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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About talfryn

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    I game, I write, and I read. Currently on a Sanderson kick.
  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I have no idea what has taken place in this thread but since it's you guys I know it'll have been... interesting. @bomzulu Lantern Watch
  2. ahh CAPTCHA ... they often make my girlfriend question her humanity when she gets it wrong. Most amusing. But that's interesting about the hidden check boxes. I really should read more about web design in my off time.
  3. Hello new folks, old folks no hello for you. You're too old hat now.
  4. What I'm wondering is why you think it needs to be separated. Essentially those who like/want conflict in the EKs would be happy with an EK that has it so that you are at the risk of conflict all the time, hurrah! But it would segregate the community that is probably not going to be terribly massive anyway given the general direction of the game as a whole. So why not just layer that EK on top of the hypothetical "one world" EK by having players, at the creation of their account, either opt in or out of the 'All PvP, all the time' EK vs. the toggle on and off PvP EK? That way we keep th
  5. Well you did choose to reply and run with it once people started posting. You could have let someone else banter back and forth, so in my opinion anything you feel is completely self induced.
  6. We already know that they are at least listening to suggestions. Folks concerned about the telegraphs in combat had a dev response informing them that they were looking into it and that there was going to be an aiming reticule. And bairloch hasn't suggested that they aren't doing so. He has stated that if the ideas don't necessarily fit into the current direction of the game they won't be picked up compared to those that do. But stating outright that the devs aren't going to listen at all has never been stated. And while we don't have a vision quote, we do have the information about th
  7. I understand politics in many applications but that isn't what is being discussed here. Why do you assume that there are only two guilds involved and decide when they are going to have a friendly bout of poke and tickle? If you enable the PvP aspect wouldn't it make more sense that you're now considered open season. And if you want to switch out you can but your reputation would be in the ... dregs. Since it seems to be a widely spread opinion not to have the game mechanics provide the consequences but instead the community.
  8. But why does it need to be on a completely different EK? What you're suggesting is that the PvP crowd gets their own EK that enables PvP, loot, etc. automatically. What I'm asking is why is there a need when you can just have it so that everyone would be on the same EK but those who would want to PvP, loot, etc. would get to do so by just flipping a switch on their monarchy. This way there can be battles going on in the EK, interesting things to watch, but if your monarchy isn't flagged you don't get to participate. Why move that into a separate server when other kingdoms that aren't flagg
  9. They wouldn't be able to attack unless they themselves would be open. How would what you are proposing make any sense? Especially since most of the people that would be watching (with popcorn) wouldn't want to attack you anyway.
  10. I personally have no stake in EKs. I'm not going to be developing mine since I'll just campaign hop so your assumptions are your own sir. But for those who are interested in having these things, I don't see the harm in discussing them. But you say that you aren't trying to drag people into what they don't want, but this thread has been discussing how to force people into doing things. So many you personally have not been advocating for it, but the issue has been raised by both sides equally. And just because some one doesn't want to PvP in the EKs doesn't necessarily mean they don't like
  11. But isn't that a good thing? It is a game that isn't for everyone. But for those that are still interested in the shape it is currently taking, the devs are providing parts that interest those who like this over that and players that like that over this. And even parts for players that just don't care either way. It just seems that the two sides just focus on the areas that may not be for them and glare. So if they made the EKs one giant persistent world but you still have to enable PvP wouldn't that suffice? That way those interested in fighting could fight. Those interested
  12. Why is it that conflict is the only way that you see meaning in the EKs? Let's say that they make the EKs into one giant world, but there is no FFA PvP or sieges unless you follow the devs' ideas for their kingdom warfare. Let's also say that you'd even get to keep the kingdom but depending on where it is located in relation to your own, defending it would be ... interesting. So you see all of the monarchies and trade can be established, politics can play out, etc. Would that make it more "meaningful" to those of you who are clamoring for conflict in the EKs? Because the Eks are a f
  13. I've backed things using Paypal before and it's never charged me extra. Also since I think the OP mentioned this, Kickstarter isn't using Amazon payments anymore. They've switched to a different company called Stripe. Maybe that will help you.
  • Create New...