Skip to main content

Poll

Should we allow this?

  • Yes
    21 (45.7%)
  • No
    25 (54.3%)

Total Members Voted: 46

Topic: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location? (Read 368 times) previous topic - next topic

  • gosti
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Should blue players, not arac clan members, be allowed to bind at desired location and have the possibility to respawn there after death? To avoid the so called "walk of shame".

Would be another incentive to stay blue.

I wonder what the majority thinks.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #1
Should blue players, not arac clan members, be allowed to bind at desired location and have the possibility to respawn there after death? To avoid the so called "walk of shame".

Would be another incentive to stay blue.

I wonder what the majority thinks.


I don't think it should be this easy and there needs to be some limitation or cost and many seem to like the idea I posted in Raaps thread because it offers an option with limitations and costs

https://forums.darkfallnewdawn.com/index.php/topic,8807.msg137894.html#msg137894

  • gosti
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #2
Should blue players, not arac clan members, be allowed to bind at desired location and have the possibility to respawn there after death? To avoid the so called "walk of shame".

Would be another incentive to stay blue.

I wonder what the majority thinks.


I don't think it should be this easy and there needs to be some limitation or cost and many seem to like the idea I posted in Raaps thread because it offers an option with limitations and costs

https://forums.darkfallnewdawn.com/index.php/topic,8807.msg137894.html#msg137894

Sure

  • Fnights
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #3
Voted no to any form of instant traveling, no matter blue or reds.
DnD full roadmap
***
Darkfall Online (Eu-1)
2009~2012
DF1 broken issues

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #4
No.

But Why WaKKO? What could go wrong?

Players will run some where they want to go naked and risk nothing. Bind. Run back to where they have stuff and then take it all and weigh thousands of pounds and then recall to this new bind spot skipping the risk of moving stuff and the reward for catching people running super slow with there banks. Not to mention why we have local banking in the first place. Because someone would fight over a hamlet and 1000 people who have nothing to do with the fight would take it over and ransom the win to whoever pays them for control of the field. People who just move in next to you naked, and then start to take out endless amounts of artillery and level your city once a day when no one is logged in forcing you to either pay them to go away or have 24 hour a day security to protect your city from one guy who had to risk zero by farming at some other location in relative safety before they run naked to the chaos bank near you. You can still do these things. It does not remove someones ability to take these actions. It just forces them to risk the slow walk there or bring a group of people to share the weight and spread out the risk.

I understand that these are new mechanics but they are not new mechanics. It was always supposed to be like this. This game needs more then leet pvpers. It now needs crafters, truckers, and an active player base willing to roam around and collect intel. If you want a game with ease of use, bells and whistles, and unicorns holding hands so that you can get your junky fix of dopamine cause you are a unique snow flake who is just like everyone else cause of some efficiently designed meta like world of warcraft. There are games out there like it. The most popular one is called world of warcraft. Do us all a favor and download world of warcraft. world of warcrap. crap.

For the rest of us, figure it out. Thats the fun.

And this goes for people bitching about sieges being expensive, and that we get too many high end ingredients when you own a holding. Your fucks are staring at people dueling with mana missle on day one and seeing a low population noobfest for a month and then the game will die. Well in 2 months when the shitty gear is r40s, and everyones running around in actual armor with small groups to attack people moving there banks from one location to another and there are fights over a single lonely corpsee in the middle of dwarflands because its so much weight it just keeps changing hands and more and more people are showing up to see who can bank it first. And all the sieges start off because people have tons of cash to blow and egos the size of the macys day parade garfield balloon. With all that cash they might start paying smaller clans for intel. Trade is going to be a huge thing. Of course most of you reading this post won't be here because you would rather type of the forums about how you want to play world of warcrap and how come this game isn't like world of warcrap.

pubg is on sale....
They say you are what you eat
I took the star outta starvation.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #5
No.

But Why WaKKO? What could go wrong?

Players will run some where they want to go naked and risk nothing. Bind. Run back to where they have stuff and then take it all and weigh thousands of pounds and then recall to this new bind spot skipping the risk of moving stuff and the reward for catching people running super slow with there banks. Not to mention why we have local banking in the first place. Because someone would fight over a hamlet and 1000 people who have nothing to do with the fight would take it over and ransom the win to whoever pays them for control of the field. People who just move in next to you naked, and then start to take out endless amounts of artillery and level your city once a day when no one is logged in forcing you to either pay them to go away or have 24 hour a day security to protect your city from one guy who had to risk zero by farming at some other location in relative safety before they run naked to the chaos bank near you. You can still do these things. It does not remove someones ability to take these actions. It just forces them to risk the slow walk there or bring a group of people to share the weight and spread out the risk.

I understand that these are new mechanics but they are not new mechanics. It was always supposed to be like this. This game needs more then leet pvpers. It now needs crafters, truckers, and an active player base willing to roam around and collect intel. If you want a game with ease of use, bells and whistles, and unicorns holding hands so that you can get your junky fix of dopamine cause you are a unique snow flake who is just like everyone else cause of some efficiently designed meta like world of warcraft. There are games out there like it. The most popular one is called world of warcraft. Do us all a favor and download world of warcraft. world of warcrap. crap.

For the rest of us, figure it out. Thats the fun.

And this goes for people bitching about sieges being expensive, and that we get too many high end ingredients when you own a holding. Your fucks are staring at people dueling with mana missle on day one and seeing a low population noobfest for a month and then the game will die. Well in 2 months when the shitty gear is r40s, and everyones running around in actual armor with small groups to attack people moving there banks from one location to another and there are fights over a single lonely corpsee in the middle of dwarflands because its so much weight it just keeps changing hands and more and more people are showing up to see who can bank it first. And all the sieges start off because people have tons of cash to blow and egos the size of the macys day parade garfield balloon. With all that cash they might start paying smaller clans for intel. Trade is going to be a huge thing. Of course most of you reading this post won't be here because you would rather type of the forums about how you want to play world of warcrap and how come this game isn't like world of warcrap.

pubg is on sale....

He didn't specify in his post but I am pretty sure he meant naked bind/respawn on death only.

  • gosti
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #6
It is specified. Respawn after death.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #7
Yes, only after dead with 1h cooldown.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #8
No.

The big picture is starting to sink in. Once the criers stop crying and the mass can focus on what's really happening, pop will regrow.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #9
I think everyone should be able to choose one bind location and be given 2 close by options on death. The way it is now servers no purpose other than running back home nude. Or do what everyone is doing run 2km kill yourself rinse repeat if necessary.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #10
No

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #11
To copy paste a reply we wrote elsewhere:

The unlimited choice of a single stone to always respawn at is not desirable.
Watchtowers will be both raidable and siegable after a short warning time window. Same for holding crates which will be raidable.
The purpose of these features is to allow smaller clans to root out larger ones.

Ask yourselves this:
Would death penalties dissuade you from ordering quick banking followed by mass suicide to prevent an attack?
Even if we took out holdings from the pool of "bindable" stones, wouldn't players just bind to the nearest chaos/npc stone?

The alternative would be that a large clan could be wherever in the world, and be back almost instantly, geared and ready to go to zerg out anyone who dare touch one of their properties.
No efforts to maintain territory whatsoever and old powers becoming impossible to dislodge.

And that would go both ways because these same clans would be able to project their full power anywhere on the map, being on the offensive and defensive at the same time.

Now, that is not to say the system cannot be improved. It just has to be done with the above in mind.
Or it will become a source of issues down the line, some that we judge a lot more problematic than the walk of shame.
At the very least, a redeploy-fall would be impossible to alleviate while we can make foreign respawns less painful.

For example, we observe that whatever gets listed gets sold fast, with a much higher margin.
This means demand is clearly there, and we need to encourage the supply, which is why we are fundamentally changing how markets operate.
If you do not have to bother babysitting or paying upfront to sell gear, then the hope is that more would do it in isolated markets.

In the longer term, being able to respawn as a blue to any blue holdings, with owners having clan vendors, would also alleviate the issue and even encourage creating enjoyable respawn locations.
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #12
@Ub3rgames I get the reason for no bindstones. But what is so wrong with "naked suicide travel"? They are naked, carry no gear to sell so will not break localized resources & economy. And if they get to a desired location a tiny bit faster, so what?
Wyverex Erisian, SG of Scrubs


Still a member of SaltyBitches™ Club

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #13
@Ub3rgames I get the reason for no bindstones. But what is so wrong with "naked suicide travel"? They are naked, carry no gear to sell so will not break localized resources & economy. And if they get to a desired location a tiny bit faster, so what?

Troop commitment. This was covered in their post (which didn't even mention issues of resource transport impacting localization). You can legitimately disagree with the design philosophy, but it helps to engage with the actual argument if you want to advocate for a different one.

Re: Should blue players be allowed to bind at their desired location?
Reply #14
No, but a ghost system would be good. It should allow you to move faster while dead with 100% stamina and unable to see anything.