Spif wrote: » Nobody said anything about death penalties or XP debt. The penalty for dying too many times is that you're out of the siege. It also gives the defense a win condition that isn't "rebuff the attack for 1-2 hours straight" If you don't think that rezzing in PvP events isn't going to be worthwhile, then I don't know what to say. You're going to run past a dead ally and force them to spawn back at camp? If they wanted to rez at camp they would release. I hope you're on the other side. I'd like to see some tactical gameplay rather than people deathrushing at objectives over and over again.
Noaani wrote: » In my opinion, crafted PvP content like sieges could (note the letter *c*, as opposed to*sh*) have delaying, suspending and/or ending the opposing sides respawn as a goal for each side. If you are defending your node against an underwhelming attacking force, having an early win condition of disabling their ability to respawn and then killing everyone seems to me to be a good idea - better than just destroying some McGuffin and that just ending things.
NiKr wrote: » Spif wrote: » Nobody said anything about death penalties or XP debt. The penalty for dying too many times is that you're out of the siege. It also gives the defense a win condition that isn't "rebuff the attack for 1-2 hours straight" If you don't think that rezzing in PvP events isn't going to be worthwhile, then I don't know what to say. You're going to run past a dead ally and force them to spawn back at camp? If they wanted to rez at camp they would release. I hope you're on the other side. I'd like to see some tactical gameplay rather than people deathrushing at objectives over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of deaths and the ability to resurrect someone in battle have nearly nothing in common. And giving defenders an even bigger advantage than they already always have will just lead to unwinnable sieges. The whole point of defending a location is that you have an advantage and your enemies will be killing themselves against your defenses over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of those deaths is just unfun design.
Spif wrote: » It's not a limit on deaths, but a limit on how many times you can rez at camp/town/shrine. That's why a player rezzing you doesn't impact that limit.
Spif wrote: » We have some hints from IS that node siege will have several (many?) objectives, and fulfilling enough/all of them will result in a win. Destroying select areas but not getting enough will still result in disabling those node/city functions until they are fixed.
Spif wrote: » We can take some lessons from NW's node battles, even though they are just 50v50 and the maps sucked. Coordination of a large force is *tough* for anyone but the most organized guilds. It will be even tougher in AoC because of the infrequency of siege, especially in the first few months of the game. Deathrushing will be thing and one of the worst types of gameplay Heavily lopsided battles where the attacker is getting farmed need a way to end faster
NiKr wrote: » Oh, also, I'm dumb for not doing this earlier, but we already have info on this topic.
Raven016 wrote: » And these timers will depend on how much the node defense was upgraded?
Spif wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Spif wrote: » Nobody said anything about death penalties or XP debt. The penalty for dying too many times is that you're out of the siege. It also gives the defense a win condition that isn't "rebuff the attack for 1-2 hours straight" If you don't think that rezzing in PvP events isn't going to be worthwhile, then I don't know what to say. You're going to run past a dead ally and force them to spawn back at camp? If they wanted to rez at camp they would release. I hope you're on the other side. I'd like to see some tactical gameplay rather than people deathrushing at objectives over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of deaths and the ability to resurrect someone in battle have nearly nothing in common. And giving defenders an even bigger advantage than they already always have will just lead to unwinnable sieges. The whole point of defending a location is that you have an advantage and your enemies will be killing themselves against your defenses over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of those deaths is just unfun design. It's not a limit on deaths, but a limit on how many times you can rez at camp/town/shrine. That's why a player rezzing you doesn't impact that limit. Defender/attacker balance can be changed by many different things (more paths to objectives makes defense harder for example). The defenders would not have unlimited lives while the attackers have limits. One thing that I really don't want to see is a side-based death counter that runs down. That lets the worst of your side drag you down and promotes bad behavior. We have some hints from IS that node siege will have several (many?) objectives, and fulfilling enough/all of them will result in a win. Destroying select areas but not getting enough will still result in disabling those node/city functions until they are fixed. We can take some lessons from NW's node battles, even though they are just 50v50 and the maps sucked. Coordination of a large force is *tough* for anyone but the most organized guilds. It will be even tougher in AoC because of the infrequency of siege, especially in the first few months of the game. Deathrushing will be thing and one of the worst types of gameplay Heavily lopsided battles where the attacker is getting farmed need a way to end faster Although I do wonder at how large the node siege map will be. WoW's AV (if it didn't have that final choke point) may be closer to what they are thinking of, with multiple objectives that need to be held for minutes before they are actually destroyed and cannot be taken back.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » In my opinion, crafted PvP content like sieges could (note the letter *c*, as opposed to*sh*) have delaying, suspending and/or ending the opposing sides respawn as a goal for each side. If you are defending your node against an underwhelming attacking force, having an early win condition of disabling their ability to respawn and then killing everyone seems to me to be a good idea - better than just destroying some McGuffin and that just ending things. L2's sieges had a delaying mechanic, so I definitely expect at least smth like that. The only reason I'm against full stop on respawns is due to a ton of cases where sieges were won at the very last moment due to some sneaky tactic or just a well-coordinated last push. And the defending side had to always be on guard if they wanted to stop either of those things. The castle/node will have walls and other defenses, so whichever mechanic would exist for stopping attackers' respawn would most likely be way more exposed and they'd be way more vulnerable. Defenders could just rush that point in the very first minute of the siege and even if they don't get the full respawn removal they'd at least get delays on it. At which point defenders can just sit in the castle/node and shoot as many attackers as they can, because they know that they'd always have time to defend. In other words, defenders already have huge advantages, so why give them even more. Oh, and creating some form of attacker fort to make their respawn location more protected would just bring us back to the current design. Defenders would most likely not risk leaving their positions, so attackers would have constant respawns. I feel like siege simplicity is key to its fun. Intrepid already plan to add some small instanced parts for small groups and shit like that, so sieges might be more complex than "just hit wall until the castle falls". Adding even more complexity to it feels like overkill to me.
Depraved wrote: » Spif wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Spif wrote: » Nobody said anything about death penalties or XP debt. The penalty for dying too many times is that you're out of the siege. It also gives the defense a win condition that isn't "rebuff the attack for 1-2 hours straight" If you don't think that rezzing in PvP events isn't going to be worthwhile, then I don't know what to say. You're going to run past a dead ally and force them to spawn back at camp? If they wanted to rez at camp they would release. I hope you're on the other side. I'd like to see some tactical gameplay rather than people deathrushing at objectives over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of deaths and the ability to resurrect someone in battle have nearly nothing in common. And giving defenders an even bigger advantage than they already always have will just lead to unwinnable sieges. The whole point of defending a location is that you have an advantage and your enemies will be killing themselves against your defenses over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of those deaths is just unfun design. It's not a limit on deaths, but a limit on how many times you can rez at camp/town/shrine. That's why a player rezzing you doesn't impact that limit. Defender/attacker balance can be changed by many different things (more paths to objectives makes defense harder for example). The defenders would not have unlimited lives while the attackers have limits. One thing that I really don't want to see is a side-based death counter that runs down. That lets the worst of your side drag you down and promotes bad behavior. We have some hints from IS that node siege will have several (many?) objectives, and fulfilling enough/all of them will result in a win. Destroying select areas but not getting enough will still result in disabling those node/city functions until they are fixed. We can take some lessons from NW's node battles, even though they are just 50v50 and the maps sucked. Coordination of a large force is *tough* for anyone but the most organized guilds. It will be even tougher in AoC because of the infrequency of siege, especially in the first few months of the game. Deathrushing will be thing and one of the worst types of gameplay Heavily lopsided battles where the attacker is getting farmed need a way to end faster Although I do wonder at how large the node siege map will be. WoW's AV (if it didn't have that final choke point) may be closer to what they are thinking of, with multiple objectives that need to be held for minutes before they are actually destroyed and cannot be taken back. it is a limit. lets say you can only res one time at a shrine. what happens if everybody gets wiped for a second and there isnt anybody alive who can res you? now cant res anymore and you are out of the siege? o-o
Spif wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Spif wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Spif wrote: » Nobody said anything about death penalties or XP debt. The penalty for dying too many times is that you're out of the siege. It also gives the defense a win condition that isn't "rebuff the attack for 1-2 hours straight" If you don't think that rezzing in PvP events isn't going to be worthwhile, then I don't know what to say. You're going to run past a dead ally and force them to spawn back at camp? If they wanted to rez at camp they would release. I hope you're on the other side. I'd like to see some tactical gameplay rather than people deathrushing at objectives over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of deaths and the ability to resurrect someone in battle have nearly nothing in common. And giving defenders an even bigger advantage than they already always have will just lead to unwinnable sieges. The whole point of defending a location is that you have an advantage and your enemies will be killing themselves against your defenses over and over again. Putting a limit on the amount of those deaths is just unfun design. It's not a limit on deaths, but a limit on how many times you can rez at camp/town/shrine. That's why a player rezzing you doesn't impact that limit. Defender/attacker balance can be changed by many different things (more paths to objectives makes defense harder for example). The defenders would not have unlimited lives while the attackers have limits. One thing that I really don't want to see is a side-based death counter that runs down. That lets the worst of your side drag you down and promotes bad behavior. We have some hints from IS that node siege will have several (many?) objectives, and fulfilling enough/all of them will result in a win. Destroying select areas but not getting enough will still result in disabling those node/city functions until they are fixed. We can take some lessons from NW's node battles, even though they are just 50v50 and the maps sucked. Coordination of a large force is *tough* for anyone but the most organized guilds. It will be even tougher in AoC because of the infrequency of siege, especially in the first few months of the game. Deathrushing will be thing and one of the worst types of gameplay Heavily lopsided battles where the attacker is getting farmed need a way to end faster Although I do wonder at how large the node siege map will be. WoW's AV (if it didn't have that final choke point) may be closer to what they are thinking of, with multiple objectives that need to be held for minutes before they are actually destroyed and cannot be taken back. it is a limit. lets say you can only res one time at a shrine. what happens if everybody gets wiped for a second and there isnt anybody alive who can res you? now cant res anymore and you are out of the siege? o-o That is exactly it. Real personal consequences for being outplayed by the other side multiple times. Rather than losing inventory items/durability, you lose out on the remaining "fun siege time". There could be strategy to this. With several rezzes left you can afford to try to accomplish more risky things. When on your last life, you may have to play it safer.
