Nightcapping without fighting is not a pvp content

Premise:

I totally agree with AGS’s will to have the ability to easily bring a territory into conflict and have a siege every 48 hours.

Having said that though:

It 's really bad, what in the last few weeks is always happening in my server (MARDI). That is to say that a territory in conflict is sent, with small groups, who do pvp quests undisturbed at night, without pvp.

Me and my guild, we love doing open world fights, and it was very nice when they came with large groups, in prime time to contest us. Even if they sent the territory into conflict anyway, we were fine with it, because we fought, and we had fun (main purpose of a game).

Currently, no one does pvp quests to defend anymore. Because they are already terribly boring content in themselves. If it happens that enemies do them at night, it becomes even more useless. at this point, you first remove it as content and make it so that a guild can declare the siege and maybe do it more than 24h in advance, and you fight only in siege. As is already happening.

But for me, who has to manage a guild of 200 players (so 2 full companies, due to the absurd limit of only 100 players per company) it becomes brutal if everything is reduced to small sieges of only 50v50, since the open pvp he is practically dying and is being increasingly discouraged.

When out of 200 guild people, you are forced to always pick the best 50, always keeping out 100/150 people, it’s not pleasant at all. Those people who stay out tend to get tired of the game.

So either find a way to incentivize massive open world pvp (I remind you that we are in a mmorpg not on rust) or make sure that the sieges have more than 50 people, and that only guilds with enough players can declare them, given that often, then we have to make sieges where few people show up, because the guild that did the quests at night, is a small guild that does not have the support of its own faction, because it is numerically unable to take and above all maintain a territory.

Yes, because this also happens, which you did not foresee.
Even if the game is faction vs faction, there are dynamics whereby, large guilds never support small guilds in taking a territory, because it only means giving an extra territory to a guild that cannot manage it alone and will lose it immediately. without the big faction guilds always helping her. But the big guilds prefer to keep their territories and above all to have few territories but good, because if you have too many territories, people from other factions cannot change to go to the faction that has too many territories, and therefore there is no replacement. of people.
and beyond that, if the small guilds have territories, they will tend to uselessly defend those territories, without having the numbers, rather than concentrating on helping the big guilds to maintain and defend the few important territories.

So the only real sieges I’ve been seeing in the last month are only those made by big guilds. In the others I spent the time fishing, cutting trees or dancing on the walls, just because there was the usual small guild, who did the quests in 3 or 4 at night, and 10 show up in a siege.

and keeping 50 people standing for 30 minutes, wasting their time, for a fake and unattended siege is frustrating.

imagine a family man, who after a long day at work, wants to play for a couple of hours, spends more than half an hour doing nothing in a fake siege.

So, in summary:

  • Create a system where influence is done by actually fighting and not doing pvp quests (which are pve) at night.
  • Avoid guilds of 10 people, they can do pvp quests at night, go into siege and show up in 10, wasting time for the defenders.

Also because a fake siege made by 10 people, also becomes a problem for the faction of those 10 people, who then find the 72 hour bonus, and therefore struggle more in doing this pvp in prime time to seriously conquer the territory.

I understand that you (AGS) want to make sure that everyone can do everything, but if you have a hardcore game design, small guilds will NEVER be able to do anything in this game. So either accept that being HC, all dynamics must be, or make the game casual, and do it for all dynamics.

There should be a time window like in wars, where the enemy factions can run PvP missions

Set by the company owning said territory

1 Like

Here, this would be a really good idea. The guild can set the siege time and the time slot (for example a 4 hour slot) where you are vulnerable.

I’m aligned with a decent amount of the points listed by @Kana86.

The ones that resonate to me most are:

  • Influence (PvE) missions are boring and non-immersive. Picking up 40 flint on the shore of First Light has absolutely nothing to do with spreading the spark of the Covenant. It’s really, really bad (I’m trying to be nice here).

  • The mechanic to favor those insurrection influence in these messenger-boy runs the longer someone’s held the territory have created an anathema to even defend. Why bother? Eventually, we’ll have to reset it in War, so just let it happen. There’s really near zero incentive to defend right now between this dynamic and the dev’s professed notions that they want defenders to have a material advantage in Wars.

A window in which Open PvP created influence on the the difference of bodycount of those flagged up…scaled for GS differences and levels, would be much more immersive and emergent content. it would also be a lot more fun than the 40+ man mugging mobs in Shattered Mountain nightly. But please think carefully on this before you just turn it on. It cannot be based on unadjusted kill count, that just favors who has more flagged up or relative levels.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.