Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 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
How long until I just haven't been born yet.
Tecton-Today at 6:17 PM
Side note, we realize how Aegoth comes off sometimes. Please don't think that we OOC approve of what he says or how he behaves.
However, OOC is OOC and IC is IC. I can't control OOC behavior, and I can't change anything IC because of OOC behavior. If you have a particular problem with an individual OOC you'll need to go through admin.
Dang no good, disrespectful whipper snappers. Millenials are killing the world.
Tecton-Today at 6:17 PM
ANNOUNCE NEWS #4878 (02/07/2018 at 16:56)
From : Makarios, the Meticulous
To : Everyone
Subject: City destruction adjustments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently we've been reviewing the way in which city destruction functions, and though we're mostly happy with it, there are some issues we'd like to address. We're pleased to bring you the first set of said changes today. Here they are:
- When a citizen slays an enemy inside city limits (pre sanction), the sanction counter now decreases. For instance, if city A is raiding city B and city A kills three people from city B, the sanction counter is at 3. However, if a brave upstanding citizen of B then kills two of the raiding party from city A, the counter decreases to 1.
- Raiders may now SANCTION RAID to immediately declare a sanctioned raid without the pre kill requirement if the font is EMPOWERED WITH WEAKEN before a sanction has taken place.
- There is now a global message when a tank is DISARMED or CAPTURED, similar to when a tank DETONATES.
- DISARMING or CAPTURING a tank will now end a sanctioned raid, assuming no other tanks are currently active in the city. This means if you disarm a tank and a raid doesn't end, there is another one still active.
- When a sanction ends in the above way, 50% of the cost of the WEAKEN font power is restored to the font, and the font deactivates.
Enjoy!
It's more fun for defenders when raiders bring teams defenders can score kills against but this seems to encourage the opposite. You have a big fight where raiders get 15 kills and defenders get 10 kills but you don't even get a sanction?
Tecton-Today at 6:17 PM
Tecton-Today at 6:17 PM
I'm on your side here!
Prolonging the period where defenders lose XP as a reward for defender success seems bad. You're also preventing them from getting that juicy disarm xp by making winning prevent a tank from ever being put down. I think defenders would prefer the sanction happen and then being able to disarm.
Usually if you want to avoid a sanction you just don't engage at all.
I also just strongly dislike the idea that a "proper" raid requires one side to slaughter the other, rather than a back and forth where you only get one or two more kills than the other side.
If the raiding city wants a fight, they can attempt to bring even odds.
If the raiding city just wants to win, they can bring overwhelming force but that's likely to discourage defenders.
As far as the back and forth nature of sanctions go, I'd say it encourages fairer engagements because it's no longer a game of attrition: It didn't matter how well your city defended if the raid group killed one or two people per round until they got the sanction.
I'm pretty excited to see how this ends up shaking out and I'll be disappointed if the answer is "Just bring everybody".
I don't mind the sanction being harder to get. It means you don't get that thing where one group just slowly whittles away and gets 5 pks over 30 minutes then tanks. If people just bring more to try to slaughter, defenders can choose to not engage, since you can't attack anyone you please while sanction isn't ticking.
All the change does is make it so you have to win by X amount in order to raid at all, which makes disarms just generally less likely since raiders can only tank if they're already dominating.
The only way it means "less sanctions, less tanks to disarm" is if your strategy is currently one of the following:
A: Suicide into the defenders until you get a sanction via attrition.
B: Bring overwhelming force that nobody wants to defend against.
Bring a group that people want to fight and you'll get fights. If you win, you get a sanction. If you lose, the defenders get experience.
That's not true though... the change prevents you from obtaining a sanction if defenders defend and you don't get six kills more than they do. This encourages you to bring overwhelming force, in order to ensure you get sufficiently more kills than the defenders do. It does nothing to prevent a team from raiding with 3:1 odds. The only thing that prevents that is what always did: defenders choosing not to engage.
Suiciding into defenders never would have worked even under the old system (unless you're suiciding to guards, which would still work), since, as I said, how are you going to protect a tank if you're dying that much? Similarly, I don't see how the change counters bringing overwhelming odds at all. If anything, it makes it more required. This does nothing to change radiancing for a sanction, since the defenders aren't getting kills if it's just the raiders slowly radiancing them over time.
I don't see any problem the change actually solved. It literally only makes it so if a raiding team is semi-losing/tying, they can't try a tank anyway (which would likely be disarmed). I feel like I would want to encourage the opposite (attempting risky tanks).
It's a bit disingenuous to say defenders only won't defend when the odds are unfair, too. People are always looking for ways to "win." It's better to allow sanctions more liberally to get actual raids going and remove reasons to just stand around. Font change was good.
Im sorry, but When did defenders not losing XP in their cities get removed?
2. You're conflating "getting a sanction" with "protecting a tank". I haven't even touched the concept of tanks beyond "Disarm ending sanction is a good thing". Under the old system, people can happily suicide into defenders as long as they're scoring one or two kills per engagement and then go hide somewhere actually defendable with a tank and their actual raid group. Sorry, not sorry to see that one go away.
3. If you want risky tanks, bring fewer people and use more strategy. Once again, the raiding team needs to look at this from the angle of "How can I make this interesting for both parties?" and not "How can I make sure my side wins?"
Its only contribution is to prolong the sanction phase, which is arguably the most painful phase for defenders.
So it’s a bit ridiculous to put all these expectations on the raiding party, and expect the raid ratios to ever be “fair”. Like Farrah said, you can’t do small skirmish sanctions, because you’re risking taking the negative hits. Requiring the raiders to win any fight by +6 just to get sanction is really silly.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
The idea that a city that's consistently third or fourth biggest at best on cwho is 'skewing numbers' is pretty silly.