Welcome to the Rise of Agon Community

Create an account today to engage in discussions and community events on the Rise of Agon forums.

The Biggest Threat to RoA Success

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by RootedOak, Apr 21, 2017.

  1. MisterTea

    MisterTea Infernal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    391
    You're comparing it to an old version of DFO which doesn't exist anymore, a Mage in a robe with surging nukes would kill anyone in old DFO
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  2. Garou Lintermittent

    Garou Lintermittent Goblin Shaman
    Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    77
    For once, I agree with you Beargrim. Very good points.

    Funny that you mention the YGOLOHCYSP episode, as this followed our constant war between appletown and that hamlet right beside it, and we had a hand in helping those guys taking appletown from you. To our dismay, the aftermath of them moving in wasn't as fun as we had hoped.

    I look forward to fighting such a war against NME again in this new iteration of the game. Probably the most fun I had in Darkfall.
     
    Fengor likes this.
  3. Quin Tessence

    Quin Tessence Black Knight
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,207
    Likes Received:
    761
    I think I found the biggest threat guys.
    This crazy a--hole was messaging everyone in game. :pensive:


    [​IMG]
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
    stubbyfire and Nat like this.
  4. Circa

    Circa Black Knight
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2016
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    989

    should show the name to shame em...
     
    Fengor, Battle Smurf, Myater and 2 others like this.
  5. Edward Owen

    Edward Owen Goblin Warrior
    Lifetime

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    31
    The one thing about gear that bothers me the most is I like the look of lower lvl gear but it's pointless to wear in fights. Why could there not be a system that would allow me to throw in some extra ingredients i.e. Ingots, leather, leenspar ingots, etc... to make for instance chain gear more inline with infernal but with possibly a difference in protections i.e. Less arrow but more slash etc... etc...

    So, basically all gear would be the same rank but adding ingredients would increase the rank.
     
    Circa likes this.
  6. Sique

    Sique Fire Giant
    Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3,232
    pretty sure thats carnage redfur i remember seeing a screenshot of him saying exactly that
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
    Circa likes this.
  7. Battle Smurf

    Battle Smurf Oak Lord
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2016
    Messages:
    3,177
    Likes Received:
    3,852
    --- Post updated ---
    I agree with everything you said in this thread.

    I have been making posts about this shit for years, but these kids have to learn everything the hard way
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
    Circa likes this.
  8. Yourlordandsavior

    Yourlordandsavior Chosen of Khamset
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    693
    if you are implying you needed presurges to kill people in a robe you are wrong.

    If you think it isnt possible to kill people in a robe now you are wrong.
     
  9. TyteDaddyTite

    TyteDaddyTite Obsidian Golem
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    2,844

    So... on pub 16 UO servers. Often times as I was pvping I would end up picking up "invulnerability" armor, as the group killed people, but it was not necessary to have a set in order to compete, but provides a big advantage, against any physical damage (a lot of the high end combat in that ruleset doesnt focus around physical damage, but it plays a part). UO's mechanics are wildly different though in PvP and you cannot really expect the same systems to apply to DF. However, I would agree, that basic all around standard gear should be pretty easy to get, and if you lose that type of gear "oh well".

    Frankly, all DF really needs to exceed as a game is to copy most of the content that UO provided in 97 and it would be immensely popular. It just seems weird to me that debates over how gearing should work is what people are nitpicking at. BPG as I interpret seems to be working toward more sandbox content for a much more in depth play experience overall.
     
    Circa likes this.
  10. Lord Kick

    Lord Kick Crypt Guard
    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    83
    I wouldn't consider this 'threat' feedback it's more of a bug... Devs get on it!
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  11. miasMa

    miasMa Varangian Warthane
    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Why is it that DND players take it to the level of spreading propaganda to try and sway players over to their side? They've literally done it for the entirety of their existence. They are the little SJW's that I would like to curbstomp.
     
  12. axilmar

    axilmar Goblin Warrior
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    45
    Very important points raised in this thread.

    I'd like to add the following:

    1) Darkfall needs a free alliance system; i.e. a clan should be free to maintain any number of alliances needed. Bigger alliances should also be able to made out of smaller alliances, forming a tree of alliances. Alliances shouldn't be made public by default, unless the clans want to do so.

    As a bonus, it would be nice to allow characters to wear alliance colors/clothing.

    2) sieging should be simplified.

    a) sieges should be layered, like an onion. I.e. the attacker shall need to break down outer layers, then inner layers, until the center target is reached and conquered. No clan shards would need to be placed, no wages to be had, no timers, no preparation time etc. This can allow smaller clans to plan surprise attacks as well as allow smaller groups of people to holdings of big clans. A clan should be prepared to fight for their holdings, as soon as they are online.

    This shall also force clans to make up strategies for maintaining their holdings. The more holdings one clan has, the bigger force it would need to maintain their territories, and then they would need more members etc.

    b) a clan's holdings should be sieagable any time, even if the owning clan is not online. However, sieging a holding of an offline clan should mean the disonourable attacker becomes rogue, and its holdings get a debuff in strength.

    Taking a holding of a rogue clan will not provoke this punishment.

    This will provide a good challenge for clans that choose to play in a non-honourable manner. As soon as they take a holding of a clan that is offline, they become vulnerable, and rogue. Other clans may try to fight them off, but those dishonoured clans can continue play the game, as rogue clans, putting their holdings on the line.

    3) clan leaders should be able to delegate tasks to other members of the clan, and those other members should be able to delegate those tasks to other members as well.

    A leader should not be responsible for managing all clan tasks.

    I don't know if this is already implemented, but if not, it should be a priority.

    4) there needs to be a MOBILE client for clan management. Leaders and other officers of the clan should be allowed to manage clans while not actively spawned in the game, via their mobile phones.

    5) orphaned clans that lose their last holding should have the option of joining a default clan which contains all players that have not joined a clan themselves.

    I.e. there has to be a 'default' clan, where all players shall automatically be added to, which provides them with goodies, with protection, with a default non-chaos city holding, and this clan should be home for all orphaned players.

    Players that lose their pixels should not quit the game. It's one of the problems for these kinds of games (FFA full loot). They should be encouraged to fight back.

    Just my 2 cents.
     
    Grumbagz, Edward Owen and helgrik like this.
  13. Lincoln Hawk

    Lincoln Hawk Fire Elemental
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    478
    @axilmar - Your siege suggestions are imho terrible.

    This is exactly how it works in mortal online and all it does is encourage people to be complete pussies. The only sieges that happen are off hours when your enemy is at its weakest, and while I'm sure ill hear some rubbish about "realism" from somebody on the forums, its really bad for the game.
    Everything should encourage conflict, because thats truly where the fun is, not sieging empty holdings pvb'ing.

    I remember seeing an early siege where the attackers blew through the gate and got wiped by the defending force focusing the choke, I feel like this is something that should be built upon, where you actually have to blow through walls/gates during the siege. ( which with all buildings costing less and having less hp kinda makes sense). It doesnt have to be huge numbers or walls etc, as it will be difficult with people defending( and it makes sense defenders should have a slight advantage if they made the effort to build the city), but it would actually feel like a siege.
     
  14. helgrik

    helgrik Infernal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    352

    Great ideas. Especially like the mobile phone app idea and the layered siege plan.

    If I may, I'd like to build upon your layered siege idea;

    Initially, let the owning clan dictate the specific objectives of certain phases of the sieges (which buildings need to be disabled).

    Phase one; Deploy the Siege Camp(new deployable item that contains temporary bank and bindstone) within 2km of the city. The siege force can decide from different levels of Siege Camps(going from low hit point bindstone / banks to high).

    Phase two; Hold the city for a period of time(players must be in vicinity of a certain structure) dependent on how built up the city is.

    Phase three; Destroy / disable certain buildings within the city(buildings chosen by the defenders).

    Phase four; A 22 hour siege timer starts and this is when the defenders can use the timer changing items(changing the timer +4, or +2 hours or -4, -2 hours). If at any time during this phase if the siege camp gets destroyed, the timer doesn't go away or stop. A new timer of 2 hours starts and that is how long the siege force has to place a new siege camp or the siege is over. All players will have to rebind to the new Siege Camp bindstone if the original gets destroyed.

    Phase five; During the last hour of the 22 hour siege timer, the siege force must destroy the bindstone in the city and they win. If the siege camp is destroyed , they successfully defend.

    The mobile phone app idea can send a notification with for instance;
    -Enemies initiating any phase of a siege.
    -Asset destruction.
    -Placement of Siege camp.
    -Actively shows Siege Timer and notification if any changes happen.
    -Destruction of Siege camp.
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  15. axilmar

    axilmar Goblin Warrior
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    45
    I'd like off hour sieges to have consequences. Have you noticed my rogue clan proposal?

    Also, have you noticed my layered approach to sieging? I propose the same thing as you, only i did not make it so specific.
     
    Circa likes this.
  16. Lincoln Hawk

    Lincoln Hawk Fire Elemental
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    478
    I guess my first line may have come across harsh, as I didnt think your whole post was bad, but off hours sieges are just not something I can get on board with. Ive seen what they do first hand to a game, and its just not healthy.
    No amount of consequences is enough for skipping out on what should be the most fun and the core of a conquest game.
     
  17. axilmar

    axilmar Goblin Warrior
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    45
    I think it largely depends on the consequences.

    For example, suppose rogue clans' holding strength drops to almost zero, making sieging those holdings very easy.

    Would a clan risk all its holdings in order to get one more holding?

    It is a risk vs reward proposal, increasing the game's sandboxiness.

    Such a mechanic would actually increase sieges and also help smaller clans that are without a holding.

    It a clan that does not have a holding goes capture an offline holding, the holding will become vulnerable, attracting other clans which can then take the holding, becoming themselves rogue etc.

    A big problem is big clans taking and maintaining holdings with few members. They can sporadically log in, fight off invaders and then log out. Allowing off line holding sieging would mitigate that a little.
     
  18. Sero

    Sero Gnoll Vilegaunt
    Loyal Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2016
    Messages:
    6,944
    Likes Received:
    9,076
    TLDR: BULLETIN BOARD *COUGH COUGH*

    @Andrew

    Sieges need to be like a 1 hour tug of War kng of the hill style fight. Too much waiting involved atm, pretty sure they said theyd be changing it to something like this.
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  19. YaBootyIsFruity

    YaBootyIsFruity Gravelord
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    154
    Do you have any ideas as to how this could be addressed, I can't really think of any that could be easily implemented. Needs to be a priority though.
     
  20. FuckThis

    FuckThis Goblin Shaman
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    12
    i think the biggest threat is prowess points aka scrolls.
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature