Prelude: World 12

[Headshot]

Ok, time to decice

[Vraatjuh]

I can live with the siege changes under (some of) the following circumstances:
- Reduce the window from 8 hours to something more acceptable like 4 hours.
- Make inspecting a claim cost something meaningful and let it leave a scent. Preventing bots from loggin in, checking claim and logging out again.
- Make attacking a claim cost something meaningful (cost XX% authority of the attacking village?).

This will 'protect' hermits as they are not worth attacking, unless they brought it on themselves by really pissing someone of.
Attacking a village can only be done occassionally as you have to stack up the resource.
Attacking a village takes planning because you don't want to waste the resource.
Defending your village will actually mean something, because you know you drained the enemies resources.

Of course some of the people crying hardest about wanting more PvP will just build a base that is 100% siege proof by encircling their own base or something, because that's what they do.
But just occassionally strike them with the hammer of Thor to let them know not to abuse the system

[SnuggleSnail]

@Jorb can you hurry up and confirm that the suggested siege change will be scrapped so there's time to discuss other stuff before the new world.

[mvgulik]

Level 4: Palisades: 24h, Brick Walls: 32h
Level 5: Palisades: 24h, Brick Walls: 32h

Ergo: Max frequency is a little over two weeks. Min frequency is shy of four weeks.
(Presuming P-clock gets reset after upgrading P-level. ... Makes no sense that it would not.)

Still don't like P-level system. Seems contrived and over complicated solution for something that is not included/explained.
("figure it out yourself" has its limits. Asking for why's also btw.)

[Mikeyboy]

Can you imagine i only fought ants twice but nothing else the whole w11 ... ok it's a video game but honestly i'm troubled by the misconception of hunting should be card deck combat. Ok at least they fixed marksmanship ...

As to your kill count, to be fair I suppose no one would be surprised.

Nonetheless the card deck combat is absolutely disgusting and I miss how in legacy there were like 20 special moves, there was a balance and a fight intensity system.
At the beginning of the fight everything was slower as the fight was at 0 intensity, thus giving you time to think about your next move, while currently you're instantly fighting, little to no time to plan anything.
Same goes to balance, there were tons of special moves, that could change the balance stat making you hit harder than your opponent, even if he had higher stats than you. Watch your balance, or get hit hard.

These two systems made the stats difference less apparent, and even hermits had at least more chance to escape when found in the wilderness.

I repeat once again, bring back the good old legacy combat.

Would be amazing if they brought back the old system where you buy a specific skill to unlock combat moves. This whole killing shit for 1 month just to have a CHANCE at finishing a combat deck is retarded.

Aside from this you guys really need to change the whole power level bullshit. It's extremely stupid and unnecessary. Can we just get W10 Siege system?

[snapko]

Would be amazing if they brought back the old system where you buy a specific skill to unlock combat moves. This whole killing shit for 1 month just to have a CHANCE at finishing a combat deck is retarded.

Aside from this you guys really need to change the whole power level bullshit. It's extremely stupid and unnecessary. Can we just get W10 Siege system?

Farming skill cards is nuts, agree. Tho new power level system helps alot with palibashing claims around local resources and abandoned bases. Or annoying ccks

[VDZ]

@Jorb can you hurry up and confirm that the suggested siege change will be scrapped so there's time to discuss other stuff before the new world.

I highly doubt the idea will be scrapped without being tried (and I'd be very disappointed if if they straight up canceled a system like this over people throwing a hissy fit without having experienced it in practice). They're probably still discussing what changes to make to it to make it more 'fair' without practically eliminating siege.

[reticent]

Okay, how about:

>New type of claim mark
>requires siegecraft skill
>requires rock crystal and wrought iron
>can only be built on a power level 5 claim
>can only have one per N tiles, similar to the minimum distance between villages
>one per village/owner
>provides a, let's say 35x35, area where power level does not go down

Intention is to provide a zone of heightened security, where the players can hold out and keep the most valuable resources and infrastructure, while still being limited in size. Somewhat difficult and slow to build, so not as easy to abuse for trolling. Allows separation between throw-away claims and small hermitages vs. long-term and more invested-in claims, giving the latter a layer of protection.

Hardly completely safe, yet not something that's vulnerable to being rolled in 20 minutes every 2 weeks either. In general terms, it gives the player the ability to dig in on a plot of land, with some effort. I like the idea of larger factions being more vulnerable, since due to their size they will also have more assets outside the grace zone, yet their most important stuff will still have that extra level of protection. That way if you lose a siege, your infrastructure is "KO'd", but not utterly "killed". Losing a siege is meaningful, since rivals can thoroughly raid and pillage your farming area, tree planting area, animal pens, and whatever it is you have outside the zone. But it's not an absolute loss, though that can still follow.

[Ozzy123]

@Jorb can you hurry up and confirm that the suggested siege change will be scrapped so there's time to discuss other stuff before the new world.

BUMP


Pls bring back w10 shield system but fix the issues that it had which were reported after Quiet Storm siege, that's all it takes

[dafels]

This thread is basically a war between the peasfools and The Toxic PvP kids. To fix the everlasting war is to seperate the playerbase in 2 servers or we can use continents to fix it.

Since the IDs of continents have now been implemented, we can have continents that have seperate set of rules? We could have continents that would be "hostile" and "peasfool" continents, if you live in a hostile continent you get permadeath, easier sieging, palibashing, no visitor debuff and all the other peaceful crap disabled and the pvpers have a possibility to enjoy full pvp experience of the game meanwhile the peaceful continents have the KO protection and all the other peaceful things so they can enjoy the game peacefully if they want. But to make it balanced make that living on these 'hostile' continents it is high risk, high reward by introdoucing a universal modifier where everything would progress faster on the hostile continents, for lets say, mining would give way better quality ores than in the peaceful continents, also affect the feasting fep modifier to 1.5 or 2x effectivity on the hostile continent, better yield crops, better quality nodes and on the continent it would spawn better quality animals. It would make it appealing to live on such a continent, but you will have to deal with the hostile climate there and pvp. To make it that you can't switch between the continents so easily, there should be a debuff that would last 1-2 weeks before the character can acclimate to the continent he has moved to and to him this universal modifier would not be applied. Farmers will be having their own game without ruining the game for pvpers and pvpers can have their own without ruining the game for farmer scrubs and they are still on the same server, can interact with each other.