Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-5588011-20140224184038/@comment-24108228-20140224191610

Ok then, lets start at one.

Weaker Players are Targeted
Ok, this is my opinion on the matter:

When a raider is picking off a few tribes because they got bored, small settlements are safe, because they are not satisfying to destroy. Fireproof settlements are also safe, and whatever you do, do not say "UMG BOMBS!", because I could write a text wall the size of this one on why bombs are of no concern on this matter. To put it quickly, they are too expensive and ineffective to use on a small settlement, or in mass raiding, and are only used in hate raiding/revenge. Now, lets do a quick evaluation. If my settlement is a small settlement, that must mean I have not been playing for too long. Oh, did I make too many buildings without advancing in my tools? It's ok, I can just fireproof and it will be immune to being destroyed. Sure, they can kill me, but I don't really care too much about that. What really matters is the buildings in which you put so much time into. They are not going to stay at your village and kill you when you come back, they are just going to kill you once, try and burn it, then leave. Or even better, you could advance to stone. Build some quarries, set up a wheat farm depending on your island, and poof. Much less effort. Sure, your more of a target now, but put it this way. If a new player/friendly veteran comes looking for a tribe, they will come to you because your more advanced. Have them mine some steel and mithril, and you have yourself a good set of raider deterrents. Defending is easy, the reason nobody does it is because they don't need to. They don't expect a mass raid, you don't get many. So why bother going through all the trouble being defended when you could spend the time playing about?

Ok, I know what your thinking. "What about mass raids?" Well, all that means is you get one less 'safe' parameter, small. Because when a raider with intentions of murdering the entire server comes along, there is no way they can get enough bombs to destroy that many buildings and settlements. The only method of destructions they will use is fire, as using bombs on every tribe they see gets expensive very quickly. So all you need to do is become immune to fire. Fireproofing sounds good.

Also in the case of the mass raids, this isn't much of a good point when saying "The noobs get targeted", as a mass raid targets absolutely everything, including the pros. The only really relevant point is the one up top, I only put the second one in to prevent writing it later. People can defend themselves with ease if they chose to do so. It is not a case of "Oh no the weaker players get targeted we need to help them!", instead "Those who are weak are too lazy to become strong. They need no help, only punishment for their ignorance." If we made being able to fend off raiders a bad thing because it makes you more of a target, why become strong? The point of strength is to become less likely to be killed, so if people who put the time and effort to become strong are more in danger because people have reason to kill them, why would anyone want to be strong?

'''Final Verdict: Strong villages take the time to become strong so they can deter raiders, why are you trying to reverse that? Weaker villages deserve to be raided if they cant be bothered to become strong.'''

No Rewards
Ok, so let's take a step back. We are going into the theory zone, where traders and resource seeking raiders dwell. You are trying to add more incentive to raid, let me tell you why we do not need that.

I want you to have a good look at the world of survival 303. You see where there is a ton of profanity and burning buildings? That is a raid. Now, you can see a lot of these. Clearly, something is driving these people to raid. In fact, that is an ancient caveman instinct/"sick enjoyment" of which I will not go into. This is a factor almost always ignored when doing theory on raiding, and why suggestions for making raiding rewarding always seems to die out. As you can see, the raider-villager ratio is actually pretty good. It provides a challenge for both sides, with raiders always finding a lack of large villages, and villages always finding themselves under attack, but only after enough time has elapsed to prepare if they choose to do so.

Now I ask you, why break this balance? If people have good reason to raid, why are you saying they need more? Strong villages deserve their safety, they earned it after all. If your too lazy to get good tools, then why should you be safe? I see your point about raiding seeming pointless and small villages being under threat, but what your trying to do is break a balance between villages and raiders that should not be broken. It is what I feel makes the game stand out over other sandbox building games. By forcing a group of some complete "insert bad words here" to interact, you get a sense of danger, not from zombies or skeletons, on which other sandbox games rely on, but absolutely everyone else. The balance was achieved at such a perfect rate, there is absolutely no need for more incentive on either side.

'''Final verdict: If sick enjoyment is what you feel makes people raid, so be it. The important thing is, it works. The incentive doesn't matter one way or another, you still get the same result, raids. So why change a working system?'''

There Needs to be Better Ways To Defend
I actually laughed when I saw your lighthouse comment. Why on earth would anyone spend the time and effort to get all those materials when they can just make the magical wonders of this? A wall isn't to keep people out, a simple boulder stack can get you over. It is for show. Intimidation. Induction of fear. The only point I agree with is your cacti wall remark. Explain how I am supposed to render ladders useless to a wall? That is pretty much the point of making ladders, to get over an obstacle. If the obstacle is a medieval gate, so be it. We even have a (mostly) ladder proof wall in the game already, the spear wall. They don't need fixing, they were never broken. The real defence of a castle is the masses of players it will attract, all of which you can arm with the finest of steel and mithril weaponry. Because 7 people lobbing javelins, sniping crossbows, tanking hits with BS, and swinging mighty swords will defeat any raiding force.

'''Final Verdict: You misunderstood the point of a palisade or medieval wall. It isn't to keep people out, use a spear wall if you want that, it is instead a way to attract attention.'''

Bows are Too Powerful
There is an awful lot of suggestions on these threads that try to fix a problem found with flawed theory. In theory, ranged weapons are the most OP thing ever, a single piece of mithril and a load of steel and feathers can defeat the mightiest of bluesteel warriors, armed to the teeth with armour, swords, and javelins. However, I would like you to do the same as question 2. How many people do you see with ranged weapons? Surely something so OP would be on every single raider, right?

Oh wait. Not a single raider uses them, excluding a few very experienced raiders and our wiki editors, who are almost always the same people. They all use swords. Why? Because they are cheaper. Much cheaper. If you look around our forums, you will find us desperately trying to make ranged weaponry more useful. Last thing we want is a nerf of those proportions. May I remind you we have javelins, which would be much more powerful than your weakened bows that your suggesting. Considering they are about 10-20x cheaper for an active raider, your just delivering a final blow on a dying object.

'''Final Verdict: Not all things are born equal. Most people would laugh at the idea of using so much materials to make a bow. Last thing we want is a nerf for them, we are trying to make them more useful.'''

Bandages
I'm rather sure we already have a thread for this. Refer to that one.