City destruction changes

Makarios

Few things, really.

If you let them start a sanctioned raid then ignore them, they're guaranteed to get one room.

If you don't let them sanction a raid, they'll probably do what Achaeans do and sit in your city being a nusense killing guards and smudging all your totems until you do. You technically can do a "we just won't defend", but it won't be practical for the same reasons it hasn't been in the past.

Anedhel

Also, if you don't defend yourself, you'll probably get called wimpy!

Decan

Two things: 

1. Hashan is already called wimpy

2. Hashan would rather let you smudge totems then let you blow up buildings which could cost exponentially more.

One other thing would be to consider the price of guards versus the price of them tanking your city. If the cost repair exceeds the cost of guards (totem cost is negligible) then why would you want to defend? So: IF (Loss of life + loss of exp + Price of repair) > cost of guards THEN "yell We arnt comming out to play" ELSE "Shoot meteor at target" END

Anedhel

No loss of experience once a sanction goes through, for one.

Range changes make it nearly impossible to defend your City without moving, unless your attackers are dumb and attack from an inconvenient position.

If everyone in your City'd rather bail than stick around to defend it, you should probably look at why you even have a City. If there's nothing worth protecting, what's the point of being part of it?

Yiwen

Market areas bout to get blowed up

Mizik

Holy shit, that's great.

Vayne

Decan said:

Two things: 

1. Hashan is already called wimpy

2. Hashan would rather let you smudge totems then let you blow up buildings which could cost exponentially more.

One other thing would be to consider the price of guards versus the price of them tanking your city. If the cost repair exceeds the cost of guards (totem cost is negligible) then why would you want to defend? So: IF (Loss of life + loss of exp + Price of repair) > cost of guards THEN "yell We arnt comming out to play" ELSE "Shoot meteor at target" END

Hashan better suck it up or get demolished.

Anedhel

Just thought of something. It's too easy to defend by just not recruiting people. Your deaths don't count, and booting the enemies makes the timer go down.

I propose non-soldier citizens DO lose exp inside City even during the sanction. Else it gets a little ridiculous. Want to defend? Enlist. Don't want to? Gtfo.

Alcinae

Anedhel said:

Just thought of something. It's too easy to defend by just not recruiting people. Your deaths don't count, and booting the enemies makes the timer go down.

I propose non-soldier citizens DO lose exp inside City even during the sanction. Else it gets a little ridiculous. Want to defend? Enlist. Don't want to? Gtfo.

Could work, although I wonder what will happen in times of war when every soldier is pretty much fair game.

Anedhel

Life's a bitch!

ETA: It might put pressure on states not to go to war so quickly, and to end them more decisively/swiftly. That's a good thing.

Kinilan

Anedhel said:

Life's a bitch!

ETA: It might put pressure on states not to go to war so quickly, and to end them more decisively/swiftly. That's a good thing.

Because the war system gets used SOOOOOO much.

Silas

Never using the war system is a surefire way to ensure it doesn't get improved. I'm pretty sure the city leaders of the major aggressors understand that, thankfully.

There's discussion already about penalising cities for not keeping an active standing military if that becomes a problem, so I wouldn't worry too much. Admins seem to be well on top of monitoring this system, so I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out, and where it can be expanded.

Cooper

Make it so if you aren't in the military you can't perform aggressive actions inside the city. Gg.

Penwize

Cooper said:

Make it so if you aren't in the military you can't perform aggressive actions inside the city. Gg.

That'd just make everyone who isn't in the army feel like they're Hashani.  Just imagine:

4000h 4000m 30000e 30000w exkbd- BBT ENEMY
Sorry, but aggressive actions are a violation of Article 591, Subsection 4, Paragraph 3 of the Y630 City Code. You have been automatically ousted and enemied for Breach of Peace.


Ahh, the Hashani experience.

Cooper

That log was obviously fabricated. I cite no timestamps and extreme amounts of endurance and willpower for the health and mana levels.

Decan

Vayne said:

Decan said:

Two things: 

1. Hashan is already called wimpy

2. Hashan would rather let you smudge totems then let you blow up buildings which could cost exponentially more.

One other thing would be to consider the price of guards versus the price of them tanking your city. If the cost repair exceeds the cost of guards (totem cost is negligible) then why would you want to defend? So: IF (Loss of life + loss of exp + Price of repair) > cost of guards THEN "yell We arnt comming out to play" ELSE "Shoot meteor at target" END

Hashan better suck it up or get demolished.

... Actually I think its more like "Hashan better not try to defend, else it will get demolished"

See before you had to defend else they would just demolish the city. Now, only by defending will they be able to demolish the city. Or you will expel them triumphantly. Ill leave you to guess which one Hashan is more likely to experience.

Anedhel

Okay. So no one will raid Hashan, and Hashan won't defend itself. Just like now. No harm, no foul, right?

Silas

Anedhel said:

Okay. So no one will raid Hashan, and Hashan won't defend itself. Just like now. No harm, no foul, right?

)

Enrai

So, the Decan solution to war is to just let the enemy come live in your home for as long as they want, whenever they want.

Hashan is France then?

Decan

Enrai said:

So, the Decan solution to war is to just let the enemy come live in your home for as long as they want, whenever they want. Hashan is France then?

No, my solution to war is to have it work almost exactly like devotion shrines did back in the 'good ole days'. While I do like the idea of city destruction, there is still no "winning point". Meaning: After said destruction is complete, what makes the Raiders leave if they decide boredom isnt an option? 

I cant see why a group who just Level 3 tanked a city in LoS all around would leave after that, unless they were being nice (@Mhaldor, @Ashtan). I'd speculate after that sort of damage, its time to clean up and start implanting your faction's totems, and killing off guards, renaming the city, etc.

I also cant see why defenders would give the Raiders a chance to have a tank at all unless they were so ignorant to the system that the minions (defenders) fed the Raiders (AchaeaLoL). But lets say it does happen. So either the defenders defend so hard they help blow up their own city and lose exp in the process. Or they win.

Examine the two options: Defend and help blow up city. Or win.

Examine the rewards/penalties of either option: No rewards, city exploded, exp lost, possible guards/totems loss. OR Moderate exp gain.

At minimum, if the defenders decided not to participate, the only penalty is possible guards/totem loss. If the defending party does not stand a fighting chance or do not have the numbers to compete then defending only will lead to a blown up city. At this point its obvious I think that needs to be changed because it gives the underdog no chance to win, and no reason to try.

Hasar

Who is @Decan.

Enrai

How long does it take for defenders to deactivate the tank? Presumably a few minutes - long enough for raiders to come back and defend their tank?

If the defenders, who won't be losing xp for long, have few enough soldiers that they can't reliably confront the attackers, the diminishing effects of their death on the power of the tank should stop it from going crazy huge, unless there's Carmain level suicide rushing.

Regarding why a force would withdraw after a successful attack, the defenders' font being empowered should generally encourage departure. Plus, I like to think most people aren't trying to be dicks.

Decan

Enrai said:

How long does it take for defenders to deactivate the tank? Presumably a few minutes - long enough for raiders to come back and defend their tank?

Presumably, yes. However, raiders are not likely to leave their tank unless they have been expelled already and the threat is over.

If the defenders, who won't be losing xp for long, have few enough soldiers that they can't reliably confront the attackers, the diminishing effects of their death on the power of the tank should stop it from going crazy huge, unless there's Carmain level suicide rushing.

True, but then no one will get L3 tank at all making it pointless. Most defense leaders realize if they have fed the thing enough to get to L2, trying again will probably help it to 3 so its not worth it.

 Regarding why a force would withdraw after a successful attack, the defenders' font being empowered should generally encourage departure. Plus, I like to think most people aren't trying to be dicks.

I like to think that too. But actually being able to declare a 'winning objective' outside of 'do the most damage' is better. Sadly, though wars in RL result in annexation or extermination, neither of which is viable in Achaea. Territory is more so, and can be done individually as well as communally. Which is why I again bring up the old devotion shrine war as an example. the shrine (or flag in this case?) is placed and given certain benefits to its allies in x ammount of rooms, if each side could plant and uproot flags, defence lines can be made and the war can actually be waged outside of cities. Segregating non-comms and combatants. Heck, if the flag territory is pushed back to the city entrances then they can be tanked, and then it can be done so you could get a L3 because of the loss of the 'front lines'. Just a thought.

Milenka

Did anyone try the font out yet?

   - DECAY  : Influence the very fabric of time, reducing the life of any persistent room effects such as devotional rites, crystalline vibrations, necromantic hands of the grave, and a bard's harmonics. -> Does this only affect the attackers' room effects or all?

Exelethril

Rinzai brought this idea up, since Arena tells are barely/rarely used and the current syntax is "AT <message>" - would "AT <message>" be better utilized for Army tells instead?

Just for the sake of convenience, since "ArmyTell <message>" seems awfully long for a channel that might have a lot more use in the future. Or, have their roles reversed instead - "AT <message>" for Army tells and "ArenaTell <message>" for Arena tells.

Silas

It's ART now.

Melodie

The Scarlattans will be giggling for the next decade or so.

So are most of the Cyrenians, really.

Draqoom

Silas said:

It's ART now.

Gives a whole new meaning to the ART of War

Rinzai

So with automatic promotions I have come to terms with not being able to Demote. It is still a shame a couple folks got "awesome keyboard" promoted twice.

So I kicked the Idea of a Confirm option, so it's two step, or a ARMY PROMOTE CARL <#>

Other than that I am enjoying some role play avenues that I think can be ran through this system.

so, seriously come raid Cyrene, we have cupcakes I'm told.


Edit: Also a serious thumbs up to everyone behind the scenes who has been answering all of our ISSUES and BUGs.  Example Tynil just had a bug fixed in roughly 2 minutes. top notch.

Melodie

I am both interested and terrified to see what happens.

I also have a feeling getting level 101 is probably not going to happen anytime soon. :P