Settlement Portals Feedback

[Ibn]

The topic in the Letter to the Players Followup (http://ac.turbinegames.com/index.php?page_id=211) that received the most feedback was our plan to remove the Settlement Portals and replace them with portal gems. We’re looking at all of the issues raised in the feedback that we received, but wanted to specifically tackle the issue of the Settlement Portals in a new feedback thread.

Some key facts about the portals and the gems:

• The portals will not be removed in April.
• No one with ties to the existing portals will lose them if the portals go away.
• The gems are not recall gems. They are summoning gems. When used, they will summon a portal to the Settlement.
• The portal that the gems summon can be tied to, recalled, and summoned.
• We are planning on making them stackable, currently to stacks of 20 each.

Our original plan was to have both the portals and the gem sellers in-game in April, and then remove the portals in May. After reading your feedback, we’re considering several changes to the original plan.

With these thoughts in mind, we’d like to know what you think of the following proposals:

Plan A: Vendors in Settlements
This was the original plan. Vendors could be found in each settlement currently linked by portals in the existing hubs. Each vendor would sell the summoning gem to his or her specific settlement. The existing settlement portals would be removed.

Plan B: Vendors in Settlements and Towns
In addition to the vendors in the settlements, vendors could also be found in towns selling the summoning gems for nearby settlements. The gems would cost considerably more if bought in town. (We’d make sure you couldn’t just buy them at the settlement and then re-sell them at town for a profit.) The existing settlement portals would be removed.

Plan C: Settlement Portals off the Landscape
In this proposal, we would not add the summoning gems or vendors. Instead the settlement portals would be moved to a dungeon near the town.

So, keeping in mind the key fact bullet points, what do you think of the three proposals?

[Kilmor]

Anything that keeps the already to little packspace free most is most desireable in my opinion. Besides I think that we have enough bots already, I don't need new player driven bot vendors in marketplace.

So my vote goes to Plan C.

[Fezman]

Why not have a building in place of the settlement portals that houses the portals? Maybe use the old training dungeons like has been suggested, just put the portals where the old straw drudges and such used to be. Then make those dungeons tieable, so you can recall there and then go where you need to go.

[williamohms]

My opinion would be the dungeon solution is the best to make everyone happy.

Remove them from the landscape but retain their existance in a seperate dungeon which wouldn't be needed to download unless entered.

[Korrigan]

Plan A. With the portal created by the gems now summonable, there is really no more reason not to do it the way you wanted to originally.

I really like the idea of being able to give gems to people so they can visit you.

Now I bet my left arm that most will chose option C ... :(

[huan]

I think the best solution is to add both portals and vendors inside meeting halls... or perhaps a quest npc as well that directs you to a certain area of the game through one of the portals so you can defeat a spawn and bring back a rare item to get a reward. That would encourage more town interaction and more exploration.

Imagine an NPC saying this (in Mayoi hall)

"Near the Xinh Settlement, NW, lies a group of ferocious Monogua's who have stolen a family heirloom. Defeat these beasts and bring back the item to collect your reward."

I think that would be wonderful!

[Og II]

B or C would work for me. I would prefer C but would not be unhappy with B. :)

[Darkavenger]

A or C are both Good.... Pref C most.

[KirillHuntersun]

Feedback on the plans is included. In order of Preference, I would have to say Plan C, Plan B, Leave As Is, Plan A.

Plan A: Personally, I don't like the thought of having Bob the Portal Gem Vendor as a door-to-door salesman (well, you get the idea) standing around in the middle of my community. I also think that it would be nearly the height of rudeness to a lot of players who would like to be able to go on some of the level-appropriate quests out there, and short of a mad dash from a nearby settlement are unable to. Please don't go with this.

Plan B: Not a bad idea. However, I would request that, if you DO take this route, that the portal gem vendor in the settlements at LEAST sell us gems leading back to the towns they're linked to. Living at a settlement linked to Sawato drives home exactly how annoying it is to get to the nearest city, and that would make Bob the Door-to-Door Portal Gem Vendor a much more palatable thought.

Plan C: Excellent idea. I humbly suggest that you expand the Meeting Hall dungeons, so that you could use those without distupting any meetings that may still be held there. Perhaps an entry off of the main entry area (not the podium floor) where there are portals in their own arches along the walls? This would be the best win, and would allow for the revitalization of something that really doesn't see a lot of use anymore.

[Strick]

Plan C if you are determined to remove them as they are.

Actually what I would rather see would be to leave them where they are, and not take up devolopment time changing them.

Otherwise the Town halls would be the best bet.

Just make a new room in the town halls, with the same portal set-up as used in the bottom of Abandoned Mines, an alcove with 2 or three related portals in each alcove.

[Chunglee]

I like plan C as well

its for the pack space but why not add the option of buying them at a master mage as well ?

For quests it would be nice to have

[Astral_Dominae]

Would it be possible to include the housing areas with no portals too?


Atm there are a lot of small villages that have no portal to them...please add solutions for those too

Thank you

[ArielleZeke]

Use those Town Halls. Maybe add a back room.


What about settlements without portals, and lone housing out on the landscape?

Will they be getting gems?


What if some greifer "Holds up" the vendor thus at least making other people wait till an Envoy could arrive?

So I vote C as with only one account pack space is at a premium for me

thats enough

I think :D

and I just saw the above post i guess we posted at the same time sorry for the repeats

[Seahawk1a]

Option C all the way.

Frankly the orginal plan and the the other 2 options are bad fixes to a small problem.

[Bowwitch]

They way you describe the gems (stackable, summonable) , I think they will make travel easier, not harder!

Your post answered all my questions Ibn, and no matter which option is implemented, I'll be happy:)

[hanyuning]

I would have to say either B or C. If you are going to put them all in a dungeon, maybe have multiple dungeons to get where you are going. Everyone can /settlement to get to the settlement portal place, there are five portals in there, west, north, south, east, and middle.

Each of those takes you to a separate room that will house the portals for that section of the world. Not sure how many actual settlements are in the world, but you might have to break it up more.

Also, a portal to the starter towns might be nice in there (or at least a very expensive vendor), and if you really want to make everyone happy, a portal to some of the other nice places we like to visit...

Han Yu-Ning
Morningthaw
House of Fist de Yuma

[Altruistic]

option C


I'd rather have a dungeon with the portals in them anyways.

I don' t think the current portals make the landscape ugly, but i always wondered why a dungeon wasn't used.


Either way, just please don't get rid of them permanently (option B would be my second choice).

[Korvus]

I'll live with whatever you decide to do. The only thing that I might miss was the anticipation of stumbling across a Settlement in the wilds which I would have no idea how to get back to. I'm not a fan of the idea of reseaching 'which town has what settlement portals located where' on third party sites. As a result, I'd greatly enjoy the ability to buy a Gem directly at the Settlement itself. I guess my most prefered is Plan B, reward the explorers and those with the presence of mind to buy a Gem each time they recall, but pull the rug out of the lazy man's gripe by allowing, for a much higher cost, Gems to be purchased in town.

[Harzah]

1. Are the gems going to be continually available? There was some ambiguity in the Followup to the March LTTP that led a couple of us to read that they would only be available for a month.

2. I'm seriously beginning to hate additional items I have to carry - so I'd just as soon do with out the gems entirely, personally. Stackable is very nice but I'm just tired of items and lack of storage, myself =/

3. I'd rather see a dungeon... or portal hub area like the appartments have, leading to housing settlement portals. The appartment one looks rather nice, really. And it gets if off the landscape, which apparently a lot of people want. So I'd rather the option C were used.

4. If C is not, then I say go with the original plan of A. I see no reason to put settlement portal gems in towns as well, really. Why add yet another NPC when you can just have a friend at the settlement you're going to get you one from the NPC there. Or be a little prepared for X quest and pre-purchase the ones you wish to use.

5. (OT) Maybe I'll find out what portal goes to my Cottage settlement if any now :P

[Solan]

Option C, followed by B

[Macleods]

absolutely plan C.

Settlement portals encourage grouping and questing.

[Serena_WE]

I think all 3 options are much less intrusive than the current portal clusters all over the landscape - and would be happy with any of them instead of the present situation.

If you sold gems in towns - there would be less need to carry large amounts - stackable in 20 sounds more than reasonable -eliminates any need to create mules to store them on, as people have suggested. Gems under this proposal would seem to be more convenient than dungeons.

However, I have no clear preference - as long as the settlement portals are off the landscape. :)

[CreeperMosswart]

I also feel plan C would be the most effective. It would remove the "ugliness" of the multiple portals on the landscape yet still give all players (The rich and the poor new ones who may not be able to afford gems) the chance to explore settlements their characters may not have even been able to run to without running into creatures they would have been killed by. I agree in the fact without the portals people would have to run the landscape more, but some characters may not even be ABLE to run to certain landscapes without the aid of these portals or someone else to buff them. Removing the portals would take away a small piece of the "solobility" for young players in my mind. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[sylphia]

Slap those portals into an underground venue. Rather than creating new dungeons, especially ones that would require running through bands of pointless nuiscense mobs, just send them to the Meeting Halls, as several posters have suggested. These "dungeons" already exist, and are frankly a waste of space, since hardly anyone uses them anymore. May as well make them useful again. Most of them are close enough to towns, and far enough away from dangerous spawns, to also accomplish the players' wish of moving mob spawns away from the paths to the portal rings, making movement of mules to settlements easier and safer. As I recall, MH's were specifically designed to better handle lag issues, so this seems like a good place to move the portals, since lag was one of the probles mentioned.

I think this would satisfy most players, especially as an alternative to removing them and forcing us into issues of packspace and purchasing yet another item. Go for the Halls :)

[Kachina]

I have 2 accounts and one cottage, so getting my second account characters to my cottage is important. A or B work for me. Also the idea of the portals being in a dungeon would be nice.

Kachina

[smaweet]

Move the meeting halls closer to town, put the settlement portals inside the meetings halls, and maybe even move things like chess boards, target drudges, and fun things inside of them.

[Ibn]

Originally posted by Harzah
1. Are the gems going to be continually available? There was some ambiguity in the Followup to the March LTTP that led a couple of us to read that they would only be available for a month.

Yes, the gems would be available indefinitely.

[Anglico1]

C seems to be the best fix IMO.

Thanks for giving other options and asking for our feedback on this matter.

[Drunken Warrior]

I like the idea of 'C' being in a meeting hall. I also like 'B' for the gems being sold in town. Maybe mash the two together?

[Apothem]

Option c, cause i think the settlement portals are good enough has they are, has all portals are near city bounds and it isn't very hard to get to the portals.

Apothem

[Eschient]

C! C! C! Waste not, want not. Make use of the meeting halls.

[Norbert Beaver]

i would like to choose plan C please

Thank you

[Count of MC]

Option C

This is the best plan in my eyes, and the Idea of using the Meeting Halls in towns again is exciting, this would give them great functionality again...wait did they ever have it or was that only for the marcoers? Anyways if the portals are wanted off the landscape then don't just get rid of them, put them in a less visible area... dungeon / town meeting hall etc..

I also like the option of a gem that can be purchased for quest reasons :)

[Imelda the Mage]

I vote for Plan C

[AC-Vet]

My Vote is for B
For this reason only- It allows the players to choose destinations distributed by town vendors instead of at the settlements as for the cost, no biggie, while your at it....why not create portal gems to all towns instead of just a few....make them purchasble just like other town gems....

Plan A was not even considerable.
Plan C is doable but why waste programming resources when so many other things need addressed.....creating a Dung for each settlement cluster would be a royal pain....If I would have a choice, I would see 1 Dung / Hallway with every single portal with in....and a Vender purchasable gem to get to it, as well as a central location like Hebento area that you could just run too. The best part is use the concept of the transporters in mage armor upgrade quest....no visible portals....

[arya]

no sir, I don't like it. focii were added. I lost space. loot was nerfed, I lost money. I'm struggling as it is to fill up the very limited amount of pack space I have with loot I wouldn't have even thought about picking up before so that I can buy my plats (as I didn't take advantage of the plat macros like most everyone else did) so that I can go look for more **** loot. now ya'll are taking away an aspect of transportation, making it more difficult to get around and *more* difficult to make money. -and- yer taking up more of the limited pack space I had to hold my **** loot by making me use gems. why not make them cost 500k and weigh 5,000 just to make it even MORE fun to play! woot!

[KPD157]

I would Say Plan C with Vendors for Returning to Town Gems in Settlement Areas.

The option to buy settlement portal gems only from the Town Meeting Hall or the Settlement Vendor. Town Meeting Hall Based Vendor Settlement Gems would cost more but you could pick them up without running to the settlement :)

Moving the Portals into the Town Meeting halls would be fine since I beleive they would also promote visiting others in your town and the Return town portal gem should summon a Portal to teleport you to the meeting hall :)

Like the Idea of 20 stackable for all gems of the same type regaurdless of what kind(Shoyanens, Holtburg, Aphus Lassel for example) I know alot of us hate to see all those gems filling our packs and the 20 stackable is a nice idea :)

[Fox]

i like the idea of 'C'. a dungeon.


make it like shadow hub, but no monsters seeing as ppl also run mules and such to those portals. a place where you dont have to be buffed up to go.

just a big room w/ lots of portals. could stack it 2 high or 3 levels high.


not enough room to have traders in, or for the pkers to play in like hub was/is.

[Pug Majere]

Is there any reason why option D - No change - isn't available?

I'd go with C over B, and flat out hate A.

What problem is being solved? Is it a PK thing? Do you want to remove housing barriers on DT to raise risk again?

C would seem to satisfy the "beautification" problem much more simply than creating a whole bunch of portal gems.

If the real issue is a PK issue, then B works better as a solution than C.

If the real issue is a "travel around Osteth" issue, then you need to be honest about that and just get rid of easy access to the housing settlements entirely. I don't think it's a good plan, however.

[Kaayla]

C please

[Zed Salt]

I like B. Might get a bit more traffic back into the towns.

-Randy

[Rakulp]

Greetings,

Not to sound greedy...but are these the absolute only choices? I'm gratefuly that one of them would leave the portals alone, which I believe is what most people want...however, there are some variations of "C" that might be good also (i.e., Fezman's response which would put a building at the current settlement portal site)...or perhaps a combination of leaving the portals in place, but ALSO adding a vendor who sells the gems?

I appreciate your willingness to work with the player base...it'll help keep AC fresh and exciting for us all for a long time to come!

[silvurhawke]

Plan A sounds best to me

[Kaillus]

I vote for plan C, with them going into a dungeon right outside each town, or into the meeting halls, which currently have no purpose what so ever now.

Why not kill two birds with one stone and add them to meeting halls?

[Julian's Touch]

I would say : Plan C, move them in Meeting hall

Whereas i liked plan A because it makes some settlements more valuable. But it makes travelling harder.

Plan B is cool since we keep our fast travelling freedom.


Why not adding a portals Marketplace for the 3 main town : Holtburg, Hebian-to, and Zaikhal ?

[Batu Tenjin]

Plan C, hands down.

[Chueh]

option C, but id like to see the portal there either in town, or the portals placed in the towns meeting hall

[Solan]

I like the portals in Meeting Halls idea. Assuming they will fit (some towns have LOTS of portals and I don't think Crater, Plateau and Stonehold have MH....)

[Yoshitsune]

I disagree with running a miniquest to get to the portals. However, that would address the "quests are too easy" problem.

[huan]

If the issue involves PKs and that by removing barriers your allowing a storm of pks into houses and what not and you;d rather they adventure to "Storm the castle" so to speak... wouldn't it be simpler to add a non-pk restriction to the portals themselves?

[Evil Hunter TD]

I "vote" for C

[Harzah]

Originally posted by Ibn
Yes, the gems would be available indefinitely.

:) Thanks for clearing that up! I'll relay it to my other friends who were confused as well :)

[R W]

Thumbs up for C or B, I have run Dereth before and it is no fun running for 20 minutes to get to a certain spot just to leave in 2-3 minutes.
I kinda like the idea of housing Settlement portals in Meeting Halls, I think it would make towns more lively, and would tie in with the vendor stuff you are thinking about.
Thanks for asking for feedback tho.

[Tara Malkav]

Plan A. :eek:

[Darkened Light]

Plan B: Vendors in Settlements and Towns
In addition to the vendors in the settlements, vendors could also be found in towns selling the summoning gems for nearby settlements. The gems would cost considerably more if bought in town. (We’d make sure you couldn’t just buy them at the settlement and then re-sell them at town for a profit.) The existing settlement portals would be removed.







Although.. I do like the suggestion of adding portals to Town Meeting Halls as meeting halls have all mostly loss their usage. Create sometype of corridor to the housing areas. Similiar to the Jungle of Shadows dungeon.

[boneyard]

A is the old idea which is still find bad

B i can live with

C is what i would like to see

[Grinless]

Personally im all for Plan A, many of us feel the actual situation make it too easy to reach "far and away" place and make questing too easy. Plan B and C will require more management from those wishing easy travelling, but bottom line the situation would exactly be the same as it is now.

My take is, do it all the way as originally planned; people will adapt quite quickly and Dereth will be better for it in the long run.

As an aftertought, if you ever go for C, could you make the player buy a "token" or something before they can use the portal ? Money sink is good for the game and those of us who like to travel would find a reason, however small, to do so (avoid the "token" fee).

[Boddhisatva]

Any of the above, really.

I don't see why it's such a big deal for some people. I like the idea of portal summoning gems for the settlements.

[Aztek]

I like plan B.

[DarkMarcsun]

If you are REALLY sincere about fixing the villa/ebay issue, you will not go with A or B. As it stands now, the casual player has a CHANCE, however slim, to be able to pick up a villa if they devote their time to spamming the /house available command while sitting in the bottom of the hub. Now, with summonable gems, the situation is simply exacerbated.

The casual player cannot afford the pack space required to buy each and every portal gem that goes to a villa settlement. But the professional villa buyer certainly can. And the issue will now go underground even more because they will no longer be required to sit in the bottom of the hub in order to get to the settlement the fastest. They'll simply sit in an out-of-the-way area and wait for an open villa, reference the coords and pop the appropriate gem (of which they will have multiples). There is NO WAY the casual player can hope to compete with that.

I vote for C. Use the Town halls if possible.

[Sangria]

I am fine with what ever they decide too.

It isnt like they are taking away anything - just changing the concept.

No big deal.

cant wait to see what they decide tho!

:D

[huan]

Originally posted by Grinless
Personally im all for Plan A, many of us feel the actual situation make it too easy to reach "far and away" place and make questing too easy. Plan B and C will require more management from those wishing easy travelling, but bottom line the situation would exactly be the same as it is now.

My take is, do it all the way as originally planned; people will adapt quite quickly and Dereth will be better for it in the long run.

Or you will get more bots in marketplace and more people spamming marketplace for "portal x." I'm not sure I'm ready to go back to the days of listening to 90% of the speech asking for "Portal to Teth" again.

[Moons]

I like plan C. expanding meeting halls to have them lead to the portals seems like a nice idea also.

I happen to own a villa that has no settlement portal directly to it. To bring in friends or mules from another account, I have to run them thru the desert from another communitys portal.
A long time ago i had heard of the possibility of there being hookable portals, will this ever be implemented?

[Morannan]

B or C or both :)

[Sho Nilrem]

Plan C if you really must waste Dev time on such a non issue......

the areas that currently have the portals are out of the way anyway as to them being ugly....... unsure lol i seldom take time to view the area for astetics lol i am usually to busy trying to get somewhere i ant to go or just picking portals at random for new hunting expereinces

my average time in game is currently upto hm about 10 hrs aday much of it spent at the mansion(used to be spent in town) chatting with my friends


if a change absolutely has to be made for whatever weird reasoning yu guys seem to use then by all means plan C


hm if u must waste your time do so if u do though PLEASE DO NOT take up more of my limited packspace

my mage can manage now to have as many as 15 slots open for loot :( guess what he can almost get enough to go out again well sometimes

my sword swinger/3school does somewhat better he can sometimes get a whole 25 slots open for loot and used to be able to make ends meet .......

one last thought make all gems stackable of what ever type :)
would free up much pack space on all my toons and i run on a few accts

though have let one slide My Mage acct while waiting to see what this patch brings

hehehe when i stared reading this thread there were only 2 pages wonder how many now

[Kestrel]

My preferences, in decreasing order of desirability: C, B, A.

I don't like the idea of having to add even more stuff to my pack(s)!!

[Evil Benius]

Well I seem to have the unpopular opinion, but I prefer A. I actually preferred when it took some time to get to places and people could not just pop all over the map. Having vendors sell portal gems at the settlements is something I could live with because you got there once on foot so now you can summon a portal to there as long as your have a gem.

Also I do not think packspace will be all that bad with gems either. How many settlements do you actually need portals to anyway, I can not think of that many. Having the gems for the same settlement stack is also a big plus.

[Tuff Howard]

I like plan C with the use of the town halls,
also a gem seller with town gems available with a town portal drop, only to where these town halls are located (not the dires) ;)

[Hal_E_Tosis]

C

only one that really makes sense.

now where's the thread that askes for our input about the dispell gem nerf?

[lothgow]

I think a good way to do it (and kind of stick to lore) is have the gems sold in the house of the arcanum agent. Since they are the ones responsible for housing, and writs and such, they should sell the gems. Maybe a NPC like the marriage person to sell them.

[sol-star]

Plan C

[sursun]

I think all 3 are ok. The one I like the best is B

[Pepeswiss]

I love your way trying to get players' proposals. And ... this settlement follo-up brings a lot o clarity. Thanks a lot.

I'm in favor of B, then C, then A


Some thougts for plan C
Some suggest the town halls. Nice idea. Another solution could be a "cellar" room (reached by a portal) down below of the Arcanum houses.

Some thougts for plan B
Using gems will have the big advantage, that the portals can summoned everywhere. This means that (having gems) travel times will reduce once more. My question is: Will be (if offered in towns) the gems only are offered in those towns which are now near the settlement hubs? Or will we see vendors who sell EVERY possible portal gem?


Anyway.... I see tradebots offering these gems, I see coming up decal plugins which help to administrate the gems, help trading them (remember: we will have dozends of different gems, try to find your gem in a trade window with about 100 gems!!). And two years later - as often - some of those decal features will be implemented into the original client :D

[Trekman]

Personally I prefer Plan C in combination with making Town Halls useful/used again :

If you need to get rid of the landscape portals "because they are ugly", add a new room to the respective Town Meeting Hall, similar to the "entrance hallway" of the RQs.

Of course this does not help Orion who thinks that "Hubs make traveling around Dereth too easy".....(although Hubs only cover Osteth)...

The Gems won't really help there either (on the contrary, in some situations travelling will even be easier), but at least they add a bit of annoyance with the tradeoff between transportation and already limited pack space. Remember one of the "fundamental laws of AC nature : regardless how many mules you have - they tend to be filled up anyway".
And the gems are a money sink (I am wondering how much the gems will cost).

If you absolutely *have* to remove the portals and replace them with Gems - use Plan B.

I am still wondering why significant Dev time and resources are wasted on this, if in the end we will travel around the same way, but by clicking a gem instead of using a portal.

[Ss_]

Option C

this would be best!

Option B would be my second choice!

[hanyuning]

Having the ability to buy the gems from a vendor would be nice to get toons from other accounts to my cottage, so C combined with A would be the best option.

However if you give us the ability to recall to anohter account's house, that would alleviate the need for the gems.

After some thought, I think C with A would be the best. my guess is you probably have already started coding for the vendors, so go ahead and finish those. This way a monarchy or group would be able to purchase those 5-10 settlement portals they used for the common quests, getting everyone going much faster, but sill make it easy for those lesser-used settlements to be used by running to the portal.

Yours in Dereth,

Han Yu-Ning
House of Fist de Yuma

[Count of MC]

The Gems won't really help there either, but at least they add a bit of annoyance with the tradeoff between transportation and already limited pack space (fundamental law of nature : regardless how many mules you have - they tend to be filled up anyway).

AMEN!

(3 account 7 chars over 60, 2 100+, all over burdened)

[Tyndall]

Plan C feels best. The fact of the matter is the portals are there and the vast makority of the player base has gotten used to using them. Pack Space and Time are the two major reasons for supporting Option C. Pack Space is ever decreasing. And "casual" gamers want to spend what time they have PLAYING rather than RUNNING.

If the true reason the portals are being removed is because of the blight upon the landscape, then Plan C makes the most sense.

Personally I do not have a problem with them the way they currently are, I hardly ever run across a settlement hub I was not already looking for.

Tyndall
Blademaster of Thistledown
Grunts of Dereth

[Paco_Taco_TD]

please do not remove the housing portals

they are great for shortened travel times, something I like when I only have a few minutes to get a task done

also makes it easier for people to surprise you in your cottage and say howdy :)

[Honest John]

C Please. It addresses the concerns of appearence, lag, etc, and retains the current functionability for those that use it.

And, you could still add the gems for those that prefer that if you want.

[Sheralyn Jade]

I would say B or C.


I was upset with this change at first. Having vendors in the town permanently is a nice solution. Now, knowing that they would be summon gems, stackable and available indefinately, I'm not concerned with the change, providing I don't have to run to each settlement to buy a gem.


C is a nice solution, but being able to buy the settlement gems would sweeten it a bit.

[Dougie]

I vote for C, i don't want to have to spend money or waste time in towns in DT in order to get around (death trap for my n00b).

[BunnyBlaster]

Option C.

I really like the town hall idea too.

[Kitanna]

I think the gem idea is great but so is the meeting hall. I have to say, I never see a soul in them anymore. It wouls make use of wasted space for sure. The gems of course would be great, as someone else said, to give to friends for easy access to your settlement.

[Diorex]

I have run to kingdom come and back. One of the reasons, I quit the game in the first place was because of all the wasted time running from one place to another. When I decided to come back, the portals was a big thing for me. I have limited play time and time spent running is not time spent playing. I like that most locations are a 2-3 minute run from a portal.

I like the idea of gem sellers in town. This allows a guild to do a multi-part quest in a reasonable amount of time. The leader just buys the 3 or 4 gems they will need and then summons the portal and everyone jumps in. No more, "Ok back to the sub and then to XX.X N and XX.X " and the inevitable where someone accidentally grazes the wrong housing portal and then waitin 5 minutes for them to get back. This makes a quest like Undead Mechanic as a fun way to power level newbies and show them lots of stuff and get them some xp. instead of a dreadful multi day task.

I like the idea of the gems and a central, easy to find hub in each town. No more, which way to the housing portals, ALT-TAB, then running there. Just head to the town you need and then run into the middle of town, maybe kill the statues quest and use those locations. Easy to find, already created, and relatively little used. Problem with the meeting halls is that some of them are out of the way and unknown.

Another idea that might be more trouble than it is worth would be to allow someone to use the portals only for the locations they have previously visited. Have a lifestone or sign in each portal town and by activating it we get flagged to now use that portal from the portal dungeoun. First time I need a location I have to run there, subsequently I can portal there. Fosters exploring, but does not make common trips tedious.

[Barry Mana Low]

As someone who played the game way back when you had to know the portal loops to get around effectively, and it was an accomplishment to have enough health to survive the hub jump, I can't help but think some people posting are really resistant to change.

I'm not sure why the portals have to go off the landscape, but if they do, the dungeon idea is the least attractive, though moving the portals into the town halls sounds like the right way to do that. Having the town halls used again appeals to the old-timer in me.

I like the idea of gems so that people can get to your house. The vendor in the settlement seems like a pretty cool idea. The vendor in town seems like a good comprise for the less prepared player. The packspace complaint makes me wonder just how many different settlement portals are being used to get to different places. I can think of 3 places I regularly use housing portals to get to. The 2 skill sell-back places and the 80+ gman. I can afford 3 packspaces. How many places would you really need to get to that going to a town and buying a gem and using it would cause that much difficulty. Going to a town, buying a gem then recalling to your allegiance housing and opening a portal for your quest group seems like a nice upgrade to the current process. Are you regularly going to more than 5 different places that you'd want to keep gems for? People seem to have automatically assumed they'd want to keep a ton of these gems on them, and thus, would immediately have packspace problems. The gem idea doesn't seem to affect the current ability to move around Dereth, and adds some nice upgrades. The low packspace/storage issue should be a different discussion, as should the housing resellers. If you solve them seperately, the main arguments against Plan B are gone.

[ufhamlet]

I know I'm asking for cake, icing, to eat it, and to have someone else clean my dishes, but would it be possible to integrate them? Move the portals to a Meeting Hall, for example AND have portal gem vendors in towns and settlements to expediate quests and hunting expeditions for those that would like to be able to move mules, lowbies, and fellows without having to risk losing a mule, for example?

[Dews_Pistol]

Plan C definitely!

and adding B would be cool too, if the vendor was permanent in the town. Just make the gem non resellable like spells... only worth 200 PY or something.


_____________________________________________

Remember, it is by OUR word of mouth advertising, that you will obtain 99% of your new clients - listen to the players

[Urtho]

I would prefer C but with some alterations:

As stated so many times here, the meeting halls are virtually useless. Redo them, by adding a new room with all of the current settlement portals in that room. Besides, this one actually could dovetail nicely with the story line....

And if you wanted to be really nice, you would add the gems and vendors in towns as well. It would be fine if they were expensive...


PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETELY REMOVE THE SETTLEMENT PORTALS!

[Ozy]

Well, the concerns I had about how the gems would be implemented have been addressed; the specifics you listed about them are exactly how I thought they would have to be done to minimize potential effects on questing.

So, I'm thinking plan A would be the way to go.

Note also that if plan C were implemented in a way that utilizes the currently unused meeting halls would be an excellent use of existing resources. Unless you have something else up your collective sleeves for them. ;)

[Bugjuice]

I vote for #3

[Nephi_ac]

Option C please!

[Harken]

Really Like Option C....

So how about adding them to the current apartment portal dungeon in each town ?

Harken

[Trekman]

Ibn - I like to know how you will address the issues to "equal the chances for players to buy a free dwelling" and to "prevent ebay housing sales exploits" when implementing the gems ?

As somebody else mentioned, "normal" players will have limited pack space so they will not be able to cover each and every (villa-)settlement with gems.

On the other hand an account more or less only used for scamming can fill several empty toons with all the necessary gems.
Agreed - the new timer to purchase a dwelling will greatly reduce the problem, but scam remains scam, regardless if it is done once a week or once a month.

Even if we "just" look at normal players, some have more free pack space, some have less. And I already can imagine the queueing and cussing at the respective gem vendor in town once a free dwelling is visible in "/house available"...
The current portals (or Plan C) give all online players the same chances to race to a free dwelling....

[Danilo Thann]

Option C definitely. Putting them in meeting halls is a great solution.

I would also like to see vendors selling gems the the appropriate settlements as well in the meeting halls.

[Theran_Bakagin]

Personal preference....

Plan B

Multiple purpose here..

Brings folks to TOWNS to buy the gems... or the folks who live there can bring folks to their own place.

By using a Summon Gem.. anyone trying to race a Real Estate Agent has a chance if the person pops the gem... down to footrace/item drop......






I dislike the current "Look" of the settlement portals.. they do induce a lot of lag going through the areas...

IF you use option c--PLEASE make it an area that takes it TOTALLY off the landscape..... the town halls were a great way of doing this.. hit a portal to go into the settlement portals...

I see option c as having a LOT of portal time going through...

[Wha-Ching]

hehe u finely got me to regester so I could post.

I like plan b

this would make questing where one uses portals for travel even eaiser, if you can buy the gem in town and the gems being stakable and summoning. I can see that this would be real nice for moving groups on a quest.

And the avability of gems in the towns would save me the hassel of having to run or deal with a trade bot.

As a muliptle account owner I like the idea of being able to move mules to different account housing by poping a gem

[Goragg]

I prefer their complete removal with no gem options. I enjoyed running around 4.5 years ago and I still do now.

BUT you would have to move dungeons into their appropriate level areas. Running though a 60+ area to get to a 20-40 leveling dungeon is a bad idea.

I also understand that other players would prefer the conveniance of the portals. Since I can choose to run instead of portalling the actual end result has no direct effect on me.

Finally I think that new players will explore with or without these portals so no need to remove them to induce overland exploration.

*edit* Oh, please no portal gems! They are convenient but give advantages to those unscrupulous players that use housing for monetary gain. Its these players that can afford to store every possible gem while the rest of us need space to play the game.

[Rafein]

option B

onceyou get the gems you need, you save more time with option B than C.

Since they are summon gems, and are stackable, I'd prefer B

[Dangermouse]

Option B for me

Or a single portal drops to a point near a group of settlements. Then place all these single portals in mini racial hubs

I`m happy to loose the portals though, exploration and running is part of the fun; but understand why people don`t want to loose them.

[Lionhart]

why not just have a timer on buying houses.....??

unless this REALLY reduces worldwide lag.....i see no point in it

[Bruiserk]

Option C.

I would rather see the meeting halls be converted to allegiance recall though. Eliminate allegiance recall to mansions and villas. Convert mansions to one villa and two cottages. Give the owner of the mansion the villa, and open up the cottages for sale.

Since I don't think that will happen, then move the portals into the meeting halls.

[Proximal]

B

[Entropathic]

I like C, with the meeting halls adapting to something like the Wedding Hall.

[StormLaery]

At this point, I prefer plan C. Since the patch that changed magic in Dereth every person that uses the new taper/foci system has 1-4 less packs. Each pack holds only 24 items, and we only have 3 or so extra packs besides the main one, which has to hold tapers, scarabs, money, death items, nondrop/give items, no one has room for these portal gems even if they ARE stackable.

So the idea of putting settlement portals in each of the town meeting halls is the best idea so far.

But may I make an alternate suggestion for the portal gem idea?

If it is decided that the solution HAS to be the use of portal gems, have a portal gem seller in the mage shops of the towns, and GIVE US BACK PACK SPACE TO HOLD THEM.

Change it so the foci's fill up a single slot in a pack, instead of filling up a full pack space, and allow us to carry 7 extra packs again.

There could even be a quest to concentrate the foci's energy into a single gem. You could use the few gemstones that have no salvage quality. Then there would be some kind of quest with 4 scholars at the end... one ultimate scholar for each school, and they would take the foci of their school, and a corresponding gemstone... and concentrate that foci's energy down to the gemstone.

The gemstones themselves would now become nondrop/nongive, but even with a 4 school battle mage, the 4 foci's would fill 4 slots in one pack.

That is just my 2 cents worth :)

[Jas-of-HG]

I prefer c, then b, then a.

[Doomjakal]

I think that Plan C would be the best option in this scenario. For a number of reasons that have already been mentionned... I do agree that having the portal hubs on the landscape as they are now does have to change, but I honestly think that taking the settlement portal hubs out in favor of gems would be a mistake!

The old Meeting Hall portals would likely be a pretty good place to redesign a SUB like dungeon for the settlements, there's one near almost every town already, and they are very rarely used now days.

[MC33]

Settlement portal gems would take up more of our already short supply of pack space, so I don't want to see gems.

One of the problems with housing has always been that it's a "hassle" to go to people's homes so most people rarely have visitors at their home (visitor has to go through Hub, go to a town, then run 1-3 clicks to the portal = ~3-5 minutes).

Putting settlement dungeons right in towns, would reduce the "hassle" and allow people to visit housing more easily (for most settlements, it would be go through hub, go to town, take portal = ~1-2 minutes).

So I support Plan C.

[min]

definitely C. gems would only make things even easier for the "real estate agents" and take up precious pack space, as others have already stated.

[usblues]

i like it the way it is,but if you must play with something as minor as this,a hub inside the varios town halls would be a great way of doing it.

just my opinion!

[gppnj]

I strongly prefer that portals be removed and replaced with gems. Whether they are sold in towns, at the settlements, or both is irrelevant. As long as they are not insanely expensive, it will be fine.

The gems would be much more convenient for me than the existing settlement portals. I'd much rather be able to get to a settlement from wherever I am than to have to run to a certain town to get to that settlement.

[tsuess]

I would put my vote for Option C. That would be the best overall solution, as many many people use the housing portals for routes to all over dereth. Seeing the landscape is nice, but many of us have been playing since Beta, and have seen the landscape, thank you. :) Getting places quickly without having to buy gems and use packspace is the way to go. And personally, I never had a problem with the housing portals on the landscape, I always thought they looked kinda cool, but the dungeon idea will work.

Regards,

[Mistikal]

Plan C: Settlement Portals off the Landscape
In this proposal, we would not add the summoning gems or vendors. Instead the settlement portals would be moved to a dungeon near the town.



This is by far the best one.

To accomplish what it is you are set out to do. Removing the portals from the landscape and putting them in an accessable cave, be it something like sub or just a room full of portals, it allows people to have both ease of travle, or run old school style.

C gets my vote.

[Logan]

Hi Ibn!

May i introduce the "ultimate portalbot"

After thinking about the idea of "Summoning Gems to Settlements". I have the idea of setting up the UPB. How would it work (if the system is introduced as in the LttP). I go to most settlements in the time where the portals are still there and buy 20? Gems. I place the bot on Marketplace and let him use a gem after a customer paid my price.

This would be a one stop Crossraod of Dereth

Even if this would be a great new income for me, i doubt it is what is intended :)


edit: If i read it right, the intention is to have people travel a bit more (Ok and they look ugly, but i dont think thats the real reason). With option C we dont reach this goal. If the portals are moved to town this will counterdict this. I would introduce a "summon house" spell, so A person in the settlement can "invite" people but all other would have to travel.
(yes people flame me for not having the instant recall to any place in dereth ;)

[Draven Jones]

C

why not relocate the portals to the town halls?

they seem to be mainly unused since housing anyway

[yodha]

Apart from reaching housing settlements, the portals have proved to be a very fast way of travel.

I would like plan B. It serves lots of purposes.

1. To invite people to visit our homes, the gems would be excellent.
2. People can buy gems for their pre-planned journey from town vendors.
3. People who are just roaming around, and hit a settlement, can buy a gem from the settlement vendor to continue their journey forward.

A small idea. As these gems facilitate travel in AC multi fold, how about removing the step of running to towns for buying a particular gem, and putting a vendor right in marketplace itself. Apart from tradebots, some NPC's traders would be great.

[Mandar Lore II]

I think c would be best, I could go into why I think it is best that way but others have allready posted the reasons allready

[AriMagnus]

I vote plan C. But how about a spell or house recall so I could bring a "friend" home? I don't wanna have to buy her jewelry first.

[Evil Bert]

C

:D

[RunningWolf_WE]

Plan C definatly, and use the VERY unused town halls! Another benefit of that would be the exit portals drop you in the middle of the town :)

[Twizted]

^^^ I agree


Give the town halls a use again

[nelar]

Just wanted to check to make certain you weren't causing an unexpected side effect with option A or B -- namely that only housing portal gems would stack, and they would not drop on death. Reason I mention that is because if all portal gems stack, and they can drop on death, then the archmage recall gems some people use for DI's would suddenly mean you only need one slot for DIs instead of 20. Whether or not that is a good thing would be an entirely different issue -- but obviously you don't want to accidentally go down that road.

Seems like option B would be the best choice for questing as it provides the opportunity for the quest leader to get the gem ahead of time that all could then use without having to go to the town first, then the dungeon, etc. And, it doesn't require giving up a portal tie for the quest leader to get questers to where they need to go. In fact, any of the quest members could do the prep work and have all the necessary portal gems ahead of time. As for the price of the gems, it just gives us another opportunity to use the overflow of pyreals we seem to have <g> along with providing a possible economic opportuntity for tradebots to sell the portal gems at a reduced rate (cheaper then in town, but more expensive then the settlement vendor).

[Woodlock]

I would most like to see a combo of B & C. A dungeon with all the portals that also had a vendor selling gems to them. Best of both worlds.

If only one idea is to be implemented I would like B most, a Vendor in the town.

But if you ultimately go with A... It will not bother me that much. :D

[HiroProtagonist]

I prefer option C personally. While I dont mind running around Dereth, and have made a few corner to corner runs that was back when I had considerably more time to do such things. Now, some running around quests would just be out of my reach without the housing portals. These gems while nice if you know where you going like say a friends house, are useless completely on a new quest as if you have to run to the settlement to get the gem you might as well keep on running to get to where your going. putting the gems in town is ok, and I would prefer that to only having them in the actual settlements but its still a step or two longer and takes even more time away from the actual playing of the game. I did the Font Of Jojii quest on two seperate characters this week, and even with the housing portals it took me 3.5 - 4 hours to do the first one. (the second took less because I tied to 2 of the dungeons with my first toon.)without at least option b and preferably option c I simply would not have made time to do this quest. it would have taken 3 days of my limited in-game time to complete.
Thats my 2 pyreals, and thanks for listening and opening more choices to us.
I would like to say though, I actually like the look of the portal farms especially the ones with monuments in them. They were impressive looking and hey, lets face it more then once as a N00b hunting around eastham I dove into them to save my bacon... :)

-HiroProtagonist - Frostfell

[Camii]

C

[exet]

Option C

Also agree that the meeting halls would be an ideal spot.


Well done for listening to your customers, this goes a long way to restoring some of my faith in Turbine if this is all resolved this simply.

[DraconisUmbra]

I like my pack space. Option C. Much much better. Thx for listening I was little worried after the February patch. :)

[Morgwyn]

It appears that, if you freed up the pack spaces taken up by the foci, most of these people would have voted differently. Interesting, no?

[Meri]

Plan C, with Plan B offered as a good compromise.

[Igon Acroak]

Personally i have no problem with how they are now and was in an uproar when i heard they were going away but of the 3 plans, plan c with them in a dungon is the best alternative.

[seeker]

Thank you so much for listening :)

I would prefer option C
This is the most important thing.

And try to keep the settlement portal dungeons close to where the portals are now.

Iffy, but maybe worth considering, gems as supplements could work in certain ways, too. Some offhanded speculations:

Have vendors in town selling (expensive) summon gems to cottage settlements, but not villas. That would prevent villa-snatching macros and not give villa owners yet another thing to make them much better than mansions.

Settlement vendors that only sell gems to cottage owners, like show him your deed and slip him some cash.

[Circeus]

Plan C

Reasons?

Removing the settlement portals doesn't promote exploration it promotes running more which can be tedious at times, especially for casual gamers with limited time to play.

Gems are a bad idea because we don't need more stuff cluttering our packspace we need less.

[Gouru]

What is with all the push for plan C? Plan B gives ALL the same benefits as plan C, you don't have to carry gems around, you can get them in town. The ONLY difference is you buy a gem and use it instead of running to a dungeon portal, going in, then taking yet another portal.

You don't HAVE to carry gems around, you can just get them as you need them. However, if you CHOOSE to carry the gems you get the added convenience of immediate access to that community without having to run out to some portal dungeon.

B would seem to be the best of all worlds. The ONLY downside I see is the cost of a gem. If newbie town gems at 500p are an example, I don't see that ever this would be a concern.

[Kriket18]

I vote plan C.. =P

[Ziggy al-Zog Jr]

C

[Surfal]

c preferred, but anything but a.

[Samna]

C

The issues with settlement portals seem to be (1) ease of travel, and (2) appearance.

Regards appearance, there is a slight inconvenience to going into a dungeon portal just to enter another portal for a settlement, but that's a minor thing. I could agree with 'cleaning' the landscape. For this I would suggest that the access spot for settlement portals remain in its current well known location, and that instead of access through a portal type object, there is a more solid landscape artifact, similar to the Gaerlan quest pillar.

Regards ease of travel, many lament Ye Olden Days where we ran everywhere. The popularity of subway and portal bots are more telling ... folks like the convenience of quick travel, spending their precious ingame time in adventuring, not watching landscape slide by. Those who truly love exploring are certainly not barred from pursuing that enjoyment.

[Desert Jade]

B is a nice compromise. C is great too.

[SarChasm]

C


Keeps the people whom think the portals are ugly happy, as well as the people with little to no spare pack space.

[Liaya]

1st choice for me would be B. I suffer from low pack space, too, but like others have mentioned, I don't _need_ to carry around the gems... just go to the town & buy as needed, plus the benefit of not having to run even that little bit to the portals as I do now.

Additional benefit would be being able to open a portal for group quests by bringing the gem back to the group instead of using one of my portal ties to summon the portal for it.

Disadvantage would depend on the cost. If lower levels couldn't afford them easily, then I would go with option C instead.

[Juztyn]

Off the top of my head, I'd prefer plan b. But I don't really see the justification for the change in the first place.

[Darken Rho]

i think c is the best option, but how using the allegiance halls create a side room in them, or a portal in them that leads to a big room or series of rooms with all the settlement portals in them, all allegiance halls could be linked to the same HUB. its kind of like the best of all worlds get rid of ugly surface portal groupings, at the same time people have one place they can easily get to for worldwide transportation, and you limit having to create new dungeons or modify lots of existing dungeons...:D

[Cere]

I am all about option B.

I like the idea of the town halls and the idea that it might bring traffic back to the towns, BUT.. What about those of us who have a housing settlement near a town that is not in the portal loop? Getting someone to my house can be a pain and there are some who have a cottage/villa in opposite sides of the map. It would be great to be able to call a portal to get thier mules or whomever to the other house w/ ease.

[Zarah]

First off unless I hunt completely alone I can barely scrounge enough loot (thanx to the last patch) to purchase my tapers, mana charges and plats..now, I have to buy gems to get from place to place? Plan C I reckon is the best of all of them but how do you plan on pricing them and leaving me a couple squares in my pack and what is the weight going to be on the gems? I never have any money anymore I can barely carry everything I need and now I'm going to be forced to carry gems? I'm a mage for gosh sakes I don't have the strenght to carry all this.

[Rauth]

I vote for B.

I personally liked the original, A, but B is something that seemed to be more of a compromise plus I like the idea of a settlement summoning gem. C seems silly but I could live with it.

[Greymane]

Modified C - Not a dungeon, just a plain old building that you walk into, click on the portal, and go. Perhaps to make it more challenging, require that a person be flagged by clicking on something in the settlement (once) before they can use the portal.

-Grey

[Birinair]

I personally like option B. Being able to us the gem to summon the portal would mean I could run a quest using a housing portal without having to give up one of my ties. It is definitely a good compromise allowing people to obtain the gems without having to run to the settlement or find someone that lives there.

Option C would be my second choice. And option A would be my last choice.

[Thunderheart]

First, thanks for providing us a forum to provide feedback before changes are made. We the players appreciate it.

The total removal of the settlement portals is counter to lore for those who care about such things. As Nuhmudria said when it was time to occupy this land with houses of our own.

"For we are no longer Gharu'n or Aluvian or Sho. We are Isparian. We are Empire. This is our land, under our Queen and her blessed rule. We have paid for it with blood and toil. We cannot dishonor the sacrifice made by the brave dead who lie beneath us. Dereth is ours. There can be no other way.
So claim and tend. Nuture and grow. Your homes await you, children of Ispar."
-- Nuhmudira

We aided the Arcanum with items needed to continue our stuggle to build Ispar. And in turn they strove steadily to provide more settlement housing and portals to make our homes accessible from far and wide.
Would the Arcanum abandon us now? Has our support come for naught? Have we soaked the ground of Ispar with the blood of our enimies only to have the Magic of portal space diminish. Has the power of the Ancient Queen grown such that even after we drove her back she can still dim portals across the breadth of the land? May it never be!

The removal of the housing portals would be a step back, not a step forward for the game as a whole. If the Arcanum continues to labor for us, and they want to "Beautify" the land, let them move the portals to a visually suitably location. Such as the Allegiance halls, or a new hub within the town. The freedom of movement provided by the settlement portals has certainly allowed many more people to explore the length and breadth of Ispar than otherwise would have adventured so far abroad.

I am a die hard quester, explorer and mapper myself and the vast majority of it was done without the aid of the portals. Having said that I also have no nostalgic longing to lead difficult quests without the aid of the settlement portals that all of us in Ispar earned. Please leave them in the game, remove them from the landscape if you must for programatical reasons, but don't remove them from the game.

Option C gets another vote.

[Pellinore]

Plan C.

Use the existing Meeting Hall Facilities, they're cool buildings and need some use nowadays. Just expand the upper level and put them along the walls.

[Ibarretta of TD]

If changes are to be made to settlement portals, my vote is going to option C, with strong appreciation for the suggestion to use Meeting Halls for the re-location of the portals.
I am not vehemently opposed to option B, however. I play on 2 accounts, and have cottages on both. Portal gems that were easily available from towns would make muling a much simpler process for me. A compromise between B and C would be agreeable, to have a NPC vendor selling portal gems inside the Meeting Hall, near the portals themselves.
I would like to point out, however, that I believe option A will only facilitate the behavior of those who buy housing only to sell it on eBay, keeping housing unavailable to those who actually play the game. A timer on purchasing housing is not sufficient to deal with this problem, as having multiple characters/accounts lets one buy housing much more frequently than once a month.

One more question before I close, would the summoned portals from the gems be tieable/summonable as well?

Thanks for a great game,
Ibarretta of TD

[Frez]

I vote for Plan B.

1. Unlike Plan A, it's quick access to virtually anywhere for questing and what-not.

2. Quest leaders (or people who want to show off their homes) can prepare in advance and buy gems making less running necessary.

3. It'll be easier to find the settlement you're looking for since it'll be sorted in alphabetical order. :) Unlike the confusing mass of portals currently or in plan C.

4. You don't need to take up pack space, since you'll need to run to whichever town the settlement is located in either plan B or C no matter what.

5. Plan C isn't really a noticeable change. It's simply moving the portals to a different locale. I mean if you're really "role-playing" and are concerned with lore, I don't think plan C would be any better.

6. Plan B gets people back into towns.

The only forseeable issue with Plan B was already mentioned, someone making a bot in the marketplace. An idea would be to A) make them untradeable and B) have an Envoy troll the marketplace every few hours. If they're not tradeable, then bots can't effectively sell them and they can't open the gem for you without potentially being caught and banned for 24 hours. That's a solution. There are loopholes, but it's relatively solid.

[Grimbern]

How about option C (or B) with a vendor at the settlement selling gems to return to the town the settlement portals were based? It would be kind of like a mass transit system to and from each town. The nice side effect would be to have gems available for each of the non-Direlands towns, and might increase traffic to some of the out of the way ones like Kara and Stonehold.
As someone who remembers when Meeting Halls were the place to be, option C with the portals there sounds nice, but I don't think some towns like my settlement's town (Stonehold) have one.
In any case, thanks for listening to our feedback and for giving us options!

[Azran]

Option C

I'm much more in favor of moving the portals into the MEETING HALLS then the other 2 options. No one uses meeting halls anymore and they are in about every town.

Option B isn't bad, but it seems like it will take away pack space from mules and mains alike. As someone who likes to quest a lot, I will always have 5-6 settlement gems on me so I can go on spur of the moment quests to things like gaerlan, skill sellback, beach fort, etc. and I will have a pack or two full on my mules so I can lead any of the most major quests without leaving the mansion to go buy a gem.

I'm still against option A although it seems a lot more palatable then before with stackable gems and summonable portals.

[Jarella]

I prefer plan A.

Second option plan B.

Last C.


Please remember that not all players post on these boards or any boards for that matter. Most would adjust no matter what you do.

[me swat]

Thanks for asking I like a combination of B + C + The skill sellback temples.

You can use the layout of the temples because they already exist.

Put one portal to this temple in each of the meeting halls.

Put portal gems instead of sellback gems on the pillars.

Put a 1 hour quest timer on the gems.

Make the gem spell a 'summon'

Make the spell 'tieable'

Thank You

Swat

[zarry]

plan C put them inside building do not remove !!!!

the idea of gems is bad even if stackable ....since would only be able to stack ones that were the same .an there is apx 379 settlement portals
.an i like so many others have no pack space now ..........
removing the portals is bad idea

[Lucrenda]

I like option B. I like the idea that the gems will be stackable, as well as tieable. I have two accounts and this option would make it infinitely easier to get the toons from one account to my other location.

Also as a quest leader, having the gem would make leading the quest easier. Everyone meet at the mansion, we pop the gem and everyone is now closer to their designation.

Thank you very much for listening to our feedback and giving us further clarification on the options to consider.

I'll admit that my first reaction was that of concern at the removal of the portals and I will miss the portals on the landscape because in my youth I was a portal hopper. I would go up to the housing portals and just see where they lead. Then I would hunt the surrounding area that the housing portal lead me to. Of course, this meant I died a few times but that was the fun part of the challenge.

Thank you again.

[Leelando]

If it is set in stone that the housing portals be removed then I believe that Option C is the best option.

I don't feel that I want to spend my few in-game minutes, running to a dungeon, just to have to log off (because of RL issues) so that I can hunt there the next time I get a few minutes to play again.

Again just my 2 Pyreals worth

[Vane_MT]

IMO option C is the best one.

I agree with the afore mentioned issues with pack space. I also feel that by placing the portals in the Meeting Halls would reduce lag due to the fact that the portals would only need to be down loaded when you entered the Meeting Hall. I also would hate to see the bots in MP and in towns selling them. If one of the goals in making this change was to reduce the ease of travel, the ability to buy Housing portal gems would counter-act that desire as access would be made much more simple by the availability of gems.

I would like to say that I really appreciate that fact that Turbine Development team cares enough to come to the players for our opinions. Thank you guys. You are doing a great job.

[Jack Sparrow]

B all the way.


I like the idea of gems immensely. I just didn't like the proposed plan for availability.

One question though. . .we could still purchase gems in the settlements and give them to our friends correct???

[Star Fire]

I would like to see plan C or plan B come into play.


Thought:
======

There are a great many people who dont post to boards at all and just play the game. For long periods of time these players talk amongs themselves and to others who do post on the boards. One of the down sides I see to player feedback on the boards is that the squeaky wheel gets greased and then everyone else has to adjust weather they like the changes or not.

Not every player plays every day, plays for long periods of time, or has the knowledge to know where everything is or how to get the information that is out there.

It takes all types to make a world.

I would like to show my appreciation to all the people that make this game a possibility. I would also like to send kudos to those that read these posts and have started listening to the players.

In a game like this you have PvP, PkLiters, and NPK's all trying to coexist in the same world. When a change happens to one, it affects all because of how they interrelate. Some good, and some bad.

When it comes to this change, I see things this way.....
When I get near a portal ring, it slows my play down while the portals draw, much the same way the houses and Candleth Keep does. Where housing and the Keep are considered to be something that needs to be on the surface, I do not feel the same need for the portal rings, however I do feel that they have allowed people to explore more of the area, more quests and have more fun showing off their places because of the ability to move with the portals.

Have portals made it too easy? No. You still have to run from the destination to wherever you want to go and then there are other people that dont want to use the portals because they want to explore. Should we remove the interstate highways because we have roads in our towns or would you stop having airplanes fly people coast to coast because you can drive there?

I feel that either the B or C options will allow the users who use the housing portals to still be able to move throughout the game while enhancing the over all surface play by not having extra items to draw.

Making use of either a set of dungeons, the existing meeting halls or something like that would be a welcomed change as it shows all the advantages of cleaning up the landscape and still maintain realtivily easy access to housing.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[magusofatlan]

As with anything, your goal is the key here:

>>>The goal of these changes is to remove the ugliness of the Hubs, as well as encourage exploration and travel through Dereth’s wilderness. If there are several Settlements that you visit regularly, you have the opportunity to purchase gems for these Settlements in the month of April, before the Hubs are removed. If you wish to visit your friend’s home, you can ask you friend to purchase that Settlement’s gem for you. We would not be surprised to see gems for particularly popular Settlement destinations being traded in the Marketplace!<<

Plan A: Vendors in Settlements

This is the minimum needed item to allow people to tie to their own settlement with alternate characters and friends. It's livable, but not fun.

Plan B: Vendors in Settlements and Towns

I like this idea, it allows people to get to one's settlement without you jumping there first to buy a gem.

Plan C: Settlement Portals off the Landscape

This is pretty much the same thing as we have today - portal to X town, run to the settlement portal location, except now you have to enter a dungeon prior to jumping into the settlement portal. There is the added benefit of possibly tying to the dungeon portal if you liked that whole region the set of portals went to though, which would be nice. However, I like the idea of the summoning gems, so B would be just as preferable as C.


Extra notes:

I'd like to see the gems stackable to 100, why limit them to 20?

It would be nice if the gems had a note on them about the expected level range of that region - it might promote hunting if a player could go to the town vendor (not settlement vendor), look through the gems for one that fits the level range he wants to hunt in, buy it and jump there.

Thanks for the continued communication with us!

[Snorungen]

A!

[astalon_decurth]

Option C+B... Put the Portals in the meeting halls with a vendor in the hall and at the Settlements this way you can still give your friends a gem or use the meeting halls to get there as well.

[Zol]

'C'

[Gouru]

Originally posted by Azran
Option B isn't bad, but it seems like it will take away pack space from mules and mains alike.

Option B does NOT take pack space away from mules or mains unless you CHOOSE to do so. You can always run to the town, buy just one gem, pop it and be gone. There would probably end up with even less running this way, as you would not have to run to a portal dungeon enter that dungeon then take yet another portal.

However, if you CHOOSE, you could buy extra gems, and have the convenience of getting to your settlement from anywhere.

For settlements that are outside of inaccessable towns like stonehold, you would be able to get a gem to your friends of any level to come visit you.

Why or why does ANYONE want to give up the benefits of gems when the ONLY downside is a little added cost?

[Jack Sparrow]

The gems will also stack to 20 (of same settlement i'm assuming).

How many do you visit that often?? Just grab the ones you visit most often.

[Jack Sparrow]

I always liked the idea of the gems I just didnt' like how difficult it was going to be to get one if you didn't have one prior to the portals being removed.

[MIdnightFire7]

Plan C as long as there are NO monsters in these dungeons so lvl 1 mules who are overburdened can use them as well.

[Odracir]

Plan C without a doubt.

I had already commented why not adding a dungeon on a VNBoard thread :)

The best thing would be a dungeon without a portal, like the one in the AL crater, but I understand that doing that is next to impossible due to the number of portals, but that type of dungeons is simply amazing.

Other than creating another dungeon ( Settlement Dungeon - one dungeon with all the portals to all the settlements ), which would also be nice and easier for us :D, moving the settlements to the Meeting Halls and the M. Halls a little closer to towns would help alot in making them usable again ( since most people now use the Marketplace and Mansions for trades/quests fellowships, etcetera ).

[Unique]

I vote BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB



Thank you for letting us be heard on these issues.

Have a nice day

[Zuhran]

The best option is to leave them alone.
It is not broken.

If I have to pick, then I pick "C".

[No Man]

My vote is for Plan B, or venders will only be found in town. Gems to settlement not in the immediate area can be purchased for a higher cost. This would have the benefit of bringing more people into the towns.

[Lycentia]

I don't really like plan A, but I can learn to live with it as long as the gems are givable. That way I can go buy a gem then give it to my characters on my second account so that I can get them to my villa.


Plan B sounds much better and will be a lot easier for people. It's also a good way to get peopel to go to town, and another item to spend money on. The price may hurt new noobies playing the game for the first time though.


Plan C I like the very best. This way everyone can use the portals and get to whatever settlment they want. No matter what level they are or how much money they have. This promotes exploration of new areas that are farther off, and the portals will no longer be littering the landscape. This will also bring players into towns more because the dungeon location will be town. This option makes the most sense to me, seeing as you want to get people into towns more and the settlments are all already desiganted to a town right now.

Plus this idea will be a great oppurtunity to put your art designers at work! I love some of the graphics and art in some places, such as the apartment areas, they are so beautiful inside with the gardens and fountains. I'd like to see what the art designers can put out with making new dungeons for each cluster of settlment portals. Maybe they can even make them differnt depending on what town they are in. Like if it's a gharu town, use gharu art, furniture, and lamps, same for the sho, and aluvian. Perhaps even add some special touches to special towns, like Ben Ten was known to have saved Yanshi, perhaps that dungeon can have a Statue of Ben Ten in it. The lore can give some good ideas for things like that. Of course I am sure you will have to consider if this would cause any lag issues or not.

[Nerice]

Didnt read anything but the first post.

Plan B.

Sort of (Although I think this is what you guys mean anyway but not sure).

Place a new (or use an existing vendor) in each of the towns that has settlement portals, and that vendor would only sell the gems for the settlement portals that was originally in that town.

That way it is almost exactly like it used to be, but not too easy to get around. (Already too easy as it is, much less being able to but all the different portal gems in each town.)

[Max the Macer]

i would choose, in order of desirability b, then a , then c

B would work well enough, not too crazy bout a, and really not crazy bout c.

B would possibly provide us with new DI's

[Escanor]

Plan C, by a huge margin for me. This covers the "ugly" factor. For people, like Orion, who think it's too easy to travel in Dereth, they don't HAVE to use the portals, and those of us who like using them are also not affected by plan C. For those who may want travel to not be too easy FOR OTHERS, it won't matter what you do; they will always think OTHERS have it too easy in the game in some respect or another.

[Thian]

I vote for option C. Now that mansions exists and those allegiances with mansion hold their meetings generally at the mansion, the town halls aren't used much at all (except for the occassional re-roll that uses InstaOG to "power level their magic skills".

Pack space/storage is a huge issue now and I'd rather see efforts to come up with more storage somehow. Moving housing portals to a dungeon seems like simple but tedious work whereas programming portal gems for each housing settlement sounds like lots of coding, testing, re-coding, testing, etc.

Thian

[X-Rae]

C


Thank you for listening.

[QuickWeasel]

My vote goes to ........ C

[silvurhawke]

This way everyone can use the portals and get to whatever settlment they want

You mean like we can now right? Some settlement portals are in Stonehold. So the newb is gonna run to Stonehold to use the portal dungeon there right?

I think everyone is assuming each town will have a portal dungeon with EVERY housing portal in it. I'm assuming the portal dungeon in Arwic will have the portals currently situated near Arwic and same with the Stonehold portals and Rithwic portals and Plateau portals etc etc etc A lot of these portal really are out of the way in their current form and I'm guessing that doesn't change with plan C.

The gems are a huge upgrade to the portal system we currently have. Plan C virtually changes nothing where I see plans A and B as a huge upgrade to the system.

My real preference is D which just eliminates all the portals but plan A or B really make the system a zillion times better with the addition of these gems. The gems will be awesome and I can't understand the resistance to this enormous upgrade and perk?

[Zkdog]

Plan B all the way

[Talauren]

I prefer Plan C.

[Alpine]

Plan C all the way.

I could live with Plan B, gritting my teeth. Plan A is likely to send me on an active search for another game.

Thank you for soliciting our feedback.

[Tanaga]

Option B

[Ifuritah]

I like Plan B.

[fizbane]

Plan C: Settlement Portals off the Landscape

This is the one that I would prefer or leave it as it currently is. I DO NOT like plan A or B. I use the portals to hop around Dearth extensively and any other change (currently being proposed) would have a great negative impact on my ability to explore Dearth if they were to remove the portals or if you were required to carry around (in the very few remaining pack slots that I have as a Mage (four Foci packs)) a gem for every single settlement portal in Dearth. As a side note if I am out voted and we go to a gem based system PLEASE make the gems stackable.

Thanks, Sean

[Raylin]

Plan C is by far my preferance. Getting them off the landsape is fine, as long as those portals still exist.

[Geomancer]

Plan C is the best in my opinion, because it doesn't take anything away from us, while plans A and B by themselves remove the free portals and replace them with something you have to pay for, store in a pack, etc.

What would be really cool is to do all of the above. Create vendors in the settlements and in towns that sell portal gems to each settlement, while moving the existing portals into dungeons near the towns.

Then you've got the best of all worlds.

Failing that, plan C. Definitely.

[Bardo]

Definately want the settlement dungeons but maybe make gems an option as well?

[Bob_Jones_LC]

Option C (inside existing MH's if possible) or Option D (leave it as is).

Gems = Massive waste of dev time.

Really, I would rather see houses on the landscape go. They cause me 1000 times the lag the portal hubs do and are almost as ugly. I would prefer to see you get rid of landscape houses and replace the portal hubs with some other "subway" or better planned portal rings than anything...

Really, housing is in such bad shape. Basically, since I'm not a trade fiend and haven't been playing since beta, my chances of obtaining a villa are pretty much nil. If I started the game today, I doubt I could even manage a cottage. It's a difficult pill to swallow, sometimes, when I run by a patch of cottages on my way somewhere, almost get lagged offline, and realize, "If I lived here I'd be there by now...."

There's LOTS of unused room in the res quarters... Add some extra large apartments, move everybody off the landscape, wipe out portal hubs, and build a sensible transportation system (i.e. connect res quarters for easier travel from town to town and maybe add another sub-type dungeon to get to a limited list of other locations).

[Howler]

C for me...

[Jet-eye-nite]

Lesser of 3 evils "C" . I don't want any changes to these if you want my real answer :mad:

[D X Mage]

Plan C: Settlement Portals off the Landscape

If they have to be removed from the landscape then my vote is a BIG yes. If you could provide gems too that would be great so I can have both =)

[Wayndor]

I do not like it at all!

I think the existing portals were fine and I am not happy with your reasons for getting rid of them.

1) I do not like the idea I have to pay to portal now.

2) I do not like the idea I have to run around now to get different gems.

3) I do not think taking the existing portals away and replacing the portals with the gems improves the game one iota!

4) I do not like the pack space having to be taken up with further gems. I read they are stackable but this would be by location, meaning if I needed to get to 5 different locations to do a quest I would need to waste 5 spaces on the gems. Ad to this other locations I might have to go to and I end up with far less storage space! NOT GOOD!

To be honest I just do not see why you have wasted time on this. The only real conclussion I can come up with is that you are doing all you can to slow the game down, even at the detriment of your existing players.

I still have not seen a GOOD reason for the removal of the existing portals and can not believe the excuse they were ugly!

RUNNING is boring! Running is VERY boring. Trying to make it harder for people to get to locations by making the game more tedious makes little sense! I cannot and do not believe that you are making these changes on the request of the MAJORITY of players!

[_mr.pink_]

I like the idea of having the housing portal gems. However, as was already stated, the pack space is already limited as it is. If there was a way to add another row (6 spaces) to each of the regular size packs and perhaps a couple rows to the main pack, that would be awesome!

I think the housing macro people would have a harder time with their macroing if you had to use gems to get to the settlements.
Not selling them in towns and only selling in the settlement would help too.

my 2 pyreals.

[Celestin]

I like Plan B as well, particularly as it allows some semblance of the current system to ramain, while still allowing for Plan A's changes.

[Maud-Dib]

Plan A with the additional restriction that only owners of houses in the settlement can buy the gems. This would add a new trade dynamic and prevent the mass use of these portals as shortcuts to get across Dereth. I could be wrong but I didn't not think the original intent of these portals was for non-settlement travel.

Maud-Dib

[Ravenna]

first choice: A
second: B

[Baby Bunny]

I like the idea of the portals being inside a building. I thought they were fine as they were before, but I have on occassion accidently run into the wrong one. hehe. Or lagged out in auto run and ended up in Timbuck-too.

[Wayndor]

Ibn,

I also note that you have taken away an option!

NO CHANGE!

Why was leaving things as they are not added?

Asking people to select which one they like best without giving the option to stay the same seems outrageous! You are taking away what most of us are happy with.

I can see you saying in a later post 73% of players wanted option C! This does not mean they WANTED that option but only it was the best of a bad lot! If you truely want to know how people feel scap this poll and add one with option D

Option D) Stay as we are. Do not have gems and keep the existing portals!


Try it you might be surprised with the results! Or not!:mad:

[Irwin]

I vote C because of packspace issues.

If you can reduce the pack space issues a little, especially for mages, then B is also a decent option.

We keep getting more and more things that take up pack space such as more salvage, and rending weapons for archers and mages, yet no more pack space.

I'm simply spending too much time micromanaging inventory and mulling items. Packspace has become a serious issue that needs addressed because it's really starting to limit the feasibility of new content.

[LeifThorssonJr]

if we have to pick one of those three, i'd say

PLAN C

i do, however, like the idea of gems.... if you were to add those, in addition to plan c, i would be ecstatic.

if you further implemented the "blank gem" idea

detailed here (http://forums.ac.turbinegames.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44855#post44855)

i would prolly run out and buy a couple more accounts.... as soon as they are available

[Alex deChaz]

I would like to see both B and C together. I have two accounts, a cottage and a villa. The portals to my settlements are hard to get to. One is in plateau ville and the other portal is out in the middle of nowhere. It would be very helpful if my mules from the other account could pop a gem and get to the other settlement. For Quests having the portals in a dungeon or the town meeting hall would be good. This would help alot with the last minutes pickup quests.

[Eruditus]

Option C seems good to me :)

[Daverost]

Option C please ^_^

[Askani]

C is the most preferable. The last thing I need is something else in my packs or my mules packs. Still not sure why the change is needed, but if it is needed, use C. Make at least one change as pain free as possible <g>.

[Red Syke]

if we can't leave the portals just where they are, =P

then option C please.

Red Syke

[pacesetter]

My prefs are (in this order):
leave everything as it is. I can't afford the packspace and find nothing wrong with the portals as they are.

plan C If you feel you MUST play with the code, make it this option. NOTE: It certainly does NOT have to be a quest thing or a major fight to get to the portals.

plan B but have the vendors at the settlements sell gems back to their linked towns.


:confused: I still do not see why this is an issue that has to be resolved in the near future. there are many more pressing issues that STILL have not been resolved.

[ouchthathurt]

Ibn, this change seems to be Developer instead of player driven. That in itself is not a bad thing, heck I love the occasional suprise. This suprise I could do without, though.

The stated reasons for the change are to encourage exploration and to get rid of the "ugly" portal farms. More exploration would be nice, but you shouldn't be trying to force players to explore with a nerf. I really have to find that page where the reasons devs should not nerf are so well explained and send it to you guys. As for the "ugly" portal farms reason, I have yet to see the great out cry from the players over this. Actually I think some of the portal farms are quite beautiful and peaceful. I occasionally will just stand in the middle of one and meditate. Don't ask. :)

If you do go ahead with this change use the plan that has gem sellers in the towns and settlements. Actually I'd rather just have the sellers in towns as the settlements cause enough lag as it is.

Frankly, the devs should be working on things the players are asking for instead of this. It is a waste of dev resources. This change would be a radical one which nerfs one of the most used ways of travel in the game. Nerfs are bad. Players don't like nerfs. Those last two sentences make a good chant. uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

:) :)

[Digero]

Plan B!
(or a hybrid of B and C =P)

I'm growing to like the idea of settlement gems, but just as long as they don't make travel harder. I have two accounts with houses in different settlements and would love the idea of being able to just keep a few portal gems for the other settlement on each character. It would also make it much easier to travel to commonly used places if you're willing to give up a pack slot for each place you'd commonly go. It would be like having many extra portal ties!! I'm always in favor of more portal ties! :D

It would also make your house more easily accessable to others. You could actually invite people to your house for an event or something. Give purpose to hanging all those trophies on your walls other than running past them all the time when you go to your storage.

For those who are voting for plan C because of pack space, you wouldn't have to have the gem in your inventory for longer than the time it takes to double click on it after buying it. Although I'd hope they don't make the cost so high that it would discourage people from just using portal gems to explore.

Also keep in mind that if you're going somewhere with a group of people, you'd only need one gem... and if someone's a fast buffer they could run ahead and grab the gem to further speed a quest or hunt along.

Reconsider before you just vote for C because you don't like change. I think plan B would be change for the better :)

I'm sorry if I repeated other people, I didn't have time to read all the previous posts.

[Gouru]

Originally posted by Irwin
I vote C because of packspace issues.


WHAT PACKSPACE ISSUES???????

You don't HAVE to carry gems with you. Run into town. Buy ONE gem, pop it and take the portal. Less running than you have to do now. You don't have to run out to some portal ring. You don't have to run out to take a portal to a dungeon, then take yet another portal. You SAVE time over all the other plans with option B with ZERO cost to your packspace.

However, if you WANT the convenience of being able to get to the settlement from anywhere in Dereth, or WANT to give your friends access to your house outside of Stonehold, the option is available by using a packslot. BUT!!!! You don't HAVE to use that option.

Where are people getting the idea that option B has packspace issues?????

[BunnyBlaster]

Take your meds.

[Bumper]

Plan C please

[Grinless]

Originally posted by Gouru
WHAT PACKSPACE ISSUES???????


I just thought some of you needed to read that twice...

[Wayndor]

Originally posted by Gouru
WHAT PACKSPACE ISSUES???????


Where are people getting the idea that option B has packspace issues?????

Because unless you want to do a LOT of running you will have to carry the gems! Can you not SEE that? Ask someone to explain it to you I am sure someone will help you!:rolleyes:

[Gouru]

Originally posted by Gouru
WHAT PACKSPACE ISSUES???????

You don't HAVE to carry gems with you. Run into town. Buy ONE gem, pop it and take the portal. Less running than you have to do now. You don't have to run out to some portal ring. You don't have to run out to take a portal to a dungeon, then take yet another portal. You SAVE time over all the other plans with option B with ZERO cost to your packspace.

However, if you WANT the convenience of being able to get to the settlement from anywhere in Dereth, or WANT to give your friends access to your house outside of Stonehold, the option is available by using a packslot. BUT!!!! You don't HAVE to use that option.

Where are people getting the idea that option B has packspace issues?????

Okay...meds taken...much smaller type...satisfied?...but still...will someone please explain to me how there are packspace issues with option B?

[Escanor]

there aren't any packspace issues with option B. Still, a moot point. Most votes so far seem to go to option C or the the non-presented option of D (no change)

[Gouru]

Originally posted by Wayndor
Because unless you want to do a LOT of running you will have to carry the gems! Can you not SEE that? Ask someone to explain it to you I am sure someone will help you!:rolleyes:

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There are gem vendors in EVERY town. You only have to run to that town (just like you do now), and buy ONE gem. Pop it. You're done. ZERO packspace. LESS running than you do now. Option C has a lot more running than option B.

Can you not SEE that????

sorry...meds wore off

[Wayndor]

Originally posted by Gouru
WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There are gem vendors in EVERY town. You only have to run to that town (just like you do now), and buy ONE gem. Pop it. You're done. ZERO packspace. LESS running than you do now.

Can you not SEE that????

sorry...meds wore off

NOT WRONG The vendors will only have gems for portals around THAT area not all locations like you seem to think! It will make quests where you have to go to other locations far more difficult unless you hold onto gems!

[Ragon]

How about move them to a dungeon and get the vendors just in the settlement portals?

[Welsley]

I guess my order of preference would be: A, don't do anything, B, C.

If the stated purpose of the changes is "to remove the ugliness of the Hubs, as well as encourage exploration and travel through Dereth’s wilderness," then A is the only option that has any chance of doing both of those things.

B or C both remove the "ugliness" of the Hubs, but don't do anything to encourage travel through Dereth's wilderness, which is arguably a much more substantial issue. (I hesitate to say "problem" because not everyone considers it to be one.)

There are other issues with the housing portal network, but since none of the options on the table really touches on them, it's probably not relevant to bring them up there.

If you decide that the comparatively minor "ugliness" issue is the only one worth addressing, then really I'd rather you not touch the issue at all. There are better things to spend dev time on in that case, IMO.

[Reeve Sparticus]

Either plan B or C.

Plan A disadvantages:
* More restrictive travel to areas you don't frequent.
* Housing bots will have quick and easy access to several locations by simply using a gem from their inventory.
* Pack space goes down the tubes since it's not so easy for players to get the gem they need when they need it, so then they need to stock up on the ones they use frequently.
* It doesn't do anything for getting people into towns.
* Did I mention the restrictive travel and pack space issues? Hehe that's what people dislike the most about this proposal.

Plan B advantages:
* This helps to get more people into the towns.
* It's much faster getting to the settlement gem you need than trying to find it on a player's trade bot in marketplace as Plan A suggests to do.
* No need to tie up pack space, you can visit the nearest town to the settlement and purchase it from a vendor when you need it.
* It still lets you move around Dereth as freely as you could before the change.
* No accidently running into the wrong landscape portal.
* No having to run around landscape portals that are in your way while you are physically running between destinations.
* It's easier to have low level characters, or even mule characters, visit some settlements because they won't have to travel to a town, like Kara, to come visit you since you can simply hand them a gem.

Plan B disadvantages:
* Housing macros would have easier access to the settlements than if we choose plan C.
* Travel to some regions, such as Kara, would be even easier than it is now and it would seem some people would rather not have that. With plan B it's as simple as getting a gem from someone.
* PK's will be camping the towns. Not sure if that's good or bad on DT. At least you're out in the open and have a chance to spot them or get away.

Plan C advantages:
* No need to tie up pack space, you can visit the nearest town to the settlement and use the portal there.
* It still lets you move around Dereth as freely as you could before the change.
* No accidently running into the wrong landscape portal.
* No having to run around landscape portals that are in your way while you are physically running between destinations.
* Housing macros cannot simply use a gem from their great inventory to get to a settlement faster than someone who didn't have that exact gem ready.
* There wouldn't be any changes to how quickly you can get to certain areas of Dereth such as Kara.

Plan C disadvantages:
* You need to go through an extra portal (the dungeon portal) to get anywhere.
* You still need to sort through many available portals to try to pick out the one you need.
* It doesn't help bring people to towns. They will still be empty just as Arwic is. People run through subway so quick you never meet anybody.
* Increased amount of devs time to set up plan C as opposed to the other 2 plans.
* PK's will be camping the settlement dungeons to gank people coming in.

[Gouru]

Originally posted by Wayndor
NOT WRONG The vendors will only have gems for portals around THAT area not all locations like you seem to think! It will make quests where you have to go to other locations far more difficult unless you hold onto gems!

WRONG! The portal dungeons will only have portals around THAT area not all locations like you seem to think! It will make quests where you have to go to other locations more difficult because you would now have to take TWO portals to get to each location, not just one. You will no longer have the OPTION to hold gems to get to other areas quicker.

Option B also allows a quest leader to get the gems ahead of time and get rid of the running to portals entirely.

edit: and if it was not clear, I KNOW that vendors would only have gems for their area. It will still be faster to run to that town, buy and pop a gem than it would be to run to some portal hidden outside the town somewhere, take that portal, find the exact portal you want, and take it.

[Aaryna]

Option A, please. But just make the gem spawn on a pedestal, not sold by a vendor - we have too many NPCs just standing around already. What would they eat? Where would they live?

Do people really need some poor gem seller living in the brush outside their home, trying to sell them portal gems every time they come out the front door? :p

[BunnyBlaster]

Option C.

Oh wait I already voted.

Well I live in Palm Beach County so don't I get a recount or something?

[Wayndor]

Originally posted by Gouru

Option B also allows a quest leader to get the gems ahead of time and get rid of the running to portals entirely.


...... well thats good as long as the poor sod doesn't mind having to run!

As long as it only requires one location and not multiple!

As long as you do not wish to solo! I solo a lot as I live in a different country to you! I do not want to run endlessly. In fact I know that if I end up having to do more running than I already do I will be looking to eBay to recoup some money.

[Wayndor]

Also this is what was written by Ibn;

For some time, the Settlement Portal Hubs have been found outside almost all of the towns and cities of Dereth. These Hubs provided fast transportation all across Dereth, but many players have complained that... well, they just look ugly.

In April, we are planning to introduce the first phase of a two-phase process to remove the Settlement Portals. The first phase is the creation of portal summoning gems for all of the Settlements that are currently linked to the Hubs. Each Settlement will have a vendor who will sell that Settlement’s gem.

The second phase, currently planned for May, is the removal of the Settlement Portal Hubs entirely.

The goal of these changes is to remove the ugliness of the Hubs, as well as encourage exploration and travel through Dereth’s wilderness. If there are several Settlements that you visit regularly, you have the opportunity to purchase gems for these Settlements in the month of April, before the Hubs are removed. If you wish to visit your friend’s home, you can ask you friend to purchase that Settlement’s gem for you. We would not be surprised to see gems for particularly popular Settlement destinations being traded in the Marketplace!

[Khorps]

So, they are being removed because they made travel too easy -- and all three options make travel even easier.

Or they are being removed because they are ugly blights on the landscape -- and replaced with derelicts in each settlement, or another 'new sub'.

Is that all the options?

I want the blue food!

[Gouru]

Originally posted by Wayndor
...... well thats good as long as the poor sod doesn't mind having to run!

As long as it only requires one location and not multiple!

As long as you do not wish to solo! I solo a lot as I live in a different country to you! I do not want to run endlessly. In fact I know that if I end up having to do more running than I already do I will be looking to eBay to recoup some money.

Explain to me please how option C saves you ANY running? You still have to run to that town to take the portal. I'm not saying Option B removes any running. That remains the same between B and C, either way you have to run to that town to get either a portal or a portal gem.

Option B gives you the CHOICE of avoiding that run in the future by taking up a pack slot. If you do not CHOOSE to use a packslot, you can always run to that town again, just like you would with option C.

Option B is for LESS running IF AND ONLY IF you CHOOSE to use a packslot. Otherwise it is just about the same from a running distance standpoint.

[Wayndor]

Originally posted by Gouru
Explain to me please how option C saves you ANY running? You still have to run to that town to take the portal. I'm not saying Option B removes any running. That remains the same between B and C, either way you have to run to that town to get either a portal or a portal gem.

Option B gives you the CHOICE of avoiding that run in the future by taking up a pack slot. If you do not CHOOSE to use a packslot, you can always run to that town again, just like you would with option C.

Option B is for LESS running IF AND ONLY IF you CHOOSE to use a packslot. Otherwise it is just about the same from a running distance standpoint.

I want option D: Stay the Same!

Got any of those pills?

I can see no reason to change anything!

[Aaryna]

Originally posted by Khorps
So, they are being removed because they made travel too easy -- and all three options make travel even easier.

Or they are being removed because they are ugly blights on the landscape -- and replaced with derelicts in each settlement, or another 'new sub'.

It was said at some point that I'm too lazy to track down that the ease of travel through them is indeed another reason to remove them - although this confuses me somewhat, since several quest NPCs give you directions through settlement portals, like the one that sends you to the Spirit Cell.

However, it looks like once again, only the loudest group of players will be heard. So it seems they're reconsidering the whole idea just because people are so loud about losing their free portals to everywhere on Osteth. :/



Now, as a side note, I would like to suggest a melding of A and B - provide a large signpost in each town giving coordinates to each settlement.

[hanyuning]

I don't think people reading this post really realize that B is the exact same as we have now only that you run into a town, buy a gem, and double click it.

It's almost easier now that you don't have to run outside of town, or risk getting pummeled by a mob while you are scanning through the portals trying to find the one you need.

No one has to keep any of these gems on them at any time. just run to the town that you always ran to, grab a gem, and off you go! Even better for getting a noob or mules around, go buy the gem , take it to the noob, and there you go.

and for convenience, if you know you are going to visit the place a lot (I like portaling to places and hunting in the area) you buy 20 of those gems from the settlement vendor.

Yours in Dereth,

Han Yu-Ning
Proud member of Fist de Yuma

[hanyuning]

Instead of buying from an npc at each settlement, what if you can purchase the gems from the crystals of the houses?

Then pay the rent while you are there for that person too ;-)

Yours in Dereth,

Han Yu-Ning
Proud member of Fist de Yuma

[Gouru]

Originally posted by Wayndor
I want option D: Stay the Same!

Got any of those pills?

I can see no reason to change anything!

Fine...but why change the subject??? You said "I do not want to run endlessly. In fact I know that if I end up having to do more running than I already do I will be looking to eBay to recoup some money."

I am simply asking where you are getting the 'more running' whether it be with option B or C? Option B is less running since you don't have to run out to a portal ring. Option C is very slightly more running because it involves TWO portals instead of one.

You said my statement was WRONG. That Option B required more packspace. That option B required more running. That Option B somehow affected a persons ability to Solo.

If I am wrong, could you please explain how? Could you support your claims, because honestly, I do not see how the facts support them at all.

[Tolliver]

Plan C

[Gossie]

Originally posted by Fezman
Why not have a building in place of the settlement portals that houses the portals? Maybe use the old training dungeons like has been suggested, just put the portals where the old straw drudges and such used to be. Then make those dungeons tieable, so you can recall there and then go where you need to go.

Or maybe a MEETING HOUSE ??? :-) or whatever you call those things <G>

[Cuttler]

I would prefer C. I have no desire to decrease the little pack space I have now. B would be acceptable if need be but A is not acceptable at all as far as I'm concerned.

[Snowimp]

Well this is a puzzle. I'm not sure who decided they were 'ugly'. I find them rather nice to come across, especially unexpected ones. I have a few questions however, as I seem to be missing something.

First, we are talking settlement housing only, correct. Not Town portals, or misc other portals?

Second, while I understand the logic of having the vendor in the settlement, how does one get there first? Sometimes I like going through a portal just to see where it takes me. Or if I'm questing, what a pain to have to have someone run out and get a portal gem to bring back so we can tie. Plan A just doesn't make much sense. And yes, folks would be running out to the settlement buying up the gems and charging an arm and leg for others to buy from them at the marketplace. This does nothing to encourage exploration, only frustration.

Third, as has been mentioned, some of these settlements aren't near a town, so how will you decide where to have the vendors selling them?

Fourth, the idea about using the Meeting Hall sounds wonderful on the face of it, but I have to say that I get more lag underground and above it. Where there are portals underground there are pkliters dueling and leaving bodies around. This would be no different. At the moment having a meeting hall to go to and buff is a godsend, turning it into the subway...... well..... for those of us with slower computers, you may as well just tell us to run everywhere. On my slow computer I can't even move in the marketplace.

Fifth, just about everyone agrees that pack space is at a premium at the moment. Having to carry around gems would only add to the distress, ESPECIALLY when you first start and have no stregth to carry anything but what you stand up in and a weapon.

I appreciate the idea, however I don't see that providing a means for less outdoor travel (ie gem vendors in the mp) is going to improve exploration in Dereth. I travel and explore by nature, but if you wish to have more folks go out in the world, then perhaps having spontaneous spawns in the middle of no where, or a "Quest Trek" where you can gain more XP by visiting sceneic spots would be a better idea.

Thank you for your time.

Snowy

[Taker_AC]

Plan C

Edit: Add them to a new wing Meeting Halls to make them useful again...

[Sebas]

C is the only one that can possibly make everyone just a bit satisfied with the outcome of this...

[Brother Tempus]

Option A ..... The portals make getting around Dereth too easy as it is

[TesaDaniela]

Option C please!!

[Fringe_Worthy]

I tentatively go for Option C.

On the other hand, personally, I think you should calculate the average increase in time for travelling to a random place.

Then hang the developers/designers involved upside down by their toes/earings/piercings/etc for that length of time.

I think this should ensure a reasonable, self correcting update to the game.

[Roadkill]

Plan C. Definitely plan c.

[disgraced]

I vote C

[Blaster_X]

How about this idea?? Why not use the existing dungeons with the statues in each town so that you had to either run through and possibly die to the statues (like old sub used to be..) or take the statues out and just put the portals in the bottom?

[Ling Mei]

DEFINATELY Plan C!

This is what I have said for months, housing portals DO cause lag, (Although it isn't something I can't deal with, I have ended up in the wrong portal from it lol) and while I could personally care less how they "Look" (How can a portal be "ugly"? LOL), I could see how people may think they detract from the landscape.

But to force people to buy gems? And consider exactly how many gems you are talking about, HUNDREDS of settlements in Dereth, it is egregiously unfair to expect anyone to be able to buy each portal gem, and then have ROOM for them on mules if they want to use the settlement portals to get around.

I've said all along, just make an entirely new portal in each town, inside would be all the settlement portals, similar to how the Residential Quarters are, you enter and have multiple portals to choose from.

It would make the people who think they are "ugly" happy by removing them from the landscape, but there are a great many people who love the settlement portals, not everyone wants to run around for 20 minutes to get somewhere, and those that do like it can be free to not use the portals.

They have been in game so long I personally think it is unfair to take them away, there is no way of knowing what portal we would need in the future, and short of buying each gem for every SINGLE settlement, it is taking that option away from the majority.

To have given us this wonderful means of transportation in Dereth for over a year, and then take it away basically, is going to cause a lot of problems for people. This is not a matter of housing bots or real estate agents, this is a matter of some of us who have played for 4 years just like the ease of being able to get around quickly without wasting time running. Call it being lazy, for me it is mostly about being completely inept with Coords, and without these portals, I would find my time in Dereth to be frustrating and confusing, if I had to try and use coords to get around. I just simply cannot do it, I have tried for almost four years, and the savior for me was these settlement portals.

Don't punish the many for the complaints of a few.

Option C is a viable alternative, it would be easy to implement (MUCH easier than creating hundreds of portal gems, new NPCs, etc) and it would solve the lag issue that people complain about, as well as any aesthetic complaints people have.

Please, please, on behalf of all the people who are directionally impaired, or lazy, don't take these portals out of the game.

[Gouru]

Okay....
First choice is obviously B as it is obviously the most versatile solution with advantages to all my toons, especially when combined with new town gems.

But since people seem to think running out to a portal dungeon will be lots of fun with option C, I'll say A+C would be my second choice.

[Kyayote]

I like plan C the best. But I would settle for plan B.
Thank You,
Kya