Raiding renovation for Providence.

Forum for suggesting changes to Salem.

Re: Raiding renovation for Providence.

Postby Judaism » Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:02 pm

I am not going to dwell any further on those guys, its as if a random guy whom I barely have spoken to or played with/against knows me better than I do myself. Carry on with your assumptions and insults, I am not replying in the idea's thread for that.

Chrumps wrote:- removing alts is a pipe dream. There is no way to prevent having multiple accounts. Playing multiple chars at once requires multiple accounts anyway.

The usage of alts never been a thing up until they added capped soak damages and harsh penalties such as the stockades and the TBC's. There is absolutely no reason to run multiple clients during a raid if the defenses would not deal percentage based damage, or some other variation. You should look up all the other old video's from factions such as the Candy Gang, despite the rare occurrence of rare and dangerous crits from braziers alts were not common practise. So it is a new playstyle which has minimized the risks (and therefore a lot of fun) and has boosted up the progress of raids, in a response towards the improved difficulty of raiding. All of that is absolutely unnecessarily if the raid mechanics get balanced properly. Right now two characters with 400 biles is more useful than a single 3000 stat character, which is at least 50 times more effort. That does not sound or feels right, that is not how a balanced game should work with all those gated rules and mechanics.

Chrumps wrote:- arguing about not warning defenders in advance also does not make much sense. Currently there are multiple ways of smuggling valuable stuff outside the claim. If walls hold only for a while it is always possible to drop stuff to the ground.


I never complained about the warning, I only mentioned that it is easy for people to trash their goods or to relocate them elsewhere. If a raider can not take over the base, kill any characters or take any loot what purpose does the raid have at that point. Like you said, nearly none of the raids are economically viable. Luckly most of the raids do not have that intent, they do have the intent to grief people, thats the harsh reality but that often can therefore not be realized.

Chrumps wrote:My position here is to provide a kind of claim which at the cost of warning and offline waiting 24 hours would soften defences, so I can trade offline waiting for active watching how damage trickles down over several hours.


Yes there was such an idea on the table once, it was debated a few years ago and it basically was to have a siege asset tick every hour orso which would increase its reach. If it reached an area then there would be raid bonuses and boosts. For the defenders it would take a counter action to remove it. Such mechanics are in my opinion fair, active sieges have to involve conflict and activity from both sides.
Last edited by Judaism on Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JohnCarver wrote:Mortal Moments Inc. is not here to cannibalize the community or piece out the code. We are not here because we wish to institute pay to win models or PvE servers. Quite the contrary.
User avatar
Judaism
Customer
 
Posts: 3878
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Raiding renovation for Providence.

Postby Ronch » Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:11 pm

Chrumps wrote:
My personal preference is to shift large part of the massive effort from breaking the walls toward breaking the claim (be it village or town). Right now, once walls are down destroying both vclaim and tclaim is almost immediate and that usually leads to complete destruction of the base. With easier access but with much harder claim destruction armed robbery will become possible. This should come with reducing consequences of a single larceny or vandal scent so PvPers are less carebearish about their precious chars.

This is a good idea ! ...it would solve most of both sides of concerns about the game's current raiding.
Last edited by Ronch on Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reviresco wrote:I log into this game and have fun.
User avatar
Ronch
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:46 am

Re: Raiding renovation for Providence.

Postby Judaism » Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:16 pm

Ronch wrote:This is a good idea ! ...it would solve much of both sides of concerns about the game's current raiding.


Judaism wrote:A progressive raiding system is the exact opposite of an easy-mode raiding style. You will selectively aim for parts of bases instead of aiming for total destruction which is currently the only alternative. Most of the selective raiding would consist out of accessing non-crucial parts of the bases, that would be the outside layers mainly and they do generally not hold the valuables or the leantos. People simply cannot commit towards a very dull and boring raids for periods exceeding 30+ hours without breaks and without any action (which is what the people nowadays do they either trash their **** or they locate it elsewhere).


Bear in mind that authority objects used to be invulnerable back in the days (if paid). There is nothing wrong with keeping most of your base intact, total destruction and claiming over is a fairly new common practice and only plausible due to the huge inflated silver prices, the rise of huge law&lore characters and the need to protect your scents from outsiders. To minimize the risks your characters are running from the stockades and TBC's. Its exactly why you guys don't know my true intent, as I was one of the people who absolutely spoke out against that hidden ninja patch a few years ago.

If you agree with that part, then our differences on that part are not too far away from each-other.
JohnCarver wrote:Mortal Moments Inc. is not here to cannibalize the community or piece out the code. We are not here because we wish to institute pay to win models or PvE servers. Quite the contrary.
User avatar
Judaism
Customer
 
Posts: 3878
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Raiding renovation for Providence.

Postby Chrumps » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:44 pm

Judaism wrote:The usage of alts never been a thing up until they added capped soak damages and harsh penalties such as the stockades and the TBC's. There is absolutely no reason to run multiple clients during a raid [...]
So it is a new playstyle which has minimized the risks (and therefore a lot of fun) and has boosted up the progress of raids, in a response towards the improved difficulty of raiding. All of that is absolutely unnecessarily [...]

I would attribute it to progress in computer hardware. Perhaps back then the need caused people to explore possibilities. No one can rollback it now, though. Alts and multiboxing will stay.

Judaism wrote:[..] nearly none of the raids are economically viable. Luckly most of the raids do not have that intent, they do have the intent to grief people, thats the harsh reality but that often can therefore not be realized.


Then we cannot agree here. I simply see no point in griefing people nor I see it good for any kind of game. It provides negative "fun" net value to the game thus negating the entertainment purpose of the game.
Though I would agree that it's economic part of the game mechanics rather than siege mechanics alone that shall punish such kind of raids.
I would also agree that raids on average should provide net gain for the raider. I prefer to see raiding balanced towards "farming" weaker players rather than griefing them.


Judaism wrote:Bear in mind that authority objects used to be invulnerable back in the days (if paid).

I think I recall JC arguing that complete destruction should be possible. In my opinion that makes sense if the attacker is motivated more by rage than by economy. It should never be economically reasonable.

Judaism wrote:There is nothing wrong with keeping most of your base intact, total destruction and claiming over is a fairly new common practice and only plausible due to the huge inflated silver prices, the rise of huge law&lore characters and the need to protect your scents from outsiders. To minimize the risks your characters are running from the stockades and TBC's.


Again, it will not roll back by itself unless destroying the bell becomes prohibitively expensive and unless there is a cooldown before a fresh bell can ED.

I'd like to see more developed mechanics around scents so not all scents are visible and it takes extra skill/action/tool to both camouflage and discover scents, rather than automatically turning on tracking on login. Tracking should drain biles. I'd like also to see a way to accumulate scents so the kind and severity of punishment depends on number and type of scents. I consider it unfair to be able to kill someone over a single larceny or vandal scent.

My vision of raids is to have raiders rummage hastily through people's belongings under brazier fire, trying to maximize loot value while their bb is shrinking and also trying to minimize number of scents dropped. That will of course involve adjustments to %% taken by a crit.
The progressive part here is taking away wealth form the victim, which, if done over and over again, may deprive him from means to further defend.

Judaism wrote:Its exactly why you guys don't know my true intent

No one is going to care about it until you write it down.

ZoddAlmighty elsewhere wrote:Now, only thing needed is an active dev to implement it.

Well, yeah.
Chrumps
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:51 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Raiding renovation for Providence.

Postby Judaism » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:16 pm

Chrumps wrote:I would attribute it to progress in computer hardware. Perhaps back then the need caused people to explore possibilities. No one can rollback it now, though. Alts and multiboxing will stay.


Multiboxing and alts surely will stay during idle and afk chores. However for an active raiding situation, currently it already is fairly hard to run multiple clients as you are almost forced to have multiple monitors and in case of any action you are screwed because you cannot pilot multiple characters effectively at the same time. All raiding needs to become is more active, with actions happening for both sides. It would make people hang towards their individual characters, rather than mindlessly tanking braziers for numerous hours without anything happening on multiple characters.

Most of these changes are not aimed towards raiding ''inactive bases'', I assume most people actually want interactive raids. Tweaking the hard caps and the percentage based damages are quite relevant to get towards such a state, the advantages of defenders are otherwise far too large.

Chrumps wrote:Then we cannot agree here. I simply see no point in griefing people nor I see it good for any kind of game. It provides negative "fun" net value to the game thus negating the entertainment purpose of the game.
Though I would agree that it's economic part of the game mechanics rather than siege mechanics alone that shall punish such kind of raids.
I would also agree that raids on average should provide net gain for the raider. I prefer to see raiding balanced towards "farming" weaker players rather than griefing them.


I would argue that most of the core of Salem centers around drama and griefing. Take a look at all the old factions, economic purpose was never their true intention. They role-played around a theme with as much drama and griefing possible. People just like to deal other players as much damage as they possibly can and I believe its why we have perma-death, hidden mechanics and ninja patches which caused for so much drama, tears and enjoyment.

Chrumps wrote:I think I recall JC arguing that complete destruction should be possible. In my opinion that makes sense if the attacker is motivated more by rage than by economy. It should never be economically reasonable.


Sure total destruction should remain possible but I agree that there should be actions to choice from, rather than the situation right now where you are already forced to break nearly everything. At that point you might as well aim for the bell and take over the base/cover up the scents.

Perhaps different requirements for different intentions, just a quick example for the thought:
Siege asset type 1: limits to x amount of larceny crimes with an x amount of notification
Siege asset type 2: limits to x amount of waste scents with an x amount of notification
ETC..

Chrumps wrote:My vision of raids is to have raiders rummage hastily through people's belongings under brazier fire, trying to maximize loot value while their bb is shrinking and also trying to minimize number of scents dropped. That will of course involve adjustments to %% taken by a crit.
The progressive part here is taking away wealth form the victim, which, if done over and over again, may deprive him from means to further defend.


Yeah I believe JC shared a similar perspective, he opted a lot towards petty crimes and actually made a promises regarding that somewhere. Faster and less meaningful entries, for example lock-picking was one of those things. As an additional option to the current mechanics that is completely fine and welcome. However it should not be an excuse to leave the actual raiding or any variation of it in a rigid state.
JohnCarver wrote:Mortal Moments Inc. is not here to cannibalize the community or piece out the code. We are not here because we wish to institute pay to win models or PvE servers. Quite the contrary.
User avatar
Judaism
Customer
 
Posts: 3878
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Raiding renovation for Providence.

Postby Ronch » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:35 pm

Chrumps wrote:

I'd like to see more developed mechanics around scents so not all scents are visible and it takes extra skill/action/tool to both camouflage and discover scents, rather than automatically turning on tracking on login. Tracking should drain biles. I'd like also to see a way to accumulate scents so the kind and severity of punishment depends on number and type of scents. I consider it unfair to be able to kill someone over a single larceny or vandal scent.

Another good idea !
Reviresco wrote:I log into this game and have fun.
User avatar
Ronch
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:46 am

Re: Raiding renovation for Providence.

Postby Ronch » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:58 pm

Judaism wrote:Bear in mind that authority objects used to be invulnerable back in the days (if paid). There is nothing wrong with keeping most of your base intact, total destruction and claiming over is a fairly new common practice and only plausible due to the huge inflated silver prices, the rise of huge law&lore characters and the need to protect your scents from outsiders. To minimize the risks your characters are running from the stockades and TBC's. Its exactly why you guys don't know my true intent, as I was one of the people who absolutely spoke out against that hidden ninja patch a few years ago.

If you agree with that part, then our differences on that part are not too far away from each-other.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it so newer players can understand more clear and not have to blindly trust any/every word that comes from a veteran player.
This will go a long way toward expediting ideas into a consensus in a more social/friendly way, as all players (not just experienced players) can participate in discussing (all) ideas offered to the Developer.

PS:
I also sincerely apologize for being overly dismissive of your earlier extremely selfish idea's.
In the ideas and innovations sub-forum I can also get overly offensive when reading words or terms that are divisive to the game's population because it's counter productive towards bringing a consensus.
We both know that the game isn't just a PvP game, it has a very large and growing PvE population too.
So any idea whether it directly affects PvP or PvE inside the game will affect all of it's players, and why I feel strongly and act accordingly when one side of the game's population is intentionally alienated from a discussion that will affect them in unforeseen ways if the idea gets implemented.
Last edited by Dallane on Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed hard to see color
Reviresco wrote:I log into this game and have fun.
User avatar
Ronch
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:46 am

Previous

Return to Ideas & Innovations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron