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
You are a Troll
I have never had a problem with the epow/epro system; it has always worked just fine/as intended for me. If you want beneficial effects to work when you are wearing T3 armor, then get some T3 buffs slotted. Meaningful choices - suck it up.
It may or may not be a problem, depending on how each person typically develops their character in a given game. This game is largely player choice. It is far easier to get yourself into T3 armor than it is to get your better expendables there at nearly the same time. This creates a gap. It is all down to how WE choose to spend xp, but it is unbalanced because of human nature in skilling up. The average player does not think that way. they expect the building to flow fairly equally across all areas of progression.

It is not normal that once I qualify for +3 T2 armor, I also am one cheap(relatively) feat from +3 T3 armor.
"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
Bringslite of Staalgard
You can't have everything guys. You can't have a shallow power differential curve and then have numbers not make a big difference. Welcome Blob Power or another way to say it, power through numbers. Law of The Jungle.

Are you SURE you really want this? I am asking cause then you will see a lot more permanent feuding tactics, other unscrupulous acts done just to troll or wear people out, attrition via toxicity, and griefing people out of the game, and no holds barred ganking being normalized behavior.

If you truly want that ultra no holds beatdown dog eat dog kind of game then so be it but don't use that as an excuse for people to embrace and normalize blob behavior. It will apply to a lot more than that. If all the real complaints and issues concerning limited (if any) ways to counter even a slight numbers advantage are only going to be met with a "Man Up!" Response, then you can bet people who complain about all the other stuff mentioned above and in previous posts will also be dismissed with that same "Man Up!" Response.
No, I don't want perpetual motion machines made of overwhelming numbers. There have been some interesting ideas that do take less coding than rebuilding or removing Epow and Epro though. I don't much like the concept because it leaves weird gaps between armor, weapons and spells and how a player manages T2 or T3… let's say armor and the ability to get realistic buffing/debuffing or healing/damage utilities/expendables. It does not work well with how characters progress.

Problem is though, it is REALLY tied up into how a lot of things work in combat mechanics and how they are already built.

I am not really a big fan of nerfing groups that manage to pull more players together than others, either. Nor am I a devotee of "it's purely ALL about numbers of attackers". We seem to be falling back into the same old way of discussing "fixing" things with complicated new mechanics. It just highlights that there really are a ton of balancing issues to be worked on.

BUT, if they are unable to fix most of those things right now, maybe a few drastic things(which are very serious non viable systems) to change up how/what they have built is a better way to look at things.
"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 doubt that major mechanical fixes like Epow and Epro or even enforceable participant numbers for feuds are viable possibilities at this point.

Craftable Res shrines(for aggressors) that could be destroyed(by defenders) is an interesting idea. Lots of interesting things can happen when there is much further to run to get back to a fight. I am reasonably sure that the team could remove excess shrines from the map. Shrine Holdings could be used, as they are or a bit ingredient modified, but I have my doubts that the team would be willing to invest the time needed to modify them to be Resurrection Shrines.

If I had any power to make the tough calls, I would do something along these lines(just in the area of PVP. many aspects of play need some luv too):

We all just need to bite the bullet and call for a script to run that separates inactive accounts from Chartered Companies. That would be a Hell Mess but a good thing in the end. True and Realistic Balance needs to be returned to the game. I am unsure that GW would be willing to do something like that however. Yet if GW still wants to save this game AND avoid a complete wipe, I can't think of a better time than now to do the rough things that need to be done. One thing that I find odd: we will soonish have to have an active character in charge of a settlement but the company influence that he can play with could be from 50+ dead accounts…

For now, remove Influence from the damn Feud System. Leave it for the cost of Holdings. How hard would it be to allow every active account player to be in a 2nd "Settlement Company"? A company that is just for offensive and defensive PVP. A company that has a "Perma Feud" with every other "Settlement War Company" in the game. No rep loss for fighting these guys. Maybe "War Companies" are separate companies that have NO settlement so that Allies can all be together in one?

Use your creativity to get some damn reward into PVP! Player characters do have some form of a "loot table", do they not? How about making some kind of "PVP Kill Chit: Bringslite" item that is looted every time I am killed? To be in the "War Company" mentioned above, I have to have a certain amount of "ransom" or loot set aside that can be somehow collected when these chits are turned in somewhere. Or maybe if enough are turned in to a GM I get booted from the "War Company" until I pay a ransom…

I am sure that all of this is problematic beyond my comprehension, yet I can't seem to help myself from trying to figure out how to do some things that MIGHT make this game a bit fun again. So much unrealized potential just dying off slowly. Makes me sad.
"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
Again guys, none of that matters(just for feuds and blob problems) unless and until those 4 problems are dealt with somehow. Perhaps one or a cpl solved will make the others go away, but we certainly don't need to be too concerned about "success progression" problems or much about PVP in general until some things get balanced.
I am not suggesting that any of your ideas are bad. Just suggesting that LOTS of stuff is bad/inadequate/unbalanced/under developed and it stems from a few major issues.
"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
You can't have everything guys. You can't have a shallow power differential curve and then have numbers not make a big difference. Welcome Blob Power or another way to say it, power through numbers. Law of The Jungle.

At other times we are saying that it is impossible to beat groups in T3 gear.

Problem: Everything is bloated and inflated beyond reason by dead accounts tipping the influence scales for the "larger" groups in the game.
Problem: Holding take-over system is a bit boring and what Holdings produce is pretty much of low to no value.
Problem: The Influence System itself needs a real looking at as well… It does not work OR scale smoothly.
Problem: GW has been unwilling to deal with ANY of these things for some time whether because they are too complex to handle with a tiny crew, they are unable to, they do not want to make changes while prospective investors are looking at the game, they do not want to "rock our boat" too much…
"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
Well it looks like you have thought this stuff through, Bob. Almost everything will be a matter of GW staff physically monitoring and recording, if I am getting a serious sense of things now. Probably not too taxing as this level of PVP will be rare enough for some time. I am sure that you are aware that the human element on the calculation side of things will have to be very consistent and accurate. I know you don't want caterwauling. smile
^^BUT, I can not shirk from admiring this in a way. I have been asking for some "out of the box" development fixes and features that involve GM "hands on" stuff. This is an example, of a type, of what I meant. Not taking credit, just admitting that I was asking for it! lol

Still going to wait for you to put out some numbers on what these siege hexes actually do according to existing engines, camps and strengths. As Hobson has pointed out, this is potentially a BFD and as Duffy has commented, there is not a player base developed economy to properly judge what these settlements are really worth or even to be able to replace them within normal gameplay. Losing an important settlement really will be a BFD. Perhaps at the group breaking level. If it were fairly well laid out how to go about getting a new one and starting over, reasonable gamers would probably be OK with such ebb and flow. I am not at all certain that it IS well laid out in realistic mechanical endeavor fashion however, so a BFD indeed…
"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
Azure_Zero
Which one will be doing the Damage, the Engine, or the Camp?

Cause if it is the camp and can see the cheese that will happen like we currently have with holdings and outposts.
At a reread, it look s to me like the engine does the damage. The camps you would build up as a 1st line of defense?
Engine=Holding
Camp=Outpost
"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
For Upkeep, the Siege Engines require some of every kind of bulk good each day. Here's the amounts for each type and upgrade

Professional's Siege Engine
+0: 2 per day
+1: 3 per day
+2: 4 per day
+3: 5 per day
+4: 6 per day
+5: 7 per day

Master's Siege Engine
+0: 10 per day
+1: 15 per day
+2: 20 per day
+3: 25 per day
+4: 30 per day
+5: 35 per day
Even without knowing the other numbers(damage per window, etc.. ), this looks nice and expensive. Just how it should be. 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
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Alternative to multiple building destruction for siege victory.
Not sure if you can do this easily or not.

Stage One of Siege: Hexes are cleared of holdings and Siege Camps are placed. Bulk begins being reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps.
Stage Two of Siege: Once the Bulk Resources are exhausted, the value added by settlement structures is reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps. Instead of being destroyed, they are "turned off" as their pt value is overcome, by the Dev, if that is possible. Turned off in either a particular order set by the attacker or by the Dev but The Keep is exempt.
Stage Three of Siege: Next PVP window, after all other buildings are "off", there is a grand assault on the Keep just like capturing a holding. A new Keep must be constructed and placed by the successful besiegers, once they have finalized the takeover. This reactivates the buildings.

As I said, not sure if this is possible. Would be nice to have a finale "Last Stand" battle at the Keep. This could also open up possibilities for "plussing" up settlement buildings for more defensive value, including Keeps… and including resultant damage to buildings that have been through a siege.

For stage two, I believe I can turn off buildings, but I suspect they might turn back on at the next downtime, or alternatively might get instantly destroyed if the weekly support payment gets missed. I can look into it, but if we go down this "rebuilding" route, I was mostly just planning to post a quick daily status saying "the following buildings are considered damaged and will need to be rebuilt after the siege ends to prevent them from falling over."

For stage three, a battle at the keep is pretty much exactly what we were hoping to implement, but it's too much work right now. Certainly a possible addition for later.
Well the coin sink could be a good crutch for building reactivation, I suppose. Need to get some of that moved to "nowhere" just as bad as we need Bulk stockpiles trimmed. 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
Alternative to multiple building destruction for siege victory.
Not sure if you can do this easily or not.

Stage One of Siege: Hexes are cleared of holdings and Siege Camps are placed. Bulk begins being reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps.
Stage Two of Siege: Once the Bulk Resources are exhausted, the value added by settlement structures is reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps. Instead of being destroyed, they are "turned off" as their pt value is overcome, by the Dev, if that is possible. Turned off in either a particular order set by the attacker or by the Dev but The Keep is exempt.
Stage Three of Siege: Next PVP window, after all other buildings are "off", there is a grand assault on the Keep just like capturing a holding. A new Keep must be constructed and placed by the successful besiegers, once they have finalized the takeover. This reactivates the buildings.

As I said, not sure if this is possible. Would be nice to have a finale "Last Stand" battle at the Keep. This could also open up possibilities for "plussing" up settlement buildings for more defensive value, including Keeps… and including resultant damage to buildings that have been through a siege.
"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