Feedback/Suggestion 2: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

General discussion about Life is Feudal MMO and Life is Feudal: Your Own, The main section and backbone of the forums.

SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Feedback/Suggestion 2: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by SonofKitt » 11 Sep 2018, 17:13

Hi all,

I'm back at it again with some feedback/food for thought.
As always, i try make suggestions which would fit into the current mechanics and shouldn't be to much development effort.
A significant portion of this post is all base around getting players moving throughout the world and encouraging them to interacting with other players, something I think is sorely missing.


This post aims to provide a small amount of feedback for the current Resource Outpost System, and to suggest some new ideas, including;


A) A Potential Land Administration System, and some

B) Potential Coin Faucets and Sinks.




Image








2) A Potential Land Administration System

I think there is a real opportunity to use the outpost mechanic to control land in a way that the guild claims cannot.

The kingdom and vassal system is great for permissions and rights, but its not very good when it comes to land administration and control. And I think implementing a land administration system could really create a lot more endgame.


So, whats the idea?


Image



Introduce Military Fort (Outpost)


And what would a Military Fort be?

It could be a pre-made fort structure or it could just be a blank claim, smaller than a regular town claim but slightly bigger than a outpost claim that guilds can built fortifications on. I don't think castle walls should be allowed, maybe a castle tower or two.

Every Judgement hour these Military Fort could be assaulted and captured by holding them for 30 minutes.


Image


Image


And what kind of area would these military forts cover?


The area of "influence" would be much larger than a T4 guild, and cover many guilds, ranging from T4 to T1.
These land zones would only be visible through a toogle option in the Map. (they would hopefully be displayed a bit better than my paint skills..)

Something along the lines of;

a) a radius of 750 tiles, or

Image

On second throughts, 1000 radius with 750 between would allow for minimum gaps.

b) nine outposts per server, or

Image

c) one outpost per server.

Image

They need to be large so to cover many guilds. My personal favourite is either 750-1000 Radius or 1 per server. I think 9 is too many and 1 is too few. needs to be 2-5 per server in my opinion.


Image


And what would they do?


They would generate a land income depending on the number of guilds and the tiers of guilds inside the area of "influence". Tier 4 guilds would generate more land income than T1 guilds.

**THIS LAND INCOME WOULD COME FROM THE CROWN AS A NEW COIN INPUT, NOT FROM PLAYERS**

This income could be something like 25-100% of the total claim maintenance. This depends on other coin Faucets and Sinks which I will discuss later.

The guild who controlled the military fort would be able to set;

a) Land tax rates - what percentage of land income taxed from the guild (effectively how much coin is returned to each individual guilds).
b) Commission of trade sales, and
c) Resource Outpost Production tax.

Image

The Land Income would vary between Forts as the total income would depend on the number and tiers of the guilds inside the influence zone. Some fort might govern many guilds and have a total land income of 20 gold coins per day while another might only govern a few and have an land income of 1 gold coin per day.

Land Income would need to be balanced by the developers to insure than inflation does not run away. You would have to change how the current coin faucets and sinks operate. But ultimately, you would want to reduce the coin slightly gained from "Sell to the crown", "Arena Victory" or "Native Loot" so that the coin gained from land administration was Significant and worth fighting for.


Image


And what would this mean?


For the current Kingdom/Vassal setup, not much.

Loyal vassals would have very low land taxes, trade commission and resource outpost taxes. Well you would expect that.

Image

But say you want an advantage over a long term enemy, you could attempt to capture the military fort that covers their guild or guilds. If you succeed, you could impose harsh sanctions, 100% of the land income for enemy guilds, 20% commission on all trade and 50% of their Regional Outpost Production.

Image


Image


Scenario

Two Small Kingdoms. Red vs Blue.

Image

Blue decides to invade the Red territory and captures one of the Red Military Forts.

Image

The Blue team could impose harsh taxes on all guilds and outposts.

OR

They could single out your enemy, only imposing harsh restrictions on them and try to win over there neighbours by giving them better terms than their original liege-lord.

Image

Maybe even one day down the track, and if the terms are lowered, some or all of these guilds might fight for there new liege-lord.

No kingdom will ever be able to hold control for very long if they do not provide the guilds inside their lands with fair terms.


Image


The Capture process

Again, I think there should be a IB timer for capturing a Military Fort. The current administrators of the Military Fort should be prompted.

By default, you should have to assault, and hold for 30 minutes.

Image

I know this is a long time, but it leads into another concept of daily. "Skirmishes".


Skirmishes

Image

To encourage more sandbox PvP, you could implement skirmish mechanics. By this, i mean create incentives for players to conduct skirmishes into enemy lands.

Successful skirmishes would reduce the time taken to capture a Military Fort during the weekend Judgement Hours.

The first incentive: Every time you kill an enemy in their lands, you take 10 seconds off the capture time up to a maximum of 5 minutes. Down to 25 minutes to capture.

Image

Obviously, every time an enemy kills you or someone else from your guild, 10 seconds is added back onto the capture time required. Thus, you would need to have killed more enemies than they have killed you in order to reduce the capture time.

The second incentive: Add daily "mini" judgement hours.

During these mini judgement hours, you would be able to assault and "capture/damage" military forts. It would take 5 minutes to "damage" the fort. Each time you damage a fort, you take 2 minutes off the capture time up to a maximum of 10 minutes (Monday-Friday). Mini-Judgement Hours would only apply to military outposts, all other types of claims would remain unaffected.

By utilising both forms of skirmishes, you could reduce the capture time to half, at 15 minutes. 15 minutes is a lot easier to hold than 30 minutes.

Image

These are just some ideas i just quickly thought up but you could include other things like;
- Poaching - Killing wild animals in enemy lands.
- Stealing/Plundering - Acquiring enemy horse-carts/horses?
- Burning - off claim crops maybe?

Image


The Destruction Process


Like resource outposts, I personally think Forts should not be able to be deleted instantly after capture. I don't think there would be any reason to just delete a fort if you can gain significant coin from the taxes of the land.

You should be able to delete/move the location of the fort to somewhere you may think is better (i.e. a hilltop or off the coast). Or maybe you want to move it slightly to cover a guild that is 2 tiles outside of the influence area for tax reasons.

But depending on who it is setup, pre-made fort vs player made forts out of fortifications/terraforming, players should be able to re-fortify or change the defences to what they think might work better.

Likely the same rules should apply which apply to the resource outposts suggested above. I.e. you can delete/move the Fort CLAIM (just the monument sword itself) for 2-4 weeks for continuous ownership can you delete and quickly erect a in a new location. With the exception that you can remove/destroy the fortifications/terraforming before this time.


Image


Benefits from Land Administration


I thought another incentive to controlling land could be titles.
Image

Guild Leaders of guilds who controlled forts would have the title of Liege Lord or Liege Lady.

A Liege Lord/Lady who has had other Lords/Ladys swear fealty to them would have the title of High Lord or High Lady. Could also be Duke/Dame/Count/Countess.

The top five guilds that controlled the most forts, would have the title of King or Queen for there guild leader.

Image

Most players would fall into the middle class, in terms of influence on the world (compared to actual peasants in the feudal times) I.e. Knights, Mercenaries, Traders/Merchants, Crafters/Tradesmen etc

Image

The guild who controls the most forts would have the title of High King or High Queen.

You could even go as to provide small benefits to the lands of the top five guilds. Such as;
- Increased produce of Resource Outposts say 10%
- Increased action times such as faster farming actions, faster digging/mining, faster road building, faster Terraforming. Etc etc. slightly faster actions.
- You could even have things to boost trade in their region like slightly faster horse-cart speed (say 125-150%) for friendly guilds in the lands they control.

High King could have the same but just higher percentages.

Although it would not want the buffs to be too much, which could result in a snowball effect where the rich get richer and eventually it would be impossible to dethrone. But TBH, i dont think this would happen in LiF as manpower/skill/knowledge is often more valuable than gold.

There are many possible slight benefits you could come up with to make Land Administration a core part of the game.

Image

Updated 17/09: I have been thinking about this a lot lately and I think a you would need to allow Lords to swear fealty/homage to another Lord or King. This would allow Kings to have many Lords (owners of a fort) under their monarchy.

If you didn't do this, 5 guilds would control the Land Income of the entire map, and this would be bad. I think a more vertical feudal hierarchy would be best apposed to a very flat feudal hierarchy. This would allow more guilds to be involved in the politics.

Kings/powerful Lords would be able to Tax their sworn Lords, just like a lord taxes the tenants in their fort area.

When a military outpost is assaulted and claimed, that link would be broken and the new Liege lord would not be forced to honour the homage/fealty that the previous lord had to a king/lord.



Image


Added 17/09: Private Claim Considerations


Private claims are always a hot topic, given that they are often used for two reasons. The first being as designed, for solo players, and the second being used as a grieving tool. I think personal claims could really shine under a land administration system.


Just like the rest of the claims, private claims would generate Land Income, not nearly as much as a guild claim but could still be significant income in large numbers.

Tax from private claims inside a guild claim would by default go to that guild (NOT the fort). Tax from private claims outside a guild zone would by default go to the fort UNLESS that claim has sworn fealty to a nearby guild in the same fort area.


But for it to work you need to protect the rights of a solo player whilst also allowing mechanisms to deal with troll/grief private claims.

I think an eviction notice system could work really well where a liege lord could mark a private claim for eviction (I.e. when its a grief claim). The owner of the claim would then have 1-2 weeks to remove there stuff and relocate. But how could this work for both?


Protection of solo player playstyle:

- For starters, its in the interest of the Liege Lord to have as many tenants as possible to increase income (directly or indirectly). True solo players/small groups would be welcomed. This is the first and most important protection.

- I think you could do things like allow buildings on private claims with an eviction notice to be "dismantled" where a lot of the more expensive materials are salvaged. I.e. Locks/Doors/Windows/Mortar or whatever it may be.

- You could also restrict how many tenants could be evicted per week to say one or two private claims.


Prevention of grief private claims:

- As soon as the private claim is marked for eviction, no one outside of the guild in control of the fort, can place a new private claim or monument in that general area for a couple of weeks (25 tiles or something). This would prevent griefers simply placing a new claim(s) over the clay pit right next to the evicted one. .



All the above mechanics are meant to protect the playstyle of a solo player while allowing guild to deal with griefing players/enemy guilds.

This system would truly create a proper feudal system, where each cog in the system would become important

Image


Added 17/09: Red v Orange v Green

(I know Private claims are currently not in Red Servers, but i think its still important to talk about them if they were encase they get brought back in in the United Server)

For Red Servers you could have little to no control over Taxes. how much a liege lord could tax a tenant. It might be a good idea to start with "No more than 50% Tax on Land Income, no more than 20% Trade Commission and no more than 50% Resource Outpost Tax" for red servers and see how it goes. If people want more or less, you could change. Or you could just have no restrictions on Red servers and see how it goes. The more restrictions you have the more you take away from sandbox politics.

Private Claims on Red Tiles - you can evict with 1 weeks notice.

For "Orange" - Telmun/Skjultland you could have slightly less extreme values - "No more than 40% Tax on Land Income, No more than 10% Trade, No more than 35% Outpost Tax.

Private Claims on Orange Tiles - you can evict with 2 weeks notice.

For "Green" - You could have "No more than 20% Tax on Land Income, No more than 5% Trade Commission, No more than 20% Outpost Tax.

Private Claims on Green Tiles - Green server private claims would probably need some extra protection.

Image



Summary


Why bother?

When a lot of people look at the map, they see all the claims, but overall it doesn't really mean anything. No one guild seems to have complete control of one area. Sure, some areas have lots of guilds with blue heraldry and some area have more yellow heraldry.

With the land management system above, you would be able to see visually the current extent of all kingdoms.

Plus it creates more sandbox politics. Vassals would actually function more like vassals. If they don't provide men for battle when asked, you increase there taxes. If you think your Liege-lord is not offering you fair terms, side with some who promises better terms.

You would not have to completely destroy peoples bases to have some control/influence over the guild. The fort/skirmish system could really open up the world for more small scale sandbox PvP.

Instead of Red v Blue, it could be many guilds fighting for the one of the five Crowns.


If you like this concept, vote for it here:
https://lifeisfeudal.com/Discussions/question/feedback-suggestion-land-control-military-outpost-and-coin-faucets-and-sinks



Image




3) Potential Coin Faucets and Sinks.


If you implemented the above system, where you are effectively flooding the economy with coin equivalent to the only major coin sink we have currently; monument maintenance. This would cause hyperinflation.

You might as well add a few more coin sinks while your at it and ill mention some possible ideas later on.


Image


Potential Coin Faucets

Including:
- Land Administration
- Skirmish Winnings
- Arena Winnings
- Sale to the Crown
- Native Loot


We know about Sale to the crown and Arena Winnings, but what could the others be?

Image

Land Administration

As discussed in the previous section, land administration could be a big coin faucet into the game. 25-50% of claim maintenance would probably be an rough estimate but this should probably be balanced to counter inflation/deflation by the developers. Trade commission is not really a faucet as the money is coming from players.

Image

Skirmish Winnings


I think it would be cool if, when undertaken in skirmishes mentioned above, that when you kill an enemy in their lands, you receive 1/100th of there weekly allocated land income (pre-tax). This would equate to a couple of silver per kill that would appear in your inventory.


This could further incentive skirmishes and sandbox PvP, which would be a great thing in my opnion.
Obviously, as this coin would be added into your inventory, if you died you would lose any coin you may have gained.

Image

Native Loot


The developers have suggested that they want to implement the Natives soon, and that they will drop loot. Not much is known if they will drop items or coin, or whether or not you can sell the loot to the crown (coin faucet/item sink) or whether they will only be valuable to players.

Image

Balance


You would want to make sure that you balance the coin faucets (inputs) in a way that you think would provide the most benefit/enjoyment to gameplay.

Each different type of coin faucet results from a different style of gameplay.

Players who want to PvP can do Skirmishes or the Arena.
Players who want to PvE can Sell to the Crown or kill Natives.
Players who want to play politics can attempt to make money out of it through Land Administration.
Players that want to do all of the above can.
Players that want to trade can make money by buying and selling from people that don't want to travel.
etc etc

However, this will only occur if there is balance. I cant imagine that many people enjoy making coin by Selling to the Crown. It is quite boring and time consuming (with current active playerbase)

You would want to incentive "fun" coin faucets such as;

- Land Administration = 40%
- Arena Winnings = 20%
- Native Loot = 20%
- Skirmishes = 10%
- Sell to the Crown = 10%


The developers would want to watch the numbers and see what the major faucets into the game are (say at the weekly level)


Image

Potential Coin Sinks

Currently the main coin sink is Claim Maintenance. There are many more possible sinks that i don't think would be a detriment to the game as a whole. These could include;

- Teleportation between servers fee.
- Central City Services
- Over-forging
- Buiding Upgrades - Storage/Convenience


Image

Teleportation between Servers

You could add a small fee such such as 1 silver - 1 gold to - 10 gold. This value could depend on inflation and be flexible.

Image

Central City Services

You could implement services such as;

- Gambling Minigame

Self explanatory

- Guild House Rentals

I think Bobik has mentioned this in the past, could be a good coin sink.

- Blacksmith - Item quality "Increaser" Service.

Similar to effect to Baromsag except is would cost a bucket load. Maybe along the lines of 10 gold to 100 gold per 1 increase in quality of a tool, weapon or armor. This is a bit of a controversial one but since its only in-game currency which you cannot buy with real money, its not pay to win. Let me know in the comments what you think about this one.

Image

Over-Forging

I'm not overly sure about this one, the old "every second enchant will break the item" trick....

Basically, you would have an option in professions to "over-clock" your items to be just the tiny bit better, but at the risk it will break the item. Just food for thought.

Image

Building Upgrades


I personally think this could be a massive coin sink that player would like. I basically ripped this idea from the WoW Bank system.

You could do things like "Upgrade Large Warehouse" to have more room.
Say the first time is 5000 extra storage for 10 Gold.
The second time is 5000 extra storage for 100 Gold.
The third time is 5000 extra storage for 500 Gold.

I.e. You pay exponentially more in-game currency as you continue upgrading buildings.

You would want to cap it at a certain amount i.e. 100000 or something like that.

You could apply this upgrade system to buildings such as;

- Warehouse - Pay for more storage
- Houses - Pay for more room slots
- Barns/Stables - Pay for more food capacity
- Keep - Pay for more rally points (not sure about this one)
- Create a log storage - Pay for more log storage


Image

IB Cost

Not overly sure about this one. IB's could also cost a small amount of coin.

To create a 50x50 IB Totem, part of the resources required to make would be 1 Gold Coin.

To create a 100x100 IB Totem, part of the resources required to make would be 2 Gold Coin.

The values are complete guesses and would need balancing.


Image


Considerations


- Basically, you would not want to implement the above Land Administration/Skirmishes/Military Forts without first creating more coin sinks and tweaking the coin faucets.

- You would also probably need to apply the system to a new world or soft wipe the current coin/resources/animals on current worlds for any chance of this to work.

- People may not like the more feudal based system. Although, in my opinion, it does allow for land control without having to lose your base/town/city which might be preferable.

- First couple of weeks would be a clusterf$#k. Alliances will war amongst themselves for top dog. It will be bloody.

- Would likely need a different implementation on green servers but could ultimately be quite similar without upsetting anyone.

- Alliances might just cover there areas with proxy T1-T2-T3 claims for the coin. Maybe the Land Income should also be based off the guild rating (as this already existing guild rating takes many different things into consideration) A empty guild with the minimum players would generate very low income.




Image

1. Feedback: Resource Outpost System

I am only going to talk about outposts as if their was only one server, and wont be talking about the exploitation of the system on Epiland. I will talk about;



a) The Capture Process

b) The Destruction Process


Image

So firstly,

The Capture process


Firstly, players should not be able to horse jump into a outpost area, outside of JH, and then log in during JH and claim the outpost instantly at 1 minute till JH ends. Im not sure if this is a bug or not.

Regardless of the time of the week, a player should be teleported off a outpost claim when they log in if they do not have access to the claim.


Furthermore, for outposts to act as true players hotspots , online defenders should be prompted when someone is attempting to capture our of their outposts. Sniping Outposts

Personally, i think the IB time could be integrated to alert defenders and make it a little bit more challenging/fun to capture a outpost. It should pop up at the top of any online defenders screen.

Image

Not sure how you would handle 13 different outposts being captured at one time under this system, maybe just have a it push down or have a toggle system switching between the timers. Just an Idea.


Image


The Destruction Process

I personally think that a outpost should become immune to damage for at least 1 or 2 weeks.

I.e. cannot take siege damage and the "Destroy" button should be disabled. This would give the original owners a chance to recapture a outpost.

The point of implementing outposts were to encourage hotspots of PvP activity.

The current system of ninja capture and delete is counterproductive to the original concept.


Image


What do you guys think?
Let me know if you have any questions.
Let me know if you think these are good ideas or bad ideas.

If you like this concept, vote for it here:
https://lifeisfeudal.com/Discussions/question/feedback-suggestion-land-control-military-outpost-and-coin-faucets-and-sinks
Last edited by SonofKitt on 03 Dec 2018, 22:21, edited 16 times in total.


Holdnes
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Dec 2017, 23:57

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Holdnes » 11 Sep 2018, 18:46

Too much text :(

Can you please make short text version for dumb PVP players like me.

User avatar
Monco
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Oct 2017, 19:33

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Monco » 11 Sep 2018, 18:54

Really good suggestions, the amount of work and thinking required is stunning, well done.

I think that a coin "wipe" or "semi-wipe" would be required tho to have the system working properly in the current worlds, since some guilds still have hundreds of thousands of gold coins from previous "easy coin making systems".


Jickman
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Dec 2017, 21:45

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Jickman » 11 Sep 2018, 19:08

they should fire Bobik and hire you bro, he doesnt do anything for the community anyways just for the "chosen" ones…. GJ btw.


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by SonofKitt » 11 Sep 2018, 19:16

Holdnes,

For just the PvP aspect.

1. Introduce Land Income/Skirmish Loot as a major source of coin input into the game (instead of people grinding it through Sell to the Crown) and add some more coin sinks.

2. People fight over the proposed Military Forts for Land Income/Territory - both daily and during Judgement Hours

(In Theory)

Jickman,

Hes a busy man, he would be doing a lot more than you might expect!

User avatar
WestArcher
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 02 Jul 2016, 17:04

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by WestArcher » 12 Sep 2018, 02:49

Consider this as far as coin sinks go.
What if IBs were free ie: Declaring a battle doesn't cost anything but each signup cost the attacking guild gold coins

Granted some systems will be required to reduce exploiting this in the form of flooding the list with IB events.

User avatar
Cosimo
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 140
Joined: 02 Jan 2016, 13:40

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Cosimo » 12 Sep 2018, 07:06

Fantastic ideas! This could make the game great again!

User avatar
RetroLogi
 
Posts: 137
Joined: 29 Dec 2014, 15:49
Location: Italia

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by RetroLogi » 12 Sep 2018, 08:55

Oh great suggestions, this is what was expected for an Medieval MMO!
This is "life is FEUDAL"!


Neacail
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 10 May 2016, 13:54

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Neacail » 12 Sep 2018, 11:56

I think this would be a great way to introduce more complexity to the end gameplay for the big guilds without overtly effecting the small group dynamics.

It would really get the juices flowing for those who are keen on the nation building and 'high king' aspects of the allied kingdoms which already exist.

awesome job Kitt!


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 12 Sep 2018, 11:59

Man your really not taking Half Measures when doing Suggestions do you.

Albeit I would really Wish you would make Several Suggestions instead of Grouping them together like this.
It would make it far easier to respond. Because then I could just Agree or Disagree with the Entire Suggestion.

1.
Outpost:

Capturing.
I think similar.
I suggested to simply make some sort of Mini IB to Conquer Outposts.
It would be Set like 2 Hours before the JH and make the Outpost Vulnearble during the JH.
Thus allowing the Defender to actually have People there and preventing the current Ninja Capturing of Undefended Outposts.

I also Agree that the Capture Process should be a Timer taking some Minutes instead of an Immediate Capture.


Destroying.
My Personal Idea would be to just Block the "Destruction" Skill for Outposts entirely and make them Invulnearble outside of JH.
Meaning that if you want to Destroy it. You have to actually bother bringing the Siege Torches and Destroy it during JH.
Not being able to just Delete it at will unless your Original Owner who Build it.

Because yes.
Right now Outposts are not much of an PvP Hotspot.
To begin with currently the Attacker always has an overwhelmingly Advantage because the Attacker can 3 Days prior to the Action already tell his Members to be there on that specific JH to launch an Attack.
While the Defender only gets Notified when the Attack has already Started.
Posing an Tremendous Disadvantage for the Defender who most of the Time is not just Inferior in Numbers as he couldnt call any Members in but also ends up Fighting his own Fortifications because the Outpost is already in Enemy Hands by the Time he arrives.

The Attacker then just Deleting the Outpost is not even Surprising because they know exactly that they cant hold it anyways.



2.
I Disagree.

A.
We already got way too much Money. We Seriously dont need Additional Money Trees that Produce tons of Free Money.
B.
I dont know if your intending to make it the Regular Influenze Zone or just didnt have a different Name for it.
But the current Influenze Zones allow Destruction of Private Claims and Stuff.
Which would totally end up abused by Guilds to Massacre New Players and go RPK instead of actually Fighting other Guilds.
C.
The System is very Biased towards Older Players.
Its a Typical Case where New Players will never get a Foot in the Door once Established. Thus this basicly ending up a Tool which will just mean that one of the Big Old Guilds will Terrorize others and get Free Money all the time.

If it was an RED Server Only System I might possibly Agree.
Albeit even then I dont think it would work as you Intend it to work.

Players are simply not as rational as a System like that would require them to be.
They tend to abuse and use anything they can.
And your System relies heavily on Players wielding a Tremendous Power and being Responsible with it.
Which is just never going to happen.



3.
Faucets.

Land Administration.
As Stated above I Disagree.

Skirmishes.
I Disagree on this as well.
I dont think there should be Magic Money Teleports just because you Killed some Member of a Guild.
To begin with we got far too much Money in the Game.
We dont need more Money Production Seriously...

Native Loot.
I will wait with that till we actually know more about it.
Its not really at a stage where we can even make an Educated Guess on what the Devs are Planning there.



4.
Money Sinks.

Server Change.
I Agree there should be a Ferry Fee here.
I mean your Shipped to another Island.
So it should cost something.
I also think that to Ship to another Server one should be Required to go to the Capital City Port.

Central City Services.
I agree and would actually even go Further with it.
As I have Stated many times in the Past.
I think the Central City should become an Actual City.
Offering Services and Shops.
Shops should of course never have the Top Grade Items.
But should have a Changing Inventory of Normal Stuff for Sale.
Thus making sure that Money has some Baseline Value.
Because you can always Buy some stuff from the NPC City for the Money.
Thus making sure that Inflation doesnt run Rampant like currently.

Overforging.
I dont see how thats a Coin Sink.
But I agree that we should have some more Effect on Crafting our Stuff.
There should be a Chance of Failure depending on our Skills.
And what would be Nice would be if we could influence how the Equipment is.
For example on a Sword we could get an Option to make it Thinner and thus Sharper having higher Damage but it would Reduce the Durability because the Blade would be easier to Break.
In the other Direction we could make it Thicker. The Blade would get a Blunt Damage Modifier but a Reduced Blade Damage. It would be more Durable as its Harder to Break as well.

Building Upgrades.
On this One No.
I do think that we should get Building Upgrades.
But these should be stuff that People can Build Normally.
No Magic Power Ups for Buildings Pls.
Building Upgrades should be something that can be done to Buildings to Improve them. But it should simply cost more Rare Materials etc and be normal Building Process.
Not something Bought with Money.

Totems.
Dont they already Cost quite a bit of Money ?
I never used one.
But I always tought they were pretty expensive.
At least I saw alot of the PvP Guilds Cry about that.


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by SonofKitt » 12 Sep 2018, 12:11

Sunleader,

I kind of had to talk about coin sinks in the same post as the main topic proposed a new coin faucet. It wouldnt have made any sense without talking about faucets/sinks, people would pick the post apart. Consider yourself lucky, i was going to include a 3rd topic on new player experience/guild recruitment system.

With regards to there being to much coin already in the market, i agree that there is probably a bit too much money floating arround from when we used to be able to sell gold/silver to the crown. This post is more aimed at the new server; a soft wipe of coin/resources/animals/items would likely be required on existing servers. However, you cant disregard a possibly better alternative because of the past failures of an imperfect system.

One of the problems with "Sell to the Crown" and "Arena winnings" is that you can do both activitys and make 100s of gold everyweek even, its almost infinite, and a 1000 players could 10000+ gold a week if they tried. However, Land Admin wouldnt be like that, it would be fixed for the most part with changes only when claim appear/dissapear/upgrade/downgrade.

Every week a T4 monument uses 2 gold 40 silver (approx depending on how many buildings you got). That means each week, there would be a FIXED amount of coin coming into the market.

What im suggesting is to reduce the coin rewards from arena and sell to the crown. Those forms of income should be a backup plan IMO. That should be worth while but you shouldnt be able to sell 1000 staves to the crown and make 100g in a day/week.


As i said in the original post, military outposts would have seperate type of claim and have seperate rules to every other type of claim.

In relation to being "biased towards older players". Honestly, i think that depends on the players. Atm new players have very little chance. But a lot of old guilds dont have the same numbers as they used too, some new fresh guilds with 10-20 active players could take a military outpost in one week and instantly no longer be a new guild. I think this system would benefit active players, not necessarily old players. Just my opinion, i can only try and predict the future.

If you wanna chat more about it sunleader, my discord is Isi Kitt#6266 send me a message.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 13 Sep 2018, 11:58

SonofKitt wrote:Sunleader,

I kind of had to talk about coin sinks in the same post as the main topic proposed a new coin faucet. It wouldnt have made any sense without talking about faucets/sinks, people would pick the post apart. Consider yourself lucky, i was going to include a 3rd topic on new player experience/guild recruitment system.

With regards to there being to much coin already in the market, i agree that there is probably a bit too much money floating arround from when we used to be able to sell gold/silver to the crown. This post is more aimed at the new server; a soft wipe of coin/resources/animals/items would likely be required on existing servers. However, you cant disregard a possibly better alternative because of the past failures of an imperfect system.

One of the problems with "Sell to the Crown" and "Arena winnings" is that you can do both activitys and make 100s of gold everyweek even, its almost infinite, and a 1000 players could 10000+ gold a week if they tried. However, Land Admin wouldnt be like that, it would be fixed for the most part with changes only when claim appear/dissapear/upgrade/downgrade.

Every week a T4 monument uses 2 gold 40 silver (approx depending on how many buildings you got). That means each week, there would be a FIXED amount of coin coming into the market.

What im suggesting is to reduce the coin rewards from arena and sell to the crown. Those forms of income should be a backup plan IMO. That should be worth while but you shouldnt be able to sell 1000 staves to the crown and make 100g in a day/week.


As i said in the original post, military outposts would have seperate type of claim and have seperate rules to every other type of claim.

In relation to being "biased towards older players". Honestly, i think that depends on the players. Atm new players have very little chance. But a lot of old guilds dont have the same numbers as they used too, some new fresh guilds with 10-20 active players could take a military outpost in one week and instantly no longer be a new guild. I think this system would benefit active players, not necessarily old players. Just my opinion, i can only try and predict the future.

If you wanna chat more about it sunleader, my discord is Isi Kitt#6266 send me a message.


Uff.

1.
No.
Seriously No to that one.

A Wipe is not going to Happen.
A Soft Wipe at this Stage of the Game would be Equal to Shutting down Servers. You would Instantly Kill the Game.

Because while its True that alot of the Money is Left Over from Selling Gold and Silver Jewelry.

Alot of the Money is also simply Money Farmed fro by Hard Work of People who Spend Hours and Hours to Earn it.

And Regardless of where this Money Comes from.
Tons of People would Lose something they have Worked for for Weeks and Months.

I can Guarantee you.
If a Soft Wipe happened currently. I would be out of the Game Immediately.
I would barely lose 25 Gold and I never Sold a Single Piece of Jewelry.
But I worked Hard for these 25 Gold Coins and I would feel Insanely Frustrated and never Log into the Game again.

And I doubt I am the only one Feeling like that.
A Wipe in an MMO is a Guaranteed Way to Lose Tons of Players.
Its not something you can do just to Enter a New System.


2.
The Importand Difference is Mate.
Unlike your System.
This Money from Winning in the Arena and Selling to the Crown.
Is Money which People actually Earned for their Playing.

Its not Something they got just because they are the Oldest Guild Sitting in Control of a Fortress.

And Hell. Reducing the Other Gains would be Even Worse.
Because it would mean that you give even Less Money to the Players which ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING FOR IT.
And Instead give it to the Old Established Guild Sitting on that Fortress for Doing Nothing.

That would be a Death Penalty for every Smaller Group.
Because they would become unable to Sustain themselves.


3.
The Problem is not the Current Situation when your System Enters.
But the System One Year after you System is Implemented.

Such an Military Outpost must be Constructed First.
So Right now no Guild would Count as an Old Guild.
But in 3-4 Months that would be Different.
You would have Outposts Build and Fortified and these would be in the Hands of some Guilds.
And everyone coming after that can basicly Bend Over and Kiss his *** Goodbye cause he will never be in a Position to do anything about that unless he Joins one of these Older Guilds in Control.

Needless to say.
As Smaller Groups will never ever have a Hand in that and will on Top have Reduced Income from other Sources they will have Trouble Staying Afloat.
Making it even harder for them to get anywhere in the Game.



You can Try and Predict the Future.
But the Prediction is not so much what Matters.
You dont need to know if its Exactly how one Says etc.


But if we Check this by a few Points you can See the Direction this Takes.

A.
This System makes it much Harder for New Players to get anywhere because your Reducing their Income and on Top have the Big Income Source only available to the Large Guilds.
B.
This System Reduces Money from actual Work of the Players and Adds Free Income from an Outside Source.
C.
This System creates an Overwhelming Advantage for the Holder of an Outpost as he gets Stronger each Week he Holds it.
And others that want to Take it are at the same Time Disadvantaged by lower Gains.
Meaning that Outposts are lots of times more likely to be Taken by People that have Outposts than by anyone who doesnt have Outposts yet.
D.
A Soft Wipe is always a Terrible Idea in a Game Running more than a 1 or 2 Months.
It Destroys Players Assets and Causes Insane Frustration to Tons of Players which is always a Guaranteed Player Loss.
So a System that Requires a Wipe of any Sort is seriously never a Good Idea.


I cant tell you the Future Either.
But what I can tell is that the Direction of this is not Pointing at anything where I would want to be with this Game.

This is my Opinion of Course. And especially among the Hardcore PvP Players there is a General Opinion that there should be no Smaller Groups or Solo Players and that everyone should be Forced to Join one of the Big Established Guilds instead.
Suggesting that Smaller Groups and New Players SHOULD BE Disadvantaged Heavily on purpose.

But my Opinion is in General that I would like to See More Players Playing this Game.
And while I can only make Guesses at the Exact Future Resulting from your System of Territorial Control.
I can with absolute Certainity Say that this System will Reduce Players rather than Increase them.


Also. I prefer the Forums.
I barely ever use Discord if I dont absolutely Must.
And its in this case more Beneficial to Discuss this in the Forums.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 13 Sep 2018, 18:07

On a Sidenote.
Let me Request that you make Clear in the Suggestion that the Influence Zone is not Intended to work like the Influence Zone of a Guild Monument.
And thus does not Allow you to Destroy everything during JH.
Because I already See alot of the Hardcore PvPers and RPKs Jumping around Excited thinking that this Suggestion is basicly creating an All you can Kill Buffet on the Smaller Groups and Solo Players for them.




Ok.
After some Tought.


There is basicly 2 Big Problems with your Suggestion.


1.
It would be Incredible Biased towards the Older Guilds.
Making it almost Impossible for Newer Guilds to get into it.

2.
It would Create another Money Source which is Simply not really a Good Choice for the Game in General.



These 2 need to be Addressed for this to Work.
Now pls note the following is just a Makeshift Suggestion on me.
And I encourage you to maybe think about how to address it yourself.
I know its always hard to Revise something you put much effort into.
Which is why Critics and Quality Assessment should never be done by yourself or by People directly profitting from your Suggestion.
But Bear with me on it.



1.
Allowing newer Guilds to Enter the System and Preventing an Overly Powerful Older Guild from Controlling everything can be done by adding a Simple catch to your System.


Make the Influence Area of an Military Outpost Contestable by other Military Outposts.
So if an Outpost has an Influence Range of 1000. Tiles
You could Still Build another Military Outpost 500 Tiles Away.
This Outpost would then Contest the other Outpost.
Meaning that neither of the Two Outposts gets any Taxes from the Crossover Area until either of them is Destroyed.


This would make sure that a Guild actually needs the Offensive Power to Conquer Enemy Outposts to Really Dominate the Area.
And cant just hide behind Walls because they were First in the Area.

It would also give New Groups an Option to Challenge Control of an Area without being Forced to Assault the Walls of an Fully Fortified Outpost. And thus being unable to take away Control from an Older Guild that is in Fact Weaker than they are but which

And Finally it would also make sure that a Guild actually needs the Amount of Active Members to Control the Area that they want to Rule.
Because if they cannot even Survey the Area they Rule over on a Regular Basis they will end up Facing a Fortified Base on their Doorstep.
Thus making sure that we dont end up with old Inactive Guilds just Sitting behind their Defences and Ruling over Land which they have long lost the ability to even Survey Properly.



2.
Instead of Taxes and Coins.
How about Granting another Reward for Holding Outposts.
You already Suggested some Bonusses like the Controlling Guild getting Improved Outpost Production in their Controlled Area.
I would in Fact take this a Step Further and Instead of Taxing Money of the Guild Monuments.
Tax the Production of other Guilds Outposts.
The Guild currently Ruling an Area could receive a Tax Income of every Outpost Production in that Area.
The Tax would be Delivered to the Closest Fort Controlling the Area.
This would actually make Controlling the Land very Worthwhile because you get some Regional and Rare Ressources this way.
Which are Arguably worth more than mere Money to the Guilds.

This would kill 2 Flies with one Stroke.
It would not add any Additional Money into the already Flooded Economy.
And it would at the same Time also give Larger Guilds a Reason to actually not Pick out other Guilds in their Area.
As allowing these Guilds regardless of which of them owns an Outpost would actually benefit the Ruling Guild.
Giving them a Reason to encourage Other Guilds being Around as that way they can Focus on Protecting the Fort and still get Outpost Production.


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by SonofKitt » 13 Sep 2018, 19:39

Hi Sunleader,


Well, i must say, i agree with 85% of your last reply.

Let me Request that you make Clear in the Suggestion that the Influence Zone is not Intended to work like the Influence Zone of a Guild Monument.


I thought it did, i will try make it more clear for non-native english speakers/readers out there.

It would create another Money Source which is Simply not really a Good Choice for the Game in General.


Without balance, yes. With balance i don't think there will be any issues, it might even help reduce hyperinflation.

Allowing newer Guilds to Enter the System and Preventing an Overly Powerful Older Guild from Controlling everything can be done by adding a Simple catch to your System.

Make the Influence Area of an Military Outpost Contestable by other Military Outposts.
So if an Outpost has an Influence Range of 1000. Tiles
You could Still Build another Military Outpost 500 Tiles Away.
This Outpost would then Contest the other Outpost.


Agreed.
It would also make sure 100% of the map was covered. I actually had the thought yesterday and updated it to include "On second thoughts, 1000 radius with 750 between would allow for minimum gaps. " It would also work as you suggested as well.


Meaning that neither of the Two Outposts gets any Taxes from the Crossover Area until either of them is Destroyed.


Its a nice idea, but big guilds are more likely to exploit this than lesser guilds. Say they initially controlled the two outposts which overlapped and covered their main claim. One gets taken, but as they still have the other they still are unaffected until they lose both.

This would make sure that a Guild actually needs the Offensive Power to Conquer Enemy Outposts to Really Dominate the Area. And cant just hide behind Walls because they were First in the Area.


My guild was 150+ different players, now we have 2-3 active players and that's mostly just paying the rent on our 6 claims. New players still fear us because of our numbers on the guild leader board. They shouldn't. I think new players will be more bold with military outposts than they are currently with IB'n a guild, and having more numbers is more important than "being in a old guild". Plus to IB a guild you need to be able to make totems, a bunch of noobs with primitive axes could try take a military post. They will likely be unsuccessful but they still have a chance.


How about Granting another Reward for Holding Outposts.
You already Suggested some Bonusses like the Controlling Guild getting Improved Outpost Production in their Controlled Area.
I would in Fact take this a Step Further and Instead of Taxing Money of the Guild Monuments. Tax the Production of other Guilds Outposts.


Agreed, if you look at the far right of the picture below, i have suggested possible taxing of "outpost resource tax".

Image


I have been thinking a bit about how the system could differ for Red, "Orange" and Green.

I think one thing you could do is to limit how much tax that you can impose on the mysterious "Orange" and Green servers.

On Green servers you could limit;
- Land tax - tax limited to max 20% I.e. every guild would get at least 80% of their Land Income.
- Trade Commission - tax limited to a max of 10%
- Outpost Production - tax limited to a max of 25%

You don't really need to put a cap on Outposts, because the more you tax a guild on their outpost production, the less likely they are to put 5 slaves into it. If you took 100% they would take all the slaves out so it would produce the minimum. Even if you taxed 50% guild would probably just remove all 5 slaves. id say guild would only keep five slaves in their if they were only taxed like less than 20%. But anyway, on green you could put a 25% max tax on outposts.

On "Orange" servers you could limit;
- Land tax - tax limited to max 50% I.e. every guild would get at least 50% of their Land Income.
- Trade Commission - tax limited to max 15%
- Outpost Production - tax limited to max 30%




Regarding your previous post relating to soft wipe.

people only use Gold now to pay for their claims.. its not used for trade as people just trade swap regional's if they trade anything at all.

So if you give them a better means to pay for their claim then they will be relived to have a easier way to make 80% of their weekly maintenance. (In your case in the Green world)

People do care about their buildings, their crafting stations, their Vos Steel Tools, their terraforming and their skills. This is what 90% of people time/effort has gone into. These should definitely NOT be wiped.



But overall, we have finally agreed on some things.

(Also, I generally want the best for every play style when i make these posts. I'm not a hardcore "pker" or a hardcore "roleplayer" im centre feild - I try provide suggestions that will cater to all and make the game more enjoyable for all, and population is important to achieving this in this game)


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 13 Sep 2018, 20:57

SonofKitt wrote:Hi Sunleader,


Well, i must say, i agree with 85% of your last reply.

Let me Request that you make Clear in the Suggestion that the Influence Zone is not Intended to work like the Influence Zone of a Guild Monument.


I thought it did, i will try make it more clear for non-native english speakers/readers out there.

It would create another Money Source which is Simply not really a Good Choice for the Game in General.


Without balance, yes. With balance i don't think there will be any issues, it might even help reduce hyperinflation.

Allowing newer Guilds to Enter the System and Preventing an Overly Powerful Older Guild from Controlling everything can be done by adding a Simple catch to your System.

Make the Influence Area of an Military Outpost Contestable by other Military Outposts.
So if an Outpost has an Influence Range of 1000. Tiles
You could Still Build another Military Outpost 500 Tiles Away.
This Outpost would then Contest the other Outpost.


Agreed.
It would also make sure 100% of the map was covered. I actually had the thought yesterday and updated it to include "On second thoughts, 1000 radius with 750 between would allow for minimum gaps. " It would also work as you suggested as well.


Meaning that neither of the Two Outposts gets any Taxes from the Crossover Area until either of them is Destroyed.


Its a nice idea, but big guilds are more likely to exploit this than lesser guilds. Say they initially controlled the two outposts which overlapped and covered their main claim. One gets taken, but as they still have the other they still are unaffected until they lose both.

This would make sure that a Guild actually needs the Offensive Power to Conquer Enemy Outposts to Really Dominate the Area. And cant just hide behind Walls because they were First in the Area.


My guild was 150+ different players, now we have 2-3 active players and that's mostly just paying the rent on our 6 claims. New players still fear us because of our numbers on the guild leader board. They shouldn't. I think new players will be more bold with military outposts than they are currently with IB'n a guild, and having more numbers is more important than "being in a old guild". Plus to IB a guild you need to be able to make totems, a bunch of noobs with primitive axes could try take a military post. They will likely be unsuccessful but they still have a chance.


How about Granting another Reward for Holding Outposts.
You already Suggested some Bonusses like the Controlling Guild getting Improved Outpost Production in their Controlled Area.
I would in Fact take this a Step Further and Instead of Taxing Money of the Guild Monuments. Tax the Production of other Guilds Outposts.


Agreed, if you look at the far right of the picture below, i have suggested possible taxing of "outpost resource tax".

Image


I have been thinking a bit about how the system could differ for Red, "Orange" and Green.

I think one thing you could do is to limit how much tax that you can impose on the mysterious "Orange" and Green servers.

On Green servers you could limit;
- Land tax - tax limited to max 20% I.e. every guild would get at least 80% of their Land Income.
- Trade Commission - tax limited to a max of 10%
- Outpost Production - tax limited to a max of 25%

You don't really need to put a cap on Outposts, because the more you tax a guild on their outpost production, the less likely they are to put 5 slaves into it. If you took 100% they would take all the slaves out so it would produce the minimum. Even if you taxed 50% guild would probably just remove all 5 slaves. id say guild would only keep five slaves in their if they were only taxed like less than 20%. But anyway, on green you could put a 25% max tax on outposts.

On "Orange" servers you could limit;
- Land tax - tax limited to max 50% I.e. every guild would get at least 50% of their Land Income.
- Trade Commission - tax limited to max 15%
- Outpost Production - tax limited to max 30%




Regarding your previous post relating to soft wipe.

people only use Gold now to pay for their claims.. its not used for trade as people just trade swap regional's if they trade anything at all.

So if you give them a better means to pay for their claim then they will be relived to have a easier way to make 80% of their weekly maintenance. (In your case in the Green world)

People do care about their buildings, their crafting stations, their Vos Steel Tools, their terraforming and their skills. This is what 90% of people time/effort has gone into. These should definitely NOT be wiped.



But overall, we have finally agreed on some things.

(Also, I generally want the best for every play style when i make these posts. I'm not a hardcore "pker" or a hardcore "roleplayer" im centre feild - I try provide suggestions that will cater to all and make the game more enjoyable for all, and population is important to achieving this in this game)



Which means the remaining Disagreement is about this becoming a Source of Money which I dont think is a Good Idea.

And the Softwipe for that to work.



On that I actually need to set something absolutely straight.
FOR YOU. It might be that Gold is just used to Finance your Claim.

But this is not the Case for smaller Groups and Soloers like me.
We from the get go are already required to Trade.

We dont have the Skillpoints among our small groups to have every skill maxed.
So we either lack certain things entirely or at least lack them in higher Quality.

We in Fact need to Buy things. So to us this Gold is far more than just Claim Maintenance.
And even now its already hard for us to even get the Money for such stuff.

Your System would make Money even more abundant for Larger Guilds causing them to have even less reason to sell stuff.
And make it even harder for us smaller groups to get by :)

25 Gold that I Managed to Pile Up as sruplus after Buying stuff and paying for claims etc means roughly 200 Hours of Gametime.

Do you think I would Continue Playing if the Devs just threw 200 hours of my Time to the Trashbin ? :)


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by SonofKitt » 13 Sep 2018, 21:23

Again, this post is mainly focused for the upcoming combined map that was talked about in the AMA (were the inspiration came from).

I merely said it could ALSO be applied to the current/old servers.

Many suggested that it could only work if the old servers were soft wiped. I personally think it wouldn't need a soft wipe, it would just talk longer to work.

I have spent 1000s of hours enjoying the game. I would give up all the things I have worked hard for during those 1000s of hours if i meant the game was improved. Why? so that I could enjoy it for many more 1000s of hours.

BUT lets not forget, that the developers have said multiple times that they will NEVER wipe the servers so i wouldn't worry about this happening anyway.

Do you think I would Continue Playing if the Devs just threw 200 hours of my Time to the Trashbin ?


Maybe i should push harder for a wipe of Skjultland only? :ROFL:


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 13 Sep 2018, 22:23

SonofKitt wrote:Again, this post is mainly focused for the upcoming combined map that was talked about in the AMA (were the inspiration came from).

I merely said it could ALSO be applied to the current/old servers.

Many suggested that it could only work if the old servers were soft wiped. I personally think it wouldn't need a soft wipe, it would just talk longer to work.

I have spent 1000s of hours enjoying the game. I would give up all the things I have worked hard for during those 1000s of hours if i meant the game was improved. Why? so that I could enjoy it for many more 1000s of hours.

BUT lets not forget, that the developers have said multiple times that they will NEVER wipe the servers so i wouldn't worry about this happening anyway.

Do you think I would Continue Playing if the Devs just threw 200 hours of my Time to the Trashbin ?


Maybe i should push harder for a wipe of Skjultland only? :ROFL:


Your the one who bought up the Wipe.
Just telling you its gonna cost tons of players to do it.

I think that the System wont work even if we wiped.
Reason being that it creates a Free Money Tree for Large Guilds thus devaluing M8ney even further while at the same time making it harder for small groups to get money they need.



People in these Forums are mostly the Old Guard from before the Game was even public on Steam.
And many still follow that old idea that the Game should force everyone into a large Guild and not caring if smaller groups or Soloers can play the Game.

But even back then I already told people here that this can never work.
Groups above 20 people tend to break apart within 5-6 Months because people just dont actually know each other.
People usually only talk to like 3-5 others and know maybe 10-15 others.
The rest they simply dont care about.

And here is an Importand Catch.
With 10-20 People a Guild can Run fairly Stable as you got a Core of 3-6 People which are Spread onto 2-3 Groups of Friends.
They will stick together and make it unlikely that the others leave or break apart.

But with 50 People thats not the Case.
The Core is already Split into 3-4 Groups and other Groups only associate with but one of these often not really knowing the others.
Many Groups due to this are disconnected entirely just working on their own.
Hence the Guild will Break Apart after Short time


And it doesnt end there.
Most New Players go Solo or with 1 or 2 Friends.
If the Game doesnt work properly with that they will leave before ever Joining a Guild.

Thats why its very Importand for a Game to be Friendly for Soloers and Small Groups.
Otherwise you just dont get new Players to stick around.



Your System as good as it might be for Larger Guilds with old Established Players.
Would Severely hinder Smaller Groups and Soloers and thus also new Player Influx.


Nate884
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 15:01

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Nate884 » 13 Sep 2018, 22:34

As always, very well thought out and practical. Thank you.

Overall I think they are excellent suggestions and I hope they are taken into consideration.

I feel that is where the game is currently lacking in it's development but can progressively achieve with work that has been done and with many of yours and others excellent trade and now land management suggestions.

I personally am a more or less solo player, but would gladly pay taxes and serve a kingdom of some sort.

I really like the idea of the military outpost and the large influence zone. That was basically the concept of the norman castle: a military outpost to control the lands around it and collect taxes. the network of castles is what gave the lord his control and influence. A strong monarch, in turn, controlled the lords and received revenue from them, while the individual nobles could even war among themselves or break away from their monarch if they became strong enough.

It's the essence of the Feudal period, and while it would take some work, with these and other fine suggestions, I could see a measure of it being finally accomplished in this game.

I would truly like to see development take a turn to this infrastructure and political aspect. With it would come the pvp, players, sense of accomplishment and endgame, trade and need for coin and alliances, and a place for all play styles (solo and pve'rs can farm and craft and trade and pay taxes to fuel the war machine that gives them money and safety, pvp'rs can have real results and income and gain, and a whole army of serfs to do the grind they dont want to do while they fight, and they'll have the coin to pay for it all because they're the nobles receiving all the land income)

Cheers and thanks again :beer:


Khroma
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 11:41

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Khroma » 14 Sep 2018, 14:00

Nice post, i love the idea of vassal system being a more important part of the gameplay.

Maybe to help new player, any T1 under forts influence radius couldnt be destroyed by guild totems if this is still a thing.
If not, it would be nice to give a bonus in protection of some kind for new players, this would incentive new player to be vassal. One of the main concern of new player is being protected, specially if they are new to the game and dont know how to protect themselve.
Cant be sieged if inside friendly fort influence ? So you would need to take the fort before being able to put siege totem and destroy cities.

It would make sense as the vassal being protected by their lord under his influence.
This would help every type of player, and create a kind of cohesion since the fort give money and protect everyone from total annihilation.
Last edited by Khroma on 14 Sep 2018, 14:33, edited 1 time in total.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 14 Sep 2018, 14:32

Khroma wrote:Nice post, i love the idea of vassal system being a more important part of the gameplay.

Maybe to help new player, any T1 under forts influence radius couldnt be destroyed by guild totems if this is still a thing.
If not, it would be nice to give a bonus in protection of some kind for new players, this would incentive new player to be vassal.
Cant be sieged if inside friendly fort influence ? So you would need to take the fort before being able to destroy cities.

It would make sense as the vassal being protected by their lord under his influence.
This would help every type of player, and create a kind of cohesion since the fort give money and protect everyone from total annihilation.


Totems cannot Destroy T1 Guild Monuments.
They cannot be used against T1 Monuments if I remember right.

Guild Monuments above T1 can be Downgraded to T1 by Winning enough IBs on it.
And then a T1 Monument can be Attacked either on a Red Server during any JH or on a Green Server if another Guild has your Guild Monument inside its Influence Radius during JH or by getting Derelicted (Inactive or Declaring Tons of Wars on everyone)


Khroma
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 11:41

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Khroma » 14 Sep 2018, 14:33

OH so they removed the siege totem mechanics ?

Anyway my idea was that you couldn t destroy T1 city if inside friendly fort influence.
This would add a layer of protection for new player or small guilds.
Last edited by Khroma on 14 Sep 2018, 14:35, edited 1 time in total.


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by SonofKitt » 14 Sep 2018, 14:35

The siege totem mechanic has been not be implemented.

It would make sense as the vassal being protected by their lord under his influence.
This would help every type of player, and create a kind of cohesion since the fort give money and protect everyone from total annihilation.


That's part of the idea, and i would envision this being the case 90% of the time. Everyone under the military fort must band together. If they lose, they must make the decision whether they are diplomatic with their new liege lords or whether they take the financial risk and try to undermine them. Its just one scenario out of many possible sandbox player driven possibilities.


Khroma
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 11:41

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Khroma » 14 Sep 2018, 14:55

Speaking on red server / mono server ( no transfer, like it used to be )

You could even make that inside the fort influence, personal claim can be placed and every taxes from the personal claim goes directly to the lord / liege who control the fort influence.

Solo player can only build on their claim size and the cost increase the more size it gets ( like current personal claim on green ).

The main guild controlling the fort and its influence got all the right on the personal claim totem on it, so you can destroy them if you need or want to.
So if you take the fort of an enemy you can attack any personal claim on it or keep them for income.
If a lord is not happy of someone he can just destroy his claim and his possession, or force him to relocate somewhere else.


This would incentive solo player to be close to big guilds, while giving both the big guild and the new/solo player a benefit.
New/solo player get protection without having the need to be in a guild, and the big guild get income.

You can make that the income from personal claim is splitted amongst all guild under fort influence according to their guild size.

Or you could make it a like an income gestion system, guild claim taxe are send to the crown, while personal claim taxe are sent to the liege, the liege can reduce guild claim taxe from other guild by using taxes from the personal claim to make up the difference, or make personnal claim free by reducing the taxes to 0% ( this would definitively attract more player and you can raise them back after :p ).
The best would probably be a mix of your system and the personal claim taxes as bonus to even more reduce guild claim cost or give liege more money or reduce taxes of personnal claim.
You could also make that fort influence zone on the map display personal claim taxe % so new people can try to figure out where they want to instal their house.

This would be an even more realistic feudal system, and help every type of player, while creating PvP even more, since personal claim even if the possession on it cant be destroyed ( atleast out of JH ), they can hardly be defended effectively so you can attack the poor players living around it.
If you have played bandit character you know that server 25 is where the fun is, atleast it was before server color split.

That s still a rough idea but i think it could improve your system while benefiting new player / solo player and create even more interaction, cohesion, politics etc ...


Khroma
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 11:41

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Khroma » 14 Sep 2018, 17:16

I wanted to add, that personal claim management from lord or wathever title could fit in with a good economic system like explained in the other topic of Kitt.

One issue Sunleader mentionned is that solo / small grp of player actually need more money since they need to trade to have stuff they cant craft while big guild dont.
This is one of the major issue in the game, and that is why a good economic system should be put in place and big guild should need tons of money because they should have to trade to get better Q.

Example :
When in time of peace, lord can put personnal claim taxe as low as they can so they will attract the most new players they can.
But when in times of war they will want to raise it so they can get a really good income to buy a bunch of high Q ressource to get good gear for wars. This could become a part of the economic system as a whole.

So the more personnal claim they have around the more they can have income when they will really need it. But dont expect increasing income wont have consequences.

This game need to embrace the feudal simulation like it did with so many other aspect, the devs got the tools to make it happens as Kitt mentionned everything said in this posts can be done without too much developpement.
Going in split transfer world bs is only a bandage fix so the population dont leave, the game should be only 1 persistent world, or multiple one that you cant transfer from, and everyone from solo player to big guild should have its place in it.


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by SonofKitt » 14 Sep 2018, 19:01

I agree.

It would be great to bring personal claims back into red worlds (and possibly Sell to the Crown).

I think all those ideas are pretty great.

You would want to protect the property/items of the little guy.
The only way to "remove" personal claims would be to "Evict" the private claim. I.e. give them 1-2 weeks notice so they can gather up there valuables and leave. This way, if a military fort changes hands, then all the private claims cant just get raided/deleted.

One minor issues would be that with Premium Subscription private claims are free. I don't know what could be done to work in with this.

I think the Military outposts would also counter proxy grief personal claims.

Maybe ill update my post at some point this weekend. Also thinking of including some way that Liege Lords could serve a King or High King. Otherwise we will have 5 guild that will want to control all outposts.

I think it would be better if individual Lords could control 1-5 Forts and then be able to swear homage/fealty to a King or another Lord who wants to one day be a King/Queen. The King could then put taxes on there Lords. Again, as you say, greedy Kings will lose there Lords if they push them too far.

Food for thought.


Khroma
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 11:41

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Khroma » 14 Sep 2018, 20:50

Indeed give x days time notice for taxes changes and eviction would probably be a must to avoid some sort of griefing or extortion.
A simple way to implement this based on what the game already does would be to prevent personal claim to be payed, this will make them disapear after x days, so if you only pay day to day basis you could be evicted fast while if you pay for 7 days you wont be evicted before that.
If i remember correctly there was a limitation regarding your claim size and the amount of day you could pay in advance, so maybe normalize this and make 7 days max in advance and price is based on claim size.
In the same way changing taxes would apply directly but if you already payed 7 days it will only be effective for the next payement of your claim. Maybe it is too harsh i dont know, but it could be done with current game mechanic.
Taxes should probably have a limited number of change per x days. Like 1 change every 7 days maybe.

One minor issues would be that with Premium Subscription private claims are free. I don't know what could be done to work in with this.

Maybe it should be slightly changed, like removing the free base cost of the claim and only keep the base claim size taxe but you would have x bonus square from the premium which doesnt increase the base taxe of your claim.
So bigger claim for the minimum cost. Just an idea.

I think it would be better if individual Lords could control 1-5 Forts and then be able to swear homage/fealty to a King or another Lord who wants to one day be a King/Queen. The King could then put taxes on there Lords. Again, as you say, greedy Kings will lose there Lords if they push them too far.

Large scale feudal system would be really fun, i think with the alliance mechanics it could be done if you give it layers. Lord alliance and royal alliance. So any base guild can be inside a lord alliance with one of the guild being the lord guild, and multiple lord alliance can make a royal alliance ( so an alliance composed of multiple alliance wtf ) with one of the lord chosen as the king.
This would give lords more autonomy and responsability since they could leave the royal alliance but their choice concern all the guild they rules on. That would give insane politics possiblities.
Last edited by Khroma on 14 Sep 2018, 21:24, edited 1 time in total.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 14 Sep 2018, 21:23

I fear this wont happen.
The Problem is that this would be abused either way.

If Clans can Evict Peasants from their Land this would end Abused as they would be able to just Grief People at will.
And Players are unfortunately not exactly known to be Responsible in such things.

If Clans cannot Evict Peasants it will be abused by others to Claim Ressources and Block stuff again.
Which was why Private Claims where removed in the First Place.


So I really dont see this working in any way.


Khroma
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 11:41

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Khroma » 14 Sep 2018, 21:35

If Clans can Evict Peasants from their Land this would end Abused as they would be able to just Grief People at will.
And Players are unfortunately not exactly known to be Responsible in such things.

If they abuse peasants they wont have peasants. So they wont gain income from them. Seems pretty straight forward to me. But i agree the map should give indication of lords taxes, and maybe some sort of news should be broadcasted ( in medieval times there was yeller in city that gave news ) so people know where recent peasant have been evicted etc ... Each lord would have to make his own reputation.
Obviously this need to be balanced for it to be a win win situation.

If Clans cannot Evict Peasants it will be abused by others to Claim Ressources and Block stuff again.
Which was why Private Claims where removed in the First Place.

Yes they have to be able to evict, but time notice is indeed mandatory to prevent griefing.
I think personal claim should be done so the lord guild can still have some right over it to prevent claim trying to steal ressource or such. Like being able to destroy any wall, and maybe still being able to use terraformation, i dont know.
The problem with old personal claim is that they werent really being under some one else rule. Which is not the case with a feudal system.

It can indeed makes some issue, but i think it can be resolved with the right ideas.

A side note however, if you think people will abuse this, i agree, some people will try, but the system should be made so they can, but the consequence should apply. So either side should have the information and different choice for them regarding what they wish to do. Griefer and bandits guild should be part of the game, but the system should help new player make appropriate choice to find lord that can protect them and not exploit them, if lords got gains by doing so, i assure you a lot of people will play accordingly.
It needs to be a balanced win win situation to make it work, but if you dont try to make a base system and balance it via player feedback you will never achieve this balanced win win situation and the game will remain the same.

My main concern atm is the gain for lords is not really interesting since they dont need money due to a bad economy in the game atm. If the economy was working and lords needed money this would be easier to achieve a win win situation.
So as long as there is no real economy where every type of player is involved in, it will be harder and probably add unecessary complexity to make such system work ( like placebo bait and reward from the game and not the players ) which in the end hurt the developpement of the game, every system ( economy, politics, warfare etc ) should be intertwine between eachother as much as possible.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Sunleader » 15 Sep 2018, 01:58

Khroma wrote:
If Clans can Evict Peasants from their Land this would end Abused as they would be able to just Grief People at will.
And Players are unfortunately not exactly known to be Responsible in such things.

If they abuse peasants they wont have peasants. So they wont gain income from them. Seems pretty straight forward to me. But i agree the map should give indication of lords taxes, and maybe some sort of news should be broadcasted ( in medieval times there was yeller in city that gave news ) so people know where recent peasant have been evicted etc ... Each lord would have to make his own reputation.
Obviously this need to be balanced for it to be a win win situation.

If Clans cannot Evict Peasants it will be abused by others to Claim Ressources and Block stuff again.
Which was why Private Claims where removed in the First Place.

Yes they have to be able to evict, but time notice is indeed mandatory to prevent griefing.
I think personal claim should be done so the lord guild can still have some right over it to prevent claim trying to steal ressource or such. Like being able to destroy any wall, and maybe still being able to use terraformation, i dont know.
The problem with old personal claim is that they werent really being under some one else rule. Which is not the case with a feudal system.

It can indeed makes some issue, but i think it can be resolved with the right ideas.

A side note however, if you think people will abuse this, i agree, some people will try, but the system should be made so they can, but the consequence should apply. So either side should have the information and different choice for them regarding what they wish to do. Griefer and bandits guild should be part of the game, but the system should help new player make appropriate choice to find lord that can protect them and not exploit them, if lords got gains by doing so, i assure you a lot of people will play accordingly.
It needs to be a balanced win win situation to make it work, but if you dont try to make a base system and balance it via player feedback you will never achieve this balanced win win situation and the game will remain the same.

My main concern atm is the gain for lords is not really interesting since they dont need money due to a bad economy in the game atm. If the economy was working and lords needed money this would be easier to achieve a win win situation.
So as long as there is no real economy where every type of player is involved in, it will be harder and probably add unecessary complexity to make such system work ( like placebo bait and reward from the game and not the players ) which in the end hurt the developpement of the game, every system ( economy, politics, warfare etc ) should be intertwine between eachother as much as possible.


1.
Problem is if Clans are Allowed to do this. Players will not just be Frustrated they will feel in Fact Cheated.
Because the Claim is Supposed to Protect their Stuff. So them coming Online and Suddenly losing the Stuff will be double the Frustration.

Needless to say that in either case it will be a Problem.
Because if the Clan just Destroys anyone they See Settling they will Kill alot of New Players that just wanted to Start the Game.
And if they Destroy Claims after they Build Up they will make People lose lots of Stuff and be Frustrated.

Sorry but thats not a Good Idea in any Way.


2.
Problem here is that even this Mandatory Time would not really Solve the Problem.

If I can Block Ressources even for Two Weeks and then Send another Character to Block them again. I can still be an Incredible Annoyance to others.

And even with that Mandatory Time the Clan can still come about and constantly Kill someone on their Claim preventing them from really Evacuating the Stuff Safely.
Needless to say that Buildings etc cant be Evacuated.

So the Loss will remain Terrible anyways.


3.
If the Lord can even Destroy Stuff and Terraform on that Land it opens a Pandoras Box of Griefing Options.
Seriously pls dont go there that would be Horrible.
And if they can just Mine the Claimed Ressources it means they can just Steal the Stuff from that Player.
And Especially New Players often cant Build Carts and Stuff where they can Store Ores etc.





Sorry Man.
See I am not even against this Idea.
I actually like the Idea of allowing People to be Peasants on your Land.
I might even make a Character to be one such Peasant and just Life on that Land if Possible near a City thus having an Option to Trade with them etc.

But I just do not see a Way for this to Actually Work right now.
I See no Way how this System could be Added without being massively Exploitable by one Side to be Griefers.



Also on a Sidenote.
No.
Griefers should never be Allowed in a Game.
Bandits Yes. Thats part of the Game.
But Griefers should be Banned.

It is NEVER a Good Idea to Allow People into your Game whose Sole Purpose in the Game it is to Ruin the Game for others.

And dont get me Wrong.
Not every RPK is a Griefer and Bandits are not Griefers at all.
Bandits act for Profit by Robbery. Which is a Valid Gameplay.
RPKs are often Griefers but sometimes they are also Simply People bored and looking for Fights.
But Griefers who for example go around Killing New Players who got nothing and pose neither Challenge nor Threat just to have Fun laughing at them Quitting the Game.
Are not People that should be allowed in the Game.

And the only Reason I do not Suggest to Outright Implement a Mechanic to Automaticly Ban them is because its near Impossible to differeniate them from others without intensive Checks.


Khroma
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 11:41

Re: Feedback/Suggestion: Land Control, Military Outpost and Coin Faucets and Sinks,

Post by Khroma » 15 Sep 2018, 19:21

Yes i guess it depends on what you mean by griefer.

For me it is just people pissing other people off for no gameplay reason, which you can do in most games. There will always be griefer, and the only thing you can do is restrict what they can use to grief other players. You cant ban griefer because they are using the game mechanics you created to grief other people with, and it is one of the major issue for devs with cheating / bots abuse, but griefer are not all cheater.

The only point you are making which seems valid to me, is personal claim and ressource steal / lock kind of.

The rest is simply non existent if claim are not destroyed before x days. Or maybe i m missing something.

From what i have seen people lock ressource on personnal claim with walls, that is why i suggested that wall could be destroyed only, the rest cant. Rack wall is a pain too, dont know what to do about that tho without giving to griefer. But being serious, if someone made a rack wall you want to be able to take it down. If you can destroy rack i dont think people with grief other over such a ridicule thing, it still allows griefing so potentially still a problem to be solve.
Maybe terraformation is bad, maybe allow lord guild to use their own item on personal claim instead so they can use ladder to go around wall etcs ...
Another idea would be to give lord guild right to move item ( like racks ) but not out of the claim, and they cant destroy them.
And i just though 5 min about it so i guess you can come up with even better ideas that would solve the problem ( i dont know all the ways griefer use with personnal claim ).

I dont see has many problem as you seem to see, maybe you can be more clear with example, i m probably missing some new or inovative game mechanics people use now to lock ressources.
Everything can be changed to avoid griefing it should not stop developping new interesting mechanics, because most new content / system / mechanics devs create can be abused in some way at first, it is hard to plan for everything right off the bat, but by no means you should stop innovating.

If you like the idea, wouldnt it be more interesting to try find ideas on how to avoid the ways griefer can exploit it rather than just forgot about implementing the idea all together ?

Return to General Discussion

cron