You're the only one talking about hiding and not playing so far. Nobody in here is arguing about not having to protect your resources, structures and defenses.
What Kind of Walls For Non-Keep Guilds?
- Thread starter lord_yoshi
- Start date
That's literally what everyone did with the exact same system you're suggesting. Don't get me wrong I am game for other ideas like walls with hand destroyable gates or no gates or such like that to give some sort of security albeit diminished but if you put the exact same system the exact same way in a copy of the exact same game it's going to turn out the exact same way of everyone hiding in their walls. There is lots of great ways to handle it but full keep walls and gates is the part I am saying isn't good.
It's literally not what everyone did because literally not everyone did. No matter if you have some examples that may have.
Nobody is even asking for full keep walls. Where city walls even ever as strong as keep walls?
If a free city becomes powerful enough they should be able to build powerful defenses. Being at that point would also make them a target for more people that may not like the power of that city. All that adds a political player and world dynamic. You shouldn't have to own one of a handful of spots on a big map to build walls and gates around your prospering city. It's not even like you can do everything from behind the walls of a city, and if you can, maybe address that as the problem.
Nobody is even asking for full keep walls. Where city walls even ever as strong as keep walls?
If a free city becomes powerful enough they should be able to build powerful defenses. Being at that point would also make them a target for more people that may not like the power of that city. All that adds a political player and world dynamic. You shouldn't have to own one of a handful of spots on a big map to build walls and gates around your prospering city. It's not even like you can do everything from behind the walls of a city, and if you can, maybe address that as the problem.
Yes literally everyone. Give me 1 example of a person who had walls and didn't use them.
You keep talking about these big cities. If they added a whole other city system maybe but they basically have that as the keeps and gives a reason to fight over them. The system we are talking about is houses. Can a single house build a keep wall. That's what I am against. If they add a city system where after x amount of houses are within x area it becomes a city or buy a city center or anything like that to have a big city and city walls sure although I would still argue to make it so there is some way to attack the city without sieging because it's a city not a military keep.
Me. Literally disproven "everyone".
There is a difference between using something and hiding behind something. If you wouldn't make use of it, what's the point of having it, doesn't mean you're hiding behind it.
We already have a city system. You have different buildings that give you access to different things, it just needs to expanded more.
I argued against single house and satellite walls and for adding more requirements and effort. That is literally what I've been talking about and you have argued against the past few pages. I've been arguing about putting more effort in and giving the options for bigger cities with requirements and I'm basically always arguing for more in-depth systems where people have to be active and "go out in the field" and do shit, the exact opposite of what you claim "we" want. And I haven't seen anyone arguing for single-house or satellite walls. So far all you were arguing for was a system where everyone is restricted no matter what with none of this being taken into account. These sweeping generalizations and easy cop-outs instead of going into details are the problem with these "solutions".
This may be a bit off-topic but now that I've had two hours to sleep over it. It's kind of a problem in general with all extraction and crafting in MO. It's all just a GUI that you put resources in, maybe adjust some options and parameters and then you wait for a timer to do it for you. What if you had an active way to influence the outcome? Improve quality or maybe even just adjust a few parameters as the process goes. Over the years people have even pointed out a crafting system similar to the sword crafting in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic:
The use of the wall is to hide behind it so you used them so everyone.
You never specified a whole new town system that would be epic and I agree with but we are talking about the current system which is satellite houses. If I missed you spelling out a different new system for towns then that's my bad and I am completely in the wrong.
The main issue is no way to have more casual pvp with anyone who can have walls. Either you get no pvp or you spend a ton of gold to siege someone you don't really care to siege just for pvp. That's not a good thing to encourage random sieging and at very least not a good way to encourage it. All my comments are based on the actual thread.
This is about how to limit single houses walls so the same issue doesn't arise. If your solution is to make a town system with limited walls that I don't disagree on at all and mostly support although still recommend access to those walls by invaders without having to siege.
Simply no. That may be how you use walls, but not everyone covers behind walls just like not everyone sits in a house all the time just because they own one.
Why would I, we already have that system. And I mentioned many times in here how to adjust the requirements and effort.
The whole point is you're not supposed to have casual PvP with anyone you choose at any given time just because you feel like it. You'll have to find them looking for the same, in a vulnerable position, open spot, or plan ahead and do something about it. And sieges should never be "random". There is supposed to be meaning behind PvP and just because they have a wall doesn't mean they don't come or have to come out.
Last edited:
no walls. walls ruined the game. keeps should only have walls and should only be possible to serve as 'major player cities' if said group wishes it to be.
every other guild that wants some kind of 'city' should just settle with village / town status.
every other guild that wants some kind of 'city' should just settle with village / town status.
I’m not a fan of walls. It got stupid in MO1. Everything walled up. Couldn’t see a living soul in the game. Everyone inside their palisades. Just an ugly and empty world.
Walls should only be in close proximity to the keep. Everything else is open. You can always run inside your house and lock it.
Walls should only be in close proximity to the keep. Everything else is open. You can always run inside your house and lock it.
this is also a game where the more u put realism into the more it becomes not feasible as an idea.
if a guy on horse rides by me and i smack his horse in the head with a weapon, i dont think it'd be alive; and i dont think id be holding my weapon after. but we are not obviously going to see that, are we?
its a good thing we have magic 2 which isnt real.
its a good thing we have oghmir, alvarin, thursars, etc. none of those races exist.
i know ur logic is that players should have defenses for their stuff, i get it. but mo1 did a bad job even with walls. ppl still could destroy your stuff pretty easily with walls. but there was no actual player interaction because of them.
what sounds more interesting. village or town with no walls that has an active population like any other npc city, with people passing through it.. coming and going. or walled off village or town that u cant access except people who know the password to the gate or its for guild members only.
cause the second option was mo1. ppl built cities for their own guilds, and there was never truly a 'player city' ever in the game.. and when one did exist it got blown up by a gm cause the ppl who owned it were duping and cheating.
i think there should be wall scaling with ladders, but still villages and smaller 'towns' shouldnt have walls. u should have to be active in the community in having people defend u and ur stuff if u think you cant defend it. build in a well traveled area or near lucrative materials or mobs and ppl will use it and defend it, no walls needed.
Historically most villages did not have walls. Historically many towns were denied the right to have walls by their local rulers. Historically you are full of shit.
More to the point the implementation of walls actually killed the first game. Even SV has realized that at this point.
I think you should get together with the guy who wants a PvP toggle.
(I should just make this my signature if they ever fix them. Seems like people are so used to bashing realism in games as a default reaction to the mention of realism, they don't even realize a believable world that incorporates a lot of realism is a stated goal of StarVault.)
I maintain, as long as village walls are easy to breach with a small group of guys using axes, hammers, and other anti-building attacks that don't require siege weapons it's going to INCREASE the fun of attacking villages. Most people won't roll out trebs and attack a keep on the daily. Smaller skirmishes that involve far lighter defenses are going to make attacking a defensible position a more regular thing. Which sounds fun as hell.
Not to mention that historically you can get over a wall with something as simple as a ladder, or grapple hook, or even just climbing, neither of which exists in MO.
as a matter of fact there is NO way to get over a wall in MO.
Way to cherry pick your historical reality there.
as a matter of fact there is NO way to get over a wall in MO.
Way to cherry pick your historical reality there.
(I should just make this my signature if they ever fix them. Seems like people are so used to bashing realism in games as a default reaction to the mention of realism, they don't even realize a believable world that incorporates a lot of realism is a stated goal of StarVault.)
I maintain, as long as village walls are easy to breach with a small group of guys using axes, hammers, and other anti-building attacks that don't require siege weapons it's going to INCREASE the fun of attacking villages. Most people won't roll out trebs and attack a keep on the daily. Smaller skirmishes that involve far lighter defenses are going to make attacking a defensible position a more regular thing. Which sounds fun as hell.
lol
notice how it says believable world, not realistic world. u literally dont see the word realistic or realism in that q&a. it also says it plans on utilizing many principles and rules.. that is believable. oh, look at that.. says follows a similar logic; not directly the same.
i mean u could also ignore when i said that some things that are taken from real life are stupid and not good for the game. there is a lot of things that arent realistic.. like things i said b4.
this is about walls. walls made the first game bad, and ppl stopped interacting with eachother because of them. if a player is worried about being killed or sieged.. maybe dont build stuff? maybe use the sand in the box aka the players.. hire mercenaries or guilds to defend ur stuff, build alliances. its like some people just want to repeat mo1 with walls and guards doing most of the work so ppl have private compounds everywhere geared to the teeth.
i get ur trying to say walls that can be easily broken, but wouldnt that just be more annoying for the builder and give more tools to grief as well? i mean u could also argue no walls means more griefing but i have a feeling it wont which is the funny thing. ppl grief and troll when they know ppl are trying to avoid them or keep them out. already has been said by henrik anyway that walls are for keeps
This type of thinking is what killed MO1. Sieges WILL be random when the pvpers that dont quit are starved off their pvp. And guess what will make pvers quit faster, getting invaded every now and then or losing all of their assets?
i think we dont need walls, becuase the Guild holding the keep is benefiting from the houses and should defend them. It all depends on the TC System. Bolders should not be able to be stored in Banks. https://mortalonline2.com/forums/th...-we-could-store-bolders-in-house-chests.1493/
I think Bolders should not be able to be stored inside House Chests. A Player could put 30 Chests inside his house and put a Bolder in every Slot. That would be a bad game-design decission, becuase all Landowners would siege the houses, instead of benefiting from the taxes, as it should be. They would see them as a thread for their Castle. The Inhabitants of your region should defend the King of their Area, if he is not too greedy or a tyrant.
The homeowners should get along with the guild that owns a castle in their region and help their King, if the Castle get attacked.
Who knows which tyrant will take the castle, and whether he might raise taxes.
The Guild that is owning an area should defend the Houses of their Residents.
They pay taxes to fill the war chest.
I think Bolders should only be able to be stored in Banks.
These would be classified as a thread, but they are not strictly necessary to be build. Players that want to build a small village don't have to build a bank, becuase you can also store items in their house.
If bolders can be stored in House chests, then only one bolder per box, please.
I think this would be the most important feature, so that the Terretory Control System will make more sense this time.
I think Bolders should not be able to be stored inside House Chests. A Player could put 30 Chests inside his house and put a Bolder in every Slot. That would be a bad game-design decission, becuase all Landowners would siege the houses, instead of benefiting from the taxes, as it should be. They would see them as a thread for their Castle. The Inhabitants of your region should defend the King of their Area, if he is not too greedy or a tyrant.
The homeowners should get along with the guild that owns a castle in their region and help their King, if the Castle get attacked.
Who knows which tyrant will take the castle, and whether he might raise taxes.
The Guild that is owning an area should defend the Houses of their Residents.
They pay taxes to fill the war chest.
I think Bolders should only be able to be stored in Banks.
These would be classified as a thread, but they are not strictly necessary to be build. Players that want to build a small village don't have to build a bank, becuase you can also store items in their house.
If bolders can be stored in House chests, then only one bolder per box, please.
I think this would be the most important feature, so that the Terretory Control System will make more sense this time.
Yes. We've literally had the same discussion on your HYM account about how you think magic destroys realism. It doesn't. It's just an addition to the rules of the gameworld that allows more wiggle-room not an excuse to throw out everything in a world that is meant to feel believable. They don't need to say the world "realism". If you know what that word means, then you can see that "earth rules" and "realism" are exceptionally similar concepts.
Depends on how long it takes to build a pallisade and what the mat costs are. If it takes 20 minutes and 10k wood per wall section to build something that's going to go down in a couple of minutes. Yeah, that seems annoying. If the costs to build are reflective of the ease to destroy, not at all. It's no biggie to spend 2 minutes and 1000 wood to patch a hole after an attack. Also, notice I use the word "breach". Say a village is going to have 100 wall sections and each section takes 3-5 minutes to destroy. That means 3-5 minutes to breach the wall with a few guys using hammers and axes. And 5-8.33 hours to totally destroy the entire thing if you're not rolling out siege equipment.
That's the point. Villages should be raidable. Not easily leveled to nothing. You might have your walls breached up to like 10 times a day. The existence of those walls just buys you some time to mount a defense, and provides an advantage if you can scramble defenders before the breach is made.
