Destructable houses and keep's promotes Zerg behavior

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 13:42

Just played a MMO called Darkfall Online for some months and that game have player created cities as one of there feature's.

One issue with this feature is that this promote Zerg behavior and remove alot of freedom from the game. To protect your houses and city you need alot of people in your clan/guild and people that is online 24/7 protecting it.

All guild's which had a city had to ally other guild's and in that way making huge alliances, cause without those number's you were screwed. You would loose your house and your city.

This feature that promote this kind of ingame behavior remove the freedom of just entering the game and go out looking for some PvP, as it was in UO.

The game become's a political game more then a PvP game and that is one of the main reason's i disliked Darkfall. It could take one hour or more just to coordinate all these guild's to get out of the city and search for some PvP which isn't fun.

You feel the need to babysit your house and your city instead of having the UO feeling of freedom to just leave your house and concentrate on finding some nice PvP encounter's.

Alot of people in Darkfall felt that having a destructable city feature choked them so much that the game just wasn't fun anymore. You felt trapped inside the walls of a city which wasn't making the game any better.

So developer's of Mortal Online, i hope you dont choose the Darkfall road on playermade houses and cities cause it wont make MO a better game.

All houses and keep's should be undestructable.

ragge · 16th May 2009, 13:48

yea i also played darkfall and having a house that peps cn destroy or take over would just put me in a spot where i have to defend it 24/7 when i can be out exploring the world and having fun that way.

Joszek · 16th May 2009, 13:55

I can't find any positive attitude in OP's post. Is there any ?
He only hopes, but base only on experience with DFo - which I consider as a rant.

Other thing is that housing was short, but perfectly described in latest presentation. And OP's obviously didn't manage to read it.

Huge minus mister Aragon, huge.

Slann · 16th May 2009, 14:03

Devs didnt say that houses are going to be destroyable.

Kamisama · 16th May 2009, 14:04

Please post in the thread already exisiting that deal exactly with this.

By the way, there is no housing in DFO.

Joszek · 16th May 2009, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slann

Devs didnt say that houses are going to be destroyable.

In such game man never knows

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joszek

I can't find any positive attitude in OP's post. Is there any ?
He only hopes, but base only on experience with DFo - which I consider as a rant.

Other thing is that housing was short, but perfectly described in latest presentation. And OP's obviously didn't manage to read it.

Huge minus mister Aragon, huge.

Hard to have a positive attitude on destructable house's and cities when you seen what that feature bring to a game.

I seen both sides of the coin (UO and Darkfall) and this thread is not about sending a positive attitude towards you, (do you always have to find a positive attitude in a thread you read?), it's about the damage a game take of eventually having some sort of destruction option on properties like house's and cities.

Powerpoint presentation dont explain if house's and cities are destructable or not.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamisama

Please post in the thread already exisiting that deal exactly with this.

By the way, there is no housing in DFO.

There is guild cities in Darkfall which make guild's act exactly as it was your own house, it adds a protection behavior and a zerg mentality which is bad for any game.

I haven't seen any thread on this, can you put up a link?

This thread is about how people react when they have properties to protect, and what kind of behavior that bring to a game.

Zerg mentality and a no freedom feeling.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slann

Devs didnt say that houses are going to be destroyable.

Did they say they weren't?

foolheart · 16th May 2009, 14:39

i thought it had been clarified by devs, or at least mods, that houses were ddesructible. so bad news i guess.

but what's wrong with zergs anyhow? Half the fantasy books you read are about dominating world powers and overwhelming odds. funny that when faced with those situations in a game, nobody's interested.

Joszek · 16th May 2009, 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aragon

Hard to have a positive attitude on destructable house's and cities when you seen what that feature bring to a game.

And what other may it bring in a sandbox game based on pvp mechanics ?
If somebody do not wants to loose his house, he doesn't build it in wilderness. Simple as it is.

As it goes for cities ... what can I say when attackers are dumbasses and want to destroy the city they just seized ?
I don't know how exactly it is managed in DFo.
But I would never destroy whole city I have seized, because I could always sell it to another guild and make twice that money.
It's all about economics.

But I can't imagine a 100% ffa pvp game without ability to destroy all available things !

As a side note, there will be capital cities hardcoded in the game, so I think those just won't be able to be destroyed.

Quote:

I seen both sides of the coin (UO and Darkfall) and this thread is not about sending a positive attitude towards you, (do you always have to find a positive attitude in a thread you read?), it's about the damage a game take of eventually having some sort of destruction option on properties like house's and cities.

You still base your approach on 1 badly implemented mechanics.
Or, mechanics is very good, but as you said, you didn't play the game. Basing only on video footages or somebody's opinion is bullshit. Winners create history, so you base on opinions comming from loosers or winners ? K, if both side of the conflict say that destroying buildings suck, then why are they still destroying them ?
It's not the game, it's gamers mentality FYI.

About positive attitude, you started thread like wet duck.
You said only what sucks in other game. If whole game sucks, then why people still play it (read as: besiege towns etc) ?

Quote:

Powerpoint presentation dont explain if house's and cities are destructable or not.

And you answered yourself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aragon

Did they say they weren't?

Nobody will tell you here about features, which weren't stated by devs. Consider them as still being under development or withdrawn/put on hold because of unknown circumstances.

Do not forget, that devs don't talk nor confirm features, which they are not certain they will be implemented or aren't working in 99% already.

brobban · 16th May 2009, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by foolheart

but what's wrong with zergs anyhow? Half the fantasy books you read are about dominating world powers and overwhelming odds. funny that when faced with those situations in a game, nobody's interested.

I dont wanna play a fantasy book, I wanna play a fun game. Zerg's are never funny.

Joszek · 16th May 2009, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by brobban

I dont wanna play a fantasy book, I wanna play a fun game. Zerg's are never funny.

But large scale battles are ?
Aren't they zerging ?
But...hey, 100 vs 10 is considered zerg, but 100vs 50 a large battle ?

nonsense, it's the same slaughter

Slann · 16th May 2009, 14:48

I would tolerate destroyable houses if its were difficult to destroy. For example, you will need at least 10 person and much time to destroy a house. It would be so false if you can destroy a building that takes much days on building it in only a few minutes.

brobban · 16th May 2009, 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joszek

But large scale battles are ?
Aren't they zerging ?
But...hey, 100 vs 10 is considered zerg, but 100vs 50 a large battle ?

nonsense, it's the same slaughter

Seem you woke up on the wrong side today and gotta bash everyone not holding your hand, I think you are perfectly aware what I meant with zerg's. But you just wanna get some cheap points, that's ok. 50vs30 is not a zerg, it's just game, it is what happen when you play it. Zerg's are Coaliton and Hyperion(gone now though) in Darkfall, well over thousand players all coming together because of the game mechanics with easy destructible buildings promote zerg's.

Traceur · 16th May 2009, 14:54

funny - that "a political game rather then a PvP game" is what for me gives PvP any meaning, and that "babysitting your house" is having something to fight for.

this is the two main differences between IDH & DH, respectively: supplying for the people who enjoy the fighting itself & would sacrifice context in favor of PvP accessibility, and supplying for the people who need the context of fighting: the politics, drama & community-orientation.

but i think your wrong to believe they go one instead of the other, as IMO with MO's flagging system which doesn't have DF's faction-bullshit, you would easily be able to go out looking for PvP to either hunt-down red players and go to your NPC-city house or be red and go to your hideaway (which is supposed to be a risky business anyway).

Joszek · 16th May 2009, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by brobban

Seem you woke up on the wrong side today and gotta bash everyone not holding your hand, I think you are perfectly aware what I meant with zerg's. But you just wanna get some cheap points, that's ok. 50vs30 is not a zerg, it's just game, it is what happen when you play it. Zerg's are Coaliton and Hyperion(gone now though) in Darkfall, well over thousand players all coming together because of the game mechanics with easy destructible buildings promote zerg's.

Hmm.... yeah, it's just mine attitude in this topic wen't from average to negative. Sorry if I insulted you in any manner.

But as you said, it's the games mechanics that allow things to be achieved. And gathering all currently known info about MO's mechanics, it sounds rather good when it goes to pvp.
But ... everything sounds good on paper :/

Melt16 · 16th May 2009, 15:59

Well if you get 'marked' for destroying a person's home, such as you will be 'marked' in MO for attacking someone, people won't just go around destroying people's houses.
This will give you bad favour with NPC guards and can cause you to be attacked.

So I think player built cities are good, but their should be consequences for destroying them.

Kaasflipje · 16th May 2009, 16:05

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/1...hread-mod.html
There we go.

brainiak · 16th May 2009, 16:24

destroyable houses sound fun and games until that feature is already in game. it is just too hardcore. i'm sure most of us love to call themselves as "hardcore player", but in reality we want to have fun and relax in virtual reality free from carebearish shit the market is full off at the moment. destroyable houses are griefers paradise and in the end it would be just a pain in the ass for average players.

but i'm certainly sure that this feature can be reduced and balanced to the level when it could really add more adrenaline to the game with out being irritating.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joszek

I don't know how exactly it is managed in DFo.

What is your problem?

Your attitude burst of anger and you add very little to this thread.

If you dont have ingame experience of what im describing, why do you reply?

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaasflipje

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/1...hread-mod.html
There we go.

There we go?

What do you mean?

That thread is a completely different discussion.

Kaasflipje · 16th May 2009, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aragon

There we go?

What do you mean?

That thread is a completely different discussion.

I beg to differ.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melt16

Well if you get 'marked' for destroying a person's home, such as you will be 'marked' in MO for attacking someone, people won't just go around destroying people's houses.
This will give you bad favour with NPC guards and can cause you to be attacked.

So I think player built cities are good, but their should be consequences for destroying them.

Aye player build house's, keep and citie's is very fun. Really looking forward to that feature.

Making them destructable though is not something i look forward too.

You can add whatever consequences imaginable to a feature that allows destroying of houses and citie's and it will still turn out become a zerg feast and remove alot of the freedom in looking forward too in MO.

I want to go out with 5 or 100 people without having to worry about babysitting some pixels.

DreCat11 · 16th May 2009, 16:35

Its funny how people think MO is ganna be like darkfall, and telling the dev's not to do things darkfall does... I belive MO wouldnt be close to how darkfall is or ganna be... MO is a different game . Period.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaasflipje

I beg to differ.

This thread is about how players react to destructable house's and cities.

Their ingame behavior to such a feature.

The consequences i seen from other game's with a feature like destroyable house's and cities.

The thread you linked isn't about that.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreCat11

Its funny how people think MO is ganna be like darkfall, and telling the dev's not to do things darkfall does... I belive MO wouldnt be close to how darkfall is or ganna be... MO is a different game . Period.

MO isnt like Darkfall and please point out where i said it was?

MO is more like UO as i see it.

This thread is about consequences IF MO developer's choose to implement destructable houses.

Kaasflipje · 16th May 2009, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aragon

This thread is about how players react to destructable house's and cities.

Their ingame behavior to such a feature.

The consequences i seen from other game's with a feature like destroyable house's and cities.

The thread you linked isn't about that.

I'm not sure if you are trolling, but there's no need to make an entire new thread about your opinion. If you want to discuss destructable houses, then you can do it there.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaasflipje

I'm not sure if you are trolling, but there's no need to make an entire new thread about your opinion. If you want to discuss destructable houses, then you can do it there.

Im definetly not trolling, why do you think i am?

The thread you pointed out is a poll on something else.

Let the moderator's decide this, no meaning for you and me to discuss this in this thread.

Tamerlane · 16th May 2009, 16:46

Just an idea that came to mind, but if this is going to be a fully intractable world should guilds (and possibly individuals) be able to "Hire" NPCs for limited and/or specific jobs.

For example, perhaps a guild/person, if they have enough money, should have the ability to go to one of the main cities, find the employment office, and hire out a couple of NPC guards to help defend the guild keep / guild town / personal house etc.

The problem of combating the "zerg" could also be an opportunity for players to make money. Maybe a couple guilds will want to go into Policing and/or be Bodyguards who hire themselves out to defend towns/keeps etc. Maybe individuals will hire themselves out to act as bodyguards too.

The whole world seems to be open for development by players if the devs don't want to allow NPCs to be hired. I don't see this like you guys as such a negative, rather I see it as an economic opportunity for an MO entrepinour.

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by brainiak

destroyable houses sound fun and games until that feature is already in game. it is just too hardcore. i'm sure most of us love to call themselves as "hardcore player", but in reality we want to have fun and relax in virtual reality free from carebearish shit the market is full off at the moment. destroyable houses are griefers paradise and in the end it would be just a pain in the ass for average players.

but i'm certainly sure that this feature can be reduced and balanced to the level when it could really add more adrenaline to the game with out being irritating.

Agree.

It removes alot of the "funfactor" and just about all freedom from a MMO.

People tend to stay together in thousands to protect their pixel houses and it's a really dangerous feature to a MMO.

DreCat11 · 16th May 2009, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aragon

So developer's of Mortal Online, i hope you dont choose the Darkfall road on playermade houses and cities cause it wont make MO a better game.

Hmmmm seems like ur telling the devs not to do what darkfall did...

Edit: its a different game so what plays out in Darkfall doesnt mean its ganna play out in MO see my point

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

Just an idea that came to mind, but if this is going to be a fully intractable world should guilds (and possibly individuals) be able to "Hire" NPCs for limited and/or specific jobs.

For example, perhaps a guild/person, if they have enough money, should have the ability to go to one of the main cities, find the employment office, and hire out a couple of NPC guards to help defend the guild keep / guild town / personal house etc.

The problem of combating the "zerg" could also be an opportunity for players to make money. Maybe a couple guilds will want to go into Policing and/or be Bodyguards who hire themselves out to defend towns/keeps etc. Maybe individuals will hire themselves out to act as bodyguards too.

The whole world seems to be open for development by players if the devs don't want to allow NPCs to be hired. I don't see this like you guys as such a negative, rather I see it as an economic opportunity for an MO entrepinour.

Hired mercenaries and defence tower's (even auto tower's) was in Darkfall but it didn't remove the zerg mentality from player's at all.

None destructable house's and cities is the only way i can see this behavior not repeat itself.

Kamisama · 16th May 2009, 16:56

Crap they closed the wrong thread -_-

Aragon · 16th May 2009, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreCat11

Hmmmm seems like ur telling the devs not to do what darkfall did...

Edit: its a different game so what plays out in Darkfall doesnt mean its ganna play out in MO see my point

Aye true.

I might be wrong.

I seen the bad side of a feature that allows player's to destroy house's and cities and dont want it to repeat itself in MO.

That's why i made this thread.

ZBlackmore · 16th May 2009, 17:03

Destroyable houses and the need to defend your property is good. It's realistic. Politics are good as they give you a reason to fight, something to fight for, not just mindless PvP like the BG's or Arena's i hated in WoW that gave no real long term consequenses for your PvP...

Don't build a house unless you can protect it. I don't see anything bad in the fact that a properly organised player city will survive and the non organised ones will burn.
If it takes a big strong guild that can scheduale watches (or afford NPC guards?) and even have some intelligance about when your enemies are going to attack (which can bring a spying aspect to the game) it sounds good to me...

Travie · 16th May 2009, 17:12

The devs have said explicitly NO DESTRUCTABLE HOUSES!!!! The only danger is loosing your key or having it stolen....

Keeps on the other hand are still up in the air.

Kamisama · 16th May 2009, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travie

The devs have said explicitly NO DESTRUCTABLE HOUSES!!!! .

Where ?

Joszek · 16th May 2009, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamisama

Where ?

I assume he had other game development studio on his mind

16th May 2009, 13:42	#1 (permalink)
Aragon Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Sweden Rep Power: 0	Destructable houses and keep's promotes Zerg behavior Just played a MMO called Darkfall Online for some months and that game have player created cities as one of there feature's. One issue with this feature is that this promote Zerg behavior and remove alot of freedom from the game. To protect your houses and city you need alot of people in your clan/guild and people that is online 24/7 protecting it. All guild's which had a city had to ally other guild's and in that way making huge alliances, cause without those number's you were screwed. You would loose your house and your city. This feature that promote this kind of ingame behavior remove the freedom of just entering the game and go out looking for some PvP, as it was in UO. The game become's a political game more then a PvP game and that is one of the main reason's i disliked Darkfall. It could take one hour or more just to coordinate all these guild's to get out of the city and search for some PvP which isn't fun. You feel the need to babysit your house and your city instead of having the UO feeling of freedom to just leave your house and concentrate on finding some nice PvP encounter's. Alot of people in Darkfall felt that having a destructable city feature choked them so much that the game just wasn't fun anymore. You felt trapped inside the walls of a city which wasn't making the game any better. So developer's of Mortal Online, i hope you dont choose the Darkfall road on playermade houses and cities cause it wont make MO a better game. All houses and keep's should be undestructable.

16th May 2009, 13:55	#3 (permalink)
Joszek Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: central europe Age: 27 Rep Power: 12	I can't find any positive attitude in OP's post. Is there any ? He only hopes, but base only on experience with DFo - which I consider as a rant. Other thing is that housing was short, but perfectly described in latest presentation. And OP's obviously didn't manage to read it. Huge minus mister Aragon, huge. __________________ Do you really think I can't sneak behind you even when you lean against a wall ? If you became convinced to join forum, this is a fast registration link <Khaine> I gotta lose some weight for MO. The fat around my armpit won't allow me to play as effective as I wish.

16th May 2009, 14:03	#4 (permalink)
Slann Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Spain Age: 20 Rep Power: 5	Devs didnt say that houses are going to be destroyable. __________________ ¿Eres Español? ven a la comunidad de Mortal Online Hispana MO-ESP.COM

16th May 2009, 14:48	#14 (permalink)
Slann Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Spain Age: 20 Rep Power: 5	I would tolerate destroyable houses if its were difficult to destroy. For example, you will need at least 10 person and much time to destroy a house. It would be so false if you can destroy a building that takes much days on building it in only a few minutes. __________________ ¿Eres Español? ven a la comunidad de Mortal Online Hispana MO-ESP.COM

16th May 2009, 14:54	#16 (permalink)
Traceur Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Israel Age: 25 Rep Power: 31	funny - that "a political game rather then a PvP game" is what for me gives PvP any meaning, and that "babysitting your house" is having something to fight for. this is the two main differences between IDH & DH, respectively: supplying for the people who enjoy the fighting itself & would sacrifice context in favor of PvP accessibility, and supplying for the people who need the context of fighting: the politics, drama & community-orientation. but i think your wrong to believe they go one instead of the other, as IMO with MO's flagging system which doesn't have DF's faction-bullshit, you would easily be able to go out looking for PvP to either hunt-down red players and go to your NPC-city house or be red and go to your hideaway (which is supposed to be a risky business anyway). __________________ - because neologism needs a new word take my love, take my land, take me where i can not stand i don't care, i'm still free, you can't take the sky from me what am I doing? where am I?

16th May 2009, 13:48	#2 (permalink)
ragge Newbie Join Date: May 2009 Location: Sweden Rep Power: 1	yea i also played darkfall and having a house that peps cn destroy or take over would just put me in a spot where i have to defend it 24/7 when i can be out exploring the world and having fun that way.

16th May 2009, 14:39	#10 (permalink)
foolheart Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Rep Power: 0	i thought it had been clarified by devs, or at least mods, that houses were ddesructible. so bad news i guess. but what's wrong with zergs anyhow? Half the fantasy books you read are about dominating world powers and overwhelming odds. funny that when faced with those situations in a game, nobody's interested.

16th May 2009, 15:59	#18 (permalink)
Melt16 Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Rep Power: 1	Well if you get 'marked' for destroying a person's home, such as you will be 'marked' in MO for attacking someone, people won't just go around destroying people's houses. This will give you bad favour with NPC guards and can cause you to be attacked. So I think player built cities are good, but their should be consequences for destroying them. __________________ Mages of the Golden Dawn are now recruiting... We strive to be the most influential Mages guild that shapes the sands of time in the Tindremic Empire. magesofthegoldendawn.co.za

16th May 2009, 16:05	#19 (permalink)
Kaasflipje Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: The Netherlands Rep Power: 19	http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/1...hread-mod.html There we go.

16th May 2009, 16:24	#20 (permalink)
brainiak Newbie Join Date: Jul 2008 Rep Power: 2	destroyable houses sound fun and games until that feature is already in game. it is just too hardcore. i'm sure most of us love to call themselves as "hardcore player", but in reality we want to have fun and relax in virtual reality free from carebearish shit the market is full off at the moment. destroyable houses are griefers paradise and in the end it would be just a pain in the ass for average players. but i'm certainly sure that this feature can be reduced and balanced to the level when it could really add more adrenaline to the game with out being irritating.

16th May 2009, 16:35	#25 (permalink)
DreCat11 Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Mid-West, USA Rep Power: 0	Its funny how people think MO is ganna be like darkfall, and telling the dev's not to do things darkfall does... I belive MO wouldnt be close to how darkfall is or ganna be... MO is a different game . Period. __________________ Home\|Forums\|News

16th May 2009, 16:46	#30 (permalink)
Tamerlane Newbie Join Date: Apr 2009 Rep Power: 1	Just an idea that came to mind, but if this is going to be a fully intractable world should guilds (and possibly individuals) be able to "Hire" NPCs for limited and/or specific jobs. For example, perhaps a guild/person, if they have enough money, should have the ability to go to one of the main cities, find the employment office, and hire out a couple of NPC guards to help defend the guild keep / guild town / personal house etc. The problem of combating the "zerg" could also be an opportunity for players to make money. Maybe a couple guilds will want to go into Policing and/or be Bodyguards who hire themselves out to defend towns/keeps etc. Maybe individuals will hire themselves out to act as bodyguards too. The whole world seems to be open for development by players if the devs don't want to allow NPCs to be hired. I don't see this like you guys as such a negative, rather I see it as an economic opportunity for an MO entrepinour. __________________ Khan Tamerlane Khan of The Horde Alliance http://hordealliance.guildlaunch.com Apply For Membership

16th May 2009, 17:03	#36 (permalink)
ZBlackmore Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Israel Rep Power: 2	Destroyable houses and the need to defend your property is good. It's realistic. Politics are good as they give you a reason to fight, something to fight for, not just mindless PvP like the BG's or Arena's i hated in WoW that gave no real long term consequenses for your PvP... Don't build a house unless you can protect it. I don't see anything bad in the fact that a properly organised player city will survive and the non organised ones will burn. If it takes a big strong guild that can scheduale watches (or afford NPC guards?) and even have some intelligance about when your enemies are going to attack (which can bring a spying aspect to the game) it sounds good to me...

16th May 2009, 17:12	#37 (permalink)
Travie Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Wisconsin, soon Oregon Age: 25 Rep Power: 30	The devs have said explicitly NO DESTRUCTABLE HOUSES!!!! The only danger is loosing your key or having it stolen.... Keeps on the other hand are still up in the air. __________________ Travel Teaches how to see.