Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    I was discussing this with DDT earlier today. I'm glad to see everyone seems to support the idea.

  2. #12
    Tree Maintenance

    each 'rank' of totem requires more, and different, resources to maintain.

    this sets the stage for a couple of things...when you 'rank' a totem you could choose to increase it's radius (cost x) or it's hps (when they are implemented...at cost y).

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubanka View Post
    Tree Maintenance

    each 'rank' of totem requires more, and different, resources to maintain.

    this sets the stage for a couple of things...when you 'rank' a totem you could choose to increase it's radius (cost x) or it's hps (when they are implemented...at cost y).

    I agree with tree ranking, but for it to up its radius, it would need to do a check to see if its ok. (Check totems in range).
    I also agree with increasing its HP. I was going to talk about this once siege system is released. I covered it in another post where it would limit griefers just randomly breaking a wall or 2, it would give the area it was protection a buffer HP shield. Which a random group of a few people attacking you really would cause no damage, they would first do damage to the HP shield which would be much higher than any single unit of defense IE a wall.

    So say a wall has 500HP, the buffer shield could have like 5000 HP. So for a group of random griefers to even break 1 item, they would have to do 5500HP damage. This would make it so that only people that really disliked that tribe and wanting to put real effort into it would attack it.
    I remember in SB before they made walls not attackable until a siege you would have 3am groups of 5 people breaking a wall or 2. It didnt take them long and you couldnt really muster enough defense to do anything all the time during all hours.
    This way it would take a couple of hours to break down the HP shield, but only maybe 20 or 30mins to break a wall. (Depending on how many people are doing it).
    Anyways I think you get the idea.
    So ranking your totem would help give you a bigger shield is my thoughts on it, but also cost more resources due to the heavier protection.

  4. #14
    gotta admit i was never a fan of the old school sb war system (assets destroyable at any time) ... since a motivated group with hammers could come in and really put a hurtin on you at 4am if they felt like...I really think the war system they had at the end was pretty ideal, with a declaration, acceptance and engagement phases.

    You should always have the opportunity to defend your stuff.

    but back on topic.

    definitely a radius check.
    and yes ranking the totem could either add more gross hps (like ranking up a bane stone in sb) or each rank could add an extra layer (your shield) of hps (like ranking a tree in sb).
    The tree mechanism was tried, true, and added a lot of drama, since it took a concerted effort to take out a fully ranked tree...you had to breach walls, usually two layers of them, and then the party just started, because you then had to lay seige to the tree, protect your seige equipment all the while being under non-stop attack from the defenders. I know we had defensive banes that lasted 6+ hours, where both walls sets got breached but we managed to break the attackers because they couldnt press the advantage once inside the city (city design 4tw). good times.

    But honestly, even if they just implemented a system of totem maintenance, it would be an improvement over the current system where they just sit there forever.

  5. #15
    I agree that inactive tribes which take up large swaths of land is not a good game mechanic. What I don't want to see another gathering time sink in the game to remedy this.

    What if tribes could "challenge" another tribes right to the claim of land. This would not be a siege challenge. There would have to be a window of time, say two weeks where everyone belonging to that totem would have to log on and simply vote against the challenge. If everyone logs on and votes, at the end of that time period, the radius would remain as is. If say 20 out of 40 people don't log on and vote against the challenge, those absent players would be flagged "inactive and the tribe radius would shrink by the amount of "inactive" players flagged.

    So essentially the 40 person tribe becomes a 20 person tribe except that the 20 inactive players don't get kicked. The good thing about this is another active tribe can then place a totem/grow their radius closer to the inactive tribe than they could two weeks ago. There may be some loop holes but I think this idea could be developed into something everyone would be happy with and without another gathering time sink.

    (Note: this would apply only to the main totems since the expansion totems can be destroyed)

    -Derek

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek View Post
    I agree that inactive tribes which take up large swaths of land is not a good game mechanic. What I don't want to see another gathering time sink in the game to remedy this.

    What if tribes could "challenge" another tribes right to the claim of land. This would not be a siege challenge. There would have to be a window of time, say two weeks where everyone belonging to that totem would have to log on and simply vote against the challenge. If everyone logs on and votes, at the end of that time period, the radius would remain as is. If say 20 out of 40 people don't log on and vote against the challenge, those absent players would be flagged "inactive and the tribe radius would shrink by the amount of "inactive" players flagged.

    So essentially the 40 person tribe becomes a 20 person tribe except that the 20 inactive players don't get kicked. The good thing about this is another active tribe can then place a totem/grow their radius closer to the inactive tribe than they could two weeks ago. There may be some loop holes but I think this idea could be developed into something everyone would be happy with and without another gathering time sink.

    (Note: this would apply only to the main totems since the expansion totems can be destroyed)

    -Derek
    Something like this isn't a bad idea either, unfortunately totems reserve their maximum radius in which no one can build or even expand into.

  7. #17
    This thread is being watched!

    Keep it coming and constructive

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek View Post
    I agree that inactive tribes which take up large swaths of land is not a good game mechanic. What I don't want to see another gathering time sink in the game to remedy this.

    What if tribes could "challenge" another tribes right to the claim of land. This would not be a siege challenge. There would have to be a window of time, say two weeks where everyone belonging to that totem would have to log on and simply vote against the challenge. If everyone logs on and votes, at the end of that time period, the radius would remain as is. If say 20 out of 40 people don't log on and vote against the challenge, those absent players would be flagged "inactive and the tribe radius would shrink by the amount of "inactive" players flagged.

    So essentially the 40 person tribe becomes a 20 person tribe except that the 20 inactive players don't get kicked. The good thing about this is another active tribe can then place a totem/grow their radius closer to the inactive tribe than they could two weeks ago. There may be some loop holes but I think this idea could be developed into something everyone would be happy with and without another gathering time sink.

    (Note: this would apply only to the main totems since the expansion totems can be destroyed)

    -Derek

    The resources doesnt have to be great, it can be balanced. Plus the resources allow so many other options.

    Few problems I see with this system is.

    1) Still has the issues with everyone has to be on to make the correct size tribe, it cant grow based on planned amount of people.
    2) Promotes zergs still.
    3) What if few of your members go away on holiday. Nothing those other members could do but get their account names and info to protect the area.
    4) How would this challenge be done? Once a day? Week? hour? Person? Tribe? Randomly?
    5) How could the tribe grow back if these members did come back?

    Those are just a few problems I see off the top of my head.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek View Post
    I agree that inactive tribes which take up large swaths of land is not a good game mechanic. What I don't want to see another gathering time sink in the game to remedy this.

    What if tribes could "challenge" another tribes right to the claim of land. This would not be a siege challenge. There would have to be a window of time, say two weeks where everyone belonging to that totem would have to log on and simply vote against the challenge. If everyone logs on and votes, at the end of that time period, the radius would remain as is. If say 20 out of 40 people don't log on and vote against the challenge, those absent players would be flagged "inactive and the tribe radius would shrink by the amount of "inactive" players flagged.

    So essentially the 40 person tribe becomes a 20 person tribe except that the 20 inactive players don't get kicked. The good thing about this is another active tribe can then place a totem/grow their radius closer to the inactive tribe than they could two weeks ago. There may be some loop holes but I think this idea could be developed into something everyone would be happy with and without another gathering time sink.

    (Note: this would apply only to the main totems since the expansion totems can be destroyed)

    -Derek
    i guess the main issue with this, is just to seperate the seige mechanics from a totem mechanic.

    when we start talking about challenges etc...well i love that conversation, but it's seperate. So while we can set the stage for it (totem hps, etc) i don't think it's a good idea to actually comingle the proposed totem upkeep mechanic.

    THinking about the radii issue, how about this...
    Totem has three upkeep slots
    Radius: Upkeep: _____ Expand: _____
    Health: UPkeep: _____ Increase: ______
    Influence: Upkeep: ______ Increase: ______

    Basdically taking a page out of the civ playbook (yes im a civ addict) that to encroach on another territory you need influence and radii increased. It could be balanced so that influence decreases as the radii expands, and in no case would you be able to encroach on a tribes area if they were making their upkeep. Anyway, would be a reasonable approach for gobbling up abandoned totem areas, and also with political avenues as well...since you could expand this concept to reflect a larger tribal zone of influence...but that's another discussion.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubanka View Post
    i guess the main issue with this, is just to seperate the seige mechanics from a totem mechanic.

    when we start talking about challenges etc...well i love that conversation, but it's seperate. So while we can set the stage for it (totem hps, etc) i don't think it's a good idea to actually comingle the proposed totem upkeep mechanic.

    THinking about the radii issue, how about this...
    Totem has three upkeep slots
    Radius: Upkeep: _____ Expand: _____
    Health: UPkeep: _____ Increase: ______
    Influence: Upkeep: ______ Increase: ______

    Basdically taking a page out of the civ playbook (yes im a civ addict) that to encroach on another territory you need influence and radii increased. It could be balanced so that influence decreases as the radii expands, and in no case would you be able to encroach on a tribes area if they were making their upkeep. Anyway, would be a reasonable approach for gobbling up abandoned totem areas, and also with political avenues as well...since you could expand this concept to reflect a larger tribal zone of influence...but that's another discussion.

    Whats the difference from Influence and Radius?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •