New attack timers: Is Albion territory pvp supposed to only be truly accessible to the unemployed?

  • Forge wrote:

    To answer that you need to figure out how many pieces of gear we need to bring to a battle. Then figure out how long it takes to farm the resources for that gear. If you find a situation where the time to attack does not allow the defender to be wearing gear, then you have your answer.


    They need numbers but thats a good way of thinking if you can get into numbers. Since multiple attacks can happen right?
  • Bercilak wrote:

    So what times you think are appropriate?

    If attackers are wearing 5.4 gear or whatever, it takes days to farm the souls and runes needed to make that stuff.
    People can also launch multiple attacks. That doubles the time needed to prepare, but there is no change to the preparation window.

    If you want a ballpark number. It should be at least 24 hours for townships and 12 hours for resources. We have jobs for heaven's sake.
    A better system would be more dynamic than static numbers to account for things like multiple attacks and time since last attack. A big guild can just attack a smaller guild's territory 15 times in a row and run them out of materials.
    Some kind of recovery period has to be put in place.
  • 24-48 hours would be about right I think. 48 is probably too much, but 24 means checking 1/day at the same time keeps you covered for notification and you can plan your evenings out 1 day in advance if there's a fight going on. 12 hours means a wardec at lunch (or something like that) when you might not be able to plan around it. And if it's for right when you get home and you don't check then for some reason? I hope your guild had enough people on.

    Flattening the power curve immensely to make fighting people using lower tier gear viable could help the grind aspect between fights a whole lot too plus maybe ease pyramid scheme aspect, and you've already mentioned that you want to ease that off a bunch. But people in a small guild shouldn't be basically forced to babysit the game for 4-5 hours every day to be able to make sure they can prepare and click in for defenses which is what's going to happen with a 3 hour minimum notice.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Suzera ().

  • I think the idea that smaller guilds are entitled to their own territory is flawed. We have a limited amount of territories and they are already full. With this in mind consider the exponential growth of the game when it hit's release. Territories with the current player base are relatively safe, on release there will be FIERCE competition to retain territories, trying to hold one as a solo small guild will be difficult. GvG in this game is designed to give small guilds a CHANCE to win vs a zerg however no matter what you do the zerg will always have the advantage due to the very nature of how this game works.

    Now all that being said, everyone here does know you can call on your alliance to help defend your territories right? If we have say, 30 smaller guilds in a vast alliance, it becomes trivial to defend against a zerg since everyone helps defend everyone else.
  • marksteele wrote:

    I think the idea that smaller guilds are entitled to their own territory is flawed. We have a limited amount of territories and they are already full. With this in mind consider the exponential growth of the game when it hit's release. Territories with the current player base are relatively safe, on release there will be FIERCE competition to retain territories, trying to hold one as a solo small guild will be difficult. GvG in this game is designed to give small guilds a CHANCE to win vs a zerg however no matter what you do the zerg will always have the advantage due to the very nature of how this game works.

    Now all that being said, everyone here does know you can call on your alliance to help defend your territories right? If we have say, 30 smaller guilds in a vast alliance, it becomes trivial to defend against a zerg since everyone helps defend everyone else.


    I don´t agree with you.

    Quality of players > Numbers.

    I don´t want to be forced into joining a guild with 100+ members to be able to compete if i can have fun playing with 50 people that i like and dominate a territory. That´s why GvG is 5v5.
  • marksteele wrote:

    I think the idea that smaller guilds are entitled to their own territory is flawed..

    I think everyone should be able to participate in the core feature of the game: territory ownership and combat over them.

    Also, mega-alliances reduces conflict and encourages the pyramid scheme problem where only a few people really get to play that core feature due to the nature of 5v5s.
  • Karma wrote:

    marksteele wrote:

    I think the idea that smaller guilds are entitled to their own territory is flawed. We have a limited amount of territories and they are already full. With this in mind consider the exponential growth of the game when it hit's release. Territories with the current player base are relatively safe, on release there will be FIERCE competition to retain territories, trying to hold one as a solo small guild will be difficult. GvG in this game is designed to give small guilds a CHANCE to win vs a zerg however no matter what you do the zerg will always have the advantage due to the very nature of how this game works.

    Now all that being said, everyone here does know you can call on your alliance to help defend your territories right? If we have say, 30 smaller guilds in a vast alliance, it becomes trivial to defend against a zerg since everyone helps defend everyone else.


    I don´t agree with you.

    Quality of players > Numbers.

    I don´t want to be forced into joining a guild with 100+ members to be able to compete if i can have fun playing with 50 people that i like and dominate a territory. That´s why GvG is 5v5.


    Ok so you have 3 options:

    1) play on an island
    2) have strong organization and set up so you can defend against attacks and replenish gear
    3) join a defensive-alliance

    Territories are privileges not rights. You have to earn them and then defend them, if that's too much for you then use an island. This is a HARDCORE game, you don't actually believe the devs will change a core concept of the game because it's too hard on people do you?
  • marksteele wrote:

    I think the idea that smaller guilds are entitled to their own territory is flawed. We have a limited amount of territories and they are already full. With this in mind consider the exponential growth of the game when it hit's release. Territories with the current player base are relatively safe, on release there will be FIERCE competition to retain territories, trying to hold one as a solo small guild will be difficult. GvG in this game is designed to give small guilds a CHANCE to win vs a zerg however no matter what you do the zerg will always have the advantage due to the very nature of how this game works.

    Now all that being said, everyone here does know you can call on your alliance to help defend your territories right? If we have say, 30 smaller guilds in a vast alliance, it becomes trivial to defend against a zerg since everyone helps defend everyone else.


    You'd have to hire a secretary to manage the fighting teams of 30 guilds to try and cobble together a hodgepodge group of defenders in just a few hours. Besides, the battlefield getting distilled down to just a few massive, tired alliances is exactly what we don't want. Small groups and smaller guilds allows more people to contribute in a meaningful way.

    Otherwise you are just Taxed Citizen # 195 hoping your elected 5v5 representative is victorious in battle.
    BAD.
  • Well the alliance thing seems to work well in theory because then the smaller guilds can focus and work with each other to prop up dudes to defend, just like a singular larger guild can. Just takes more inter-guild politics and cooperation. Having it like that means that a small guild of PVPers can just PvP to their hearts content if an alliance "hires" them and supplies them gear if the PVPers do their job.

    Smaller guilds going solo however are gonna have issues.

    So kind of like a volatile real world politics!
  • Bercilak wrote:

    So what times you think are appropriate?


    I know you're doing something new and trying things out, but games like DAoC, Darkfall, EVE, etc, all use 24h timers. I know that may seem ponderous and slow, but through a lot of trial and error that is basically what is needed for most gamers, especially small guilds, primetime to primetime to prepare.

    If you want to create more fights that matter in the meantime, create new systems. I have some ideas myself, that I think would work well, but the key thing is making people feel safe in their time invested and feeling like they have a fair shot in defending that time investment, or people will either not do it, or if they do, will complain a lot and you will just see a series of defender losses in circles.

    Don't copy what other games do ad hoc of course, but in the cases of timers, almost all other PVP mmos do it that way because this kind of trial and error has already been attempted in the past and that is what ended up working.

    A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule.
  • marksteele wrote:

    Karma wrote:

    marksteele wrote:

    I think the idea that smaller guilds are entitled to their own territory is flawed. We have a limited amount of territories and they are already full. With this in mind consider the exponential growth of the game when it hit's release. Territories with the current player base are relatively safe, on release there will be FIERCE competition to retain territories, trying to hold one as a solo small guild will be difficult. GvG in this game is designed to give small guilds a CHANCE to win vs a zerg however no matter what you do the zerg will always have the advantage due to the very nature of how this game works.

    Now all that being said, everyone here does know you can call on your alliance to help defend your territories right? If we have say, 30 smaller guilds in a vast alliance, it becomes trivial to defend against a zerg since everyone helps defend everyone else.


    I don´t agree with you.

    Quality of players > Numbers.

    I don´t want to be forced into joining a guild with 100+ members to be able to compete if i can have fun playing with 50 people that i like and dominate a territory. That´s why GvG is 5v5.


    Ok so you have 3 options:

    1) play on an island
    2) have strong organization and set up so you can defend against attacks and replenish gear
    3) join a defensive-alliance

    Territories are privileges not rights. You have to earn them and then defend them, if that's too much for you then use an island. This is a HARDCORE game, you don't actually believe the devs will change a core concept of the game because it's too hard on people do you?


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.
  • Karma wrote:


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.


    Ok but what about options 2 and 3? This game is PVP ORIENTED, yes they have added other things for people to do but the fact remains that the core of the game revolves around the fight for territories. You're trying to cripple that entire concept because it's too hard for you.....
  • marksteele wrote:

    Karma wrote:


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.


    Ok but what about options 2 and 3? This game is PVP ORIENTED, yes they have added other things for people to do but the fact remains that the core of the game revolves around the fight for territories. You're trying to cripple that entire concept because it's too hard for you.....


    The problem in either case is if you don't come up with a system that accommodates both large guilds and small guilds of differing play styles and commitment levels, you won't have a game, you will have an empty, barren wasteland of twitch streaming tryhards wandering aimlessly trying to find each other, because everyone else will have left.

    You have to do what is the MOST fun and MOST fair for the MOST people.

    A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule.
  • Kimsemus wrote:

    marksteele wrote:

    Karma wrote:


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.


    Ok but what about options 2 and 3? This game is PVP ORIENTED, yes they have added other things for people to do but the fact remains that the core of the game revolves around the fight for territories. You're trying to cripple that entire concept because it's too hard for you.....


    The problem in either case is if you don't come up with a system that accommodates both large guilds and small guilds of differing play styles and commitment levels, you won't have a game, you will have an empty, barren wasteland of twitch streaming tryhards wandering aimlessly trying to find each other, because everyone else will have left.

    You have to do what is the MOST fun and MOST fair for the MOST people.


    Except that's impossible. The very nature of this game means that larger guilds will have an advantage. What you suggest will simply make the hardcore PvPers leave and at the end of it all you will still loose the territory it just takes 3 days rather than 1 and a half.
  • marksteele wrote:

    Kimsemus wrote:

    marksteele wrote:

    Karma wrote:


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.


    Ok but what about options 2 and 3? This game is PVP ORIENTED, yes they have added other things for people to do but the fact remains that the core of the game revolves around the fight for territories. You're trying to cripple that entire concept because it's too hard for you.....


    The problem in either case is if you don't come up with a system that accommodates both large guilds and small guilds of differing play styles and commitment levels, you won't have a game, you will have an empty, barren wasteland of twitch streaming tryhards wandering aimlessly trying to find each other, because everyone else will have left.

    You have to do what is the MOST fun and MOST fair for the MOST people.


    Except that's impossible. The very nature of this game means that larger guilds will have an advantage. What you suggest will simply make the hardcore PvPers leave and at the end of it all you will still loose the territory it just takes 3 days rather than 1 and a half.


    Respectfully, most of the hardcore PVPers will just join guilds capable of providing their content.

    Also you need to think in terms of revenue -- does the game survive because 50 people leave, or 5000?

    A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule.
  • marksteele wrote:

    Karma wrote:


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.


    Ok but what about options 2 and 3? This game is PVP ORIENTED, yes they have added other things for people to do but the fact remains that the core of the game revolves around the fight for territories. You're trying to cripple that entire concept because it's too hard for you.....


    Small guilds and big guilds should have different goals, priorities, and war plans.
    As it is right now big, small, yellow, red, it doesn't matter. It's all the same story. Funnel all resources to your unemployed 5v5 team. The more members you have to funnel and specialize, the better geared they are.
    It's a silly system that only allows a select few to actually contribute to combat.
  • Kimsemus wrote:

    marksteele wrote:

    Karma wrote:


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.


    Ok but what about options 2 and 3? This game is PVP ORIENTED, yes they have added other things for people to do but the fact remains that the core of the game revolves around the fight for territories. You're trying to cripple that entire concept because it's too hard for you.....


    The problem in either case is if you don't come up with a system that accommodates both large guilds and small guilds of differing play styles and commitment levels, you won't have a game, you will have an empty, barren wasteland of twitch streaming tryhards wandering aimlessly trying to find each other, because everyone else will have left.

    You have to do what is the MOST fun and MOST fair for the MOST people.


    Your pretty much nailed.

    People forget one simple thing: This is a game and we want to have fun not a second job.
  • Kimsemus wrote:

    marksteele wrote:

    Kimsemus wrote:

    marksteele wrote:

    Karma wrote:


    This is not viable.

    Redzones don´t have silver cost so the gap between having a place there and in others zone is HUGE.


    Ok but what about options 2 and 3? This game is PVP ORIENTED, yes they have added other things for people to do but the fact remains that the core of the game revolves around the fight for territories. You're trying to cripple that entire concept because it's too hard for you.....


    The problem in either case is if you don't come up with a system that accommodates both large guilds and small guilds of differing play styles and commitment levels, you won't have a game, you will have an empty, barren wasteland of twitch streaming tryhards wandering aimlessly trying to find each other, because everyone else will have left.

    You have to do what is the MOST fun and MOST fair for the MOST people.


    Except that's impossible. The very nature of this game means that larger guilds will have an advantage. What you suggest will simply make the hardcore PvPers leave and at the end of it all you will still loose the territory it just takes 3 days rather than 1 and a half.


    Respectfully, most of the hardcore PVPers will just join guilds capable of providing their content.

    Also you need to think in terms of revenue -- does the game survive because 50 people leave, or 5000?


    this game caters to the hardcore audience. I think you will find they are in the majority here unlike in other games

    Suzera wrote:

    I'm sure you can figure out a way to attack people if there's a 24 hour delay.

    I'd much rather break up the pyramid scheme structure of the game by making it easier for smaller guilds to survive.


    but that doesn't make it easier to survive it just means that rather than focusing on taking one territory in one and a half days, bigger guilds will launch 2 attacks at the same time and take 2 territories in 3 days.

    Swordlord wrote:

    Small guilds and big guilds should have different goals, priorities, and war plans.
    As it is right now big, small, yellow, red, it doesn't matter. It's all the same story. Funnel all resources to your unemployed 5v5 team. The more members you have to funnel and specialize, the better geared they are.
    It's a silly system that only allows a select few to actually contribute to combat.


    Again THAT'S THE ENTIRE CORE CONCEPT OF THIS GAME! It revolves around the 5 man GvG fights for territory, what else is there to progress for? What you object to is literally the entire end-game of alibon.

    (also what's with this 2 minute posting cooldown time ><)