Prelude: World 12

[HasseKebab]

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.

can we have this please

[iamahh]

yall devs, if you could stop creating awesome things like Coracle, Kicksled, Horses, and then nerfing them because the 1% of pvpers felt their gameplay choices are affected by it... that'd be grat!

[Melkior13]

Reducing the attacker’s investment in a siege is only addressing half of the issue. The gains for the effort of the siege is the other half of the equation, and the ability to alt-vault valuables remains a problem. In my opinion, there needs to be other reasons to attack someone other than to annoy or destroy them.

Suggestion: Consider having an honor/notoriety system along-side the industrial grind. This system would be completely optional and would have no impact on the “70% of player base” that prefers not to take part. Players with an interest in siege and PvP, however, could strengthen their ability to siege and/or PvP, perhaps as follows:

Villages could choose to create a new type of authority idol, perhaps an “Altar of Battle”. Similar to realm buffs, this object would provide bonuses to the Hearthlings within, with the following differences:
- The benefits are combat/siege oriented, and would be strictly applied to player vs player scenarios. In other words, any UA/MC, STR/AGI/CON, armor, etc. benefits would not apply to PvE. Benefits could also be along the lines of improvements to siege mechanics (dmg, drying time, repair time, move distance, take your pick).
- The benefits would not be limited by the village or realm claim. Instead, all village members with the hearthfires located within the vclaim that has the altar would receive the buff.
- The benefits would improve slowly over time, as long as the altar is in place and untouched.
- The altar would also be a container that could hold PvP objects (perhaps skulls, or a new item like ears, badges, tokens, etc. or shards of broken altars, taken from enemies). Storing these objects in the altar would improve the benefits applied, and/or the rate the benefits improve with age. Removing these objects (either through the act of raiding and stealing them, or attempting to alt-vault the prior to a raid) would have an adverse effect on the benefits from the altar, perhaps even as severe as a temporary penalty. (Alt-vaulting to protect your PVP valuables prior to a raid is effectively conceding the fight, as you are giving up the edge that you otherwise would have in the upcoming Siege/PvP).

The players that are motivated by PVP mechanics would be rewarded in kind. Hermits and villages that opt not to build altars would be less desirable targets by default.
When inspecting a claim (instead of simply checking power level), the attackers could learn of the presence of an altar and perhaps it’s quality level. Higher quality altars would be more beneficial to ransack because they would provide better augmentation to the raiding party’s own altar. The altars themselves could be a form of trophy, bragging rights, or mockery.

This could be expanded or altered in many ways to solve part of the siege issue (or other challenges), but I hope the core concept is understood at least. Thank you for taking the time to read such a long post.

[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.

I also thought about different spaces on the same server, but the thing is - those high-top pvpers always have ring of support (alts or players) who provide their stat growth and do that crazy spiraling and powerfarming. Boosting them with quality of resources will only further disbalance the server in whole and shorten it's life.

As a peaceful farmer/builder, why would you care what the pvpers do with this concept in the hostile continents. If you want to compete for quality and power resources, you will have to compete for them like the pvpers do on the hostile continents and the thing is that they would be losing alot in constant sieges if siege is much easier on such continents, their character deaths and that would balance alot of things out by itself

[pimotimo]

Have you been in any fight last world? I've been fighting in the last 2 worlds and besides knaars, i dont think horses are any problem in pvp, you can raw hide or dismount the rider... in fact varely anyone uses horses when fightning. Strider credo mandatory to have it completed for pvp and i guess its one of the reasons i dont like that perk.. its too big of an advantage to have compared to someone who hasnt finished it yet. You can also do quick plays with this combat system, combat meditation allows you to pull some good moves if ur opponent is not prepared, tho maybe in legacy it was better (just saying it is still possible to do)

The horse is used to get in front of, steal speed buffs and cut the person running off, you mongol. It happens every fight, I literally saw it happen in one of the end of world fights yesterday. And good luck combat medding someone chasing you while they can freely defend.

Any decent player will raw hide some1 on a horse and dismount him, you mongol.

[Zepar72]

Credos feel good to have but are a complete shitfest to acquire. They obviously will not be removed as some suggested, devs spent their time on it, why would they just remove them. And credos are fine and a great idea. It's just a tedious pain in the ass to get them.
Combination of 2 things:
1. Limit the amount of credo quests one can do per month. Make it feel less like a job and more like a side activity. Every new character gets 10 credo quests points. Every 3 days you get 1 point. That way you can complete your first credo really fast and then chill, cuz it will take a month to get another 10 points to complete a second one. Which you can do once every 3 days or in bulk after a month or whatever, up to you. No limit to accumulation of those points.
2. Remove additional quests per credo. Simply unnecessary due to the limit above. You get 1 credo per month.

It's kinda punishing to people who play more and just want to do credos when they want to do it. You propose limits, so people who play less don't feel so behind, but that's how games get more limited and less fun. What'll be next? You can get only xxx stats per month? You can only plant xxx things per month?
Credos are quite wild at the moment, there's a lot of unnecessary grinding and randomness, but it doesn't mean people should be told what can they do with their game time. Additional credo quests are okay imo, the problem is there are only 3 basic credos, and all other require them. If you want to be a tailor, you have to do farmer, literally without any interest in farming - that's what's annoying to me.

As for the non-pvp server / island, i think it's totally off the h&h vibe. I know some (maybe a lot) of people want this to be Harvest Moon, but the risk of people pillaging all of your hard work is a core part of this game. It's supposed to be realistic - if you wanna be a hermit, then you, on your own accord, agree to take risks of getting raided by more organised groups. Grinding and such is fun, but in the end, those poeple who are more organized and put more effort come up top

[DDDsDD999]

Have you been in any fight last world? I've been fighting in the last 2 worlds and besides knaars, i dont think horses are any problem in pvp, you can raw hide or dismount the rider... in fact varely anyone uses horses when fightning. Strider credo mandatory to have it completed for pvp and i guess its one of the reasons i dont like that perk.. its too big of an advantage to have compared to someone who hasnt finished it yet. You can also do quick plays with this combat system, combat meditation allows you to pull some good moves if ur opponent is not prepared, tho maybe in legacy it was better (just saying it is still possible to do)

The horse is used to get in front of, steal speed buffs and cut the person running off, you mongol. It happens every fight, I literally saw it happen in one of the end of world fights yesterday. And good luck combat medding someone chasing you while they can freely defend.

Any decent player will raw hide some1 on a horse and dismount him, you mongol.

Alright, I fell for this obvious troll the first time, but now you're just baiting too hard.

[tehnox]

Everyone here seems to claim they are part and representatives of core demographics of the game. Well, i guess i'm not.
I'm playing for half a year tops after the world reset, just like any estimated amount of players based on ~thousand online players difference (between the start of the world and midway until the reset). I enjoy the game for what separates it from mobile farming game - the thrill of unexplored world and dangers that come with it.
Do we matter? Should developers try to appeal to us and stop us from abandoning the game until the new reset? I've got no clue, but at least do not forget we exist every half (third? quarter?) of the world's lifespan, so there's that.

What personally matters to me is the sense of danger coming from the outside. When you are potentially vulnerable you are trying to come up with contingency plan. If i can build this thing and that thing in that way and noone has realistic chance to siege my shitty village i lose the sense of danger and game becomes a bit stale. Maybe i quit because of that staleness, maybe i don't - but the thrill weakens so there's that.
If my neighbours understand they can build in the same way to completely block off any siege they lose at least one reason to even communicate with me. Making sure someone nearby is not a threat is off the table.
The reasoning is very basic. If someone does not share this viewpoint they can atleast understand it.
That's why i, the casual part-time player with no intent to participate in PvP, think the PvP and sieging are both very healthy for this game. And any kind of flag toggle to "opt-out" of those scary things are actually terrible - i will optimize the fun out of the game by protecting myself by any means necessary and so will you.

Now, realistically, lets imagine the new siege system with some added cost to checking the claim's state. Maybe this action is considered criminal, leaves a scent and prevents logging out for a duration so you cannot get an alt full of resources to log in - check - log out without a trace and any clue from claim's owner.
This "checking" action gives other party some information. Let's assume the least possible amount of information: current claim level and current state of charging (either it's charging or it's not).
I am also assuming claim owner can see some sort of "checking log" and come on, even if it's not there we all will automate it if we at least get a message when the claim is getting checked.

What's the scenario here, assuming they didn't hit jackpot checking when the claim is weak? Worst case scenario i'm being checked at the end of decay cycle, so i'm down to level 4 and 2 full weeks to prepare. Best case i have 4 weeks of the same level of protection (5 and 4), presumably without a way for attacker to successfuly siege me. Yes, i imagine the scenario when noone will bother with 32h drying time. So 2 to 4 weeks of calling for help, relocating, trying to figure out who scared me and negotiate. Sounds not that bad! If they did hit the weakness interval, well, life sucks. Maybe that's the worst thing about the new system. But still there can be some ideas to prevent that.

What's better i decide when i want to hit "charge" button. And until i do hostile party is forced to walk up to my walls and spend resources to check the claim status. Maybe i decide to wait 2 more weeks? Soak times go down sure, but they are still very considerable and it will drain even more resources from the enemy, giving me even more time. 4 to 6 weeks of trying to come up with something.
Hell, i think any casual player can relocate by then! Even if you have lots and lots of animals it's very plausible. And if you don't want to relocate because you sitting on great resource nodes maybe its the whole point of sieging you? To make you relocate because you are weak and stronger players want the best spot? Even then you can gamble and charge getting 6 more weeks of attrition for your enemy. By then you either relocate, negotiate with your enemies or find some 3rd party willing to protect you.

I can only speculate how the system will look for major factions but my guess is more or less the same, with an added factor of traitors/spies. Which is great, no?

Anyway i can't see myself quitting the game because of new siege system. Maybe major factions can raid my village with 32h drying timers, but it was possible in earlier worlds and never happened - who in the right mind will do that to a small player group? And if they are looking for an opening, i still have advantage on my side and some options to consider. Most probably no-one will ever attack me anyway, but the danger is out there - which is good - and i'm inclined to actually engage with my neighbours to plan ahead in case of scary raiders coming for my sprucecap.

absolutely my thoughts
as casual hermit, after building palisade, I feel invincible behind the walls and game becomes stale and not thrilling for me.

[LaserSaysPew]

Credos feel good to have but are a complete shitfest to acquire. They obviously will not be removed as some suggested, devs spent their time on it, why would they just remove them. And credos are fine and a great idea. It's just a tedious pain in the ass to get them.
Combination of 2 things:
1. Limit the amount of credo quests one can do per month. Make it feel less like a job and more like a side activity. Every new character gets 10 credo quests points. Every 3 days you get 1 point. That way you can complete your first credo really fast and then chill, cuz it will take a month to get another 10 points to complete a second one. Which you can do once every 3 days or in bulk after a month or whatever, up to you. No limit to accumulation of those points.
2. Remove additional quests per credo. Simply unnecessary due to the limit above. You get 1 credo per month.

It's kinda punishing to people who play more and just want to do credos when they want to do it. You propose limits, so people who play less don't feel so behind, but that's how games get more limited and less fun. What'll be next? You can get only xxx stats per month? You can only plant xxx things per month?
Credos are quite wild at the moment, there's a lot of unnecessary grinding and randomness, but it doesn't mean people should be told what can they do with their game time. Additional credo quests are okay imo, the problem is there are only 3 basic credos, and all other require them. If you want to be a tailor, you have to do farmer, literally without any interest in farming - that's what's annoying to me.

I wouldn't say it's punishing at all. It's not about making casual players fall less behind. It's exactly FOR the people who play more. Credos are pretty much mandatory and not doing them 24/7 makes you feel like you're falling behind. This will free up your time allowing you to do other stuff in the game, there's plenty other stuff. What's less fun about having the ability to choose what to do instead of being forced to do credos over and over? It's exactly the opposite of "doesn't mean people should be told what can they do with their game time". Right now they are being told. Do credos. Or you'll fall behind the guy that does. If credo quests are limited you know the other guy is also doing something else.

[ctopolon4]

as option: credos should only require to discover 10-50 things (or 50% from some list)
(may grow from 10% to 100% and be limited 10 credos per character with ability to re specialize)
ex.: you cant become mystic until pick foul smoke ; stalagumba & indigo cap for hermit & etc.
do 100-200 same as one quests for study curios sucks.