Y'know if we enable soft raiding for anyone other than non-factions it's basically the same thing as hard raiding. If you take everything not nailed down in a hermit base, that'll be more or less everything of value since their standing structure equipment is usually worth trash. Everything of value they buy and bring home. That + the obvious chance that broken walls = dead hermit (lacking rage does almost nothing to protect a player vs pvp death).
Which means for most intents if it's possible to do to factions at all, hermits will get slaughtered.
-
Sevenless
- Posts: 7704
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:55 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Into the Breach!
Lucky: haven is so quirky
Lucky: can be so ugly, can be so heartwarming
Sevenless: it is life
The Art of Herding
W16 Farmer's Almanac
W16 Casting Rod Cheatsheet
Explanation of the logic behind the cooking system
Lucky: can be so ugly, can be so heartwarming
Sevenless: it is life
The Art of Herding
W16 Farmer's Almanac
W16 Casting Rod Cheatsheet
Explanation of the logic behind the cooking system
-
Granger
- Posts: 9255
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:00 pm
Re: Into the Breach!
Idea behind is to allow for easier, but limited in scope, crimes. While limiting the ability to burn down the place to the ground the ability to carry away everything not nailed down dosn't really work toward that intention.Kirche wrote:how about a "soft" siege where you use a battering ram on a gate, when whatever conditions are met the gate falls open as do all gates on the connected claim and claims it overlaps, being unable to be closed for several hours afterwards, this deactivates visitor gates and allows criminal actions within the walls, ...
⁎ Mon Mar 22, 2010 ✝ Thu Jan 23, 2020
-
Kirche
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Re: Into the Breach!
you either want raiding or you don't there's no in between.
-
Jackwolf
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:56 am
Re: Into the Breach!
There's a difference between raiding and razing.
Beezer12Washingbeard: If poo mechanics were implemented, mercury could cure constipation wounds
magisticus: Most of us avoid making jokes like this because there is always a risk Loftar might think it's a good idea and we all have to re-design our villages for sewerage. -6/29/17
magisticus: Most of us avoid making jokes like this because there is always a risk Loftar might think it's a good idea and we all have to re-design our villages for sewerage. -6/29/17
-
loskierek
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 2:22 pm
Re: Into the Breach!
some fantastic grief potential in here lol
-
Pan_w_okularach
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:57 am
-
Vraatjuh
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:08 pm
- Location: Heaven
Re: Into the Breach!
I've got a vague idea starting of something that could work? Though it will probably get shot down by ya all.
Make villages have two different meters:
- one for upkeep with EXP gained inside village to make sure that an active village is ran by active people and not just made to claim nodes.
- one for upkeep with LP where people actively have to provide their own gained LP into the village claim to keep it up.
Now, when parties siege a village they will gain LP of this village LP pool based on the damage done by the attackers. As it stands now people can still only do a certain amount of damage + villagers can only add a certain amount of LP over a time period. Raiding would be 'profitable' from the start as the attackers would gain LP and the defenders would have to hand in their earned LP to keep their village claim up.
As soon as attackers stop attacking the defenders can up the village claim again and all turns back to normal. Attackers gained some valuable LP while defenders have to spend valuable LP to keep village up.
If defenders decide not to add LP to the village claim, it would at some point deplete and allow the destruction of wall segments and a full-on raid.
LP gained could be based on a combination of attacking value + % of total claimed area of village. Making big villages a more 'profitable' target LP wise.
Same with LP shield upkeep being based on % of total claimed area. Big villages would require a lot more LP for upkeep than a village without banners.
Certain problems pop-up with this system:
1. People will create 'fake' villages and just farm them up with LP bots and siege their own stuff.
- This should be prevented by the EXP meter on villages, so only active villages are worth raiding. Inactive EXP villages would just lose shield directly and be open to raid.
2. People will use alts in main village to keep LP pool up
- This is indeed a problem. However, enemies would still gain extra LP which you 'provide' to them. Ideally a solution is found for alts adding LP. Maybe only people who actively gain EXP inside the village can add LP to the pool?
Positive things with this system:
1. Sieging with the intention of razing a village would still be possible but should take a shitload of effort as was the case with Aurora last world.
2. It would allow quicker destruction of inactive village claims over natural resources since it would gain barely any EXP.
3. It still gives incentive to raid as you can gain extra LP while hempering the progress of your enemies as they would constantly have to spend LP to keep the claim up.
It's only an idea and I am sure there is a lot to be said against it. I'm just curious if people think it's worth thinking about it or if it's just complete shit.
Make villages have two different meters:
- one for upkeep with EXP gained inside village to make sure that an active village is ran by active people and not just made to claim nodes.
- one for upkeep with LP where people actively have to provide their own gained LP into the village claim to keep it up.
Now, when parties siege a village they will gain LP of this village LP pool based on the damage done by the attackers. As it stands now people can still only do a certain amount of damage + villagers can only add a certain amount of LP over a time period. Raiding would be 'profitable' from the start as the attackers would gain LP and the defenders would have to hand in their earned LP to keep their village claim up.
As soon as attackers stop attacking the defenders can up the village claim again and all turns back to normal. Attackers gained some valuable LP while defenders have to spend valuable LP to keep village up.
If defenders decide not to add LP to the village claim, it would at some point deplete and allow the destruction of wall segments and a full-on raid.
LP gained could be based on a combination of attacking value + % of total claimed area of village. Making big villages a more 'profitable' target LP wise.
Same with LP shield upkeep being based on % of total claimed area. Big villages would require a lot more LP for upkeep than a village without banners.
Certain problems pop-up with this system:
1. People will create 'fake' villages and just farm them up with LP bots and siege their own stuff.
- This should be prevented by the EXP meter on villages, so only active villages are worth raiding. Inactive EXP villages would just lose shield directly and be open to raid.
2. People will use alts in main village to keep LP pool up
- This is indeed a problem. However, enemies would still gain extra LP which you 'provide' to them. Ideally a solution is found for alts adding LP. Maybe only people who actively gain EXP inside the village can add LP to the pool?
Positive things with this system:
1. Sieging with the intention of razing a village would still be possible but should take a shitload of effort as was the case with Aurora last world.
2. It would allow quicker destruction of inactive village claims over natural resources since it would gain barely any EXP.
3. It still gives incentive to raid as you can gain extra LP while hempering the progress of your enemies as they would constantly have to spend LP to keep the claim up.
It's only an idea and I am sure there is a lot to be said against it. I'm just curious if people think it's worth thinking about it or if it's just complete shit.
