Other > Suggestions
TC, lets flesh this out.
Lordus:
Dear Solar,
first of all, i want to tell you, that i like that you want change current TC.
I have readed your suggestion and i noticed several ideas you want to implement.
a) You want to replace inactivity of gangs by their activity = scenarios. No more loitering. It is very good aproach, natural outcome of recent players and factions activities (gathering, leveling, crafting, establishing bases, and finaly player's faction scenarios).
b) Scenario system gives a great opportunity to get a life (attract players) to exact locations. Brahmin herders, gecko repairmans, .. . It is a great potential, because you can add another "TC" quests into existing system. Some of them could be more PvE, or supporting (somehow) roleplay element, others could be focused only at hardcore PVP players.
c) What is the meaning of faction controling north city? I mean if they have max influence, if they won city in combat against others, if they are able to force their rules. IMHO i dont think, that majority or most players and factions will benefit from ability to rule the city. Most wants caps, ammo, stuff, opportunity to fight, enjoy some adrenalin (would i repair gecko reactor first i would be killed first), meet randomly some friends (hey!, you are doing this quest too?) or others (hey!, dont ..#@%.) So simply, creating whole TC system, subordinate the whole mechanism to tiny group of players, is bad.
-----> I have readed other's commentary here. Most PvP players are afraid of doing something they dont want to. I understand them (i dont like loitering), but i disagree with them, that north should be only pure PvP, because scenario based "TC" offers a great opportunity for both types fo gangs (PvP only, or small gangs that wants to enjoy some risky tasks in hostile environment). And dont forget Solar, that gang PvP is also activity, you dont need to replace it by another.
My idea: Implement in every "TC" city basic repetable PVP faction quest with beacon. It could be named as s "No man's caravan". Story: In wasteland was caravan, that was attacked by raiders. All men were killed, but brahmin-drawn caravan escaped and continuied to its destiantion without any human (it is natural instinct of domesticated animal). Caravan arrived to city, where sheriff noticed it what happended (blood spots, "oh, it is johnnys caravan, he is dead!"). According to the norh city law, if possesor of property is dead, everyone who claims for the caravan's content will get it. Sheriff will declare claim (server message). If there are more claimers, acording to the wasteland law, stronger wil get it.
So every one hour (half hour?) in every city could exists PvP action created by beacon. You would need a faction of some exact strenght, discutable is kind of investition to this (500 caps?), so players would not activate it and then left.
--
Back to your suggestion Solar. Anyone who fires should then not be protected by the guards, so gangs can defend themselves by returning fire and similar rules are only a great opportunity how to abuse it.
I will even eliminate the milita. Militia is the reason, why you have to create hord, if you want to PvP in city, you simply cannot play 1x1 or 2x2 PvP in cities, where militia is presented, because you dont know if that person is member of city controling gang. Militia was never strong enough to protect loitering of town possesors (= to protect their roleplay) and it was always disbalancing thing when you want to attack equivalent enemy. Why we need militia? To protect final state of Town Control in cities = LOITERING! "Nice".
If anyone wants to protect their !activity! in wasteland, he should do it by own (players, mercs, diplomacy) and when anyone who is controling TC is not active in city, he should not blocade activity of others by militia (you cannot free pvp in city with militia = becuase of random hits of militia or one sniper with bb gun ruining game of others pvp groups.
And last:
I like you want to discuss your suggestions with players. But because of high trolling and ofensive enviroment in this thread, i give you little advice. About faction PvP discuss with PvP factions only. Not with other players, but not even directly with players of PvP factions. Order to all PvP factions which were able to control at least once any town this session, to choose their ONE representative player here and talk with them only.
Best egards,
Lordus.
kttdestroyer:
Rascal, just becouse you dont like to RP doesint mean that other shouldint, right? Becouse you definetly miss the point, RP in south towns? No thanks.
--- Quote from: Lordus on February 11, 2012, 04:59:47 AM --- If anyone wants to protect their !activity! in wasteland, he should do it by own (players, mercs, diplomacy) and when anyone who is controling TC is not active in city, he should not blocade activity of others by militia (you cannot free pvp in city with militia = becuase of random hits of militia or one sniper with bb gun ruining game of others pvp groups.
--- End quote ---
Mostly i disagree with you. I would just like to take opportunity to say more on militia. I wouldint call something for "Strong" if they can be all killed in matter of 30 minutes - 1 hour by 3 players. They are overpowered becouse they are overretarded still. And yes, that is exacly what militia is for, to unable smaller group of players (equal at some specific point of time) to be able to attack larger. It acually makes defending possible at all (or made, now there are some issues i guess).
Lordus:
--- Quote from: kttdestroyer on February 11, 2012, 06:41:03 AM ---Mostly i disagree with you. I would just like to take opportunity to say more on militia. And yes, that is exacly what militia is for, to unable smaller group of players (equal at some specific point of time) to be able to attack larger. It acually makes defending possible at all (or made, now there are some issues i guess).
--- End quote ---
The milita absurdity is in fact, that devs are balancing and scripting, but it is not just worthless work, but it even harms fonline gameplay.
Whole problem of militia is not about it strenght or numbers. It is about its role, efectivity and side effects. I.e.: Role n.1 is to protect city against enemy takeover => partial result (most od small and part of medium gangs are unable to capture city in adequate time), but alliances or huge gang or night players can simply capture it. Result = city cannot be defended, but majority of players are unable to capture city, benefit from its quests, resources or other opportunities because of potential milita marker. Sideweffect = milita block other players activity in that city. Why? Because of noble idea of better defence of city. This is defacto what you said.
I suggested post before, that if players wants to create any activity somewhere, they should actively defense it. Bring mercs, more players, sneak scouts. Make temporary alliance. But at moment, when you leave city and you are inactive, give other players and gangs oportunity to make their own action there. Dont block it by militia.
I suggest divide scenarios into PvP beacons only and resource scenarios. I can imagine even 2 type of PvP scenarios. One for huge fights is that i suggeted post before (Dead man's caravan) with global onscreen beacon, other could be smaller. No onscreen beacon, smaller reward. Players would notice enemy presence only because of some exact location activity (i.e. NPC is texting some message about hostile faction), so only players and gangs who are active in cities can notice it and attack. This could support 2x2, 3x3 fights.
avv:
--- Quote from: Lordus on February 11, 2012, 08:45:14 AM ---Whole problem of militia is not about it strenght or numbers. It is about its role, efectivity and side effects. I.e.: Role n.1 is to protect city against enemy takeover => partial result (most od small and part of medium gangs are unable to capture city in adequate time), but alliances or huge gang or night players can simply capture it. Result = city cannot be defended, but majority of players are unable to capture city, benefit from its quests, resources or other opportunities because of potential milita marker. Sideweffect = milita block other players activity in that city. Why? Because of noble idea of better defence of city. This is defacto what you said.
--- End quote ---
Militia shouldn't pay any role in gang vs gang bussiness. Its role should be simply to provide feeling of safety to people who want to stay inside town, would be used against trolls, thieves and suicidebursters. Those are the main annoyance in safe towns and that's why tc towns are so comfortable to live in: you can set your own rules.
But once a tc gang marches in and starts capturing, the militia should walk away and see who wins. Militia walking away would be reasonably good suggestion for everyone to evacuate the town. While leaving they could speak like "Damn, I'ts getting too hot around here".
kttdestroyer:
--- Quote from: avv on February 11, 2012, 09:59:55 AM ---But once a tc gang marches in and starts capturing, the militia should walk away and see who wins. Militia walking away would be reasonably good suggestion for everyone to evacuate the town. While leaving they could speak like "Damn, I'ts getting too hot around here".
--- End quote ---
This wont work, and i am sure if you remember how WWP was you will know what i am talking about :) Many many times militia was the only thing that saved the town from invaders, becouse attackers have one big advantage, They can attack anytime, Defenders have no idea when it will happen. This would lead to a situation like this: There are 3 active defenders in town, rest is doing something else, like crafting hunting for stuff or whatever, and 5 guys in CA and avengers jump in, they kill the defenders with easy, defenders are relaxed, most dont have drugs on even, and militia walks away. It would be a mess.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version