Outposts, a few weeks later...

[sehracii]

My own suspicion is that with the exception of a small number of people there is no possible reward from outposts that would induce our characters to turn on their friends.

Just want to agree with this. The current benefits from outposts aren't so great they make me want to attack my friends. Especially when you consider everyone of my faction is happy to trade with me if there's something I need and don't have. Why make it harder on myself and my guild by creating new enemies with little noticeable gain?

I'll also second the comment about desperately needing a reason to visit the outposts. Location is currently so meaningless. There are plenty of threads with good ideas for this...

[iphdrunk]

Just want to agree with this. The current benefits from outposts aren't so great they make me want to attack my friends. Especially when you consider everyone of my faction is happy to trade with me if there's something I need and don't have

Not aimed at my(our) particular character/avatar -- when discussing about gameplay aspects I try my best to decouple from my build / case --, but shouldn't it be noted that you don't feel like attacking another also because you (your guild) already owns one? it could be argued that trading seems easier when trading crystals in both senses, or for mats. It seems harder to trade them for dappers for example, or to be given them for free.

[sehracii]

I guess it's just supposition, but I get the feeling a guild that does not own one would get far more rewards offering to help all of their faction that do rather than attacking them. Attacking a single outpost will always net you multiple enemies.

Outpost battles aren't horrible, but I find them far from so amusing I'd like to be invovlved in them constantly. It just comes down to I'd rather play the rest of the game and take what rewards I can get peacefully than having to fight all the time.

I suppose there could be player created challenge-system cooked up. For battlees within a faction. If Guild A believe they have more of a right to Outpost X then Guild B, they could do a sort of team gladiator challenge. Would be limited to only players from the two guilds, as calling allies is where it starts to look like war and emotions run high.

I personally find it funny that there was a lot of talk of people wanting diplomatic options for conquering and holding outposts while from my point of view that's been almost the only way to do so.

[ghyselsj]

I guess it's just supposition, but I get the feeling a guild that does not own one would get far more rewards offering to help all of their faction that do rather than attacking them. Attacking a single outpost will always net you multiple enemies.

I didn't mean making enemies in the faction, I meant this may be a means of finding out which guild of the 2 is the stronger one... like the Aztecs did... 2 Tribes fighting eachother with non-lethal weapons to see who is the best (and grab some people to sacrifice, but that was commonplace for them ). You know, friendly combat to hone your skills.

Outpost battles aren't horrible, but I find them far from so amusing I'd like to be invovlved in them constantly. It just comes down to I'd rather play the rest of the game and take what rewards I can get peacefully than having to fight all the time.

Outpost owners should always be ready to fight to defend it, or fight to get it. If you don't want to fight, don't get involved with outposts, cause, and this is the tricky part, they are all about battles!

I suppose there could be player created challenge-system cooked up. For battlees within a faction. If Guild A believe they have more of a right to Outpost X then Guild B, they could do a sort of team gladiator challenge. Would be limited to only players from the two guilds, as calling allies is where it starts to look like war and emotions run high.

Well, that would pose a problem with guilds of unequal size/average guildmember level. E.g. a guild of 5 ppl with 200+ skills, vs a guild with 10 AoDs, 5 CGs and a couple MSwords. Hardly a fair fight, which in your theory would mean the small guild has less right to the OP than the big one, which may not always be the case.

I personally find it funny that there was a lot of talk of people wanting diplomatic options for conquering and holding outposts while from my point of view that's been almost the only way to do so.

Right now there is no conquering outposts at all, since the kami and karavan each defend any OP with the entire faction. This makes it very hard for anyone to take one over. The only outposts I've seen changing hands (not including Whirling) were hand-me-downs after OV got Whirling.

PS: this is not directed directly at Sehraci, just general comments about the things she said.

[richky]

I didn't mean making enemies in the faction, I meant this may be a means of finding out which guild of the 2 is the stronger one... like the Aztecs did... 2 Tribes fighting eachother with non-lethal weapons to see who is the best (and grab some people to sacrifice, but that was commonplace for them ). You know, friendly combat to hone your skills.



Outpost owners should always be ready to fight to defend it, or fight to get it. If you don't want to fight, don't get involved with outposts, cause, and this is the tricky part, they are all about battles!



Well, that would pose a problem with guilds of unequal size/average guildmember level. E.g. a guild of 5 ppl with 200+ skills, vs a guild with 10 AoDs, 5 CGs and a couple MSwords. Hardly a fair fight, which in your theory would mean the small guild has less right to the OP than the big one, which may not always be the case.

You are contradicting yourself here . If it is a contest to see which guild is stronger, then yes, a small guild has less right to the OP than the big one - fair fight doesn't come into it. In fact, fair fight is only a valid concept if the outpost battles are being treated as an OOC minigame as I mentioned in a previous post. If you are thinking that maybe the small guild has more allies, then consider the common case in contests within a faction: most other guilds will be friendly/allied with both of the parties in the contest. Which side should they join, while still upholding the purpose of the contest (to see which of the two is stronger)? The fact is that it is far simpler (with less risk of making enemies) to let your ally keep the outpost, help them defend it from the other faction, and share the benefits. If the purpose of Outposts was to have continual battles over ownership, then they have obviously failed in their purpose. Or perhaps it was a purpose that the majority of the playerbase isn't interested in, so they have turned the outposts to a purpose that they are interested in, as best as they are able within the design of the game.

[ghyselsj]

Which guild do you think has more right to an OP, a guild with mid-high lvl ppl who share with everyone (including the guild they would beat to get the OP), or a guild with multi-250s only trying to get their other skills to 250 asap and not sharing at all? I'm not thinking of any specific guilds, I'm just saying the stronger/bigger guild is not always the best one to hold a certain OP. If that was the case, Infinity could hold every single OP in the game if they wanted. Of course it wouldn't make them very loved, but it would be possible for them if OPs were pure GvG, without allies at all.

[sehracii]

I'm not thinking of any specific guilds, I'm just saying the stronger/bigger guild is not always the best one to hold a certain OP.

Then why advocate more fighting over them?

It's either
A) Guild might makes right
or
B) Peaceful exchange via diplomacy

I don't see how you can have both within a faction.

[richky]

Which guild do you think has more right to an OP, a guild with mid-high lvl ppl who share with everyone (including the guild they would beat to get the OP), or a guild with multi-250s only trying to get their other skills to 250 asap and not sharing at all? I'm not thinking of any specific guilds, I'm just saying the stronger/bigger guild is not always the best one to hold a certain OP. If that was the case, Infinity could hold every single OP in the game if they wanted. Of course it wouldn't make them very loved, but it would be possible for them if OPs were pure GvG, without allies at all.

I agree completely that the stronger guilds are not always those that we would like to see holding the outposts. However, in that sense I don't think that anyone has a right to have an outpost. I mean, I'm a nice guy and I share nicely, but that doesn't mean that I think my guild of 3 has a right to an outpost . In fact, the state we have now is probably the inevitable stable state of the system as it was implemented. Guilds that are able to hold an outpost, either through their own strength or through their alliances, do so. Those who do not have their own outpost make alliances with those who do. Battles for conquest occur occasionally, and usually fail since there are more people interested in maintaining the status quo than in upsetting it.

[ajsuk]

On the topic of - Why go to the OPs...
I think the drill thing, mats going to the GH etc... isn't working too badly at all. The future features however should try to include interactivity with the OP.
I've sent in suggestions before about further features for the OPs and always tried to include a reason to go visit them... such as, pet training etc... Wont go in to detail, but I think thats what needs to happen.

[jared96]

If the Outposts didn't divide the whole server into the "haves" and "have nots", I'd probably not have cancelled my subscription. Having outposts near roots portals that neutral guilds could defend the lands against routine kitin invasions (a la Starship Troopers) and allow them to share outpost resources would have given me a reason to stay.