Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The l Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other. It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.guild wars As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep. Oh, it's absolutely going to be a fully fleshed out system, I'm just saying that if your guild considers itself to be at actual war with another guild, the guild war system isn't going to be the main focus of that war state. Seiges and caravans are. I see the guild war system as being used more between somewhat friendly guilds as a means of competition than I see it as a means by which you can actually hurt a rival guild. At least, that is how I see what they are trying to do. As you say though, it isn't fully developed, and changes to how it gets developed in the future may better reflect their intentions with it if I am off.
mcstackerson wrote: » The l Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other. It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.guild wars As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep.
Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other.
Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day.
Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The l Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other. It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.guild wars As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep. Oh, it's absolutely going to be a fully fleshed out system, I'm just saying that if your guild considers itself to be at actual war with another guild, the guild war system isn't going to be the main focus of that war state. Seiges and caravans are. I see the guild war system as being used more between somewhat friendly guilds as a means of competition than I see it as a means by which you can actually hurt a rival guild. At least, that is how I see what they are trying to do. As you say though, it isn't fully developed, and changes to how it gets developed in the future may better reflect their intentions with it if I am off. I'd rather the war system be an actual war system. Wars typically aren't friendly competitions.
Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The l Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other. It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.guild wars As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep. Oh, it's absolutely going to be a fully fleshed out system, I'm just saying that if your guild considers itself to be at actual war with another guild, the guild war system isn't going to be the main focus of that war state. Seiges and caravans are. I see the guild war system as being used more between somewhat friendly guilds as a means of competition than I see it as a means by which you can actually hurt a rival guild. At least, that is how I see what they are trying to do. As you say though, it isn't fully developed, and changes to how it gets developed in the future may better reflect their intentions with it if I am off. I'd rather the war system be an actual war system. Wars typically aren't friendly competitions. I don't at all disagree. As I said, I am making an assumption based on how what we know of the system so far, and extrapolating from that exactly what the intent behind it is. As a system, what I am assuming they have in mind for the guild war system does make sense from a gameplay and game design perspective. The main issue I have with it - if my assumptions are correct - is the name. This system is not a "Guild War", and would perhaps be better served if it was called a "Guild Frucas", a "Guild Quarrel", or perhaps even "Guild Kerfuffle". That should deal to that specific issue - and I think if I am right as to how this mechanic will end up being used, I will refer to it as a Guild Kerfuffle rather than guild war once the game goes live. As to actual guild wars, in terms of two guild deciding they really shouldn't both be playing on the same server, I don't think a mechanic is actually needed to facilitate that. This is why I don't think I ahve a specific issue with the timer on the Guild Kerfuffle mechanic - the two parties are not just going to build a camp fire and sing kumbaya together when it ends. Seiges and attacking caravans will be more effective than a guild war mechanic that can't be opted out of would ever be anyway - if your plan is to actually hurt that rival guild.
Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The l Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other. It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.guild wars As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep. Oh, it's absolutely going to be a fully fleshed out system, I'm just saying that if your guild considers itself to be at actual war with another guild, the guild war system isn't going to be the main focus of that war state. Seiges and caravans are. I see the guild war system as being used more between somewhat friendly guilds as a means of competition than I see it as a means by which you can actually hurt a rival guild. At least, that is how I see what they are trying to do. As you say though, it isn't fully developed, and changes to how it gets developed in the future may better reflect their intentions with it if I am off. I'd rather the war system be an actual war system. Wars typically aren't friendly competitions. I don't at all disagree. As I said, I am making an assumption based on how what we know of the system so far, and extrapolating from that exactly what the intent behind it is. As a system, what I am assuming they have in mind for the guild war system does make sense from a gameplay and game design perspective. The main issue I have with it - if my assumptions are correct - is the name. This system is not a "Guild War", and would perhaps be better served if it was called a "Guild Frucas", a "Guild Quarrel", or perhaps even "Guild Kerfuffle". That should deal to that specific issue - and I think if I am right as to how this mechanic will end up being used, I will refer to it as a Guild Kerfuffle rather than guild war once the game goes live. As to actual guild wars, in terms of two guild deciding they really shouldn't both be playing on the same server, I don't think a mechanic is actually needed to facilitate that. This is why I don't think I ahve a specific issue with the timer on the Guild Kerfuffle mechanic - the two parties are not just going to build a camp fire and sing kumbaya together when it ends. Seiges and attacking caravans will be more effective than a guild war mechanic that can't be opted out of would ever be anyway - if your plan is to actually hurt that rival guild. Wouldn't you rather them just make an interesting war mechanic to help facilitate 2 guilds who actually don't like each other to go at it as often as they can? Like on top of sieges and caravans? It would make for a healthier game. 3 hour long windows of war at primetime sound pretty wack to me. Definitely not a "war" like we said.
Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The l Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other. It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.guild wars As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep. Oh, it's absolutely going to be a fully fleshed out system, I'm just saying that if your guild considers itself to be at actual war with another guild, the guild war system isn't going to be the main focus of that war state. Seiges and caravans are. I see the guild war system as being used more between somewhat friendly guilds as a means of competition than I see it as a means by which you can actually hurt a rival guild. At least, that is how I see what they are trying to do. As you say though, it isn't fully developed, and changes to how it gets developed in the future may better reflect their intentions with it if I am off. I'd rather the war system be an actual war system. Wars typically aren't friendly competitions. I don't at all disagree. As I said, I am making an assumption based on how what we know of the system so far, and extrapolating from that exactly what the intent behind it is. As a system, what I am assuming they have in mind for the guild war system does make sense from a gameplay and game design perspective. The main issue I have with it - if my assumptions are correct - is the name. This system is not a "Guild War", and would perhaps be better served if it was called a "Guild Frucas", a "Guild Quarrel", or perhaps even "Guild Kerfuffle". That should deal to that specific issue - and I think if I am right as to how this mechanic will end up being used, I will refer to it as a Guild Kerfuffle rather than guild war once the game goes live. As to actual guild wars, in terms of two guild deciding they really shouldn't both be playing on the same server, I don't think a mechanic is actually needed to facilitate that. This is why I don't think I ahve a specific issue with the timer on the Guild Kerfuffle mechanic - the two parties are not just going to build a camp fire and sing kumbaya together when it ends. Seiges and attacking caravans will be more effective than a guild war mechanic that can't be opted out of would ever be anyway - if your plan is to actually hurt that rival guild. Wouldn't you rather them just make an interesting war mechanic to help facilitate 2 guilds who actually don't like each other to go at it as often as they can? Like on top of sieges and caravans? It would make for a healthier game. 3 hour long windows of war at primetime sound pretty wack to me. Definitely not a "war" like we said. Oh, the guild war system will used to do that, I'm sure. It just wouldn't be a permanant, all the time thing. The key thing here is to remember that just because the Guild Kerfuffle timer is up, doesn't mean the war is over. In terms of guilds at actual war with each other, I'm currently looking at the Guild Kerfuffle system as an ancillary system on top of sieges (node and castle), caravans (personal, node and castle), and attacking players at content locations - as well as it being used by friendly(ish) guilds as a means of competition/content. I am fairly sure that no amount of losses in Guild kerfuffles would upset a rival guild as much as a successful siege on their node followed by looting the bulk of said guilds members freeholds. I don't actually think I would want a game system having any control at all over how I should wage a war against another guild, nor do I think there should be anything in regards to rewards for it. If we are at war with another guild - proper war - the reward is driving that guild either out of a node cluster, or off of the server. I don't think it would be in Intrepids best interests to have a system built in to the game to facilitate this either.
Bricktop wrote: » Yeah I hear you and all but I would still prefer an interesting guild war mechanic. If it's a 3 hour window during primetime it's a guild battle mechanic at best. It wouldn't even have to be an indefinitely long war I would be happy with at least a week, we can meet somewhere in the middle between forever and only 2 or 3 hours. You said earlier that they wanted to improve upon the Lineage 2 clan war system and that's fair, but 90% of Lineage 2 players most likely look back fondly on the wars they had. Players and diplomacy forged the peace treaties and that is EXACTLY what this game is about: Player driven content. I plan on waging war on the enemy one way or another like you said, but if they have a "Guild War" mechanic it should be actually kinda war-like.
Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Yeah I hear you and all but I would still prefer an interesting guild war mechanic. If it's a 3 hour window during primetime it's a guild battle mechanic at best. It wouldn't even have to be an indefinitely long war I would be happy with at least a week, we can meet somewhere in the middle between forever and only 2 or 3 hours. You said earlier that they wanted to improve upon the Lineage 2 clan war system and that's fair, but 90% of Lineage 2 players most likely look back fondly on the wars they had. Players and diplomacy forged the peace treaties and that is EXACTLY what this game is about: Player driven content. I plan on waging war on the enemy one way or another like you said, but if they have a "Guild War" mechanic it should be actually kinda war-like. I would say that 90% of the L2 players that stayed in the game would look back fondly on them, for sure. I'm sure you can see what I am saying there. From a business perspective, if Intrepid are able to keep the bulk of that alive via caravans and sieges, then they should be able to create more fond memories for those same types of players, but may be able to make a game where a more varied type of player stay around in the game for longer. That seems to be the goal of PvP in this game, from what I can see - allowing players to still have those experiences, but encouraging (without requiring) that fighting to take place in specific aspects of the game so as to not chase away as many players. Put another way, with what I have seen Steven say about the game, and with the description of the game systems we have been given, my take on this game is that Intrepid want it to be a game with open PvP, but with a much wider potential audience than any other open PvP game so far (you may see some of the reasoning behind some of my points in various debates we have had with that last sentence). Again, I may well be wrong with that, but that is what I see them trying to build, and most (though not all) of the systems they have talked about fit in to that general idea for a game. And I also agree about your last point there - that is why I am referring to them as Guild Kerfuffles from now on. If I am right, I would rather that term than calling something a guild war that is clearly not warlike - even if I agree with the system from a design and gameplay perspective (though I am still not 100% sure about that).
Bricktop wrote: » Well you have told me before you didn't play L2 so I don't think you are in the best position to judge, and we have also discussed previously the success that L2 had over it's lifetime is absolutely nothing to sneeze at. It is still played to this very day by some crazy people and lasted way longer than dozens and dozens of other MMOs. I don't know why you talk about it like it's a bad game or failure often, if it was bad steven wouldn't have put a bunch of time into it and modeled a bunch of stuff in AoC around it. I suppose when most of your MMO experience is WoW and final fantasy. You would rather them rename Guild Wars into Guild Kerfluffles instead of them making a functional war system? I mean I really hope you are just at least MOSTLY trolling me. We'll see what happens in the Alpha. I'll personally raise my concerns extremely often and to the point where you get sick of hearing about it on the forums for having a more functional war system if it's a big stinker, and I doubt I'll be alone.
mcstackerson wrote: » With the risk/reward aspect of this, I'm not sure how you are seeing that. It sounds like the system is going is another way to impact a guild's progression in some way. This seems like node wars/sieges but for guilds.
mcstackerson wrote: » I think you are focused too much on how a war could impact a guild's individual members and not the guild itself. Guilds progress and provide benefits to their members. Similar to the node system, it sounds like they want there to be guild items that benefit the members in some way. Maybe an item that is something like a special forge needed to craft certain items or a trophie from a raid that give the members some kind of buff. Maybe an item that unlocks additional weapon enhancements at your guild vendor or give your guild members access to another augment. To me, it sounds like it's stuff like this that are supposed to be able to be targeted by guild wars. That's kind of the reason to make them prime time events, similar to sieges, you want to lose your stuff while you are asleep and can't defend it.
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Hate to break it to you, but part of the core of the creation of conflicts will directly be affected by "meaningless" pvp as you like to call it. So, you just went through a video that talk about all the meaningful PvP in Ashes, and came to the assumption that this means it is going to be full of meaningless PvP? The video we are all talking about is specifically talking about nodes, castles, religions, guilds, social organizations and such, and how people wanting different ones of these to progress will butt heads with each other, causing strife. This is literally the meaningful PvP that I am talking about. That is what Ashes is from a PvP perspective - fighting against people that want different, incompatible things from what you want. Flagging up for PvP and fighting who ever you come across does not facilitate that at all. but he has not even once said he doesn't want to promote random open world pvp encounters. It could be argued that the stance of promoting meaningful PvP would require not promoting meaningless PvP, as every act of meaningless PvP means less potential for meaningful PvP. Additionally, absence of comment on a topic should not be considered positive proof of an assertion. To argue this point, you really do need a comment that Intrepid plan to promote meaningless PvP in the open world - otherwise we could all argue anything Intrepid haven't specifically commented on, and that is clearly an absurd notion. Edit; a better point for you to argue would be that sure, it doesn't make sense to put in the game from some perspectives, but it wouldn't be the only thing in the game that doesn't make sense. I do seem to be helping you guys out a lot in this thread.
Dolyem wrote: » Hate to break it to you, but part of the core of the creation of conflicts will directly be affected by "meaningless" pvp as you like to call it.
but he has not even once said he doesn't want to promote random open world pvp encounters.
Dolyem wrote: » Let it be known from this day henceforth that it has been formally confirmed that Open World PvP is not condemned by Intrepid studios, only griefing. I need a drink.
Dolyem wrote: » Noaani How am I twisting that quote around?
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani How am I twisting that quote around? When did I say that PvP is condemned by Intrepid? What I have said is that the focus of PvP in Ashes is around PvP that has meaning - such as caravans, sieges, and wars. These are Stevens words, so as I have said to others in this thread, if you want to disagree with that point, do so with Steven, not with me. I have also said that obviously other PvP will happen, but is not the focus, nor is what Intrepid want to encourage. No where at all have I said or suggested that open world PvP of any kind is "condemned by Intrepid", so asking that in a question to anyone at Intrepid and then suggesting that the answer in any way contradicts anything I have been saying is disingenuous at best, outright dishonest at worse. I am assuming disingenuous.
Dolyem wrote: » You never outright said it word for word but you were saying that simply because it wasn't formally stated that "meaningless" pvp was being promoted that this meant it wasn't necessarily condoned.
