Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 256 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Comments
There should be diminishing returns or tweak to the scaling. A tank shouldn’t charge to a full level one after a single engagement, imo, which happens a lot when lots of higher ranks are around. I’m not sure I even like the scaling.
Also, charge reduction on killing enemies should scale with army rank if we decide to keep the scaling.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
Otoh, like someone said, if you add in 'counter-scaling' you risk drawing out raids even more.
First, the number of lives each defender chooses to use in a raid situation is entirely at their discretion, so they should be able to evaluate how many lives they are willing to feed the enemy and act accordingly - but they do not. Even the higher ranking army members are likely, especially likely, to do this, because they are generally experienced combatants who are used to regularly retouching starbursts and using their gem. These kinds of situations call for changing the mindset that more lives are strategically better - and not many defenders realize that, or act appropriately. Of course, this still favors the raiders, as they have no penalty for just massing backup lives, and that is perhaps an issue that should be addressed, as you mentioned. This still doesn't change the fact that defenders can be far more intelligent about how they intend to use their lives, and maybe, you know, even relax starburst and not feed extra kills when they get braziered solo into the entire enemy raid group.
Two, I'm not sure if I'd like to have raider deaths reduce charge, because this further reduces the feasibility of getting a level three tank - which is already so, so dependent on the defenders' decision to engage, which they almost certainly will not do once a level two tank is reached. If anything, I worry about the ability to get level two tanks if raider deaths reduces charge - this can create a pattern where level two and three tanks are not feasible in evenly matched raid situations, and can only be achievable by stomping the defending city several times in a row. That is not good. You want the fights for higher level tanks to be bloody but remain somewhat even, so the defenders believe they have a reasonable chance of success at re-engaging.
I am fine with a cost being associated with raider deaths. I would not like it to be in a way that makes higher level tanks more difficult to achieve, however - getting to these thresholds are already far too dependent on the choices of the defenders for my liking. I would like to see a level 3 tank in Achaea at least once before I die, plz.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
And I don't think a level two tank should be charged after a single engagement. A lvl 2 tank 18 min after sanction is gained just seems off to me.
I wouldn't mind if the deaths were "stored" and caused the tank to continue charging overtime rather than all at once (so if you wipe the defenders enough for a lvl 2, you'll get that lvl 2 eventually still if they stop defending), so there's just more time for defenders to try and disarm. I just think it sucks to have everyone drop what they're doing to defend just to go make one attempt and have the raiders leave with a lvl 2. Going for a lvl 2 should require a bit more.
I deliverance bombed you guys on guards (lol to that) to almost get a sanction, then we sanctioned and placed tank right away, then picked off a bunch more of you, killed your whole group with all of you bursting twice and some of you using flasks. The tank was about 60-65% to level 2 then. After that, you guys kept reincarnating/rezzing each other and rushing in small groups that we killed, or individually.
If you had regrouped instead of trying the small group stuff, you probably could have routed us and disarmed.
Both teams were alive, tank just got to full before we could take room.
I did think about something for this scenario specifically. Right now you can’t detonate or disarm a tank if enemy soldier is in the room. At l2, I think it would be worth considering if they are adjacent the same applies. At that point the tank is pressuring those rooms as well as the primary room.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
Im all for disarm giving more to defenders, though. World messages, more experience, automatic capture on disarm, memento credit for everyone in room, ect. I think there's a lot that could be done incentively that doesn't just completely end a fight.
Despite having to disarm two Mhaldorian tanks last night, I'm very against disarm ending sanction or locking out raiders. Disarm reducing sanction timer by x minutes isn't a bad idea, but you're still putting more emphasis on raiders ability to hold a room, encouraging lopsided entrenchment. Killing every defender once doesn't guarantee a tank. Killing every offender once shouldn't guarantee anything either.
You could make defender deaths contribute 1x the base amount towards charge
Raider deaths reduce the charge by .25x
(Edited in): Everyone should contribute towards charge. Regardless of army status. Based off what I've read here, people are considerate enough not to involve novices or non-coms unless it is an accident, and even if you admins place non-army at 50% charge, that still motivates people to just not join the army so they contribute less, regardless of combat prowess.
I do not know anything about the Army, or what benefits they provide, btw. I could be off base.
After an hour, the tank blows at whatever charge it is at.
Disarm doesn't end the sanction immediately, but provides benefits to the city defending to make it a worthwhile objective
Over the course of the hour, the tank will passively charge to X amount (I'd say 50%, able to be moved up or down based on deaths contributed)
Um.. what else.. throwing ideas at this board here..
I genuinely don't know much about sanction mechanics, but disarms could count towards reducing sanction time or something. I dunno. You guys can deal with that one.
Could increase cost of tanks, but I dunno the costs off hand, or how that'd affect raiding in general.
I'd argue that disarming a tank should provide the people in the room with a nice xp boost, and everyone in the area who is a part of the city with a small xp buff, sorta like a morale boost cause huzzah nationalism/patriotism/pride.
Sure, you end up with giant deathballs, but that's better than spending a literal hour dealing with people sneak into a city, kill one person, and then urn out after starbursting twice just so that they can get a sanction and declare that they won.
Why do you need to be AR3 to disarm tanks?
From my standpoint I find that to be a bit odd. It'd be super fucking awkward to be the last one left in a team fight just to find out you're AR2 and can't disarm. I get why you may want to wait to detonate and why not everyone should be able to detonate, but I don't understand why anyone would get in trouble for disarming. Also if its odd times and you have a few newer citizens who are capable or maybe just a boat load of non-coms another city could score a sanction, drop a tank, all go back to their ships and come back to detonate it after its charged. I believe we should remove the AR3 requirement for disarming personally.
That love soon might end You are unbreaking
And be known in its aching Though quaking
Shown in this shaking Though crazy
Lately of my wasteland, baby That's just wasteland, baby
Stands to reason that you'd not have many AR3+'s in Cyrene given how you never raid and don't get attacked as often as other places.
However, the MoW has the power to promote manually also - and there's no reason why you can't create a programme / list of requirements for promotion.
I was always under the impression it was because the admin knew at some point, some player would join an "enemy" city, and then sabotage their own tank detonations?
And yes, it sucks being the last person standing, only to find out you can't even disarm the damn tank.
Tecton-Today at 6:17 PM