It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I don't understand why everyone thinks veils have anything to do with this. They don't. Strata is the one who brought up the points about veils to begin with, not me. I hate veils as much as the next person, but they have absolutely -nothing- to do with the fact that its possible to place a tank on one side of a city and fight on the other side. Its just as much of a problem when placed there by a non-veiled person as it is by a veiled person.Would love to get some feedback on the matter@Tecton @Sarapis @Cardan
We're trying to come up with an acceptable compromise with the weaken font power. We're aware of the issues there but do want to keep it as a way to drive out long duration raids. Obviously that's a difficult balance to strike.Tanks... eh, kind of on the fence with this. If you drive out the raiders you should be dismantling or capturing the tank to remove it as a threat. We don't really want to promote more stalling tactics there, so waiting out the sanction isn't really something I expect we'll put in as a way to drive out raiders.I can see how having to sweep the city "just in case" there's a tank might get frustrating. I don't see a reason we can't have a message at tank deployment to see how that goes (a very generic one, just so you know there is one ticking).
Honourable, knight eternal,
Darkly evil, cruel infernal.
Dance with death forever more.
As it is, is there any decay on tanks or if a group was sneaky enough could they secrete one away, raid, leave for 24 hours come back and start up again like nothing happened?
I refer more to the "Drop shrines, raise new shrines, kill guards, have a campfire on the battlements while the defenders can't touch you" style of raiding which is becoming more and more common nowadays.Are raids enjoyable when the defenders can win if they coordinate? Absolutely. Are raids enjoyable when the aggressors are outnumbered and have to think strategically to win? Absolutely. Are raids enjoyable when the defense absolutely cannot hope to win? Not for the defenders, and I personally don't enjoy the sort of teabagging that happens when one side's outnumbered three to one.If you want to win at all costs, bring in overwhelming force, and completely destroy any chance of losing, be my guest. If I wanted a single player game that I couldn't lose, I'd fire up the Super Nintendo and break out the Game Genie. If I want a multiplayer game where there's conflict and the chance of losing, I'll log in.
Jarrod said:Edit: Any solution that involves stacks is an inherently bad solution. Encouraging waiting while bonuses accrue is a bad mechanic. It is boring for both sides and nobody wants to sit around doing nothing for 10-30 minutes while things stack up. Finding a reasonable bonus that is applied immediately is significantly better for the game.
The system doesn't favour defenders by accident, it is by design. Unless the cost of raiding is increased for the attackers to compare to the cost of losing a room, they should be mechanically favoured.
My point was that the reward/punishment in the system is tilted towards the aggressors. Aggressors get rewarded for destroying a room, the defenders get punished for it. It has to be that way to encourage people to raid, but the defenders need to have a mechanical advantage because there is no mechanical reward for them defending, just an punishment for them not.
Saying it isn't fun is fine, saying it isn't even isn't unless you are also proposing that the agressors get mechanically punished for failing the attack the same way defenders are mechanically punished for failing the defense.
I think I was standing in the room when a tank was disarmed recently, I do not remember getting experience from it. Maybe I am mistaken?