LostJustice wrote:LaserSaysPew wrote:don't have a slightest idea
I've noticed. Maybe think about the full picture. What it solves. What it actually changes. How it actually affects people. Original purpose of the game.
Your adding a toggle which only prevents people from going somewhere which doesn't sound like a good idea in general. The safe Palis are still there. That is the major issue. Your solution doesn't solve it. Not to mention a lot of ways to get around the issue or people will be able to circumvent it.
Helloooo?! We're not talking about some random idea. This is the alternative to gates doing THE EXACT SAME THING. "Preventing people from going somewhere". Devs described that problem in the opening post. And proposed gate idea. I am giving an alternative that does the same with one exception. It doesn't fuck up hermits, sprucecaps and other people in the process. The ones that are not able to defend themselves and will lose even slightest protection of their nearby walls cuz they simply won't be able to get into their bases if attacked. Or, if the gates will have different types, most likely they will open the one with no visitor debuff, run in with their chaser and still get KOd but now the attacker is inside without visitor and can loot them/wait to KO again, pretty much raids them with no cost.
So how about you yourself try thinking? At least a little bit. The game is too carebear, I'm not arguing that. But the change with gates will have 2 effects.
1: Big strong guys that are the reason for that change will have to adjust their fighting tactics.
2: Small and weak guys will lose even the glimmer of hope to get to their bases and hide there if they are attacked, they either can't or nearly guaranteed to run in with the guy they are trying to run away from.
So here comes the double gate system or, more precisely, triple gate: inner visitor gate and 2 outer gates. That way they are still KOd and looted but at least they won't let enemy into the base itself. What happens next? Player interaction drops. Is that good? Not for me, personally. Maybe you do want to loot weak guys easier, raid the ones that didn't build 2 gates, etc. But I see it as a problem. And that's why I'm trying to suggest an alternative. I'm not saying it's great, perfect and polished idea. But maybe, just MAYBE, it is worth to consider.
LostJustice wrote:Your adding a toggle does sound like a good idea in general.
Thx for your support. See, I can take words out of context too! Yay!
So, also let's sum up your arguments: rage alts abuse just like it is going on now. Completely irrelevant but I guess you couldn't think of anything better. "Thank you" to a guy that said about carebear. Which means you agree with that and for some fucking reason saw carebearing in there somewhere but still neither you nor that guy managed to provide me with an example of that awful awful carebearing with pvp state. And now you just said some generic phrases about seeing the big picture. No facts, no thoughts. Just a fortune cookie level of insight. And then you argued about the change itself(gates and pvp state alike since they both do the same). Ok, maybe on that part you're right and there shouldn't be a system that blocks gates. But if there must be one to fix forts, I'd very much rather it would some system that doesn't make the weaker population of players pay for it.
