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 Flari-Merchant

Flari-Merchant
We probably have convinced Bob that support is probably not needed as an anti-grief tool.
We may have convinced Bob that support is not needed as an incentive to build our settlements up.
Let's see if we can convince Bob that without support, new players will be encouraged to join existing settlements.

Those seem to be the three most common Key Phrases that I see in his replies. But I have to wonder, why is the third part so important? Seems to me that taking away the drive to build something yourself would be counter productive for all the Would-Be-Kings out there.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Edam
Bringslite of Staalgard
Not to be a downer and not to dismiss how great it would be to have more complex contracts… but we already have lots of potential "contracts" in the form of Buy Orders in the Auction Houses. Maybe what we need is a better way to SEE them and/or get the knowledge that they are offered out to the "world".
Buy orders are not contracts and do not come even close to filling the multiple roles contracts fill in other games.
No they don't come close to filling all the possibilities of a separate Contract Feature. Yes they are so contracts none-the-less. A promise is made to pay for something that is provided.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Clearly we've oversold the griefing-reduction aspect of support. Support has far more important roles in motivating settlements to upgrade (and stay upgraded), and in motivating players to join existing settlements. Multiple systems have been designed and implemented based on using support as that motivation, and replacing it would be a daunting task. However, fiddling around the edges and tuning the balance so that it's meaningful enough to provide those motivations while still moderate enough to keep upgraded settlements from being too powerful is mostly a matter of editing numbers in spreadsheets or making small code tweaks.
That sounds encouraging! Believe it or not there are a couple of factors that drive us to want the highest settlement level that we can achieve.
*We really do want the shortest possible craft times for our T3 gear and other things.
*We really do want or would prefer to train at home.
*We really would like it to be much more difficult to siege and conquer us the higher our settlement level is.

Now you really haven't seen us following that too closely have you? I would argue that with this scrawny and anemic population, it not only is much more difficult but also a weird "state" of existence in which it all does not seem as important as it should. Our over all industrial drive should not be judged without a more regular ""state of existence" (i.e. much larger population) in place.

I do still have a warning tick(possibly mere selfishness) that it isn't fair or good to have some settlements run at 10 because enough are running at 20 and it costs you less to use their facilities… Maybe Blacklisting IS ENOUGH to control that for those that have such objections.

Anyway, some sort of compromise to a middle ground might be welcomed.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Paddy

Nothing else in the Roadmap addresses the problem: At Peter's expense, Paul can get all the training he needs and in fact could someday take away Peter's House with that training.
Edit: Maybe that is just going to have to be a part of the game that I don't like… assuming that Y'all can get the Support Mechanic nixed.

Nothing except possibly Blacklisting. I don't think that anyone wants to Blacklist players just because their Settlement leaders see no reason to pay their own costs of having an elevated Settlement.

That is a perfectly valid reason to Blacklist everyone but allies if you want, of course someone else might provide the training anyways…will you hold that against them politically? The training situation can also get a lot more interesting when they add the other combat classes, we'll go from 4 to 11, that'll make training options trickier to offer all the training locally. Allowing the option offers more opportunities than straight out not denying it.
It is still a control tool, yet it does not fall over us as a mandatory control tool. If used it will still polarize the hell out of all Power Blocs in the game. Where is the room left for the Up-And-Coming? The Power Blocs will still have great power over their local border areas: who can settle, how many hexes they can claim, how strong they can grow if they want to stay independent, etc…

But isn't that how politics and power are supposed to work in a wild universe?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
I guess what I am trying to say is:

2. If/when a single group can dictate to or control an entire world, the game is a FAIL or over.

and yet, we've seen global policy edicts,

and we've seen players just last week express an interest in game generated global intel so they can see who is complying with their blacklist policies.

People have been bold enough to TRY and people are obviously making plans even now.
You have seen attempts at Global POLICY making that probably could have been delivered in a better way. As you also saw, it didn't go over well…
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
@ Paddy

Nothing else in the Roadmap addresses the problem: At Peter's expense, Paul can get all the training he needs and in fact could someday take away Peter's House with that training.
Edit: Maybe that is just going to have to be a part of the game that I don't like… assuming that Y'all can get the Support Mechanic nixed.

Nothing except possibly Blacklisting. I don't think that anyone wants to Blacklist players just because their Settlement leaders see no reason to pay their own costs of having an elevated Settlement.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Not to be a downer and not to dismiss how great it would be to have more complex contracts… but we already have lots of potential "contracts" in the form of Buy Orders in the Auction Houses. Maybe what we need is a better way to SEE them and/or get the knowledge that they are offered out to the "world".
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Alright what about, instead of The Shillelagh of Support, use The Delicious Carrot of Bonus?

Give a nice(not overwhelming) bonus to the citizens of level 20 settlements.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
I guess what I am trying to say is:
1. Established groups have the ability to bully smaller groups with or without a support mechanic.
2. If/when a single group can dictate to or control an entire world, the game is a FAIL or over.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
So…. what then? A mechanic that only allows players to train to the same lvl that their own settlement is at? Would that be alright with you guys despite knowing that it could be seriously gamed AND knowing that in this territorial kind of game bigger groups may try to never let threats(perceived) have enough holdings to stay afloat?
^^^Is that ok in a territorial PVP game?^^^
How about that and a 3 month cooldown for changing settlement level downward?

This stuff about "groups" running the show… If an alliance or group can dictate what can be bought and sold on an entire server or prevent EVERY other group from growing their settlement, isn't the game already over anyway?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com