PDA

View Full Version : 'Hardcore' mode


Raulaun
07-30-2010, 10:41 PM
It would be pretty cool if there was a mode in the open world where you could create a city in the 'hardcore' realm and if your castle died there, it wouldnt come back and you would have to start over. Also there should be a ladder added to it and have it reset every 3-6 months with the top 10 players earning influence points/achievements/other prizes.

nickson104
07-31-2010, 05:31 AM
It would be pretty cool if there was a mode in the open world where you could create a city in the 'hardcore' realm and if your castle died there, it wouldnt come back and you would have to start over. Also there should be a ladder added to it and have it reset every 3-6 months with the top 10 players earning influence points/achievements/other prizes.

Pretty sure the first idea has been mentioned, but thats not a bad thing :) I think its great that more people share this idea, because the 'hardcore' mode seems great, instead of buildings just being taken down to foundations and repairable, destroy them fully. Make lands occupiable perhaps?

Also I think we have mentioned ranking ladders. Although I dont think anyone mentioned rewarding them for being near the top... Achievements perhaps, maybe some points could be awarded. But isnt the bragging rights enough? :p

Alex Walz
08-03-2010, 06:07 PM
I don't think a hardcore mode would really work for DOF. In an RPG with hardcore mode, you can just opt out of a PvP attack with no penalty and concentrate only on PvE. But with Dawn of Fantasy, you have to pay tribute to divert an attack, meaning that the stronger players can just hassle the newer players until they are completely broke and cannot build up an army.

SoCalDistortion
08-04-2010, 07:01 PM
I don't think a hardcore mode would really work for DOF. In an RPG with hardcore mode, you can just opt out of a PvP attack with no penalty and concentrate only on PvE. But with Dawn of Fantasy, you have to pay tribute to divert an attack, meaning that the stronger players can just hassle the newer players until they are completely broke and cannot build up an army.

That is too bad...

I really believe a hardcore server would do well with DOF. RTS games are typically about besting your opponent. Overall destruction and or take-over of your enemies base ends the game -generally speaking. I know...I know...DOF is different. It has a persistant world. But at the heart is it not a RTS?

I understand that adding a persistant online world to the mix is something new but I don't think city take-over or complete city destruction needs to be avoided just because it is a MMORTS.

Personally, I have more fun with a game where something is at stake.

As a player, I want to be the one that has control over such things. I want as much freedom as possible. I want to be able to DESTROY or take over that person who plundered my village! I want to be able to be destroyed in return!

I play a MMORPG called Darkfall. There is no way of "opting out" of PVP there. If you are in the wilderness killing bears and a guy wants to kill you and take your stuff, he is going to try. It adds an "edge" to the game...Makes it fun. Yes, it is hardcore. Some people will argue that it is a bad game design. No. Those people had a choice. They could play the game or not. Play World of WarCraft if you don't like it!

Anyway, I believe a hardcore server would be very popular for DOF. Management of cities, alliances etc would be much more crucial to overall survival. There would be something at stake if someone knew they could be completely and totally anihilated.

I'm not knocking the game as is now, just would very much like to see a "hard-core mode" released for those gamers that enjoy such a challenge.

Josh Warner
08-05-2010, 02:38 PM
Fragmenting the player base is not an option on release. I really doubt our position on that changes.

I'd like to bring up one thing, you say you like hardcore, now me I do too. I played Shadowbane and Darkfall among others, these two games were notorious for their various death penalties yet still being a PVP game.

There's no way to make a Lose you Die server, not that we'd want multiple servers to begin with. More importantly, we don't need that sort of gimmick to provide a high level competitive game in MMORTS. Much like in Darkfall there were guild level objectives, in DFO these were the cities and later on sea towers and other random stuff. In our game, what we plan I can't say, but there is a great deal of potential for guild level things. While in normal PVP the losses aren't that great, it's entirely possible to create a Guild vs Guild system that has more risk and reward.

These are just random ideas I've thought of on the spot, mind you, not fully fleshed out ideas all the same -

Guild Cities that can be conquered in wars between guilds rather than the individual player city which would KILL a player and all their tech etc. But it still provides a high risk high reward objective to compete over.

Another thing we could do is simply make it so guilds at war with each other inflict greater damage when defeating another player, perhaps certain things are destroyed, more resources taken, long term impact for losing etc. There's plenty we can do for higher levels of play to provide the competition and Risk Reward that makes gaming fun for people like us without an absurd and unfitting Permadeath that in all honesty is a gimmick.


I might discuss this further might not, but I've played pretty much every Hardcore game on the market from D2, SB, DFO, UO among others, but permadeath is and always will be a gimmick that adds very little to a game unless the game is designed from the ground up around it. There are better, healthier alternatives for the game that give the high level of risk/reward needed for fun, meaningful PVP.

Raulaun
08-06-2010, 01:40 AM
I Like the extra destruction idea with guilds, I suppose i can settle on it..

Josh Warner
08-06-2010, 05:35 AM
It is extremely unlikely to see a hardcore server of it's own, that's just how it is, I could go on as to why but I'd rather discuss realistic things you want to see than why this probably won't happen. So feel free to suggest, as detailed or vague as you like, the sort of things you'd like to see regarding risk/reward. You like the extra destruction, expand on it, be detailed.

Keep in mind all of this is merely my free time, and independent thoughts, none of this is part of the game design right now. Just musing of my own since I can't share actual game design.

For destruction, lets say when a guild declares war as I said in the other thread they have to pay a large amount of money up front, then a continuing amount to carry on the war. The price is relative to the strength of each guild, if a vastly superior guild wants to declare war on a far weaker one then they will have to pay significantly more if we even allow them to. Now, war could allow players to pick their targets rather than use the matchmaking. It could allow you to actually destroy some buildings, maybe steal some technology or clone it (Either removing their tech and giving it to yourself, or they keep the tech and you get it as well respectively) take all instead of some resources, this sort of thing. The more one-sided a war becomes, the more the aggressor has to pay to keep it up etc etc.

As for the guild city thing perhaps you think there should only be a limited amount of guild cities for players to fight over, so there's forced competition, the cities would give large bonuses to the controlling guild. Or perhaps each guild has it's own city, say the bonuses from these cities should come from beating other players at their cities rather than passively, say you take a Trophy from your enemies and this trophy gives a small bonus to the combat stats, exp gain or resource gathering rates of all your members. Or a combination of both, so you can level up your city with resources, but there's also an incentive to fight other players rather than just playing multiplayer sim city?

Give me ideas I can work with, and I'll be happy to. I don't want you to "settle" on a game you don't want, but you need to be realistic and work towards achievable things. I think we can all agree there are other ways to make a game the hardcore subset of gamer can enjoy without permanent death, so think of what those things are and tell us your thoughts. This goes to all of you, not one person in particular.

Raulaun
08-06-2010, 04:17 PM
Sorry about that, my mind looks a little different than people other than myself, I was trying to say it in a thoughtful tune, not an unhappy tune. (No, really, this happens all the time.)

These 'Trophies' Could be large statues at display in your city, if a guild sieged you, it could be toppled, put on a large wagon and towed away. So I suppose just furthering risk/reward would be great. I don't think they should benefit troop stats aside from morale. How does a giant statue help you swing a sword? Resource gain would be great as a statue could be motivational to workers. Maybe statues could also be 'landmarks' which can be anything from lighthouses to figureheads that turn your ship into a Fleet Admirable which gives your ships an aura that increases morale when near. This could also be the same with standard-bearing such as religious artifacts held in boxes supported by planks.

And I only use suggestions as a conversation piece to muse about features/tell the community what im interested in. Aside, I love your answers, the team is great to the community and i'm definitely buying the game.

SoCalDistortion
08-06-2010, 06:42 PM
My thanks to both Josh and Alex in addressing this post.

I can tell this is a Dev team that is interested in feedback from the community. It reminds me of the early days of DFO-back when it was called "vaporware" My hat is off to you fellas. Also nice to meet a fellow DFO'er.

I have some ideas that I will be posting here. Some of what I am thinking is hard to convey unless I know how conquest or capturing of territories works in DOF. I don't expect a response to that as I know you may still be working out specific features during beta.

That said, I'll post some specific examples... I was holding out hope that you folks MIGHT model DOF after the popular Tribal Wars game. I was hoping DOF would have that kind of kingdom expansion/conquest model. It's not permadeath...BUT, you do have to start from scratch at the edge of the map once defeated.

Josh Warner
08-06-2010, 07:48 PM
Darkfall was vaporware until the first day of the closed beta (Not friends and family) and to some, even later lol. But yes I recall the days when that dev team frequented IRC and talked to fans rather than posting an announcement every few months and an interview even less frequently.


Right now what I can tell you, is that you will physically rule only one city, there is no plan right now at least to allow more than one. Extra objectives however are still well within the realm of possibility. Guild cities, Mining towns, Ports, Lumbermills, quarries etc. That sort of thing might have one "Map" per region, or race, but most likely at least a few of them within each region just sharing the same terrain but being in different parts of the region for players to fight over.

I came up with that off the top of my head, it's easily expandable. Conquering player cities just isn't going to happen I don't think, there's no way a player could control that many cities to begin with, and we want long term progression for players, the tech tree for example will take several months at least, the idea of a player being forced to simply start over so easily goes against the grain of a long-term game. I know travian and a lot of browser games run on lets call them "Resets" where there are victory conditions, then the whole world resets for every player. That's not something that is being considered I don't think, something about wiping progress and a game players have to purchase I can't imagine that going over well with most. Also, unlike browser games you need to be involved in your economy, there's no upgrade X building, attack player A,B,C and go do something else for a few hours. We plan to keep the player engaged the entire time they play our game.

SoCalDistortion
08-07-2010, 09:54 AM
So as I understand it, the loser maintains his stronghold and will be able to rebuild but with small penalties of the victors choosing?

Perhaps there could be a sense of conquest (for those that want to be conquerers) in the form of gold and or resources given daily by those provinces they had captured in a siege.

Perhaps even a banner could be errected showing dominance of one player over another on a world map? If it is an alliance, perhaps the alliance leaders banner?

If you are beaten, the victor could gain a small percentage of the territories resources (kind of like an on-going tax). The only way to be rid of this would be to attack and beat the player who is collecting? Or...Perhaps the victor could drop the tax in exchange for various political favors. An example would be that the player helps him attack another player or he/she joins the alliance (swearing fealty to the victor) etc...

Players can only have resources taken on an on-going basis by one other player. If Player A attacks player B and wins in a siege on player B's stronghold, player A collects. If player C attacks player B and wins in a siege on player B's stronghold, player A no longer collects. Player C would be the sole beneficiary in this example.

Josh Warner
08-07-2010, 11:30 AM
It doesn't seem right to make it permanent or until they beat their attacker.. I don't mind a sort of tithe system, but there needs to be another way to break it other than beating them or pity. Or if we decide to go with two systems for PVP, the standard matchmaking rather than choosing targets and Guild V Guild, this sort of thing could work in the latter, but I'm not sure if I like it for the standard. The problem is, either you're forced to beat the victor, or you can simply have a friend attack you, lose, attack them, they let you win. It's very easy to exploit, or it's very difficult to break.

One of the problems with this is it creates an exponential growth problem, the top players will be so powerful, so out of reach of the average player that they will win almost every fight, that's just how it is. What you're proposing would give them either nothing because it's so easy to exploit, or if you remove the ability for another victor to gain the collections, an impossible to remove tax. Even if you don't take into account the top players, in an RTS almost every single 1 on 1 matchup will have the same winner 9/10 times, unless we artificially give the person being taxed an advantage when they take the fight to the person taxing them it would be unlikely they'd be able to remove it you see.

As is you will always take their resources, and building damage will persist up till 0 (Inoperable, not destroyed). We may give the victor standard options, Deal damage, take resources, mix which are self explanatory. But perhaps you add a fourth, enforce taxes say for a day or week where you take a % of their income, but don't take any back immediately, in the end you get more, but it takes longer to get it.




Guild V Guild, and objectives on the world map that players CAN compete over rather than player cities, that's where the conquering will come from. In DoF you will not conquer another player, you will sack their cities and fight over actual objectives. Competing over things is great, I love it, but don't expect to be taking over the world either.

GPS51
08-07-2010, 11:37 AM
How about an option after defeating an enemy town to conscript a small number of their soldiers? It could lead to some sweet unit combos :D Ogres/Ranger/Foot knight...

Miclee
08-07-2010, 08:44 PM
Here's how I would look at a hardcore mode. Instead of your castle being destroyed, it is simply taken over by your enemy(though it would be their choice). If they choose to take it over(gaining trade bonuses, etc.) In order to regain control, you have to spread rumors, cause trouble, etc. around the city and form a rebellion. These units would have basic armor/weapons/skill, unless you somehow convince troops to join you in your rebellion. As suggested above, you could conscript soldiers from them. In order to take back the city, you must take the keep and either convince all soldiers to join your side or kill the soldiers/cause the soldiers to run. This could take days(real-time), since it's meant to be very hard.

For the person capturing the city, they gain resources, troops, etc. until the player regains the city. This makes it so you have at least a small chance of regaining power, though it can take days and possibly longer, if the person capturing the city even chooses to gain control of it instead of destroying it.

It could work, but would take a while to make and I don't think it's worth it in the long run.

Josh Warner
08-08-2010, 03:28 AM
How about an option after defeating an enemy town to conscript a small number of their soldiers? It could lead to some sweet unit combos :D Ogres/Ranger/Foot knight...

As is, though I do not know if we plan to keep it in, you can buy mercenaries of any race. The major cities all allow trade regardless of race. The idea itself doesn't sound too bad though.

Raulaun
08-08-2010, 07:30 PM
As is, though I do not know if we plan to keep it in, you can buy mercenaries of any race. The major cities all allow trade regardless of race. The idea itself doesn't sound too bad though.

It will be harder to trade with races other than your own, right? (With npcs) And easier to trade with those that are your own race? Sort of a disposition negative.

Josh Warner
08-08-2010, 08:06 PM
It will be harder to trade with races other than your own, right? (With npcs) And easier to trade with those that are your own race? Sort of a disposition negative.

If we keep it in, I imagine you'll be paying quite the premium for cross-race units.

Vigilus
11-27-2010, 11:38 PM
I would totally play on the hardcore server. Naturally players shouldn't be forced into starting a character on the server, and perhaps they could earn the right in another part of the game to participate in the server. It could also go in sessions like other browser games have, say 6 months for 1 game or something like that.

Toth
11-28-2010, 04:27 AM
Fragmenting the player base is not an option on release. I really doubt our position on that changes.


I completely agree with this statement. Also in the same train of thought, having to create a hardcore mode diverts resources from optimising the modes they already have.

Personally I wouldn't have minded if it was only the MMORTS mode and no single player / scenario stuff. And I hope dearly that the MMORTS is their number 1 priority.

efz88
12-04-2010, 09:27 PM
It is true that right now a hardcore mode would be unfeasible, never the less I would like it :)

theangel04
12-04-2010, 10:15 PM
the idea of a hardcore mode is interesting but i believe it is somewhat implemented into the way the game plays online.

SoCalDistortion
12-04-2010, 10:56 PM
I would like to see 2 servers... 1 Hardcore (where a sole alliance wins and resets when certain are conditions met) and another regular. Give the players some freedom on how they want to play!

The devs have provided some excellent feedback in this thread with how they view things. Hopefully at some point a hardcore server with conquering and destruction of teritories will be implemented.I don't think having a hardcore server would segment the playerbase to such an extent that it would have a detrimental impact for the community.

Give us hardcore!

Farseer_Arien
12-05-2010, 11:20 AM
I would like to see 2 servers... 1 Hardcore (where a sole alliance wins and resets when certain are conditions met) and another regular. Give the players some freedom on how they want to play!


I agree it will let those that want to sit down and play without worry of being farmed, while the other server would let those of us fanatical do what ever we want as we accept farming.

Valhalla
12-05-2010, 03:27 PM
Hardcore mode for MMORTS, thats a little too much don't you think?

Marcos182
12-05-2010, 04:49 PM
I agree with the guild emphasis as far as "hardcore" goes, but there has to be another word for guilds. How about Orders or someting, if i'm a king i would want to be known as part of a guild

Zackreaver
12-06-2010, 09:20 AM
Hardcore kind of setting can still work, it's just that you have to take the factor at a carefully observed approach. As mentioned it would be bad to fragment the player base, we want everyone to be in 1 spot so we all know we won't be left stranded somewhere.

To avoid that, Hardcore setting should be like a gamble, have players set a stance saying "We are playing this hardcore, as such we are willing to take a greater penalty at defeat, while having a better benefit while surviving the course"

Think about how other games take this approach. Diablo 2 has a hardcore mode where when you die, your character is gone forever. This works in diablos setting as leveling up is rather fast and simple, most fights are pretty easy and caution just has to be taken to avoid getting too low. If a death occur's the items are dropped and anyone can take them, given the faster pace of the game this optional feature fit well in the concept.

The cool part of this feature was that it let players get the thrill that if they can reach a high level on a hardcore character they feel accomplished, as they know with even the simplest of mistakes everything they worked for can be lost in an instant.

The key thing here is, permanent loss can be discouraging if handled incorrectly. You can gaurentee that if the hardcore players grouped together, and both got killed at the same time, and their equipment was lost forever, chances are they would stop playing diablo for a long time, seeing as how everything they worked on was just suddenly lost. This worked fine, because hardcore was only really available as an optional mode after the game was beaten, so it was only meant as a replay feature for the game.

The thing is, to implement a hardcore mode into an MMORTS, namely this one would require careful execution. Hardcore could be summarized differently, here's a better example on how a hardcore mode can be implemented in this game.

Players start the game just like everyone else, consider these normal mode players. As the players progress they can opt to expand and create a new city in "safe, common" territory with basic resources and the like. Or can challenge themselves and make a city in a "hostile, dangerous, resource rich" environment. This can basically be territory that require the player to complete dangerous PVE quests that could threaten the existance of their city in the territory. And then after a few quests they must defeat a player with a city in that territory that's at the same stage. These events happen periodically and the player must continue to protect the city from the incoming PVE events and PVP matches until one of them inevitably beats them and destroys the city.

Depending on how long the players can manage to keep their city functional in this territory, they get rewarded either with resources, a special bonus depending on how well they did (like a buff to their unit's or structures), or simply with points for a ladder ranking and bragging rights. Whatever the case, you get the same feeling of a Hardcore game mechanic, without the permanent loss of everything you have and without separating the player base.

I have no idea how the game plays so this idea was made without consideration on how the game mechanics are. Hopefully if I get invited into beta I can get a better understanding on the game mechanics and reformat my version of the idea with better more realistic details.

GoGoCactusMan!
01-21-2011, 10:02 PM
I've mentioned in a few other posts the idea of a "Hardcore" mode, I'm glad I've found a thread about it!

As with Zack above me, as well as others, yes, I do have the worry about fragmenting a player base. The idea itself though is so broad, and without playing even a beta yet, I don't even know if any of my ideas would even be feasible in the slightest, but I'd like to share them anyhow. Who knows, maybe someone will dig em' and they could be implemented one day.

1. Hardcore Mode As A Server
This idea would be just as others have said: Two Servers. One would be vanilla DoF and the other would be a Hardcore variant. Either start off on the HC server or get the option to COPY your current level kingdom (if that makes sense) over to the HC server once you hit a certain level. The idea here is being able to either jump right into a world made of higher risk (Not necessarily a perma death situation) with an altered set of rules OR, as said above, reach a certain point in the normal online segment and COPY over your base Stronghold, starting from a single point, but not gimped at a starting low level.

There could be certain things in the way people fight each other in the HC server that would be more risky that the vanilla server.
Things such as:
- Offline Battles: If you are not online and someone enters your territory, a Defensively minded AI kicks in to defend your walls. If possible, you could receive an e-mail or text alerting you to this. Maybe be able to log into a web browser and click a behavior for your men if you cant make it back. Do you want to retreat? Give the attacker your land in favor of saving your men? Do you want to hold the line?

- Modified HC Server Specific Items: Something to fight over. Maybe a witch you could capture from a neutral territory that would alter the weather wherever you have her garrisoned so you could have farms in the winter. Mayyybe a rare mineral from a mine that would give you a limited set of tougher armor for one group of your army. If you get defeated and own something like this, it gets taken for as long as this scenario is running.

- Stronghold Sieges: Your home getting sacked. There could perhaps be a lattice system where in your enemies would have to destroy towns you control leading up to your Stronghold, severely weakening the opposing force as they tried to march into your lands and giving you time to mount a counter offensive. Maybe this is declared as a War, a HC server option within game where if the two players agree, they agree to fight until a winner is declared. This could last weeks. Whatever the end result, say there is no lattice system as suggested above, and the worst happens, your stronghold is lost. You lose, everything. Your main unit, your Hero, at the level he was at during that fateful fight would randomly respawn in a neutral town/city, where you could strike out and begin anew. Depending on your Hero's level, you would be granted a certain amount of what you need to get the ball rolling, and attempt a new life in a new section of the map.



2. Hardcore Mode as a Set of Options
This portion could be for late game content or just a way for bold players to try and make their names. This would be nothing that would imbalance the game, but allow for higher stake "tournament" like battles.

- Guild Fighting: Things can get personal when Guilds clash, EVE has taught the online gaming community that. It would be remarkable to see Guild fights have the option of impacting the Guild as a whole. Maybe they could start a persistent war, marking off victory conditions as a sort of Hardcore mode. The war would be unstoppable once launched, unless one or the other side completely ceded, causing a guild wide set back in something. Maybe the whole guild has to pay a tithe to the winning guild for x amount of time, or what have you. Would this set these people back? Yes, of course it would. But that would be glorious, and the thing that causes EVE to make nearly world wide headlines.

- HC Option for Your Kingdom: This would be like what I had for the Offline battles. Marking yourself "Hardcore" would be like putting up or down your PVP flag. You're Kingdom is essentially declaring to everyone that it is a powerful force. This would have a timer on it, lets say, a week. Over this week, this person's kingdom would be vulnerable to certain defeat penalties that are harsher than they would normally be and anyone who were to cause such a defeat would reap the equal reward, perhaps with a little bonus. However, if you are in the week long HC period, and fight others who are "marked" in the same mode, depending on what you accomplish against this person, you would get a far greater reward than you normally would in a victory. If you make it through the week without being wiped out, you get, perhaps, a Influence bonus since you would also be gaining notoriety in the community by being, well, Hardcore.

To break that down, since that was a lot of stuff, HC Option for Your Kingdom would be:
- Flag yourself as HC, lasts a Week.
- Defeat means larger consequence.
- Normal Victory yields nothing extra.
- Victory against another HC Flagged player means Larger winnings.
- Defeat by another HC Flagged player means worst possible consequence.
- Surviving the time limit (a week in my example) would grant some reward (Influence, in my example.)


I've more ideas I'll save for another time, but seriously, there is some juicy, meaty possibilities for something like this from a competitive play standpoint.

This is something I am heavily interested in, not as a requirement, but at least as some sort of option. It brings a lot of interesting possibilities for unique and dynamic game play, which would in turn, could reap the benefit of getting people to look at it as innovative. The possible dynamics could also cause game play situations that would make waves within online communities, things like what EVE has done, bringing in more people to give a hand at the brave new world within Dawn of Fantasy.

ElegantPete
01-24-2011, 06:24 AM
At this point I'm agreeing completely with Zack and his suggestion of hardcore wilderness vs relative safety of known lands.

I think this is a viable model that wont necessarily divide the player base, also, to make the wilderness more enticing create artifacts that can be fought over for bonuses ala daoc.

The sense of community in daoc was incredible and to see people rally together to chase down an artifact was brilliant, by including this kind of 'end game' content you can challenge and engage your player base, or at least those that are getting bored of having no real consequences.

I admit, I've raged at losing ships in EVE, but it creates a tension that does not exist in other games.

I guess interactions between the known lands and the wilderness could be interesting too, and you could enhance the in-game economy by increasing the risk/reward ratio for living on the wild side.

Hardcore is good, if it's easy to implement, and enriches the life of the game.. how can you say no? :D

Lukre
01-25-2011, 11:13 AM
Thanks For the imformation

Raulaun
01-25-2011, 12:04 PM
- HC Option for Your Kingdom: This would be like what I had for the Offline battles. Marking yourself "Hardcore" would be like putting up or down your PVP flag. You're Kingdom is essentially declaring to everyone that it is a powerful force. This would have a timer on it, lets say, a week. Over this week, this person's kingdom would be vulnerable to certain defeat penalties that are harsher than they would normally be and anyone who were to cause such a defeat would reap the equal reward, perhaps with a little bonus. However, if you are in the week long HC period, and fight others who are "marked" in the same mode, depending on what you accomplish against this person, you would get a far greater reward than you normally would in a victory. If you make it through the week without being wiped out, you get, perhaps, a Influence bonus since you would also be gaining notoriety in the community by being, well, Hardcore.

To break that down, since that was a lot of stuff, HC Option for Your Kingdom would be:
- Flag yourself as HC, lasts a Week.
- Defeat means larger consequence.
- Normal Victory yields nothing extra.
- Victory against another HC Flagged player means Larger winnings.
- Defeat by another HC Flagged player means worst possible consequence.
I imagine this would work quite well. But there should be other flagging options. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 month permanent. I do really like this idea, though.

glenanator28
01-31-2011, 01:10 PM
The only problem i can see with a activateable hardcore mode is a new player activating it not knowing what it really is and getting stick in hardcore mode for the minimum amount of time. that being said I think its a great idea and should be a toggle option. also i think hardcore mode should be reserved for high level characters to prevent high level characters from "ganking" lower level characters setting their armies after a small city state that is either in the "hardcore" area or has their flag flipped.

M4cias
02-02-2011, 10:00 AM
The only problem i can see with a activateable hardcore mode is a new player activating it not knowing what it really is and getting stick in hardcore mode for the minimum amount of time. that being said I think its a great idea and should be a toggle option. also i think hardcore mode should be reserved for high level characters to prevent high level characters from "ganking" lower level characters setting their armies after a small city state that is either in the "hardcore" area or has their flag flipped.




not bad idea, but imo there can be "level barrier" which low lvls can lgo to hardcore servers against other low's, and same for pros(hlvls)

Raulaun
02-02-2011, 10:52 AM
Or, back to where i said, an optional hardcore server seperate to the casual server, but you cant attack players under newbie protection or under a certain score so players can build back up to fighting shape. Hardcore would also promote diplomacy, as there are greater risks in sieges. For example, if your squad dies, it dies, no revive, unless you have a troop left. Then, a ranking of successful defends/sieges/alliances would be set in place so lots of people attack the same person or know to be afraid of those with big heads.

A hardcore mode really could work, it just needs alot more work, which DoF doesn't have the time for if they are going for a June 3rd release. Again, pairing it on the regular server still would work, but it would lose the feel of hardcore if you fight someone as hardcore, and they are regular. It would just be a handicap to you basically.

Also, back to the scoring idea for those who survive as hardcore for a certain amount of time, maybe distribute crowns/premium currency to players who survive at certain milestones. Survive for 6 hours game-time, 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month online without getting razed by an enemy?

master0p
02-02-2011, 11:33 AM
What i think is that the dev's shouldn't go to easy on the people by safeguarding them to much.

My opinion about beating a player is simpel the win condition should allow you this:

-Take all the resources with army penalty -%. Means the smaller the army is the less resources you can take! Sounds logical right.

- resource income of the defending player will be temp. lower than usual with a -20% penalty for a few hours. Could be less or more just a thought.

- defending player can't be attacked for 3 days if he have lost the battle, if the defending player won the battle you can still attack him.

I am very happy with everything about this game , but there is 1 thing you guys should think about that should be changed IMO. Maybe not in the release but maybe in the future.
If your offline and you can't be attacked.. is a bit to much for a protection after playing 1 month... No elements of surprice?? that really bumped me tho.

Raulaun
02-02-2011, 11:47 AM
I am very happy with everything about this game , but there is 1 thing you guys should think about that should be changed IMO. Maybe not in the release but maybe in the future.
If your offline and you can't be attacked.. is a bit to much for a protection after playing 1 month... No elements of surprice?? that really bumped me tho.

Maybe give a 48 hour time period in which a siege starts against an offline player. They have 48 hours to respond, and your army is camped outside the city, lowering resource income as they are blocking travel to/from the city. So essentially, your waiting for the opponent to say his vows before you attack, or have him convince you to not attack. During this period a friend, guildy or passer-by can see your army camped outside the players city and attack it, helping the other guy. This seems completely balanced and reasonable, atleast this way you can fight someone who is hiding behind the plug, and still have risks.

Also, I don't believe it should be a tribute, I think it should be ALL the resources, then the player can't be attacked for 6 hours, 9 hours from your guild members, and 12 hours from you. Or you can double/triple those times.

master0p
02-02-2011, 12:07 PM
Maybe give a 48 hour time period in which a siege starts against an offline player. They have 48 hours to respond, and your army is camped outside the city, lowering resource income as they are blocking travel to/from the city. So essentially, your waiting for the opponent to say his vows before you attack, or have him convince you to not attack. During this period a friend, guildy or passer-by can see your army camped outside the players city and attack it, helping the other guy. This seems completely balanced and reasonable, atleast this way you can fight someone who is hiding behind the plug, and still have risks.

Also, I don't believe it should be a tribute, I think it should be ALL the resources, then the player can't be attacked for 6 hours, 9 hours from your guild members, and 12 hours from you. Or you can double/triple those times.

yeah sounds reasonable.
but if you give the player a 48 hour window time and for instance the player comes back online and you go offline. Who will lead your troops? The AI? But thats sound good tho some timewindow.

Lightchef
02-02-2011, 04:04 PM
More like CIV? would be cool, but what if you where destroyd when you where offline?

Razak
02-06-2011, 08:49 AM
Hardcore makes gameplay much more interesting,but only for single.

Sleepwalker
02-07-2011, 01:11 PM
Hardcore makes gameplay much more interesting,but only for single.

agreed - ...........

darklegends8
02-07-2011, 03:31 PM
The playerbase for hardcore imo, would be smaller, and why split the community? We need as many players as a possible.

swuopa
02-08-2011, 05:58 AM
there is only a solution, RANKING

what we want and love, is the competition, 1vs1 or ally vs ally, always competition are.
with the ranking of the player/ally on the same server can live toghether big player/ally and low player/ally, a big player in the top ten can attack just the top ten player and fight with no penalties or advantage, if this player want attack from the 11th position to the 20th he can have a penalties like the low morale of the army, or could be the player less strong that have a bonus on the army because they fight against a powerfull enemy, that only to manage the differnces betwen the 2 player, me like a top ten player i have to decide if is valuable attack a less powerfull enemy and maybe win but lossing half army, after i could be attacked more easy from a player of my rank and loose easy. a top ten players can not absolute attack a player from the 21th position and over. And the same reversing the relationship. i split the rank in 10by10 positions but only for explain easy my concept. The same can be for the ally and the ally wars, an ally in the top ten can not attack a low profile ally. In this way we have to way of competition, be the best player and the best ally.
I do not know if I have explained myself well, I apologize for my English but it is not easy to think in another language.
Regarding destroy or conquer enemy city... each player can have a capital more powerfull, and building village to improve the economy and enlistment, a village more meaning more resource but you have one more castle to defend... do you know what i mean? in an alliance war its no easy attack and defend at the same time, need coesion with the allied member.

anyway i like harcore game, adds up to the competition.

Sarkata
02-17-2011, 09:27 PM
Fully agree that there should be a hardcore mode. Coming from EVE, and believe me I know it sounds kind of strange, but I've realized how much fun can be derived from the possibility that you could lose your ship when doing various things. No risk, no reward!

Dunbarclas
02-19-2011, 11:47 PM
I think there should be a catch though :o

cableslice
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
I like it. Hardcore mode.

Bloodkilt
02-25-2011, 01:50 PM
The option of a different server is always a good idea. When it comes to gaming people have different ideas of what is fun.

ImmoralAtheist
03-07-2011, 07:43 PM
Tribal wars seems to be considered 'hardcore' here.
There are ways you can make it fully competetive, yet not making it all about best players destroying weaker ones. If you have infinite villages like tribal wars rebuilding time will be very high. In Stronghold kingdoms you get research so rebuilding is much faster if you're ranked. Unfortunately you can store full armies in at 50 vassal's, making it the gap between weak and strong players to large, aswell as having a large rebuilding time.
Shortening of rebuilding time is one thing. Another is to reduce the profitability on taking enemy villages. Stronghold kingdoms has a terribly flawed system where attacking costs you alot of honour, and on a weaker the honour cost is ridicilously high.

They should "change the playing field". Your own villages/towns should be very hard expensive troopwise to conquer, castles are quite superior and combat on these are more sieges, blocking you from any trade, but rarely a direct attack. Combat however is fought in sieging a camp, and then that player's allies may respond by attacking the siege's. Also an important part of the economy is shifted towards provinces (often producing special goods). Provinces are claimable, and you reap economic benefits from controlling a province, however they're much easier targets (more 1:1), so alot of pvp is played out in controlling these.

Briggsby
04-20-2011, 12:55 PM
For the most part I agree with Zackreaver. I certainly like the idea of a hardcore server (well anything's good if it's not mandatory which gives more options :P But i think it would be worth the effort) which requires more tactics or battles and harsher economy or something similar, but there's two points that I seriously disagree with ideas others have made.
Firstly is the idea of copying over a kingdom from regular mode to hardcore mode, not only would this bypass a lot of the point of hardcore mode and be difficult to implement, but also a reason that is sort of incorporated in my second point.
Which is that making it so that in hardcore mode it's possible to be completely defeated can cause the end of your kingdom could mean two things. One possibility is that it would mean that rather than having a mixture of big and small kingdoms there would probably be very few or possibly even no big kingdoms because people do not want ot let any kingdoms get too big or just the difficulty of getting one that size. This would be good but it's also possible that there would be a few kingdoms that would manage to become massive and once they've reached this point it will be basically impossible to topple them giving them complete control.
Then again I think that that problem's kind of pressent in the non-hardcore gameplay anyway, so maybe Reverie has an awesome way to tackle it :) (like limiting kingdom size; though that would be a little disappointing :P)

Ciprian
04-26-2011, 03:05 AM
I Agree For A Hardcore Server

bpeters16@gmail.com
04-26-2011, 09:16 AM
yea i am all for a hardcore server. i have never played an online game with a hardcore mode before and it sounds awesome. I wouldnt begin to know how to address the issue of kingdom sizes in hardcore though.

Trotibal
05-01-2011, 02:06 PM
wow guys! this is great!! i stilll wait for a beta key! please someone take care of me!! please!!

Repsol
05-04-2011, 11:27 AM
the idea seems cool but i wud imagine lose a castle and remakin it one

Crook
05-09-2011, 05:28 AM
got to say id like a more hardcore mode aswell, where you can literally have your keep destroyed if its your home region, you got to rebuild it again, but then there should be something to stop people coming an army of disproportional size to destroy it.