Henrik already confirmed they are going with free placement houses so if they give them walls you will be able to wall in anything pretty much.
What Kind of Walls For Non-Keep Guilds?
- Thread starter lord_yoshi
- Start date
here is henriks vision to this date: most likely no real walls for small guilds but limited wall placement for keep owners to prevent blocking off content. better than MO1 so far...
"We are not 100% yet if we want to allow villages to build simple walls or very restricted walls. We hope that we can this time offer a logical city building system that doesnt all focus on shutting it down with multiple walls left and right giving a world full of walls and towers everywhere over time, and shutting areas and dungeons off. Pre walls was a more player engaging time in mo1 as well, where you had to knock someones door to get access to communicate which is a bit more interesting as well rather than just see walls everywhere and not being able to interact in any form. Ofc we want to look over security on what player cities villages can do here. "
Last edited:
Agreed. Village spots should be in open areas with no immediate resources any closer than you would find them to say a gauded city. Which is to say maybe some low-value trees and/or granum. Saburra in the Meduli area. Houses may be a bit closer. For instance you couldn't allow houses in the valley of the mage AKA gabore valley without having them pretty close to gabore. But even crappy fences shouldn't extend out to wrap around gabore.
I feel like when you place a house it should have a "yard" area where some smaller structures such as fences or garden beds can go. Villages should have a very large "claim area" which allow for a greater variety of peaceable buildings, keeps even larger "claim area" with some of the building options being different.
The type of yard or claim area should dictate the fences/walls allowed. These should be freeform and allow you to get really creative with how you set up the walls and structure layout but it should be an area appropriate to the type of claim made, and not wrap around any high-end resources such as calx, gabore, tephra, ironwood, dungeon entrances, or static mob-spawns.
Houses offer little if any defense while not inside the main structure. Villages offer defenses players can overcome in minutes with simple weapons. Keeps offer defenses that take a full-scale assault with siege weapons. Mind you just because the outer wall/fence of a house/village area is easy to break through doesn't mean the structures within should go down any easier than they did in MO1. But a low scale raid on a village shouldn't take a full siege force.
Just because they say they are going to do something doesn't mean I should say what I think would be good...thats the point of feedback/suggestions
My idea is mostly thinking there could be areas similar to guild keeps that would have the ability to create lesser walls around them to make a sort of village. I'm not going to cry if they don't give people walls, I'm just stating what could be a good balance between no walls to walls wherever you like.
They already have the 'walls around a keep spot' ability, no reason why they couldn't implement something similar for a 'village spot' but with lesser walls and no keep.
Remember this is a feedback and suggestions post so regardless of what they plan or have talked about doing I'm going to post my opinion...thats the point.
If walls are bad in general, remove all keep walls.
So everyone who disagrees with you on this topic doesn't actually play the game and just wants to hide behind walls, noted.
By the same logic everyone against walls just doesn't like the idea of having to put in any effort into destroying peoples assets that they put effort into building and also want to be able to insta-kill everyone without putting in any effort.
We literally already had player built farms and mines in MO, albeit automated which unlike walls is actually a bad concept.
Last edited:
I disagree safe gathering is bad but any security gained without a a keep is the main issue.
Keep walls encourages fighting over keeps because it's worth it. If everyone has walls it's not special or worth fighting over. There is a difference between wanting to pvp or rpk and asset destruction. Without that difference people siege willy nilly for no reason.
How? A slow trickle of automated resources in a static location is great. In Darkfall I guess mines and farms weren't really automated but they were like hypernodes. Gathering from them was SUPER fast in terms of resources per minute. So they do both have the effect of distracting from manually going out and hitting rocks, but they definitely didn't kill it.
What they did though, is create more interaction and reasons to fight. You know the location of a city or hamlet and it has a mine or farm producing resources you want. If you consider fights a favorable outcome win or lose, then you're near guaranteed a favorable outcome by going there. If nobody is there, you can hit their mine/farm and there will be resources on it to steal most likely. If people are out there, then doing so will almost certainly lead to a fight.
One thing about that though, is it did pop a message "Playername is gathering from the rare ore mine in town name" or something to that effect. So gathering from it shouldn't be an instantaneous action and come with a warning for the controlling guild. Otherwise it won't lead to fights.
Bringing it back to the topic at hand (wall bashing) if such structures are in towns and you get a message when your walls are being bashed, that also creates a higher chance of PvP.
City walls encourages city economy to keep them maintained and fighting over free city placement. Keep walls are already stronger and how about making the keep spots more interesting in general for them to be points of interest instead of artificially doing that by restricting everyone else.
Static placement on things on the world map should always only be a starting point for the rest of world building be placed on the player community.
You could basically place farms anywhere in your house/city radius and get resources automatically based on placing seeds and waiting for a timer to run down. Breeding pens as well as NPC stables made active taming mostly obsolete for a small amount of money and waiting for the process to be finished. NPC based automated systems basically take effort and causes away from players and should be very minimalistic. I don't mind if there are automated tasks that give you the very minimum at a steep cost but you should have to engage and be able to actively influence and take part in all of these processes.
Breeding is said to be something that will not render taming redundant in MO2. I'm not sure how much I trust that statement, but it's certainly achievable with the right system. I have my own idea that involves limited offspring per parent and the best potential creatures coming from a bred parent and a particularly good wild caught parent that could do it.
Automated systems that carry both a steep cost and can be raided will not be used. Steep costs to set up, and minimal costs to repair/maintain though sound fine. And the big thing is anyone should be able to take the resources from them when they are left unguarded. I'd agree automated systems are a bad idea entirely if they are just there for the sake of being there. If they are there for the sake of giving you something worth defending, giving raiders something worth raiding, then I think they have HUGE positive impacts on the game.
Automated systems that carry both a steep cost and can be raided will not be used. Steep costs to set up, and minimal costs to repair/maintain though sound fine. And the big thing is anyone should be able to take the resources from them when they are left unguarded. I'd agree automated systems are a bad idea entirely if they are just there for the sake of being there. If they are there for the sake of giving you something worth defending, giving raiders something worth raiding, then I think they have HUGE positive impacts on the game.
No matter what, there should always be incentive of better results and other parameters with engaging in systems and manually doing things over automation and just waiting for timers. And those differences have to be significant, otherwise nobody will do it either.
NPC and automated systems should only ever be used when there is nobody that can do it manually at the time and even then they should not yield comparable outcomes and if they do they have to be costly.
There can even be actual player skill involved depending on the actions. Isn't that exactly what people should want in a game like this? More engagement and players actually being involved in things?
NPC and automated systems should only ever be used when there is nobody that can do it manually at the time and even then they should not yield comparable outcomes and if they do they have to be costly.
There can even be actual player skill involved depending on the actions. Isn't that exactly what people should want in a game like this? More engagement and players actually being involved in things?
Automated systems should never be capable of generating 100% of the resources you need if relied upon to the exclusion of everything else. That being said, they should be the most efficient method of generating resources in terms of player time investment vs. resources yields. This is what makes them worth raiding. This is what makes them worth having despite the potential to be raided.
Limited amounts of highly efficient resources generated in stactic locations that allow for people to attack/steal them. But only enough of them to supply like 10-20% of the resources the economy demands.
Limited amounts of highly efficient resources generated in stactic locations that allow for people to attack/steal them. But only enough of them to supply like 10-20% of the resources the economy demands.
No, they should never be the most efficient. That just means you are incentivizing using them over manual labor which is the opposite of what you want in a player driven game. This is about a player economy, not everything is about raiding.
They are already doing it automatically, why should they also be more efficient? I mean in that regard they are already most efficient no matter the output because there is pretty much no player time put into the process.
If I spend my time doing something and doing it good, that should always yield better results than any automated system, as that already has the advantage of automation and not really needing a player to do much. No matter if it's not "everything needed" or not.
They are already doing it automatically, why should they also be more efficient? I mean in that regard they are already most efficient no matter the output because there is pretty much no player time put into the process.
If I spend my time doing something and doing it good, that should always yield better results than any automated system, as that already has the advantage of automation and not really needing a player to do much. No matter if it's not "everything needed" or not.
Automation is what MAKES them most efficient in terms of player input per resource output. It's the entire point of automation. And why would you still go out and gather? Because they're producing 10-20% of the resources needed to keep the economy going. When I say that, that's assuming every house, village, and keep spot is taken with the max number of automated things going at each of those locations.
So if you want to be a gatherer. Well there is still the other 80-90% of resources the economy demands.
But if that 10-20% isn't the best in the game, and it's also exposed to PVP, nobody will fight over it. Nobody will use it at all. If it IS the best 10-20% in the game, raiders will make circuits of automated gathering stations to steal it, and the owners will have to actually work to defend them. The limitation isn't time efficiency. It's a limited number that can be placed, producing a slow enough trickle that it doesn't rendering gathering redundant.
So if you want to be a gatherer. Well there is still the other 80-90% of resources the economy demands.
But if that 10-20% isn't the best in the game, and it's also exposed to PVP, nobody will fight over it. Nobody will use it at all. If it IS the best 10-20% in the game, raiders will make circuits of automated gathering stations to steal it, and the owners will have to actually work to defend them. The limitation isn't time efficiency. It's a limited number that can be placed, producing a slow enough trickle that it doesn't rendering gathering redundant.
You also have to fight over your players and protect them. You can always have automation in parallel to player work, as you even say, but the players should still have the higher yield. Players having higher yield changes nothing about the value of a resource to be fought over. That resource is still there to be fought over, you just get more out of it if you put in time and effort. The automated systems are a bonus on top of what your active players do, so even those still give you more value. In a player driven economy, while you need materials as a means to an end, players and what they do (including using said materials) should always be the ultimate resource.
In the end what brings value and meaning to PvP is everything other than PvP. Like world building and a thriving player economy that can't be replaced by automation in any meaningful way. What I'm ultimately arguing for is more depth and value for players which effectively gives everything including PvP more value.
That is ultimately why MO died. Not because of walls or whatever some may claim here. But rather from dwindling numbers of all but the most die-hard players of different playstyles that have realized over the years that there is nothing meaningful or in-depth for them to do for longer periods of time. Them turning MO into a match based battle royale because that's all it offered in the end is kind of the ultimate proof.
In the end what brings value and meaning to PvP is everything other than PvP. Like world building and a thriving player economy that can't be replaced by automation in any meaningful way. What I'm ultimately arguing for is more depth and value for players which effectively gives everything including PvP more value.
That is ultimately why MO died. Not because of walls or whatever some may claim here. But rather from dwindling numbers of all but the most die-hard players of different playstyles that have realized over the years that there is nothing meaningful or in-depth for them to do for longer periods of time. Them turning MO into a match based battle royale because that's all it offered in the end is kind of the ultimate proof.
Players do have to be defended. Players are also not a static structure that never moves. This is how rare mines generated content in Darkfall. I knew if I went and started hitting peoples hamlets and less populated cities for rare ore mines, there was likely resources there to steal. Meanwhile, players can be sneaky, are much less likely to get attacked if they choose a good spot to gather, and more capable of getting away when they are.
If what you mean by "automation shouldn't be more efficient" is that a miner should generate more resources per hour then I can agree.
But that is why I keep specifying "efficient in terms of player input per resource output". If a miner generates 10k units of Example resource per hour, and a mining camp generates 1000, but the mining camp only takes a 2 minute action timer to unload... that's perfectly fine. It's highly efficient in terms of player input per resource output even if it's resource per minute generation potential is only 10% of an actual miner.
If a mining camp generates 5000 resources per hour of PLAYER INPUT and a miner 10000, why would anyone want a mining camp? Why would anyone want to raid a mining camp?
If what you mean by "automation shouldn't be more efficient" is that a miner should generate more resources per hour then I can agree.
But that is why I keep specifying "efficient in terms of player input per resource output". If a miner generates 10k units of Example resource per hour, and a mining camp generates 1000, but the mining camp only takes a 2 minute action timer to unload... that's perfectly fine. It's highly efficient in terms of player input per resource output even if it's resource per minute generation potential is only 10% of an actual miner.
If a mining camp generates 5000 resources per hour of PLAYER INPUT and a miner 10000, why would anyone want a mining camp? Why would anyone want to raid a mining camp?
Well, sure, I get you on the player input now. Sometimes getting on the same terms is the hardest part of a discussion. 
It's just that you disagreed with me in part on those exact same things that I guess made that detail a bit more blurry.
So I guess overall we agree on the topic of automation, we just need to find the balance on the value of player action vs. automation/NPCs. I still think there needs to be more value and incentive put into player actions in general.
In general we need to get away from NPCs as a basis for most things though, or at least make it even possible for players to do.
Breeding and Farming and other actions weren't even possible in MO except for by "stick resource into NPC or structure and wait for outcome" systems. What made that worse was also that basically anyone could do it, all you needed was the resource and some money. Which in itself isn't bad but as long as you don't have the active player profession with benefits as a counter balance it just takes away player roles and gives them to NPCs. Heck people were even talking about the option of sterilizing creatures to get rid of the problem of everyone being able to breed creatures.
It's just that you disagreed with me in part on those exact same things that I guess made that detail a bit more blurry.
So I guess overall we agree on the topic of automation, we just need to find the balance on the value of player action vs. automation/NPCs. I still think there needs to be more value and incentive put into player actions in general.
In general we need to get away from NPCs as a basis for most things though, or at least make it even possible for players to do.
Breeding and Farming and other actions weren't even possible in MO except for by "stick resource into NPC or structure and wait for outcome" systems. What made that worse was also that basically anyone could do it, all you needed was the resource and some money. Which in itself isn't bad but as long as you don't have the active player profession with benefits as a counter balance it just takes away player roles and gives them to NPCs. Heck people were even talking about the option of sterilizing creatures to get rid of the problem of everyone being able to breed creatures.
Well either way keep spots are static and therefore can be planned out and made more valuable easily, you could even put them in harder to siege spots and stuff to give them more value. I think you can do all that without taking stuff away from cities. Potentially add more restrictions on where you can't build because of terrain, which includes resources and think about better ways to prevent people from walling shit of easily. Even though I think some strategic walling off should be viable as long as effort is put into it and it has more requirements.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the way you could wall of things in MO was kind of ridiculous.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the way you could wall of things in MO was kind of ridiculous.