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.
|Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon 07.14.2015 10:54|
I like the general gust of this idea. Essentially it is saying the Attacker needs to construct a siege camp. However, that siege camp can be raided / destroyed as well. In this camp you can respawn, but also tge camp could be stocked with combat supplies (ie replacement gear).
The quality of the camp makes it: more difficult to detect; has a quicker respawn time; has more gear storage capacity; and can withstand more damage before it can be looted or destroyed completely.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.
Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
|Kitsune 07.26.2015 10:02|
I honestly didn't read all the other posts, so I'll just address the OP.
I agree with the ideas in the OP, except I'm having a hard time with the last one. One part of me wants to prohibit company-hopping by disallowing company changes like you described. Another part of me really likes freedom.
So, I believe that company-hopping should be discouraged, mechanically, by means of punishment. But only punishment that is relevant to the system(s) that are most affected by said company-hopping: feuds/PvP.
Your idea about an influence penalty is a good example. Other examples may include some sort of flag, or debuff, or some other PvP-relevant mechanical effect.
But otherwise completely prohibiting the act is not the right way to go. Such limitations would impact ALL social aspects of the game, even those not related to PvP.