Hearth vaults.

[Koru]

Less drama? I would rather fight for resources or conquer other villages then go every map's corner and find well brickwalled log cabin on level 5.
Sorry, but making a civilization should give some advantages. High quality items actually means nothing, leading a village is worthless cus something you build for months can be destroyed in an hour. And it can be destroyed by one player.
Criminals are important part of the game, but they are now overpowered. All you need is nice HV and now you can fuck with everybody if you are smart enough and you won't jump between 10 enemies.

[Potjeh]

That doesn't help as the world is not big enough. Also, raiders will spend few hours for travelling more readily then 'police'.

Got anything to back up that statement? I mean, sure, if you commit a couple of low profile crimes they likely won't bother, but a serial killer will be hounded to the end of Earth, however long it takes. I know because I have quite a number of ranger friends, and you should trust me when I tell you that the likes of Onionfighter or Avu will never give up on hunting you down if you manage to piss them off enough.

Less criminal means less drama. I guess most people still can't decide what they prefer.

No, it means higher q drama. I don't give a fuck about the daily threads where some newbie QQs because some random raider griefed the shit out of him, it's boring and stale and it never has any potential for making a riveting tale. Wars between huge factions, where blood flows in rivers and powerful villages go up in flames is what really gets my motor going. There's just so much more potential for political intrigue, battles between evenly matched forces and all the other good stuff that makes for an interesting story. And none of that can happen as long as lone psychopats are the most viable playstyle.

In short, I want H&H to play like A Game of Thrones rather than Saw XXVIII.

[Treetheater]

People should be able to acquire scents for another player from the forum whenever bad posts are made. People could vote on the post and then the scents are released, and you are punished for making a jackass out of yourself on the forum. That would be fun. Every thread about the server malfunctioning would surely yield tons of scents.

I realize this post may sound like its targeting someones post in particular, but it's not. Just a funny idea I had while reading this thread.

[Achilles]

That doesn't help as the world is not big enough. Also, raiders will spend few hours for travelling more readily then 'police'.

Got anything to back up that statement? I mean, sure, if you commit a couple of low profile crimes they likely won't bother, but a serial killer will be hounded to the end of Earth, however long it takes.

And he still can run to another vault, right?

Less criminal means less drama. I guess most people still can't decide what they prefer.

No, it means higher q drama. I don't give a fuck about the daily threads where some newbie QQs because some random raider griefed the shit out of him, it's boring and stale and it never has any potential for making a riveting tale. Wars between huge factions, where blood flows in rivers and powerful villages go up in flames is what really gets my motor going. There's just so much more potential for political intrigue, battles between evenly matched forces and all the other good stuff that makes for an interesting story. And none of that can happen as long as lone psychopats are the most viable playstyle.

Will someone attack if he know he'll be killed for sure? All you will see is raiders attacking weaklings and few hireling's counterattacks. As for bigger villages I don't see they attack each other nowadays, and no reasons for changing that. There's too much to lose (and we had an example recently).

In short, I want H&H to play like A Game of Thrones rather than Saw XXVIII.

Don't want raiders kiil noobs? debuff murderer on killing weakling and buff on killing person while holding right scents. That's good as we'll have less ragequits.
Want to play A Game of Thrones? Offer some political system that can reveal raider's supporters thus make hearthvaults worthless like one I posted earlier.
Want top villages start combat? Sorry, I don't know any solution for that. But it's most important for top q drama.

[Potjeh]

And he still can run to another vault, right?

The vaults are supposed to be fixed. geez, do i have to paraphrase the whole thread for every post I make?

Will someone attack if he know he'll be killed for sure?

No, and that'+s the whole freaking point. It should take some bloody effort to get away with crimes.

As for bigger villages I don't see they attack each other nowadays

Well I guess you're just blind.

Don't want raiders kiil noobs? debuff murderer on killing weakling and buff on killing person while holding right scents. That's good as we'll have less ragequits.

That's a terrible idea. Go read some of Jorb's posts on why the game can't tell if somebody is a criminal or a ranger.

Want to play A Game of Thrones? Offer some political system that can reveal raider's supporters thus make hearthvaults worthless like one I posted earlier.

Yeah, the idea is to force people to stash their hearths in actual villages rather than tiny vaults. I don't recall your idea for nerfing vaults, but I doubt it was much good if I don't remember it.

Want top villages start combat? Sorry, I don't know any solution for that. But it's most important for top q drama.

It already happens. And resources are enough of a motivation. If it was possible to actually take over spots by force you'd see a lot more, though.

[Treetheater]

Will someone attack if he know he'll be killed for sure? All you will see is raiders attacking weaklings and few hireling's counterattacks. As for bigger villages I don't see they attack each other nowadays, and no reasons for changing that. There's too much to lose (and we had an example recently).

A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied. Eventually, one of them isn't going to be so happy with a compromise, and would rather just take it for themselves. I think these kinds of things are what potjeh, and I, want to see in this game. Meaningful battles, with things at stake other than characters lives, where there are no 'good guys'. just people defending their interests.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly...No, I know I'm not. what exactly are you trying to say? : / It's not the broken english that's confusing me, you just haven't made a point, it seems.

[General-GSP]

Rotation is a joke, you need to have a lot of people from a lot of different timezones, and you want a hell of a lot more than 5 guys watching the ram, because if they come out and see only 5 guys, they'll go rush to get 10 and kick your ass, now you have 5 dead characters.
I shouldn't have to spread myself out thin to attack them, and I certainly should have an easier time killing 5 people than they should killing/fucking with 50+.

lol, its starting to sound more and more like excuses to not even try fight against lone villains or small groups.

1)(Problem with resources), they can vandalize resources and harass us, and we CANNOT stop them

so you stop vault doesn't fix this alts are to easy to make.

I don't HAVE to win first try, but with current mechanics it's impossible to EVER win.
Let's say 1 person has 10 vaults.
I get a murder scent (lasts 9 days)
I attack first vault, maybe ram lives, maybe not, usually, it won't. Unless I set up brick (it amazingly lasts...), and then I proceed brick wall+gate the ram nearby his wall and then attack him in 24 hours), now even then having to wait 12+24hours for the ram/brick, I now have to get back and his HF is probably gone, repeat again, blah blah, 10 vaults later I'm out of scents. Next time I get his scents? He's got his brick wall up again, even if it's the very next fucking day guaranteed he has some walls back up at one of them and is starting it again. These guys have a lot more than 10 vaults too, they have more like 30, that means a month of me going through vaults to find them all, also baiting their scents the whole time and hoping they don't rebulld at previously destroyed vaults (which is very very easy to do).
And you think it stops at 10 vaults? 30? Hahaha no, you could go ahead and make 100 vaults for the price of one decently sized village (in bricks), and you'd be fucking set, who could come after you? Not a damn person, someone comes at you? Swap, boom, instant win.

do you have 30 vaults? Have you tracked anyone beyond 2? a struggle against a horde of small vaults , if they even really have that many, can be just as epic a struggle as one fight with a big faction

You have to split while defenders can choose the best time to gather and kill your few guys guarding.

ya that is warfare.

burgingham. I respect you the most of all players / moderators and have enjoyed playing side by side with you in previous worlds. W3 we were all but untouchable and life got boring. same thing is starting to happen here. (Yes DoG i have enough vaults to avoid getting killed even leaving murder scents.) The vault concept is at the heart of the problem.

I simply do not like the concept of locking HF's seems drastic, and to much in the favor of the attackers.

What I think is really needed is some rethinking of the fast travel system where distance actually matters. That way large villages can make large policed areas where random thieves and murderers quickly die, and we can have remote areas where those guys steal and murder at will. So a new player can pick their poison - "oppressive" civilization or dangerous wilderness.

This. Seems to me ease of moving from one vault to the next is as much the issue as have a ton of them.

@treeheater
best HF locking idea I have heard. IF HF locking is implemented it should not be in the hands of any player but the guy moving his HF, and he will of course be fully aware of the repercussions of doing so.

Got anything to back up that statement? I mean, sure, if you commit a couple of low profile crimes they likely won't bother, but a serial killer will be hounded to the end of Earth, however long it takes. I know because I have quite a number of ranger friends, and you should trust me when I tell you that the likes of Onionfighter or Avu will never give up on hunting you down if you manage to piss them off enough.

Oh so it's a matter of motivation not the number of vaults?

well anyway this argument is getting stale.
either remove all forms of teleporting or add a mechanism to lock HF's.
Either will piss people off and some will quit.

[Potjeh]

No, it's a matter of it being physically impossible to get someone with multiple vaults before his scents expire.

And who cares if some people quit over hearth lock / teleportation nerf. Tons of people quit over the curios system, does that mean we should go back to mining bots?

[Tonkyhonk]

What I think is really needed is some rethinking of the fast travel system where distance actually matters. That way large villages can make large policed areas where random thieves and murderers quickly die, and we can have remote areas where those guys steal and murder at will. So a new player can pick their poison - "oppressive" civilization or dangerous wilderness.

i guess you're right there, Potjeh. for those who havent read his previous suggestion, check it here.
(well, actually i couldnt find the original ones...there has been too many useless C&I threads.)
i wasnt really sure about interceptible fast travel before, but im starting to change my view on this lately,

with interceptible fast travel, raid-hungry murderers having multiple vaults here and there will have less meanings, who would try to offer raiders a way to travel fast to their next vault? factions with more friends in the area should win in travelling and should be able to intercept others' travel a lot easier in their own region.
which would also let most villages reconsider whom to be allied with, trade with, and which area, not just resources, to cover up for their own advantage in wars and friendship and trades. having more enemies should make it harder to raid outside of their regions, having more allies should make them rather feasible or give them advantages to fight against even stronger enemies as well, depending on their tactics and strategies.

i am looking forward to the new defense system with towers that loftar mentioned before, but even with the new system, im pretty sure "regional advantages" should still be put into consideration, so that both strong/big and weak/small villages can survive better, depending upon how good their decision making and politics can be.

[Achilles]

And he still can run to another vault, right?

The vaults are supposed to be fixed. geez, do i have to paraphrase the whole thread for every post I make?

We can't fix HV problem just by disabling large distance travel.
We don't need to limit large distance travel if HV problem already solved (this could be nice but devs don't have much time for heavy modifications).

As for bigger villages I don't see they attack each other nowadays

Well I guess you're just blind.

Perhaps, but there's no too much drama involving two large villages in forum.

Don't want raiders kiil noobs? debuff murderer on killing weakling and buff on killing person while holding right scents. That's good as we'll have less ragequits.

That's a terrible idea. Go read some of Jorb's posts on why the game can't tell if somebody is a criminal or a ranger.

It's not so bad if you know someone is weak after you knocked him out (actually, you already know is he worthy at this point). You can either spare his life or kill for debuff. All the game need is to make him knocked out instead of one-hit-killed, and optional warning message. And he should have some decent skills too, to prevent abuse.
As for ranger.. no need on that. If you hold opponent's summonable scents while killing him and he's not fresh-10ua-alt, then you automatically get buff.

Want to play A Game of Thrones? Offer some political system that can reveal raider's supporters thus make hearthvaults worthless like one I posted earlier.

Yeah, the idea is to force people to stash their hearths in actual villages rather than tiny vaults. I don't recall your idea for nerfing vaults, but I doubt it was much good if I don't remember it.

The link was bit above, and that idea actually works that way, be killed or reveal your supporters. It seems it was mistake to post it in the end of similar thread istead of opening new one.

Want top villages start combat? Sorry, I don't know any solution for that. But it's most important for top q drama.

It already happens. And resources are enough of a motivation. If it was possible to actually take over spots by force you'd see a lot more, though.

Not too often, and not too much drama for everyone but involved villages.