I log on, there are no VCPs available in the next 13 hours in a 1.5h walking radius around me. Guess no pvp for me today. *logs off* since trade packs and sea towers arent in game yet or theyre worthless how am i going to schedule stuff for our guild to do? This is absolutely serious discussion time. Change VCPs to 11h.

Simply remove this stupid shit, there is no place for timer based, not player controlled events in a sandbox game. To attach core content (clan mp for conquest) to such mechanic is a joke. Bad design.

No, VCPs should be on a 10-24 hrs timer depending on the choice of the owning clan on previous cap.

- This will allign with the sandbox and conquest part of the game
- This is a contributor to an active area (we need more asurance that POIs are active)
- You can challenge and adjust timer to be in the captureres timezone (if NA make the effort to take a EU village, they can adjust timer to suit their own timezone)
- Resource yield should scale with timer so 10 hrs yield minimum and 24hrs yield maximum (current).

I agree with @Nataz.

If Ub3rGames decide to stick with their current village timeform activity will slowly drop since the village cap time would be pushed 1 hour every day. This will result is in POI eventually will drift out of prime time for all timezones.

I guess this could give oppotunity for other regions to capture villages what would normally be out of their timezone.

But none the less I think a player controlled system could be interesting and would fit in the Player Driven sandbox enviroment.

A player controlled system would be a disaster - unless there was a way for a clan from an opposing time zone to break that control and timer. I think this is what the devs have planned, though, even with their 25 hour approach. But we'll have to wait and see.

I'm not sure about the solution, but i'm positive that 24h timers will be a problem in local banking with the limited mobility it implies.

What about dividing rewards by 50% and having both NA and EU hours (to allow both chains to stack) ?

A player controlled system would be a disaster - unless there was a way for a clan from an opposing time zone to break that control and timer. I think this is what the devs have planned, though, even with their 25 hour approach. But we'll have to wait and see.

Both yes and no. A player driven system could provide more meaningful fights because of the upkeep needed for heldings. I get what you are saying tho. EU clans could potentially lock out NA players from an entire continent with that system but it could interesting with a way to "break" the village timer. Perhaps with a prolonged siege on the village that incite conflict between clans.

but yes, we'll have to wait and see what Ub3r has in store for us.

It's something to be looked at down the line yes. The current system is OK as it guarantees that everyone gets a fair dig at the villages eventually (Time zone dependant)

Stay at 25.

worry about this later

Make them seigeable?  Much lower cost than cities

There is one "good" reason for the 25hrs solution though, and that is it gives an incentive for clans to widen their primetime footprint, hence a more "global server approach"

A player controlled system would be a disaster - unless there was a way for a clan from an opposing time zone to break that control and timer. I think this is what the devs have planned, though, even with their 25 hour approach. But we'll have to wait and see.

Yeah it's called sieging and doing so allows you to gain influence over a region.

I am in 100% support of keeping timers in control of players - to an extent at least. 

If my clan wants a bunch of villages to stay live in EU hours and we fight to make it happen then by our sandbox-given rights we are entitled to do this.

Shaping the environment around you is a fundamental core pillar in the sandbox concept, anything that goes against this from @Ub3rgames would only serve to highlight how inconsistent their design goals have been so far. They claim they want a more true Darkfall experience, one closer to the original sandbox vision, well guess what, players influencing their environment is a key part of that.

Stop fighting player freedom.

Spot the difference between a village and a holding?

The devs have explained their reasons for village timers, you've explained yours. Yours are solely for your own clan's benefit (and so, potentially my own clan's). The devs' reasons are for the benefit of the wider population. I prefer the latter as it ultimately benefits a wider group.

If there's a way through the middle, great.

Spot the difference between a village and a holding?

There is no difference. That got axed the moment @Ub3rgames made villages the sole PvP-driven way to maintain conquest-driven content via upkeep.

You can have your shifting villages, but only if you cut that connection entirely. Otherwise, conquest becomes a meaningless feature of the game and Darkfall New Dawn loses not just sandbox elements from environmental influence, but also lose the drive for clan political conflict.

But who am I talking to, you're the guy who said this:

[18:15:23] (Maejohl Legator): so whilst I might not always agree with a particular approach on an item I'll support it if it seems to fit into their global approach to the game