Other > General Game Discussion

TC in the next session

<< < (11/35) > >>

SEGA_RUS:
i think this session is most balanced
we know how in BH kill ALL militia by 2 players
timer is necessary to protect the city from other gang, at least for try in this
about adding mercs\slaves - it's most expensive but very effective method to weed good militia from bad
about TC some towns in certain time - usa and russia is big country with big amount of timezones instead france(for example)
about TC with 8 militia - it's a chanсe for 3 people to take a town(with speacher of course)

maszrum:

--- Quote ---Now I'll post a bit different approach to TC, similar to what was in 2nd session but improved.

1. Remove TC timer.
2. A faction can take the town anytime (gear/number check applies), but the control is changed to "None" after they leave the town. For example: 6 people needed to capture the town, but if at any given time there will be less than 2 of them present in the town, the control is lost. The check for faction members could happen each minute, not a big deal I guess;
3. When there is no controlling faction, the militia acts like typical NPCs in the town (hostile only if attacked). Militia doesn't attack the team that wants to capture the town.
4. The reward is given more frequently (let's say, 15 or 30 minutes) but only when the town is controlled by a faction.
5. Remove TC zones. So, if some gang would be smart enough to capture the town and hide in a small room while waiting for the reward, you could come with your team and take the town back from them.

--- End quote ---

we still have beta testing phease and its seems not that hard to implement and nobody proposed anything better.. so why not?

i dont really like the "no timer idea" for two resons - attackers will have huge advantage and most of the gangs are not that active to refreshing pipboy all day long. some of players are in game some others doing their shit, when timer starting eveyrone is loging into the game. will be nice to have some notification, maybe even by radio (local scouts ;)


another probem is reward. every gang is risking loss of equipment, so i sugest some small refund if gang succesed. i realize some players dont like the magical tcbox and stuff apearing form the sky but comeon its a comouter game ;) that need to be funny and worth of risk.

maybe such model?
- growing number of caps in every city
- growing number of random ammo, depends of city [klamath - tier1, BH for tier3 for example]
- growing number of drugs, depends of city
- random item/s - i would like to see even a gauss pistol, but chances to get that pistol shoul be very small.


about timer. nobody like waits, especaily large gangs
5 players = 10minutes
with each additional player time decreases for example -30sec. smallest possible value - 5minutes

dskpnk:

--- Quote from: maszrum on October 07, 2011, 11:16:39 AM ---another probem is reward. every gang is risking loss of equipment, so i sugest some small refund if gang succesed. i realize some players dont like the magical tcbox and stuff apearing form the sky but comeon its a comouter game ;) that need to be funny and worth of risk.

maybe such model?
- growing number of caps in every city
- growing number of random ammo, depends of city [klamath - tier1, BH for tier3 for example]
- growing number of drugs, depends of city
- random item/s - i would like to see even a gauss pistol, but chances to get that pistol shoul be very small.

--- End quote ---

Yes we need to see more "rare" stuff ! Bored to use sniper/avenger/lsw/rocket for 2 years !

T-888:

--- Quote from: Kilgore on October 07, 2011, 08:15:19 AM ---You are wasting time trying to explain simple things to some random pawn of a swarm. Totally pointless, whatever you say he keeps answering "this is not a strong argument for me", while he doesn't supply this thread with anything useful.

For me, swarm battles (or "large group battles" (c) T-888 hehe) are shitty because they happen not very frequently and there is too much of waiting involved: gathering people, planning, regrouping just for few minutes of fight (there were rarely battles that lasted more than several minutes). Small team pvp is always better because there is more action and it doesn't get boring after a couple of days.

Remember that whatever changes are made to TC, swarms will always have better chances (and it's logical), but there is absolutely no reason to support them any further (by making time windows, for example).

--- End quote ---

So you think i should just blindly believe in your knowledge of the game if you don't actually tell me something that will change my mind ? It's a simple principle you don't understand :)

Small scale pvp has more action ? I think you forgot. See pic below.


--- Quote from: Nice_Boat on October 07, 2011, 01:17:45 AM ---The truth, however, is that you don't know brahmin shit about how good and tactical this game can get and prefer to keep your simplistic swarm crap in it despite the fact that the game obviously can't accomodate this number of people fighting on a single map.
Here, maneuver this:

--- End quote ---

Okay btw it's only killing militia but it takes some tactic to do it , especially when the town is guarded by enemy forces you think it's so simple always right ? You forget about some things like mercs spawning , reentering in a different town part to flank the enemy , splitting your team and then attacking , scouting , formations , much of that just doesn't exist in small scale pvp.



I guess you haven't been in reno in a while witch is like the only place to get small scale pvp and that is just simple fast skirmishes , that usually ends much more faster than big battles or most of the battle few survivers of both team's are buthuging a wall to wait for reinforcements that actually happens quite a lot in big battles , nothing more your trying to convince me of something that actually doesn't exist , you may theory craft the shit you want if it doesn't really happen in game.

You are talking to me because you have ignored much of what i have said.


--- Quote from: Nice_Boat on October 07, 2011, 01:17:45 AM ---... and there are two spheres this large on a single map. And the maps are often flat, without a lot of terrain to break the LOS. And you can't coordinate a lot of people as well as you could coordinate a few people, so the spheres are sluggish and are mostly incapable of complicated and/or immediate movement. And the movement is restricted because don't stand near grids lol. So you basically end up with boring, repetitive crap that's determined by who scores better hits and who brings more people to the party unless someone does something brilliant and the remaining 19 people don't mess it up, which happens like 2 times out of 50. If you compare it with how demanding and dynamic small scale combat is... there really is no comparison.

--- End quote ---

Why do you pull out scenarios ? We were actually talking in general didn't you notice that ?

And you can't coordinate a lot of people as well as you could coordinate a few people

We were talking about actual skill required and i told you that you can coordinate 20 as good as 5 people , that's why it is much much harder and takes skill but ofcourse you ignored that , so i will ignore your thoughts too :)

Man if you would actually read and answer me not only start talking about a different point of view of the same shit. Can you stop over exaggerating the complexity of small scale pvp , it's simple skirmishes omg.

Now i'm starting to talk in circles , it means you don't listen to me , pointless to discuss anything with you.

Black Key:
I agree with the general approach of Killgore.

I am for a week without TC like Killgore, Sakin and others.

Otherwise, this is my approach that would, i think promote the RP without killing the TC, help those who wanna make something in the city after the TC time (I agree with Xaern among others) and those who are a little bit fan of diplomacy.

Timezone:
I am against it because it removes all suspense and it allows those who took control of the city from being present only for short periods during which they know they will be attacked. I'm also against it because we will also have to choose times zones during wich there will be more players online and those time zones are also the time that prefer those who would like to do some RP. And systematically, there will be battles...

Timer:
Dont suppress it but...
- I joined Berko on the idea of ​​adding weapons. Is a 223 pistol more impressive than a rocket launcher?
- If the sheriff is not impressed by the players who want to take control of the town, he attacks with the militia the players trying to take control of the town.

Keeping control of the town:
- I agree with the fact that a minimum number of players should be presents in the city during a minimum of time and daily to keep the control.
Advantages:
- The maximum number of town which could be controlled by a team would be directly dependent of the number of players in that team
- It would encourage teams to recruit players
- It would avoids the empty cities (I take control of the city, I forget it, but I empty the chest). It is not normal that a player who starts the game and goes in a city never meet a player from the team that controls it).

Militia. General idea: you want a good militia ? There's a price and you've got to protect/help it
- The militia uses the stuff put in the chest by the team that control the city
- The militia is paid with the caps present in the chest
- When a militien is killed, it can be looted
- The longer a militian remains alive, the longer he fights without dying, the more experienced he is but the more expensive he is. His incomes are growing with him.
- If there is no caps in the chest when it's time to pay the militia, the militia resigns
Advantages
- The type of militia that spawns depends on what's in the chest (you want a gauss militian ?)
Other:
- I like the idea of Berko for the functions of the militia (attack the thieves, warn the victim, draw weapon and radio warning of the players having the control of the city)

Awards. General idea: the more the city is prosperous and secure, the more the team controling it receives gifts
The incomes and the number of volunteers for the militia could depend of:
- The time spend in the city by players of the team having the control
- The number of NPCs killed (bankers, doctors, sheriff, children, etc.).
- The number of players killed in the city
- The amount of purchases and sales with the NPC merchants
- The number of interactions with the characters involve in quests
Others:
- GMs could provide additional rewards if the team controlling the city organizes events in the city to attract people (melee fightings, public auctions, etc.)
- Contents of boxes suitable for cities and quantity depending on what is happening. Example: Redding / BH, high quality minerals/irons but the number depends on the number of deaths in the mine. If the mine is unsafe, the NPCs do not exploit it (or less) and there is nothing (less) in the chest. It will encourage those who control the city to protect the mine.

General effects on TC and on the game:
- If one team takes the control and leaves, quickly, there is no more money in the chest, no more militia, and those who wish to take the control of the city and wish to do something in it will do it easily. It joins the idea of ​​RavenousRat.
- If the players are still in the city after taking the control of it, but kill everyone, same result.
- Players who are involved in diplomacy and get a peace treaty for their city will be rewarded

Other ideas:
- If the city incomes go below a certain level (lack of activity, too many deaths, etc.) for several days, the people could rebell and attack the team controlling the city and the team could lose the control (status none or a new rebel status). The next team who will try to take control of the city could have a bonus.
- The longer a team is controlling a city, the more the NPC and the militia are loyal, and the more difficult it is to take control of the town.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page