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.

Blacklists

Flari-Merchant
Finally options other than WAR(not much fun yet and heavy handed), Shaking a pointer finger and declaring: "KOS!"(useless….)!

+10 Guys!

Edit: I forgot an end to the frustration of seeing a gang you dislike banking on your own turf.
Decius
Is there a way to view what another settlement's policy is towards third parties?

If I understand right, there is intended to be four categories: member, ally, other, foe; with permissions and taxes being configurable for each group individually. Is that the ee12 exepectation except that taxes are ee15?
You are a Troll
Why would it make sense for Emerald Lodge to see if Keepers has Blacklisted Paddy?
Decius
Because politics, that's why. I'd like to know exactly how much aggro I'm likely to draw by selling +5 library training to both sides of most conflicts.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Decius
Is there a way to view what another settlement's policy is towards third parties?
Decius
Because politics, that's why. I'd like to know exactly how much aggro I'm likely to draw by selling +5 library training to both sides of most conflicts.

I hope not, that veers too much into giving away free intel and makes our interactions less interesting. Even seeing the feuds if you aren't participating is too much IMO.
Duffy Swiftshadow
plopmania
You are a Troll
Because it's much easier to know the names of the players and companies who you DO NOT want training in your settlement then it is to know the names of every single player and company that you do?

It does have settlement level binding. So I would assume that every alliance would just white-list their allied settlements and be done with it. Seems easier that blacklisting everything and everyone that are not in the alliance.

But I'd imagine we'll have both further down the line, anyways.

As a counter example I only plan to blacklist enemies while they're acting as enemies as we prefer an open venue. Therefore a blacklist is better for me. As I said earlier, purely depends on you style. If they can include both it would cover all bases.
You are a Troll
Decius
Because politics, that's why. I'd like to know exactly how much aggro I'm likely to draw by selling +5 library training to both sides of most conflicts.

You are going to need to wheedle, bargain, cajole and steal that info in some way other than the game simply telling you.
Decius
You are a Troll
Decius
Because politics, that's why. I'd like to know exactly how much aggro I'm likely to draw by selling +5 library training to both sides of most conflicts.

You are going to need to wheedle, bargain, cajole and steal that info in some way other than the game simply telling you.

If nobody draws any agrro for offering training to griefercorp (because nobody can tell) than griefercorp always has access to training somewhere, and people who want to make that a meaningful choice cannot.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Decius
You are a Troll
Decius
Because politics, that's why. I'd like to know exactly how much aggro I'm likely to draw by selling +5 library training to both sides of most conflicts.

You are going to need to wheedle, bargain, cajole and steal that info in some way other than the game simply telling you.

If nobody draws any agrro for offering training to griefercorp (because nobody can tell) than griefercorp always has access to training somewhere, and people who want to make that a meaningful choice cannot.

Eh those that care enough to act on it will know. That's half the fun of playing the politics. If the game just tells you hard facts it removes most of the drama because now is blatantly obvious and thus decision trees are simpler.

It's one thing for A to claim B is supplying griefer nation with training while B denies it. It's another if the game just tells A it's happening. The first case creates political intrigue and social interaction, the second case doesn't, now A just reacts because they have all the hard facts they need because the game told them and everyone else the 'truth' of it. So ultimately the more mechanics that just tell us facts about 'politics' the less interesting the politics become as we rely on the hard facts mechanics to generate action and content.
Fiery
I agree with Duffy here. I think it creates far more interesting situations when no one is given that knowledge about who may or may not be colluding with GrieferCorp. You need to utilize the same tools you would for any other piece of information to find it out.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post