This topic is closed

Hamlets VS Settlements

15 Replies
FAILO
27 September, 2016, 12:58 AM UTC

What is your opinions on hamlets and settlements?

  • Which one do/did you like better?
  • Do you capture them often?
  • Which one do you see as more profitable?



**My opinions**

Hamlets are USELESS. i liked settlements back when they had settlements for resources not just relics.

No one hardly ever captures hamlets (in my area at least) this is due to a handful of offensive players that just play wack a hamlet weather PVP is up or not,. and i'd assume this happens other places as well.

when we had settlements for resources i could get some nice resources after a few hours

The way i see it settlements are much better, and in my opinion (when there are lots and only settlements to focus on) it is much more strategic game play, than wack a hamlet.


Please bring back settlements PLARIUM!

UTC +0:00
Oracle
27 September, 2016, 9:18 AM UTC
I like hamlets, the only thing I hate is the inability to do league attack, and for league mates and allies to defend. Settlements ahev ended the level 70+ exclusive no invite party for anyone lower. 
Gedleyihlekisa: Oracle the postremogeniture
UTC +2:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
27 September, 2016, 11:50 AM UTC
We can't bring Settlements back, as I already mentioned before. They were replaced by Hamlets, and now our developers are considering some ideas suggested by players to improve them. However, I don't know if they will make any changes or not.
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
djmoody
27 September, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

I preferred settlements to be honest.

Some people wanted to hold settlements for their duration. They might only defend with 1 archer to begin with but you could stir up serious PvP with those people because they had a need/reason for trying to keep hold.

With hamlets, the resources compared to the risks means that virtually all the hamlets are empty all of the time. There is no reason to try and hold them for any length of time. If you do see a hamlet occupied then it is emptied by the time you can send troops there (unless you spend boosts). People just sending, recalling for short period over and over to farm them. From that point of view hamlets  just reward the OCD.

Even if I want PvP these days, I will stir up some settlements, never waste my time with hamlets (shame there is about 3 days where there are no settlements). To be honest though it's very difficult to find PvP now.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
BiohazarD
Moderator
27 September, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC
oracle said:

I like hamlets, the only thing I hate is the inability to do league attack, and for league mates and allies to defend. Settlements ahev ended the level 70+ exclusive no invite party for anyone lower. 
I agree, I love seeing level 40-60 players on hamlets.  Because it means I get to kill all their defense (usually with 0 losses to my troops due to overwhelming offense).  XD
UTC +0:00
FAILO
27 September, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC
BiohazarD said:

oracle said:

I like hamlets, the only thing I hate is the inability to do league attack, and for league mates and allies to defend. Settlements ahev ended the level 70+ exclusive no invite party for anyone lower. 
I agree, I love seeing level 40-60 players on hamlets.  Because it means I get to kill all their defense (usually with 0 losses to my troops due to overwhelming offense).  XD
part of problem is hardly anyone defends hamlets anymore (at least where i am)
UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
28 September, 2016, 6:37 AM UTC

djmoody said:


I preferred settlements to be honest.

Some people wanted to hold settlements for their duration. They might only defend with 1 archer to begin with but you could stir up serious PvP with those people because they had a need/reason for trying to keep hold.

In many cases those who captured Settlements weren't attacked, because a) they could strike you back, b) on some servers there was some kind of agreement that a Settlement "belongs" to a player who captured it first. 

I'm curious, why those things don't work with Hamlets?
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
FAILO
28 September, 2016, 12:35 PM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


djmoody said:


I preferred settlements to be honest.

Some people wanted to hold settlements for their duration. They might only defend with 1 archer to begin with but you could stir up serious PvP with those people because they had a need/reason for trying to keep hold.

In many cases those who captured Settlements weren't attacked, because a) they could strike you back, b) on some servers there was some kind of agreement that a Settlement "belongs" to a player who captured it first. 

I'm curious, why those things don't work with Hamlets?

a) yes they can strike you back...  But what about hamlets makes it so people wont hit you back.. Nothing exactly..

b) yea if you hold a settlement it is yours till you lose it and if there is someone who is holding a settlement you want that you have to prove to them its not worth it for them to hold and your getting it.


another note.. settlements helped find a lot more PVP it was much more Strategic game play with how to capture them and sending your units quickly to catch an enemy when they weren't expecting it.
UTC +0:00
djmoody
28 September, 2016, 5:41 PM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


djmoody said:


I preferred settlements to be honest.

Some people wanted to hold settlements for their duration. They might only defend with 1 archer to begin with but you could stir up serious PvP with those people because they had a need/reason for trying to keep hold.

In many cases those who captured Settlements weren't attacked, because a) they could strike you back, b) on some servers there was some kind of agreement that a Settlement "belongs" to a player who captured it first. 

I'm curious, why those things don't work with Hamlets?

Because there is no need to HOLD a hamlet. There was a need to hold settlements for a long period of time (min 1 hr just to be able to get any res out of them)

The people that farm resource out of hamlets, go on them for no more than 10 mins. Unless you boost you never catch anyone on Hamlets, they are gone before you arrive.

In regards to whoever gets there first problem. Some players would get upset because they felt they had that right. A little PvP later soon put them straight :)

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
29 September, 2016, 8:50 AM UTC
FAILO said:



another note.. settlements helped find a lot more PVP it was much more Strategic game play with how to capture them and sending your units quickly to catch an enemy when they weren't expecting it.
So mostly you like them because there are free Offense PvPs?
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
29 September, 2016, 8:55 AM UTC

djmoody said:



Because there is no need to HOLD a hamlet. There was a need to hold settlements for a long period of time (min 1 hr just to be able to get any res out of them)


So maybe we should put the 1 hr limit back? :) The mechanics is different, I agree. But what are the differences? 

a) No need to wait for 1 hour and risk your Units.

b) No risk for Offense.

c) No League Defense, so it's easier to take it back. However, many Settlements were held by a single Archer, so maybe it's not a major change.

d) Protection against high-level players. If you're a low-level player, it becomes possible to hold a Hamlet while almost all Settlements were captured by TOPs.
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
djmoody
29 September, 2016, 12:23 PM UTC
Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

FAILO said:



another note.. settlements helped find a lot more PVP it was much more Strategic game play with how to capture them and sending your units quickly to catch an enemy when they weren't expecting it.
So mostly you like them because there are free Offense PvPs?
They can be free defensive PvP also. Depends on how you want to outplay your opponent on the settlement.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
djmoody
29 September, 2016, 12:38 PM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


ybe we should put the 1 hr limit back? :) The mechanics is different, I agree. But what are the differences? 

a) No need to wait for 1 hour and risk your Units.

b) No risk for Offense.

c) No League Defense, so it's easier to take it back. However, many Settlements were held by a single Archer, so maybe it's not a major change.

d) Protection against high-level players. If you're a low-level player, it becomes possible to hold a Hamlet while almost all Settlements were captured by TOPs.

One thing I would point out, is that settlements being held by a single archer is a giant red herring. 

You see 2 people who are online at the same time are quite often happy to fight each other and risk troops.

Yes mostly they would be initially defended by 1 archer. But if you poked a settlement, at that point quite often the fighting would escalate to putting serious troops into them. More often that not that would be me putting defence to catch their offense but sometimes people would defend also. People generally wanted their settlements back (no one wants a hamlet back) 

The reason that settlements were defended most of the time by 1 archer is simply that people can't leave their defence out 24/7 and have it destroyed while they are asleep or at work. The attacker can employ whatever strategy they like (or call in a bigger player from their league), the defender can't do anything cause they are offline.

So don't misunderstand the unwillingness to risk defence 24/7 (hence 1 archer) for a lack of PvP on settlements. When both players were online PvP happened.

With regards to League defence that has two sides. I think you should have settlements/hamlets where leagues can defend and some where you know its 1 v 1. League defence isn't an ugly thing to be stopped, it actually allows a group of smaller players to compete with bigger players. But I think 1 on 1 "pure" PvP should also be encouraged.

Point d) - yes its good to have Tiers so more players can take part in balanced fights against people more their size. That mechanic can be applied to settlements or hamlets though.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
djmoody
29 September, 2016, 12:48 PM UTC

PS I am not saying settlement mechanic was perfect btw it wasn't. But it was easier to stimulate PvP on settlements than hamlets.

The difficult part in a 24/7 war game is how to stimulate player to put troops at risk when they are offline. 

In every game, being the one online confers a huge advantage, if the other player is offline. In stormfall, your settlement could be spied, or a good player could send a small test hit and guage the defence. At that point you are only going to get attacks that smash your defence. All the power is in the online attackers hands. If the potential attack can't win then they just won't send and will look for something smaller to hit. So risking defence while offline is a one way ticket to a lost fight.

Not saying this will work in Stormfall but for instance Eve has an interesting mechanic for over coming that. When you attack a player base/space station you can take down the shields and that starts a timer. At the end of the timer the final fight for the base can take place when the structure can be destroyed/captured.

That creates a mechanic where both sides know what time the final fight for the asset will be (when stuff is lost). The defender can choose to be online for the final fight and defend their stuff in a fair fight. You can't just wake up one day and have lost everything you own.

Rather than have temporary settlements you could build permanent structures for players to fight over with that mechanic.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
30 September, 2016, 9:11 AM UTC
Thank you, DJ. Really useful info!  Right now our devs are considering different improvements suggested by Players, and hopefully next week I'll have a chance to ask them if they can share some plans with community. If yes, I'll share them with players here.
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
Sculptor
30 September, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

The hamlets are imo useless. The risks/reward for holding them is just to low.


- When you sent units to just hold a hamlet for 1 hour you now that you will get attacked and lose the units. And because the amount of units wasn't high you won't get any PvP worth to mention as well.

- When you sent in all your defense to destroy the attacks on them you'll still lose a hell of a lot of units which the reward for keeping it and the PvP points will never make up for. Keep in mind that in the hamlets there is no castle defense bonus or anything.

- Attacking it will give you (every day) some resources and 2 dragons (depends on your lvl) and in comparison more PvP points because the defense isn't as strong as it would be in a castle/beacons because of the castle def bonus.


And I just watched the suggestion video on youtube and the new idea is that the attacker will get the resources that the defender has gained in the period he held the hamlet???? Really???? Who thought that was a good idea.

- edit: Another problem is the travel time towards the hamlets. When you hold a hamlet it will get attacked by all kinds of people. So when you want to defend you honor by attacking that person you will find that he/she resides 5 or more hours away from you. That will take up a lot of boosts or the attacker has the chance to build up a WOD. Again a big disadvantage for the defender. Now it's just a free for all to attack.


Hamlets were dead but now finished of completly. Instead of evening the odds out between attacker and defender you just made it worse. As I said before, please delete the hamlets so you can clear up some server space. Or!!!!


I would like to see

- that the travel time towards hamlets gets longer

- delete the personal events about the hamlets

- a def bonus for the defending player

- sent the resources that the defender allready build up sent to the defender and not the attacker.


This way hamlets get more attractive to actually hold them and thus there will be more hamlets that can be attacked for PvP points. Also the smaller players will think twice of attacking a hamlet because the risk of getting attacked at their own castle is much greater. The hamlet tournament will get more interesting.

Member of Blue Magic
UTC +0:00
1662034 users registered; 33545 topics; 252662 posts; our newest member:Castle №10908964