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
Midnight
The original idea that we could end griefing by the community denying support to villains basically then allows established power blocs to turn any player or group of their choice into "villains".

New (or existing) players who challenge the status quo in any fashion can be denied support, and can have their holdings taken to deny them even the bulk goods to get support. I've also suggested that established powers might even globally forbid selling bulk goods in order to keep it out of the hands of challengers. It is the absolute logical thing to do to preserve power.

When you give players power over other players, they can get very creative. Any PvP sandbox faces that, but this is the only one I know where your foes can make your character less powerful. If that turns out to be an unpopular concept with the masses…it's an awful huge risk just to prevent a boogeyman of griefing that has barely shown its face when griefing could easily be handled the way other games handle it.

So here's my question: if griefing was impossible, would you still want victorious power blocs making the characters they defeated less powerful? Because that's actually kind of vicious to do that to players who are playing the game the way it was meant to be played. Do we want our victories to make our defeated foes' characters actually take longer to kill monsters and to die more often in PvE? Are we that vicious? If we are, let's just admit that's what this community has become.

Because the idea that any of this is actually about griefing anymore is just laughable. The truth is the whole support concept today is actually about what we want from winning and losing, and about getting our way in the politics of power.

Pretty good points there, Midnight.
"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
Pretty solid logic Duffy. It might help to keep in mind that Bob has now several times reminded us that this is only a piece of the puzzle that they want to put together and that they will watch as they go through the roadmap.

In all honesty, I feel like it is an unnecessary(redundant) feature because of sieges and blacklists and the rep system. All those 3 could probably keep the worst of the worst from being too out of hand. If they can't then that is when GW should just make a decision anyway. Are these guys griefing or not? It is also un necessary because we are already driven(by ourselves) to strive for the highest, bestest, coolest settlements to attract players.

There must be some things that would be more agreeable(not scare away or frustrate and cause rage quit) to a larger customer base. BUT(same old block) they take more effort than is available to allocate to this feature.

At the same time I feel that there is a large problem if someone can keep a settlement at 10 and run around with lvl 20 skills too. Nothing is in place to keep me from raising to 20 one week, everyone trains and next week I drop it to 10 to keep costs low. Let some other sucker's uhm… generous settlement pay for 20 so I can train and craft.

I was thinking of suggesting that Support be added in the last Phase, but I think that Bob and Cole need to see it in action for themselves. Even if it will just be chaos for the first cpl months, they will get some months after "the dust storm" to evaluate it.

Greatest concern? I have to wonder if this isn't really the last surge of hope for the game. Really do not want to see them putting precious effort into things that I feel are redundant or unwise moves. Bob has stated that the Support Feature is integral to balancing things out AND that it is pretty easy to get into the game. They seem unshakable from the roadmap. I wish that were not true but it seems locked.

I have to agree that it will solve a problem or two including making Bulk less useless than it is right now.
"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 didn't figure that you were worried about Duffy. smile

Must ask though: What power will I have over new players that I do not already have as I am lvl 20 and they are 1-15? During the time that they are getting to that point they should be learning the ropes, making the political connections and building their power/materials base.

As for Azoth, isn't putting ANYTHING into the cash shop that can be traded taking the risk that it will be used in game to get other things?

If you have features A, B and C; but they do not work right without feature D; then implementing feature D is easier than scraping A-C altogether. Especially if you have nothing to replace them.
"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 have been trying to read Bob's replies to concerns with more care. It is why I asked him about whether the intent for support was partially based on a philosophy that absolute tip top skills were supposed to be somewhat like "I do this extra effort, so I get benefits above the normal cap range of some other players". Also why I asked what the model is. How many settlements on this map does GW expect to be able to achieve and maintain level 20?

If the number that can reasonably reach and maintain that level is low OR subject to Blob dominance/prevention (and so, a low number), then there will not be enough "choice" or opportunity and support will inevitably be a train wreck.

As far as I can see, the greatest impact that this will have in the next several years is on us Veteran players.
*We are so few, running so many settlements.
*Most of them will not be able to pay lvl 20 upkeep for very long at all.
*The default will be(for those that do not want to give them up) to put 1000xp alts in them and congregate closer within our alliances.

-Will that be so bad?-

Let's just hope that Bob and Cole and Lisa can manage to get some mitigating features into play before too many newer players are affected by it.
"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

Trying to understand(and help everyone understand) the philosophy a bit better. Not trying to provoke.

So basically, it seems like the GW outlook on tip top skills is that they are a privilege. Rather than an assured end game "attainment" they are supposed to be something that takes maintenance to get and keep.

Is that about right?
"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 Fitzpatrick
You don't fix immediate problems by creating even worse problems.

Why not just implement the entire support infrastructure when it is ready and do the blacklisting and all the other territory and settlement controls that won't create huge problems first? Why stack yet another half finished system on top of a system that already is creating huge anomalies? Do it right the first time and there won't be any bigger messes to clean up later.

I also don't understand why people are crying about level 10 settlements as if THAT is somehow the worst problem this game has. It is far from the biggest and most immediate flaws and it's an imaginary crisis being propagated as a much bigger deal than it really is. Is someone being able to live in a non level 20 settlement without a giant blob that abhorrent of a thought to you guys? I don't understand why so much unreasoned hate for a relatively minor issue. This grievance that is being expressed will be fixed by other mechanics and I am sorry it is way overblown.
Well unfortunately the Roadmap seems pretty locked in. We are not seemingly able to shake the GW Team very far from the laid out features. I agree that there are probably more important features for daily play that would keep more new players but perhaps they are out of reach right now?

Might as well make the best out of the part of the mountain that will move if you can't move the parts that you think should be moved first. smile
"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
Will your holding trainers provide some support if your company is not currently attached to a settlement?
Good question. That would help a lot and open up even more possibilities. Not for ALL skills, but a start.
Edit: Will that play havoc with certain skills dependent on other skills being ranked up as pre reqs?
"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

Why not a coin sink? Train(wherever you are not blacklisted) and pay a maintenance fee of coin (or even Faction participation<–read Faction chore/quests) to keep skills up. Or something along those line. Here is a tough option to NOT BELONG if you really want Lone Wolf play.
"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
Leatherworker. Senechal for the Collections smile

The "Role Collections" are not in alphabetical order for some reason(on the wiki)
"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
Hopefully some middle ground solution can be found that does not allow players in a level 10 settlement to run around with level 20 skills. <— That is the real issue here.

It is imbalanced in every way that seems important. Such a settlement10 has a much smaller PVP window. They have a ridiculously smaller Bulk Upkeep cost. They can afford to build a large number of Holdings and are barely affected at losing a great number of those holdings. Yet with this set up they can run about with the same level of skills that a Settlement20 has to pay for.

That is the situation that we are in right now. If GW is reluctant to cut out all of the inflated Influence pools that are out there and accessed by us, how else can they try and start to bring things back into balance without a Support Mechanic?

I seriously agree that there are some possible dangers in this of limiting the options of new players because vets have strangle holds on lvl 20 capability. The Vets are entrenched. Players progressing toward 20 will have fewer and fewer options to play at maximum as they go.

But lets be realistic here. It is going to take quite a LONG time for new players to have to worry about Level 20 Skills. I think that we all are more worried about ourselves and our Level 20(or close) Skills.
"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