Get rid of Visitor Debuff

[Nek]

Hard limit on gates doesn't change a thing as long as You need only 1 gate to work imho.

It would at least make it so that setting up those safe palisades are more susceptible to counter attacks and if there's only like 1 allowed per village they'd have to specifically be running in through that gate to be safe. If a village had that visitor debuff gate placed at the south of their base for example and you caught them north of their base, they'd have to either run around to it or just risk running through the regular gate.

Personally I'd rather visitor debuff was just gone full stop but if I had to pick some sort of compromise then this would be it unless anybody can think of something better.

[Ozzy123]

Hard limit on gates doesn't change a thing as long as You need only 1 gate to work imho.

Well your opinion on this is wrong atleast when it comes to safe palisades, it's easy to just block 1 gate with stockpiles/logs in middle of a fight and that will make it impossible for someone to run in in most of the cases, when there is 5 gates there is never enough time to do so.

[Aceb]

Hard limit on gates doesn't change a thing as long as You need only 1 gate to work imho.

Well your opinion on this is wrong atleast when it comes to safe palisades, it's easy to just block 1 gate with stockpiles/logs in middle of a fight and that will make it impossible for someone to run in in most of the cases, when there is 5 gates there is never enough time to do so.

Well, didn't look it from this perspective, true.
Wouldn't hiring some noobs to help You block gates be a counter to that?

[Jackwolf]

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.

There is a lot of pvp going near structures like CF anyways so it wouldnt solve the problem of running back and forth to safety.
Large factions will have no problem building visitor gates for their huge ass bases.
Siege camps will be built with increased cost in mind.
This affects only smaller folks who will just get less incentive to open gates.
This might ruin private trade outposts and I've seen some in this and previous world.

Either remove visitor alltogether or make it so once you've been aggroed, you cant get inside (may combine with visitor gates idea to render it pointless to use it on siege camp...)

If it's not intended to be used with Siege Camps then have it require a week IRL to activate.

• If you want to make it so that it's still attempted by regular factions rather than mega villages or late gamers then try to keep from doing very much more aside from (maybe) doubling resources needed as well as adding dreams, seers stones, or other related haven magic items - perhaps even new ones. While the items in question should not be rare it should require an effort to make such a gate, one that would require consideration whether a visitor gate would be worth the effort, or perhaps something to consider after the village is stable rather than its infancy.
  
• Fair note to everyone, Jorb & Loftar alike, that if this change is instituted to have different types of gates then a new tactic would arise (especially if visitor gates are no longer able to be traversed by those in combat); air locking. By putting the visitor gate a short bit inside a regular gate it makes it possible to then lock the outer gate, either to save yourself by locking the enemies out, or to trap those who have chased your allies in. This can be see as good or bad, depending on your perspective. To me it seems like a nice trade off; the enemy can no longer run into his own base freely - giving you a chance to finish them off - but at the cost of potentially losing your own life if one of them manages to get the gate closed with you in it.
  
• In essence, both sides get what they want. A nerf to visitor gates, making them far less common and more resource consuming to build. As well as no one able to cross a visitor threshold if in combat. And just for loki's amusement? Make that take animals into consideration too.

On the subject of limiting gates it makes very little sense as to how one would do so logically within the system.

• If it's made so that only one per village can exist then that completely screws hermits and newbies who lack a village to do so, ever more so if the cost is astronomical/absurd. Even if it was tied to villages then it could be, somehow, tied to the Lawspeaker being the only one who can construct said visitor gates as the hearth magic of the gate can be see as a magical//physical manifestation of the Lawspeaker's word of Law in their village. This could be, somehow, tied into said Lawspeaker's Cha*Lore.
  
• Alternatively it could be, instead, tied to the relative Claim owner's Cha*Lore (again manifestation etc etc [logical reasoning]) which decrees how many gates can be made total. This becomes an issue itself when it comes to the grey area domain of something that's purely on Village claim with no personal claim. (Visitor gates done like this should have a significant drain on a claim's authority, at least while open)

There could be some sort of difference, or combination, of the two types of gates (village & personal) but that kind of makes complications and some things a little unnecessarily... But;

• It could open up the idea of Village auth drain as opposed to personal claim drain and resource cost. Village gates made by the Lawspeaker cost even more resources than the visitor gates made for personal claims, but instead drains from village authority much like any village structure.
• The counter point to "Well people could just make a small personal claim to make a gate instead" would be that to do so would require said claim to hold a spot in someone's study to constantly replenish it and keep it active, this means either a >constantly kept up alt or a very very large claim authority pool.
• An additional burning point could be made that a village claim could nullify personal visitor gates, or if the personal claim ever reaches 0 authority (or is destroyed) the gate becomes inert and non-functional as a visitor gate forever [magic's burned out!].

Gods that was a lot... Someone tell me if any of that makes sense, or even seems vaguely viable.

[Granger]

If it's not intended to be used with Siege Camps then have it require a week IRL to activate.

That could be a good solution.

Possibly give it a bit of upkeep cost to fuel the function, item sinks are good for the economy.

[SlicingTheMoon]

A big NO from me, no visitor buff = no trading, no recruiting (sins anyone can easily open your gates and back stab you)
Yea that sounds like a grand game right there, only raiders would suggest stuff like that.

[Nek]

no visitor buff = no trading

Bullshit. Trading persisted before it and will continue persisting after it.
If you want the debuff to still apply for huge trade hubs then you should support the idea for a single gate or something to be able to have this power which can only be built in limited numbers. Visitor debuff was created so that trades could be conducted more safely, not to provide complete immunity to you because you ran through your permanently left open gates all around your base. People should only ever have need for 1 of these and that's for areas they want other people to have access to for safe trading.

no recruiting (sins anyone can easily open your gates and back stab you)

Happens without visitor debuff and I'm sorry to say but visitor debuff wasn't ever designed to halt that sort of thing. If you don't think you can trust somebody, then don't recruit them. Also there are an abundance of plot layouts you can have in your village to have this never be an issue. Ever. Nobody in the previous village I was in could ever get into my plot to do anything underhanded like that and it was impossible for me to do anything similar in the plots.


Let's get a couple of things sorted out here.
Visitor debuff by its very name implies that it is intended for visitors. Friends from other villages, traders, stuff like that.
If somebody gets shot down just inside his gate and somebody wants to run up to you and loot you while you're unconcious, he shouldn't cucked out of being able to do so by the debuff. He's clearly not a 'visitor' he's a raider. Be more careful, keep your regular gates shut. The current gate situation is why we have people thinking they can taunt endlessly while standing with their gate wide open with 10 people on the outside who can't do shit.
The only place I want to see visitor gates is actual trading hubs or MAIN city gates, that way you've got your entry point to where you can actually allow VISITORS to enter. Back/side gates shouldn't have this luxury. You only need a single gate to accomplish what the debuff was intended to do. If you want to let somebody in, let them in through the intended gate.
This is still a compromise too because there's nothing stopping people from just running to their visitor gate to run through to cut a chase short and the attackers are once again screwed but that's the price we just have to pay if visitor debuff is to continue being a thing instead of being removed entirely, which seems to not be what people want.

[kirion]

Fuck no, don't remove that.

[Nek]

Fuck no, don't remove that.

Literally no argument. Fuck outta my thread, brainlet.

[Jackwolf]

The only place I want to see visitor gates is actual trading hubs or MAIN city gates, that way you've got your entry point to where you can actually allow VISITORS to enter. Back/side gates shouldn't have this luxury. You only need a single gate to accomplish what the debuff was intended to do. If you want to let somebody in, let them in through the intended gate.

+1; side note I think the size of said Visitor gates (if considered a good idea) should be limited to the large gate currently available, or possibly bigger - to symbolize increased traffic expected, ie 2 wagons passing - both as a visual representation and a spacial factor in creation.