Won’t fix the issue for me. I don’t want to see other people pillaging my land, even if it regenerates an hour after that. I put time and effort into creating something and seeing it destroyed is not a sight I want to observe.
2 Likes
if ther is beacon sieging i think it should be a case of lets say on pve worlds, i think there should be a system that each week there is a certaint day you can siege and the owner of the beacon can choose wether they want to take part in a siege so for say i say it was coming tomorrow if i had time to be on i would opt in through my beacon but lets say i was going somewhere i would opt out.
Well first, sieging should be only pvp and may be also only on siege worlds (may be called gvg (guild vs guild)). Second: To bind it to a special time would be problematic because a: The players are around the world, so it has to be at least 24 hours, and b: Many people only can play good in the week, others only at the weekend, some very random. Also, If I just now want to have a fight with my pals it should not be ruled by a global calendar, but only by me cuz I want to have the fun now (or soon), not in half a week. If there is a time to be set it should be a countdown for declaring warfare. So if Guild Red want to fight Guild Blue they build a “beacon bomb” which go off in an hour and then the guild which planted the bomb can attack for a while.
The only problem would be that players have to be online to defend, so there could be three ways to handle it: …
-
The Defending players can set their beacon as “protected” for a cost (may be it should be high). So as long as they fuel it with shards it may be save (for a duration set by the protecting players but only to a maximum, so that attackers may plan to attack them if it goes down (planned)).
-
The Defenders and the Attackers have to accept the war both, so that both parties are ready and online if it happen. The problem would be that this system works against the “open warfare” used to be in other games that include sieging (and it could be frustrating if noone wants to fight your guild because you are known to be good).
-
Guilds can enter alliances or factions (first would be open to build, second could be 2-4 premade factions which may be entered individualy by the guilds). The guilds of one alliance/faction are able to defend the beacon of one of them and the attackers can also get support of their side. The problem with this would be that it can become very crowded if all of one side come and help, so there must be rules that limit the number of people on both sides at the beacon or near to it.
I would like to have the first or third option chosen for the game, cuz it is important that you can attack if you want to, not if your enemy is willing to. The third option is the best I think cuz on that way you may have people online on each side at each time of the day and people would work together. This is also used on Dark Age of Camelot and Guildwars 2, where you always had 3 global factions which were fighting each other 
2 Likes
Then you wouldn’t have to worry about it like ever because other player " COULD NOT" come to your server/world and do anything what so ever to your builds and a lot of people that like to capture other land would probably a safe home on safe severs,but a lot of builds on these servers would be made for the perpuse of that feature
I’m know people that are 100% against PVP in its self (PVP as in player vs. player and nothing else) and say the same thing about not going to PVP worlds. The thing is they don’t have to and the majority of the severs probably would be PVE and other safe worlds
And to repeat a siege is a way to capture a fort or military structure not to destroy it
You might not like games like that but a lot of people do and some would like it in the games and by no means are we saying you have to be part of it nor are is it stating that it has to effect you.
@Hiyosup I’m not saying make TNT or even a Trebuchet in to the game. A siege is to capture something not to destroy it. So the weapon of massive destruction we have for this is a pickaxe.
@Opulus
its not that all the people that do that want to its mostly that the game allows a lot of freedom and no positive outlets.
If you have ever played a good PVP game and enjoyed it then you would have an idea of why people like PVP
So If you have played payday 2, red faction, enjoyed being part of the thieves guild on skyrim, The newer battle fields, grad thief auto, and so on and enjoyed them. That is a very similar reason a lot of people that grief like to grief. So if you had a positive way that didn’t bother player that didn’t like it, but allowed people that did to enjoy it then thous people probably wouldn’t have to deal with as much grieffers
So if you liked any of thous games or ones that are similar ask your self do you wanna see the whole world burn or do you see yourself as uncivilized and generally idiotic?
This idea would work good on siege worlds too
https://forum.oortonline.com/t/areal-bonus-for-colonization/1374
That way you could have areas that have boosts too them while not having a lot of them so there more vaulter but also a more rewarding find, but also not allow one person to put beacons over all of them or most in the area. Players would be able to take them from players that didn’t have good deference or protection on them.
This would also make taking over something then editing it more reasonable then to destroy it there for it might have some protection allowing the owner to improve it.
Some might say its unfair to the people playing in safe worlds well to that you don’t have to worry about losing your land so its balanced out if you don’t.
Of course having good rules would add fairness but you would also want to keep the fun in it.
One think i think would be cool is if you could craft defenses like towers and traps maybe have pets that fight off invaders with you or while your away. One deference which we already have but if changed a bit would work fine is the ember block increase the range of its effect and maybe allow it to pass threw soft resources such as dirt or sand.
builder could make secrete entrances to find out the best way to take it back. You could also limit these sieges to groups such as guilds with an object they have to find and destroy then make there own with a 24 hour rest period. This object could have a good amount of health and its own attack making even more difficult to take over.
3 Likes
Dude, you got it all wrong. I’m not against PvP itself by any means. I’m against some other guy coming to my piece of land and destroying everything I’ve built on it, EVEN when it was Beaconed. PvP as you mentioned is Player versus Player action, while what we’re talking about here is Player versus Building That Some Other Player Have Built.
I got griefed before and I don’t see why this is any different.
Ok i´ve got that my ideas for beacon sieging might be a bit too harsh for this community since there are many player that just want to build peacefully
But I´m glad to see that there are people who support the idea of siege battles.
So what do you think about following idea:
Player beacons are completly 100% save, so solo player dont have to worry about beeing griefed while they are offline.
But let´s say if you create a guild you get a guild-beacon (to build your guildhall,guild city, …) that can be sieged. To solve the time zone problem you could set the “main operation time” of your guild when you create it (lets say atleast 4 hours/day). In the 20 hours your beacon is protected other guild have the chance to declare war and battle it out in the 4 hours it is PvP falgged.
The battle for the beacon itself could work just like i described it in my main post.
And for the afttermath of the fight the defender (if he cant defend his beacon) could just loose like 10%/20%/30% of the stuff he has stored inside the beacon, with instant repair after the battle (the server could copy everything inside your beacon before the battle time starts and after the 4 hours battletime it could paste it inside the beacon again(if the owner wants to), maybe with some fancy graphical effects).
(I personally would still prefer permanent destruction)
I also love Grey707s idea of advantageous areas that are permanently PvP flagged, so no one is forced to participate the PvP part of the game if he doesnt like the risk vs. reward.
1 Like
I’m not okay with that either, because I dont want someone to run over my Guild at any cost…
1 Like
Sieging is basicly just an Game for Griefers and I dont like that at all… if you want to do something like that, then Talk with one of your friends, you both get a team, build Castles next to each other and then you fight against your friend’s team, without beacons. Thats basicly the same and its not hurting anyone else.
You can already do it. (Well I guess you cant attac someone but you was abel untill some month I guess (so wait for the combat update))
Also you´’ll see how much it hurts if your Castle is destroyed suddenly after you worked on it so long.
2 Likes
I dont see a problem, i know that not everyone likes PvP but Oort will be a survival/MMO/sandbox game and every of this three game genres usually contains harmfull player interaction.
Well I dont know how often @Lilem has to tell you that it is nothing about PvP (Player versus Player) but Player versus Building… for real how many times do we have to say that? I have NOTHING against PvP…
Nothing of it has contains harmfull player interaction at all. It’s just the Games itself wich are inside the genere but that doesn’t mean that only because it is this genere it needs harmfull player interaction…
Survival is just survival it doesn’t mean to kill people all the way, but real survival would be to work WITH other people not to die.
MMO is just “Massive Multiplayer Online” And doesnt contain anything then just having an Game that is Online and everyone’s playing together on one or more maps/worlds. Here is nothing close to killing or harming anything.
Sandbox is an Genere in wich you can build freely, it also have nothing to do with anything close to harming or killing, I’m not even sure if Sandbox even has something to do with player interaction. MMO does, but I dont think Sandbox does.
1 Like
Well i didnt say it has that each genre HAS to contain PvP…they just usually do
if i look at other survival games out there (Rust/ Dayz and all their clones) they are basically all about PvP.
I´ve honestly never seen an MMO without PvP (from instanced battlegrounds/arenas like in Wow to big siege batlles like in ESO/GW2 but there is always PvP)
Yes in offline Sandbox games you can build freely, but as soon as it goes online players fight for nice spots or just for fun (like in Minecraft(and any other voxelgame) or EvE online, and yes it is marked as sandbox game).
What about Don’t Starve (Together) which is for me one of the best examples of an real survival Game. Or Long Dark. Also, neither Rust or DayZ is about PvP you missunderstand the Survival genere completely. It’s about surviving. The harmfull Player interaction is just an part of the sick community. PvP is a thing but that doesn’t mean that you have to kill anyone. Tell me if you can survive in DayZ/ Rust without killing anyone? (Right, your answer is “yes”, if not, you dont know how to play an survival game at all)
Thats all MMORPG not MMO, There are no pure MMO titles out there… Killing people fighting in groups against opponents are part of RPG not of MMO…
Thats like your view of the Survival Games. In Online Sandbox Games youre supposed to build with others not to kill the ■■■■ out of everyone… -.-
You just dont get the diffrence between what an Game is for and what the People make out of it.
Just to make it a bit clearer for you, The reallife is also PvP, but, are you going out to kill everyone? No? Why not? It’s PvP you HAVE to kill people thats what life is all about my friend. Go out and do it or else you’ll lose…
Just for legal reasons (You never know in the internet xD): Don’t do it, you’re not allowed and shouldn’t even think about killing people.
So much this. Why would you ever need a Beacon sieging device if you can just build forts without Beacons and enjoy destroying each others buildings? Or do you feel the need to destroy somethings what’s been protected by the player who created it?
Pif the building is protected by a beacon it could have regenerative properties and could regen.
Say a person is new and they make new accounts? Well the ‘griefer’ wouldn’t be able to do much at all cause he would have basic/no equipment.
Even with end game gear I’d think even still you wouldn’t be able to do much cause it is a beacon zone. Walls should have a high tolerance to damage unless it is the owner of beacon then the rules of gathering and such apply.
You guys.
Paraphrased from James [in this thread about modding][1]:
>"We will have the following configurations: **Public Oort Online MMO servers** - the main game. **Private Oort Online MMO servers (Connected)** - players who want to craft and control their own world (within the rules of the MMO.) **Independent servers** - for worlds created beyond the rules of the MMO. **Public / Private Modded servers** - players who want to play with different rules by modding and run their own servers.We will naturally allow for players to use portals to step between #1 and #2. They’re playing with the same rules. The integrity of the game is safe.
But I imagine #3 will need to be disconnected from the main game. These servers will be able to pull data from OO (so you could play with your character from the MMO), but I doubt we’ll be able to allow them to push data back to OO.
In this setup the MMO is safe, secure, and everyone is playing by the same rules. Additionally, players can setup their own configurations and adapt the rules.
Let’s look at a diagram:
Or, in other words:
So chill!
• Your beaconed builds are safe • Players who want PVP have a place to do it without endangering other player buildsIf you have not played on Minecraft PVP servers, you should try it out – it is a lot of fun, and because each “round” is an instanced version of the map, nothing is ever permanently destroyed.
3 Likes
Thank you.
1 Like
love that gif XD
@Lilem It was a response towards you and last time I checked YOUR NAME WAS NOT PEOPLE I was merely stating that there are people that are against PVP and believe that Oort should not have it.
@Lilem And like always they tend to end the conversion with well id never go to that world well the thing is no one is saying that to be part of Oort or even play Oort that you are required to go to these worlds.
I used the PVP thing to explain that the core reason that players like PVP is similar to the core reason why players want too have PVP in Oort. using that as an example to explain why some players like greiffing and games that give similar feeling that non evil greiffers get from greiffing and a large amount of greiffers are not EVIL
However if you had a positive outlet to allow these players to enjoy similar ways but that are not negative to other players this would lower the amount of negative greifing on the main server and sure you can separate the servers from the main game however its not going to do anything to lower greifing on the main servers.
And bunching up a group of people regardless of there personality and whether they have done anything to you or if it was meant to hurt you
For example ON OORT IN THE OLD FORUMS A player got upset and say they were greifed What had happen is a player that had played Oort for several months happen to have NO contact with anyone else so what did was they found a beacon a walked away from it trying to make sure they weren’t too close and simply a message saying HELLO they put it in ICE as it would not be hard to remove what so ever with the tools that players at the time started out with at that time. After the GREIFER seen that the player was upset and what was said about them they felt bad removed the message and put up SORRY Also being in ICE so that its easy to remove. This GREIFER now refused to play Oort for any reason WHAT SO EVER.
So saying things like.
Scum, or are a piece of ****
is kind of messed up
And the main point is if people had a few positive outlets then it would happen less of course you would still have some outliers but the mass amount of greifing would probably go down go down.
When two groups come together and one refuse to try and understand the other nothing tense to get solved and okay one idea might be bad so why not try and work it out and make it better or even come up with a new idea rather then just saying NO.
1 Like
Yeah, and if you go on and read the actual post after first 2 sentences, you’ll see exactly what I was talking about.
Anyways, why continue this discussion after reading the info posted by DarkRepulsor just a few posts before?