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.

Speaking of Options...

The history of the game so far is that if a settlement fails (original BWG, original Hammerfall, Phaeros, all of Aeonian league, all of Xelias) all but one or two really dedicated players leave the game rather than move to another group.

If you read the early comments by the original dev team they expected players attachment to be to their companies and settlements to just be the place "where they hung their hat at the moment" . For most players in the game this is NOT the case, companies are something they jump between willy-nilly and their real attachment as a player is to their settlement or alliance group.
I kinda feel like that is an unforeseen consequence of a real sizeable player population never developing.
Virtute et Armis
I think you guys need to put that dusty design document away and look at what we have left in the game as of today- and make a few design decisions that might actually lead toward some growth in the future. While the original design may have had some merit - a few years later it has lost its luster-
It needs to be tweaked and you guys need to decide what you want the game to be in the short term and what it should be in the long term. I cant express how frustrating it is to listen to an explanation about what was intended 5 years ago when there was funding- and entire dev team working on the project.

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression that we aren't open to changes as we see what works and what doesn't, or to challenging long-held assumptions. Just wanted to make sure the original thinking was clear so that everyone understands some of the things we're thinking about whenever we start reevaluating things. Generally, when I say "here's what we were originally thinking," that should be taken with an implied "but we all know how long battle plans survive."

My entire point is that premise is wrong - I understand what the original intent was - but things are far from where those visions started - I feel you would get a better response in marketing this a settlement warfare game - if you made it easier to build a settlement - and not a 8 month + ordeal to fight over one.
Brings just said it above “I'll say this: I am not sure what I would do(as far as playing on) if The Commonwealth lost a lvl 20 sett or two. It was/is a hell of a lot of work…”
So he put a ton into what it is - and if there is ever a fight over it - and it doesn’t turn out his way - he may just walk away … That should resonate on some level- You don’t want the loser of any battle to feel like they don’t want to go through building it all up again or have no shot at building it back up-

There's a definite tension between our goals of getting players invested enough in their settlements to add meaning to the game and yet keeping players from feeling the sting of a settlement's loss too heavily. It's definitely an aspect of the game we plan to revisit, but because it's related to such foundation assumptions about the game's design, it's going to require a lot of thought to get right.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post