Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nefastus

  1. For the record it doesn't say anywhere that only Dregs will be available at the release.
  2. Yes, I will be adding a comprehensive blogging system where every member will be able to publish their own articles, blogs, stories or whatever on their personalized blog pages. Also, if anyone would be interested in helping with this project let me know, PM me, post here or on CB forum and let me know what you'd like to help with or what you can offer.
  3. If it wasn't then my apologies but the rest of that post still remains true. Some people here, especially a certain knucklehead, are really special.
  4. And it doesn't say anywhere that there can't be conflicts in EKs, as a matter of fact many Gods are in conflict, even as of right now you can enable PvP in your personal EK. Your argument has been invalided, you can now go back to clinging to your super secret dev document gibberish. Next.
  5. Click start new thread and on the right side you have poll options. You can't make polls in General Discussion.
  6. I'll once again post it so maybe for a hundreth time people quit posting about how it will be too harsh, how some people don't want to pvp in EK, how people will quit because they'll lose pixels, etc. First, the concept that I proposed does NOT affect those players who would rather enjoy the safety of their own personal EKs. The idea of personal EKs, being run entirely by their owners, with their desired rule sets, would remain untouched. Let me say it again, this idea does NOT change anything in the current set up of personal Eternal Kingdoms as it's proposed at this moment. - The proposed idea is to ADD extra set of EKs, or simply call them Eternal Worlds, to the existing list of personal EKs and campaign worlds. They'd work as a mix of EK and campaign worlds in a sense that they'd not be owned and managed by players like personal EKs, but they'd be persistent unlike campaign worlds. - Those Eternal Worlds would have set open settlement, PvP and conquest rule set (up to discussion, probably something ala SB). Players will be able to settle in them, but just as with personal EK, they'd have to bring resources from campaign worlds. Everyone will be able to move in there, if they choose from, and everyone will be able to bring in loot into them from campaign worlds, if they choose to not bring it into their personal EK. - What does this mean? Once again, nothing is changed with personal EKs. Those who wish to only enjoy personal and friends' EKs after campaigns, they'll be able to do so, nothing has changed. What changes? Those who will want to continue politics, sieges, strifes and pvp in an open and unrestricted manner, similar to traditional servers (DF, SB, etc), they'll be able to choose to build their cities or keeps in those EKs and enjoy such type of conflict base game beyond campaigns. Nothing is essentially changed, only thing is that there is a cherry on top of the cake and literally everyone is happy.
  7. You haven't provided any refutation. Your entire position boils down to "because that's what it says in a secret dev document and they'll never consider any suggestions and ideas because and that's it" which is the most wonderful argument I've read on this forum. Either way I'll just have to skip your mindboggling gibberish and discuss with others. Carry on.
  8. And there certainly will be but until KS is over there isn't a point in making one as even ACE doesn't know who will be in alpha.
  9. For time being ya'll are welcome to use the ones on www.Crowbane.com
  10. I'm asking for a battle ground? What is wrong with you people? Is reading and comprehension really a custard lost art of the past like Latin? I'm seriously losing faith in humanity thanks to some of you.
  11. Still waiting for that vision quote where is states that they'll absolute not consider suggestions and ideas about having extra set of optional persistent EKs with open PvP/Conquest ruleset where people and guilds will have option to settle in and play out conflicts and politics outside of campaign worlds. Additionally obviously they wouldn't be segregated if players and guilds would be able to move there, and they'd still have to import resources from campaign worlds just as with any EK. Please, quit dodging and post it.
  12. Quote me this vision or quit posting and making up hogwash just to prop your position. No where does it say that they don't want suggestions on how to improve and expend different aspects of the game, EKs and conflicts beyond campaigns being examples at hand. I'm all for discussion until people start making up poorly made socks and posting lies just because they can't come up with a valid and constructive argument to back their position.
  13. How it doesn't fit. I read the vision on the first day www.Play2Crush.com came out and there was no mention of "There can't be world outside of campaign worlds that would be set to open PvP/conquest rule set". Would you mind providing me with a quote of the vision that clearly suggests that? No? Then quit making up hogwash just because you do not want an extra feature which would absolutely have no effect on you and would be very much desired by a large chunk of the following crowd. Same, if you don't understand it then I guess I can't explain it any simpler. Deal with it.
  14. Do you understand how politics and conflicts work in PvP focused MMOs? It's certainly not 2 guilds deciding that they'll fight each other. Part of such games is overlapping politics consisting of numerous guilds, alliances, multiple simultaneous conflicts in the same open land to all. Picking one week who to fight is a duel, not a political game.
  15. Who's vision? Yours? The entire concept behind this forum section is to PROVIDE ideas and concepts to improve the game. If developers had a set vision and plan for everything then there wouldn't be this forum section for custard piehole sake.
  16. You keep saying that I don't understand others who don't want to PvP in their personal EK when for a millionth time I say I DO and I'm NOT adressing those people and don't care if what they do in their personal EK. The proposed idea, for a millionth time, is to have extra set of EK cluster with hardcoded open PvP/conquest system where those who wish so can settle and play out meaningful politics and conflicts outside of campaigns. Nobody is asking the rest to be forced to join, nobody is asking to make personal EKs open to PvP by default, etc.
  17. Which part you don't understand that nobody is not seeing other part and nobody is trying to force those wishing to have personal EKs as safe zones for fluff and trophies? What's so difficult to understand here? What's with some of you failing so hard at reading comprehension and being stubborn with repeating a ridicules claim that we are trying to force people into PvP/conquest in their personal EKs. For Christ sake, READ what's WRITTEN.
  18. Read the damn thread. One of the ideas is to provide alternative set of EKs or a single large one that would be optional to settlement. It would have hardcoded open PvP/siege ruleset. Nobody is forcing anyone to join it. You can sit and stare at your pixels in your personal EK.
  19. Need some more input from SB/DF crowd in this thread as carebears are essentially spamming out a possible solution to having meaningful conflicts in CF beyond campaigns. http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/2964-make-enternal-kingdoms-more-meaningful/
  20. Because logically it makes absolute ZERO sense to have someone closed off to PvP EK and me opening my EK to contest if and capture if I can't do the same to your land. There is ZERO reason why should I be at risk while you are being a carebear about your land, that's NOT how meaningful politics and conflicts happen.
  21. They asked for ideas and suggestions to make the game as appealing as possible and that's what this forum section is for. Nobody is trying to take your glorified fluffy safe zone EKs from you. You can and should have them. On the other hand massive amount of us want to also have a set of EKs that are ready for settlement by people and guilds with a common mind set at that is open PvP, sieges, contestable territory in persistent EK or a cluster of such. The difference here is that nobody is trying to force you into something you don't want to participate or take something away from you. On the other hand you are acting like a stuck up selfish custard pie and essentially spam "NO U CAN'T HAVE THAT! CAREBEAR EKs FOR ALL!".
  22. Which doesn't mean that they can't also implement persistent EK cluster with hardcoded open PvP, settlement and contest system as has been suggested in this thread. You can sit with your trophies in your EK and stare/fap at them while massive amount of us PvPers with the same mind set will move to contestable EK cluster and enjoy lasting conflicts and contestable cities/keeps in them.
  23. - Added world specific sub-boards (Dregs, The Shadows, etc)
  • Create New...