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.

Same Old Debate

Bringslite
Don't know where to put this but it shouldn't be where it started.

Midnight
Bands of roving marauders dominated portions of the real world for very long periods of time. It is TOTALLY REALISTIC for bands of roving marauders to do well for lifetimes of looting other people. Some marauders were more successful than others, and some builders were better defenders than others.

Essentially true in the real world. Also true in the real world, back in the day: Bands of marauders sometimes crossed the paths of angry "legit" organized crime syndicates called kings, barons, princes, lords and ladies. Maruader camps could be found and attacked. In the real world, they couldn't log out. No one could shoot fireballs from their arses. People that were killed, stayed killed. Not much of what we do here, in game, could be done realistically in the real world.

The real world rewarded builders AND marauders at various places and times, usually by which performed their role the best.
There aren't rewards for either, here. The loot sucks and people that you kill get right back up. Are you suggesting an artificial "wheel of Time" with chaos on top sometimes and law at others?

Not to mention the fact that some marauders eventually decided to "farm" the builders through taxation using the "protection" racket known as government

Midnight
Bringslite
Are you suggesting an artificial "wheel of Time" with chaos on top sometimes and law at others?
No need for one. I'm suggesting that without artificial barriers to marauding that a natural ebb and flow of victory and defeat in conflict between marauders and builders would exist.

I described victory being determined by whoever fulfills their role best, but in this game that would largely be a factor of participation levels.

And while you lamented that the dead just keep rising, I'll remind you that my mates focused on gear churn and we eventually saw our opponents (including their leaders) ARRIVING at battles in tier 1 gear.

Actually you tried to serve up a parallel with real world similarities that doesn't match well and isn't completely true in the first place. The most successful long term raiders were the ones that took and settled land. Not the ones that just bugged people a lot. When they got too annoying, they got crushed. That's because they could not log out, they had to be physically somewhere in the world, and they only had one life to give.

As the attackers(only one, therefore best example), you guys lost interest when there were no more structures that you could attack because there were no more characters to kill. Too hard to find them randomly. Is that a fair statement?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
Bringslite
When they got too annoying, they got crushed. That's because they could not log out, they had to be physically somewhere in the world, and they only had one life to give.

As the attackers(only one, therefore best example), you guys lost interest when there were no more structures that you could attack because there were no more characters to kill. Too hard to find them randomly. Is that a fair statement?

I LIKED my statements right in the thread I posted them in BECAUSE at least one crowdforger was making a case for changing influence to further battle the viability of roving bands of marauders. If their post is in that thread, then that's where I want MY post. I do not want to splinter this from where people are having that discussion.

I'll address what you wrote as a one time courtesy, but don't expect a back and forth from me here. I won't be pushed out of the previous discussion, by you.

My response to your points:

Some marauders died of old age. Just like some builders. There were ebbs and flows across the globe across the ages.

As far as in the game… your statement isn't a fair summary because it is far too simplistic… a number of things occurred nearly simultaneously (and not necessarily in this order).
1) Devs had recently changed feuds, and some people disliked the new changes.
2) The players (on all sides) were becoming concerned that devs had become silent and unresponsive for weeks. Fear that the game was dying led to less commitment and thus less participation (on all sides).
3) Our favorite settlement to fight decided to quit giving us fights.
4) Our favorite settlement to fight splintered into two settlements.
5) The Power Bloc we had been fighting dissolved.
6) The devs announced the layoffs.

Your summary left a LOT of that out, as well as overlooking the fact that every individual involved has their own reasons for lessening their commitment to the game/war and each individual might emphasize some reasons over others.

If you want to discuss roving bands of marauders further, you'll find me back in the thread you ripped this from.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Bringslite
Your statements are still in that thread. Do a check. I know that everyone has their personal pain threshold, but it was just a copy/paste move. There was no ripping.

My point is this: No one finds it fun to not be able to find the players that they want to fight. That holds true for aggressors and for retaliators. Groups that don't have anything to attack in turn are just not fun to game with.

That's it.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Decius
Responding here because it's less inappropriate than jamming a real thread:
The changes to feuds were strictly favoring large companies that didn't exploit misfeatures.
I don't know how many people I don't talk to were concerned about the second team, but most of the deckplate players are in for the long haul, not the 24-month timeframe.

There were plenty of people not in your "preferred list" that were still active and had stuff to burn down.
Heck, you never attacked and formed a separate peace with the better part of the power bloc that contained your preferred target. You could have betrayed that.
The layoffs changed nothing except extending the timeframe; even at a Skelton crew PFO was sustainable and expecting slow improvement.

I don't need to point out the real reasons. Everybody that cares already knows and I'm not going to start the flamewar by making the claim explicit.
Doc
"The layoffs changed nothing except extending the timeframe; even at a Skelton crew PFO was sustainable and expecting slow improvement."

And if slow improvement was all it took to make an MMO viable and popular, that would mean something.

The reason why many left with the layoffs announcement is the same reason many (apparently) would not stay if the gameworld was wiped - the game isn't sufficiently / intrinsically fun enough (for some) to continue playing when the fruits of the boring aspect of the game are in doubt of paying off.

- If the game was fun enough, more people would continue to play, restart even and build all over again, if there was a wipe.
- If the game was fun enough, more people would play till the end even if they knew spending time building up stuff would be potentially for naught with the game being shut down.

Unfortunately, the game concept or at least it's early realization of it, was heavily reliant on players providing the content that would make it fun (excepting diehard isolationist solo pve'ers) - and GW did not market to, or attract enough of the right kind of players to achieve that critical mass.
Duffy Swiftshadow
I'll take False Dichotomies for $500 Alex.
Doc
I put enough conditionals in parentheses to suggest I wasn't trying to say my assertions were exhaustive. I'm sure a lot of people quit the game for reasons other than it basically not being fun and dying.
Midnight
Decius
Responding here because it's less inappropriate than jamming a real thread:
The changes to feuds were strictly favoring large companies that didn't exploit misfeatures.
I don't know how many people I don't talk to were concerned about the second team, but most of the deckplate players are in for the long haul, not the 24-month timeframe.

There were plenty of people not in your "preferred list" that were still active and had stuff to burn down.
Heck, you never attacked and formed a separate peace with the better part of the power bloc that contained your preferred target. You could have betrayed that.
The layoffs changed nothing except extending the timeframe; even at a Skelton crew PFO was sustainable and expecting slow improvement.

I don't need to point out the real reasons. Everybody that cares already knows and I'm not going to start the flamewar by making the claim explicit.

I'm not claiming that my mates and I exhausted every possibility to continue to be active (which seems to be what you're faulting me on), I was merely listing reasons why the OP's summary was too simplistic for me to simply agree with.

Speaking simply for myself, I found PFO very grindy by the 8th month of play, and the moment that grind looked like it might not pay off in the longterm (feeling of the game being doomed when devs went silent before the layoff announcement), I started spending time looking at other games and even revisiting old games I enjoy more.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Decius
The only thing I was calling out was that all of the reasons you gave were weak reasons, and that there are stronger reasons that are well enough known.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post