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
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
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.

Hmm, I was just thinking that being blacklisted by Settlement A means that Settlement A no longer serves any purpose for me, and thus no longer deserves to exist, and should be sieged.

I understand that control freaks want control and this definitely gives it, but I doubt this actually does anything to de-escalate conflicts, it will be just like the other ultimatums currently in use, except it requires a lot less effort from the issuer of this particular type of ultimatum. Blacklisting is the lazy man's ultimatum.
lol Midnight! You have never liked seeing ANY control for people over what they build and maintain for themselves. You feel like I am a control freak for wanting the option to say "No you can't train here". You might wait and see how it gets used (especially when taxes or fees come into play) and why it gets used.
Right now I can't think of anyone that I would put on a Blacklist… except maybe Duffy if we are still at war. ;P
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
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.

Hmm, I was just thinking that being blacklisted by Settlement A means that Settlement A no longer serves any purpose for me, and thus no longer deserves to exist, and should be sieged.

I understand that control freaks want control and this definitely gives it, but I doubt this actually does anything to de-escalate conflicts, it will be just like the other ultimatums currently in use, except it requires a lot less effort from the issuer of this particular type of ultimatum. Blacklisting is the lazy man's ultimatum.

Well of course it won't DE escalate anything lol.

It just gives more options instead of just going straight from 0 to 100 smile
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
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.

Hmm, I was just thinking that being blacklisted by Settlement A means that Settlement A no longer serves any purpose for me, and thus no longer deserves to exist, and should be sieged.

I understand that control freaks want control and this definitely gives it, but I doubt this actually does anything to de-escalate conflicts, it will be just like the other ultimatums currently in use, except it requires a lot less effort from the issuer of this particular type of ultimatum. Blacklisting is the lazy man's ultimatum.
lol Midnight! You have never liked seeing ANY control for people over what they build and maintain for themselves. You feel like I am a control freak for wanting the option to say "No you can't train here". You might wait and see how it gets used (especially when taxes or fees come into play) and why it gets used.
Right now I can't think of anyone that I would put on a Blacklist… except maybe Duffy if we are still at war. ;P

My point of contention in this issue has always been that it rewards the lazy and doesn't incentivize activity. G.W. has repeatedly disagreed with me on the level of activity that should be needed for various forms of control.

In particular, they have sided with the idea that your PvE play (gathering mats, influence, etc.) and then pooping a structure onto the map ought to allow you to control other players. I feel that you should have to engage in actual PvP to control other players.

Your side has the dev's support, and your side gets to check a box somewhere and then watch TV rather than actually spend time enforcing your will against dissidents.

I too, am a control freak. I wanted the tools to battle poaching on ZKM. All I wanted was a no damage knockback feat so we could physically push people away without having to murder them. Because for me, killing 60 escalation bosses and gathering 1200 nodes of mats and pooping a building onto the map and checking off a box isn't a sensible way to control other players. If I want to push people around, I want to actually push people around. I don't want some game mechanics to do it for me while I sleep or while I'm watching Deadpool on TV.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Paddy Fitzpatrick
So instead of Blacklisting, what would you propose instead?
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Fiery
I suppose the pooping out of buildings is a convincing argument if you ignore all of the steps in that process that pvp plays either a direct or indirect role in, as well as the pvp that can take place around said buildings.
Midnight
Paddy Fitzpatrick
So instead of Blacklisting, what would you propose instead?

This war was already fought in crowdforging and I lost. I want players to have to actually chase away the players they don't want to have access.

My basic philosophy is that PvP should be required to control other players.

The winning philosophy is that you should be able to PvE your way to poop structures onto the map that will exist as build and forget control mechanisms because vigilance isn't fun.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Fiery
I suppose the pooping out of buildings is a convincing argument if you ignore all of the steps in that process that pvp plays either a direct or indirect role in, as well as the pvp that can take place around said buildings.

There exists the possibility to poop out buildings while never engaging in PvP. There are very likely people who have pooped buildings onto the map who have never PvP'd or only retreated from PvP.

75% of the map hasn't been involved in any serious amount of PvP.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Fiery
If they've never engaged in pvp, it's only because they were never engaged. Politics is a form of pvp.
Midnight
Fiery
If they've never engaged in pvp, it's only because they were never engaged. Politics is a form of pvp.

I would almost like to concede that point, but it ignores the history of the game attracting the tabletop crowd for whom PvP was against their customs, and thus over 90% of the population would have to honestly declare themselves as builder-centric rather than PvP-centric.

I do give credit for diplomacy. However, when there were 1000 builder-centric players keeping 18 PvP-centric players at bay, lets not kid ourselves about how stunning that diplomacy has to be, especially as long as there was one doofus builder-centric settlement with the world's worst diplomacy. Because builder-centric players vastly outnumbered PvP-centric players, builders just had to be better than the worst diplomat on the map.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Bob
Mistwalker
I am not seeing anything that Bob said to indicate that blacklisted characters could not access the bank - the rest of the player made buildings and training, yes, but not banks.

Was that the intention Bob, to restrict access to the banks?

You can restrict access to the bank, though we are planning to allow you to withdraw things that are already there. We didn't want someone to find themselves suddenly losing all their stuff.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post