Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 56
Results 76 to 89 of 89
  1. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weeed View Post
    Make it so if a clan wins a siege the holding can't change hands or be sieged again for so many days a week maybe except by the clan that lost it.

    and no one but members of the clan that took it can bind there for that time period.
    Let's think before we speak shall we. Does that sound even remotely fun to you?

    www.DarkfallCE.webs.com
    The Champion of Regional Banking
    Quote Originally Posted by rbeck View Post
    Clap clap, Zaffax for president. The DF:UW that Zaffax is talking about is the one that I want to play.

  2. #77
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Sod all this complex crap, keep it simple with holdings.

    Make every holding go vulnerable on certain days, so for example on a monday, the considered lower tier holdings go vulnerable and as the week progress's the better holdings become vulnerable, with a weekend climax of the best holdings in the game going vulnerable in an epic battle between clans.

    Fun for bloody everyone, with even the little guys getting the chance of capturing a decent holding and keeping it for atleast a week.

  3. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Dali View Post
    Sod all this complex crap, keep it simple with holdings.

    Make every holding go vulnerable on certain days, so for example on a monday, the considered lower tier holdings go vulnerable and as the week progress's the better holdings become vulnerable, with a weekend climax of the best holdings in the game going vulnerable in an epic battle between clans.

    Fun for bloody everyone, with even the little guys getting the chance of capturing a decent holding and keeping it for atleast a week.
    OMG I love it!!

  4. #79
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Well said, lets just make it happend, be on time...and for god sake please let us know how long the servers will be down this time so the losers dont sit there clicking refresh for 24 hours straight!!
    Balin G
    If you can't hang with the big dogs, don't get off the porch.

  5. #80
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5

    Default

    What I don't understand is: if this is supposed to be the most hardcore open PvP environment then why are there limitations on holdings? Allow for upgradable NPC guards and defenses and unlock all the restraints on holdings. Holdings need to be guarded 24/7 and the only way to do that is NPC's. Even at Darkfall's highest population a city can barely repel a well organized raid and it really gets boring when there isn't a challenge and a group can go from holding to holding uncontested. In short bolster defenses and unleash the beast.

  6. #81
    Normal User US1 Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Should be whoever wants to try to take it can. Id say "any number" clan can siege and it just wars till someone holds the spot (usually a larger clan.) Put a hour timer on stone for someone else to take it. If not then clan that holds stone gets it.

    Get rid of the dumb 24hr crap to. Anyone can be sieged at anytime by anyone is way it should be... Even a small raiding party should get this option if a hamlet is left without defense for example.

    One last thing, fix clan alliance chat so that only members of certain rank can read what others post. As well as a option to mute. Mute Mute Mute anyone you want (not ignore) just so there is not wasted chatter when working things out or something.

    I wont read whoever dont like my ideas. Ill be out tendin to the farm....

  7. #82
    Normal User CorDox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    900

    Default

    Got to say, that siege screenshot gives me a bad feeling, like I'm looking at some kind of queue for pvp instance screen.
    Darkfall is an open world FFA pvp game, and yet that screen just feels like a different form of instancing.
    Too many timers and rules, not very sandbox like.

    Seems like the wrong direction to go, but I haven't exactly thought of a better solution yet either, probably since I stopped playing and keep on waiting for the "big patch" thats supposed to change things for the better.

    Keep wishing they'd recapture more of what early UO had(course that doesn't include a siege system).
    Going off topic, but to mention a few: I'd say an environment where people actually want to play "good guys" and being a "murderer" was more intense.. No banks for murderers, have to have their own stash location somewhere instead, house keys, stat/skill loss for all. No immortal killer guard towers. Instead improve AI and have actual guards(tough/skilled but mortal).

    Now suppose, if AI were good enough and hire-able(in prestige class flavor?), remove siege timers for everything, including Sea Forts. If you wanted something defended at all times, you hire an AI night shift or something.(granted Sea Forts themselves are basically vending machines that produce goods from thin air, maybe thats flawed as well). Could suggest a ton of other non siege related things as well, but then again I doubt enough people want to see the game change that much(more sandbox! wtf).

    Then again, these are the Darkfall devs, even if everyone agreed they'd never be able to pull it off so I should go away now!

  8. #83
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    237

    Default

    I would also like to see clan resources begin to move away from siege's and villages. It promotes far too much automated resource gathering. And as a result is negatively affecting the economy of Agon. Absent clans are logging 1 character to tap out a mine, in a protected area (guard towers) and gain thousands of resources every day. I think Darkfall would benefit a lot from anything that reduces players macro'ing, and promotes inviduals playing the game.

    I think it is good idea that cities have certain resource advantages over others. But they should be moved outside that city, VERY close by, to promote character movement. I have developed 2 options that would promote gameplay, and improve Darkfall's economy for the better.

    1) Get rid of the Clan Resource Nodes all together, and replace them with small higher yield nodes clustered outside the city in higher amounts then world spawns. This is my favorite option, here is why
    a) You remove clans logging in mining alts, clicking once, and going AFK, resulting in thousands of resources gathered from very little work. Because you would have multiple nodes that required moving between them. This cheapens the Darkfall experience, hands down. I dont see how you wouldn't think this
    b) Promotes city raiding by smaller groups, by being relatively safe from the current bindstone naked harassment from invulnerable players. And gives the raiding players a chance to gain resources from a city, and a chance at usefull and fun PVP.
    c) A fun way to use towers outside of sieging, everybody loves towers.
    d) Gives individual players without a big clan to gain easy rescoures JUST like people who own cities


    2) Move the City Resource Nodes to outside the city walls. What would this do?
    a) It elevates the level of danger by only a small amount. Promoting small raids on big cities still.
    b) Keeps the environment around the city still clean looking, without being clustered by so many resource nodes to replace the large yield by City Resource Nodes.

    3) Change High-yield nodes and City Resource nodes to something more logical. As it stands now you have clans yielding 5ore for each hit. Wheras wilderness nodes only give 1. A clans power lies in numbers to accomplish goals. And so it should always be so. While it makes sense to give them easier access to resources, it doesn't make sense for them to be 500% effective at something opposed to a anybody else in the game. You could make changes to city nodes a couple ways
    a) reduce yield amounts on city nodes
    b) on high yield nodes, you can receive 1yield, but there is a higher total quantity from the node
    c) or receive the same 5yield, but keep the total quantity lower.

    I hope a lot of people like my idea


    These suggestions might seen like a stretch from the topic, but I feel they relate to the overall city/village pvp raid mechanics, a slight walk from city/village siege mechanics.

  9. #84
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SinJinn View Post
    What I don't understand is: if this is supposed to be the most hardcore open PvP environment then why are there limitations on holdings? Allow for upgradable NPC guards and defenses and unlock all the restraints on holdings. Holdings need to be guarded 24/7 and the only way to do that is NPC's. Even at Darkfall's highest population a city can barely repel a well organized raid and it really gets boring when there isn't a challenge and a group can go from holding to holding uncontested. In short bolster defenses and unleash the beast.
    Yes, I really enjoyed when Darkfall first started there were Spy Networks. It added a new element to the game, and it EXTREMELY entertaining to see organized raids get repelled due to intelligence. I feel low siege timers, coupled with NPC guards could work out, and also bring back spy networks, what a great idea.

  10. #85
    8000+
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Florida, U.S.
    Posts
    8,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbidy-boobidy Darkfall blog
    Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?
    I do. I think trial players shouldn't count.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbidy-boobidy Darkfall blog
    In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?
    I think either or should be good enough. Probably make it interesting and make it a combo. Either all the siege stones, or the clanstone. Or, the clanstone and 1 of the siege stones. If you do it that way, you might as well have them destroy all of the stones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbidy-boobidy Darkfall blog
    How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?
    I think the wager should appear in a chest randomly in the world. I also think that instead of wagers being pure gold, the game should put default value for wagers. Like a clan could put up a warhulk for wager, or multiple armor sets + gold + whatever.

    Anyways, for feedback for this.. I think that neither side should get it. I am almost inclined to say that the defenders should get it. I honestly don't care either way with this. The above reasons really aren't the reason the siege system is bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbidy-boobidy Darkfall blog
    What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee)
    That's a pretty good idea. One way to fight the zerg. To make this awesome sauce, there should be no time requirement to use toe attack, so they can use the attack at any time during the siege. Here is the catch though: that free attack option should still be sharing the same timer the active siege timer lays. That way they can drop their siege right when it goes active, and the attackers would have an hour to get to their bindstone to defend it before it went vulnerable.

    my2c from a vet. For the record i unsubbed because i finnally found employment in real life, and have been working with no shoes and shirt, pushing blocks up hill to make pyramids for the Egyptians, etc.


  11. #86
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    55

    Default

    1. Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?



    Taking into mind that this is supposed to be a sandbox game here is how I see it. No, there should not be a minimum number of active players. If 3 people want to attack a city and get slaughtered let them. If they bring allies with them that want to help them get that holding then let them. That is what an alliance is all about, making allies with other clans to increase your numbers. If you are a clan the server hates then the server population will speak for itself and help the opposing attacking or defending clan. Alliances can work both for the offense and defense. Since min/max numbers do not matter, sure let trial members experience all of the siege system.


    2. In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?



    I do like the idea of the shardholder. I think that someone was on the right track with if someone DCs that the shard should drop as a "stone." The stone can be immediately picked up by anyone in the attacking party. The shardholder cannot trade it to anyone. The shardholder must remain within a certain distance of the city to prevent the obvious. Once the attacker is kill/ganked the stone is "dropped" and can no longer be picked up. If at any point the stone is "dropped" by disconnect, log off or kill/ganking it should become attackable by the defenders. If it is destroyed the siege ends. The stone should have a set "health" and does not regenerate and cannot be repaired. If the shardholder leaves the set area around the city the siege ends. I'm sure a warning that he/she is nearing the limit can be given by the system.


    3. How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?



    I feel that there should be no timer what so ever. The fight should rage until someone loses. If not over by server down then it should be considered a successful defense of the city by the defenders as they have prevented the take over of their city. The defenders should retain all wagers and keep the city. I say this because the if the attackers either initiated the siege so close to server down that they didn't give themselves enough time or because they didn't have the tactics or strength to take it down by then that the attackers have failed in their mission to take the city.


    4. What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).



    I feel that all cities should be vulnerable at all times within specific conditions which I will explain below as I further explain some of my ideas.


    Other thoughts on the siege system:



    Win condition for the attackers:



    I think the win condition for the attackers should be to completed destroy the city. Once this is accomplished the clan stone has to be captured via spikes or some other capture mechanic.


    Miscellaneous Ideas:



    How a siege is declared:



    This leads into part of the wardec system but I feel it fits with the sandbox style that this game is supposed to be. A siege cannot be initiated unless War has been declared. Once the declaration is in place it opens up both sides to being besieged by the other. This stays in place until the sides declare a peace treaty or when a siege has be called a draw by server down time as stated earlier. Once War has been declared a siege cannot be initiated for 24 hours by either side so the defenders have time to plan a defense. This would also help defenders plan for server up sieges and "business hours" sieges.


    How a siege is carried out:



    This is how the mechanics of the sieges I feel would be fun and give a little more pride to both the attacker and/or the defender. I think that a hamlet should be bigger than they are now but smaller than a current city. I think that cities should be just that cities and much bigger than they are now. I will explain more on this in the next section.


    That being said the attackers should not be able to enter a city at will as they can now. I feel they must work to get into the city and it should take more than someone with some battle spikes. I think that there should be more "Siege Machines" such as catapults, trebuchets, cannons and other means of getting through the city walls. The attacker must bring the fight with them instead of just being able to just do a glorified jump and be in the city unhindered.


    The cities should also be defended better through their own constructable defenses such as cannons, hot oil and other such defense systems. A city should also have an NPC population that the owners of the city assign to each member of the NPC population. For example: City A has a set population of 30 NPC's. Once the city is captured or built the NPC population is assigned by the city owners to be vendors, repairers, defenders and other such positions.

    During a siege any NPC's assigned as defenders/repairers populate the city and provide defense in the form of attacks which could be assigned to cannons, melee, damage repair and so on and so forth. These NPC's would be upgradable by the city owners. During a siege if a NPC is killed that NPC either has a cooldown to respawn or they become completely unavailable until the siege ends.


    Cities and Hamlets:



    Cities: Cities should be a "Castle" type structure with high and durable walls. They should only be able to sustain minor damage from any battlespike. Battlespikes should only be able to make a player sized hole in the wall and it should take quite a few to do that. During a siege it should take the might of siege devices to actually do any real damage to the walls. The buildings of the city should be upgradable in strength through different materials. Wood buildings could be damaged by battlespikes, Stone buildings would be destroyed with siege devices.


    I also feel cities should be an open space that is customizable(Sp?) when being built up from nothing. No more "this building in this spot and only this building in this spot." The city owners should be able to build the city how they want with the only limit being the walls of the city. This could also be how the NPC population is determined. There could be a set number of spots to build but I don't think you should be controlled in what you can build in those spots. All buildings should be upgradable in both strength of materials and in "level" of support it gives to the city. For example: All buildings start as wood and can be upgraded to stone, and when something is built it starts as a basic vendor, keep, barracks or whatever and then through support upgrades a basic vendor becomes an advanced vendor or workstation. Barracks could be used to boost city NPC population and bindspots.


    Hamlets: Hamlets would be a cross between what a current city is and a current hamlet is. Small walls fewer building spots and possibly some limitations on what can be built in a spot or how it could be upgraded.



    These are just my thoughts and I'm sure there are weaknesses in my ideas somewhere or somehow, which is why I welcome discussion on any of my points if someone wants. I'm tired and going to bed I'll check this in the morning.

  12. #87
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Someone brought up a point about the first question with self sieging to me. The answer goes with the shardholders. Since you can be at war with anyone, anyone with a shardholder can lay siege to a holding. Say someone self-sieges and has a shardholder enter the "siege distance" to a holding and begins self-sieging it. As I said in my previous post he could sit there all day until server down never doing anything.

    Now let's say a second shardholder that has declared war with the clan enters the same holding's siege distance. He then also could begin attacking the holding in an attempt to capture it. If multiple shardholders are in the siege distance the way to win would be the last shardholder standing and meets the other criteria for winning the siege wins the holding. Or it could be based on most damage done through out the siege, most kills in the siege or any combination of these things.

  13. #88
    2000+ Chris Windblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MiDDle EaRth
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    IN the upcoming patch Please deploy with it, this......


    Finally, some of Darkfall’s resources were not loaded asynchronously. A new system is now in place which will fix this and alleviate load lag experienced in various situations.
    Get the latest infodarkfallonline.com/uw/
    If you have account issues, please send an email to noaccount@aventurine.gr - This will create a support ticket directly to help Aventurine track your issue and resolve it.

    Latest Videos

  14. #89
    9000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Windblade View Post
    IN the upcoming patch Please deploy with it, this......


    Finally, some of Darkfall’s resources were not loaded asynchronously. A new system is now in place which will fix this and alleviate load lag experienced in various situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamer gamer View Post
    I grow things for my income so I have lots of free time to play DF.
    Quote Originally Posted by bongloads View Post
    This entire community used to defend Darkfall. It was like a forum full of Tibernicus's. Now, 95% of darkfall vets on forums are completely negative. Something tells me the blame doesn't lie with the community.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •