ubisoft forums

Quick Suggestions

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    @Simplethumb Yea, the ship battles was fun and so was the conquests.

  • pesto.
    377 posts

    So what you’re suggesting is biker gang businesses from GTA online?

    Honestly that mode got old real fast, I quit registering as my gang leader in the end to avoid the annoying phone call every couple of hours to go chase down a police van or some such nonsense, it blocked other activities I wanted to be doing.

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    @pesto Any implement must be carefully made. I think a random attack on the settlement can be made fun if it isn't a problem. Could be a source of materials, for example and it wouldn't have to be mandatory or even announced, it could just happen once in a while when you're in Ravensthorpe or arriving there, it doesn't have to be a prompt in the middle of the screen that doesn't go away until you travel to Ravensthorpe. it really doesn't. It could also be ignored, like you could just travel away from it unless you had business with the blacksmith or such. But yes, I agree that a random event that happens all the time and interrupts my activity would be annoying; no doubt.

  • lemmie88
    311 posts
    *Traumatic flashbacks to Preston Garvey pestering me about settlers needing my help.*

    I had some of the most memorable chaotic shootouts from those settlement attacks. Admittedly, its was mostly from all the settlers running around + friendly fire, but still. Pretty fun. There was also times, I just said, good luck with that, Preston. The interruption aspect of it is definitely a difficult hurdle to manage.

    I very much like the idea of random attacks. Or any random events after the main quests. They absolutely need to implement more stuff like this if they're going to call them live service games. It'd also make me more invested in how much time/effort I spend on the settlement, and depending on story choices, who is alive and living there to defend it. It would be neat if, maybe after an attack, you could find out where the attacks are coming from. Then have the option to go wipe out the enemy encampment, kill the leader, and have a reprieve from attacks for awhile. Or alternatively, ignore and kill them as they come. I always wished I could do that in FO4.

    But what I really want back is #1 procedurally generated boss/mercenary/zealot/whatevers and #2 conquest battles. It is absolutely insane to me that they would take this much fun away. 😞

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    @lemmie88 Amen.

  • AnimusLover
    435 posts

    Good for you. The Preston Garvey nagging was the only aspect of Fallout 4 I disliked (from an OCD standpoint, rather than in practice) and, even then, I would still take it any day over this idea for Valhalla for a few reasons:
    Fallout 4 had loads of settlements, all of which could get attacked at any moment provided there were settlers in them, so you could ignore the ones you didn't care about and focus only on defending the ones you did. In fact, I found the settlements I had the most investment in rarely got attacked so the RNG there was respectful of your time. Whereas Ravensthorpe is your only real base of operations in Valhalla with all the most useful vendors in that one place.

    The other thing is - and this is the most crucial difference - is that settlement defence success was directly linked to base building. That meant that you could arm your settlement and if you had high defence (turrets, fortified walls, security etc ) your settlement would most likely be able to hold off the attack without your involvement. In other words, you had the luxury of saying, "good luck with that, Preston" in Fallout 4 if you knew that settlement could handle it. You don't in Valhalla.
    Lastly, Valhalla isn't a live service game in the way that Destiny or The Division is where you would expect repeating events for great rewards. It's a single player one-and-done and with light endgame stuff for those that want it but that’s not where the focus is. In games like Destiny or The Division the endgame is where the real game starts. Statistically, most players haven't even completed Valhalla let alone engaged with its endgame content. The only way to make settlement defence worthwhile would be if the reward for a successful defence is an armour or weapon drop from the store but Ubisoft would never do anything that makes MTs easier to circumvent.
    Simply put, the constant babysitting of the settlement coupled with how unrewarding it would be makes it not worth it, especially if you can't just say, “good luck with that, Randvi”.

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    @AnimusLover Objection: It's conjecture "How it would appear in Valhalla" since it is not a feature.
    Worthwhile would be plain old and solid iron ore and leather rewards, not needing to dip into the super goods. At least for me that would be solid enough. Besides: Silver and experience is worthwhile everywhere else, so why not with a random event such as this one then?
    That it would be somehow mandatory is a conjecture, as mentioned. Why couldn't you say: "Good luck with that, Randvi." and move away? And why would it be different from other skirmishes, inconveniencing grossly? If fighting does bore you to such an extent how about getting rid of it with a simple click, like literally a button emerging discreetly somewhere that told: "Let Randvi deal with it." or just a note: "You may skip this event by using a waypoint."
    But really, all I do in Valhalla is kill so I don't see the trouble. Perhaps there is one, however. But I would still very much enjoy if there was random trouble emerging at any time and anywhere I went, major scuffles too. That would please me. Wouldn't you enjoy random events? What about those meteors? To me that seems super far fetched that we'd ever get one of those and a much less interesting event than one like this. Like what if I did go to Lunden and a large brawl erupted! And then I could either avoid it or take sides in it.. Or kill both. Pleasing, I think. Wherever I go I would like there to be a chance that something happened. Some guy approach me and say: "Hey, psst.. This deal yo. I got: Shows something actually cool like a dagger I don't have. Need: Demands an outrageous sum of silver." and this stuff just happens randomly and very rarely so you better stock that silver in case of an opportunity. Or just materials.. Or a treasure map you're missing. The point being that there's very few such events but there is a want to make them happen which can be observed when encountering bandits fighting guards and such, or beasts attacking bandits.
    I would very much welcome random events. And yes, they'd have to be well implemented otherwise it's a disaster! But why paint the chart black like that? I think it has potential but you're right that they will never do this. But that's not because it's a terrible suggestion, it's just because they've already mapped out what they want to do with Valhalla and is making ready to move on. rip.

  • AnimusLover
    435 posts


    You’re missing the context of my post here - I didn’t say it would be mandatory, hence why I said in Fallout 4 you have the luxury of turning Preston away (or running the hell away from him whenever he approaches you like I did). Yes, of course you could, in theory, let Randvi handle it. What I was explaining is that the consequences for doing so would be dire because Ravensthorpe would be destroyed, and as Ravensthorpe is your main base of operations this would be problematic and affect other systems. Added to that, you’d have to grind for supplies and raw materials again to build it up which wasn't fun the first time. It’s not necessarily about the game "forcing" the player to do it, it’s about the player feeling blackmailed into it because the outcome of not engaging in the event would be worse.
    Wait, your proposal for a reward, i.e. iron ore and leather, from this nagging event is a reward you can easily get by… doing other activities? You and I have different definitions of rewarding...
    And I’m not “painting the chart black”. It’s my opinion and as mentioned, by someone upthread, you are perfectly entitled and welcome to suggestions, but as this is an open forum people are allowed to disagree with it.

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    @AnimusLover No umm, you're missing mine: There's only a suggested consequence by the author of the topic but that doesn't have to be the case. My counter-suggestion is that there would be random attacks that you could stand to benefit from but that you could ignore if they were inconvenient, without repercussion.
    And no.. I can't easily get materials like iron ore and leather. Leather's easier because I have fewer armors to upgrade. Iron ore is the cap, for me; based on what I've done and likely is for many others because there are more weapons than armors.. Or the materials required for armor is less overall than for weapons. You've perhaps not reached this phase of the grind. I could, ofc, go and get iron nodes.. but u see that's a true boring thing to do and I don't turn on games to be bored if I can avoid it. I could also go river raiding for chests but that would harm my mastery grind and since that's long enough: I got 500 more levels of bear to conclude which would be some 500x(200 + 200) = 200 000 ore procured. Or I could go around getting chests around the countryside which would severly hamper my mastery grind. And as those are incompatible with the mastery grind it's not what I will do, or should do actually; objectively, if I may be so crude since the mastery is the pity I am left with at the end to measure my progression.

    The heart of my response to you: We're not on opposite sides.
    I'm saying you're painting this black because it's like a kaleidoscope where you shift perspectives on a theoretical item. Events could be anything so why not an attack on the settlement? Or elsewhere? What would you suggest? That there'd be no events? That events are undesirable because no one should play for long enough to warrant that. That the story is the only event there should be? That it's enough for you? What about me then? The story's completely forgettable for me, it doesn't matter much at all. What I want is a good fight and an endless purpose, exploration. Or at least something more than is. Then the objection becomes: "They can't make money from endless." which is absurd because it is shooting yourself down together with me for someone else's purpose. There has to be a middle ground.

    I'm not trying to shut you down, I'm trying to inspire discussion. "Objection", as if it is in a court, is irony to highlight we're not opponents but just discussing what and how a random event could look like. You, for some reason, select that there should be no event rather than delving into how such an event should be formed to suit you; you'd rather see it as a problem than an opportunity.

    I could possibly elaborate further on what I'd like to see but I'd just grow lengthy and it would muddy the waters further. Rather I want to find a middle ground:
    You tell that this is a "nagging event" to you. What would be fun then? The idea would be to have something random occur but that don't mean it has to be common or that it would have to carry negative consequences.
    You'd like the settlement to be a place of peace and tranquility, a haven? I can see and respect this view but I don't see the big problem with having invaders personally as it wouldn't change anything for me because I'm always fighting.
    And I can't see the reason why the Odyssey conquests weren't expanded on. Is it a lack of vision? Like there's several settlements around and those could have invaders and we could be asked to either defend or attack, traveling around for such a purpose if we'd like. It could be an item of entertainment and pretend purpose for simple materials that the river raids supply. I suppose that's the reason: That river raid chests are supposed to net iron ore we'd need. It's just that those take precious minutes to travel around and once the foreign materials grind are done then the main purpose of them becomes finding keys and getting chests which is poor gameplay to me when coupled with having to sail around. The grind then becomes sitting in the ship, running about getting keys and chests just to go back to sitting on the ship listening to songs of old.

    Let's go back to your suggestion instead of going on about what is wrong about the current game: That we'd get real items from this theoretical event of "settlement under attack". A rare occassion where we'd get a shot at a random opal item from Reda's shop. Failing this event means we don't get the item and have to keep trekking until it hits again. This is a severe punishment as it is an opportunity lost but without harming Ravensthorpe and it would make the event itself worthwhile to play and a cause for excitement instead of a downer of wasted time.
    "They'd never do that." Well, likely true but we can't know that and it would be a way to let go of the dead man's grip of the cash shop items in a fading game. Perhaps it can be seen as betraying those who did make purchases, such as myself, but I don't look at it like that because I've had the items for a long time and a couple of items a week or so to the general populace would still have them grinding for years to get what I purchased. Rather I'd see it as an opportunity for myself to complete my collection on things I'm just not interested enough in to purchase.

    This deviates from the author's intent of having more use for river raid goods, however. I think it is a good idea to have those have an endless meaning. But I, like you, are not in favor of punishment for failure. That's not because I wouldn't be happy about the system if it was indeed made well; it's that I believe the core was never intended for this and would force you to go river raiding. This could be seen as disruptive, indeed, but then any system could be seen as that on the other hand.
    I also would like a use for river raid goods, like the author. Those raids are a main feature of Valhalla as they replace the conquests. So those should get super hard, imo, and net those river raid goods that I could exchange for silver, ore or leather, or something more exotic given opportunity.

    Anyway.. sorry I come off as confrontative, that wasn't my intent.
    I'll never understand politics because to me it seems as a contest on rhetorics rather than promoting thought and discussion for finding solutions no matter camp. This is akin to politics in this regard and I do apologise because I just don't know how to express myself. You're naturally free to reject all of this on any basis you'd like, that always has to be the case; it's just that I can't help to think that there could be something for you as well and lament that we're unable to reach each other.

  • AnimusLover
    435 posts


    You’ve put so many words into my mouth that I haven’t actually said and then proceeded to make entire arguments against those words:

    Where have I said I don’t want events?
    Where have I said that the story event is the only event I want?

    Settlement defence is endgame content, something to extend the life cycle of the game once all the quest lines are done. A poster made the point that Valhalla is a live service so this sort of thing should be standard. My counter was that Valhalla is not a live service because a live service has to be made from the ground up. It would completely change how systems work, the speed of upgrades, the economy, the mission design, level design, how often enemies spawn, where they spawn, when they spawn etc etc etc. Simply put, it would be a different game. In a live service, for instance, story is just an introduction to the game’s main systems and so you’d have missions just dedicated to helping the player learn them. 

    Most importantly, most players do not play Valhalla like a live service because most players haven’t even rolled credits according to stats. If Valhalla was sufficient as a live service Ubisoft would not be making Assassin’s Creed Infinity  - this is what another poster was trying to explain earlier in the thread. I'm not saying people should not play for long enough to warrant endgame content, I'm saying people don't play for long enough to even reach endgame content. There's a difference. The hunger you have for endless content isn’t shared by the majority of the player base. So most people won’t even make it that far to see their settlement attacked. Therefore, the idea that this should be standard isn't accurate.

    And, um, no, you missed mine when you said I was saying settlement defence would be mandatory and even said it was conjecture when that’s not even what I meant. Second, you’re absolutely right when you say that consequences are a suggestion by the author of this thread, not you. Take the hint from your own words - I wasn’t speaking to you or in reference to your suggestions. You then jumped in with a suggestion for me, and that’s fine, but I’m rejecting it and I have the right to do that without being hounded into submission. 

    And, on the subject of conjecture, that goes both ways. You don’t know what Ubisoft will do either. The entire point of threads like this is to throw around ideas and see if Ubisoft takes them up. If you’re going to yell “conjecture” at every interval then this entire topic may as well not exist. Speculation and prediction is part and parcel of suggestions.  It goes both ways, not just for people who disagree with you; you’re only going by the information you have as well. Your second post even states, “I can’t imagine Ubisoft would” in response to the OP and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    So far there is not a single idea that you have come up with that sounds appealing to me. Other people in this thread - not just me - have explained why settlement defence in general is not a good idea.  Personally, even without consequences the issue is that it creates FOMO. If you’re in the middle of something and you don’t drop it to go and defend Ravensthorpe then that chance is gone forever. The good thing about Valhalla is that I can put off doing activities within a game and play at my own pace. It’s one of the things that makes it relaxing to play. If I wanted time limited events then I’d play a live service game…

    You said that I see it as a problem rather than an opportunity but that’s not entirely true, is it? I told you what reward I think would justify such an event. It’s just not the one you are suggesting.  And no, not opal either. Outfits. No compromises. It’s disgusting that there are more items in the store than the main game but, as a counterbalance, a guaranteed chance to get a random outfit as a drop would make the microtransactions less egregious. Anything less simply isn’t worth it.

    But Ubisoft would never do that.  This is just basic business sense. If you’re a company implementing in-game spending then you’d have to do everything you could to encourage players to part ways with their cash. One such example is using specific and limited currency (opal) for a roll at any item in the shop, with the best items being low chance. The purpose is to hope the player gets impatient and frustrated enough to eventually give in and buy the outfits with real world money. So going by that info, of course they’re not going to reward random outfits for settlement defence; it would make it far too easy for the player to not spend any real money. Plus people who have already bought the outfits would complain (We actually saw that with the XP exploit in Odyssey. Hilarious.)

    Despite being hundreds of hours in and getting the platinum I haven’t reached that stage of the grind…because there is no grind for me, so speak for yourself. I can easily get iron ore and leather just by playing the game and have never been starved for it, but that’s probably because I have all the gear that I want  (the ones that are actually in the game)  and I find the game too easy anyway that fully upgraded armour/weapons is just overkill at this point. I’ve upgraded what I want to; my character is complete. So while iron ore is rewarding for you, it’s not for me - not at this stage in my playthrough and not when I can get it so easily by other means. 

    Lastly, you can’t shut me down because there’s nothing to shut down - the event doesn’t exist. The OP has already inspired good discussion. What you’re doing isn’t inspiring, it’s badgering; almost begging for me to see value in your proposal. You can make all the suggestions you want, go wild, but you can't force your ideas on people. It’s pointless anyway because it’s not me you need to convince, it’s Ubisoft. All the best with that. I don’t make the decisions. Let’s just agree to disagree and move on.

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    @AnimusLover I'm thinking more that the event wouldn't be announced, it would happen when you came to Ravensthorpe. That way it's not an interruption or timed, it's just an event that you may or may not succeed in. But that's only a single way of doing it.
    I carry this idea further to if I land in Lunden or wherever, that if there's an event it happens then and there and it's not something I'll search for on the map. Ideally it'd have us traveling about mounted, which is something they've been trying with the random patrols giving materials but those rewards alone is no where near enough to warrant going around like that, which is why it is so surprising to me all the meteor sites some on this forum have scrounged and posted. Remarkable that they'd go around like that, to me.

    I think you're asking a lot with a full suit for it to be worthwhile. Unreasonable.

    You've said explicitly that you don't want this event under any circumstance and you stand by that, being defensive. But sure, that you wouldn't want any event is a strawman but it kind of seem that way when you're not offering an alternative as I've been trying to steer the discussion towards how to easily implement events that would not be problematic for the player and not be difficult to construct for the developer.
    And yet again it is conjecture stating that this would have to be an endgame only event. Why so? Why couldn't the settlement be attacked at any point as you're playing the game? That would also, if successful, pull people further into the grinding aspect of Valhalla.
    There is a difference inventing a problem and inventing a solution. I invent solutions and while you may dislike said solutions you invent problems and then you say those cannot be overcome, which is a fallacious conjecture while my conjecture is constructive.

    I'm taking to heart your critique on my rhetorics and will strive to change.
    But I also think you're judging me a bit, putting some things in that I don't think I am doing. But sure, I can be somewhat aggressive.

    In my view all you're doing is saying no without offering an alternative, that's what I turn against, but sure you don't have to offer one. Then you go argumentative and talk mostly about me instead of focusing on the suggestion. Fine then, let's agree to disagree that attacks on the settlement can be a good thing. You stand that it is bad under all circumstances in Valhalla and I will stand by that it could be good.

    You conjure that the very least worthwhile reward would be if there was a full suit offered on completion. That is also suggesting that this would be a major event, which is again something it doesn't necessarily have to be. After you've conjured that the reward has to be absolutely exquisite for you to be satisfied you go to that this would be impossible from a business standpoint. That's a full strawman you've created.
    This is conjecture:

    1. Settlement defense is endgame content. Why? There's plenty of room for rewards in the early to mid game as well, in particular since one of your points is that most don't play that long anyway; counteracting yourself.
    2. The reward must be INCREDIBLE or it is a bad addition to the game. Why? Because you cba to play an encounter? Is that how most play Valhalla you think?
    3. People don't play to endgame. And yet they're making a lot of them DLC's. Why?
    4. There is no way to implement this due to game structure. Why? Depends solely on what we're talking about, which is why you've made up the problems.
    5. Settlement defense has to be an interruption. Why?
    6. Settlement defense has to be a major event. Why?
    7. This is a bad suggestion from a business standpoint. Why? Because they would have to reward you so much that they'd drain their gear resource stack due to your demands or you'd be disgruntled that they added an event? You made that problem up, plain.
    8. This suggestion requires Valhalla to be a live service. Why? It's just a random event. They should gather up as many of those as possible and include them in future iterations, including conquest and something similar to the mercenary system.

    I'm not shutting down you OR the event that doesn't exist, and those are not the same thing by the way. This is a discussion, not an event in Valhalla which is why I told that I didn't want to shut YOU (your reasons and arguments) down, not the event that doesn't exist.
    It's a bit mean that you tell I'm uninspiring and even that I'm hurtful to the discussion, so in actuality it is you who's trying to brute force me. And no, I am not "begging for you to see MY view"; I am asking you to get constructive. But I won't be doing that one again because you're not interested in that, you're only interested in the argument for the sake of arguing is what I believe now. And no, I am not FORCING anything; that's just you projecting onto me be it for my style of writing or for whatever the reason.
    None of what you've written is compelling to me either but that's just because you're trying to shut the discussion down instead of furthering it and then you try and turn this on me while you're the one who hasn't given any suggestions.
    I do believe I know what Ubisoft will do and it's not this. I think they will complete the plans they've laid and been working on since last year but it can't hurt to give them a few ideas on how to free up some items for the community and/or ideas on events as those we could sure have more of.

    AC: Infinity is explicitly something I asked for some years back in Odyssey: "I'd like to travel around the various places of AC on one platform..."
    It was good to hear it is coming. And no, I don't believe it's due to me but that it's a natural development. Valhalla having fewer or more events has little to do with AC: Infinity, however. And no, there was no response from the community on this that I can recall so I suppose I prefer your negative response to no response at all.

    So then, let's move on to the next post in this amazing saga. No need to reply if you don't want to though. Hey, let's end it here; right. That's what you told me and in the same manner. You should have a think on that and I will have a think on how I approach as well.

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    @AnimusLover And hey, you should see the VALUE OF OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS NO MATTER IF THEY COINCIDE WITH YOUR OWN. Mine are just one person's ideas. But sure, belittle that all you like; what it does is show who you are and what you intend.

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    Let me quickly cite "the other people explaining":

    "Best reason it won't happen. Next to the dozen others I could come up with if I wanted to.

    The game's life is just about over. How are they going to sell you the next game if you don't need it?

    Also, the idea sucks. It sucked in GTA San Andreas and every other game where you get random attacks on your base and have to stop whatever else you are doing or you'll get punished.

    In case I wasn't clear enough: It sucks."

    And then the other guy, kinda the same thing excluding the salt:

    "So what you’re suggesting is biker gang businesses from GTA online?

    Honestly that mode got old real fast, I quit registering as my gang leader in the end to avoid the annoying phone call every couple of hours to go chase down a police van or some such nonsense, it blocked other activities I wanted to be doing."

    Those are people having the same experience from the same game I believe. They, for some reason, think this implement would be identical; which is a fallacy but it's good having as an example on what not to do.
    Neither explains anything but that they had a bad experience with a similar idea. And neither adds anything constructive and even though their input is valuable, if you just take away some of that bad stuff, it's ultimately not furthering the discussion and one of them is toxic so that's a clear attempt of harming the discussion itself as it is less interesting for anyone else to follow after a negative has been laid. Trollish I'd call that one.

    And here is your own "explanation":

    "*Traumatic flashbacks to Preston Garvey pestering me about settlers needing my help.*

    No, thank you! And I can just imagine all the threads reporting all the technical issues with it:

    "Help! Ravensthorpe is still destroyed even after I built it back up!"

    "Help! Everytime I go to my settlement it's under attack and I can't use any of the vendors!"

    "Help! My own settlers keep attacking me whenever I go to Ravensthorpe!"

    "Help! Reda won't spawn since last Ravensthorpe attack!"

    And so on and so forth.

    The engine is too old. The last gen consoles are too old. And yes, Valhalla is too old. Time to move on to Mirage."

    Here you claim knowledge of the engine itself through prior experience and how it couldn't possibly deal with this. You also talk about fear of being inconvenienced when not being able to vendor because there's an event with the meaning that it would be better without any events if you want to use a vendor instead or because there's no technical possibility to degrade buildings and make it stable as that wasn't planned for.
    A fine rejection, fun actually, but not constructive and not furthering dialogue or sparking interest in what an event like this could possibly look like.

    Here's one I love and much more what I'm looking for:

    "It would be good, if they could, though it's Ubi, and I don't have any faith in them.

    I just wish they'd improved upon ACOddy instead of trying this new stuff.

    I loved the ship battles in ACOddy and now in this game I really don't see the use in using the boat. Time was spent on doing that, and IMO that could've been time spent on something better, like your recent suggestions."

    First a cautious approval followed by a suggestion that talks about a different want. Constructive but showing lack of interest in the initial suggestion *I think. That's an easy example of furthering dialogue.

    Here's where we tumbled into each other, and I will keep to the initial part:

    "Objection: It's conjecture "How it would appear in Valhalla" since it is not a feature."

    That's me calling you and everyone else out for real that it doesn't at all have to look like another implement on the same idea. It would actually be strange if it did. This did not sit well with you at all, beginning your attack on my person instead of the arguments.
    And as can be seen in your follow-ups you don't really understand what is wrong with claiming that this feature would be similar or identical to other games features such as this. You also come at me as if I have attacked your very allowance to post rather than calling you out on trying to make certain that this would be a "technical failure", a "general annoyance", "unrewarding experience", "an interruption of the game" and "that it doesn't suit this game".

    How about making implements that does suit the game? That's what developers usually try to do.
    Settlement attacks doesn't suit Valhalla? Thematically it sure does and it happens several times during the story as I recall it. As we're warriors and fight all the time it's also a suitable implement. And creating a tangible reason to keep and foraging foreign supplies also suit the game. But beyond that I try and broaden the discussion to reveal that it could be something much less invasive than making a new system where we'd need foreign supplies for repairs. That's my "crime".

    I then try to move forward, trying to write carefully, but you're enraged and come at me about rewards and what not, that my kind of rewards would be stupid. Right, but what about the event? I don't need a reward to kill some guys invading my home, not really; I'd take it face value without silver or experience if that's what it takes. That's a red herring, a false trail; a fallacy. You also go on about how it's bad business to give a reward and it's a bad idea not to, trying to eliminate the possibility to discuss the event itself as something of interest and how it could possibly be made so that it is not inconvenient because you're hellbent it would only be a detriment to the game. This would be a strawman and red herring combined you made, a fallacy again.
    Pointing out that you're not being fair, and that others have been unfair too, make you mock my attempts of reconciliation and promoting discussion. You also mock my person and belittle my efforts in this thread, an attack on the person; a fallacy.

    I'm bringing these things to new light as I've pondered them for a bit. It's upsetting how you treat me and I won't forget that. I also won't forget your tactics of discussion. So thank you for showing me what kind of a contributor you are.
    My show on your logical fallacies are, however, not personal attacks but only highlight how your way of discussing is an incorrect way. If this was a rhetorical contest you'd lose by default and that's important to point out because it shouldn't be like this trying to discuss a suggestion on a forum. It scares people off, and perhaps that's your target because you dislike the suggestion, I don't know. There's at least one here who has the goal of just stopping the discussion altogether and it sure isn't me and I'm not saying it's you either because I don't know that.
    You feel attacked by me and even when I try my best to reconcile it is clear you are offended beyond reparation and take the opportunity to attack so I feel urged to make a reply on what you are doing and how you are doing it so that perhaps others, coming into a different situation some other time and some other place, may realise what is going on. And perhaps you too can make a realisation on your behaviour instead of throwing rocks at someone disagreeing with you, then calling them someone who can't deal with disagreement.

  • AnimusLover
    435 posts


    This is my last response to you before I put you on block because I don't respond to bad faith posts anymore, especially when it's just several posts in a row of rambling walls of texts containing hominems and blatant falsehoods of what I have said. However, I will address the only thing in your post that was worth me reading which is the issue of when the defence would take place: 

    If it wasn't just endgame, if settlement defence could take place at any time like you've suggested, that would be even worse because early to mid game is where all the fixed main and side quests are. So being pestered about settlement defence while trying to complete one of the many chapters or do the blue mysteries and white dots would be even more annoying and inconvenient. Especially when, at that point, you're still trying to build Ravensthorpe and get what you need from vendors. Having that be temporarily halted because the settlement is being attacked would be beyond irritating. Therefore, once again, you've taken a bad idea and made it even worse. Moreover, I think you've secretly realised this settlement idea isn't as good as you first thought because you keep tweaking it slightly whenever I point out the obvious problems it would lead to and calling my points conjecture as a cover-up.

    And yes, the majority of players don't play until the endgame. You don't have to believe me - you can check the trophy lists. Last time I checked only 15% of players completed the main quest line, even less people completed the DLCs. They make DLCs because people tend to buy gold editions and season passes before the main game and DLCs are even released. At that point, the player doesn't know what they're getting. Wrath of the Druids and Siege of Paris both have around 6% completion out of the entire playerbase. Ragnarok? Just under 2%. And that’s probably because Raganrok was not included in the season pass or gold editions and required an additional purchase - at which point people know what they’re getting into. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    You can continue attacking me and others for disagreeing with your points, calling people trolls and claiming a differing opinion is non constructive, but it doesn't change the fact that I and others think the settlement defence is a bad idea. And even with it being a bad idea I've told you how I think it could potentially work out; it's just not the same as what you have suggested and that bothers you for some reason. If you want to continue making needlessly long winded posts attacking posters that do not share your opinion I'll leave you to that. I've got better things to do with my time. All the best.

  • Polyedra
    131 posts

    I didn't bother reading. Useless, I felt. I just went straight for the block you was talking about initially. Whatever you wrote can stand for you now.

Suggested Topics