Decaying authority objects

[Jackard]

you know whatd be neat? if battling authority was tied into sieges. siege engines might require allied claims to move. so youd set up a command post on the fringes of enemy territory and start taking over authority objects and building machines to take down the stronghold

be more interesting the commonly suggested (artificial and arbitrary) delay for building siege weapons

[Chakravanti]

I want abandoned villages to disappear but I don't want to fix my statues all day long. It should be a check. If nobody logged on in a village for x days remove the village.

this is the only good suggestion in the thread

advocates of feeding/decay either arent thinking straight or havent been part of building a large village

This. Just abstract the repairing process. Decay should be something like 2 IRL weeks assuming no one logs in.

There should, however, *possibly* be an option to repair the village without logging in. e.g. a 'friend' reapiars it for you while you are on some very extended vacation, repairing a sattelite village you don't have direct access to. (to preserve crossroads). Neither of those seem like very important scenarios to consider though.

[theTrav]

while I think sieges would be neat, I don't think it gels well with the current village implementation... Perhaps when it becomes possible to make serious fortifications rather than just a few walls.

Until then I'd think giving the contest mechanic some sort of low magic, shamanistic, theme to match the whole flaming skull totem dealy. Alternatively just make it a big fight out that goes something like:

1 - Attacker errects a conquest banner
2 - Timer starts ticking down, it's visible to both sides (maybe spectators as well?)
3 - Attacker needs to have someone within a certain radius of the banner until the timer hits zero
4 - If defenders get in the radius at the same time as attackers, the timer stops
5 - If defenders get in the radius and the attackers don't the timer increases
6 - The whole time the conquest is running a second timer is ticking down to indicate the time within which the conquest must be completed.

End conditions
Timer hits 0 - Attacker wins
attacker timer > conquest timer - Defender wins

You could balance it out by tweaking the timer initial vallues and change rates, you could make conquest easier/harder than destruction, you could use you XMPP protocol to alert people that their village is under attack.

[Chakravanti]

SOunds great but combat needs to be balanced before that occurs.

[niltrias]

you know whatd be neat? if battling authority was tied into sieges. siege engines might require allied claims to move. so youd set up a command post on the fringes of enemy territory and start taking over authority objects and building machines to take down the stronghold

be more interesting the commonly suggested (artificial and arbitrary) delay for building siege weapons

This sounds pretty interesting, but implementation would be tricky.

[niltrias]

I want abandoned villages to disappear but I don't want to fix my statues all day long. It should be a check. If nobody logged on in a village for x days remove the village.

this is the only good suggestion in the thread

advocates of feeding/decay either arent thinking straight or havent been part of building a large village

I am, and I have. My feeding idea would take about a minute of work every 3 weeks. Thats not very grindy.

[martinuzz]

while I think sieges would be neat, I don't think it gels well with the current village implementation... Perhaps when it becomes possible to make serious fortifications rather than just a few walls.

Until then I'd think giving the contest mechanic some sort of low magic, shamanistic, theme to match the whole flaming skull totem dealy. Alternatively just make it a big fight out that goes something like:

1 - Attacker errects a conquest banner
2 - Timer starts ticking down, it's visible to both sides (maybe spectators as well?)
3 - Attacker needs to have someone within a certain radius of the banner until the timer hits zero
4 - If defenders get in the radius at the same time as attackers, the timer stops
5 - If defenders get in the radius and the attackers don't the timer increases
6 - The whole time the conquest is running a second timer is ticking down to indicate the time within which the conquest must be completed.

End conditions
Timer hits 0 - Attacker wins
attacker timer > conquest timer - Defender wins

You could balance it out by tweaking the timer initial vallues and change rates, you could make conquest easier/harder than destruction, you could use you XMPP protocol to alert people that their village is under attack.

It sounds nice, but it wouldn't work, unless this conquest timer lasts at least 12 hours, to take into account all the different time zones people are coming from. It would NOT be nice to log in after going to RL work, or sleep, to find your village destroyed, because someone from another time-zone conquered it.
Which raises the question (following rule #3): How many attackers are capable of maintaining a siege 12 hours? This would favour only the larger groups of players.

[minck1]

How many attackers are capable of maintaining a siege 12 hours? This would favour only the larger groups of players.

I was told about a raid in Lineage or Final Fantasy that the monster still wasn't dead after 72 hours. 12 hours online for even a small group isn't hard if they aren't standing around twiddling their thumbs. This would be way to unbalanced for the casual/farmer types that are getting raided by the hardcore players though. A 24 hour siege timer that people only have to register for, not actually hang around would be better. I don't really like the idea of a make believe battle though. If there's going to be a village siege, make both sides capable of active attack and response through building siege engines and arrow towers.

[theTrav]

It sounds nice, but it wouldn't work, unless this conquest timer lasts at least 12 hours, to take into account all the different time zones people are coming from.

I like how you assumed I was suggesting the unworkable option, and then instantly thought of how it would work, but then failed to correct your earlier assumption.

Which raises the question (following rule #3): How many attackers are capable of maintaining a siege 12 hours? This would favour only the larger groups of players.

umm... Yes, successful military action is usually conducted by large well organised groups. I don't see that as a problem...?


Additionally, try and think of all the different options the devs have just by fiddling with those timers and count down rates. You could potentially make it so that attackers need to hold it down for a week worth of time over a 2 week period and so that defenders only have to hold it exclusively for a couple of hours.

If they didn't like that option they could reverse it, so that the attacker only require a few hours of domination for victory, while the defenders have to defend for a week to prevent victory.

The main thing about it is that:
1 - It allows proper village on village conflict
2 - It creates a situation where organisation is just as important as individual strength

This would be way to unbalanced for the casual/farmer types that are getting raided by the hardcore players though.

A casual farming type community is going to be easy meat for a large organised and trained military. That's just the way it is. I don't see Jorb and Loftar changing that any time soon.

A 24 hour siege timer that people only have to register for, not actually hang around would be better. I don't really like the idea of a make believe battle though.

I also think make believe battles are a good idea either, conquest by petition sounds pretty lame.

If there's going to be a village siege, make both sides capable of active attack and response through building siege engines and arrow towers.

So turn a military contest into a building contest? I can see how it favors the craftspeople more than a take and hold model, but it's not really a good representation of actual warfare now is it...

[niltrias]

So turn a military contest into a building contest? I can see how it favors the craftspeople more than a take and hold model, but it's not really a good representation of actual warfare now is it...

Sieges take quite a bit of both construction and combat. There have been lots of times when armies retreated without even bothering fortified cities because the invaders didnt have siege weapons/equipment.
It obviously shouldnt be purely building tho. Those towns cant sack themselves, you know.