I more like the idea of walls but no gate. Defense but not safety.
What Kind of Walls For Non-Keep Guilds?
- Thread starter lord_yoshi
- Start date
With the changes in the last years of MO1 a house owner doesn't need to place crafting tables and other stuff outside in front of the house. Chests and crafting tables can be placed inside and used with closed doors. The only often used buildings outside would be e.g. the stable, auction and bank. Some other buildings like the architecture house are rarely used. No need to hide them behind walls.
In total I don't see a reason to build walls by house owners.
In total I don't see a reason to build walls by house owners.
its better to place them outside only and add like mentioned defensive structures so that you have time and a chance to react with your footy.
the house should only contain a priest and inventory space.
the reason for that is that you have to take a risk when you do something and to force players out of the house (be aware of the sneaky one whos hiding behind an earth wall). you need to craft and bank your stuff when you think there is no one around.
make it also that you cant place the crafting stations and stuff too near to the house so that you have to walk some meters.
It was mentioned there would be villages smaller than keeps right? It would seem like for villages, palisade walls would be fine. A cheap weaker wall meant to offer temporary protection as opposed to hold off a full-scale assault. For instance it might delay five guys with melee weapons for about 3 minutes. Long enough to run inside, stash some goods inside your house, and go back out to fight. For an individual house, nothing more than fences that can be jumped over by more agile builds, or smashed in like a minute by a single strong warrior with a good axe or hammer. For keeps, full-scale stone walls that nothing short of an all-out assault can penetrate.
this!
also, a needed reminder that most MO1 houses with huge walls were exploiting bugged guild stones which reached max levels with guilds of 1-5 people, and many times kept by an alt.
normally, a regular house could get only a very short perimeter of walls around it. Also, with the extra-large map of MO2, walling off things won't be as much of a problem as it was in MO1
I've been there since day 0. As a matter of fact, we owned the first city with palisades because they were hard coded palisades that we built houses inside.
And just because at some point something that people were looking forward to didn't exist doesn't mean that wasn't something that people wanted and was a viable part of the game that was always promised.
If you're going to restrict people from building and upgrading cities and their defences, just because they don't own a keep, I can tell you right now you are going to lose a lot of people and guilds that are looking for that kind of world building. And in a way the game is going to be less of a sandbox.
The issue were never cities with walls it was the abuse of walls in general to lock down areas.
How about a player city needs actual effort put into it before you can build walls, or at least bigger walls, around it. Give things more requirements, make things harder to maintain and no satellite walls. How about we actually look into solutions to the actual problem instead of removing sandbox aspects of the game in general.
With only one character per account house placement possibilities are more limited anyway. The world is also going to be a lot bigger.
Honestly, if it was on me I'd even have strong enough cities be able to build small keeps at some point.
Last edited:
D
Dracu
Guest
wooden walls with amount limited based on guild size,
-20 ppl to build a small wooden palisade with 1 gate around your village sounds reasonable imo.
-I mean its not mo1 anymore with a gazillion alt accounts to fill guild member numbers.
-Eliminating killboxes should do alot interms of keeps and villages beeing unraidable.
-Add an escape route to gates like the old walls in mo1... this would make it easier to raid aswell.
-add no building zones to remove walling off content
i get that lots of ppl fear finding no content and ppl walling off content.
The walling off content can be countered easily i think with no building zones.
I think having walls is no horrible thing in this game. We will have it with keeps anyways.
Keepowning big strong guilds having protection while smaller "weaker" guilds get none just sound a bit wrong imo.
-20 ppl to build a small wooden palisade with 1 gate around your village sounds reasonable imo.
-I mean its not mo1 anymore with a gazillion alt accounts to fill guild member numbers.
-Eliminating killboxes should do alot interms of keeps and villages beeing unraidable.
-Add an escape route to gates like the old walls in mo1... this would make it easier to raid aswell.
-add no building zones to remove walling off content
i get that lots of ppl fear finding no content and ppl walling off content.
The walling off content can be countered easily i think with no building zones.
I think having walls is no horrible thing in this game. We will have it with keeps anyways.
Keepowning big strong guilds having protection while smaller "weaker" guilds get none just sound a bit wrong imo.
Walling off is bad yes but walls in general are bad. It's better to lose people we aren't going to actually play with because we are losing people that want to hide behind walls than lose people that are going to actually play and not hide behind walls and quit because the world feels empty and everyone is hiding in their safe spot that no one can get into without a big financial loss just to try to pvp.
Personally, I really enjoy the idea of pallisades that will only hold up a few minutes scattered around the map. Not for the sake of avoiding PvP but because of the dynamic it adds to it. If like I said, 5 guys can bust the wall in like 3 minutes this means if you're out riding with 10 guys and they run inside their pallisade wall then call for backup you can have a very engaging fight. Archers trading fire until breaches are made. Heavy infantry trying to plug the gap while attackers try to hammer through it.
A keep should be a SIGNIFICANT fight and the fall of one a rarity that took major investment. I imagine palisade walls being breached and mended multiple times a day.
Small fights should have just as much focus as large ones IMO, and a series of progressively weaker walls for progressively less important assets sounds SUPER fun.
A keep should be a SIGNIFICANT fight and the fall of one a rarity that took major investment. I imagine palisade walls being breached and mended multiple times a day.
Small fights should have just as much focus as large ones IMO, and a series of progressively weaker walls for progressively less important assets sounds SUPER fun.
the end outcome will still be same that too much action will happen behind walls, that restricts alot of player to player and pvp interactions. villages will have open gates like you see in bakti. the faction and black list system lets you decide with guards who is welcomed to enter you gates without being auto attacked. no more boring ride out of the gate, ride around, ride into the gate, safe. houses will act as a very limited safe/defensive place. every guild spot will be a possible pvp zone for footfighters, keeps too with weak points.
all this is not possible with closed bases cause all you see is a gate where everyone magically vanishes. we will see a very dynamic game without gates, it will be great.
keeps should maybe get a fixed set of walls which are nicely integrated into landscape with small weak spots. i think its unfair and lame to give keeps full insurance against footfighters but small guilds not.
I don't care if I can climb them. If bypassing then requires siege engines again it will have the same result as last time.
As soon as having a walled city is a no brainer it's a bad design.
I do like the ideas of flimsy palisades though. My banbunta battering ram should work against them though.
Oh and bring back keys for gates. Risk vs reward is always good.
As soon as having a walled city is a no brainer it's a bad design.
I do like the ideas of flimsy palisades though. My banbunta battering ram should work against them though.
Oh and bring back keys for gates. Risk vs reward is always good.
Last edited:
im thinking about 1-2 "backdrops", hard to reach and easy to defend with NPC guards. this is not absurd but adds interesting gameplay to keeps.
D
Dracu
Guest
A city pallisade doesnt have to be as strong as in mo1 though.
It can be a makeshift wooden wall that can be destroyed by 5-6 determined players in 20-30 mins that want to raid it.
In mo1 you kinda had to bring a manganon and boulders to trash a shitty wall... but maybe in mo2 you can do it wiith just a few guys.
It doesnt have to be expensive to do even.
If it helps just long enough for the deffenders to organise a bit of a deffense then thats great or even giving them a chance to flee.
We are talking about a minimal deffense layer here giving the ppl getting raided a bit of time to react. While providing a lil bit of deffense against low effort raiders.
maybe even just let the gate doors be destroyed more easily to make it a better target when attacking.
I slowly believe SV doesnt like random PvP... hence all the punishing for it.
We kinda look for ways to ignore that stuff. But maybe we should look at it in a non "lets kill everybody we see" way... even though i still believe thats how the game is supposed to be played xD
I wonder how much you can do with just the systems SV provides to engage in war/battle/raids.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to see both palisades (at the village level) and stone walls (at the keep level) be able to be built in such a way nobody can just hop them if the gate is closed. A fence on an individual house is another story as I'd imagine its main purpose would be decorative.
The difference should be in the force and time needed to breach them. A stone wall should take a full siege force with siege weapons. A palisade should take a few guys with decent axes or hammers.
I don't mind this. "It favors large groups." A lot of things do. Large groups take a lot to hold together and keeps embody the highest level of shared investment. What should they get for that? A "you did it" sticker and a gold star? Giving them highly fortified positions makes sense.
Worth noting that while last time I was making these arguments was in a group with keep ambitions, there is little chance my current group will take a keep even if we have the numbers to do so unless the benefits to having one are overwhelming. A solid set of walls with a proper gate are definitely not a big enough bonus to make me care. But I'll sure as heck never build one if they don't even give that much.
Also worth noting real fortified towns had gatemen. Not keys. Someone to raise the gate for friends and lower it for enemies. If we need to send all our guys out with keys that lets anyone in if they get ganked... how worthless is that? Why would we invest in a fortification that useless? I'm seeing risk but no reward.
The difference should be in the force and time needed to breach them. A stone wall should take a full siege force with siege weapons. A palisade should take a few guys with decent axes or hammers.
I don't mind this. "It favors large groups." A lot of things do. Large groups take a lot to hold together and keeps embody the highest level of shared investment. What should they get for that? A "you did it" sticker and a gold star? Giving them highly fortified positions makes sense.
Worth noting that while last time I was making these arguments was in a group with keep ambitions, there is little chance my current group will take a keep even if we have the numbers to do so unless the benefits to having one are overwhelming. A solid set of walls with a proper gate are definitely not a big enough bonus to make me care. But I'll sure as heck never build one if they don't even give that much.
Also worth noting real fortified towns had gatemen. Not keys. Someone to raise the gate for friends and lower it for enemies. If we need to send all our guys out with keys that lets anyone in if they get ganked... how worthless is that? Why would we invest in a fortification that useless? I'm seeing risk but no reward.
Last edited:
thats a good idea too, a cheap wooden gate door you can smash with 5 hammer swingers in 2-5 minutes should be fine, not more.
its important that its so weak that small groups have a chance for a raid and that you dont need a manganon...
lol yes henrik said killing peoples must have consequences in this pvp game... im ok with that as long as the murder count system gets removed...
One thing I'd really like to see is resource-generating buildings. We already have things like "rye seeds" so the eventual inclusion of farming and/or gardening seems are forgone conclusion at this point.
Would also be cool to see things added like lumber camps or mining camps that slowly generate resources over time. Much like rare ore mines, farms etc. in Darkfall.
Having those structures be less effective or entirely banned in keeps while more effective/allowed in houses or villages could be really cool. It would give a purpose to going out and raiding enemy assets. That's the types of mechanics I want to see to favor small groups and PvP. Don't nerf keeps. Place more importance on smaller assets.
Would also be cool to see things added like lumber camps or mining camps that slowly generate resources over time. Much like rare ore mines, farms etc. in Darkfall.
Having those structures be less effective or entirely banned in keeps while more effective/allowed in houses or villages could be really cool. It would give a purpose to going out and raiding enemy assets. That's the types of mechanics I want to see to favor small groups and PvP. Don't nerf keeps. Place more importance on smaller assets.
Last edited:
I think most people fear the idea of being able to place walls that are not around a keep and I fully understand why....blocking off areas is extremely annoying if abused well. I think the biggest issue with walls is allowing players the freedom to place them anywhere on the map....I wouldn't be opposed to walls is they were only allowed in open areas away from any resources....this way the only thing being gained from the walls is security.
In a sense I think it would be just fine if there were 'village spots' which could have minor walls/gates that act similarly to keeps but without the keep, just housing. Again its important that these 'village spots' do not have any resources within the wall-able area; similar to keep spots.
In a sense I think it would be just fine if there were 'village spots' which could have minor walls/gates that act similarly to keeps but without the keep, just housing. Again its important that these 'village spots' do not have any resources within the wall-able area; similar to keep spots.