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
Can you share with us yet your thoughts on how simply moving Bulk Resources into the settlement will affect sieges? Will it be possible? Will there be times when it is not? Maybe if the "ring" of encirclement is broken? How will YOU be able to prevent that without coding problems?
"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 PvP windows, we'd like to make those match that of the defending settlement. It's possible that we can get in a code fix that will simply set the PvP windows for Siege Engine hexes equal to that of the neighboring settlement instead of the owning company. If it turns out we can't do that easily, then we'd been considering requiring that the attackers set their PvP windows to match the defender as best they can.
Well and good. I can certainly see the possibility of PVP fatigue otherwise. It should be noted that defender stress pressure on how often to attack those camps to remove them will be largely dictated by how fast the settlement's defenses are reducing. If they feel very pressured to get those camps burned fast and the windows are "plum crazy" then that would be a flaw, IMO. Much of that mitigated if the windows are concurrent. Keep also in mind that if a group can find and put a window(if they dictate the window) that is extremely inconvenient to the defender, it's all over anyway. At least if it is a prolonged affair and up to six parties can arrange some number of players to be around at odd times to defend those camps…
You have to remember that those of us left are partly(at least) here because PVP action is low and slow and casual.
"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
Come to think of it…. No we couldn't exactly do the same, "six window special", with workarounds. At least as far as actual Sieges are concerned, IF a settlement could only be sieged by ONE settlement at a time.
"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
Fiery
If you consider the ability of multiple settlements/organizations joining to siege a single city to be a blatant game imbalance that can horribly backfire, then yea, I'm OK with that. Bob is absolutely correct that even in our current state, that can be achieved, it's just a little more annoying - not nearly to the level that any groups interested in such teaming up would reconsider doing so because of it. I agree with Duffy that the ability to infinitely feud pretty easily is an issue, and it seems to me that we could think of a relatively easy-to-implement solution. That solution could be as simple as a bob-policy to not feud longer than, say, a week, with a week off, or something.
That is nicely constructive. I like it. Not sure that it would work that way in a large pop game, but we are all pretty cool here in this one.

@ Bob
What do you say to considering some hot fixes along those lines, Sir Bob? On the gang-up siege thing, have you considered the possibility(as mentioned above) of 6 different PVP windows that defenders would need to juggle during a siege? Or about the fact that defenders would only have the option of attacking one siege camp during each? Pretty easy for a partnership/alliance to defend(with 6 groups to draw from) their siege camps. Sorry if you addressed this. I am working on little sleep this week. smile
P.S. And I know that with how things are currently, that we could do something similar with workarounds anyhoo, but it still seems a terrible advantage.
"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,
Thank you for the feedback to the feedback. Honestly, I feel bad for you having to do things this way and in this order because it is simply something that you feel CAN be done to progress things. I hope that it doesn't turn out to be much effort for a few corner cases. Even your responses make it look like that is the motivation.

We put a lot of pressure on you guys. It is because we are losing hope. Yes even the diehard fanatics can run out of hope. Though we have lasted far longer than most, there are eventual limits. smile

I can see what you are doing here is going to be done, "come hell or high water", so I will take a break from ranting for awhile and see what you come up with. I am interested in seeing what checks and balances you come up with to help with the various ways that we will make this feature "unfun" for each other.
"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
Fiery
Honestly bob, I think high-end holdings are strong enough as-is. Yes, we took a +4 watchtower using superior strategy, but I can already imagine how difficult it would have been to take it otherwise. That's a good balancing point - we needed superior strategy in addition to a numbers advantage to take it "easily". I strongly suspect a +5 would all but be insurmountable given current server population, even with superior strategy.
I should never have couched my point with an opinion that could be debated. smile
Nevertheless, I will stand on "at their upkeep cost, they are not worth the trouble".
"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 Gathering Bonanza was a very good move and a stunning success, in relative measurements, because of a very key factor that is at the very heart of player psychology: Reward. Direct tangible reward for effort. That is why you saw and were surprised that we "Got 'Er Done!" with relative zeal and efficiency.

It doesn't have to be over the top or at a level that is game breaking(too much loot) because that is almost as non beneficial, in the long run, as none or too little reward in the sustainable long run. Reward has to be balanced just like anything else that is core to a balanced game. Need an example? Look at various Theme Park MMOs and the repeated dungeon grind for the newest gear, not to mention the grind to get to that point. Players will run dungeons over and over to get particular rewards. You see it with the higher level(T3 drops) escalations in this game. It is right in front of you as basically one of the only reasons that you have 85%, or more, of the players that you still have active right now.

If you absolutely have to push this end game siege warfare stuff, please do not forget this fundamental winning psychology of gamer mentality. This causing(in a minor way) Bulk Resources to become more important(valued) is probably the best thing that you will get out of this, right now, with such a small population.
Holdings: If you want to encourage Holdings to be built and "plussed up" specifically, you will have to better balance the cost to maintain them with more tangible rewards. It has been proven that PVP tactics can easily overcome a high "plussed" Holding or outpost. Edit: Even with a less than 2 attacker to 1 defender advantage and "tactically" we have not even gotten started. Just not worth the effort/cost otherwise.
Settlement Buildings: While we can roam about and train wherever we please, the high cost/effort to construct more buildings inside more settlements and the low population will be a "lame duck" venture. Every group alliance already has at least one spot that is pretty much maxed out for those training needs.
Incentive: Yes some groups do likely have(no logistical details yet) the capability to conduct a siege, though none most likely have an active player for each siege camp or holding, lol. What is the reward though? A ruined, flat, parking lot and a very pissed off group of players that can return the favor? A group that could, because "sloppy unfinished mechanics" disperse to 10 different settlements for support and still be a focused active group after it all? Seems less than useless measured against the cost and repercussions ingame and metagame. <–Company hopping in less than a few minutes, universal support everywhere as long as a player starved settlement will take you, excessive dead account influence problems here maybe? Build in some immediate tangible rewards for successful sieging. They could be bank looting. They SHOULD be capturing some valuable buildings, at the minimum. They could be a number of things but they have to be there.

Bottom line is that if you do make expensive(materially and effort wise) mechanics that are only as rewarding as creating conflict without reward(and possibly cause rage quitting for lost settlements), then you are only continuing with the same unfortunate, misguided design that got us were we are 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
Midnight
Pardon me if this has been covered, but this threadnaught is (understandably) getting huge.

I moved all my stuff to Thornkeep months ago in anticipation of this, but I worry that there are a thousand players with their stuff in settlements that will fall, and then, even if the game is rescued, they aren't going to want to come back to the loss of 8 months or a year of loot.

Have you folks simply written off the return of those who left?
At this point, I really don't think that you will see many sieges. Maybe a cpl to try it out but with so few bodies around, that will be an even more tedious undertaking. Anyways, why? Just to watch the World Burn? The Big Boys have multiple settlements yet no one to live in them. Not sure if you were referring to ^that^ or the few of us suggesting a wipe! 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
Or forget all of the harder stuff about doing complex things right now. Go Buy to Play($15) with a Freemium plan that gives subscribers a boost % on xp over time, an extra earning character and whatever else you could do easily in a non PTW cash shop. It's a niche game but there IS A NICHE pond for it that is untapped.

Just get some rewards in for PVP and do the above. You will increase your player base many fold. You will have $$$ to get some needed work done much more easily, IMO 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
Flari-Merchant
Paddy
If this is just gonna flatten settlements and trash what little of the player base is left, then I am sorry to say this, but just start over right now or reset the world.
I swear that many times I have thought it would make far more sense to scrap everything and start with 1-3 NPC Cities on a much smaller map. We could just be "Player Companies" going out and throwing down Holdings to farm resources and for bases to work from. Contesting against each other in a much smaller world for the time being…
"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