Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Golgotha ... meh

Rynnik
Gryphyx
This sounds incredibly awesome. Rynnik, when you are not insulting people, and actually adding the the coversation, your ideas are incredible. I humbly request you do more idea sharing and less insulting.
YOU JERK. Have you read the OP? Have you seen the title? This entire thread is an insult to me and yet you dare to say…!?!1one!

(that was a joke btw - you might not get it but that was funny for me)

Dreams are easy - NOTHING I typed out in that paragraph would be a shock to GW (walls would be MY first step to funner settlement experience for players if I was calling the shots). They need time. They have my money and my patience in the meantime. Development is continuing to creep in the right direction.

Someday PFO may even look like that. I'll probably still be here if it keeps moving towards it.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Daeglin
I remain flabbergasted by those who seem to not understand that a pvp game means player vs. player.
Good… Bad… I'm the guy with the bow.
Saiph the Fallen
Daeglin
I remain flabbergasted by those who seem to not understand that a pvp game means player vs. player.

I know right? There seems to be a lot of those guys.
Bringslite
Daeglin
I remain flabbergasted by those who seem to not understand that a pvp game means player vs. player.

I'll bite. I don't want you flabbergasted! I had that last winter with a touch of the vapors at the same time. smile

Where are you seeing people not grasping "the bottom line"?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Edam
Actually I agree with Rynnik on this one.

In EVE even if you are a war target (equivalent of a feud) you are safe docked up behind a POS Shield unless half an alliance comes after you, completely safe in NPC stations and although theoretically killable actually totally safe if docked at a new safe spot and cloaked.

Whilst the FUN thing in EVE is that when you are war decced in EVE your ability to do much other than manufacture/trade are limited and you need to get very creative and its often more fun to fleet up and fight you can still safely login if you do not uncloak/undock (well logging back in at a safe spot could be dangerous if someone was watching for you and spotted you before your cloak went back up but that is nit picking).

Getting to feuded players in a settlement should require a serious effort it is currently too easy. Walking into a settlement and attacking feuded players (both sides have done this) is too easy and not generating player content. The opportunity to do that should be the result of a serious action requiring much effort to take down the defenses.

In a similar fashion avoiding feuds by company hopping is too easy. Taking out non feuded enemy targets once you at max neg rep is too easy (no meaningful choice there, your rep is already max neg so why not kill everyone you are at war with, feud or not). In the War of Towers taking out all of the enemies towers was too easy (you just needed to get everyone on and in position at once).

I am worried that attacking outposts and holdings will end up with the same "you took all out outposts yesterday we are going to destroy all yours next week when you least expect it" dynamic.

Even if the holdings gave some limited version of the much maligned EVE SOV mechanic (and yes I know it is broken and much hated) combined with something like "feuded enemies are red to the whole settlement regardless of company when you are inside your settlement" it would help but the sort of stuff Rynnik talks about would actually be fun and actually create some genuine player content rather than the petty squabbles PvP deteriorates into too often at present.
Smitty
I want to see a difference between feuds and wars.

Feuds are spats between companies ( no guarantee you will even find a player of the right company in that settlement..). So wandering around looking for a fight shouldn’t be that hard, only one other group can be attacked.
Meanwhile Wars mean everyone in that settlement becomes a target. I hope when a War is declared all those thornguards are going to turn into holding guards and wandering around town will get a lot harder then.
The wall thing sounds interesting but think we are a bit a away from that, perhaps with formations and such that stuff will start getting some consideration.
Ryan Dancey
We intend that you be able to use various Settlement facilities in a way that is safe. The current situation where you remain embodied in the world while you use them is not the final intended design.

We intend that you have some means to enforce security in territory you control. Currently you don't have that, but you also don't have any cost for Thornguard either.

If we made the Thornguard kill feud targets on sight then the response to being feuded will be to stay inside the security perimeter of the Thornguard until the feud ends, thus making feuds much less valuable. If we let you walk into a Settlement without Thornguard interference until you became flagged the standard behavior would be to assemble close enough to a war target to Alpha Strike them, then run away. That's not noticeably different than the current situation except the killers maybe die one less time.

When Holding & Outpost Warfare is turned on (very, very soon) suddenly you will have real territorial control battles and you will face real risks. If you don't defend your Holdings, you'll lose them. If you lose them, your opponent may get some of your stuff. If you can't pay your weekly upkeep your training options will be reduced. Killing random people in Settlements "for the lulz" shouldn't happen much since it's pointless and real, meaningful PvP can be had elsewhere.
Tink says Stab
For an hour a day. Maybe.

'Random' killing will happen just as much. People have to fill the other 23 hours some how. That is the downside of PvP windows.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Bringslite
@ Ryan

Thanks for dropping in and clarifying some of this, Ryan. smile

Edit 3 x (cause I am a monkey's uncle): The only thing that I disagree with is this:

"If we made the Thornguard kill feud targets on sight then the response to being feuded will be to stay inside the security perimeter of the Thornguard until the feud ends, thus making feuds much less valuable. If we let you walk into a Settlement without Thornguard interference until you became flagged the standard behavior would be to assemble close enough to a war target to Alpha Strike them, then run away. That's not noticeably different than the current situation except the killers maybe die one less time."

1. No need for Thornguards to attack just because there is a feud. Feuders usually (historically) don't do that much violence in plain sight of authority.

2. If it is true that a minimum feud will soon last 2 days, I doubt that players will sit in town for those days.

3. It might be different when attackers risk wear on their gear. More will be reluctant to do that as it gains them basically nothing except revenge.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Elsworth Sugarfoot
What people do already when they get feuded is drop company and go about their day. No need to stay in town or anything.

Minimum feud is already 2 days bringslite.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post