Jump to content

"The PvP Update"


Recommended Posts

I see it as a role play of sorts.

 

You log in and have stuff. Everything you have is fair game; why should there be a special block that makes your stuff not fair game? Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

You log off, it's as if you "wandered far enough away so you can't get killed", but if you didn't take your stuff with you, too bad for you. It's still fair game. Don't want someone to destroy your base and take your stuff? Stay logged in. Can't because you have a kid/job/life/whatever? Then maybe PvP isn't for you. Why should other players have to suffer? Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

If you have a lot of time invested into a PvP server then you already don't have to worry about this happening to you, so why bother catering to the casual players? <--- This is not an insult, it is a comparison of effort put in by people who are on a lot and people who are not.

 

...they don't have a lot of time invested into the server, so they shouldn't reap the rewards of having had a lot of time invested, i.e. block protection.

 

If you /really/ want to make it so that players can keep their stuff safe, then just increase the backpack size so they can log out with their stuff and be done with it.

 

LCB's are used as punishment far too often as it is, they don't need to be in a game that really IS "Survival of the fittest". Gotta disagree with ya on that one big R.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

AND AS ALWAYS, the most important thing is to find the right server for you.

 

Quoted for the win.

 

And yes, i am special Guppy =p

 

but back on topic, the last point Guppy made is THE MOST IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dont want drop all? dont play on those servers

Want invulnerable claims? play on THOSE servers

Want fast levelling and 200% loot? play on those servers

Want fast great quality everything with no grind? play on servers with those mods

 

I mean no-one MAKES these ********* play on servers they dont like, there are THOUSANDS of servers out there, PICK ONE YOU LIKE!

 

And if, by some miracle (i dont think this is possible) you cant find what you like then start one yourself if your 'specialness' is SOOO important to you.

 

Putting aside some sensible game balance items a few experienced and knowledgeable players have mentioned there are zero reasons to make a PVP game mode, my god what a waste of dev effort, just senseless. Just give options in server creation (expand on those already there) and nothing else at all is needed

Link to post
Share on other sites
PvP should be Dead is Dead, and Drop All, to make it fair, otherwise it's dumb.

 

Even the level 200 purple guy will think twice before challenging a level 1 bow guy, if the bow guy actually has a chance to totally wreck his world; he would be dumb otherwise.

 

This should be a server setting. There are a whole lot of people turned off by permadeath, especially so if there is a lot of build-up work to get minimally secure. If I have to start completely over, build a new base, level up my skills/perks, etc. every time I die then... yeah, no thanks.

 

This isn't supposed to be a WoW battleground. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted by Roland View Post

What about a single claim block that is indestructible but needs nodes to extend its claim zone and the nodes are destructible? Then you could have different nodes that add different abilities. It would be like adding perks to your base and allow for more customization and also provide the infiltration feeling of removing layers of protection.

 

 

No no no no no!

 

Invulnerable claims should be a CHOICE, available to servers owners when they set up their server, NOT a fixed demand. If you make invulnerable areas you kill raiding dead, immediately. If ANYONE can tell me why server owners having a CHOICE of protection strengths based on how they want their server to be (just like it is today..........) is a BAD thing then i would really, truly like to hear your logic because I dont think you can make the case against the choice option.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

This should be a server setting. There are a whole lot of people turned off by permadeath, especially so if there is a lot of build-up work to get minimally secure. If I have to start completely over, build a new base, level up my skills/perks, etc. every time I die then... yeah, no thanks.

 

This isn't supposed to be a WoW battleground. :p

 

All these things should be server settings, let the players play how they WANT to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That has a whole lot of potential. Maybe make it so that the inner one is only indestructible so long as it is surrounded by other claim blocks? Once you've breached the outer perimeter you can take on the central area. Have the distance from the central claim block be the factor that determines the multiplier that that claim block gives to things built around it. The farther you build from center the weaker your defenses.

 

From a claimed area perspective this is the same as having multiple land claim blocks. If you want to add protection rulesets attributable to the "nodes" of a central claim, then you can achieve the same thing with just creating different types of land claim blocks. The game and server coding required to support unique attributes is very similar. If you wish you could then set an ownership limit on the server for each type of LCB to each player profile to achieve the same ends. Personally, I would not play on a server that had such limits though.

 

I feel like I understand where you are heading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like a system similar to the central core used for Empyrion's bases. Something that behaves as a central processor that controls claim size/strength etc. That thing is really neat because you can control power usage/toggle individual defenses on/off etc.

 

At the end of the day, you can change the way the claims work. But I don't see how you can ever create a system with an interface as dynamic as just letting the players plunk down the block wherever they need to in order to protect their creations or protect important resources (stores/mines/forests etc).

 

I don't see a problem with the current system at all save for the fact players can spam out a ton of claims once they get steel because the recipe is too cheap. If you just change the recipe to require 500 concrete mix, 50 steel, and 1 diamond/gold/or silver nugget, then spamming will be drastically reduced (with respect to the time investment and rarity built into the current game's loot tables). I understand that exacerbates the pain when a newbie loses their starter block. It also makes them a somewhat higher value target for mid range players. But are we designing the game around the first 7 hours of gameplay or something more for the long haul?

 

If we are trying to build a system that promotes PVP for an update, then making new players have something of value right from the start would actually be desirable. It gives players a reason to seek out other players to fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted by Roland View Post

What about a single claim block that is indestructible but needs nodes to extend its claim zone and the nodes are destructible? Then you could have different nodes that add different abilities. It would be like adding perks to your base and allow for more customization and also provide the infiltration feeling of removing layers of protection.

 

 

No no no no no!

 

Invulnerable claims should be a CHOICE, available to servers owners when they set up their server, NOT a fixed demand. If you make invulnerable areas you kill raiding dead, immediately. If ANYONE can tell me why server owners having a CHOICE of protection strengths based on how they want their server to be (just like it is today..........) is a BAD thing then i would really, truly like to hear your logic because I dont think you can make the case against the choice option.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

 

All these things should be server settings, let the players play how they WANT to.

 

You should always read any of my ideas as being options available to server owners. I am against a fixed ruleset that everyone must follow just as you are.

 

Also, it seems that people are taking "indestructible claimblock" to mean "indestructible base" and that is not what I mean. I think a claim block should be dynamic as others have mentioned so that it allows the infiltration of a base and stealing any loot found but not the complete destruction of a base.

 

Building an elaborate base only to have it razed to a crater is way different than building an elaborate base and a team of guys find a weakness and use it to get in and raid me. The former is what I would consider griefing unless the point of the server was to completely destroy bases and that was posted as the server rules so people would know. Everything that Poojam and Bloom have written about the fun of infiltrating and the fun of creatively designing unassailable bases can be accomplished without completely destroying someone's base. Am I wrong in my assumption that you two fellows like to raid but do not completely destroy and level bases that you raid? What would be the purpose of completely undoing someone's efforts in that way? How does such a brutal penalty promote PvP?

 

I'm not talking about using landclaim blocks to keep bases and loot 100% safe when I'm offline. I'm talking about a system whereby someone can't grief me by wreaking complete destruction while I'm offline. The indestructible landclaim couldn't be removed or destroyed and after a certain number of blocks had been broken in the landclaim area then it would make the rest 100% indestructible. That way people can raid but not grief.

 

Base building is a big investment just like character progression. Completely destroying a base would be like someone having the option to reset all your skills, wellness, and progression back to zero when they killed you. Losing that much investment might be okay for some but I'm willing to bet that for many typical players signing on to see all their work erased whether it be base or character stats would be too demoralizing to continue.

 

The nice thing about the indestructible claim block is you could set it to be zero so that infiltration doesn't take hours. Bases would be completely unprotected until that last block was destroyed and then the protection would go to 100% instantly and no more destruction on that base would be possible for a period of time.

 

Let me emphasize that these suggestions are meant as possible options that could be set server to server.

Edited by Roland (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see a problem with the current system at all save for the fact players can spam out a ton of claims once they get steel because the recipe is too cheap. If you just change the recipe to require 500 concrete mix, 50 steel, and 1 diamond/gold/or silver nugget, then spamming will be drastically reduced (with respect to the time investment and rarity built into the current game's loot tables). I understand that exacerbates the pain when a newbie loses their starter block. It also makes them a somewhat higher value target for mid range players. But are we designing the game around the first 7 hours of gameplay or something more for the long haul?

 

If we are trying to build a system that promotes PVP for an update, then making new players have something of value right from the start would actually be desirable. It gives players a reason to seek out other players to fight.

 

Make it so there is one ingredient that you have to buy from a trader in order make a LCB, even if the item itself is cheap, and make it so that you can only buy one per day. Also have the newbie version expire within some period of time (24 hours/3 game days/whatever, for instance). That way farming newbies will not give you infinite LCB while the newbie will still get one that is useful to them until they get a real one. It also makes it a lot harder for someone with a second account to cheat the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not talking about using landclaim blocks to keep bases and loot 100% safe when I'm offline. I'm talking about a system whereby someone can't grief me by wreaking complete destruction while I'm offline. The indestructible landclaim couldn't be removed or destroyed and after a certain number of blocks had been broken in the landclaim area then it would make the rest 100% indestructible. That way people can raid but not grief.

 

What if the LCB made the blocks extremely hard to destroy (as-in not likely worth someone's time) but not "things". So people could strip your fort of furniture, pictures, chests, doors, spikes, that sort of thing but not completely destroy walls, floors, the ground beneath, etc. You get to keep your building but they can loot the hell out of it. This would probably require some serious edits to blocks.xml to pull off, though.

 

However, without that distinction people can still grief by digging under a base and letting gravity do the work (unless you build directly on bedrock).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta disagree with ya on that one big R.

 

Not hugely disagreeing with me because I actually agree with the sentiment that rl considerations should not be factored in to how the game is designed. I don't want people who are offline to be 100% safe from raids any more than you do.

 

I do want griefing controllable.

 

A claimblock that is itself indestructible and can't be stolen that offers zero protection until say...20 blocks (configurable by server) are destroyed within the claim area and then when so triggered switches to 100% protection for everything in the claim area for 12 hours real time does not seem like it would stifle base raiding in the least. It would stop someone from completely destroying a base at least for 12 hours when they could then return and destroy 20 more blocks.

 

What would be the logic against such a claimblock being available to servers that want to use it? I can turn around the same logic all the anti-claimblock people are using: Don't like such a claimblock? Then go find a different server that doesn't use it.

 

Having additional destructible claimblocks could be cool because they could do different things:

 

+10% damage for traps

one-hit demolition of blocks in zone

increased SI in zone

extended protection zone beyond the central block

+1 healing/second within zone

faster crafting time within zone

etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly don't get why getting your base destroyed isn't an expectation. Does it suck? Sure, probably... But it's one of the few things that separate 7days from a normal fps.

 

This is where I have to disagree with you big G :)

 

I think there are quite a lot of gamers who don't expect their base getting completely leveled as a standard of PvP. Raided? sure. Killed and robbed? Absolutely.

 

But once again, if you had the expectation of your base being destroyed completely and your brand of fun is to completely decimate someone else's base then you could search for a server that promoted that. You just posted that finding a server right for you is the most important thing to remember.

 

So really you can't be against a landclaim block as an option for servers to use if you could always find a server that didn't use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My logic against making it available is the pimps making it the ONLY option available.

 

I like options.

 

Since when have they done that? Are landclaims mandatory now? Can't they be removed if the server owner wants them removed? Can't their damage modifier be adjusted? I don't think anyone is calling for a change to this policy of optional claim blocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, not against options.

 

I am against MM constantly talking about their vision of how the game should be played, so my concern is fewer options.

 

...but this thread has been focusing on the wrong stuff from post 1.

 

The real issues that need to be solved are the ease in which one can hack, and the general cludgliness of the controls.

 

Not to mention lack of 1 block crouch and lean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where I have to disagree with you big G :)

 

I think there are quite a lot of gamers who don't expect their base getting completely leveled as a standard of PvP. Raided? sure. Killed and robbed? Absolutely.

 

But once again, if you had the expectation of your base being destroyed completely and your brand of fun is to completely decimate someone else's base then you could search for a server that promoted that. You just posted that finding a server right for you is the most important thing to remember.

 

So really you can't be against a landclaim block as an option for servers to use if you could always find a server that didn't use them.

 

Firstly I will answer your earlier question as to whether I level bases routinely. The answer would be a definate no except where the base is built really close to me, say within sniping distance or, and more commonly, where there is a grudge/rivalry/bad blood. I have to say that when there IS a grudge or bad blood it makes the whole thing very satisfying to destroy their base.

 

Secondly lets talk about the practicality of griefing a base. You see the likelihood of your base getting destroyed is inversely proportional to the effort you put into it and this is key as you have repeatedly said things along the lines of ''all their hard work / effort is wasted''. Now if you spent an evening build a smallish wood base then its going to be pretty easy (if you have late game tools) to take that base out BUT all the players I know would not do that because we dont want to run people off the server who are noobs, sure we will steal their stuff but very likely leave their base intact. If we DO destroy that little wooden base then the owner didnt lose much effort anyway.

 

Now if you want to destroy a large to very large concrete and steel base it would, i agree, be a huge loss of time for the owner but here is where you are showing your lack of knowledge (and i mean this respectfully), because anyone thats built a 30k-100k concrete block fortress will have multiple claims hidden all over the place AND probably connected it to bedrock so the effort to take out that base is simply beyond the means of any player, I mean some of these bases would take RL weeks to take down and therefore they do NOT get griefed, which when you think about your point on people losing their hard work is, I would say, working as intended.

 

TLDR

 

Small low tech bases that take no effort to build can be taken out and the builder loses very little

large end game tech bases take huge effort to build and are virtually ungriefable

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where I have to disagree with you big G :)

 

I think there are quite a lot of gamers who don't expect their base getting completely leveled as a standard of PvP. Raided? sure. Killed and robbed? Absolutely.

 

But once again, if you had the expectation of your base being destroyed completely and your brand of fun is to completely decimate someone else's base then you could search for a server that promoted that. You just posted that finding a server right for you is the most important thing to remember.

 

So really you can't be against a landclaim block as an option for servers to use if you could always find a server that didn't use them.

 

One thing that pvpers learn is that hiding is your best weapon for security. Once your base is discovered, your safe days are numbered. You better have good defenses or backups in place.

 

Most players do not even try to rebuild a base that got raided. You have lost the battle and that location is now very insecure. It might as well be a hole in the ground.

 

I usually reserve the act of actually making it a smoking hole in the ground for players that deserve it. Because it usually means a big time investment to remove all their claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that pvpers learn is that hiding is your best weapon for security. Once your base is discovered, your safe days are numbered. You better have good defenses or backups in place.

 

Most players do not even try to rebuild a base that got raided. You have lost the battle and that location is now very insecure. It might as well be a hole in the ground.

 

I usually reserve the act of actually making it a smoking hole in the ground for players that deserve it. Because it usually means a big time investment to remove all their claims.

 

One of the most important things a PvP player can learn is that there's no such thing as a "hidden" base. If you're building underground it might take a bit longer before someone discovers you, but with the seeing underground glitch nothing is safe. Experienced raiders can tell when there's a player operating in the area just by the number of loot containers that are opened, trees that are planted, clay that is mined.... From there it's just a few strategically placed nerd holes and the base is revealed.

 

If you are building underground it might give you a little bit of breathing room to get started, but that's it. Build underground just as if you are building above ground. Protect from all sides, bottom and top. If you don't you will be sorry. Too many people build their base like they're defending against AI, they have a long concrete tunnel with steel doors and they expect someone to come through the front door. Meanwhile there's only one or two walls protecting the loot room from the side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A claimblock that is itself indestructible and can't be stolen that offers zero protection until say...20 blocks (configurable by server) are destroyed within the claim area and then when so triggered switches to 100% protection for everything in the claim area for 12 hours real time does not seem like it would stifle base raiding in the least. It would stop someone from completely destroying a base at least for 12 hours when they could then return and destroy 20 more blocks.

 

I see problems with that approach since it would do nothing to protect smaller bases, and abruptly make bases past a certain size effectively invulnerable. A claim block that gradually increases protection, without ever giving full invulnerability, would be better. Also if the claim protection is based on number of "blocks" destroyed, then people will throw up huge wooden structures quickly that can't be breached. The protection should be based off total block damage, otherwise it makes all those high tier blocks obsolete.

 

Even if the claim protection increased linearly (every 3000 damage for example), it would give the desired effect without needing full invulnerability. After the first 3k damage the claim multiplier goes from x1 to x2, then x3.... at x64 it's still "technically" possible to raid but boy you better have a lot of time on your hands. Once protection is high enough that every hit with any weapon is doing 1 damage, that ought to be invulnerable enough for anyone. Having complete and sudden invulnerability will also lead to situations where people get themselves stuck in someone else's base with no means of tunneling back out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...but here is where you are showing your lack of knowledge (and i mean this respectfully)...

 

Thanks for the education. :)

 

You're right that I hadn't considered those points. I still think that for some servers and some players whose temperaments are not inclined to lead them to a "I learned something valuable and my next base will be better" moment and will instead lead them to a game uninstall action--having something to protect their base could be useful. And lets face it, there ARE some people who look at one evening's work on a base as a big deal and there are others who don't care about preserving the noobs on the server and all they live for is utter destruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The PvP Update"

 

 

...but this thread has been focusing on the wrong stuff from post 1.

 

The real issues that need to be solved are the ease in which one can hack, and the general cludgliness of the controls.

 

Not to mention lack of 1 block crouch and lean.

 

Oh yeh; get rid of bedroll respawnimg too. And fix the underground glitch and Minibikes-push-you-forward-when-dismounting glitch.

 

Glitches first, feature set later.

 

^^With all due respect man, you're replying in the wrong thread the "real issues" and "fix the glitches" thread is that way >>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the education. :)

 

You're right that I hadn't considered those points. I still think that for some servers and some players whose temperaments are not inclined to lead them to a "I learned something valuable and my next base will be better" moment and will instead lead them to a game uninstall action--having something to protect their base could be useful. And lets face it, there ARE some people who look at one evening's work on a base as a big deal and there are others who don't care about preserving the noobs on the server and all they live for is utter destruction.

 

Roland,

 

When I comment on something i always try and go from the perspective of the vanilla game. Sure, i recognise and have played all the mods and various extremes of server configs but when i comment on game balance issues I generally stick to that vanilla perspective because I know that TFP use that as their yardstick. I say this because whilst I agree that players can also act in ways that are at extreme ends of the spectrum I base my comments on the 'average' PVP players, with whom I have had thousands of interactions, raids, vendettas, discussions and good times. Its from the perspective of the median that you should balance both the gameplay and the players requirements, its pointless to point out exceptions and try to utilise them to prove or disprove a point because they are by definition, exceptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The PvP Update"

 

 

 

 

 

^^With all due respect man, you're replying in the wrong thread the "real issues" and "fix the glitches" thread is that way >>

 

It happens to me a lot. :)

 

I'd call it mad genius but I think it's actually functional retardation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...