City Destruction

Bambizlo

Well, the problem if you have a syntax where you Sanction Raid for <1-5>, you're essentially reducing the risk instead of increasing it for the attacking city, so it's not really a gamble. Basically that's built-in insurance to limit the potential reward of the defending city. I could understand front-loading the XP reward for the defenders (the XP bonus for expelling the attackers within the first 2 rooms destroyed is much greater than expelling them after the 4th room is destroyed) instead of a linear reward scale but I do not think the attacking city should need that type of insurance.

I don't like the mechanic that requires a set number of citizens to be around for two reasons: this limits content for off-peak players, which shouldn't happen if it can be avoided and that puts the burden of counting the number of opposing soldiers on the shoulders of the attacking city which I disagree with (the attacking city should have a decent idea as to the general difficulty of the resistance they are facing but expecting them to know an exact number every time they want to raid is silly). I'd much rather allow sanctioned raids at any time at least 5 soldiers are present during the sanctioning and having the rewards scale to the perceived difficulty instead of some hard-coded limit that the attacking city really has no control over.

Jarrod

Bambizlo said:

Well, the problem if you have a syntax where you Sanction Raid for <1-5>, you're essentially reducing the risk instead of increasing it for the attacking city, so it's not really a gamble. Basically that's built-in insurance to limit the potential reward of the defending city. I could understand front-loading the XP reward for the defenders (the XP bonus for expelling the attackers within the first 2 rooms destroyed is much greater than expelling them after the 4th room is destroyed) instead of a linear reward scale but I do not think the attacking city should need that type of insurance.

I really don't think you comprehend what you read at all. You'd get one chance to sanction every 2 hours. You're betting on how many rooms you can take. You risk more, you earn more, but you also increase the potential gains of the defending city.

I'm honestly baffled at the lack of comprehension right now.

Bambizlo

No idea why you've gotten your panties in such a twist over my comment. Are you just posting that independent of the idea I proposed just above it?

I simply feel a two hour restriction on sanctioning is an unnecessary mechanic as, at most, you can only destroy 5 rooms per two days as it stands anyway. Plus it would be unreasonably unforgiving for newer leaders sanctioning a raid.

Eld

How is choosing the number of rooms you're sanctioning for less forgiving? If you're new and unsure of your abilities, sanction for 1.

Bambizlo

The two hour cooldown is less forgiving.

Jarrod

Not sure why you think Achaea needs things that are -more- forgiving.

Bambizlo

Because city destruction, as it stands, is already self-limiting with the max of 5 rooms destroyed per city every 2 days. Putting in a 2 hour penalty on top of that just limits the potential for conflict as no one's going to want to sanction unless they have an overwhelming advantage (because then, not only did they just lose xp from dying, they also can't even try again for another 2 hours - in which time, you'll probably have people log out/do other things/lose interest/etc.) People have lives and putting that long of a time penalty on things is just not a good solution to increase fun conflict (which I assume is the overall reason for the original proposal in the first place).

Kyrra

Repairing rooms is super fun for me and the best part of blowing things up.

Xith

Also, this was never fully reviewed but has some city conflict proposals too.

http://forums.achaea.com/discussion/486/city-conflict-concepts