A realm fix that isn't just deleting them

Thoughts on the further development of Haven & Hearth? Feel free to opine!

Re: A realm fix that isn't just deleting them

Postby wonder-ass » Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:03 pm

I think its an even bigger flex to wear it to fights after collecting thingwalls/destroying their coronation, if u can hold on to it while using it at every fight thats basically the biggest flex u can give anyone.
see homo sexuality trending,. do not do that.
User avatar
wonder-ass
 
Posts: 2325
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:02 am

Re: A realm fix that isn't just deleting them

Postby spragoon » Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:49 pm

SnuggleSnail wrote:...
[*] Menhirs and Grotesques no longer need to be built on realm claims, and do not require realm perms to build.
[*] Upon interacting with a Menhir or Grotesque while it is covered by a realm you can choose to make it contribute to a buff of your choice.
...
Plus, any menhirs/grotesques build inside somebody's base are /guaranteed/ to always to benefit them, compared to donating guano to a factionboi and hoping they don't quit, turn them off or get out-realmed leaving you SOL.


As a pleb that helps run a village, this prospect is pretty exciting. We've always just traded our silver/guano/etc. with the realm instead of trying to build our own realm (that would just get stomped in). Building the Idols/Menhirs ourselves could create some interesting drama perhaps. It might give a realm more reason to claim particular thingwalls rather than just "more authority". It could give another realm a better reason to siege a village and/or for a realm to defend villages in their territory.

I dunno, do y'all think that could be worth while? I tend to like ideas that give more agency to individual villages. Makes us plebs feel like we have more of an impact over the realm/world.
HexIndustries village member since w10
User avatar
spragoon
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 10:55 pm

Re: A realm fix that isn't just deleting them

Postby SnuggleSnail » Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:11 am

My guess is in the early world people will care a lot about your tile if you're providing buffs, and late world it will make absolutely no difference except maybe for small/new realms if they're nearby you. The whole point is to make territory very transient/volatile while in a way that doesn't disrupt buffs for normal people too much. I would expect the entire map to just change from blue to red in a month if people care enough to do it, and for it to barely affect you other than constantly seeing challenges in chat unless you actively involve yourself.

On a somewhat related note, conceding to an enemy realm to get their buffs is a very real(by design) option with this system even for rulers. After thinking about it more I want to retract what I said earlier about Monoliths/Irminsuls being okay. I can for sure see groups that would concede for a while never trying to remake their realm and being competition because they'll need like 50+ tiles to get to get full buffs even if they can afford all statues. That seems kinda bad, but also pretty minor honestly.

Also, border changes/challenges with the suggested system would be /extremely/ fast especially if people are able to abuse alts to spam challenge during off hours. Just wanna stress I think realms being not bad for the majority is better than realms being good for faction players, but for the sake of PVP/faction players who might actually care about borders - putting a lot of effort into making sure the characters who challenge are actually good/worthwhile to gank would be big. IMO the requirement should be something like > 30% of the global LP leader or something similar, or in the top 20% of characters with > 500K LP. IDK what these numbers are, but ideally within grasp of an industrious hermit and annoying/unreasonable for autists to spam as alts. Cooldowns associated with village idols could also maybe help with this? Others might have better ideas.
"We specialize in permadeath and forum drama." -man who removed death and deletes every drama thread
http://www.seatribe.se/
User avatar
SnuggleSnail
 
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:04 pm

Re: A realm fix that isn't just deleting them

Postby abt79 » Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:53 am

Look, the suggestions might even be good but...

SnuggleSnail wrote:LET THE RULERS DECIDE THEIR OWN NAMES & FLAGS WHAT THE FUCK JORBTAR. IF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN REALM TO RIVAL YOURS. DRAMA AND FREE PLAYER EXPRESSION IN A SANDBOX ARE KINDOF A BIG DEAL???


lol, still mad?
User avatar
abt79
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:59 am
Location: looking for black coal, completely in vein

Re: A realm fix that isn't just deleting them

Postby SnuggleSnail » Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:55 am

I was never rly angry. I understand why Jorbtar did it. However, it was very demotivating/frustrating to be trying to do some cool autism mega-project that makes the game feel more alive and have admins almost arbitrarily take away creative control. In world 12 I think my group would've given up on realms immediately if we weren't already balls deep. Likewise this world we immediately gave up whenever Jorbtar name changed us & asked us to change our flag.

In spite of me personally not wanting it enforcing cringe larp standards on names/flags would be more reasonable in a system where rulers wouldn't be expected to invest nearly as much time, though.
"We specialize in permadeath and forum drama." -man who removed death and deletes every drama thread
http://www.seatribe.se/
User avatar
SnuggleSnail
 
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:04 pm

Re: A realm fix that isn't just deleting them

Postby AriZona » Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:43 am

I think Snail's suggestion are interesting and potentially could be useful. Some stuff integrates probably other discussions (e.g. viewtopic.php?f=48&t=69639&hilit=AriZona). I can not comment on PVP bc is not my domain of expertise. I just want bring up two things:

    * Involvement of non-realm players (aka hermits) is appealing, but that is a stick with two ends. Once hermitages will start building Mehirs and idols they will become targets of factions. That is a no-no for small people survival :) Thus I'm afraid it will bring opposite effect than suggested.
    * I agree that realms should not vanish, but it is not true that the suggested fast-pace realm swing mechanics (as Snail refers as "volatile or "transient" :D ) will be useful for the the game. My reasoning is that the game starts with alliances of different power/size; thus, the stronger PVP faction (not given, but...) will rule eventually. Many PVPers quite because there are no fights. IMHO I propose a bit opposite:

    - Create higher minimal stakes to create realms (materials, sworn ppl, etc)
    - Stabilize realms after their creation to protect their the game play (fighters, realm markets, etc.): if they loose a battle or a province they always can back and recuperate. Thus, make the cost of challenging the province of a realm exponentially or linearly more expensive with its distance from the coronation stone of the challenging realm. That sort of would make the realm conflict a bit more frozen so that scaling difficulty with distance could be overcome with quality scaling and game progression (the later game play would be meaningful for realms).
    - Allow villages to build some sort of mini-realm idols (not Mehirs, etc. - leave them to realm business!) that add limited set of bonuses to the province where village idols sits, drain village authority, expensive to make, but do not require rare stuff (guano, rock crystals, etc.). The number those idols could be limited with growing authority drain upon growing the number of those idols. Prevent bonus generation from that village if anybody sworn to the village belongs to any realm.
    - ... and keep hermits out realm business and do not seek outsourcing the duty to build realm stuff to non-realm ppl ! :)
Last bumped by SnuggleSnail on Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:43 am.
AriZona
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:02 am

Previous

Return to Critique & Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests