Mario_Demorez wrote:Just make villages with visitor gates 10x easier to raid.
Nek wrote:Redlaw wrote:so no more trade cities
Already debunked. Trade cities have been a thing before visitor debuff was implemented and wouldn't stop being a thing if it disappeared again.
Nek wrote:SlicingTheMoon wrote:no visitor buff = no trading
Bullshit. Trading persisted before it and will continue persisting after it.
Nek wrote:Nobodies going to be stupid enough to wander into those huge trading hubs causing shit. That is a death sentence unless they have an army, and you better believe the owners of said trade hubs have armies/allies of their own.
jorb wrote:Public venues are worth too much to consider the complete removal of this mechanic, but..Alternative suggestion would be adding new types of gates; merchant or visitor or what have you. These cost more materials than regular gates, as well as dreams (or other hearth magic esque items, to give a reason why neener-neener can't do anything past this line)
... this is a change we ourselves have proposed, and we are considering implementing it for the reset. If anyone has strong arguments against it, feel free to share.
VDZ wrote:No they haven't. To my knowledge, Venetia in world 8 was the first public trading city, and it was built after Visitor was implemented.
VDZ wrote:Trading before the visitor debuff consisted of contacting somebody outside the game to organize a trade, then using charter stone teleportation bullshit with alts to actually perform the trade. (Side note: this would no longer be feasible under current mechanics.) It was such a horrible system that it stopped me from trading unless it was absolutely necessary.
VDZ wrote:And what about smaller trading posts? Should they just get fucked?
jorb wrote:I bow before your infinite wisdom, Nek. The words and thoughts of mere men are like leaves in the wind before a true philosopher such as yourself. Verily, my retardery is apparent to me now.
banok wrote:GG nek, your thread was successful at baiting people on to us
wonder-ass wrote:well someone could cause trouble in said big markets with a crappy ish rage alt to beat up some hermits and die and he could do it repeatedly.
jorb wrote:I bow before your infinite wisdom, Nek. The words and thoughts of mere men are like leaves in the wind before a true philosopher such as yourself. Verily, my retardery is apparent to me now.
banok wrote:GG nek, your thread was successful at baiting people on to us
Nek wrote:wonder-ass wrote:well someone could cause trouble in said big markets with a crappy ish rage alt to beat up some hermits and die and he could do it repeatedly.
I probably should just edit the OP at this point but I'm now fully onboard with the Visitor Gate idea that's been discussed meaning markets will be, quite literally, just as safe as they currently are. In fact nothing would change at all in that scenario.
The key point is to make a hard limit of 1 gate per village claim so that every regular gate doesn't just get subsituted with Visitor gates.
Granger wrote:But yes, I think we should try how that plays out. That rule could always be relaxed a bit in case it gives too much problems.
Granger wrote:Granger wrote:[s]
Removing visitor from normal gates would result in exploit-o-mania as mineholes could no longer be secured.Jackwolf wrote:Valid argument. Proposed counter point for minehole protection?
jorb wrote:I bow before your infinite wisdom, Nek. The words and thoughts of mere men are like leaves in the wind before a true philosopher such as yourself. Verily, my retardery is apparent to me now.
banok wrote:GG nek, your thread was successful at baiting people on to us
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests