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
Bob
Yes, the idea is that you have to work your way in, at least to some extent. It's a fairly simple way for us to let alliances put up layered defenses and focus on what amount to their "border" hexes, though they do have to work around the large number of hexes that can't be claimed. Combat was always meant to be much more common along an alliance's borders rather than deep within its territory.
Some of that could be easily made to work by manipulating where, how many, and who can use Res Shrines could it not?

Much more difficult to project force and win deep inside an alliance's territory if the closest shrine(for you) is on the border of the area. Not even considering delicious opportunities to be betrayed by one of your "Allies" who open their shrines for aggressors…
"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
Bob
Both settlements and large territorial claims are built up over time, and we likewise want them to fall over time. The more dynamic back-and-forth battles should be taking place along borders, or in the less settled areas of the map where territorial claims are still being established.
I for one am pretty happy with the idea of taking out a settlement being a super-major undertaking and difficult. It is too hard to build them up to lose them easily. MANY battles and some back and forth sounds pretty good.
If it proves beyond ridiculous to take one out, it can always be adjusted.

I agree, I like the move itself and it's inline with some of the original design that was discussed.

However, the concept of actual battles occurring is unfortunately not particularly realistic as the mechanics stand today. Realistically if someone bigger by the minor margin of a few bodies wants it they will take it and that's the end of it unless you can turn the tables and become the bigger one. (Bigger here accounts for all the fuzzy politicking/allying/etc… in the moment whats brought to bear is what matters not how it got there)

I know I sound like a broken record but the fact that basic combat competency and numbers is enough to determine our territory battles is really disheartening for a multitude of reasons.
I hear you, Duffy. I'm not sure that I have enuf PVP under my hat yet to agree that less than 1 to 1.5 in numbers is a forgone conclusion. I do believe that half again more than the other guy is enuf, tho.
"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
Both settlements and large territorial claims are built up over time, and we likewise want them to fall over time. The more dynamic back-and-forth battles should be taking place along borders, or in the less settled areas of the map where territorial claims are still being established.
I for one am pretty happy with the idea of taking out a settlement being a super-major undertaking and difficult. It is too hard to build them up to lose them easily. MANY battles and some back and forth sounds pretty good.
If it proves beyond ridiculous to take one out, it can always be adjusted.
"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
The Eternal Balance
Bringslite of Staalgard
In a successful picture of this game(one with a player base), I see the most common type of PVP needing to be the ganking/banditry/resource-interdiction type. With loot. The Holding type stuff is simply not rewarding enough for "Everyday Joe" to find satisfying.
If somehow the Holding capture the flag game can be made immediately rewarding or somehow strongly incentivized by power gain, the above won't matter as much.
Meaningful PVP will still need to be rewarding for victors on all levels.

PVP over gushers?
Good point. That will help.
"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
In a successful picture of this game(one with a player base), I see the most common type of PVP needing to be the ganking/banditry/resource-interdiction type. With loot. The Holding type stuff is simply not rewarding enough for "Everyday Joe" to find satisfying.
If somehow the Holding capture the flag game can be made immediately rewarding or somehow strongly incentivized by power gain, the above won't matter as much.
Meaningful PVP will still need to be rewarding for victors on all levels.
"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
From another thread:

Smitty
Its probably likely that 3 hexes running at +0 are going outproduce a +4 hex(for the same influence cost)

Having multiple lower-upgrade hexes outproduce individual higher-upgrade hexes provides an incentive to spread out, but at the risk of having to defend lots of hexes with minimal amounts of guards. When looking at things purely in terms of bulk resource output, we want upgrading to be a good choice, but conquering new territory to be a better one.

Smitty
Hoping to get Bob's thoughts on if these numbers are going to be tweaked at all,

Lots of you guys have done holding and outpost stuff more than I have - So Perhaps the +4 outpost production
makes up for the difference- But I am not seeing it, help me do so if I am missing something.
The +4 Holding Option seems like a good thing to have in case of feuds, war time, etc. but to run holdings at that expense full time doesn't look that appealing to me..

I've started taking a look at the numbers and suspect I'll have to make some tweaks. In particular, I want to ensure that every additional upgrade leads to a greater increase in output than in upkeep, assuming reasonably efficient outpost choices. For very inefficient choices, higher upgrades may be counterproductive.
Will bonuses for Holding types, that were never hooked up, be activated? i.e. bonus ore output for beefed up mining holdings?
"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

•Let settlements select a 3-day period for their PvP windows to be open and require 48-hour minimum delay on feuds.
Does that mean a 72 hour window or a 3 day span of the same old window length by settlement level?
Probably a silly question(I hope) but you never know. 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
There is an itch in the back of my mind that still tells me that the potential PVP oriented customers will be wanting some form of loot possible involved in the PVP thing. It adds a bit to the excitement. Though even if gear dropped, it may not be the stuff that the victor wants and it would be a hassle to sell since it comes damaged…
"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
I have a question about this quote from the roadmap blog:

Protect hexes that have at least 4 allied neighbors from attack

Was this discussed in the forums previously? What is the intent?

It seems like most hexes of a major power would be exempt from attack if this means Settlement A's hexes count as allied to other hexes of Settlement A.

Is this meant to force invaders to work their way from the outside of a large territorial claim (peeling the onion)?

Unless I'm misinterpreting how this works, that sounds as dynamic and exciting as WW1 trench warfare. smile
I was eager for clarifying details on that as well. It can be read in several ways.
"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
P.S. About a month or so ago, I made the decision to step back. Take a break. Wait and see if the game build could mature a bit to become as engrossing as it was at the start and as it's potential certainly still is. Stay off the forums, I thought. Give it a rest, give it a chance, give it time.
I am already failing to stay off the forums. This is the power of your early concepts and the draw of the game's potential that you have here, GW. There really is nothing quite like it out there or in development. At least nothing close to being finished or ready that does not have some weird annoying "hangnail" planned feature like limited character lifespan, isometric graphics, or less than "sandboxey" configuration.
For the longest time I have believed that the compulsion to "hang in there", I had thought was simply because I had so much heart invested and had a "Big Boy" spot built for myself. That isn't it. It's the strange combination of planned mechanics and META interaction, and strange political intrigue/freedoms AND the over all general concept. It is addictive and pervasive to a gamer's heart. Somehow it just all gels right on paper and in concept, so we hang in there.
A very ambitious approach in a very graphic and content driven market. I am not surprised that more gamer's do not "get it". Those that do are pretty hooked. Now you just need to figure out how to get it from concept to working feature set and we all know that it isn't easy.
Just can't stay away…
"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