![]() |
#1 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 702
|
Open question RE FvF
Dear Nevrax, GMs, Guides, Players,
Since it's quite clear where things are heading, short of some major turnaround. I have a kind of general question regarding the conclusion of the FvF conflict on Atys. Where is it heading? This can obviously be broken down into several smaller questions... Whats the "victory threshhold" on OP ownership since apparently controlling the nexus' is key for the FvF conflict? Do the Kara need 90%? 3 times as many as the Kami? No Kami OPs? Do they need to hold every OP on Atys to "win"? What happens then: Do the OPs stick around, churning out crystals but only for the lucky few? Or go away to make way for whats next? Do the Kami remain as a faction? How bout the neutrals? Is everyone a Jena Worshiper by default? Will we even bother with Spires, given the result appears to be pretty obvious from where I am standing? Are there "balancing mechanisms" in development? Or are we looking at "FvF" becoming defunct, as Kami numbers drop off to a few die-hards with no real chance of winning, and more and more Kara share the OPs amongst themselves, and the Neutrals drop to those who are willing to not take a share of the pie for whatever reason? Yours, Zahan, somewhat concerned. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Federalsburg M.D.
Posts: 1,478
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
This is why I hate the idea of spires... this and I wont be able to team with my Kara friends as easy...its already annoying at times :P Spires(unless there is a huge change) will be so unbalanced that only the people who just like to win will enjoy it... I personally like winning... but I don't want victory handed to me on a silver platter I like a bit of a challenge.
Yeah yeah they will have less HP the more you have in a sertain region (I.E.)the burning desert ... the witherings... and so on ... But that just means kami can hold a few regions in there own lands untill everyone finaly gives up... Then what? Also somewhat concerned. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,407
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
ops have nothing to do with factions. players made them out to have, but the kami nor the karavan don't care, because the ops are solely guild property.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 702
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
Quote:
Thats what we argued... but the loading message frm the "Chronicals of Erlan" or however you spell it seem to back up the KA's view it _is_ a FvF matter. And by allowing "allies" to help guilds, it doesnt matter how big the guild is, only how many friends they have to help out. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 514
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
The number imbalance is worrying from a Gameplay point of view in all aspects of the game.
Cry is and always will be my main Character and has always been a Karavan supporter although not as fanatacal as some. However I do have an alt (who shall remain nameless), a master pikeman who may appear from time to time to aid the Kami at least on Fyros and Zorai land. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,407
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Making use of the ignore list
Posts: 3,165
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
"Balancing mechanisms"? Why would they want to "balance" something that the players have worked hard (along the lines laid down for them by the devs) to acheive? If there was some kind of bug that meant one side was more powerful than the other, I would agree balancing was required (yes even if it was my side being favoured), but that's not the case.
The outposts are an FvF mechanism - whether they were or were not in the original devchats is beside the point; the opening message shows that they are and anyone who has read that and believes otherwise is obviously never going to be pursuaded by me. As for "what comes next", most karavan would be interested in an answer as well I'm sure, but until we get one I think most of us are quite happy to continue as we have been and let the devs make the game the way they want it ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: lala land
Posts: 1,887
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
Quote:
I'm sorry, is this the same sprite that used to make well thought out posts? I think you should try remove a little of the brainwashing thats gone on and think about this some more. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Never Never Land
Posts: 624
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
Quote:
The OPs have everything thing to do with factions. Otherwise every Kara and his dog wouldnt turn out to take more and more of our OPS. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Making use of the ignore list
Posts: 3,165
|
Re: Open question RE FvF
Quote:
1) Devs give us an FvF mechanism (outposts to fight over) 2) Both sides are as equal as the devs can make it... no quantifiable difference between the two factions except spawn location and lore 3) For various reasons, one side wins more than the other. Now where in there would I possibly see a reason to "balance" things? They've made things as balanced as they could from the start and I see no reason to change things just because one side is losing a war that as far as we know is meant to be fought to the end (whether that end is a victory of one side, or simply has to run its course until some intervention in the future). Perhaps you could explain to me where I'm wrong here? Oh and before you or anyone else jumps on it, I'll use a quote from another thread to try and pre-empt you Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:34 AM.