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.

All posts created by Fiery

Fiery
Of note, tight control of platinum would be nearly, if not more, crippling than black. Much less is used per item, but it is necessary to make a number of things. The resource problem this game has extends far beyond black, even though black is the elephant in the room.
Fiery
We have a current policy of trading black to all groups, bringslite, but stripping remains a problem that threatens all trade of black. If anyone wants to trade for black, they merely need to talk to us and negotiate. As long as poaching continues though, which I don't expect will stop, quantities available for trade will be limited. I am well aware of the consequences of black not being open to trade for, which is why I made it a point to to offer it and our other resources for trade to hrc after the war, as part of the peace process, though they dissolved before the moratorium of maybe 30 days. We have offered to trade to certain bandits found poaching our resources. The black is there for trade, and prices can be negotiated, but it won't be cheap that's true. I'm sure there are a fair number of people that will refuse the prices we expect, and will thus prefer to poach, or people who don't like to feed monopolistic control of resources.
Fiery
I'll amend my statement because you're misconstruing it - I don't currently sell anything for coin for reasons beyond ability to buy market items, so it would take more than what your example addresses to get me to sell anything for coin, and I have no concept of what a coin price for much of anything would look like at that point. You're asking me an amazingly complicated question that I would need to be prescient to answer, so any answer I could give would almost certainly be wrong or meaningless. My inability to answer the question is not tied to the value of black, or to my unwillingness to state a value, so you're conflating issues in ways that simply are misleading.
Fiery
That's too vague a question, and I wouldn't sell for coin right now. I'm not trying to dodge your question bl, but that's a truly impossible question to answer. If stripping was stopped completely, there would certainly be a drop in price, but it still wouldn't be in coin.
Fiery
I'm not sure if that was directed at my proposal edam, but it specifically disadvantages inactive groups, as does most pvp systems. If you don't have the members to support claims, you lose the ability to gather resources. If the said group can field superior numbers often enough, or have better gear, or better strategy, or any number of things a group can do to advantage themselves in PvP, every week or however often the hexes need to be fought over, then why shouldn't they be allowed to continue control over their claims? On the other hand, what we have CURRENTLY is a system that doesn't disadvantage inactive groups. If I control a majority of the black on the server already (not that I do…smile), and I choose to cut off supply, which I as a single person can do, then it doesn't matter whether I'm even in a group, let alone whether my group is active, because my stranglehold on black on the server can't possibly be challenged. There's no war or PvP that can stop that currently. Even if you make it harder to strip a hex, a group can still keep it stripped, to either deny that resource or to protect their own resource values. The suggestion to make that harder, while better than what is currently in game, still doesn't address just how fundamentally broken the system is as it stands.
Fiery
I believe Bob had previously said that raiding can take place during your PvP window all 7 days of the week, do it is not just a trade-off between a raid and a capture. You can raid in more situations than you can capture.
Fiery
Of note, Decius also suggested to me a system of tying it to fallow times, such as dumping a certain % of resources back into a hex when an escalation is cleared. It doesn't encourage pvp the way I want, but is a system with merit too.
Fiery
It's true there will still be pvp over that harad, so there are really two different issues here: a different system of resource control, such as my proposal for direct control through a pvp system that exists outside of holding warfare, and how scarcity should be implemented. My thoughts on scarcity will be assuming direct control through a system like mine is implemented.

If we have very globally scarce T3, but more sources of each spread out, there will still be conflict, though less than over a single source for sure. Would you be more willing to stage a pvp operation, taking on potentially very high gear churn, time planning, consumable resources, etc, over a very small source which is one of 5-6, and that you may not even keep indefinitely, or would you be more willing to do that over a hex that is the sole source of that resource? PVP is expensive, amazingly so if people are fighting in T3. The reward for it needs to be proportionate. If we only want to give each area of the map a source so we can keep sitting around being content with what we have, that system is fine. If we want to encourage competition, I think it's lackluster.

On the topic of frustration: is there an inherent reason T3 shouldn't be a "frustrating" thing to obtain and keep control of? As I've said before, even if others don't see it yet, I don't believe T3 is ANYWHERE close to being a viable equipment to wear for daily use in the future, given more frequent pvp. When you consider how many deaths a person can incur in a single pvp battle (hint: a lot - I've seen people go through an entire set of fresh gear, or close to it, during a WoT battle), then expect multiple battles per week, then consider that each armorsmith makes a t3+3 armor every 20-30 days, and suddenly there's no way the math ever adds up, and that is with the CURRENT ratio of crafters to consumers, a ratio that is almost certainly the highest it will ever be, because of the % of dt accounts that are crafters and the % those accounts make up of the total number of account. New players are far less likely to become dedicated crafters, so the time it will take to get new T3 crafters, unless new players buy multiple accounts (a poor assumption for the average player), will probably be 2-3 years. Hitting the ability to use and consume T3 equipment is comparatively easier and something I would expect almost every new player to want to do at some point.

That was a long wall of text to say: I consider T3 to be something important on a strategic level, particularly on the settlement-level, and much less-so something that everyone that plays this game is entitled to wear all the time and expect for their demand to be met with supply.
Fiery
As you've seen Duffy, I 100% agree with your points. I propose control through structure both to promote PvP, as well as likely being the "simplest" method to guarantee a solution to this problem - any solution I've thought of that keeps the ability to poach t3 on an individual level also fails to sufficiently resolve the issue at hand. My opinion is that t3,as are monster hexes in general, should be thought of more as a settlement level resource, rather than an individual one. Allow settlements to fight over it, and you'll see an explosion of pvp in the long-run.
Fiery
Of note, I've been convinced by Glinder that some increase in T3 salvage (here I'm meaning resources that drop from mobs, not just strictly salvage) drops would be good, so that monopolies/cartels/etc are still valid and powerful on a strategic level, but that unaligned/neutral players are less affected. Seems valid to me, just a numbers game.