PDA

View Full Version : Changing Caslte spots?


master0p
02-11-2011, 09:55 AM
I know people in guild prefer to bunch up with eachother near an area.
For example i am on the Other side of the map from where my guild is.
that Don't really give me a nice feeling. Gives me restriction to choose a guild close by.
I think you should be able to relocate casltes to another castle spot Ofcourse with a huge limit.
Transfer would take 1 hour and after the transfer you cannot change castle spot for 1 month.
And i would say it should also cost for a fee so people will think seriously about changing castle spots like 5-10 dollars.

This is also a nice option for people who is surrounded by 1 huge guild that just don't want to recruite him and just keep attacking no matter what. So if there is no one to turn to in the neighbourhood and you are constantly being attacked for weeks then this would be a nice option as well.

Let me hear what you guys think about it?

EdwardTheGreat
02-11-2011, 01:06 PM
I completely agree.

NobleIre
02-11-2011, 02:02 PM
I think it's a good idea.. but that it should require A. lots of in-game resources in order to 'build' a new settlement and destroy the old one and B. Requiring an hour or some other similar amount of time to complete the process.

OR

Out of game micro-transaction in order to effect the transfer instantly and without in-game cost.

Arnfiarnunn Neanias
02-11-2011, 03:05 PM
It should be nice, except for the fee. It isn't needed.

Tadian
02-11-2011, 03:18 PM
Changing the spot should be possible.
I don't like to be forced to join a guild that is nearby... but is it that important to have my guild that close to me? I'm not sure...?!

master0p
02-11-2011, 03:32 PM
Changing the spot should be possible.
I don't like to be forced to join a guild that is nearby... but is it that important to have my guild that close to me? I'm not sure...?!

Yes the strenght of a guild is give fast aid/help
The further you are from your guild the harder it is to get help if your in trouble.
There are always other guilds that conflicts with your guilds goals, or just maybe hate the officers/leaders.

I am pretty sure if a person is going to play alone and dont join a guild he could be safe for a while but almost in every game when someone is alone or a loner.. its just a prey.
Because its common sense that someone thats alone isn't a match against a guild with 10 people.

Relee
02-11-2011, 03:52 PM
I like the idea of migration. It could be like, it was so terrible and your people left those guys who you didn't like and settled a territory that was more welcoming.

Sarkata
02-17-2011, 09:12 PM
Good idea, minus the real $ part. In game currency and a lockout period sound like decent enough deterents to me.

NobleIre
02-18-2011, 09:51 AM
It needs a cost (not necessarily out of game cost). I was saying that the real money cost could be for a viable 'immediately' and free of in-game cost move. I like the idea of giving people different methods of moving, and its good for helping to pay for the game/increase the company's revenue.

So they could give them a couple options:

Options:

A. You pay with in-game resources and a time investment (say 10 minutes.) During this time you can be attacked and an attack would pause the process (but not stop it altogether, it would resume after the combat.) After you move, you will be prevented from moving again for X number of days. (say 1 week).

B. You can pay with real money for a 'Move ticket'. Cost is say: 15 dollars (to keep people from abusing it and to make it worth it for the devs). This move is instantaneous once you use the ticket and costs no in-game resources. Additionally, you can use such a transfer before your 'in-game pay' transfer cooldown is complete.

Basically, the cost and 'cooldown' would prevent the system from being abused. (Otherwise: People could move around all the time to keep their enemies from attacking them. Also, particularly annoying people could harrass people in an area and then just move.) Also, Being able to be attacked during the process would keep people from moving just to avoid an impending attack (unless they saw it coming from a long way away). Lastly, the option for an 'out of game' charge would enable the company to make some money off of those people who A. made bad moving choices or B. don't have the in-game resources to afford a move.

A location should be changeable, but it should also be stable. I wouldn't want to see people moving once a week. In order to prevent that, there needs to be a cost.

Arnfiarnunn Neanias
02-18-2011, 02:20 PM
In order to prevent that, you can simply put a BIG time investiment (like many days) and allow only one move per month. (why not ig money if you want to move again because you're an eternal undecided :p )

Henry Martin
02-18-2011, 03:07 PM
First off, If you are going to have a guild that is made up of different races, then you are going to not be able to be near each other as each race has its own regions and each race cannot have their cities in other races regions. Now if you are in a guild that has the same race you are reletively in the same area and if each member choose the same region then their is no need for this suggestion.

Secondly I don't think this idea is going to work in this game because all towns are instanced, so technically you are just in the region, not in a specific location in the region. For those that don't understand that, HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon) is an article that talks about it.

swou
02-18-2011, 09:10 PM
Agreed, I remember playing some browser game.. that is a little similar to real time rts, it was really frustrating when you're getting attacked at one of the map so once your guild members get there to help, they're just there to collect the bodies..

Sarkata
02-19-2011, 07:19 PM
It needs a cost (not necessarily out of game cost). I was saying that the real money cost could be for a viable 'immediately' and free of in-game cost move. I like the idea of giving people different methods of moving, and its good for helping to pay for the game/increase the company's revenue.

So they could give them a couple options:

Options:

A. You pay with in-game resources and a time investment (say 10 minutes.) During this time you can be attacked and an attack would pause the process (but not stop it altogether, it would resume after the combat.) After you move, you will be prevented from moving again for X number of days. (say 1 week).

B. You can pay with real money for a 'Move ticket'. Cost is say: 15 dollars (to keep people from abusing it and to make it worth it for the devs). This move is instantaneous once you use the ticket and costs no in-game resources. Additionally, you can use such a transfer before your 'in-game pay' transfer cooldown is complete.

Basically, the cost and 'cooldown' would prevent the system from being abused. (Otherwise: People could move around all the time to keep their enemies from attacking them. Also, particularly annoying people could harrass people in an area and then just move.) Also, Being able to be attacked during the process would keep people from moving just to avoid an impending attack (unless they saw it coming from a long way away). Lastly, the option for an 'out of game' charge would enable the company to make some money off of those people who A. made bad moving choices or B. don't have the in-game resources to afford a move.

A location should be changeable, but it should also be stable. I wouldn't want to see people moving once a week. In order to prevent that, there needs to be a cost.

Unfortunately, the more real $ options you allow in a game, the less realistic it will seem. For some, this may not be a problem, but I like to get as much realism in mmo's as I can. To me, realistic is engaging and usually presents natural challenge, and isn't that what its all about?


First off, If you are going to have a guild that is made up of different races, then you are going to not be able to be near each other as each race has its own regions and each race cannot have their cities in other races regions. Now if you are in a guild that has the same race you are reletively in the same area and if each member choose the same region then their is no need for this suggestion.

Secondly I don't think this idea is going to work in this game because all towns are instanced, so technically you are just in the region, not in a specific location in the region. For those that don't understand that, HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon) is an article that talks about it.

To be honest, this was rather unfortunate to hear. Both the inability to mix races in a guild, and the fact that towns are instanced.

Henry Martin
02-19-2011, 07:38 PM
To be honest, this was rather unfortunate to hear. Both the inability to mix races in a guild

Oh I didn't say you couldn't have mixed race guilds, I'm just pointing out that if you do, you are not going to be able to be near each other.

NobleIre
02-20-2011, 11:05 AM
First off, If you are going to have a guild that is made up of different races, then you are going to not be able to be near each other as each race has its own regions and each race cannot have their cities in other races regions. Now if you are in a guild that has the same race you are reletively in the same area and if each member choose the same region then their is no need for this suggestion.

Secondly I don't think this idea is going to work in this game because all towns are instanced, so technically you are just in the region, not in a specific location in the region. For those that don't understand that, HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon) is an article that talks about it.

Wow, that's a little disappointing. :( Not being able to conquer into other areas and claim bases therein. Guess it renders this whole debate rather pointless.

Sarkata
02-20-2011, 08:23 PM
Oh I didn't say you couldn't have mixed race guilds, I'm just pointing out that if you do, you are not going to be able to be near each other.

Thank you for the clarification. Is there a reason for this? Having not had a chance to participate in the betas, it's hard to know if this is a programming hurdle, a storyline issue, a "we don't want to have to deal with the harassment that comes from this kind of gameplay" issue, etc...

cableslice
02-22-2011, 01:00 PM
I'm sorry but the idea of moving a castle makes me feel funny inside. I know the game is fantasy, but it would be impossible to move a castle.

Now, if you could abandon your castle and start a new one. This would be the huge downfall because of what you would lose. But if the idea is to move closer to your guild, hopefully you would have talked to them about this and they would help you rebuild.

I dunno, or just No moving of castles works for me.

darthplagued
03-04-2011, 11:52 AM
I agree :D

ImmoralAtheist
03-07-2011, 07:59 PM
It's difficult to say without knowing how the game is, but being able to choose from regions you want to be in might be a good idea.

darkheart
03-12-2011, 02:48 PM
i say make the move at a reasonable cost but in order to move it will demote buildings and army and or also have a safe time when moving because with all i hear about dof i bet there will be full time players that a not so active player that moves may have to deal with
another option is as i seen here make you pay dearly if you want a full village or a not so costly move that is what i said above

paulybauly
03-25-2011, 12:24 PM
From what I can understand from the game so far, this sounds like an amazing concept. But having your whole guild in one spot is going to make for some huge powerhouses in a single area.

Negthareas
03-26-2011, 08:08 AM
A couple Comments.

First, I am generally opposed to castle-moving or teleportation simply because most such systems are easy to abuse.

Second, although I know that a player cannot begin within another races nation, I was under the understanding that he might be able to conquer his way in... Perhaps this is something that could be adjusted?

Third, I don't think that instanced cities are a bad idea... essentially it means that if I and an ally are in the same geographical area, we are next-door neighbors.

Fourth, If teleportation is going to be possible:
1. like a month in-between possible movings
2. large in-game fee without any possible microtransaction
3. significant time for move [a day per geographical area, maybe]

These are my comments on the matter.

System
03-27-2011, 06:29 PM
I am not sure the best way of doing it, but the few possibilities that come to mind would be a time put towards deconstructing your current city, time to move your units, time to rebuild a basic city.

Or you could delete your city and pick a new spot from available locations.

If you could claim NPC cities as your own to expand with and then turn that into your "home city" making you unable to lose that one and turning your original to a vulnerable location.

It all really comes down to how locations are handled and how you much you can actually spread your empire, and whether or not they want people to be able to move. In Stronghold Kingdoms you could get "reset" by having all of your villages destroyed, here, you can't do that due to being unable to lose your home city.

Azrael
03-28-2011, 08:48 PM
Something like this can become so over, Im from other strategy games and one of the thinks that i hate most is that every guild appears so close all the time so the game is not dimnamyc or fresh. I prefer a little bit more of randomess and change of diplomacy every game

Rafaq19
04-12-2011, 05:15 AM
Good ideia I agree

Skassss1
04-12-2011, 01:22 PM
Changing castles spots would be neat-ish.

Deathbed
04-25-2011, 11:51 AM
well as i do agree to some point but the bunching up of guild members should be discourage . i think u shouldn't be able to bunch up its cowardly and makes the game dull .

Antiquitas
04-26-2011, 06:18 PM
I'm not so sure about relocating the entire castle, but relocating a population would be interesting. Shy of an expensive investment in some type of wizardy (ie teleportation) that would be unique a mass migration of an army and al territory peoples through enemy territories would prove an interesting scenario/survival concept. (ie dissapearance of the Maya perhaps?)

ki adi mundi
04-27-2011, 03:25 AM
if your ally gets attacked by another player can you join the battle to help him

Liva98989
04-27-2011, 01:09 PM
I agree that there should be an option for not having to pay the fee to move. But if it is to be realistic, atleast to me, then i think that you are only able to bring with you all your reasorcess and the things you are able to travel with.

((Just thinking isn't moving a hole castle a little too much or maybe i just failed to understand the text, if so then ignore me ;3))

WhileOne
05-03-2011, 11:43 AM
Yea.. but it's kindof tricky to implement..

Surrealalucard
05-03-2011, 05:45 PM
This is a good idea for the reasons already stated. Personally I agree with the out of game cost for instantaneous move as long as it keeps the month cd, as long as the price isn't outrageous (10 dollars sound perfectly fair to me).

Melleman
05-04-2011, 06:55 AM
Really good idea

Perconte
05-04-2011, 11:08 AM
Good idea, i agree