of this OP, I think a lack of keys was a subtle but very important flaw in the TC implementation.

With keys no house was safe. Somewhere someone made a suggestion about opening gates by using inside levers and other mechanics. I like that idea. realistic, tactical and not 100% safe. I like it, but I am generally uneasy about making suggestions about the finer points on game balance.

 

[Teknique]

Gotchya. So because you can provide one example of an instance where you didn't get what you want, that clearly means nobody here ever said anything that had any impact on the MO1 for the entirety of its existence.

Makes perfect sense. Like how if you give a spoiled child what they want the majority of the time but there is that one instance you spanked them because they cried after not getting candy then you never give them anything they want and clearly don't love them.

What you’re saying is sound but directionally incorrect.

You by your own admission don’t have knowledge of examples. I could give you at least 6 and did so earlier actually. If you wanted to tit for tat with me on specifics you would lose.

The game did not move in a more aggressive or griefer friendly direction on a net basis and I can’t even think of an individual example where it did

Someone says one thing hey maybe gates shouldn’t control themselves, tantrum ensues. You seem like the spoiled child in the example no?

 

[Kaemik]

I didn't even disagree that insta-closing gates aren't great. What I've been arguing is HYM is trying to address a problem that isn't a problem. Given what we know about MO2, gates a general thing are confined to keeps which are confined to keep spots.

My point was, "insta-closing gates aren't an issue, because you should be safe from ganks of you can get as far as the front gate of your keep" then it was attacked on the basis of how bad things were in MO1 and how keeps shouldn't be safe fallback points even though we know MO2 structures operate on a RADICALLY different ruleset as to where and how they can be placed.

I don't care if it's an insta-closing gate, or guards that shoot people from your walls as you approach the keep, or double-gate killbox setup, but if you can only have keeps in a certain spot, and those spots aren't going to save you if you make it as far as the front gate of your own keep, you might as well not have a TC system at all. The idea you need people online 24/7 to control your territory is no different than claiming a spot as "yours" in games that have PvP but no territorial control. I've done that before. It was aids. One of the primary reasons I moved to MMOs from the early PvP games I played was that they were implementing true TC mechanics.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

With keys no house was safe. Somewhere someone made a suggestion about opening gates by using inside levers and other mechanics. I like that idea. realistic, tactical and not 100% safe. I like it, but I am generally uneasy about making suggestions about the finer points on game balance.

Yeah, understandable. it is a decent way to learn though. Make a suggestion, people will collaborate, tell you what’s good and bad about it. You learn more that way. I like levers, something to interact with that’s real and in game sounds cool. I remember Seb just implementing the changes to gates with little discussion, was disappointing.

Unfortunately, some folks like Kaemik can’t handle discussions like this and just attack personally, but I’d say it’s still worth it. Trying to win the forums is funny. Read around it, he’ll burn out soon.

 

[grendel]

I would love if all locked doors and gates openable from the outside, were pickable.

 

[Teknique]

I didn't even disagree that insta-closing gates aren't great. What I've been arguing is HYM is trying to address a problem that isn't a problem. Given what we know about MO2, gates a general thing are confined to keeps which are confined to keep spots.

My point was, "insta-closing gates aren't an issue, because you should be safe from ganks of you can get as far as the front gate of your keep" then it was attacked on the basis of how bad things were in MO1 and how keeps shouldn't be safe fallback points even though we know MO2 structures operate on a RADICALLY different ruleset as to where and how they can be placed.

I don't care if it's an insta-closing gate, or guards that shoot people from your walls as you approach the keep, or double-gate killbox setup, but if you can only have keeps in a certain spot, and those spots aren't going to save you if you make it as far as the front gate of your own keep, you might as well not have a TC system at all. The idea you need people online 24/7 to control your territory is no different than claiming a spot as "yours" in games that have PvP but no territorial control. I've done that before. It was aids. One of the primary reasons I moved to MMOs from the early PvP games I played was that they were implementing true TC mechanics.

Your position isn't overly unreasonable. The lack of existence TC walls and gates will be a massive improvement.

nevertheless even a singular gate with how poor the actual gate design itself is incredibly powerful especially in conjunction with guards.

I think there is room to make it difficult to dive into a gate as opposed to certain death.

 

[Kaemik]

Unfortunately, some folks like Kaemik can’t handle discussions like this and just attack personally, but I’d say it’s still worth it. Trying to win the forums is funny. Read around it, he’ll burn out soon.

The fact you run a 5 man guild that gets shit on in even number fights is highly relevant to the fact you want TC to be meaningless and newbs to be easy to gank.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

I am eager to learn what demon possesses you. That you believe you can read minds (with zero accuracy), and your own lies become facts. It is truly fascinating. Eternal Flame? Hmmm....

I did sense impending burn out, interesting.


edit: Missed this at first. Probably the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Solid gold.

“If there is one thing I know about MO1 better than anyone else, it's the new player experience. “
—Kaemik

 

[Kaemik]

Your position isn't overly unreasonable. The lack of existence TC walls and gates will be a massive improvement.

nevertheless even a singular gate with how poor the actual gate design itself is incredibly powerful especially in conjunction with guards.

I think there is room to make it difficult to dive into a gate as opposed to certain death.

Ideally, I agree. Keeps are going to be more interesting if I actually have to set up my walls and position my guards in such a way that I've created the safe fallback point I want, rather than having something like Crowfall where I walk up to a gate, interact, and now I'm safely through to the other side.

If the layout is limited to a degree I can't do a double-gate killbox, and the guards are bad, I'd rather just have a broken gate though. Ultimately any system that provides for a safe fallback is better than none so long as any kind of powerful stronghold is limited on where I can place it.

 

[grendel]

The fact you run a 5 man guild that gets shit on in even number fights is highly relevant to the fact you want TC to be meaningless and newbs to be easy to gank.

In MO1 my 1 person guild won a war against 4 (populated and rich) guilds. Never underestimate the power of good RP and propaganda.

 

[Kaemik]

I am eager to learn what demon possesses you. That you believe you can read minds (with zero accuracy), and your own lies become facts. It is truly fascinating. Eternal Flame? Hmmm....

I did sense impending burn out, interesting.

I don't read minds. Just look at the mechanics you repeatedly advocate for. They line up pretty well with what I expect a guild in a position of utter powerlessness might advocate for.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

I don't read minds. Just look at the mechanics you repeatedly advocate for. They line up pretty well with what I expect a guild in a position of utter powerlessness might advocate for.

So you’re aware you’re guessing at motive, but still use the word, fact.
intriguing.

 

[Kaemik]

The fact you run a 5 man guild that gets shit on in even number fights...

Yes. Because that is a fact. Though 5 is an approximation. Correct me if you have anything significantly more than that.

... is highly relevant to the fact you want TC to be meaningless and newbs to be easy to gank.

Also a fact. You're against a safezone for a tutorial, pro-ninja sieges, anti-safe fall back points. I don't need to know your motivations to know you support the mechanics you say you support.

The correlation between those two sets of facts is assumed. The facts themselves are far from assumptions.

 

[grendel]

I don't read minds. Just look at the mechanics you repeatedly advocate for. They line up pretty well with what I expect a guild in a position of utter powerlessness might advocate for.

The have-nots do have access to lockpicks, ropes and hooks, or they should have anyways. solo players, brigand players etc should have a recourse to the oppression of the strong warlords.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

Yes. Because that is a fact. Though 5 is an approximation. Correct me if you have anything significantly more than that.

With you, I am not here to teach. Any knowledge you gain is perverted. So quickly spotted as an “aggressive troll” by laymen. They are mischaracterizing your condition, of course.

I like to study you. Demonology is crucial work In Nave.

Please, proceed.

The have-nots do have access to lockpicks, ropes and hooks, or they should have anyways. solo players, brigand players etc should have a recourse to the oppression of the strong warlords.

However unlikely, Kaemik may eventually gain prowess. He speaks with unearned authority.
For now, he remains the foremost expert on being New.

 

[Kaemik]

The have-nots do have access to lockpicks, ropes and hooks, or they should have anyways. solo players, brigand players etc should have a recourse to the oppression of the strong warlords.

Oh I agree, there are tools by which a smaller guild should be able to nip at the heels of a larger one. I've played smaller groups out to fight the oppressive zerg in far more titles than I've been a part of it. You can ask Putzin, when he asked me to join I nearly declined because I thought his guild was too powerful and I did not wish to belong to a guild that already had the upper hand before I joined. It was only after I was convinced by Lysanndra that there were greater powers in-game that I chose to join.

If you read my suggestions concerning outposts it actually becomes quickly apparent if you understand the suggestion at all, that it is a system in which a smaller group could have a huge impact. If you ran a 5 man group that loved capping outposts, what groups you do and don't choose to target could have a dramatic effect on the political structure of the entire server. Zergs having to defend 20ish outposts spread around their territory instead of 1 keep means that if they have multiple groups harassing their borders they're forced to split up and engage in small group PvP or all their outposts will get backcapped.

I just think that someone's keep, should be the absolute worst place to go and settle the score. Keeps represent the highest level of territorial control. They're not where you should be going if you're looking to make an impact with 5 or less combatants. Small groups shouldn't be asking for mechanics to deal with keeps head on. They should be asking for mechanics that allow them to deal death by a thousand cuts.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

Also a fact. You're against a safezone for a tutorial, pro-ninja sieges, anti-safe fall back points.

This word, fact. You use it in such strange ways. Alternate reality. Hmmm....