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
I have seen that too. I am not certain that is long enough and I already find (when gathering) the wait to exit combat and pick at a node to seem too long. The goal here isn't to frustrate but to have a special timer for crossing Sec Boundaries. It could be beneficial to more than one… type of player. The timer would apply to KoS players that cross into your High Sec hex and whom you couldn't normally touch.

I have played games with High Sec zones that did it this way.

PS: What is the timer to exit combat and does it stay in effect when crossing a High Sec border? Having thought about it, maybe it is a good answer.
Flari-Merchant
Alright. If possible in a civil manner, I would like to get some ideas about player confrontations that occur where a Low or Medium Hex shares a border with a High Sec Hex. There are complaints that it is unbalanced advantage to flee a pursuer across such a border and can immediately gain invulnerable status.

The most practical thing that I can think of is a simple timer when a player crosses such a border. Until that timer expires a character remains at the last security level as the hex that they just left. It can't be too long as the pursued will be across and in the next, next hex within a minute or so OR at any possible Holding in said "next" hex and have guard coverage in any case.

@ Bob
What do you think about that as a simple fix to help with this potential irritant problem? Many Settlements have Low Sec monster hexes within two hexes of them and I can see it could be frustrating for those that like/seek more player interaction. How difficult would such a timer be?
Flari-Merchant
I have always believed that alternative paths from loner to company to holding and all the way up to Settlement would be vital to new player retention. It is just simply a "sandbox" expectation that any player can be "King/Queen" or someone with major standing, even if that is a farm holding in some place. It should be feasible through more ways than forced apprenticeship with established powers.

If they get bully rubbed out, they will learn that it takes more than a bit of Bulk to maintain that and get into politics more. But I digress
Flari-Merchant
For instance:
Can you expect to get away with calling a game "Open Enrollment", indicating what is in game now is in a workable state if some tokens do not work? Some affects that should stack do not stack? Some things do not seem to work at all? There is no reliable way to look up things and see how they are supposed to work together? The list is long.
Flari-Merchant
Paddy Fitzpatrick
There is a third…

3) It is not fine now and there are certain problems that require attention sooner rather than later.
Good luck with that, Sir. They seem to have a multitude of issues that rank higher in their priorities. They can't possibly fix them all at once. They have to practice triage.

That is why I say that realistically and logically there are only really two stances, in the main. One has indicated that it would be acceptable to take a look at Sec Hex mechanics when there is time. The other that is demanding that they look at Sec Hex mechanics but has to understand that it will take time and priority order to make any changes that they decide to make.
Flari-Merchant
There are two main stances here that I see.

1. It is fine for now and it is ok if it gets polished in the future.

2. It is not fine now and it is ok if it gets polished in the future.

The fact is, those are the only real options with a Dev team this small. They work miracles but those miracles take longer than a 10 man team could produce.

The rest are old arguments about acceptable levels of random PVP in this game and what really are infringements of player freedoms and which are worthy of keeping or ditching. They won't get solved.

Edit: Just trying to bring a little bit of perspective back now that I am resolved (yes another resolution that will last maybe a week) to step back from repeating myself over and over on the same issue. I trust Paizo to do what they think best for this game. If it gets bad, from my perspective, I will have to find another.
Now please carry on! I like to see the forum active. smile
Flari-Merchant
What I am seeing are a whole lot of posters and responders assuming lots of angles to everyone's opinions that probably do not really exist. No one really reading and grasping most written out points and many comments that don't make sense logically.

I'll include myself in much of that. smile
Flari-Merchant
Edam
Given that the PvP window is only a couple of hours a day several days a week I do not think its a real biggie either way. People wanting to avoid bandits will just log in at some other time.

By the way I am pretty certain Keepers only made our closer hexes hisec and left our remote stuff at lower security. At least that is the way we have usually done it in the past.
The ability to attack feuded opponents is not restricted to PVP windows. They can be engaged (the characters themselves, not Holdings) every day/moment that there is an active feud.
Flari-Merchant
harneloot
I really like Smitty's idea of a craftable *something* (maybe working off the current Camp mechanics?) that enables people to alter the security level of a hex for a short time. This would give people more *to do* on a day to day basis that was not tied to Settlement Management, which we need much more of in the game.

I also like Harad's idea of involving monster mobs from nearby escalations somehow in holding raids and captures to make the process more interesting and dynamic.

Finally, I'd like to put forward a motion for adding Spreading of Escalations back into the game, even if at a much reduced rate of spread. The map felt so much more alive and dynamic when the escalations use to spread and interact with each other. Have the spreading escalation affect the holdings in those hexes by becoming the raiding mob type instead of the default bandits or ogres. This might force people out to defend more often and hopefully increase chances for player interaction.
One thing that I have never liked is that the base escalation spreads to a hex and remains(itself) at full strength. That allows it to spread to other hexes much more rapidly. Maybe spreading should cause it to reduce a bit and have to regrow strength before it can spread again.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
We still plan on getting to factions eventually, and there are some light aspects of it that would at least have to be considered when we get to the Deities feature toward the end of the original road map.

The full plan for factions involves having to build up faction points, and switching between factions is supposed to have consequences that would make faction-hopping problematic. Of course, companies are intended to have similar consequences, something we plan to look at when we re-introduce max influence.
Great! I really think that if done right factions will add enormously to day in-day out content activities.