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

Do we need the free city?

Recommended Posts

I have no idea if there's bigger things planned for the free city in the future or if it's tied into the lore somehow, but i feel like it's somewhat useless simply as a trade hub, especially when ek's do the same even better and it's not the smartest thing to provide goods to the enemy anyway.

The central map piece could be used for so many other, more interesting things. 

E.g 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on how rules are established. 

Lets take the Dregs ruleset for example (Guild Vs. Guild, no faction). There are, at least as planned for now, supposed to be zero import and export only at campaign end. So EKs do nothing for that rule set. A free city, in this instance woud open up a viable place for people to sell/trade wares without being ganked.

In my opinion, a free city is needed in the Dregs. I actually would not mind solo players having the ability to "Tag" to a free city in the Dregs. They had that functionality in Shadowbane. The main free city (At first Khar Th'sekt, and then Sea Dog's Rest in later iterations) became a Trade/Social hub as well as a landing spot for mercs and solo rune hunters.

Edited by Armegeddon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Glitchhiker said:

it's not the smartest thing to provide goods to the enemy anyway.

If your adversary is willing to trade you something you desperately want for something you are happy to part with, that's a win for you; although it's also a win for them. Absent coercion, trade is always a net sum gain for both parties. Set your prices accordingly.

Imagine a campaign where each island has abundant resources of a single type, but little else. You need those other resources. You can raid for them, or you can trade for them. In GvG campaigns, not all other guilds will be your enemy. Some will be your allies, others will be neutral (for the moment). In that scenario controlling access to the free city would be a strategic advantage for your faction, but even if your enemy were able to gain access to the city you gain from the trade, if you have set your prices appropriately,

Having the option for a free city coded into the game won't be a bad thing. It makes scenarios possible without forcing them.

Edited by VaMei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the free city but I am not really a fan of it being used as a sanctuary from getting killed for combatants who were previously engaged in a fight in connecting zones.  I've used it and have had my enemy use it, and its a viable strategy right now, I just don't really like it that way.

Edited by Ble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 8:03 AM, Armegeddon said:

It depends on how rules are established. 

Lets take the Dregs ruleset for example (Guild Vs. Guild, no faction). There are, at least as planned for now, supposed to be zero import and export only at campaign end. So EKs do nothing for that rule set. A free city, in this instance woud open up a viable place for people to sell/trade wares without being ganked.

In my opinion, a free city is needed in the Dregs. I actually would not mind solo players having the ability to "Tag" to a free city in the Dregs. They had that functionality in Shadowbane. The main free city (At first Khar Th'sekt, and then Sea Dog's Rest in later iterations) became a Trade/Social hub as well as a landing spot for mercs and solo rune hunters.

I did not know about this rule set.  Sounds like fun.  What about if you are a solo player or if you are in a very small guild, them pretty much anybody is your enemy?  I will love that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EK's do not do things better, because EK's require the use of importing/exporting. They only seem equivalent now because importing/exporting is currently trivial, but that will not always be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ble said:

I like the free city but I am not really a fan of it being used as a sanctuary from getting killed for combatants who were previously engaged in a fight in connecting zones.  I've used it and have had my enemy use it, and its a viable strategy right now, I just don't really like it that way.

Free City could be connected to Temples only, and the middle zone could be something else. I do think Free City is needed for a trade zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, miraluna said:

Free City could be connected to Temples only, and the middle zone could be something else. I do think Free City is needed for a trade zone.

That would be so much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The faction campaigns need the free city more than the dregs. In the dregs, guilds will building their own cities and place their own buildings. I would assume that they will also be able to place vendors in those buildings, the same way we currently do in EKs. Faction campaigns do not provide the ability to place buildings, so predetermined vendor locations are required. There are only 7 in each temple. They could expand the temples and add more I suppose, but the free city currently provides a lot more spots for vendors. If you are a merchant and selling to all 3 sides, then you can still do well even if your side is losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...