A countermeasure against abuse for the gate stuff

[Archiplex]

Right now, people are able to maximize abuse out of this by constructing gates in many places- even if it's horribly ugly if they start constructing small gates in front of homes (Don't even need to lock them, or leave them closed)- they become nigh unraidable due to having way too many spots raiders can't touch due to.

I'm sure there's also a lot of abuse points, but right now there's no downside for a defender to spam gates.

So, to alleviate this- there should be a secondary cost to this. Perhaps the gates that cause this specific "visitor" debuff are special gates, that are also expensive to create (Lots of resources, gold/silver?) so players will minimize the amount of them that they place around. Alternatively, there could be an authority drain based on the amount of players that freely enter and leave a claim after time (Effectively allowed you to 'chip' down on abandoned claims, or raiders to wear away at a gate and force it to close otherwise the owner loses all influence). Though to prevent alt abuse on a single gate, the process should probably just cost an extra amount of influence based on the total traffic over some time- regardless there needs to be some changes made due to the potential abuse of this system currently. Another idea is to have a limited number of gates being selected as "entrance" gates based on the size of a claim/influence of a claim, and not being able to be changed more than once every 24 hours.

It's a fine idea otherwise, and in a perfect scenario (Where players don't make gates for extra protection) it can be a fine mechanic.

[barra]

One registered gate per claim. Only that gate can be left open safely.

[DaniAngione]

I understand the concern, but...

Perhaps the gates that cause this specific "visitor" debuff are special gates, that are also expensive to create (Lots of resources, gold/silver?)

Too expensive. Most hermits/loners/small groups wouldn't be able to afford that. I myself have never seen a bar of gold or silver yet. The only people that would be able to afford such protection would be the same people that are powerful enough to raid around. Convenient.

Alternatively, there could be an authority drain based on the amount of players that freely enter and leave a claim after time

Once again, not a good idea. Apparently, Jorb & Loftar dream about a world where cities are actually cities and can be visited by several people for chit-chat, trading, etc... This completely breaks said purpose - so I leave my gate open for traders and neighbors to visit and end up losing my claim? lol nonsense.

Another idea is to have a limited number of gates being selected as "entrance" gates based on the size of a claim/influence of a claim, and not being able to be changed more than once every 24 hours.

Now -- this one isn't a bad idea. But it's rather limiting, some people have several gates, some like to create double gates, etc...
If I may suggest something based on your idea, here's a possibility that:

1- Doesn't limit the number of gates
2- Attempts to prevent abuse:

Maybe we could have an item similar to locks that we can apply to gates to mark them as "Outer Gates". This could be visually represented by two little flags on the corner posts around it or something like that - I dunno. But it needs to be visually represented somehow.

How would it work:
There would be no more buff on all the gates. Only Outer gates would apply the buff - HOWEVER, the buff is only applied if coming from outside to inside and REMOVED if going from inside to outside. of said gate.

That way, ONLY your gates leading outside should be marked as outer gates. If you mark a gate inside your town as an Outer Gate, an invader can debuff himself by going to the other side, thus being allowed to raid you.

Let me make it clearer with a drawing:



On the first image (top) we see how a normal base should be with my idea. The middle gate would be a normal gate, and only the outer gate would be marked as an outer gate and buff people getting inside, debuff people going outside. Perfectly safe, the middle gate doesn't apply any buffs - so in case of a wall breach, it must be closed or everything will be vulnerable. This is the ideal scenario.

The second image (lower one) shows what happens if someone tries to apply the "Outer gate" mark to every gate. If someone crosses the second gate (buffs again) and then crosses back (debuffs), the "second layer/ring" of the base becomes vulnerable because the invader will be debuffed... so this is not good. This would prevent abuse, building tons of gates to "spam" the buff wouldn't work

[Kelody]

Not counting wall jump hacks, do that many people raid/pillage/murder running through random open gates? Do that many people leave gates open in dangerous areas? Now I can see the key issue being a problem for those that manage to get hold of a master key. I think I'm glad I moved further away, while I'm not really happy just being a hermit, I wouldn't want to worry that much.

[maze]

I cant agree with any of this post and....

Archiplex wrote:
Another idea is to have a limited number of gates being selected as "entrance" gates based on the size of a claim/influence of a claim, and not being able to be changed more than once every 24 hours.

T.U is so gaint that we have many citys, and the walls so large that currently we have about 20 doors.
you would be limiting us pretty hardcore. also brodgar would take a hit like crazy.

J&L put in a system to make defending/peace easyer~ understand why and it becomes clear.
We need to make a system for peace and being able to meet without the fear of the every moment of the game before we make the system of death again.
If you wanna make an idea, build on this system. What ways of raiding would work for you and would be legit raiding without cheating people.

make a system that would ideally fight brodgar.

[loftar]

Well, I can at least say that making a special and separate "merchant's gate" or whatever, that is more expensive (and perhaps larger) than ordinary gates was indeed an option we considered, and I wouldn't still exclude that we might change the current mechanic to that. We'll evaluate and see.

[maze]

Well, I can at least say that making a special and separate "merchant's gate" or whatever, that is more expensive (and perhaps larger) than ordinary gates was indeed an option we considered, and I wouldn't still exclude that we might change the current mechanic to that. We'll evaluate and see.

Larger gate sure, but Merchant gate....eh...

I'd rather you add more things that a Field Cairn can do

[Tonkyhonk]

(Lots of resources, gold/silver?)

so, you think only the rich and advanced should be protected? want the weak weaker even more?

[rye130]

(Lots of resources, gold/silver?)

so, you think only the rich and advanced should be protected? want the weak weaker even more?

Isn't this more about allowing cities to safely be open? For the weak, nothing really changed IMO.

[Tonkyhonk]

Isn't this more about allowing cities to safely be open? For the weak, nothing really changed IMO.

if the gate cost rises, the weak stays weak longer.