Orrery

TybereusTybereus Member Posts: 12
I was thinking... When Pking at Orrery, why not have it the same as a Lesser. Assistance in killing a player gives others xp for helping why not the same for Orrery. I think this will bring more people to fight.
OonaghIazamatVyxsisLeana

Comments

  • AlathesiaAlathesia Member Posts: 25 ✭✭
    I think one of the draw backs to the Orrery is the xp lost upon death. With the new changes to xp loss, it does not take much to hurt from the Orrery. But I think if this was implemented it would make up for a bit of that loss and even things out. Make more want to come if they can not hurt so bad from deaths.
    TybereusLeana
  • IazamatIazamat Member Posts: 32
    I agree. All large scale conflict needs to work the way Foci currently do.
  • TeaniTeani Evening Sky SwedenMember Posts: 1,970 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Iazamat, you mean with few, if any, consequences?

    @Tybereus, I think assist xp would be a good idea. 



    LeanaFezzixZaila
  • VyxsisVyxsis VyxsisMember Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
    yeah, i don't *love* losing xp or anything, but i'd rather not move to a system where there were few, if any, consequences. xp loss feels like it's both not especially meaningful yet somehow still frustrating, especially since PVP xp loss is higher than PVE and the higher your level, the more xp 1% actually is. given that the orrery gives very little (if anything) worth having, i think many people conclude it's just a waste unless they're just assured victory because of ridiculously stacked numbers.

    orrery's kinda had a lot of problems since its inception, from what i gather. it's a weird throwback to landmarks, which lots of people never experienced directly and no longer have any real bearing on the game. same with various other 'mass conflict' avenues - why bother fighting in the Shattered Vortex? or the Iernian Fracture? i mean, i do both from time to time, but that's just because i would wouldn't i. the orrery rewards you with... ok, slightly better sip half the time isn't too bad. what else though? every four hours, it wastes anabiotic with a stat boost that lasts 5 minutes - when are you ever gonna get use out of that? 5% bonus to audit for the least widely available damage types in the game? ok, thanks...

    like, unless you just love group pvp or feel certain you're gonna win, i can see why people wouldn't bother at all just based on a loose cost-benefit analysis.
    Indoran'i is back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (wolf Howl)
    An Atzob cultist says, "Is a shamatato as tasty as a potato?"
    (Tells): From afar, Mephistoles hisses harshly to you, "Hey baby, show me your ovipositor?"
    (Research): Cariv says, "Itsa me, Buggio."
    ZailaTybereus
  • VyxsisVyxsis VyxsisMember Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
    er, i meant to say somewhere in there that making XP shared seems fine and also good to me. always seems weird to me that maybe you did most of the heavy lifting to kill a target, but because someone suddenly rolled in and finished them, you'd get nothing. again, the cost-benefit ratio is awful if you can easily lose tons of xp without a decent chance at gaining.
    Indoran'i is back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (wolf Howl)
    An Atzob cultist says, "Is a shamatato as tasty as a potato?"
    (Tells): From afar, Mephistoles hisses harshly to you, "Hey baby, show me your ovipositor?"
    (Research): Cariv says, "Itsa me, Buggio."
    Tybereus
  • IazamatIazamat Member Posts: 32
    edited June 1
    Teani said:

    @Iazamat, you mean with few, if any, consequences?

    @Tybereus, I think assist xp would be a good idea. 

    Sure! I think it's more important to get people involved with the only consequence being the overall loss (of the conflict and of resources other than exp). Aetolia's fostered a mindset that exp matters and I don't think that's going to change. I'd rather we learn to work with that than continue to pretend that's not the case. I know that I'm personally more involved in ylem conflict with its current setup than I would be otherwise.

    Edit: To add, I really think bonuses for the winning side are much, much better for everyone involved than a slew of consequences for the losing side, which the game's gotten fairly decent at. In my 15 years playing Aetolia, numerous people have rallied for consequences of varying natures whenever conflict has been discussed, but the results indicate that very few players, if any, actually want to deal with those consequences. What most want are consequences for the other side of the game, because we all selfishly derive enjoyment from our "enemies" having their fun ruined, even if we wouldn't admit that. So, yah! More conflict systems with the Foci setup (aura = no loss of exp, shared exp gain) would be more beneficial in the long run.
    Post edited by Iazamat on
  • TeaniTeani Evening Sky SwedenMember Posts: 1,970 ✭✭✭✭✭
    All I have to say about that is please, please, please don't remove more consequences in this game. 



    FezzixZaila
  • IazamatIazamat Member Posts: 32
    We've derailed from the original point of this thread, but if anyone wants to discuss it further, feel free to either PM me or start a new thread! I feel like I've explained myself well enough, but I'm willing to elaborate further!
  • TeaniTeani Evening Sky SwedenMember Posts: 1,970 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It is not quite derailed. Making all larger fights like Lessers will remove consequences of fighting, and I, for one, would prefer if those were not removed. It is enough that Lessers exist as a way to get into combat practice, but other kinds of fighting should have some consequences. (I would really like it if there were consequences available for other things too, for RP purposes and such, but that would really be to derail)

    When it comes to assists, however, Orrery could definitely benefit from those, as it is usually a group thing, and would encourage people to move to the next step up in fighting. Eventually they might move to more Arena fights, and later on... perhaps duels. I remember some truly epic duels being fought at North of Trees.

    There should be a natural progression in this, but I really don't like the notion of removing consequences. Disappointment is part of it all, and if you can't handle it, get better or learn how to handle a loss.

    Lessers - group fighting, consequence free
    Orrery - group fighting, some consequences (less with assist gain)
    Sect - single fighting, consequence free
    Duel - single fighting, larger consequences.



  • IazamatIazamat Member Posts: 32
    The consequence is the death screen we have to sit through, knowing we lost.
  • EliadonEliadon Somewhere Over the RainbowMember Posts: 123 ✭✭✭
    edited June 1
    Mmm, even if there was no exp loss, there are still consequences.

    Not getting the buffs from the Orrery.

    And if that isn't consequence enough, then why bother fighting over it at all?
    Post edited by Eliadon on
    IazamatOonaghKalak
  • AlathesiaAlathesia Member Posts: 25 ✭✭
    I am ok with the xp loss if the xp were to be shared for kills. As it stands now it is a lose lose situation with losing xp for the death and not gaining any for the assist. I do think they need to keep the Orrery different than foci. Just give us a shared xp gain if we assist in the kill. That would help to even out what is lost in death. The Orrery lasts for so long now, you can die quite a bit during one Orrery event and if you are taking 1% of xp each death that is going to add up quickly.
    TeaniTybereus
  • LeanaLeana Member Posts: 189 ✭✭✭
    Teani said:



    Lessers - group fighting, consequence free
    Orrery - group fighting, some consequences (less with assist gain)
    Sect - single fighting, consequence free some consequences (half exp loss)
    Duel - single fighting, larger consequences.

    Fixed that for you.

    If the consequences are too adverse, people will stop going. A lot of people want to help but only one can get the kill. A less experienced and weaker player will die way more than the buff artifact players. They also get little help getting that back if they never land a killing blow.

    Shared exp will mitigate that issue. There's already an aura (debuff) to facilitate that, though I don't know how the code works.

    Alathesia
  • TeaniTeani Evening Sky SwedenMember Posts: 1,970 ✭✭✭✭✭
    True, it's half xp loss for Sect. I'm fine with that kind of progression, though.

    Also please note that I am all for the shared assist xp for Orrery. I just don't think it should be completely like Lessers. 



    Alathesia
  • KalakKalak Member Posts: 274 ✭✭✭
    edited June 3
    I agree with shared xp too. Anyways...

    Perhaps this will be a long discourse on the topic, but without some comparisons we cannot see the whole picture.

    To make a comparison, MKO was the IRE game which had the least PvP barrier (you could even PK with one skillset alone in some classes and there were no PvP barrier-padding like resistance miniskills) and possessed no XP loss for PvP deaths. The curing system did not even have curatives so it was quite on the gentle side with resources to participate in PvE and PvP activities too.

    But in the long run it did not magically increase or decrease the participation. People would still get angry when they were killed and this lack of consequence to PvP made people uncaring about the death in the game.

    Personally I found it amusing a good deal of players in the game play "brave" characters when there was no consequence to their actions. A non-com would call you coward and give you enough reasons to kill them...and when you kill them...they would laugh at you again (I like to call that "Brave Non-Com Syndrome") Because why not? You have just dealt them 1-2 minutes of AFKness and killing someone repeatedly was frowned upon in MKO too.

    Now here, the root problem I observe is not the loss of xp but rather the lack of drive beneath the current conflicts. I have participated in enough lessers to date to lose interest in them, but at first I was envisioning them as disrupting key operations of the enemy. A conflict of interest. But then it was pointed out participating in them really is not a big deal and it is more then enough to keep ylem reserves of a city with PvE/less-lethal methods. So why participate in any battle if they are devoid of a driving reason? Why my character should care about lessers or Orrery when they are not crucial to an advantage or disadvantage? They felt now like minigames, like Sect of Blades...fairly detached from PvE and gameworld.

    Side note: Also aura is in my opinion a very outlandish and unfitting mechanic "Oh his aura dropped...we should not kill him now!" I found that always OOC. In a war-scenario, you would do pre-emptive strikes and chases. Playing around aura rules is not-fun and that is RPly unsound.

    Some Spicy Solutions

    1. Untethering Conflicts

    Currently tether mechanics cause the occurrence of natural alliances between Bloodloch-Spinesreach and Duiran-Enorian. As standalone cities they are unable to shine and be responsible for their armies. In my opinion while in tether (grand play side of the game) cities are aligned they should be misaligned in more short-term conflicts. That way, you will have four sides vying for control instead of two sides.

    2. Conquest

    Some Capture the Flag or King of the Hill style PvP events across the world would give people RP reasons to participate in such conflicts. Furthermore these outposts can be placed in less-frequented areas to provide some traffic there. Good folks would not want a Grook village fall into the hands of Spireans who will use the inhabitants as laboratory test subjects, right?

    3. True Zero-Sum Conflicts

    A zero sum game will effectively mean one side's victory is another side's defeat and its consequence will be felt. Lessers are inflationary conflicts in nature, because ylem will accumulate more and more...thus there is no way to deprive another city from their ylem reserves or make them lose on certain buffs. On the other hand a true zero-sum game would put one side more advantageous then the other. Perhaps one side can capture a location which will provide a tithe to the controlling city and make their commodity prices higher for the others. The ideas can be increased with some brainstorming. The main aim is this: Each of the four cities should have either a RP or conflict of interest reason to capture those places or fight in a designated area.
    Post edited by Kalak on
    RhyotTekiasTeaniEliadon
  • RhyotRhyot BloodlochMember Posts: 244 ✭✭✭
    Let's keep this thread to the primary reason it was brought up. The orrery and activity among the orrery. If you want to discuss other mechanics, then make another thread.

    KalakIazamatTeani
  • KalakKalak Member Posts: 274 ✭✭✭
    edited June 3
    Rhyot said:

    Let's keep this thread to the primary reason it was brought up. The orrery and activity among the orrery. If you want to discuss other mechanics, then make another thread.

    I give a broader perspective and you use your Off-Topic card again. I am sorry but whatever I wrote is related to the very core of this issue.

    PvP XP loss, the reasonings behind conflicts and such, all are related to conflicts such as Orrery.

    Stop being a forum police and instead contribute other then: "I bash nonsensically above lvl 200+ and 1% xp loss is too much for me! Ignore people who want consequences!"
    TekiasArbreRhyotTeaniIazamat
  • EliadonEliadon Somewhere Over the RainbowMember Posts: 123 ✭✭✭
    Rhyot said:


    - Change the noon/midnight buffs to last for 2 hours instead of 5 minutes.

    Two hours might be a SMIDGE too much. With the eq/bal enhance, it's ludicrously opie op for those 5 minutes. ;p

    But yeah, as I mentioned before, if it isn't worth fighting over with the existing XP loss, why bother?
    RhyotFezzixIazamatAlathesia
  • RhyotRhyot BloodlochMember Posts: 244 ✭✭✭
    You're right, Eliadon. 2 hours might be a little excessive for power increase, but I was just giving a number. In reality, that would skew the ability to do other pvp/pve mechanics if it lasted that long.

    At best, I think if it was like 30-45 minutes that would probably a much better benefit than 5 minutes. It would allow you to have better speeds for PVE and if you wanted to PVP, you'd have an edge as well.

  • TybereusTybereus Member Posts: 12
    Was not my intention to say consequences shouldn't be there. I was intending on like shared XP, like @Vyxsis stated a person does all the work and someone else comes in and cleans up and kills target. I'm sorry that doesn't sit well with me. It's like I just got screwed over on a lot of XP that would take me a while to get.
    Mordion
  • MordionMordion Member Posts: 31
    Does exp loss post level 100 really bother people? Personally, it doesn't bother me too much but I can see how this would discourage a player who is lower level. If removing the xp loss is all it takes to get more people involved in orrery then I won't complain.
    Unofficial Founder of the Cult of Tiur
  • EliadonEliadon Somewhere Over the RainbowMember Posts: 123 ✭✭✭
    Mordion said:

    Does exp loss post level 100 really bother people? Personally, it doesn't bother me too much but I can see how this would discourage a player who is lower level. If removing the xp loss is all it takes to get more people involved in orrery then I won't complain.

    It bothers specific people, mostly people who care about their level.
  • TiurTiur Producer Member, Administrator, Immortal Posts: 503 admin
    I think the objective of the thread has been met? We agree that the exp should be shared. We will not be removing exp loss or really changing much else, as Orrery is a different animal than foci.
    TeaniMordionOonaghVyxsis
  • AlathesiaAlathesia Member Posts: 25 ✭✭
    @Tiur that is all I was wanting done. I do not think it should be like foci and have consequences, but glad it is seen that the shared xp will pull more to participate. Thank you!
    TeaniMordionVyxsis
Sign In or Register to comment.