To The Broholm Scrubs

[Patchouli_Knowledge]

That's really how it should be imo. It should just be possible to siege towns so that if the strongest faction is a peacekeeping faction they can do something about random thieves and griefers.

Actually it should be possible for both rising aggressive and peaceful faction to rise into position and challenge the strongest faction (can be either and yes peaceful vs peaceful can happen at the right circumstances) not just the aggressive faction but I do think I see your viewpoint. The main reason why I am not vouching for things to be peaceful is that 1) Just like real life, aggressive nations and raiders such as Germany pre-world war 2 and the Huns has marked their spot in history through their ruthless actions 2) Politics should be more dynamic to keep the interest of the playerbase as well as provide some entertainment for forumites 3) Invincible Sue are boring. The problem is potentially beyond just the siege system but I think one must observe how the meta-game changes with each revamp of the game features.

Xanadu of World 1/2 was a peacekeeping faction

Was Xanadu really that successful in neutralizing or even balancing the aggressive Wayneville faction? Albeit Wayneville was artificially enhanced due to an exploit but if the situation was to occur legitimately where Wayneville was still the dominating faction, would Xanadu still have been able to keep Wayneville in check?

Actually the reason why the aggressive players tend to have a bigger advantage, assuming most game factor are equal, is player combat experience. The aggressive faction will have more combat experience due to constant conflict and battles with others and, most important, honining on the feel of adrenalin to actual danger as well as keeping calm in such a situation, something not even sparring. The aggressive faction will experience these elements more often than the peaceful faction as due to the nature of their gamestyle.

Can't say anything about World 1 - 4 since I didn't play back then. It would seem that World 1 - 3 were special though in the sense that the game was still actively developed and the community was tightknit and still discovering what they can do with the game mechanics. Now it's all grey routine and griefy in any case.

Not sure about 1, but 2-3 was far from buting a sugar coated world. The reason why people believe world 3 was a good world was because Sodom (whom many people considered good guys) was the dominating faction and probably the only world (to my knowledge) where the peaceful faction was constantly in reign for a while. AD came close to being able to challenge them but I do not think it really happened due to the end of the world.

Off topic:
And I think this interesting topic should be split into its own thread.

[Sevenless]

You nailed why I suggest non-warrior players never fight with characters they don't intend to have killed. Combat experience in a complex and high stakes game like this is crucial.

[Potjeh]

I got plenty of combat experience while white knighting. Aggressive players fight more, sure, but the bulk of their targets are totally clueless so not much can be learned from fighting them. Ranging, on the other hand, constantly gets you into fights with people who know a thing or two. Or it did, before the Age of Vaults, which incidentally also made all the rangers quit the game.

[Patchouli_Knowledge]

I believe it goes both ways, Potjeh. White Knights will have their shares of griefers that can't fight anything above people that doesn't know how to fight back while aggressive players will have their shares of people that will fight back. But I do agree that vaults destroyed the equilibrium further that it needs to. However, I am familiar with your history and would like to ask some questions in PM if that is alright with you.

[Potjeh]

Sure, but it's been a long while so I might be kinda fuzzy on details.

But yeah, you're right that both groups get both kinds of opponents, but overall I'd guesstimate that rangers have more fights vs people who know how to fight.

That being said, I agree with Dorky that white knights need some kind of a tangible benefit. Economic benefits are just fine, and I got a great efficiency boost from the Buyan market, but it was fairly limited in scope because the customer base had to be heavily restricted due to risk of vandalism or theft. I had great hopes for such markets in Salem because it has defensive towers to thwart would be thieves, but my hopes were destroyed when they implemented those stupid, stupid Boston stalls(hands down THE worst design decision in Salem).

[Dorky]

Why? That is all just a question of proper balancing. Same goes for the alt thing.

Of course it is possible to balance out a lot of things but there are also given restrictions to how far you can
alter the game to solve a certain problem. My point was simply that it is impossible for the game to decide who
is the good guy and who is the bad guy. The resolution of a given problem is in the hands of the two players
alone (of course they can also drag other people into this as their means to resolve the situation in their
own favour). Depending on their personalities they may be willing to reason or both may also just be greedy
bastards trying to screw the other over (amongst many other possibilities obviously). You can balance a lot
but at some point you reach a situation where the players themselves need to make decisions and take actions
within the given limits of the game. You cannot balance out a person's decision to be an ass.

It's not possible in haven to have everyone play in his own little realm without affecting the decisions of
other players. And that will always spark problems.

[bmjclark]

Ranging, on the other hand, constantly gets you into fights with people who know a thing or two.

The most interesting moments i've had in this game have come from tracking people online

[burgingham]

It's not possible in haven to have everyone play in his own little realm without affecting the decisions of
other players. And that will always spark problems.

Yeah ok I don't actually disagree with that. But just because problems are going to be created does not mean that those creating them intentionally always have to have the upper hand. You can design the game so it is evened out.


@Potjeh, good times those days of actual rangers. I remember you standing at WVs gates every other day or so because some scents led you there. I usually was clueless who produced them or why, but had to be the diplomat

[jtpitner]

It happens I was killed once in cold blood by pressure so it is what it is(karma).... Mopstar I am sorry that you died if I was on I would have joined you....

[Potjeh]

Oh man, negotiating was the best part of ranging. Nobody wants to talk these days, it's all about killing