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 Swiftshadow
Edit: I posted this before your last reply directly to me which cleared it up a bit.

Honestly Smitty, I don't follow you.

Nothing being talked about with the guards in settlements is a suddenly 'new' idea. Your settlement was always supposed to be guarded by NPC guards, they're actually supposed to be pretty integral to the eventual war/siege mechanics just like how they work for the holdings, but on a larger scale. They've always been advertised as keeping the settlement hexes fairly well policed until the disguise and stealth systems are added/fleshed out better. Your even supposed to leave the game world when interacting with 'doors' so you can't get jumped when you can't see anything.

Are you talking about non-settlement holding claimed hexes? If so I might have missed the segue somewhere farther up in the thread. Those are not supposed to covered with guards, only guards should be the ones that hang out at your outposts/holdings. Eventually a settlement should be able to set laws for a claimed hex such that certain actions flag you as a criminal and a rep free target for members of that settlement, but that's the extent from my memory of the blogs. That's still more of an active counter activity than guarding your static settlement training.

Additional Edit: Based on your last post, I do believe the way PFO is laid out that settlements should be 90% safe zones outside of the balanced PvP actions (feuds, wars, assassinations, etc… ). Rep loss based ganking in town should not be a thing unless someone really wants to turn their guards off entirely for some reason.
Im speaking strictly in terms of settlement hexes and how the NPC guards react to visitors.. Open world hexes should be open world rules.. ( feuds, factions, perhaps even that marshal thing that was discussed ..)
I want to see a system where the leader of a settlement can
let faction ___ in
Faction ___ is KOS
Faction __ can train
members of __ in ..
members of __ company KOS
Members of ___ settlement KOS
Each thing you check off should cost something. The more you restrict the more it should cost .
.
I do believe that was the plan from the beginning.. but I have sat back many times and not voiced my opinions .. only to have a system changed due to the frequency and who said something on the forums. So not planning on remaining silent on stuff I read that I really do not agree with..
.
If you want the setting that is fine, but I expect the price just in setting things to restrict everyone but my settlement members to be super expressive compared to a settlement that has well you cant actively be attacking another character ( like what it is now).
Smitty
@ Bringslite
Well we appear to be on the same page (somewhat) .. I am all for paying a cost to do these things.. just don’t want it to be a free easy setting to set…
As to where I am getting and why I feel I have to defend my position … ( page 12 ..)

Nihimon
Smitty
I don’t think settlements should have an easy button that turns off people they don’t like coming into them.

I think PFO should be developed according to the principles used to sell it to the people who funded its development.
He left out the rest …
I don’t think settlements should have an easy button that turns off people they don’t like coming into them. If there were such a setting a “keeping out the people not on your white list should cost a ton” like 5-8 times more than normal to run your settlement..
.
Basically you are asking for a setting to affect the entire population of the game, which should have a huge cost. You could save that cost by having your own people do the enforcement, but it certainly shouldn’t just a be a free thing that you get to set with no cost behind it.

I responded to him ..
Are you saying the principle of the game was that you could control a settlement with a click of a button and that the cost to click that button would be free?
Smitty
Duffy Swiftshadow
Smitty
Nihimon
Smitty
I don’t think settlements should have an easy button that turns off people they don’t like coming into them.

I think PFO should be developed according to the principles used to sell it to the people who funded its development.
Are you saying the principle of the game was that you could control a settlement with a click of a button and that the cost to click that button would be free?

It's not free, a settlement is a huge investment of time and resources. The minimal ability to control who the guards let into the settlement or use it's facilities are the minimum capabilities that I would deem necessary. But their is a theoretical cost to locking down your settlement in the old blogs, you lose out on all that sweet sweet training and trading coin. Don't forget the settlement was supposed to get a cut of the different services it offered and the costs of those services could be set by leadership. When more classes and buildings are added to the game, plus faction related training, it's possible certain training options will be in very short supply. Gaining access to them or controlling access will be a big component of the game.

The idea of players having to sit around guarding the settlement all day is very boring, if I'm playing I personally want to seek out active content. I want to accomplish goals, not spend hours waiting for something to maybe happen. PFO seemed geared towards that mentality based on the early blogs, if something big is going down you'll know and be able to go deal with it (feuds, wars, etc… ), but incidental stuff is never really supposed to require the 'defender' to sit around waiting for it to maybe happen (banditry, assassinations, etc… ) because those activities are active for the 'attacker' but balanced to not completely ruin whatever activity the defender is out doing when caught and if they 'lose'.
I agree running a settlement is a huge time sink and takes dedication and resources… while I agree I would ate to pull guard duty in one … and would even accept a tax by a settlement to avoid having to pull that duty ( another thing you can add to how they raise money.. besides getting coin from training and using the tavern etc ..)

I just believe if you want a total security button, you should pay more in resources than a settlement that doesn’t want it.

Do settlements need ways to raise capital before doing that .. sure .. but I don’t think it should just be a personal preference type thing, I think clicking a setting like that should have .. more meaning behind it ..
Smitty
Schedim
Smitty, you are aware that there is more than one town in this game? Or are you really worried that you will be blacklisted EVERYWHERE?
I am not worried about my personal characters, im a good enough guy in game I can work something out when and if needed….
I am worried about a group of folks that want to make the game perfect for their own ideals without worrying about how it affects the rest of the game and the future.
Smitty
You are wanting to represent total control of your settlements, meaning essentially you would have roving guards through every area of your hex every minute. There should be a cost to paying for those guards, you want a dictatorship type security as a feature for free.

Meanwhile other settlements places may want people to come into their towns, and are more relaxed about their security.

Why should the cost to run the two settlements be the same?

You are saying you want to represent being in total control of an area but are saying you want to pay the same amount in ____ as a settlement that does not.
Smitty
Nihimon
Smitty
I don’t think settlements should have an easy button that turns off people they don’t like coming into them.

I think PFO should be developed according to the principles used to sell it to the people who funded its development.
Are you saying the principle of the game was that you could control a settlement with a click of a button and that the cost to click that button would be free?
Smitty
I don’t think settlements should have an easy button that turns off people they don’t like coming into them. If there were such a setting a “keeping out the people not on your white list should cost a ton” like 5-8 times more than normal to run your settlement..
.
Basically you are asking for a setting to affect the entire population of the game, which should have a huge cost. You could save that cost by having your own people do the enforcement, but it certainly shouldn’t just a be a free thing that you get to set with no cost behind it.
Smitty
Will once again dive into this subject…
Leaving agency with the player to come and go from a company is not something you want to take away. I do not want a system to punish me changing companies. When I log on to play I don’t want a system that says sorry your mates feuded the targets an hour ago and now you cant join them because you are in the wrong company (or if you do join them you will be considered a bad player that should suffer rep hits ..).
.
Keep in mind , we are suppose to be working out outpost and holdings to provide skills to make them productive. If your small settlement has to spread its members to be productive and then wants to attack something and brings everyone into a feuding company why should it be punished?
.

Why should a player not be able to play with whoever he wants when he logs on? Why is it you find company hopping so vile? Why do you think it is evil? What harm does it to you ?
.
I will say the one thing I want done in regards to changing companies..
.
The commands to join a company and leave a company needs to be removed from the chat commands and moved to the keep. Think of it is declaring your allegiance and citizenship. If you want to leave a company go to the keep and work through an interface to do so. Take away the /vcleave and /vcapply. Make it so you have to physically be somewhere to do these things.
.
Leaders can still approve members from anywhere but the player dropping and the player applying needs to be in the settlement not out in the woods. This would address many of the issues people have with changing companies and dropping companies during fights, but hasn’t been done yet…
Smitty
Not sure how to test this or where to ask it.

What will happen to characters that have logged out in a settlement, the settlement is tore down, and buildings a rebuilt where the character logged out?

Will they they be stuck inside of them?

Just curious what will happen and if need to make it a point to log all my guys out at the edge of town.
Smitty
There is lots of alignment in EE11!!! I have read a few times about the zog release where buildings are being better aligned with the ground and the gaps are being eliminated with better alignment!