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
Edam
Bringslite of Staalgard
I am for:
1. lessening coin drops drastically
2. lessening durability of gear drastically
3. greater difference where types of resources can be found, perhaps more by region than they are now
4. increasing material rewards for PVP, possibly by threading or some other simple, not yet conceived mechanic

1. Or increasing the coin sink. But in reality no manipulation of coin will "fix" the economy. People simply only gather for their own crafting or because their settlement makes them. The odd exception like Aussie-dwarf aside we seem to have a batch of "would be weekend industrialists" hoping for an instant economy where they can just buy mats off the AH queue something up, log in a few days later and sell it at instant profit. Not going to happen. Keepers has a very active economy but its not based on terminally lazy casual weekend throw stuff at the AH. Keepers have to have to work at it.
- Not against it but seems pointless.

2. How does this help? It is not as if Detroit lowering the quality of their vehicles so they wear out quicker would help sales (even with no OS competition) if the cars are more shit people will buy less of them not more. Dropping durability will also hugely favour the over-cautious "I never take risks" types that hang back and never take aggro in a group and generally prefer to operate in parties of 6 with a 7th person drop pulling. Not a playstyle I want to encourage personally.
- Opposed to this. Will encourages stupidly cautious play and people taking on even less escalations

3. This one I am sitting on the fence about. Though from the point of view of a single settlement like KP I would say this idea probably originates from one of the large "map claiming" alliances as it will definitely encourage new players to join large alliances with extensive gathering claims.
- Probably opposed as favours big groups

4. This one I do 100% totally agree with.
- Agree with this.
Thanks for the feedback Edam. The point of less coin is that coin then has more value. That does not really make any difference though if the people do not need to buy anything with it. They also have to NEED coin to function at full capacity in the game. I am all for coin sinks, but I think that they would work best as trade offs for small advantages at the settlement or large group level than for individuals.

Right away, or after stockpiles are run down a bit, halving the durability of gear would double how much gear needs to be crafted. That is without any increase in PVP or PVE activity at all. Sorry but I do not subscribe to statements or beliefs like "people will just become more cautious. No one will want to take agro." because it is not in human nature to change individual behaviors on mass scale like that. No one can predict what people will do, "en masse", when it comes down to subtle behaviors. Without NEED caused by scarcity there really can't be a realistic economy. If I need iron and it is far from me, maybe I can trade some of my coal for it. However, if there is just as much iron around in small bits to satisfy my meager needs… I have no reason to want to trade some of my coal. Everything I need is close at hand. If gear wears out faster then I can make more gear for a reason…it is WANTED/NEEDED. I can use the profits to get the things my characters or alts need which I can't craft or find on my own. Now I have an economy.

The problem here is that The Sacred Game Loop is broken or at very least is not functioning as it was intended.
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
I am pretty much in step with you on this Duffy. Not sure if your outlook from a few week or month ago has now changed, but if not, there is one big difference. Getting things to be more interesting for everyday play, helping the economy improve(actually exist…smile, whatever else can be done to help with those things… well I agree that it is a tangle of the first order.
Where we differ is it seems that you want(or wanted) to do basically nothing that messes with the status quo. There is no real surety that messing with the status quo will make the needed difference but I am in the camp that shouts "What can it really hurt?" We are all VERY BORED. Most of us are simply waiting for xp build up to buy end game level skills. (<–Which in a game without content or lacking content, player or Dev at fault matters little, is a fatal xp system flaw…smile I am for:
1. lessening coin drops drastically
2. lessening durability of gear drastically
3. greater difference where types of resources can be found, perhaps more by region than they are now
4. increasing material rewards for PVP, possibly by threading or some other simple, not yet conceived mechanic
The reasons for this are self explanatory, I feel anyway. By increasing the likelihood of conflict and enhancing the scarcity of resources(from coin to materials) you might just stimulate some sort of economic interaction. With too much coin, too little gear wear and tear, too much item durability, too easy access to "enough materials for me", and too many idle crafters nothing will budge.
These are all things that GW can make happen fairly easy. Value changes.
It isn't you that has to be convinced of this though, is it? smile

The problem is the status quo is not very good because the options of what to do day to day are not that interesting or varied. Honestly this sieging idea isn't a huge change to the status quo, it's either irrelevant (for w/e reasons never used on players) in which case at best it's used to takeover empty settlements we don't need, or it's another destructive force that will be used like feuding initially was. But while it has a few minor and one major difference at the end, the gameplay loop is the same as what we have today:
1. Grind escalations (assuming recipe codices play a role in siege weapons)
2. Attack someone with what is basically a slightly more complex feud that takes X times longer due to the multiple stages, but still boils down to stand on the spot. Scheduling fatigue warning right there.
3. If siege group wins the buildings are leveled and the new owners need to start grinding escalations again to rebuild.
4. The losing group needs to join someone else and give up on owning a settlement, or they need to go back to step 1 and repeat the cycle.

Nothing new is really added. I'm already bored of doing #1 every day and #2 is pretty boring most of the time. Tweaking the numbers to make any of it more tedious or more demanding is not gonna make me want to play the game more. What we need is a bunch of options with their own risk/rewards that can fit into that number 1 spot. We need a variety of ways to affect each other at different levels of severity. Then with all these hypothetical things drawing people to them the backbone will be strong enough to support players of varied interests and hopefully will bring in enough players that we can have a strong economy and these bigger wrecking ball size mechanics won't be that big a deal.

Edit: Your threading idea I like, that could add some depth and value to PvP without being overly punishing.
Options of what to do day-to-day? How about gathering/refining/crafting for profit? How about buy low, sell high trader paradise? Materials that HAVE TO BE MOVED because they only exist far from where you craft? How about robbing those guys? Guarding against those robbers? How about my gear wears out faster so I have to replace it and how will I do that? I have to find a way to earn coin?
Certainly drastic changes like I propose will not cause immediate results, good or bad. Once all of these stockpiles are depleted though, there will be reasons to do MANY things other than escalation grinding. As long as there is too much of EVERYTHING and it is easy to get, nothing will happen…
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
What are the GOOD things that could come out of these siege mechanics that we have seen so far?

1. Without a system in place to take out a settlement, you can't even begin to figure out if it is too hard or too easy, too expensive or too cheap to wreck a settlement compared to the costs and effort to build one. White board equations and theory are great but nothing is a better test than actual on-the-ground testing and feedback.
2. Bulk Resources finally become more important and have value simply by having a secondary purpose or use(defense points). We desperately need Bulk Resources to have both meaning and value. We need a reason to trade for them and reasons to bring them home from the Holdings.
3. Settlement war mechanics are finally rounded out with the final ultimate mechanic even though, like all others, it will need balancing and polishing.
4. Long standing grudges, ghost town settlements(taken and left empty with no holdings or buildings and a single character in charge) could be redressed, and the threat of mutual destruction could all add up to more interesting politics. They sound like they will be expensive and more than likely require alliances, especially considering that all groups are very short on soldiers at this time.
5. The game is static and stagnant as is. This is a mechanic, that if used occasionally< will help with that.

These are some positive things that I see could come from siege mechanics right now. I can't judge whether they would all pan out as positive things or not, so these are just speculation. Listing these does not mean that I am in favor of or believe that it is a good idea in general right now, or that I would not rather GW work on some other glaring issues, just that there are possibly some positive things that could result…
What if along with these siege mechanics came black/white lists for settlement facilities?
What if it caused some work on Alliance mechanics?
What if it proved needful to work on influence and feuding systems to get it right?
What if it actually sparked creative and more easy solutions to these issues just as siege mechanics suddenly have become "doable" and within GW's range?

I came up with a similar list, but the end result for each possible 'good' thing was that they would be fine 'if this other thing existed', it was a hole list of Siege Warfare would work 'if this'. My conclusion is they need to tackle the 'if this' stuff to make Sieges worth using in the first place or at the very least make it a clean and balanced mechanic. By not tackling any of the 'if this' items they create another mechanic that has a higher risk of causeing more of the community to give up instead of empowering them to enjoy the game.

The post I was originally going to make for this thread talked about specific details like you and others have mentioned, but after reading the thread and talking about it over a few days I concluded the problem is not about balance or details. The problem is lack of positive and varied game-play loops and a lack of options to interact with each other in non-fatalistic ways (all or nothing mechanics). Both of which hinders the existence of a thriving economy. A thriving economy is very very important to a stable sandbox, it helps insure that the community can handle the up and down swings of day to day life in the sandbox. I asked myself why this siege settlement flattening bothered me here but the idea of losing my 1 billion+ isk Station I put up in EVE by myself does not (and I will lose that if anyone bothers to attack, I have a negative chance to defend it). I realized it's because I knew I could replace that station with money acquired through various game-play loops (I can switch between different activities to avoid boredom/burnout) and the economy would be there to make what I needed available regardless of which avenues I pursued to get that money.

PFO does not have the varied activities or economic backbone right now and I believe that is a huge part of why it's in the state it is today.
I am pretty much in step with you on this Duffy. Not sure if your outlook from a few week or month ago has now changed, but if not, there is one big difference. Getting things to be more interesting for everyday play, helping the economy improve(actually exist…smile, whatever else can be done to help with those things… well I agree that it is a tangle of the first order.
Where we differ is it seems that you want(or wanted) to do basically nothing that messes with the status quo. There is no real surety that messing with the status quo will make the needed difference but I am in the camp that shouts "What can it really hurt?" We are all VERY BORED. Most of us are simply waiting for xp build up to buy end game level skills. (<–Which in a game without content or lacking content, player or Dev at fault matters little, is a fatal xp system flaw…smile I am for:
1. lessening coin drops drastically
2. lessening durability of gear drastically
3. greater difference where types of resources can be found, perhaps more by region than they are now
4. increasing material rewards for PVP, possibly by threading or some other simple, not yet conceived mechanic
The reasons for this are self explanatory, I feel anyway. By increasing the likelihood of conflict and enhancing the scarcity of resources(from coin to materials) you might just stimulate some sort of economic interaction. With too much coin, too little gear wear and tear, too much item durability, too easy access to "enough materials for me", and too many idle crafters nothing will budge.
These are all things that GW can make happen fairly easy. Value changes.
It isn't you that has to be convinced of this though, is it? smile

Edited to bold, hoping GW will read this.
Flari-Merchant
Edam
I had basically assumed from the start these siege mechanics were aimed at all the currently owned but unoccupied settlements scattered around the map.

The ability for groups to compete over taking dead and undefended settlements that are currently immune from attack (Golgotha is a prime example) is a good thing. If attacking Gologotha brings Xelias back in game to defend it that is a good thing in itself, otherwise if Xelias are no longer interested in it the settlement should be take-able.

Also the ability to challenge a group to defend an unoccupied unused unbuilt settlement that "was taken on spec for future expansion" (multiple groups around the map have done this) or lose it can add some interesting political/PvP options.

What I do NOT see as useful att hsi point in the game is a situation where people are forced to stop everything they are trying to do and build up to instead continually defend an occupied fully constructed home settlement. Making that too easy too early is detrimental.

The response that you are likely to get from that comment is that developed, busy, built up settlements would be the very most difficult to take, by design…
The way things are right now, without new or returning bodies in real numbers, I do not think that any single group could manage to take a defended settlement, but we have not seen the actual numbers and costs yet.
Flari-Merchant
What are the GOOD things that could come out of these siege mechanics that we have seen so far?

1. Without a system in place to take out a settlement, you can't even begin to figure out if it is too hard or too easy, too expensive or too cheap to wreck a settlement compared to the costs and effort to build one. White board equations and theory are great but nothing is a better test than actual on-the-ground testing and feedback.
2. Bulk Resources finally become more important and have value simply by having a secondary purpose or use(defense points). We desperately need Bulk Resources to have both meaning and value. We need a reason to trade for them and reasons to bring them home from the Holdings.
3. Settlement war mechanics are finally rounded out with the final ultimate mechanic even though, like all others, it will need balancing and polishing.
4. Long standing grudges, ghost town settlements(taken and left empty with no holdings or buildings and a single character in charge) could be redressed, and the threat of mutual destruction could all add up to more interesting politics. They sound like they will be expensive and more than likely require alliances, especially considering that all groups are very short on soldiers at this time.
5. The game is static and stagnant as is. This is a mechanic, that if used occasionally< will help with that.

These are some positive things that I see could come from siege mechanics right now. I can't judge whether they would all pan out as positive things or not, so these are just speculation. Listing these does not mean that I am in favor of or believe that it is a good idea in general right now, or that I would not rather GW work on some other glaring issues, just that there are possibly some positive things that could result…
What if along with these siege mechanics came black/white lists for settlement facilities?
What if it caused some work on Alliance mechanics?
What if it proved needful to work on influence and feuding systems to get it right?
What if it actually sparked creative and more easy solutions to these issues just as siege mechanics suddenly have become "doable" and within GW's range?
Flari-Merchant
Edam
Bringslite of Staalgard
LoneWolf
Dungeons
IMO, dungeons could be accomplished with a Hex in "space". That is a hex not part of the regular map that is accessed via some of the teleport mechanics that we have for /stuck and other GM commands.

That might work providing they are not "instances" generated on the fly for a particular group and are instead part of the single shard world and available to everyone else to enter if they find the way into them. Though entrances like hidden/locked stairs under the Spire leading down are far more elegant.

Instancing with people able to zip off to their own seperate quest space that no one else can enter would go right against the basic design tenants of a single shard sandbox world.
Of course they should be available to all that can know about the entrance. How that would work, I would leave to GW.

Thinking about dungeons and our communal belief that they would really jazz up the game for all of us…. What exactly is it about dungeons that we think they would be different or so much better than escalations? What are we expecting from "dungeons"? I really am curious…
Flari-Merchant
LoneWolf
Dungeons
IMO, dungeons could be accomplished with a Hex in "space". That is a hex not part of the regular map that is accessed via some of the teleport mechanics that we have for /stuck and other GM commands.

The largest obstacle that I see to it is LoS and "solid" objects are lacking. Pretty weird to kill NPCs or players while they are separated by solid walls or sides of ravines.
Flari-Merchant
The Ravings of the Insane: TDLR(or whatever): Fix the feuding system and the influence system. Don't just continue to bury them.

The original beef was that there was no way to stop aggressors, cause them to have to break up constant feud chains, defeat them so that they could not feud you for some time period. No way to get a break. This caused PVP fatigue. This caused some loss of interest in the game.

Then it became clear that there was no tangible realistic benefit either materially or strategically to taking Holdings from your enemy. In fact there was no tangible benefit involved in defending your holdings. People stopped showing up to defend and the whole operation became a clock watching festival. Now you have further loss of interest and more dropped accounts.

These two problems together, 1. no way to mitigate implacable, unending, nightly chained PVP aggression with 2. no way to utterly crush your enemy and win, leave us where we are right now. For #1 there is possibly capitulation and/or politics but they only become worthy of consideration if there is something at stake that is worth saving by gaining peace. No one feels like Holdings alone are worth losing face by basically surrendering(call it Gamer Hubris). For #2, no solution until GW's proposal now. Let's look at it and see if it really solves issue #2.

Theoretical: By besieging your enemy's settlement until his Bulk resources are depleted and further until all of his buildings are ground to powder you take away his power base. He is wrecked for some time.
But is this true?
I would venture that it is NOT TRUE. I and my mates still have our skills. We still have our companies and all of their influence. As soon as we find a new home(temporary or permanent) we are back in the game. We have been inconvenienced, to be sure, but we can't die and we have universal support. That is a fact of MMO's and they would be far less fun if most of this were not true.

If GW is going to push this mechanic forward simply to put another piece into the puzzle of it's major promised features, that is understandable. The features do need to be put into place eventually. They need to be looked at, working together, to see what needs tweaking and how they all fit together to make a great game. If they are doing it to make PVP more palatable, fun, satisfying in the short run… this will not do that, IMHO. It leaves large gaps in the essential problems of the Feud System, The Influence System, The unrewarding PVP System in general totally buried and festering.

I urge GW to not make the mistakes of so many other Developers. Do not pile new features on top of features that cause frustration and even apathy(about using them) just to say you have Done Something. I do not speak for all, but I would prefer a focus on what is bad cake. Despite it taking longer, fixing the cake is better than more layers of frosting.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Jumppuppy
Question, how will this affect the universal standing? Will it be removed so the city managers can ban [deny] certain companies or individuals from utilizing their facilities/trainers [make them hostile to the guard force]? Also, you can only train and/or produce products in your home city or those you are friendly to?

This is very high on our list of things to work on, but will be pretty complicated. Settlement warfare certainly adds the potential to make this more aggravating, but we'll have to focus any solutions on just the specific aspects added by settlement warfare, like the building of Siege Engines and Camps.
Maybe if we had some idea why it is so complicated, explained in as layman a way as you can, we could understand Mo'Better. To us it looks like a move of some part of code from Holding trainers to Settlement trainers…
-or-
A setting for Settlement guards to aggress all red (non settlement) characters.
Flari-Merchant
Thanks for the feedback on feedback, Bob. smile
Looking forward to see what you come up with that mitigates some of our concerns.