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 Smitty

Smitty
@ Duffy

I am not someone that bounces game to game. I don’t play PS or XBOX , they collect dust in the living room.. Never played Eve either so only thing I know about that game is from folks here that post the similarities. The only game I played for 10 years was EQ… tried the old republic for 3 months and quit.. then waited 2 years for this one on the off chance I liked it.
That’s the list…
-
So my views are pretty much shaped by my activities in PFO, there is nothing to compare it too except what I experience and what I witness in PFO. Not sure if that helps or not with understanding where I am coming from.. but it certainly isn’t another game.
-
As to a suggested cost of 1c… how about those guards take 5 bulk resources out the daily harvest? ( just throwing a number out.. I don’t do the outpost maintenance stuff ) make it 10-20% less resources.. that you normally get out of the hex to keep those guards around..
-
To your influence part of the cost.. the attacking side will end up taking more the same hit as the defender ( if they have to take control of the structures). And GW just now with EE11 if I am not mistaken increased the influence gain for veteran characters. So Influence should be gained much faster if I am not mistaken making it a wash at best
This incomplete system will be here for a long time I think .. As I hope they work on bank sorting, UI, bugs , analytics, AI and stuff, things players need . I don’t think there is a quick fix for this . But I would like to think that GW will review what they did right and wrong with this one before working on the next one.
-
You guys haven’t been on the attacking side when no one showed up to defend something. It is the worse than sorting your bank for an hour ( at least then you accomplish something when sorting your bank). As an individual player that hour taking over that outpost/holding is completely boring. Which from the attitudes of some folks on these boards is exactly what you guys want to happen..
-
You detest the thought of guard duty standing around and doing nothing , but are perfectly happy to have the attackers do just that if they attack things you aren’t guarding.

Smitty
@ Duffy You basically said told me to go play another game if I don’t like this one. .. your advice is noted.. will refrain from offering similar advice as it probably would not be as diplomatically phrased..
You responded to me a yesterday, asking if I accomplished my goal when killing npc guards and taking over outpost and holdings… The goal of taking those things was accomplished.
.
You Inferred the reason they were not defended was because they were not wanted and would have been a waste of time to defend . My question. What not make them cost ___, that way you actually show you care about it or not.. If you don’t care about it having them taken over by 1k alts shouldn’t be an issue.
.
If you asked if I obtained my goal on a personal level? Besides hanging with some fun folks on TS I would of parked my 1k alt by the holdings they didn’t care about and took my combat character on a scouting mission to find which ever escalation they were in and attacked them there. That would have been fun and had meaning to both me and them.
-
Now I get this system is what it is and it this point is not easily changed, but you guys are asking for a bunch of control of your settlements. All I keep saying is fine but I want every setting and thing you get to cost something.. I don’t care how much .. I don’t care if its trivial for you or not.
If something is free people will find a way to manipulate it, see the holding example, you see it yourself, people don’t care about them. Yet taking them over is a chore and putting them down in easy .
Smitty
@Bringslite - Responding to some of your points in your long post ..
Bringslite: I am opposed to any game play that requires ANY player to sit and guard spots for hours with essentially nothing else constructive AND fun to do at the same time:
Me: You do realize when you feud and no one shows up to defend that is what happens right?
Bringslite: . I wouldn't pay for that. I don't believe that enough MMO players would pay for that. . I'm not against it if it could be done in a way that isn't boring and a waste of playtime
ME: You have noticed a sharp reduction in some of the PvP players in the last few months?

Bringslite : I will support any reasonable system that does not make things unaffordable for small groups, isn't very boring, and doesn't make sense.
ME: I am asking to dump the free guard idea, if you want the guards pay __ to have them , if you don’t care have the setting set to no guards . If someone with a 1k alt army takes it over.. shrug you didn’t care about it anyway. How is that unfair to a small group?
Bringslite : I don't really care what the costs are for the originally envisioned set up of the concepts of NPC guards. I know that any game designer will make them reasonable costs so there is no real terror or concern there about "costs" for getting the things that were described into the system.

ME: If you don’t care about the cost… why are you so bent out of shape when all have I been saying is whatever option you set needs to cost something. So far your response to me has been,, but that is the game design… In case you hadn’t noticed the dwindling population might mean the game design needs to be tweaked..
Bringslite : You can argue that you don't like these systems, but they are there and this explosion of discontent on this seems very much like an "eleventh hour" freak out. This stuff that you see some of us asking for now has been in the MAIN PLAN since the start or very shortly after the start of the design. Just like you (and I guess all of us) want some fixes to feuding, these are other issues that some would like coded SOON.

ME: I think bugs, analytics, UI controls. And monster AI need to be the focus . Because those things affect every player in the game. Your idea of what you want soon affects your settlement and your ability to control it, which is fun for you to play with but doesn’t do much for the population at large..
Bringslite : Where you get the idea that I am anti PVP, I don't quite understand, but all three of you are notorious at jumping on what people write and assigning motives that you decide are reasons for why people write things. Discussion just can't go anywhere when you do that. I want a select KoS list for notorious enemies that my guards recognize and I am willing for it to cost. Not because I don't like PVP but because I don't live inside the game 23/7.
ME: Great we are on the same page, I want you to have that option to have a list, I just want it to cost you something to turn that on.

Bringslite: I do want them to attack enemies that come too close during war and feuds. Not because I don't like PVP but because that is what they are supposed to do!
ME : just like feuds , if you have ample notification and you set the time window… either show up and do it yourself or pay for the npcs to help you out or do both.
Bringslite : So far that hasn't been granted in toto. Weird because a feud now involves entire settlements, just like wars would .Guards that defend spots have always been in the settlements. They were put into the holdings/outposts when those were introduced.
ME: The outpost guards will attack if you have that company feuded, Town guards just keep the peace and stay out of feud fights. If you just want Thorne guards fine, but you said above you want them to attack enemies that trespass .. my opinion is if you want them to do that pay them to do that.
Smitty
Duffy Swiftshadow
What you just described is not how feuds work (or describe what happened in the one 'war' we had in game) or wars will work based on similar design goals. The guards are not a deterrent during the PvP window, they're just a warning beacon. I can solo the guards at most outposts or holdings!

As far as I have seen no one has made the statement that during a PvP window based feud or war action that the guards should be strong enough to prevent the attack, maybe they're annoying enough to stop a 1 or 2 person attack, but they shouldn't be stopping an actual war party. They just signal where the attack is and give some time for defenders to get there (their spawn rate is the slow down more than their power), if the defenders don't show up you are gonna take whatever your attacking once you kill the required amount (which you have to do even if players are defending anyways), the guards aren't really supposed to stop you. Guards should only be useful for stopping (or avenging) random ganking near them and maybe attack blacklisted folks outside of PvP Window actions. That's what we've been talking about, none of what we've said has any bearing on a feud as they work today or a war as it may work in the future.

Side note, alliances are supposed to be a mechanical thing that costs DI and come with some benefits for doing so.
100% of guards to 0% takes anywhere from 6-8 minutes regardless of group size due to timer on respawns. Can you do it solo in 15 .. but no real point in that especially if the window is set for <1 hour .
I have fought guards for 10 minutes. Stood next to a outpost for 15 minutes.
Then ran to next outpost,
fought guards for 10 minutes and stood next to that one for 15 minutes..
Many more times than you have Duffy… As a nightly participant in the one war you describe, I can tell you that is how it worked, when people didn’t show up to fight because nothing was at risk.. the PvP window was set at a length of time basically it was a race against a clock to kill guards and travel to the next location to kill more guards.
The point is fighting guards and standing around is boring, id rather you have to pay more to waste my time with npc guards.
Smitty
Have to get some work done today so not going expand on my opinion.. It is just that my opinion. It is posted on these forums in case GW decides to read them. I don’t care if you like my opinion or not bringslite. I don’t care if duffy likes it. I only care that I share my thoughts on the subject.
.
Just my vantage point.. why should things cost more..
From feuds we learned that unless something is completely at risk, defenders know they don’t really have to show up. Some groups will take the same approach with their settlements. If they have free guards they will use the guards, and take that time to do escalations, or gather knowing that the attackers will get to stand around their town and kill guards and uptick a counter for probably a short PvP window and limited number of things they can do each day. ( when/ if settlement wars take the same approach as towers, and holdings and outpost etc).

-
If people think this there right and the cost has already been paid by building it etc .. that is fine its your opinion mine is I don’t want to have to fight your guards while you go off and do something else. If you use that tactic I feel You should have to at least pay for a greater cost than a group that defends their stuff with their own players.

- Alliances
How easy is it to pay lip service to an alliance, if your ally alliance ask you to turn on a setting to keep ___ out .. Its easy to just say yes we can do that if it’s a free setting. Add in a cost that means that your ally might actually think twice about paying a higher cost for a conflict they actually do not care a thing about.
Smitty
This is the Hex Locerd entered when he crashed, cant get back in.
Smitty
@Bringslite ..

Stuff …
You and I have a different definition of total control. I read total control as I don’t want people from __ coming in the hex. I want the guards to attack those people on sight.

I don’t want it to be a free setting, cant state it any plainer. I have no issues with it being a thing I just feel there should be a cost.

Smitty
Giorgio
Smitty,

Have you read all the blogs and listened to all the Keepside chats?

You are arguing many times for things that are planned or intended to be in the game, and you are not responding as if you fully understand how the various current and future systems interlock. You are bringing up lots of points that have been debated for over two years; its not like this is new information for many of us.

Also, I would appreciate it if you (and others) can keep the on line quotes and snarks/veiled insults to a minimum, it doesn't help to engage in a useful conversation.
Have you read all the blogs and listened to all the Keepside chats?
Check
Have been following the game since the 2nd kick starter, been around since January.. listen to most all the keep side chats etc (skipped Oct)..

I am commenting on systems which I believe are good for the game, I don’t have instant recall on 3 years of blogs.. I remember flags, marshals , roads , stand and deliver , alignment, weather , environment, and helping and hurting escalations .. and many other things.

I am reading post where people are saying they want to restrict people from using their stuff they built. All I am saying is okay I feel you should be able to do that but I think it should cost you more to do so. ( reasons listened in other post)

As to snarky comments, Will try to be .. bettert …
.
My participation on these boards is meant for devs to read( and hopefully understand).
I have followed things closely enough to know that some systems have received changes along the way due to comments on these boards and those changes were not always that great in my opinion.
Me voicing my opinion is just that, my opinion. If they are going to work on this system great just throwing what I think they should do to make the system more than just an interface the 30 people that run a settlement interact with.
Smitty
Duffy Swiftshadow
Counter point: Why should a settlement just be open to everyone? The whole population didn't put anything into it. Why am I providing training options and facilities for the rest of the game's players? Why should they benefit from my group's hard work if I don't pay more? What's the point of settlement identity if everyone can just wander everywhere and use whatever? I can't lock my smith's doors?

Less Hyperbole: Why punish closed doors instead of rewarding open doors? That's a punitive measure instead of an emergent system. There should be tangible benefits to the open door policy over the closed door policy, by doing so you create a positive feedback loop that may and probably should have it's own drawbacks or risks. All costs will eventually become trivial over time, better off aiming for other ways to balance the difference.

Besides this is not meant to be like 'Life Is Feudal', this was never sold as a simulation game.

Duffy you are asking for guards to be more active and to do a job you would have players do if it wasn’t so utterly boring…
Just a common sense example …
If you are a guard and make the same wage in either place, are you going to work in the city where you stand on the corner and make sure people don’t fight in the street? Or are you going to work in the city where you march around and card everyone you see as well as stop fights and attack people on a certain list you keep in your pocket?
I cant say it any clearer, You are asking the guards to do more and that should cost you more. How much more should be dependent upon what you are asking them to do.
.
If you use better locks that my smithy can’t break with his hammer that might keep me from using your forge .. but again better locks cost more than normal locks..
As to the cost will be trivial with population, then so be it you gain enough people in your city and can tax them enough to pay for the security that its desired.. then good job, but the setting shouldn’t just be a choice it should mean something.
.
I think things should have a cost for players to use as well, like I said a few times, the means to raise capital should be introduced the same time any white list/blacklist system is put in place. Meaning crafters might have to pay a tax to use the stations, if someone shows up at your building and isn’t on your list they cant use it, or you can have a onetime charge or a weekly /monthly charge etc.
.
I have no clue what life is feudal is… sorry don’t get the reference ..
Smitty
Bringslite
Smitty,

Do you think that everyone that wants to run a settlement and play this game should have to also participate in the game's systems?

Should they be able to wage war but also be vulnerable to retaliation?

Why should I pay to upkeep training facilities if I can go somewhere and train using someone else's hard work?
Do you think that everyone that wants to run a settlement and play this game should have to also participate in the game's systems?

Yes ? I don’t follow the question.. the rules should apply equally to citizens and to leaders of the settlement ? Are you asking if there should be a setting that allows the leaders to have free training?

Should they be able to wage war but also be vulnerable to retaliation?
Have said so many times - In fact my feelings are after a holding or outpost is overrun, immediately following the PvP window in which the defender lost a holding / outpost .. the attacker should have an additional PvP window for the day to defend.
(as to warfare .. no clue as I don’t know what the cost is of yet or how it will differ from feuds- time will tell as to feuds .. see above)
Why should I pay to upkeep training facilities if I can go somewhere and train using someone else's hard work?
.
You made the decision to create a settlement already who you made it for is not really relevant to anyone but yourself. if you decide to not pay upkeep it will disappear. The discussion is the amount of upkeep that should be paid. If you decide the upkeep is not worth it and you are losing (resources/ coin etc) by using certain settings,.. raise taxes .. or lower your restrictions, tear down some buildings, lower your training etc.
You continue to pay upkeep on a settlement because you wanted to control one. I don’t want to see a system introduced that allows you to restrict access to them, unless the cost to restrict access comes with that system .. which means at the same time you need to have a system to raise capital..

This is one thing I feel needs to be said ..
To
GW
Don’t introduce part of a system anymore… if you are going to introduce these things( restriction to settlement, taxes, etc ), make sure all of it ready to go at the same time .. the holding towers feud thing was a disaster in the amount of time between each part being introduced..