Shattered Kingdoms

I furiously disagree at the end. One of the problems right now with PvP is that people don't want to fight and attack with anything other than ridiculous odds, or tiny skirmishes because bounty NPCs make chasing enemies too much of a slog.

To be honest, just removing word of recall as an option suddenly makes attacking a city a bigger commitment.

I agree that being able to gate in just about anywhere to fight is pretty ridiculous, but that can probably be resolved by setting up guard parties at choke points with very few patrolling guards. If anything, patrolling guards ought to be walking around constantly and not take orders from people with leadership, instead of having to rely on bounty NPCs to do the work. They can make the calls that are currently being made over channels that people are invading and yell out to the city if necessary.

If a solid, well-formed group of guards was at every major city's center square, with smaller groups at every major city's most important choke points, then bounty NPCs would be fairly unnecessary, and people would still feel relatively safe. The trick is that there not be gate targets closer to inns than guard groups.

Right: The thing is, I think making cities a bigger commitment to attack is a great idea, as long as you're going to be facing mostly against other PCs, not other repeatedly spawning NPCs. Not to say my idea was perfect, but clearly you'd only want to make such a change if bounty NPCs were completely removed or reworked. If bounty NPCs were removed at the same time as recall, that means it would be easier to attack a city, and more difficult to escape if the actual PCs beat you. Defending a city would be risky too.

Risky is fine. Choke point NPCs still exist, and 'stationed' guard NPCs for tribunals to fetch will still be around. But if we're going to move away from NPC wars, then we need to do at least this much. There's nothing wrong with risk. What sucks is having to wade through a ton of NPCs that spawn every step to chase someone who is running away.

I can't tell if we're arguing different points or agreeing!

Maybe we're just hammering out details, clarifying things. Arguments don't always have to be agree/disagree. Certainly, I am arguing primarily for changes that I feel would be positive, and trying to determine how the most positive impact could be achieved.

I mainly like the no-transport capital city idea because it actually puts a meaning to the gates that every capital city has. As things stand whenever someone attacks a city the only places you -never- have to look are the entrances. It also feels like it could add a feeling of safety to people resting in an inn where enemies are banished: You have the guarantee that at the least the gate guards will alert the city if there's a strikeforce on its way. Besides, when's the last time that a tribunal war resulted in an actual gate siege? Too long if you ask me.

No-recall would be a bit much, I guess.

Aside from draining resources and maybe killing someone in the other trib, Tribunal wars doesn't have much meaning. If the attacker actually had something worth while to get (draining of resources is partially sent to their economy to lower prices, not saying good idea just throwing out an idea), there really isn't any real incentive for tribs to attack eachother.

I guess loot is not a thing anymore

Yeah, uh, killing other PCs is kind of a thing.

I'm all for removing bounty NPCs and no gate targets in city limits. They're both positive changes, considering noone likes wading thru 4bounty NPCs a room. Removing gatable targets within city limits will mainly impact the targets two rooms away from the Inn, so the cheap run thru, op n; wtfpwn is no longer(throw in a retreat if you like). For everyone else that is not being a [REDACTED], they can just gate to the Stones which is usually a safe route into the City on most roads for newbs.