Skip to main content

Topic: VCP's (Read 346 times) previous topic - next topic

  • Kenman
  • [*][*][*][*]
VCP's
If they removed timers all together and made VCP's give rewards gradually over time, and allowed anyone to capture them at any time, over and over back and forth, it would lead to some hot spots for sure. 2 or 3 clans constantly fighting over a specific VCP because it gives them more wood than other VCP's, or makes the mobs drop 20% more loot In the area for the owner, etc.

I've yet to see VCP's done right, incentive wise. I believe the capture the hill mechanic is the right way to do it, but the REASONS to do VCP's...

Is this a stupid post, or is there some validity here? Can anyone agree on some points?
twitch.tv/KenMan

Re: VCP's
Reply #1
If they removed timers all together and made VCP's give rewards gradually over time, and allowed anyone to capture them at any time, over and over back and forth, it would lead to some hot spots for sure. 2 or 3 clans constantly fighting over a specific VCP because it gives them more wood than other VCP's, or makes the mobs drop 20% more loot In the area for the owner, etc.

I've yet to see VCP's done right, incentive wise. I believe the capture the hill mechanic is the right way to do it, but the REASONS to do VCP's...

Is this a stupid post, or is there some validity here? Can anyone agree on some points?

For me, though i like the idea, its that they have done and redone vcps so many times now i dont want to see any more time wasted on them until warfronts and watchtowers are in and then we will have a much better idea of where they stand.

Re: VCP's
Reply #2
Again no harm doing this to half the VCP and keep current mechanics on other half. DF fails this kind of thinking and makes everything boring homogeneous...
Reality Check - Rise of Agon : Community designed, Tedium free, Elite approved  but struggled to field 25 players for first grand anniversary event...now asking for donations.  Global banking,  Instant travel is not helping lol

Re: VCP's
Reply #3
I think Ub3r just needs to roll out new sources of conflict and let VCPs fade away. Additionally you're idea kind of devalues housing even further. Having a house that's in a permanent war zone that sets your alignment gray 24/7 doesn't sound that appealing. No what we need is racial war fronts and territory control, not 24/7 vcp battles.

  • Kenman
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: VCP's
Reply #4
I think Ub3r just needs to roll out new sources of conflict and let VCPs fade away. Additionally you're idea kind of devalues housing even further. Having a house that's in a permanent war zone that sets your alignment gray 24/7 doesn't sound that appealing. No what we need is racial war fronts and territory control, not 24/7 vcp battles.

Some may find it appealing, others may not. I don't think housing would be negatively affected. Furthermore, if a resident has issues they can move houses or join one of the clans that are warring.


I agree that it would take more development time.
If you believe VCP's are great as they are, alright then.
But I believe VCP's could be a huge driver of PvP and territory interaction. You own the VCP, its connected to the territory... Etc.


A good point lambda, i also find that the community is split between doers and creators of content. Some want direction, others don't. If that's the case, the VCP's that are not capture-at-will as the OP suggests, they could be considered a "land tower" form of PvP. Event style pvp, instead of dynamically changing.



Let me tug at everyone's heartstrings for a moment:

It would be annoying to have to protect 5 VCP's, running around and fighting etc. But wouldn't you like to be part of a select crew in your clan, who must stay behind and protect the VCP while the others take on the world, or go out to PvE? Or do the nearby dungeon? Or collect the nearby resources with the harvesting boon it provides? Protectors of your clan.
  • Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 04:11:12 am by Kenman
twitch.tv/KenMan

Re: VCP's
Reply #5
If they removed timers all together and made VCP's give rewards gradually over time, and allowed anyone to capture them at any time, over and over back and forth, it would lead to some hot spots for sure. 2 or 3 clans constantly fighting over a specific VCP because it gives them more wood than other VCP's, or makes the mobs drop 20% more loot In the area for the owner, etc.

I've yet to see VCP's done right, incentive wise. I believe the capture the hill mechanic is the right way to do it, but the REASONS to do VCP's...

Is this a stupid post, or is there some validity here? Can anyone agree on some points?
I believe this would eliminate Villages as a PvP hot spot more than anything else.
If the VCP can be capped at any time, there will always be those that will cap it before the rewards
increase to a worthwhile level.  They would reason a little of something is better than a lot of nothing.
And with most villages being somewhat remote, they would be gone before anyone even remotely
in the area can respond.

  • SomeBK
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: VCP's
Reply #6
I believe AltFall would prevail with this method.
Fair enough ill be there, Actually can we do it Thurs
(ive been lugging boxes of books all morning from a collection I bought and a little beat)

Re: VCP's
Reply #7
[...]
It would be annoying to have to protect 5 VCP's, running around and fighting etc. But wouldn't you like to be part of a select crew in your clan, who must stay behind and protect the VCP while the others take on the world, or go out to PvE? Or do the nearby dungeon? Or collect the nearby resources with the harvesting boon it provides? Protectors of your clan.

In short, no.

As SomeBK would say for most of the VCPs it would be a game of wack-a-mole. Basically everything the self declared "PvPers" of Darkfall hate, lots of travel, waiting around, and very little action. And then there's the rest of us... you've just divided the reward across the whole day, is that going to motivate anyone to even go there.  There are currently parts of Agon where VCPs are left live for hours before anyone bothers to go cap them.  Why are they going to show up now with your proposed changes?  No I'm sorry VCPs are old failed Darkfall, we focus on them atm simply because there isn't anything else.
  • Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 04:51:07 am by Helwyr

Re: VCP's
Reply #8
ALTFALL STRONG

too many villages are in corners of the map where nobody wants to go except clans who live next to them

  • Kenman
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: VCP's
Reply #9
I agree that there would be issues with the current mechanics of rewards increasing over time and given upon capture.

Consider these changes to rewards. Instead of growing and holding it for one quick capture reward, you would need to hold it, and the increase would be percentage based, affecting a materials drop rate or a skills experience rate/meditation rate.

A dynamic, changing territory over agon controlled by clans. I would picture clans heading to an area to capture the nearby village for increased rewards before farming, and the owners coming in to defend.

No more of this owning multiple VCP's across Agon, at least not without the proper amount of players to defend.


You believe alts will roam into a village after you've captured it? Interesting.

A game of cat and mouse. Interesting. Sounds fun.
Aren't players forced to walk back to gear up? Force players to need gear to capture a village, and this will be enough. No one is going to waste their time walking back and forth to gear and capture villages just to be a pest, but if they do that's their choice to play that way, and should be encouraged.
You're farming in the area, check up on your owned villages. They affect your territory after all?

A controversial fix to this would be notifications that someone is attempting to capture your village. That's an idea worthy of debate in itself.

P.s. I appreciate the solid points being made, thanks for not shitting on the idea completely. Still waiting to get shit on, who will be first.
  • Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 05:43:14 am by Kenman
twitch.tv/KenMan

Re: VCP's
Reply #10
I agree that there would be issues with the current mechanics of rewards increasing over time and given upon capture.

Consider these changes to rewards. Instead of growing and holding it for one quick capture reward, you would need to hold it, and the increase would be percentage based, affecting a materials drop rate or a skills experience rate/meditation rate.

A dynamic, changing territory over agon controlled by clans. I would picture clans heading to an area to capture the nearby village for increased rewards before farming, and the owners coming in to defend. [...]

Yes aspects of this would be good, but it's already slated for new mechanics better suited for it than VCPs.  Ub3r has plans for towers that extend a clans control over territory and impact the PvE in those areas. You combine that with the next patch which gives localized quests from bind stones and you now have territory control tied to maximizing PvE in a given area.  The towers can be fought over I believe in a similar way to seiging clan holdings, but on a somewhat smaller scale logistically.  If Ub3rgames then ties all this into racial warfronts then we've really got something going. At which points many of us won't give a shit about VCPs, they're just not necessary nor that relevant to that future game play.

Re: VCP's
Reply #11
I don't like the idea at all. What's the purpose of capturing it if as soon as you leave to log out or even do anything else, someone can come and cap it again?
Or you are thinking that there will be people standing still doing nothing at a village 24/7 just to get the rewards?
It will become just as base conquering in planetside....boring pretty soon when all your effort is gone as soon as you go away and someone passes by to take it from you.

No one will ever bother to go there on purpose...they would get capped just when you pass by a village, just because you're there and get something out of it, until someone else passes by and do the same.

  • Kenman
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: VCP's
Reply #12
I don't like the idea at all. What's the purpose of capturing it if as soon as you leave to log out or even do anything else, someone can come and cap it again?
Or you are thinking that there will be people standing still doing nothing at a village 24/7 just to get the rewards?
It will become just as base conquering in planetside....boring pretty soon when all your effort is gone as soon as you go away and someone passes by to take it from you.

No one will ever bother to go there on purpose...they would get capped just when you pass by a village, just because you're there and get something out of it, until someone else passes by and do the same.

You reference planetside. Good points. But what happens when people try to capture a tile? The faction knows about it and they go to defend. Whether there's 5 people or 50, its fun PvP that is directed with purpose. That's all I'm looking for.

The post above yours posts about territory towers. I hope they work out.
twitch.tv/KenMan

Re: VCP's
Reply #13
You reference planetside. Good points. But what happens when people try to capture a tile? The faction knows about it and they go to defend. Whether there's 5 people or 50, its fun PvP that is directed with purpose. That's all I'm looking for.
Remaining with the planetside example, they had to introduce the "lattice" idea to gave it a sense of scope and progress (and they had to do the same in planetside2 after, for whatever reason, they came out with it without the lattice system) and exactly to avoid single base hopping by lone players on flying vehicles.
The lattice "forced" everyone to have to conquest the bases in a specific order in which they were connected one to the other. Before it, it was exactly the same phenomena as i described: as soon as the force left the base, some lone player from another faction re-captured it.
The whole "lattice idea" could be used for territorial control and racial warfront....but for the villages it feels to me it won't work since they are clan/group/single player objective, so you can "channel" the fights in a specific warfront.
For racial warfare? that would be really cool to me, but not for VCPs, which are supposed to still remain as single/group/clan objectives and not racial alliances ones

  • Kenman
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: VCP's
Reply #14
You reference planetside. Good points. But what happens when people try to capture a tile? The faction knows about it and they go to defend. Whether there's 5 people or 50, its fun PvP that is directed with purpose. That's all I'm looking for.
Remaining with the planetside example, they had to introduce the "lattice" idea to gave it a sense of scope and progress (and they had to do the same in planetside2 after, for whatever reason, they came out with it without the lattice system) and exactly to avoid single base hopping by lone players on flying vehicles.
The lattice "forced" everyone to have to conquest the bases in a specific order in which they were connected one to the other. Before it, it was exactly the same phenomena as i described: as soon as the force left the base, some lone player from another faction re-captured it.
The whole "lattice idea" could be used for territorial control and racial warfront....but for the villages it feels to me it won't work since they are clan/group/single player objective, so you can "channel" the fights in a specific warfront.
For racial warfare? that would be really cool to me, but not for VCPs, which are supposed to still remain as single/group/clan objectives and not racial alliances ones

That's a great idea.
I wonder if @Ub3rgames has plans for this.
twitch.tv/KenMan