Game Development: Criminally Thanksgiving

[jorb]

in fact future raids of mine would consist mostly of smashing **** instead of looting or even looking at it precisely because of this.

The crimes should probably be differentiated in terms of how expensive they are, I agree.

bandaid

I strongly disagree. The mechanic actually has some amount of integrity now. The old 15 minute wait was completely arbitrary, and was always the real bandaid here.

-------------

Generally speaking I think we'd do well to reason more in terms of the fundamental incentives of the mechanic, and consider those before we even talk about the details of exactly how difficult the buff should be to get rid off.

[darnokpl]

Uhm I think something ate my post.

I was thinking - wouldn't it be better, if braziers / torches applied some charges? At the cost of reduced penalty/length of charges
Currently it seems to me that biggest problem for raiders are those charges, and it doesn't seem to matter much if they raid well protected village or some noob camp.
I don't raid so these are empty words, but what do raiders think?

Charges gave many options for Devs and they can use them in many different ways, all depends what kind of raiding style they want to create:
- increase BB drain, while on hostile claim, as charges are increasing on character,
- charges can increase BB cost while stealing any goods, more you steal more BB you burn for every item,
- charges can increase braziers/torchposts dmg or rate of fire,
- dmg taken from other players can depend on charges quantity, more charges works like reeling and/or imbalance during fight,
- dmg done to other players can be decreased while more charges are accumulated on char,
- character can run slower if charges will be above some level,
- characters with more charges leave scents that last longer or can give more scent-charges while accumulated by rangers
(improved tracking? there is too many of scents on crime scene right now, imho decreasing amount of scents, but increasing amount of charges per scent will look and work better ),

[Darwoth]

a far better recipe for balancing offense vs defense would of been simply increasing soak values and/or hit points of structures to the point that it would take a character with stats on the same "tier" as the defense x amount of time to get through them.

for example if a stone hedge took a 100 stat character 20 minutes of continuous beating to destroy. the time investment (which would be closer to double that factoring in eating and regenning), food investment and so on involved to get through several layers would be extensive yet still far less annoying than an artificial buff that ruins any sort of siege combat where two sides are present and forces you to spend a half hour tediously walking away from the scene of the raid/fight/siege and another back. in that scenario a debuff would not be needed at all, let alone the overly complicated current form.

and yes, some sort of expedited destruction process would be needed for friendlies if that were to happen. so no need for one of you mouthbreathers to point it out in typical retard fashion.

[staxjax]

You suggestion would mean that any regular player wouldn't be able to destroy their own structures. Bad idea, imo.

[ramuller]

and yes, some sort of expedited destruction process would be needed for friendlies if that were to happen. so no need for one of you mouthbreathers to point it out in typical retard fashion.

I find your assumption that mouth breathing is a symptom of mental retardation to be a very crude attack on those of us who may not have the same mental capacity as you. It is fine to have aggressive discussions between equals; however, making fun of people who may be different than you and may have sufficient problems with their self esteem without your help in lowering it even further is totally uncalled for in any public forum.

[Potjeh]

I don't think we need to incentivize wall layers spam any further.

[Nixman]

Generally speaking I think we'd do well to reason more in terms of the fundamental incentives of the mechanic, and consider those before we even talk about the details of exactly how difficult the buff should be to get rid off.

I tend to agree, when we start considering the nature of Salem, is it just a build and be destroyed game or will it have some semblance of community, politics and proper risk vrs reward aspects that ensure the game retains players. Perma-death and, essentially, grief mechanics built into a game will always tow a fine line and the idea of having all your work flattened and your character wiped is the ultimate risk vrs reward.

If 'raiding' is too easy, this game will live in the shadows and struggle to attract enough players and keep them. Regardless of this change it is still easier to destroy a place than it is to build it, building a base takes week if not months, the idea that someone can easily come along and wipe that out in a day its not balanced and will ultimately drive players away.

Personally I welcome this change, there should be consequence to the game, not mindless griefing 'because you can'.

[loftar]

for example if a stone hedge took a 100 stat character 20 minutes of continuous beating to destroy. the time investment (which would be closer to double that factoring in eating and regenning), food investment and so on involved to get through several layers would be extensive yet still far less annoying than an artificial buff

I disagree, because that would be a return to a pretty much boolean shell defense. Once you have gotten to a certain level in character development, you can break any base and do anything you like to it, and before that you can't touch it.

The main intention with the crime buff (which never worked, but which this change intended to at least partially remedy) was to impose a resource limit on a single raid, so that a settlement isn't entirely broken as soon as a single wall tile has been broken, and that its internal layout matters, and that crimes have to be chosen and prioritized between.

If you want to criticize either that intention or its concrete implementation, that's quite fine. That would be far more interesting to read than the QQing you have mostly posted thus far. :)

that ruins any sort of siege combat where two sides are present and forces you to spend a half hour tediously walking away from the scene of the raid/fight/siege and another back. in that scenario a debuff would not be needed at all, let alone the overly complicated current form.

If anything, I am considering if this does not open up for more formal war mechanics, where one can give an advance declaration of war in order to avoid the crime buff against a certain counterparty, or something like that. I'm not entirely sure I like the higher degree of raiding formalization all that means, but I'm not sure I dislike it either.

[Sevenless]

One big thing that matters here is that lower "power" defenders are going to be much more dangerous. With a 30m-1h debuff, if defenders show up they are actually a serious force. Stopping you from knocking out a wall isn't a "well lets wait 15 minutes and repeat until one of us logs off" deal. Furthermore, it'll potentially allow lower stated characters to have a chance to fend off the bullies while they're hindered by the debuff. To be fair, hermits or small villages trying this will still get their ass owned, but it encourages defense.

But eh, I've long lost touch with people doing raiding constantly so that's entirely anecdotal. Explosives and bigger walls might make some of these problems obsolete too. Just keep in mind where we're heading with discussion of balance. It doesn't just need to be balanced now, it needs to be balanced with future implementation in mind as well.

[iambobthepirate]

I agree and support Potjeh's vision of light vs darkness

Living in the darkness should be dangerous and bad. Even to the point that it's easier to raid darkness bases rather than harder (the transfer could be done slowly to give people a choice and time to move out). Light should be coveted and good for bases/villages. Bonuses to crop yields or maturation speeds, bonuses to wall strength, there's lots you could look at.

And then somehow tie it to player activity in an area and boom, villages won't mind their lost forageables nearly as much.

Edit: Thought. Having images of the clothes in game in the store. Better for sales perhaps? Or is it better to leave it a mystery to encourage people? Not sure honestly. Would be interesting to release two packs of similar nature (both outfits for example), one with screenies of it, one without. See which sells better.

i like this line of thinking, but i would wish for some mechanism to "tame the darkness". imo it would be better if your homestead in the darkness would slowly render over time an area of light.