your right, but wrong. sieges killed mo1. every guild blowed up leaves and game is only pvp and dies. siege for fights is what killed mo1. all carebears gone and game die.
What Kind of Walls For Non-Keep Guilds?
- Thread starter lord_yoshi
- Start date
This is the precise reason I am a huge advocate of things like raidable automated resource production structures, particularly ones in villages with a small easily breachable wall defending them.
Why? Because in Darkfall when I wanted PvP I would go do one of two things.
1. Drain peoples farms, rare ore mines. Etc.
2. Cap villages to receive their tax revenue.
You prettymuch couldn't get through an entire night of doing either of those things without multiple fights. And the longer you did go without fights, the more free gold/resources you received. So a dry night for fights was a profitable night. A win/win really. Static claimable/raidable points of interest are THEE best way to encourage people to fight.
Last edited:
Yeah it was a win win, if you didnt find pvp you'll get to mine some rare ore at the very least. And it was fairly easy to jump over walls, anybody with the spell that launched you in the air could do it. The adrenaline was thru the roof when you were crafting and heard that sound lol Still lots of ppl lived in walled cities, those extra seconds would at least let you bank something quickly. Some people in here act like without walls nobody would ever leave NPC cities, but that shit is not true.
Alot of ppl are also traumatized by the first iteration of TC in MO1 which let you generate endless stacks of ores, woods and even gold with the shore prowler farms, its understandable that they are against any form of automation. But what was really broken wasnt the wealth generation but the complete safety. You could pop some wood walls and nobody without a mang could touch you, while you gain back what you spent building in days and you had to be really hated to get sieged that fast. But instead of adding options to raid, SV decided to keep the safety and instead remove all resource production structures. The result was a very boring and dead game world, with pvpers being forced to siege for a tiny chance of pvp.
This is why I like the idea of villages with palisades that go down quick. Ideally I'd like to see major TC assets like keeps and houses work like this:
Keeps - Strong walls that require siege to break. Few and far between. Provide storage and military benefits. No resource benefits beyond the possibility of buffs to nearby villages and houses. Any economic/crafting stations that can go at keeps (if any) should be required to be outside the walls.
Villages - Weak walls that give you a brief period to mount a defense if you have allies nearby, siege not needed to break. Provide the best place to put automated raidable resource structures. Also a good place to do crafting if you're looking to avoid pickpockets and gankers in town. Far less common than housing spots but multiple villages per keep.
Houses - No walls or incredibly weak fences. Mainly provide storage, possibly with a small amount of resource generation potential and some outdoor crafting stations. Many places they can be put.
Things to note in this system:
1. NO economic structures hidden behind keep walls. They are simply forts to help control a region.
2. NO crafting stations inside of houses or behind keep walls. That way crafting always comes with some level of danger, but villages provide a most-secure place to do it.
The intent is yes, there is some (light) defense to villages. But they are also set up specifically to be desirable locations to raid while also being major economic assets to their controllers. Leading to frequent fights where their lighter defenses play a crucial role in helping buy the defenders time to fight back and providing a small advantage if their response time is quick enough.
Keeps would be purely military strongholds. Highly secure places to respawn and regear along with potentially providing buffs to other assets in the region.
Houses are just a small base for a single player or a minor foothold in a region a guild isn't heavily invested in but wants some kind of local base of operations.
Keeps - Strong walls that require siege to break. Few and far between. Provide storage and military benefits. No resource benefits beyond the possibility of buffs to nearby villages and houses. Any economic/crafting stations that can go at keeps (if any) should be required to be outside the walls.
Villages - Weak walls that give you a brief period to mount a defense if you have allies nearby, siege not needed to break. Provide the best place to put automated raidable resource structures. Also a good place to do crafting if you're looking to avoid pickpockets and gankers in town. Far less common than housing spots but multiple villages per keep.
Houses - No walls or incredibly weak fences. Mainly provide storage, possibly with a small amount of resource generation potential and some outdoor crafting stations. Many places they can be put.
Things to note in this system:
1. NO economic structures hidden behind keep walls. They are simply forts to help control a region.
2. NO crafting stations inside of houses or behind keep walls. That way crafting always comes with some level of danger, but villages provide a most-secure place to do it.
The intent is yes, there is some (light) defense to villages. But they are also set up specifically to be desirable locations to raid while also being major economic assets to their controllers. Leading to frequent fights where their lighter defenses play a crucial role in helping buy the defenders time to fight back and providing a small advantage if their response time is quick enough.
Keeps would be purely military strongholds. Highly secure places to respawn and regear along with potentially providing buffs to other assets in the region.
Houses are just a small base for a single player or a minor foothold in a region a guild isn't heavily invested in but wants some kind of local base of operations.
He said walling in houses was a no-go. Villages are an entirely new level of player-owned-structures that were announced AFTER that comment. The idea of a smaller and weaker but cheaper form of wall for a new level of POS that falls in between houses and keeps makes complete sense.
It was unbelievably hard convincing SV that walls were killing their game. It took years of steady dropping population, countless examples, some on the SV team actually mocked the countless threads explaining how bad the incentives were. In fact, not until the announcement of MO2 did SV finally admit walls were detrimental.
in short, don’t give these cowards like the OP a fucking inch of wall, they are not to be trusted, and you won’t get it back.
in short, don’t give these cowards like the OP a fucking inch of wall, they are not to be trusted, and you won’t get it back.
i agree on that statement. With the regional Murdercounts walls are not needed. You should defend your land of hordes of invading barbarians and not hide behind a wall. Walls should be restricted for the radius arround the keep.
Here some Info about how the Developers want to prevent random murders and about the terretory Controll system. The game will have a local Murdercount system. Murders are only punished in the area where the crime was committed. You can murder anyone, but that would have certain consequences. If someone knows that a certain player is a murderer, that player can attack the criminal in the city without any consequences. The game is designed to not murder the players of your own kingdom, but rather that you form groups and attack another kingdom / city and its inhabitants, or try to defend your kingdom against invading hordes of barbarians. Each player will only be allowed to create one character. There is a terretory control system. A large guild with a certain number of players can build a castle. A certain radius around the castle is then displayed as their area. Within this area, the landowners can determine the property taxes for the houses, which then automatically benefit the guild and fill their treasury / war chest. The territory of a kingdom can be expanded with the terretory control tower. If the taxes are too high, then this will certainly lead to a peasant revolt and the control towers will be attacked. The guild with a castle benefits from the residents and should be interested in many players wanting to live in their area. I hope that landowners will come to the aid of their residents if someone wants to destroy their home. If the kingdom is attacked, many players will rush to the aid of their king if they are satisfied with him and if the king is not a tyrant. Who knows how high the future owner will turn the Tax screw. If the territory is expanded and reach a city, entire cities can be captured. The guild that occupies a city receives taxes from the auction house and has full control over the laws that prevail there. The occupiers of a city can blacklist thieves and grievers. These can then be attacked by anyone and are flagged as criminal as soon as they enter a city in which they have been blacklisted. The guards can also be deactivated, but that would certainly not please everyone and cause displeasure. Surely players would form up and want to drive out the ruler of the city and try to destroy the control tower. If a control tower is attacked, the guild who owns this tower will get a message in the chat and will try to defend it. You can search for Mortal Onlien terretory Controll Patch on youtube. Already the first game had that, but it will be finetunes this time.
Historically where did I say all towns? Historically learn to read.
More to the point most people in here in here are thinking way too black and white, saying no to shit and then saying they'd be fine this and that was changed. Maybe people should think about actual solutions instead of doing their knee-jerk reactions.
I think you should join the club of illiterate people since you're mostly arguing against things I didn't even say.
What type of thinking? That you can't just expect to be able to PvP and kill anyone at any time no matter what or where? People seem to want a duel button that basically forces anyone they see or best even nobody they see but anyone they can teleport to have to fight them. I was literally arguing about him talking about encouraging random sieging. Sieging should involve effort from both sides, asset destruction and asset construction and should not be a willy-nilly random thing.
The whole point is hardcore goes both ways, that means you can't just have it your way without having to work for it at all no matter what gameplay you want.
What killed MO was that there was pretty much nothing but combat and PvP and nothing left for anyone else to do. Which ultimately lead to PvP having no meaning but PvP in itself. You need all the other things that are not combat or PvP to thrive to enrich PvP itself.
Nobody has been arguing against PvP whatsoever. You're all just jumping to that because I say random meaningless PvP at any point is not something that should be a thing. You're basically ruining the game for yourself by trying to restrict world building and economy mechanics that are not a problem if done right just because some people abuse the shit out of previous bad mechanics.
I mean that's literally what I've been talking about this whole time. Walls and gates but hard to maintain and get up with a "thriving economy" required to build and sustain.