Author Message

Daskarion

Rank 0
Joined
12 Jan 2008
Posts
21
PostedMar 25, 2013 9:15 am
I'm not an estimator of free pk or pvp or rvr In every game, but I like the aesthetics of Dk online so I will adapt.
from my point of view the new map is very aesthetically appealing, and free pk zone could move the interest of certain players offcourse
what worried me is the following:
what happen when I die by PK and about the ninjakill

what happen if I die by pk:
selfexplanatory
Do I lose exp? and/or do I lose glory points
or other?

about the ninjakill:
a bit more complex
ninjakill is just one of the terms used on mmorpg to describe those pks than wait their victims are busy in a fight with mob/mobs to lauch they attack hoping to get the last hit on them, on the contrary griefers launch their attack hoping that the mobs istead will deal the last hit procuring to their victim an exp loss damage.
the IA of the mobs in DK is not very elaborated, (well: they aggro players from far, chase them for a considerable long period, they are good runners, respaw too fast so you cant simply slowly dispatch of them, furthemore the formula: mobs' health-mobs' damage-coins dropped-potions' price is not favorable to players). but the true IA problem is that the while the mobs are chasing a player for long enough if happen that another player crosses their path all those mobs switch aggro to the newest player. so I foresee this behavior: pk aggro alot of mobs behind him run toward a player, mobs switch aggro on the new player aka pk's victim, pk use stun or net whatever, pk collect his kill or the poor player lose exp by mobs.
playing in teams all the time can counter this behaviour atleast but that is not a definitive solution
I looking forward the devs implement few fixes:
alliance system, correct mobs IA so they don't switch aggro, and reduce the price of potions in the shop by atleast 1/3

Exscuse my english ==
Advertisement

Rekikyo

Rank 5.1
Rekikyo
Joined
25 Nov 2008
Posts
8455
Location
Gaia Adrion Necria United States
PostedMar 25, 2013 9:50 am
filipvarga wrote:
It would make sense if we would get the political system and a battleground to fight.

Alliance vs Alliance and Guild vs Guild battlegrounds should be instanced though, for the sake of different guilds or alliances being in war with guilds/alliances you declared piece with, but all fighting on the same battleground, does not make sense.  


I'll agree to disagree there XD. It would make sense and for hardcore pvpers, and it would even be fun. However, Long term exposure to the same war would probably lead to some of the carebears putting up their toons and quitting. Instancing a war is disgusting to say the least, because it's another quality games have engineered to "contain and balance." While I am all in favor of balance, I am far from in favor of "contain." War should feel like war. Tense, Aggressive, and at Great Cost and Rewards.

Also, instancing wars would lead to overabuse of the fact you could declare everyone your enemy, or be bad players. Think about it. If GuildA were notorious arses who act adversely to everyone else, declares everyone else an enemy, will instanced (balanced) pvp teach them that being everyone's enemy is not in their best interest, or is having everyone else kick the living crap out of them going to give them that message.

That's part of the reason I brought up this idea. The separation of reputation from a guild/faction's ability to play and be proud and greedy, has always led to power players who get away with generally being bad people. For a guild like Requiem, who I personally believe are moral players for the most part, but gain a bad reputation merely through the shortcomings of their opponents, a system like this could be a double edged sword. Smart use would lead to players realizing perhaps, that Requiem is a good guild with good morals who does NOT want to be the thorn in everyone's side, and "traitors" for switching factions; Or, if they decided to go all out pvp, that would say the opposite to the community. And this goes for every guild in the game.

I mean, this is supposed to be a MMORPG. Where's the role playing if everything is civilized, and hidden away in an instance? Life, even a fake life, is not always fair.

filipvarga

GameSage: DK Online
filipvarga
Joined
06 Dec 2008
Posts
2568
Location
Porec Croatia
PostedMar 25, 2013 11:25 am
A missunderstanding Wink
I never mentioned that the instanced battleground should only allow equal numbers. What I meant was to give each "War" its own playground, eg. Guild A is fighting Guild B - they get their own instanced map to fight, while Alliance A fights Alliance B get their own instance too. Two different Wars on two different battlegrounds.
It would be confusing (and a lag fest) if all Wars are held on the same meadow.

Rekikyo

Rank 5.1
Rekikyo
Joined
25 Nov 2008
Posts
8455
Location
Gaia Adrion Necria United States
PostedMar 25, 2013 4:58 pm
filipvarga wrote:
A missunderstanding Wink
I never mentioned that the instanced battleground should only allow equal numbers. What I meant was to give each "War" its own playground, eg. Guild A is fighting Guild B - they get their own instanced map to fight, while Alliance A fights Alliance B get their own instance too. Two different Wars on two different battlegrounds.
It would be confusing (and a lag fest) if all Wars are held on the same meadow.  


I know what you meant:) I was saying that I think that a guild that bites off more than it can chew, should be subject to punishment by all people it has picked a fight with ..... at once. It'd be a major deterrent from trying to be overconfident.

I also wasn't talking just the new content. I meant the entire game. So in all likelihood, wars would exist in different places, particularly at castles. Or, if Guild B hears Guild A is taking a hard boss (we need those), Guild B can come assault Guild A. And if faction B hears Faction A's Guild A and B are at war, they can come kill them both. After Faction B kills Faction A, Guild A and B decide it's no longer worth fighting each other, call a truce, and fight as a Faction A against Faction B.

It is true this concept would lend better, if DKO did not have its lag issues. I personally would love to see 200 players in one location, confused and dying and killing.

razzzeh

Rank 0
Joined
13 Dec 2012
Posts
18
Location
Belgium
PostedMar 26, 2013 12:14 pm
Rekikyo wrote:
Oh ..... And games that implement Free PK typically do not do well, unless they implement channels. I have yet to see an Open PK game without Channels to move to.  


Sry but you just haven't played enough mmorpgs then. You should have tried some very good open world pk games with just one channel, multiple servers, some pve some pvp but just 1 channel.

Pure makes a lot of sense in what she's saying.

Some things could improve the pvp in this game, things need to be changed to cs imo, rvr is much better now, still could be better. I first thought of sieges as 2 guilds fighting over a castle/territory or 2 alliances fighting over control, instead it's just been a chaotic mess with very few strategies so far.

For the new open pvp hunting area the thing I fear the most is that it would favour parties, more precisely own guild parties a lot (e.g. a party constantly kills solos in the area and doesn't let anyone farm) This could be both a good or a bad thing as there would be more competition on grinding spots and you could see nice party vs party battles.

I agree with bryan fury that friendly fire should be off. If it's gonna be ffa it'll be some messy fun, but not competitive or strategic...

Bryan.Fury

Rank 3
Bryan.Fury
Joined
07 Mar 2010
Posts
962
Location
TekkenForce Town Italy
PostedMar 26, 2013 12:18 pm
razzzeh wrote:
Rekikyo wrote:
Oh ..... And games that implement Free PK typically do not do well, unless they implement channels. I have yet to see an Open PK game without Channels to move to.  
Sry but you just haven't played enough mmorpgs then.  
Gotta say +1 to what Razz said..

razzzeh wrote:
I agree with bryan fury that friendly fire should be off. If it's gonna be ffa it'll be some messy fun, but not competitive or strategic...  
Also mind about what i suggested.. it's not that far from the actually change we are gonna take.. Link

BryanFury - Leader |Site|Forum|

filipvarga

GameSage: DK Online
filipvarga
Joined
06 Dec 2008
Posts
2568
Location
Porec Croatia
PostedMar 26, 2013 12:29 pm
Free for all is just nonsense in my opinion.

Rekikyo

Rank 5.1
Rekikyo
Joined
25 Nov 2008
Posts
8455
Location
Gaia Adrion Necria United States
PostedMar 26, 2013 4:21 pm
Bryan.Fury wrote:
razzzeh wrote:
Rekikyo wrote:
Oh ..... And games that implement Free PK typically do not do well, unless they implement channels. I have yet to see an Open PK game without Channels to move to.  
Sry but you just haven't played enough mmorpgs then.  
Gotta say +1 to what Razz said..

razzzeh wrote:
I agree with bryan fury that friendly fire should be off. If it's gonna be ffa it'll be some messy fun, but not competitive or strategic...  
Also mind about what i suggested.. it's not that far from the actually change we are gonna take.. Link  


I encourage you to list successful PK enabled games that do not have more than one channel.

Bryan.Fury

Rank 3
Bryan.Fury
Joined
07 Mar 2010
Posts
962
Location
TekkenForce Town Italy
PostedMar 26, 2013 4:24 pm
Rekikyo wrote:
Bryan.Fury wrote:
razzzeh wrote:
Rekikyo wrote:
Oh ..... And games that implement Free PK typically do not do well, unless they implement channels. I have yet to see an Open PK game without Channels to move to.  
Sry but you just haven't played enough mmorpgs then.  
Gotta say +1 to what Razz said..

razzzeh wrote:
I agree with bryan fury that friendly fire should be off. If it's gonna be ffa it'll be some messy fun, but not competitive or strategic...  
Also mind about what i suggested.. it's not that far from the actually change we are gonna take.. Link  


I encourage you to list successful PK enabled games that do not have more than one channel.  
DAOC and L2 are two successifull games that did lead the mmorpg for a lot of times about the great PvP mechanics made, and still does..

BryanFury - Leader |Site|Forum|

alphazomgy

Rank 0
Joined
08 May 2012
Posts
83
Location
United States
PostedMar 26, 2013 4:46 pm
Why dont GM's tell upper managment about this crap? They need fix the castle siege system and just revise it competley we all know the issues but why cant we decide when to have CS instead of it being 1 a day everyday. Like making your own declaration instead of it being on a cycle. You all know what im sayn Smile
Display posts from previous:   Sort by: