I'm just an advocate for a healthy haven player base.
Taking care of yourself doesn't make you a pansy.
-
Potjeh
- Posts: 11825
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 4:03 pm
Re: The Siege of Aurora
Welcome to Haven and Hearth. I don't see how this is any surprise, because the whole game is about who can nolife the hardest. Just look at character growth.MightySheep wrote:However I do agree that it seems like a bit of a no-life competition. The side with the least real life responsibilities wins!
-
iamahh
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:23 pm
Re: The Siege of Aurora
but siege is key to losing everything you worked forPotjeh wrote:Welcome to Haven and Hearth. I don't see how this is any surprise, because the whole game is about who can nolife the hardest. Just look at character growth.MightySheep wrote:However I do agree that it seems like a bit of a no-life competition. The side with the least real life responsibilities wins!
-
Longshanks87
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:49 pm
Re: The Siege of Aurora
Based on this estimate would it be fair to say that together both side rinsed the majority of the Brimstone in the entire map for this assault and defense?RedSkies wrote:
I count roughly 73 catapults built total by both sides, which is 292 brimstone. That doesn't even include repairing, or the ton we dumped into the village idol to keep up the shield. I would estimate upwards of 500 brim used.
Is there much point in trying to compete with this anymore?
thoughts jorb>?
not asking for a soloution, but thoughts?
Shanked..
-
ChildhoodObesity
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:16 am
Re: The Siege of Aurora
no its not even close to fair to say because a lot of brimstone is collected from private sources like someones l5 mine or something where 15 is just always sitting in it. i didnt even check a single public brimstone node during this raid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MZIg3c ... e=youtu.be <----- (me) (hatguy) (PART2)
-
TheLoli
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:13 am
Re: The Siege of Aurora
Ah that reminds me then. o.o Does brimstone (and other similar items) not decay inside caves too?
-
LostJustice
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:57 am
Re: The Siege of Aurora
If brimstone is in the actual resource, it doesn't decay, it stacks up to 15 or something and then waits to be collected. Brimstone geysers can generate inside caves is what trollex was mentioning which a lot of people don't know about and the people who do usually wall it off because it easy profit and easy defense.

-
TheLoli
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:13 am
Re: The Siege of Aurora
Ah alrighty. Thankies for the explanation.LostJustice wrote:If brimstone is in the actual resource, it doesn't decay, it stacks up to 15 or something and then waits to be collected. Brimstone geysers can generate inside caves is what trollex was mentioning which a lot of people don't know about and the people who do usually wall it off because it easy profit and easy defense.
-
Luanes
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:06 pm
Re: The Siege of Aurora
Well, good to know that there's someone up to the discussion
.
- They're attacking our village!
- Oh no! The clothes are on the clothesline!
So, to agree with your sentence, people should be able to attack at anytime a "living" target, and, in my point of view, being alive is being able to play. Totally agree with you that player density on a village should be a factor on its resistance, and disagree about the cooldown, I guess you should be able to push your target until you or them use all their resources. Being able to be attacked / defend 6 hours per day is, at least for me, a good amount of time, but, still, it could be increased to 8 or 10 hours. Besides how do you suggest to "set" a time limit that a siege could take? Calculated by the first hit on the shield? Or what? I really want to discuss it.
Edit: Maybe we could use 2 time frames: One chosen by the defender and another by the attacker.
I really disagree about that sentence, because IRL you really can be attacked at any time, but, for anyone alive, the top priority would be defend yourself. I guess no one would say:LostJustice wrote: Second, the ability to siege at any given time is something that happens real life and I feel is very important to be added to this game. If someone wants to siege at any time they should be given this opportunity. It is just a reflection on real mechanics which I and many others like in Hafen.
- They're attacking our village!
- Oh no! The clothes are on the clothesline!
So, to agree with your sentence, people should be able to attack at anytime a "living" target, and, in my point of view, being alive is being able to play. Totally agree with you that player density on a village should be a factor on its resistance, and disagree about the cooldown, I guess you should be able to push your target until you or them use all their resources. Being able to be attacked / defend 6 hours per day is, at least for me, a good amount of time, but, still, it could be increased to 8 or 10 hours. Besides how do you suggest to "set" a time limit that a siege could take? Calculated by the first hit on the shield? Or what? I really want to discuss it.
Edit: Maybe we could use 2 time frames: One chosen by the defender and another by the attacker.


