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

What are your kit reward counts based on anyway? If they are based on alliances now they are wrong. If they are based on alliances then… they are still wrong.
Flari-Merchant
Hobson Fiffledown
Stilachio pretty much covered poptarting. The queue up and auto-fire part is scary, I didn't even think of that. Other PFO game and combat basics make me think it might not be a bad issue. I look forward to playing with this new LoS when it goes live.
Popcorn phalanx (just because): Run the clerics on two different feat cadences (heal, group heal, buff, and speed), call and focus on targets under 20. Their main tactical goal is blocking LoS. Crowd control and dps glass cannons poptart from behind the moving healwall to control and cover 20-35.

C C
GC(CC)
GC(D)
C C

Dreamin' the dream of battlefield tactics…

What if a PvP death sent you back to your home settlement? smile
Why Hobson! I am shocked! PVP conflict would not be grueling gear destruction festivals. Battles could be resolved in less than an hour. People would have to have respect for their own hp's. Sounds like madness! smile
Flari-Merchant
Wohoo! Long Live The Dominion of The Northern Marches!

About time we came in first at something.
Flari-Merchant
I was in TS the other eve with 2 players working on a gusher. "Player A" found it but was logging soon. "Player A" started it and they were in a party, allied but of diff settlements. "Player B" found that he lost rep every time that he pulled from the container.

Is this an intended result?
Flari-Merchant
Bob
You are a Troll
And for now can we assume Axiomatic/Anarchic and Holy/Unholy are identical since alignment isn't in?

Since those charges are slightly more expensive, I've been playing around with some ways to make them a little better than simple charges. Here's my current experiment, all of which is on top of the amount of base damage and effect power that's already added by the simple charges:

At T1, Anarchic and Axiomatic add more damage, while Holy and Unholy add more effect power.
At T2, Anarchic adds more damage and Unholy adds more effect power, while Axiomatic and Holy add a bit of each.
At T3, Anarchic adds more damage, Axiomatic adds mostly damage plus a bit of effect power, Holy adds mostly effect power and a bit of damage, and Unholy adds more effect power.

That way you're getting a bit of extra value out of more expensive ammo, plus some ammunition is slightly better matched to some attacks than others.

Similarly, for arrows I've tried setting up Broadhead arrows to do more damage in exchange for a slight decrease in effect power relative to Bodkin arrows (they should generally be better overall than Bodkin arrows, unless you're using an attack that's virtually all effects). I've also given a separate damage boost to all the iron arrow variants and a separate effect power boost to all the silver arrow variants.

All of this is just meant to stand in for the extra value of those ammo variants until we can get in the more specific advantages intended for each type of ammo, but it will hopefully provide adequate differences to make it worth creating a variety of ammo types.
Well here is a mean question: when can we have a look at some of these differences and the actual spreads of them so that we can better determine what we want to craft and ratio of specific type? smile
Flari-Merchant
Decius
Whether moving into and out of cover is too useful probably depends a lot on the immobile adjustment to ranged attacks.
Do you mean the coming, planned adjustments or are you suggesting that there should be a ranged attack penalty vs moving targets? I understand the former but I also I like the idea of the latter.
Flari-Merchant
I find myself wondering if that is a poor or cheap tactic or fair game. It seems like a way and a reason for what cover is all about. The "auto-hit target" situation we are in makes it a bit cheesy, but that isn't the fault of the players. It is the design of the combat system.

Guy is exposed and other guy uses cover to advantage. Does anyone else see it as a craptastic tactic or a reasonable tactic? Keep in mind that I am not a PVP experienced player.
Flari-Merchant
@ You are a Troll

Take a Server Wide War. There are aggressive types and they came out well. There are defensive types and they came out well. Finally there are political/idealist concept types and if they are good with negotiation or "neutrality concepts" they too can do well. Those all seem like choices made in PVP situations, like strategic concepts and types of PVP all by themselves.

You can recognize those things, can't you? Are you just a player that wants to start trouble over almost everything? Why is that, as you seem much reasonable and easier to get along with(most times) in game? If you are who I think you are: Quasi-Secret Guy. smile

Edit: BTW, I never felt like UC was off limits to being attacked. I felt like I would be a "dick" to take away towers from an institution built to help new players. A brilliant strategy or a simple game concept on their part, but it worked well in that case. smile
Flari-Merchant
You are a Troll
And how exactly did you determine these numbers? I see some getting lots for basically doing zero PVP for most all of the game.
Looks about right to me as I recall Ozem's doing a good deal of fighting in the WoT and mostly against Golgotha. At the end 1/3 or so I remember that The Free Highlanders made the move to pool our towers under Alderwag's Flag. So the places that we landed: Oz second Tier and Alderwag top Tier look about right if tower counts are the factors that matter.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
@ Bob

So I would like to make a suggestion. I am hoping that this would be a trivial amount of work. Please turn down Critter Invulnerability time as much as possible for mobs that get stuck.

Reasoning:
1. Gusher waves come 90 secs after the previous wave is finished. Waiting for stuck mobs both slows Gusher output and lengthens the time that a gusher requires to finish. It is almost a bit too long for a fun experience.
2. Tab targeting causes many repeated tabs and attacks on invulnerable critters. Lots of ammo gets(will get) wasted and that will likely not be a popular situation besides lowering the profit from the enterprise.

That's a very easy number to adjust, since it's just a number in a spreadsheet. The tricky part is figuring out how low it can go without causing problems. It's currently set to 50 seconds, which we figured was long enough to take into account the occasions where mobs will come up with particularly long paths. This tends to happen the most with wider mobs, like ogres or wolves. We don't need the number to be so high that those mobs always get where they're going within that amount of time, just high enough to say that not getting closer to their target within the last X seconds means they're messed up enough that we should go ahead and make them vulnerable even though they're not prepared to fight back.

Unfortunately, it's also one of those numbers that's meant primarily to deal with difficult-to-replicate situations, so the best we can do is try things out and see what happens. I'll try lowering it to 30 and we'll see if that provides a better balance between the two extremes. If we're still just not seeing very many cases where mobs lose their invulnerability while clearly following a long-but-kinda-okay path, then we'll have room to lower it further.
Thanks Bob.