Sabotage and game mechanics

[Headshot]

If an account has been on a Village (any of its chars), this info remains on a log that can be checked by the lawspeaker of a village.

What a retarded idea. If i want to play like spy - i will. If LS doesnt care about his village members it will be punish for him.
Its like you take homeless into your house and be surprised when he steal all your shit.

Politics and spy games is a part of hnh. It was and it will be.

[Potjeh]

Yeah, this comes back to vandalism being too easy and too permanent, which is also the reason why we can't have a real siege system.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Yeah, this comes back to vandalism being too easy and too permanent, which is also the reason why we can't have a real siege system.

So we should eternally live in a world where the only way to protect yourself from being murdered and losing all your shit is to insulate yourself from player interaction?

If there's no siege system, there's literally no reason not to kill/steal/destroy everything, because there is little to no opportunity for your opponent to retaliate.

[Potjeh]

Do you even read bro?

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Do you even read bro?

I hope so.
What issue do you take with my summary of your position.

[Potjeh]

The point I was making is that the real problem is boolean vandalism and that addressing that would also resolve the issue of infiltrators being OP. How you could read that as stating that current vandalism needs to be preserved and the rest of the game should be adjusted to work with that?

[Robben_DuMarsch]

The point I was making is that the real problem is boolean vandalism and that addressing that would also resolve the issue of infiltrators being OP. How you could read that as stating that current vandalism needs to be preserved and the rest of the game should be adjusted to work with that?

The issue I took was with your opposition to a siege system without vandalism changes. My counterpoint was that the threat of a retaliatory siege could act to keep current rampant vandalism in line, I have no issues with vandalism adjustments and never argued such.

[Potjeh]

If we had a real siege system with boolean vandalism factions would exterminate each other until only one is left and then they borequit. See Salem.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

If we had a real siege system with boolean vandalism factions would exterminate each other until only one is left and then they borequit. See Salem.

I don't think Salem is a good comparison. It had a small population to begin with, and it was further spread across multiple servers.

I like to think that the Haven political scene is developed and populous enough that the outcome would be different - Cities pillaging other cities without real casus belli may be dealt with by a coalition of other cities.

[burgingham]

You are wrong. Just because you live in the center of the world where there is 3 other cities or whatever around doesn't mean that is true for everywhere else. The game is a wasteland. A gigantic one at that.

And even if it wasn't Potjeh's point still stands. You cannot say it doesn't matter if a few people quit over a bad mechanic just because there is enough others left. The mechanic should be good to begin with. How is it a real casus belli if your city is gone? That is just a reason to walk away...

Avu has said all there is to say on this matter before: Raiding a town should be about theft and not vandalism. Vandalism should be a slow proccess that an active town can fight (setting fire etc.). That gives much much more of an incentive to actually go to war too.