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
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?
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…
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.