Assaulting forts window of opportunity idea

I was thinking that perhaps a window of time for assaulting defending would be a good idea. Maybe a 4 hour time period 4 hours after the server is reset? So as to give a relative time but still not completely ruin the element of surprise. Note the server resets are on a rotating schedule so basing the windows off time from server resets wouldn't favor any specific time zone for long.
It would be nice to have more people on to defend or assault as even when your on the winning team it isn't as much fun to kill NPC gate guards or get the relic when there are hardly any defenders as opposed to an epic battle where there are a few on each side.
Also I notice a trend (though I don't understand it) that some players get fairly upset when they find out that their fort was attacked and no one was around to defend. Personally I feel like what's the big deal? However this idea would be nice to help prevent some players from getting upset as well.
Besides tweaking the timage and OOC stuff to make this work I need help thinking up an IC reason why forts should be attacked at certain times and not others. Also as a side idea we could have separate windows for each fort but not sure I like that idea.

What yins think?

If people want to arrange assault times, I'm cool with that. I'd even be down with telling people, "all right, I'm going to assault on the 9th of May at 3:00 PM GMT! Be there or be square!" Because it's not about winning for me. It's about the experience.

But enforcing an assault schedule because some people are ninnies or whatever doesn't seem "right" to me. It's not (or shouldn't be) a big deal. If some players can't accept that situations are occasionally "unfair", then this isn't the server for them.

On a personal level, I assault when I do right now because that's when I can assault. Enforcing a schedule won't make things fairer--from my perspective, at least. It just means I won't be able to assault at all for significant portions of the month, which would be kind of lame.

Even if bogging this server down in jurisdiction were seen as the way to go, how would you enforce it? What do you do if someone starts assaulting an hour before the window is up, but then the assault lasts an hour? Is that against the rules? What do you do if they start an hour before, then take an hour break in order to rally more troops. If they go back, is that against the rules, or is that fair because it's still part of an ongoing assault? What about if someone does assault and exit within the window of opportunity, but then needs to go back to reclaim some corpses? Where do you draw the line, and how?

And really, it's a PvP-centric server. A lot of people chose Anphillia because it's dangerous. Because it's organic. Because it's unpredictable. Enforcing an assault schedule seems to be the very antithesis of what this server stands for.

KumoKumo wrote:If people want to arrange assault times, I'm cool with that. I'd even be down with telling people, "all right, I'm going to assault on the 9th of May at 3:00 PM GMT! Be there or be square!" Because it's not about winning for me. It's about the experience.

This could be an option but would completely eliminate any surprise factor and would make assaulting extremely tough in most situations. The surprise factor is fun and I want to try and keep it somehow.

KumoKumo wrote:
But enforcing an assault schedule because some people are ninnies or whatever doesn't seem "right" to me. It's not (or shouldn't be) a big deal. If some players can't accept that situations are occasionally "unfair", then this isn't the server for them.

This wasn't the motivation for the idea at all. I just listed it as a positive byproduct. Its some what of a natural reaction for many new players and some old. I try to at least be sympathetic and offer a different perspective to them.

KumoKumo wrote:
On a personal level, I assault when I do right now because that's when I can assault. Enforcing a schedule won't make things fairer--from my perspective, at least. It just means I won't be able to assault at all for significant portions of the month, which would be kind of lame.

I wouldn't want want it to do that. I enjoy defending even when I am alone and sure to lose Perhaps we can broaden the window? Or if you have any other suggestions? But you have to admit that its very easy to look at the player list when you do have a large chunk of time and, if it seems like it maybe too tough just wait a few hours till some high levels are not on. Everyone does it myself included. For the most part people don't want to assault when they know they are outnumbered or know that its going to be pretty tough. Its far easier to just wait a little.

KumoKumo wrote:
Even if bogging this server down in jurisdiction were seen as the way to go, how would you enforce it? What do you do if someone starts assaulting an hour before the window is up, but then the assault lasts an hour? Is that against the rules? What do you do if they start an hour before, then take an hour break in order to rally more troops. If they go back, is that against the rules, or is that fair because it's still part of an ongoing assault? What about if someone does assault and exit within the window of opportunity, but then needs to go back to reclaim some corpses? Where do you draw the line, and how?

I was thinking more of a scripted thing where maybe there would be more guards at all other times but during the window as opposed to trying to enforce some rule.

KumoKumo wrote:
And really, it's a PvP-centric server. A lot of people chose Anphillia because it's dangerous. Because it's organic. Because it's unpredictable. Enforcing an assault schedule seems to be the very antithesis of what this server stands for.

This is very true I wouldn't want to make it un PvP. I want to try and make the PvP more fun and encourage PvP at certain times so that they can be planned for a little better with players who have not as much time to play or just seem to miss all the action.
I think you see what I am trying to accomplish. We could go with a completely different idea to accomplish this. I feel like there is just a lot more potential PvP fun to be had if we changed something.

I just wish there was a way to balance out the #'s in the forts. I remember when I first made an axfell and we assaulted people were bitch'n up a storm that its unfair and we have more people. Now it seems the other way.. I think a good fix is to disable the player list. Also blacking out the player list that you see when you first login, and being able to see everyone's build. This might sway new people from just joining the over populated side, and will most definitely add much more of a surprise factor.

Also.. it will make it much harder for people to counter log builds if that fiasco ever decides to happen.

Kombat Karl wrote:I think a good fix is to disable the player list.

Is it possible to disable the player list? I have never seen it done before. How would you send a tell to someone without the player list?

Kombat Karl wrote:Also blacking out the player list that you see when you first login, and being able to see everyone's build.

Only draw back I can think of would be not being able to see what level others are for you to party up with but that doesn't seem like such a big deal.

For what it's worth, I can verify that most of Cleaven intentionally waits until more people log on. Maybe Axfell operates by a different principle, but hiding the player list will only ensure that assaults are more unfair from our end.

Mind you, it sometimes seems "unfair" anyway. I reckon the problem there is that it's impossible to tell who's AFK.

Well.. could script a player widget that showed a text list of players online on your own faction and perhaps their player level. Sending tells can still be done with the /t "Karl" or /tp "Jameswest84"
if they aren't there, it will say "player not available"

KumoKumo wrote:For what it's worth, I can verify that most of Cleaven intentionally waits until more people log on. Maybe Axfell operates by a different principle, but hiding the player list will only ensure that assaults are more unfair from our end.

Mind you, it sometimes seems "unfair" anyway. I reckon the problem there is that it's impossible to tell who's AFK.

I know you guys do, and I thank you for that. I see it this way though.. Sometimes the numbers may not be in your favor, or in our favor, no one would -truely- know.. so to me that is the -most- fair. I also think that later down the line, it will be more desirable just because it further inhibits meta-gaming. I personally rather be assaulted when no one knows how many are on and who is on, rather than having the lingering feeling that maybe someone went and looked at the player list and decided, "Hey.. they have like 2 40's on, lets go assault", and don't think that I believe that is what you do. I'm just saying that this solution would rid of that even being possible.

I reckon the problem there is that it's impossible to tell who's AFK..

Would it be possible to add a hide property script that logs your position, either by map coordinates or by map name, logs it and if it hasn't changed by the next check (maybe 30 minutes?) it switches you to an AFK list that can be checked by the same widget?

I like the idea because it would add a lot of uncertainty to a battle. I think that we should do as it will solve many problems we will have down the road. However I don't think it will be the solution for the problem we are trying to solve on this thread. *starts a new thread* The battles being fair are really not that important its really the spontaneity of the assaults that leaves many to miss out on them or defending from them that's important. That is why I was thinking narrowing the optimal assault time down would help more people to be available for those times.

Rhine Jive Click wrote:
Would it be possible to add a hide property script that logs your position, either by map coordinates or by map name, logs it and if it hasn't changed by the next check (maybe 30 minutes?) it switches you to an AFK list that can be checked by the same widget?

I would be afraid that it may cause lag or extra server strain.

I don't think assaults, especially fair ones, will be that spontaneous.

Generally speaking the window people have for an assault, is already fairly small. Since you need a time when people are on with characters at an appropriate level and have to convince people to do it.

Fair assaults are even smaller, since you need opponents at an appropriate level too.

The gaps widening all the time though! I disagree with adding a set time for assaults, since it'd make them more predictable, even more rare and has absolutely not IC reasoning.

"Hey guys, they got Paul! They've got him holed up in some hell-hole dungeon. Lets get him back!"
"We can't, we have to wait! For a reason I cannot explain.... Errr, it just doesn't feel right?"

Heh, since most folks are against it, I vote yes.
But seriously. I would love something like this. It would be like right after reboot, folks spread out throughout the island to get once/reboot NPCs and those chests taht are easiest to get and hold the epic loot - Specific time people would be eager to appear into...

It's a bit frustrating to be level 40 and have ONE defense as experience on this server...So yes, I would love it.

Felix wrote:

Rhine Jive Click wrote:
Would it be possible to add a hide property script that logs your position, either by map coordinates or by map name, logs it and if it hasn't changed by the next check (maybe 30 minutes?) it switches you to an AFK list that can be checked by the same widget?

I would be afraid that it may cause lag or extra server strain.

In order to do this, we'd need to 1) scan every player in order to 2) check their current locations and 3) compare them against their previous locations.

The legwork there is already done by the heartbeat script, which scans every player and checks their locations every 48 minutes in order to determine whether they qualify for experience. Flagging their status at that point would not be strenuous at all.

Professor Plum wrote:
Generally speaking the window people have for an assault, is already fairly small. Since you need a time when people are on with characters at an appropriate level and have to convince people to do it.

But if you have a window of time some people would try to get on at that time and save their sock darning for after they are done assaulting.

Professor Plum wrote:
The gaps widening all the time though! I disagree with adding a set time for assaults, since it'd make them more predictable, even more rare and has absolutely not IC reasoning.

We can give it an IC reason. How about the festivals of the full moon many guards get too drunk then fall asleep on their guard shift?

So the point of having an afk list is so you can see who is afk on the opposing fort and plan your attack if there are enough around?

But if you have a window of time some people would try to get on at that time and save their sock darning for after they are done assaulting.

Or you could post a time for an assault on the forums and not have to use rather sketchy scripts / rule enforcement to limit assaulting to one specific time.

Better yet, a DM could post a time for a decisive assault - with some objective other than the relic, the outcome of which could have a real effect on the island.

Limiting assaults means a total loss of spontaneity and alienation of alot of the playerbase. Most of which won't be able to guarantee playing at a set time.

We can give it an IC reason. How about the festivals of the full moon many guards get too drunk then fall asleep on their guard shift?

Why wouldn't my character assault then?

"Oh no, the enemy guards are all asleep, I'd best go home."

Heh, since most folks are against it, I vote yes.
But seriously. I would love something like this. It would be like right after reboot, folks spread out throughout the island to get once/reboot NPCs and those chests taht are easiest to get and hold the epic loot - Specific time people would be eager to appear into...

It's a bit frustrating to be level 40 and have ONE defense as experience on this server...So yes, I would love it.

There'd be less assaults, I'm sure.

As for fairness,

It's very hard to assault against a one person defense, if that person knows what they're doing, let alone multiple people. In most 'fair' teamed assault pvp, successful assaults are completely down to the element of surprise.

Just for clarification, is the problem that assaults don't happen enough, that they don't happen in greater numbers or that people don't like being relic-less?

If assaults don't happen enough, this would only make them happen less.

If they don't happen in big enough numbers, perhaps there should be objectives to an assault that require greater numbers.

If it's because people don't like being relic-less, tough! It's not like you lose anything by not having it.

If it's for a reason I've missed, yell it at me!

Professor Plum wrote:Or you could post a time for an assault on the forums and not have to use rather sketchy scripts / rule enforcement to limit assaulting to one specific time.

Felix wrote:I was thinking more of a scripted thing where maybe there would be more guards at all other times but during the window as opposed to trying to enforce some rule.

Professor Plum wrote:Better yet, a DM could post a time for a decisive assault - with some objective other than the relic, the outcome of which could have a real effect on the island.

Felix wrote:

KumoKumo wrote:If people want to arrange assault times, I'm cool with that. I'd even be down with telling people, "all right, I'm going to assault on the 9th of May at 3:00 PM GMT! Be there or be square!" Because it's not about winning for me. It's about the experience.

This could be an option but would completely eliminate any surprise factor and would make assaulting extremely tough in most situations. The surprise factor is fun and I want to try and keep it somehow.

Professor Plum wrote:
Limiting assaults means a total loss of spontaneity and alienation of alot of the playerbase. Most of which won't be able to guarantee playing at a set time.

I want to have time windows so that if people have 2 hours of free time a day and want to PvP they can if possible try and put those 2 free time hours within the assault window. I also want the window to be large enough so that there is still an element of surprise. Assaults won't always happen in the window nor will they be at a specific time so I still think there will be an element of surprise.

Professor Plum wrote:

Felix wrote:We can give it an IC reason. How about the festivals of the full moon many guards get too drunk then fall asleep on their guard shift?

Why wouldn't my character assault then?

"Oh no, the enemy guards are all asleep, I'd best go home."

The point is you would assault at that time. That was an example of an IC reason for assaulting at certain times.

Professor Plum wrote:Just for clarification, is the problem that assaults don't happen enough, that they don't happen in greater numbers or that people don't like being relic-less?

Felix wrote:I want to try and make the PvP more fun and encourage PvP at certain times so that they can be planned for a little better with players who have not as much time to play or just seem to miss all the action.

Put simply its more fun when more people are involved. The whole point of this idea is to give people a way to figure out what couple hour time frame PvP will happen in so they can not be off in some deep dungeon with all the defenders or plan their free time around the PvP window. So more will be around. It has nothing to do with fairness or being relicless. It has a little to do with numbers and a lot to do with fun.

Felix wrote:

Professor Plum wrote:Or you could post a time for an assault on the forums and not have to use rather sketchy scripts / rule enforcement to limit assaulting to one specific time.

Felix wrote:I was thinking more of a scripted thing where maybe there would be more guards at all other times but during the window as opposed to trying to enforce some rule.

?

It's sketchy enforcement. More guards at certain points, bottlenecking assaults. Beating around the bush, as it were.

Felix wrote:

Professor Plum wrote:Better yet, a DM could post a time for a decisive assault - with some objective other than the relic, the outcome of which could have a real effect on the island.

Felix wrote:

KumoKumo wrote:If people want to arrange assault times, I'm cool with that. I'd even be down with telling people, "all right, I'm going to assault on the 9th of May at 3:00 PM GMT! Be there or be square!" Because it's not about winning for me. It's about the experience.

This could be an option but would completely eliminate any surprise factor and would make assaulting extremely tough in most situations. The surprise factor is fun and I want to try and keep it somehow.

?

Even if that was Kumo talking in a DM capacity (Highly unlikely), how does that mention any world-changing objective? It lacks spontaneity, yes, but the fun wouldn't be in the winning, or losing, but the taking part in an event that shapes the island.

It also doesn't detract from any 'regular' assaults, but it allows people to get involved in 'epic' battles!

Felix wrote:

Professor Plum wrote:
Limiting assaults means a total loss of spontaneity and alienation of alot of the playerbase. Most of which won't be able to guarantee playing at a set time.

I want to have time windows so that if people have 2 hours of free time a day and want to PvP they can if possible try and put those 2 free time hours within the assault window. I also want the window to be large enough so that there is still an element of surprise. Assaults won't always happen in the window nor will they be at a specific time so I still think there will be an element of surprise.

That'd be awesome, if you only notified the assaulting team that the assault window was open. Else the defense wouldn't paticularly be surprised.

I know if it said "Assault window open" I'd run out and RP about the guards with everyone.

But then mustering one sides forces makes it a tad unfair, you'd have to alternate faction assault windows and it sort of defeats the point.

Professor Plum wrote:

Felix wrote:We can give it an IC reason. How about the festivals of the full moon many guards get too drunk then fall asleep on their guard shift?

Why wouldn't my character assault then?

"Oh no, the enemy guards are all asleep, I'd best go home."

The point is you would assault at that time. That was an example of an IC reason for assaulting at certain times.

I see! So, IC'ly a PC defender would have every right to step unto guard duty! End result, nil!

Professor Plum wrote:how does that mention any world-changing objective?

Very true. I did mean to put something in there about how the world changing objective is a new idea. I could see people being sore losers over something like this though. It might work though.

Professor Plum wrote:
That'd be awesome, if you only notified the assaulting team that the assault window was open. Else the defense wouldn't paticularly be surprised.

I was thinking along the lines of
Every hour after the server resets a server message pops up telling both factions how many hours are left until the prime time to assault would be. It counts down to a random time from between 3 to 8 hours from the server reset. Anyone can assault at any time they wish but the defense guards will be reduced at this time for a certain number of hours to permit prime PvP time. Everyone who logs in after the server has reset will know when this time is and if time permits will try and be there for which ever (assault defend) their fort decides to do if either. Being that this happens every server reset and that there is a large window in which to assault I think the element of surprise will still be present as assaults will not happen the majority of the windows.

Professor Plum wrote:
It's sketchy enforcement. More guards at certain points, bottlenecking assaults. Beating around the bush, as it were.

Professor Plum wrote:
I see! So, IC'ly a PC defender would have every right to step unto guard duty! End result, nil!

I don't understand what you mean in the above two.

Well, it's not real enforcement. Sure you can put more guards there at certain times, but truth be told, I'd rather assault when there were more guards. It'd feel more badass.

If I'm informed that the gate guards are weakened in some way, and I know that my present faction aren't attacking - then I can just sit about near the guards (Especially when I see an Axfell force gathering via my trusty player-list) thus reducing the element of surprise. You could argue that it's meta-gaming, and it is. But it's justified because IC a bunch of the guards are drunk, so I'm filling in (Just only when it looks like an assault is brewing, but it's just a coincidence!)

I'm not against the idea, I just think that in order to have big, fun-filled battles you need to create a reason for them. Not just reducing the time-frame of assaults and hoping players from different timezones will bottleneck.

Just as an example, if each fort had a persistent way of accumulating gold (Or an alternative currency. Through taxes / other RP driven things), then a treasury could be ransacked - the gold stolen by the opposing faction. The gold could be spent on erecting a statue of the current tyrannical leader, somewhere or other - etc.

It's not just a smash and grab though, the way to the treasury could be heavily guarded, have PC triggered traps (To aid defenders) etc etc - have several levels, even an anti-magic zone. High DC locks, traps - shortcuts to specific defensive points for PC defenders. Something that would be difficult to accomplish even in a big group. (I'm not talking 2 super-strong temple guards, but a whole bunch of things that would be challenging to different types of build, necessitating the need to have a diverse group - and maybe some tact!)

This way players would organise themselves abit more.

IMO the reason big battles don't happen, is because you don't need a large force to assault / defend. If you did, for a specific goal, people would adapt.

Good post and well put Plum!

The problem with the guards is if the defenders are way outnumbered the guards are not sufficient enough. On the other hand if the forces are somewhat equal the guards seem to sway the balance too far on the side of the defenders. Its a real delicate balance that was played with for a while on Moths to get what we have now.

Professor Plum wrote:Well, it's not real enforcement. Sure you can put more guards there at certain times, but truth be told, I'd rather assault when there were more guards. It'd feel more badass.

Your right its not real enforcement. I don't think it really needs to be. Sure you could attack when the guards are numerous if you wanted but if we implemented something like this we would prob want it to be very difficult so that even a few defenders could potentially make a large scale assault come to a halt.

Professor Plum wrote:
If I'm informed that the gate guards are weakened in some way, and I know that my present faction aren't attacking - then I can just sit about near the guards (Especially when I see an Axfell force gathering via my trusty player-list) thus reducing the element of surprise. You could argue that it's meta-gaming, and it is. But it's justified because IC a bunch of the guards are drunk, so I'm filling in (Just only when it looks like an assault is brewing, but it's just a coincidence!)

True you could do this and it would be ok. But if the window was 6 hours would you do it for all 6 hours every reset? I don't think people would and so, a little element of surprise. It would kind of encourage characters to be at least close to the fort in case a defense needs to be made. But your are right about seeing people log certain characters. It would be a dead give away. Maybe if Karls suggestion were implemented this wouldn't be an issue.

Professor Plum wrote:
I'm not against the idea, I just think that in order to have big, fun-filled battles you need to create a reason for them. Not just reducing the time-frame of assaults and hoping players from different timezones will bottleneck.

Maybe but I feel like everyone who has a high level wants to have assaults and defenses more than they currently happen with more present on each side. I think the reason it doesn't happen is logistics.

Professor Plum wrote:
IMO the reason big battles don't happen, is because you don't need a large force to assault / defend. If you did, for a specific goal, people would adapt.

True but then we have the problem I stated in the beginning. Any reasonably even opposing force is boosted in power so much by the guards it throws everything off.

Will a 6 hour window bottle-neck people into PvP'ing on mass? It seems too large.

If it's too large, it's not particularly doing anything. If it's too small then it's too predictable and disruptive to alot of the playerbase.

Is there a sweet spot?

To go on a slight tangent, I feel the problem with the assault/defense scenario is the fact that there just isn't much incentive for a defender or two to come off of the walls. It's much too easy to simply hunker down and prevent the attackers from making any headway at all.

Exodus' assault ladder system was cool as it helped with that a lot, but there are some things I'd like to change about it if it were to be implemented here. Barring that, the easy fix is geometry: lengthen the walls, and suddenly positioning becomes more of a trade off of defensiveness vs. mobility; moving from one wall to the other would represent a significant amount of time for defenders up top, but when done from the field, it'd remain a straight shot to each side.