Probably a new non-pvp server coming

[Vorg 5]

For the record I voted to put  jk BACK to non-pvp. I picked that sever because it was NON-pvp and don't like being forced to move and start over YET AGAIN. The reason the vote went the other way is rolf ran off most of the non-pvpers with this brain fart allowing raiding on home.

[Xallo 2,599]

Towers only being able to be built in the proximity of a village's Area of Control would be the best way to control where towers are built, imo.

[Guest Gaffeek]

Towers were introduced to spread a kingdoms influence and thus allowing deeds to be planted, but the new server will be all one kingdon, so therefore towers are not required for influence spreading.

[me=Tich]votes NO to towers[/me]

[Guest Gaffeek]

Towers only being able to be built in the proximity of a village's Area of Control would be the best way to control where towers are built, imo.

[Maximustehgreat 353]

Towers were introduced to spread a kingdoms influence and thus allowing deeds to be planted, but the new server will be all one kingdon, so therefore towers are not required for influence spreading.

[me=Tich]votes NO to towers[/me]

Towers were introduced for that purpose, perhaps, but used for something entirely different on the home servers. Since the new server will serve the same purpose as the home servers used to, they should remain in the game.

If we've learned nothing else from this little "episode" in the life of Wurm, hopefully we've learned that sometimes just because something is made for one thing doesn't mean that it remains solely in that domain.

Towers serve a valid purpose on a PvE server and should remain.

[spellcast 983]

I also Vote no to towers, If you want security and protection from creatures get a deed, end of. It ruins a hunters trip to find an entire area ladened with towers every direction.

Those that want them are just lazy, Train some FS up and kill the creatures instead of getting a tower guard to do it for you.

Why all of the rules regarding towers? I simply don't understand it. They worked just fine on the home servers before, so why the sudden need to create more rules which mean more problems for Rolf and the GM teams?

They didnt work fine on home servers, the hunters got really cheesed off with the towers. It wouldent be a problem for Rolf and the GM's if he doesnt add towers into the code from the start.

[Guest Doughboy]

I think it will need a portal from GV.

This is because if this works, this will in the long run be a very different set of servers, and new customers should have that choice when they join - in the same way as we have offered portals to both Home and Wild servers for each kingdom. This is not the same as with HoTS, since they are part of the Kingdom set up. I don't think people need a chance to try PvP first - most people already know whether they are interested in PvP or not. I am not at all in any way, for instance.

On the kingdom issue, I think the differentiation between the "Kingdoms" and these new lands is important both from marketing perspective and from the player perspective. How technically you work that out, however, is probably more to do with what sort of future communication between servers there should be. In other words, how much of the "kingdom" part of the code you will need to use to make that communication possible.  Story wise, I think it probably is better that the kingdom side were only part of coding necessity and not part of the "story."

I would be interested in what avatars Mortimar and Co can come up with.

As for towers - I think the building of towers will be very important for many players because they like their spider-defence ability. Again, this is down to casual playing. Many players don't have the time or inclination to build up their fight skill - they have other interests in a game. And being able to let the local tower guards on the main road deal with that sort of threat so there is one clear route is very important. Same with close communities. Some people like grouping together, but do not want the joint responsibility of a village. Homesteads have to be a certain distance apart, so the compromise is build a couple of towers.

However, the look of the towers is possibly wrong - so maybe a new model. And perhaps we can have fun with the way the guards work - make them a local malitia sitting round an old upturned crate playing poker and drinking coffee from tin mugs! Perhaps we can limit ranges and guard numbers a little more - make them only 10 X 10 tile ranges (so you can build them 20 apart) and with a maximum of 3 guards, so that the placing of them becomes more critical and more suited to guarding roads.

Even better, make them way points that you can set a patrol to guard between. You get just 1 guard per guard post, but you can then position a few of them down a road, link them together somehow and the guards will patrol between all the linked towers in straight lines. They can range off the straight line to a distance of 5 tiles either side if attracted to a beast, but essentially they stay on their lines (a variation of this would be interesting on the Kingdoms as well)

Also, to be honest, take the towers away, and you remove one of the only tall architectural items in the game (the other being a colossus). That would be a pity!

The advantage of sailing would be that many people can take their goods with them - including cart kits and so on. And of course, they want to take their boats! Especially those who have built the large ones.

[Guest shangtsung]

keep uniques, make em stronger, once traveled from wild too the server, no going back

[OSP 62]

After the non pvp exodus...   It would be almost ludicrous to allow wild opposing kingdoms to invade home servers without incurring a FS penalty.  If you have them 100% FS whats the use in living on a home server? Reduced risk I can live with.  Give them 66% to 75 % CR on opposing kingdom home servers.   That would be feasible and still draw new People interested in future PVP from GV.  There has to be some advantage other than distance from wild or you will get organized raid/gank squads combing the home servers looking for loot and affinities and people would be more inclined to go the non PVP server or go wild to start with.   Which in my opinion the non PVP server should not allow them to go to the Home and wild server at all once they made the choice to go there. Is not fair at all they would be able to build skills and fighting without the risks the home and wild players face. Keep them seperate.

[Ecrir 887]

Towers only being able to be built in the proximity of a village's Area of Control would be the best way to control where towers are built, imo.

[polan 5]

Towers only being able to be built in the proximity of a village's Area of Control would be the best way to control where towers are built, imo.

[Ecrir 887]

What's the point of that? A lot of towers are used to protect roads, but that way that would be impossible.

Second, people with homesteads might want a tower too, especially if they live a bit on their own.

Third, plant village, build towers, disband, repeat. Can't you just build anywhere then like that?

[Gurubear 18]

In the end, towers are a tool players use to have some sort of control over their environment (kingdom influence has been neither here nor there for the majority of players).

Most of this game is about people taking control - by shaping the land, building villages, protecting or planting forests, farming, fishing, creating land bridges and so on ...

It seems daft to take away one of the tools they use to control the environment on the very server where that is the ENTIRE point of the game.

[Wollschaf 17]

Quick suggestion regarding towers: If the guards got scared being alone in the forest and only ventured far from the tower when structures like fences and houses are around, any tower placed in the wilderness would still serve as a safe place of retreat for players while keeping the animals around relatively untouched - the chance that a creature walks into a 5-tile radius around a tower is low. It's a matter of adjusting the range the guards walk away from the tower from by counting the number of (intact) structures around the tower on a weekly basis. Guards would just have to walk back to the zone they feel comfortable in on their own, as well as prefer to stay on roads instead of on grass.

[Becket 843]

I have both praised and cursed towers. Im sure we all have been saved by TG's at one time or another. I like them for eye candy in my village.

Now that I have been grinding FS I have walked by tower kills and thought what a waste damn guards. I think the compromise solution would work,

towers with a 5 tile radius gets my vote.

[Danypos 0]

I think there should be towers and on the other side I think there should be no towers:

Why towers: The people who will live on this server are people who like to craft. So they will probably not train their fighting skill up.

Why no towers: Maybe there are people who like PvE but hate PvP. If there will be many towers on this server, there won't be many animals.

Maybe you can make a rule. Towers on roads are allowed but towers on say, steppe and tundra, are not allowed.

This way there is a balance between hunting, and save travel

Like it?

[MetalDragon 1,630]

If you don't want towers, then take out fighting skill on this server and remove all animals.

You're all making it sound more and more like "oh the bigger wallet the better you survive".

[Guest Lev]

Towers; without guards.

[PoolsClosed 37]

I need towers... and their dead guards. Make the tower guard's FS dependent on the tower QL...

How else can you regain Alignment so quickly??

[Othob Rithol 700]

Here's my opinion on what seems to be the big issues here:

• Exodus: Give us a sizable warning (weeks) before the new server opens. In addition, there should be some way to avoid the previously mentioned "we all spawn at new new town" issue - perhaps an option at the entry portal to pick one of 4 exit portals (N,S,E,W). Or, as many have requested - let us sail there, even though this leads to dense population on only one shore.
  
• Inter-server travel: As I posted in the last thread:

  I am for some interaction between servers, as well as a very limited opportunity for migration. I was on the absolutist camp (edit: complete isolation), but arguments for limited contact have swayed me. If at possible, I think that contact should be limited to Contested (Wild) <-> Kingdom (Homes) and Kingdom (Homes) <-> Neutral (PvE) servers. These terms, I think, better describe the nature of the servers.
  
  If I am a a neutral player, for me to trade with, visit, and even get involved in raid defense on the Kingdoms (essentially a merc) seems reasonable. However, for me to skill up , make some super gear, and participate on a Contested server invasion seems very, very unbalancing.
  

• One Way or Convertible?: In a lot of the posts (including yours, Rolf) it seems there is an undertone of desiring to "punish" those that want a PvE server by isolating them completely and irrevocably from the rest of the game. Instead of finding some way to punish the new server (and thus perpetuate the split in the community) how about instead have an open, dedicated discussion on how we can limit the disruption a PvE server could have on the Kingdom wars?
  
• Premium Only?: Yes.
  
• Portal from GV?: If you can sail to the new server, no. If you must take a portal, yes.
  
• "Location" of the new server: Between MRH and JKH. Yes, I mean it to be the opposite side of the world from Wild. If it becomes necessary to add more servers in between later (due to game expansion) then just add some "ocean servers" that we can all just pretend we've been sailing across the whole time. MR refugees colonize to their west, JKH to their east.
  
• Who are the people of the new server: Individuals that lost all faith in their leadership and felt betrayed by being dragged into a war. Setting aside their Kingdom biases, they opted to settle together, in peace, on a new land.
  
• Ore Caps: No ore caps. These are punishment for anyone involved for not living on Wild. This is probably the largest flaw in the entire game. An actual design failure on Rolf's part for having the Homes be capped for so long instead of finding some other way to balance the server types. I'd go so far as to say it was NEVER necessary, always punitive, and would have averted the entire crisis if it had never existed or had been lifted prior to the raid update. Any caps anywhere should be for a logical reason, and spread across the whole game, regardless of PvP or PvE preference.
  
• Uniques and Hunting: Any uniques on the new server should be untameable, immune to domination, and wall destroyers. There should be no way to claim, control, or isolate them at all. And if one falls, another spawns somewhere else. The new server should also have its own little war: Players vs Trolls/Goblins.
  
• Towers: For having them for utility reasons (safe roads). How about limiting TGs to travel only on paved tiles? Much simpler than GuruBear's excellent idea.
  
• Home Server Raid Protection: Adjust the the CR of invaders and Ore cap on Homes based on a rolling average of Home Kingdom's player's fight skills. Rolling average so it does not change suddenly and can not be swayed by Wild visitors. This also allows the figure to be based on who is online, not just who is registered...meaning creating 1000 alts that never log on will not bring the average down. The influx of new players will always keep the handicap present.
  

[/rant]

[Elen 1,013]

Towers only being able to be built in the proximity of a village's Area of Control would be the best way to control where towers are built, imo.

Love this one, excellent idea.

[Neb 42]

Othob Rithol

Home Server Raid Protection: Adjust the the CR of invaders and Ore cap on Homes based on a rolling average of Home Kingdom's player's fight skills. Rolling average so it does not change suddenly and can not be swayed by Wild visitors. This also allows the figure to be based on who is online, not just who is registered...meaning creating 1000 alts that never log on will not bring the average down. The influx of new players will always keep the handicap present.

Best suggstion i heard yet. "CR panalty is based by who is online".

Regarding transfers to Hippy:

I would have a command for transfers to "hippy".

If a player is commanding a boat when they enter the command, then the boat is taken to "Hippy" too.

Hence I would add the hippy "newtown" equivalent at a coast. Thus non boarded players can easily move to thier towns Boat to explore.

Ragarding Unique hunters & eventual transfers from Hippy.

As posted http://wurmonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=18153.msg168894

Perhapse Rolf could state now that unique titles will get nulled should he permit transfers in the future?

This completly kills any incentive for those who wish to go to hippy to get dragonslayer / fearless and then return to wild in future.

If he would state that cash and skills "maybe" transfered (probably with penalties....EG 10%), whilst all Items and Unique Titles are non transferable this discussion would end and glory hunters would be de-insentivised from traveling to "hippy".

------------------------

"IF" 2 way travel is permited then most accept that future travel between Non-PvP and PvP would imply NO items are transfered.

IMO - Simplest solution is 2 seperate account inventories, one for PvP one for NonPvP.

When a New account leaves GV you pick which inventory you take your gear from GV to.

The other inventory gets a noob set of tools.

This permits accounts, cash and skills ONLY, to be moved between game types without any possible impact on items..

2 inventories is best solution to all isues imo.

Dont complain about those skilling up in safety, this can be achieved anyhow by killing your own alts.

There is also enough advantages to being on wild , fights last longer and ?yield more FS?

To those of us who are still undeicied (as I am)

It would be sensible to start a short list of questions we would like Rolf to answer to permit alow our descisons.

I think this list will hlep Rolf, the Dev team, and current GM as much as the players.

Would a current moderator be willing to do this?

PM me if you are and i will spend some time compiling an initial list of questions.

(Any non-questions should be removed from said topic to make it easier for rolf/devs to repply to).

[spellcast 983]

As to getting to the new server, i would reccomend making the initial trip there (when the server first opens) as easy as possible, portals in all start towns, the ability to sail off a coast of the map, a command that teleports you there instantly with all of your inventory intact.

After the inital migration, turn off the teleport command and remove boat travel.  Any future contact would need to be via portals a that is the best way to limit the transfer of skills and items between two radically different game environments.

Speaking of portals, put a portal on GV. I fail to see why new players should NOT have the option of going to this server if they want to, if its isolated and they get stuck there so what?  No one seems to care that an established player that goes there and later changes his/her mind would be stuck there. If the game is going to be split into PvP and PvE servers that are seperate from each other than players should be able to go to either one from GV.

Towers with a 5 tile patrol radius on the new server would be a fair compromise in my opinion. Even if they keep the same distance rules for planting this would allow some safety for those who need a bit of it without dramatically impacting the hunting of others.

With no ore caps on the pve server than the connection to the existing servers needs to be strictly controlled (via the portals) to prevent it from becoming a good place to get max QL ore and tools for the kingdoms.

map design, I would LOVE to see this map as an island chain rathar than one massive island. a ring of something like the east islands of JK-H would be nice, a series of medium large landmasses with channels between them, a few large oceans and maybe one larger landmass in the center.

==================================================================

And heres an offbeat idea, since the new server will be primarily a safe haven, and also to limit the concentration of players as they go there, what if it had 4 "start" deeds?  one roughly centered in each quadrant of the map, as well as a light in the very center for making priests, all 5 of which could be selected as spawn points during the server transfer.

[Niomana 0]

sounds great spellcast. but i really want a nice mountain and not only islands

[Gurubear 18]

Looking through the thread there seems to be enough people who would like towers that they should be included. But maybe a compromise is needed.

I think the compromise for towers would be to reduce the guard ranging area (the word influence is meaningless here). Not sure what that should be, but it strikes me that 10 x 10 is probably about right. That would be 5 either side of a road.

Perhaps allow them to be placed closer together and reduce the guard max.

I would love to see a patrolling possibility of guards between towers, but that is probably too complex for the moment. However, no reason it cannot be introduced later.

Someone mentioned upkeep of the towers - I like this. Having to store food and weapons for the guards would bring a note of realism to the game (and would be a good change on the Kingdom game too, not just the Freedom game). However, we would need to make the storage lockable - so the tower would basically become a lockable container. Should be a padlock so people can share keys

As for design, out of the existing ones, the MR are the prettiest and least threatening - however, it would also be nice to have something new.

I would also like the guards to be friendlier. So you can wave at them and they wave back - little meaningless additions can add a lot to a game!