War, taking towns & forts

[MrDDT]

OK, let say your tribe got 5 members and mine got 50. I will be able to kill your guards really quick, and when you comeback, you wouldnt find a thing
Its a nice idea, but needs lots of thinking on that

My suggestion would be, implement a defense mechanism for online/offline tribe members.
Let say a tribe have 1 member.
Offline defense system is 10,000% for all objects on tribe territory.

Let say a tribe have 2 members now.
Offline defense system is 10,000% - 150% for each member offline.

So, if tribe got total 10 members, and 5 are offline, then
the offline defense system is 10,000% - (10*150% = 1,500%) = 8,500%

If a tribe member is online, then the offline defense system is
10,000% - 300% for each member online.

Thats would create a balance between players online and offline for tribe territory.

Let say if a single brick wall got a 2,100 hit points, then its offline defense for a one person tribe is 2,100 * 10,000% = 21,100 hit points.

For a one person with a good weapon you can inflict around 300 hit points per minute.
So how long will one person (A) destroy that wall when the character (B) is offline??

So according to this, if I buy 10 accounts and pay for them. I can have a damn great offline defense system even with all my tribe is online?
Great so now its who has the most accounts wins.

Nawh dont like this system at all.

Punish large tribes for attacking small ones in another way. Make people want to be allies but make them pay for it in game too with resources to promote getting rid of dead way and causing strife in large alliances that form for no reason but to zerg.

[xyberviri]

Aye dont forget the people that join and then quit the game, i can have a massivly awsome defense system by recruiting enough new players that eventually they quit and i dont have to worry about defending anything.

[joexxxz]

So according to this, if I buy 10 accounts and pay for them. I can have a damn great offline defense system even with all my tribe is online?
Great so now its who has the most accounts wins....

Lol I never sad that. The more players in your base, the less offline defense you got.

Let say a tribe have 2 members now.
Offline defense system is 10,000% - 150% for each member offline.
I said minus here not plus lol

[MrDDT]

Lol I never sad that. The more players in your base, the less offline defense you got.

Let say a tribe have 2 members now.
Offline defense system is 10,000% - 150% for each member offline.
I said minus here not plus lol

Sorry I missuderstood.

Well same problem.

Tribe A vs Tribe C.

Tribe A has 30 people attacking Tribe C at 30 people.

Best thing for Tribe C to do is make Tribe D with 19 members and leave 1 member in Tribe C.
Now Tribe D defends Tribe C's area at 10k% - 300% instead of 10k% - 6000%

So even big clans can act like little ones, and get past the offline issue.

Sorta of a good idea, but still not right. I agree you can do something like this but still the key comes in rewarding people to be allies, but also punishing them with some type of resource used or something.

[MrDDT]

Lol I never sad that. The more players in your base, the less offline defense you got.

Let say a tribe have 2 members now.
Offline defense system is 10,000% - 150% for each member offline.
I said minus here not plus lol

Sorry I missuderstood.

Well same problem.

Tribe A vs Tribe C.

Tribe A has 30 people attacking Tribe C at 30 people.

Best thing for Tribe C to do is make Tribe D with 19 members and leave 1 member in Tribe C.
Now Tribe D defends Tribe C's area at 10k% - 300% instead of 10k% - 6000%

So even big clans can act like little ones, and get past the offline issue.

Sorta of a good idea, but still not right. I agree you can do something like this but still the key comes in rewarding people to be allies, but also punishing them with some type of resource used or something.

[Yzandor]

Sorry I missuderstood.

Well same problem.

Tribe A vs Tribe C.

Tribe A has 30 people attacking Tribe C at 30 people.

Best thing for Tribe C to do is make Tribe D with 19 members and leave 1 member in Tribe C.
Now Tribe D defends Tribe C's area at 10k% - 300% instead of 10k% - 6000%

So even big clans can act like little ones, and get past the offline issue.

Sorta of a good idea, but still not right. I agree you can do something like this but still the key comes in rewarding people to be allies, but also punishing them with some type of resource used or something.

And what you think about one offline dude=one city guard?

[MrDDT]

And what you think about one offline dude=one city guard?

Then you get back to this issue.

So according to this, if I buy 10 accounts and pay for them. I can have a damn great offline defense system even with all my tribe is online?
Great so now its who has the most accounts wins.

Nawh dont like this system at all.

Punish large tribes for attacking small ones in another way. Make people want to be allies but make them pay for it in game too with resources to promote getting rid of dead way and causing strife in large alliances that form for no reason but to zerg.

Im not trying to be a jerk here to people. I really do want to see a system work for everyone. But its hard to balance it.

Like I said the key is just like macroing. You wont stop macroing, you wont stop griefers. Key is to reward people for not macroing or griefing, and lessen the impact of what they gain.

Macroing can be slowed down mostly by rewarding people for actively playing. It wont stop macroing but it will make it so no one will care if you macro or not.

Same with tribes. You should reward people for keeping a small tribe. But dont make it so rewarding that other tribes will split up their main tribe into tons of little ones.
You give reasons to ally up, but also give reasons not too. This will cause large tribes to cut dead weight (which causes issues), it will also allow little tribes to be rewarded.

How do you do that perfectly? Well its all about balancing.

[xyberviri]

how about a npc guard of some type that requires you to use your own skill points to create, so like a level 1 noob guard for 10 skill points which would have 25 in a weapon skill and 25 in dodge or parry and have all normal stats of a average starting player.

[Yzandor]

Then you get back to this issue.



Im not trying to be a jerk here to people. I really do want to see a system work for everyone. But its hard to balance it.

Like I said the key is just like macroing. You wont stop macroing, you wont stop griefers. Key is to reward people for not macroing or griefing, and lessen the impact of what they gain.

Macroing can be slowed down mostly by rewarding people for actively playing. It wont stop macroing but it will make it so no one will care if you macro or not.

Same with tribes. You should reward people for keeping a small tribe. But dont make it so rewarding that other tribes will split up their main tribe into tons of little ones.
You give reasons to ally up, but also give reasons not too. This will cause large tribes to cut dead weight (which causes issues), it will also allow little tribes to be rewarded.

How do you do that perfectly? Well its all about balancing.

Ok, i understand your point, and it is a good point and forget it, ill never consider someone a jerk if he can push my reasonning farther :-)

To keep the balance i have THE idea (hehe) : so forget the one dude offline=one city guard. Lets give the possibility to the tribes to HIRE those city guards. A tribe of 1-5 could hire 3 guards max. A tribe of 6-10 could hire 6 guards...etc. The goal is to try and make a ratio: A tribe of 1-5 would need around 10 guys to take it and so on. That way what you said wont apply i.e. it will be an advantage to have big tribes=more guards you can hire and better the protection. You could even put different lvls of guards (better equipped) but at a higher price. You could even hire different class of guards: archer, fighter...

we are getting there, keep on your replies ;-)

[orious13]

Then no one would be in anything less than a big tribe....Especially if you want it possible for 10 people to take anything 5 people or less. Even moreso if you want there to be a "siege any time you want" mantra.

Having siege declaration and choosing a start time is part of balancing.

I just think that guards should be tamed creatures. You level them yourself by going out and...leveling them. If they can wear gear, you give whatever you want to them. I'd doubt any possible guard system would be in before animal taming and after animal taming is in it should be (...comparatively speaking....) too much harder to turn them into possible guards.

I want to see some werewolves. I want to see that it really plays into the moon cycle hehe. I also want vampires that are bats and asleep in the day and do vampire stuff at night.... oh yay for ideas.