[Dungeon Overlord] To the playerbase

24 posts

Flag Post

I am having trouble understand what the point of this game is.

People get attacked lately, go screaming, crying, raging in chat. THen quit.

So what shall we do? All stop attacking anyone and play Dungeon farmvilloverlord?

Im not trying to be sarcastic. I dont understand the players in this game.

The main problem i see is this is a long term game, that requires planning, time, etc. That attracts a specific type of player. However, the PVP side, is not appealing to that type of player.

Its a bad mix of 2 gaming styles in one game.

So im putting this out there, what should we the player base do? stop attacking anyone? ask permission first? attack all?

none of those are a winning option. So what is?

I dont see one. If the game is played as the mechanics allow and intends it to be, 80% of you left will quit. At least. One attack, one lose of defence, and you quit

I have a top 10 player raging at me for pillaging his library. Ok ill stop.

Now what should i do? craft more stackers? Make a level 500 DE? research……nothing?

 
Flag Post

I have been pondering some of the same issues myself lately. Conceptually i love the DO format. Dungeon building with a pvp format to make it interesting. The implementation however, just isn’t in balance.

If you want meaningful pvp the loser has to be able to make a comeback, or you just have a king of the hill type game where as soon as someone loses a bad fight…. they are done playing. Very soon you have a server with very few active players…. sounds real familiar to what we have right now.

I really don’t have a concrete answer on how to fix that.

NOG needs to balance out the game, i don’t see the advanced player combat really addressing the core issue, that in the end, replacing losses takes to long and is too expensive.

By having punishing death penalties, and the relative ease of taking out furniture and other expensive items, real PVP is discouraged, which contradicts the whole point of the game.

We laugh about people flying the dove, but when it takes weeks to rebuild (or more) from a serious run of attacks, are people really surprised at people opting to buy peace, and people who get seriously hit, just quitting?

The core mechanics need a good long overhaul. People have to be able to fight each other without being crippled when something doesn’t work out. Otherwise all you have is a system where people only attack when they are sure they will win, not very interesting at all……

 
Flag Post

The Problem as i see it is that you spend way too much time making an army, that’s possibly gone in one hit. The thought of the retraining time alone would dampen the enthusiasm of most people.

I have played a lot of these type of games over the years, what keeps most people playing is the ability to recover from a heavy loss, this game seriously hampers that unless you are willing to hit the DM’s to cut down on your loss

IMO a big help to pvp would be to limit the amount of lvl’s you can lose. I dont mind spending a little £ on a game, would i pay a small fortune to replace my army – the answer to that is no, i probably quit

Hiding option is silly IMO, creature costs/ upkeep should be more balanced so that its more possible for a newer player to maintain defences.

This game also need a certain ammount of restrictions, a lvl 40 player should not be able to attack a lvl 15 player. no wonder most people quit early on, they stand no chance – the counter to this is to hide, all thats doing is sheltering someone from the loss, that makes losing them a lot more annoying.

There no balance to pvp, while the ability to attack anyone is beneficial @ times i think most players would sacrifice that for some action on this server.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MadJock:

The Problem as i see it is that you spend way too much time making an army, that’s possibly gone in one hit. The thought of the retraining time alone would dampen the enthusiasm of most people.

I have played a lot of these type of games over the years, what keeps most people playing is the ability to recover from a heavy loss, this game seriously hampers that unless you are willing to hit the DM’s to cut down on your loss

IMO a big help to pvp would be to limit the amount of lvl’s you can lose. I dont mind spending a little £ on a game, would i pay a small fortune to replace my army – the answer to that is no, i probably quit

Hiding option is silly IMO, creature costs/ upkeep should be more balanced so that its more possible for a newer player to maintain defences.

This game also need a certain ammount of restrictions, a lvl 40 player should not be able to attack a lvl 15 player. no wonder most people quit early on, they stand no chance – the counter to this is to hide, all thats doing is sheltering someone from the loss, that makes losing them a lot more annoying.

There no balance to pvp, while the ability to attack anyone is beneficial @ times i think most players would sacrifice that for some action on this server.

I attacked a top 10 player.

if you set a level difference, i wouldnt be able to attack anybody..

 
Flag Post

So I spent alot of time in EVE. ALOT OF TIME. And it is, in fact, the exact mix of game styles as this — a big strategic planning economic game, and a brutal “no carebears” PvP brutality that counter-balances the inherent “King of the Hill” with so much raw territory no one group could ever control it all. So if you don’t mind me describing what I thought the point of this game was, it is related to that:

Individual PvP will end up raging primarily among peers, and the “big strategic planning” mindset of the economic game starts to apply to the PvP as well. The players begin to craft empires and alliances that are primarily about territorial control. Seems to me that even their “advanced PvP vision” only cements that trend. If anything, DO places far more over-balance on defensive players than offensive and a very similar brutal sense of loss. Smaller regional alliances will find ways to co-exist with that macro-warfare … or they will migrate when the borders change. Only primary difference that I see — in EVE, you weren’t reminded of all the people that quit and new players are all started in certain core “high security” regions that had NPC police ships that were tragic for low and mid level players and irritating complications for older players. The lure of better resources pulled new players out into constantly more dangerous places with higher rewards, something else that DO doesn’t have with the way regions work.

All of which kind of telegraphs why it seemed important, if we wanted that kind of gameplay to evolve, we might need a social system that provided some protection to new players and young regional alliances. But that’s just me: I like both the gameplay styles in question.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by gmdclark:

So I spent alot of time in EVE. ALOT OF TIME. And it is, in fact, the exact mix of game styles as this — a big strategic planning economic game, and a brutal “no carebears” PvP brutality that counter-balances the inherent “King of the Hill” with so much raw territory no one group could ever control it all. So if you don’t mind me describing what I thought the point of this game was, it is related to that:

Individual PvP will end up raging primarily among peers, and the “big strategic planning” mindset of the economic game starts to apply to the PvP as well. The players begin to craft empires and alliances that are primarily about territorial control. Seems to me that even their “advanced PvP vision” only cements that trend. If anything, DO places far more over-balance on defensive players than offensive and a very similar brutal sense of loss. Smaller regional alliances will find ways to co-exist with that macro-warfare … or they will migrate when the borders change. Only primary difference that I see — in EVE, you weren’t reminded of all the people that quit and new players are all started in certain core “high security” regions that had NPC police ships that were tragic for low and mid level players and irritating complications for older players. The lure of better resources pulled new players out into constantly more dangerous places with higher rewards, something else that DO doesn’t have with the way regions work.

All of which kind of telegraphs why it seemed important, if we wanted that kind of gameplay to evolve, we might need a social system that provided some protection to new players and young regional alliances. But that’s just me: I like both the gameplay styles in question.

I like both styles too. As we both know, i care not a wit about losses. I knew from week 2 in this game how brutal the death penatlies were, being wiped by f3s a couple times learned me fast not to raid from research dungeons or my starter. ive sacrificed troops to break bigger targets before. part of the game. But it seems most of the playerbase doesnt want that. So I am asking them what kind of game they want?

 
Flag Post

+1…everyone in here has some really good points.

I think in general the game would be much more interesting and there would be much more closer fights between alliances if solace filled up quickly. The gap in power between players in regards to geographical distance from each other is staggering. With higher population, you get the big guys fighting big guys and small ones doing their own things etc and it would be more fun..whereas now you have to scour the globe to find “a fair fight”, largely because most of the talented players are drawn to MS and because there is a lack of good leaders/teamwork/POPULATION

If i’m not mistaken, EVE had a buttload of players, so even carebears had a place and would more often than not just be overlooked as “nonfactors” (thanks for the term, moon)

 
Flag Post

Many aspects of this game reminded me of Travian, a browser game I was very active in a while ago. The inactive farming and PVP’er vs. simmer dynamic in particular is very familiar, as are some of the resource mechanics and some of the pay-to-succeed aspects. The ability of experienced players to settle in newb-spawning areas and “farm” them (or not) is also very familiar to anyone who’s played Travian, I think. DO does some things a lot better, but I see many serious faults, too.

DO seems to have made design decisions to encourage players to stay in the game. The inability to pillage starter dungeons, the depth of “conquest” of expansion dungeons, and one-click “hiding” of troops is a sea change from Travian’s mechanics, making it a lot harder on DO for a big player to wipe a newbie.

But even so, Travian had a clear endgame. The POINT of simming up a huge empire was to support a huge army, which, in the endgame, would be used (and die). And if you made a mistake and suffered the “death penalty” there were new servers starting up. The “top” players on the server all started at the same time, and people who entered a server a month in were at a huge disadvantage. And likewise, top players who miscalculated and lost their armies could rebuild — better than a player who just joined the server, but rebuilding came at a cost.

But all of that was reset when the server ended. A winner was declared, and everyone started from ZERO on the next server. And you would re-form alliances, explore the map again, try out new strategies. And the player base there was big enough that servers were constantly starting and ending.

Based on what we’ve seen on DO, the “endgame” plan is … uncertain. And it sure seems like someone who gets their army wiped does indeed suffer a setback making it difficult to complete against a “top” player.

And without a clear roadmap from Night Owl regarding what the future holds, it’s really hard for a player who gets “wiped” to rebuild after being “wiped”, only to have the prospect of facing an undefeatable foe in the future.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think Night Owl plays the kind of games mentioned in this thread. If they did, I think that there would be some massive changes to overworld movement, respawns, heals and leveling costs. I think a lot of the points mentioned are bang on about this server, primarily the issues regarding server fill that Krag mentioned and the penalties being so high for players that don’t come from a pvp style game like Travian or Eve.

So what then? We can try to make the server more pvp based by creating more wars and whatnot, but to what point? People are quitting in the absence of a pvp reason, they’re not all rage quitting, a fair number of them are boredom quitting. So, start fighting more in hopes that we attract more of the kind of player that this style of game is supposed to be made for when it’s already watered down into 5 different servers? (yes I know that NOG doesn’t run one, but there’s still not enough pop to allow for so many and still be viable) Even if we had all the players that are generally attracted to this kind of pvp game in one server, there will still be issues of rage quitting, as we ramp up attacks to suit what we’d really LIKE to do (people are complaining and whining NOW when there’s so much restraint on hitting by players like sharkhunter already?) and it gets bloodthirsty and dirty, and for those who find themselves building and rebuilding over and over again to just get knocked down again and again, when they don’t enjoy playing farmville with losses, boredom quitting.

So what? They’re quitting, whether you hit them, or don’t hit them. Turn off the chat, ignore your ingame mails and at least try to get SOME fun out of this game, cause you know what? It hasn’t BEEN fun. Coming from the IA server into this one, and worried about first the slow spawn rate here, and agreeing with the idea of allowing players to grow a little before hitting them, we’ve found ourselves with the exact situation we’ve been trying to prevent. For what? To be stuck in regions full of inactives, with more invested now than we should for the amount of play we’ve been doing, and NO FUN to be had for it?

Sildegil was right. Sink or swim, or get out of the pool.

 
Flag Post

I think the problem is NOG is casting a too wide of a net.

On one hand this this game has some appalling elements that belong to the tycoon/empire management genre and yes that includes games like Farmville. On the other hand, this is at the end of the day a war game. You attack, you defend, you win, and you lose. I think most people that complain about attacks are only here to enjoy the empire management side of the game.

The main issue arises from the fact that NOG is interested in the empire management/Farmville potential player base and more importantly in the potential revenue that comes with it.

And I think the “Advanced Player Combat” feature show just how much NOG is committed to trying and capture as much as it can from the that player base, and rightfully so, they are after all a for profit business. But along the way people, like Sharkhunter, that have come to this game expecting a war game are finding themselves a bit confused as to what game they are playing exactly.

The problem I see is that right now they are not doing a good enough job of keeping these too player bases apart from each other. And Advanced Player Combat will not deliver on its promise because the separation between the player bases will still not be enough.

And I don’t know if you can capture both of these player bases in one game.

What NOG need to do is give each player base the experience they are looking for without trying to force them to live under the same roof, or at the very least not inside the same room.

I other words, they need two different servers with two different rule sets.

For example, the server that cater for the Farmville audience should have these differences from the pvp server
– pillaging removed at its entirety
- safe furniture increased in size (for example Locked Cellar bonus should apply to each resources individually or the bonus size should be increase dramatically)
- a richer PvE with regard to elf settelemt raiding and reprisals
- not being able to avoid reprisals attacks from settlement (if that option exist now)
- etc.

Alternatively, the setup describe above can be the default rule set and in each continent there can be a region (or more) in which the there are no elf settlements, just pure underworld PvP, with pillaging, reduced safe furniture effectiveness, and so on, encapsulating the ultra PvP activity into these region only.

I think that can work.

In summery:
Originally posted by Greenfireflygirl:

Sildegil was right. Sink or swim, or get out of the pool.

In PvP war games these are the main options but on the other hand farmvile players are floaters.

 
Flag Post

While all of this is very interesting and good discussion, I’m not sure “NoG should design a different game” is a valid option for how we all play this game together now on this server. If we believe that is the real issue, than this server will never work — so anything that MS does to try to change that situation (like stewardship or the Accord etc.) isn’t going to change the outcome or improve the gameplay experience of MS, so we might as well go on a slaughtering spree now.

From my personal perspective, the PvP game is broken in great part because of the PLAYERS, not the game mechanics, while the PvE game could be improved but is working as intended. There are any number of ways for people to effectively defend against attackers many times their power (up to including what Sildegil does if he faces a situation he doesn’t think he can win — purchase peace that keeps anyone from being able to attack.) So I’m with MadJock — there is no balance to PvP, but for the opposite reason he says (because it is too over-weighted to defense, probably due to customer complaints over the year or whatever it has been live.)

So, given all that, what kind of server culture do we want? You have several models presented to you already on the server, but people don’t seem to like any of them. At one end, you’ve got Sildegil and PWNED who are playing the game as intended — aggressively PvP — and growing faster than anyone on the server (so, the game says that is the right strategy). At the other end, you’ve got CHAOS that picks very specific reasons to go to war with a very limited number of alliances. Somewhere in the middle, you have Magnum Suited which has broad default carebear rules for young players but a default “we’re at war” status with other alliances unless they come to some kind of long-term arrangement with us.

And yet, the only certain reward from any PvP activity is a chat room full of buttsore. Are there other cultural options for us as a server? Or should we just get used to the buttsore?

 
Flag Post

Thank you all for this discussion. I don’t have anything to interject, however, I want you know we are watching this thread, and your points and concerns will be discussed as we continue working to make Dungeon Overlord a fun an entertaining PvP game!

 
Flag Post

Gnostic nailed my point.

I was not asking for changes to be made to the game by Nog with this thread. I am asking the playerbase what did they expect?

This is a long term planning strategy game with harsh PVP penalties. That was the way it was the day you all started playing it. Why do so many players act surprised and cry when they get attacked? This is the game is. It didnt change suddenly on you.

I gave up on PVP after the latest whine from the player i hit (for now). I have a mailbox full of whine mails from people i havent even hit! “we are a peaceful alliance” "why was i attacked? " etc. People, its a long term strategy war game. What do you expect?

 
Flag Post

If NOG is trying to market this game to PVP oriented players, which I assume they are, they need to build off a business model based on pvp and not farmville/facebook games. Games like Tribal Wars, Evony, and their clones have been hugely successful in the mmorts world, in fact they are the mmorts world. In Evony, you can take any city you want as long as you have A) A slot for it, and B) The guy losing the city has another city remaining. They can even lose their starter city, they just need to have another city. In this game you can hardly even take a dungeon without going through a ridiculous hassle of building a sapper, leveling it, etc.

Another thing Evony does is release servers at a fast rate to make sure the people fighting against each other started at roughly the same time. With a player base as small as this one, it is slightly more difficult to make new servers that become populated, games like Caesary (a superior Evony clone that was on Kongregate until being sued by Evony) had small playerbases and still managed to release new servers roughly once a month. The whole regions idea that the game has now is pretty bad, imagine someone from World 14 on Evony (the one I played on) going to a newer world like World 200. The world 14 player would absolutely stomp everyone with ease, which is what interregional travelling allows to happen on this server, players can theoretically move to a newer region and literally exterminate it, or in the lesser just dominate it. I hate to be the one to tell NOG to “copy” Evony, but many features of that game worked, and should be used in other games.

 
Flag Post

Coming from a newbie.

This game is Anno XXXX with added PvP elements(raiding and destroying of claimed land, requiring defence which itself is resource-costly to the point that outright fighting is the last option rather than the first; not that this was unheard of vs the AI) and many elements that are there to eat time, money, or both, and an element of ‘make sure you log in to pick up stuff!’.

I have issues with all of it, though I imagine some of it is, of course, biased as hell, since though I like Anno, I dislike this.

It is NOT what I expected at all. For a Dungeon Keeper game, it’s too slow(Being that was an RTS, though many people loved the ‘My Pet Dungeon’ feature of 2 also), for an Anno game, you have only poor access to materials(Because players won’t sell and Dungeonville is of course overpriced). There is no possibility of becoming strong, or coming from behind. If you are weak, you get stomped, and will remain a stomping target because you were stomped(or stompable) in the first place-you’ve lost creatures, you’ve lost creature levels, you’ve lost resources, and possibly have rooms and equipment damaged. The fact that ‘a guide to surviving high-level players’ even exists speaks volumes.

Anno doesn’t hold me to a schedule via pick-up, I may play as I wish-the territory won’t crumble without constant looking at. Anno doesn’t try to charge for what can be regarded as basic functionality to manage a small or large amount of territory. Anno, though the series sometimes has had issues with this, gives enough information and help in-game that outside info is optional rather than essential.

If the game wants to be multi-player, it shouldn’t have the build-up take so long, nor loss be as crippling given it can come anytime; if single-player, it shouldn’t let people kick down the sandcastle given the things take so long to build. There are more possible ways and means to go about this-making the environment be more hostile, for instance, to encourage teamwork in it. Having to claim places be a matter of fighting NPCs, perhaps. Having a fort killed destroys it permanently/for a long-ass time, freeing up places to raid freely.

 
Flag Post

heh hgamer, I used to play Evony, and the funny thing is, it used to be named civony and had to change its name due to legal battles because it was marketing itself too close to civilizations. Ceasary was far more closely copying evony than evony was copying the civ format, so it’s only right that it was forced to change too. I too loved the real pvp you would find there, and you’ll find me a staunch supporter of purging inactives, being able to move dungeons and take dungeons more easily from other players, however, there was also less of a penalty to death there, as it was far more easy to rebuild than it is on here if you are wiped and pillaged clean, resources were more plentifully available there, even from npc battles, the market functioned globally instead of regionally and the player base was a much different type than you find on here. I loved it, and would love for some of the NOG devs to have played it, or at least something similar but really immersed themselves in it before deciding on a vision for this one.

The players in this one, for the most part, are playing the way they intend. A lot of farmville, a lot of pve, once in a while a little pvp… It’s the players who DON’T fit the mold that are stirring the waters, we either need more of the pvp style players to come to a game that doesn’t interest them, or we need to make the game more interesting for them, or we need to change the type of players that are here now. Or at least get a LOT more players so that the very low percentage of people who would actually enjoy this game as a pvp one will increase in number. The only way I know how to change the player base is to do it one at a time, either by organizing them into a guild that encourages pvp. (we saw that briefly with Korrosion before they started going inactive) or by finding the one in a hundred that is encouraged by being challenged rather than affronted by it. If you haven’t seen this speech from Glengarry Glen Ross, then watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZg_ALxEz0 (warning, foul language)
I would gather, that many people would get angered by it and all butthurt rather than be inspired to action, and challenged to improve. In this game for sure, we’re just seeing the first kind of person. How do you make more people like the second? By weeding out all of the first. Sure you’ll end up with less players total, but then we’ll have more of the second kind of players, and more of the Alec Baldwin style players. Just less players total than we have now, cause we have all that butthurt and ego to sort through first.

 
Flag Post

Always be closing. ALWAYS. BE. CLOSING.

 
Flag Post

Sorry gffg, i disagree 100% with your “The players in this one, for the most part, are playing the way they intend” wrong 100% wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NightOwl_Pellets:

Thank you all for this discussion. I don’t have anything to interject, however, I want you know we are watching this thread, and your points and concerns will be discussed as we continue working to make Dungeon Overlord a fun an entertaining PvP game!

No offense, Pellets, but that post is the opposite of helpful. This is your player base talking your product, not the player base talking TO YOU about your product. Please do not continue to hold out that suggestions will be implemented — it distracts from the actual issue, which is how do we play this game without sending it to the graveyard.

Sometimes, NoG should just observe and read and not poke in like that. But since you’re here — why don’t you tell us how you think we should play the game? Any reason for me not to just go on a mass slaughter spree of your customer base, Pellets?

 
Flag Post

if they didnt intend pvp in this game, you couldnt attack other players.

GFFG above just described farmville.

If they meant the game to be played like that, their would be hard in game griefing locks.

1. There is no limit to the number of attacks a player can suffer in any given time period.
2. There is no limit to the number of pillages. or the amount of damage that can be done, in any given time period.
3. no auto protection kicks in for any of the above.

In games that want safe cuddly pvp, the above conditions are hardcoded into the game.

 
Flag Post

My point being Shark, that is how the devs see the game, not how it SHOULD be. Talk to them, ask them, they’ll tell you plain out, and it’s stupid. It’s why I said I wished they’d play a game that wasn’t modeled like that, so that they could understand how their game should work. Then they’d know how to fix it.

And no, I don’t mean the forum mod Pellets, or the Marketing guy Harlan, I mean when the actual game devs come on the NOG forums and open questions up, ask them… I don’t think a one of them ever played a proper pvp game in their life for more than an hour, just to see.

 
Flag Post

Thats fine, then its just even more naive then i thought.

If you want a game played a certain way, you put in hard coding rules to make it go that way. You leave it open to sandbox, dont be surprised when people explot/explore it.

ANd again, i aint going to Nog forums. this game is on kong, the developers can come here to discuss. I was here in beta, i found numerous coding flaws, pointed out numerous things to fix, which have been, yet no one from NOG has ever asked my opinion on anything. That says alot.

 
Flag Post

Thank you all for this discussion. I want you know we are watching this thread, and your points and concerns will be discussed as we continue working to make Dungeon Overlord a fun an entertaining PvP game!

We would like your feedback on several ideas that our developers have based upon the feedback so far:

If we offered you the option to purchase peace from Magnum Suited for about the same amount as you’d pay in tax to whomever claimed the Heart in your mountain — how many of you would be willing to entertain that option?

If we Magnum Suited offered up bounties for the killing of other specific players and the rewards for those bounties included resources, furniture, peace from Magnum Suited or even an invitation to join us — how many of you would be more willing to get involved with PvP?

Your feedback is important to our developers are we prepare to release a new patch to Necropolis to improve PvP last next week.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by gmdclark:

Thank you all for this discussion. I want you know we are watching this thread, and your points and concerns will be discussed as we continue working to make Dungeon Overlord a fun an entertaining PvP game!

We would like your feedback on several ideas that our developers have based upon the feedback so far:

If we offered you the option to purchase peace from Magnum Suited for about the same amount as you’d pay in tax to whomever claimed the Heart in your mountain — how many of you would be willing to entertain that option?

If we Magnum Suited offered up bounties for the killing of other specific players and the rewards for those bounties included resources, furniture, peace from Magnum Suited or even an invitation to join us — how many of you would be more willing to get involved with PvP?

Your feedback is important to our developers are we prepare to release a new patch to Necropolis to improve PvP last next week.

I have to move the two suggestions in reverse order, otherwise to answer the first one I would say no, I would not entertain that option. Now let’s put the question below the other suggestion and I’ll answer it again in a minute.

If Magnum Suited offered up bounties for the killing of other specific players, I would be willing to participate in some of the bounties. What’s more, I would also like to be able to post a bounty anonymously. I would accept that you would host the bounty and not let my name come out, and would require me to make good on my bounty price. What’s more, if someone else had a bounty on that same head, I would expect you to also pool their prize in with mine, to “up” the bounty.

So, let’s go back to that first question then shall we? If you offered peace in such a way as to remove a bounty from the bounty board, and to protect a player against other bounties put up against them for a price, then yes, I would support this, for any player willing to do so. That being said, I also would like to have the opportunity first given to the player who has a bounty on their head to either put up the same bounty to have the name of the person putting the bounty up given to them, or for that first person to drop it. If they dropped it, their bounty price should still be paid by them, and only if they allow their name to be made public should the be allowed to forfeit their payment.

This will hopefully prevent false bounties being put up solely for the purpose of players paying to remove them or ask for bodyguards.