The Castle Doctrine Forums

Are some of the paintings unique? I always seem to see the really crappy ones on auction, rarely see the good ones

Ill ladder the fecking lot next time

Charge on son. No one has ever made it to my vault yet on any of my houses. And i usually keep them at over 25k value. Until this latest house ive always ended up dying to the latest "you think your safe but youre not" trap.

The one where theres two corridors at the start, you go down one where upon a dog sights you through glass and cuts off your exit.... This got me goooooood the first time

Then the variant if this where one of those corridors is blocked by live electric floors so you think "oh if a dog tries to cut me off he will just get fried".... Then dog gets line of sight an hits a switch that deactivates those electric floors and cuts you off same as before. This was the last time i fell for this fecking trap lol

Yea i like the similar idea of a taxataion system. Ie: if u are worth 0-20k u pay no tool tax, if u are worth 20-40k then ur in then next tax bracket and u pay 20% tool tax, and so on

Im down, ill need a little time tho as im away fro my computer for next 6-8hrs

I view the problem as being excessive/massive wealth.

The problem i see with fuel is that its also gonna make it harder to knock over the extremely wealthy like price atm. Instead of someone managing to save just enough to knock him over with 80-100k of tools, they now need to save what? Double that? More? By which time mr price has recognized the potential threat and dealt with it.

Having multiple vaults is not meant to be attractive, or easy to deal with, or even common. It just gives a way for players to accumulate wealth like what mr price has at the moment, but it makes them more and more vulnerable as they accumulate it. Its better than a flat out cap, which would restrict player freedom too much imo.

Convince me that the core issue here isnt extreme wealth, and i might buy into your suggestion more.

I concede that testing will certainly be an issue. Perhaps multiple vaults would mess with the game code too much and is unworkable but i still dont agree with the fuel concept as that hammer swings both ways.

Ok i should have properly read through this thread before posting my thread, but i seriously think you guys are way over complicating solutions here and are missing the point. The problem is extreme/excessive player wealth.

Only a player with more than 100-150k can continuously brute force houses like whats being described here.

So we need to cap wealth some way. A vault total value limit of 100k (or whatever figure is best) would go A long way in addressing this. If you want to hold more value, then you need to have additional vaults which can only be placed a minimum of x tiles away from your first vault.

Protecting more and more vaults which must be kept seperate makes a player more and more vulnerable as that player decides to hold more value.

Yes thats the point i (cautiously) am making. He has broken through the threshold of experiencing risk during robberies. Ofc short of a silly mistake, he can now chain brute force any and every competitor in the game with tools and cash to spare.

Perhaps we could raise the vault capacity to 150k instead, just to target the absolute top tier of player who is really out to push the boundaries/prove a point. No player should have 600k in the bank whilst the closest a competitor can get is 50-60k before being bulldozed.

For me the jury is still out, and ill be watching how this goes before i 100% decide, but i suspect that in the right hands, this amount of cash is quite the game changer.

Sorry josh, i have no intention of keeping my value below 40k just for your sake. I have peeked into your house but havent taken tools in yet. Interesting situation, this kind of cold war-esque mutally assured destruction.

I think this is a good experiment, i think there should more incentives to buy paintings and there should more unique paintings. Also maybe once you reach a certain house value, there should be some sort of disadvantage that comes with that to reduce a players robbing capabilities. There are heaps of possibilities here, some sort of new game mechanic should come into effect on houses worth more than 100k.

I personally have no problem with the current system, i have been tempered with the fires of failure (losing a 30K house like 4 times now due to dying to my own trap) and now i dont make silly mistakes anymore. Although not everyone can handle that kind of repeated, brutal, soul destroying failure.

I suppose the argument is that to attract more players, i suspect that the game needs to be a little more forgiving. If u read all the reviews for this game, especially the critics who seem really, really... REALLY stupid to me except for a few, and none of them try competitive/smart game play strategies. They seem used to easy mode games that stroke their fragile little egos. They all moan endlessly about it's "extremely unforgiving nature".

Perhaps a balance needs to be struck? Keep the permadeath ofc, but the chances of dying in your own house could be toned down a bit maybe.

Also... i REALLY dislike this industry's critics after reading their reviews for this game, in case you hadnt noticed