Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

Army Powers

2

Comments

  • AstarodAstarod Member Posts: 450 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    edited February 14
    Jeez, I was excited because I was like, oh hey, a bunch of people replied to this discussion, and I expected some army ideas, perhaps some disagreements to what I said that I could reply to, but no, we're talking about Riell soulspearing people.

    Look, I've been defending/attacking people a lot with Ashtan, and I recognize the need for the the different rules garnering PK and the like. If @Riell wants to get issued or hired, I personally don't care. I don't think she's done any of that crap in Ashtan, perhaps I am wrong. I also know that sometimes someone makes a call and you just assist because you trust that person, and you end up killing someone who shouldn't have been slain, by accident. It happens. 

    You should never be "Ok" with it, however, I don't think that it really matters. If you have an issuee, @Dupre, look at your IG options, you're just making yourself look bad. @Riell, I'd advise you just ignore the guy. It's never worth it anyways. 


    Anywho, back to the discussion. I hear the people who are saying that we need higher army ranks for the tank contribution bolstered, I just don't think it needs to be that way. While there are a lot of people who are 'high value' targets, and lead raids, there are a lot of people who have been around for awhile and can't even duel midbies but are HR5. (not pointed at anyone in particular). I don't know, I just think the army would be a cool thing to expand is all. 


    //Edit: Riell, congrats on that Teacher nomination! It's a big deal in and of itself! Thanks for teaching kids, we need more of that :) 
    The Divine voice of Twilight echoes in your head, "See that it is. I espy a tithe of potential in your mortal soul, Astarod Blackstone. Let us hope that it flourishes and does not falter as so many do."
  • MakariosMakarios Administrator Posts: 1,868 Achaean staff
    Minifie said:
    Makarios said:
    Antonius said:
    I suspect that (part of) the reason disarm is a high-rank power is so that cities are forced to have at least some high-rank soldiers, rather than keeping people as low in rank as possible so they contribute less towards enemy tanks.


    That's right, this is the reason we set most powers fairly high.

    As for promotion, generally if you're leveling via auto promotion you should've been promoted already.

    @Makarios are all 5 ranks achievable through dets etc? 


    All ranks excluding MoW are attainable via auto promotion (I think that's what you're asking? correct me if I'm wrong).

    Minifie
  • VinzentVinzent Member Posts: 179 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    @Makarios, is the amount of stuff necessary to automatically rank up the same for each rank or does it scale up?
  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,390 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    To get back on point and as we have @Makarios peeking into here now and again. I think there are a couple of elements that need to be looked at:

    1 - Disarming a tank.

    There are a large number of raids happening at the moment where the defending city has low level, or limited soldiers around. This is just simply a product of time zones, ranks, availability etc but it does mean that there are times when tanks simply cannot be disarmed. This can lead to frustration and non engagement. If we aren't able to look at AR1 having disarm perms, can we at least have an NPC we can call in to do it? Mantufluf in Hashan, for example.  CALL MANTUFLUF TO DISARM, or something of that ilk. 

    2 - Retal raids are not working as they are currently configured and this can contribute to point 1

    As it currently stands: City A raids City B, City B kick butt and disarm a tank. City B cheers at the XP gained, AR Rank points gained and public kudos. City B can then Retal raid at any time they like in a city of 1 or two soldiers, with 12-13 people, and not only get a tank but the XP, AR points, Kudos etc that comes with it.  Raids are supposed to encourage conflict, this is doing the polar opposite. What is the incentive for City A to raid City B against the odds (Which is fun) to potentially lose twice?. This does nothing but encourage the overnumbered raid mentally so many people on the forum have reservations about.

    I think the first quick fix for this would be that a Retaliation Raid cannot be available unless you have had a tank blown in your city. You already won the engagement at a disarm, there shouldn't be the added bonus of a "free" tank within 24hrs.

    For the record I'm in no way pointing blame at any one city here, Hashan have taken advantage of this too, I just think we need the mechanics ironed out. 







    image
    KrizalZbaco
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,484 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited February 14
    Taryius said:
    I'm not sure I could name any specific names right now, but it something that happens semi-regularly with people in Cyrene. Not sure about other places, maybe a few people in Eleusis. I don't think either city is inherently enforcing the idea of keeping people out of army or low-ranking, it just is a side effect of having people being able to opt in and out as they please.

    Also it really depends on the type of raid too, whether or not non-army members join in. If you're having a small skirmish with people odds are only those interested in, or regularly fight will join in. Larger, usually roleplay motivated raids draw greater participation and people who wouldn't regularly defend enough to consider joining the army will lend a hand. It can be frustrating, needing to survive 2-3 rushes to blow a tank, but it is what it is and its hard to balance around.

    Personally, I kinda wish you didn't lose any of your army xp when you quit, or at least don't lose it all. And also that disarming tanks and defending gave more army xp. 

    It's kind of interesting what the different perspectives are on things sometimes. I always saw at least two rushes as what should be the norm for raids and detonating after a single rush because a MoW died too much or whatever as frustratingly fast for a detonation. You destroy a shrine after one win. Tanking a room in a city, to me, should be bigger and require more. So I've also never run into a situation where I thought the tank was taking too long to detonate because of lack of soldiers/ranks. It always seems either about right or too fast, to me.

    I can understand the concern if going for a level two, but as people have said there are other things that prevent you from getting a level two so I guess I just never really cared that much.
    KrizalShirszae
  • RiellRiell Member Posts: 209 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited February 14
    Sobriquet said:
    To get back on point and as we have @Makarios peeking into here now and again. I think there are a couple of elements that need to be looked at:

    1 - Disarming a tank.

    There are a large number of raids happening at the moment where the defending city has low level, or limited soldiers around. This is just simply a product of time zones, ranks, availability etc but it does mean that there are times when tanks simply cannot be disarmed. This can lead to frustration and non engagement. If we aren't able to look at AR1 having disarm perms, can we at least have an NPC we can call in to do it? Mantufluf in Hashan, for example.  CALL MANTUFLUF TO DISARM, or something of that ilk. 

    I like this idea, though the NPC needs to have a significantly longer wind up time.  Perhaps it takes the NPC five minutes to find tank before it can start the disarm process.

    2 - Retal raids are not working as they are currently configured and this can contribute to point 1

    As it currently stands: City A raids City B, City B kick butt and disarm a tank. City B cheers at the XP gained, AR Rank points gained and public kudos. City B can then Retal raid at any time they like in a city of 1 or two soldiers, with 12-13 people, and not only get a tank but the XP, AR points, Kudos etc that comes with it.  Raids are supposed to encourage conflict, this is doing the polar opposite. What is the incentive for City A to raid City B against the odds (Which is fun) to potentially lose twice?. This does nothing but encourage the overnumbered raid mentally so many people on the forum have reservations about.

    I was actually thinking about this the other day, and I really like the way it's working.  24 hours isn't a very long time frame, considering most raid leaders (and those trying to establish themselves) can't be present that entire 24 hours.  Mdor has missed a few retaliation raids because the timeframe and population never lined up.

    As for encouraging conflict, how does this dissuade conflict?  In fact, the recent retaliation raids Mhaldor has performed often are the ones that are defended the most viciously.  These are where the enemy tries everything they can to route us at the last minute.  Twice in very recent memory (once against Targossas, once against Eleusis), we've been zerg rushed when the tank is 90%+, then wiped because of guards/ret/etc.  This is great, in my opinion.  It's bringing out really intelligent strategies that aren't necessarily the easiest things to pull off because no one's worried about giving us a sanction.

    That's really where raiding dies: sanctions.  Getting a sanction doesn't guarantee you can tank.  It only guarantees you can put one down.  What's keeping Hashan from dropping loads in Mhaldor during off-peak times, then evacuating their city to prevent sanction when Mhaldor comes for revenge?  Everyone can say it doesn't happen, but it does (although admittedly not nearly as it has happened in the past).

    Retaliation allows the attacked city a guaranteed chance at a counter-attack.  If you think about it in terms of the PK rules, it's just a way for cities to have a mechanical, coded way of hiring a mark or getting personal retribution.  My killing you (or even me just attacking you) doesn't mean you get to kill me.  It means you get the chance to kill me - especially if you're just hiring a mark instead of getting your own retribution.

    To go further, a retaliation tank is still a tank.  You still have to use a tank that's already been fully charged (which takes four or five RL days), and if you DO get disarmed on the retaliation, you still lose that tank.  Tank still has to be replaced afterwards, etc.  So the limiters that already exist for raiding continue to exist for retaliations.

    Now, if retaliations were circular - i.e. you could retaliate for a retaliation raid - I could see quite a sever degree of issues.  But that's not the case, thank goodness.

    Edit: I agree with @Taryius that raiding should give way more xp than it does.  The time investment to reward ratio for raiding is really crippled, to be honest.  Blowing or disarming a tank should be incentive enough to try to get the tank off.  As it stands now, I could use the fourty-five minutes to hunt and make 4x the experience AND get gold.  Not to mention that if I die while raiding, I'm still losing experience.
  • CooperCooper Member Posts: 5,273 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    @Sobriquet

    If you want people to be around to disarm, use the army system as intended and induct everyone who defends or raids into the army, and promote them accordingly. 100% on the city if you don't have anyone to disarm (ignoring retaliation raids that some cities have used to raid literally empty cities).

  • AstarodAstarod Member Posts: 450 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    edited February 14
    Sobriquet said:
    To get back on point and as we have @Makarios peeking into here now and again. I think there are a couple of elements that need to be looked at:

    1 - Disarming a tank.

    There are a large number of raids happening at the moment where the defending city has low level, or limited soldiers around. This is just simply a product of time zones, ranks, availability etc but it does mean that there are times when tanks simply cannot be disarmed. This can lead to frustration and non engagement. If we aren't able to look at AR1 having disarm perms, can we at least have an NPC we can call in to do it? Mantufluf in Hashan, for example.  CALL MANTUFLUF TO DISARM, or something of that ilk. 

    Firstly, it's mantufufu. Second, yeah, I think this is a wonderful idea. I even agree with what @Riell is saying about it having a longer windup time. However, is it like calling a guard? Mantufluff in Hashan is killable by two people, yet an immortal disarm NPC seems kind of dumb, so there'd have to be some kind of thought. Maybe instead of an NPC this could be simply have a disarm syntax different than disarm, and it would be like, DESTROY TANK, and any citizen can do this, but it takes a longer time to do it. That way you want to have people who can disarm, but if you don't, then it's not the end of the raid and you have a loaded tank sitting about. Maybe this option becomes available once a sanction ends? So you could secure the room and just wait it out?

    2 - Retal raids are not working as they are currently configured and this can contribute to point 1

    As it currently stands: City A raids City B, City B kick butt and disarm a tank. City B cheers at the XP gained, AR Rank points gained and public kudos. City B can then Retal raid at any time they like in a city of 1 or two soldiers, with 12-13 people, and not only get a tank but the XP, AR points, Kudos etc that comes with it.  Raids are supposed to encourage conflict, this is doing the polar opposite. What is the incentive for City A to raid City B against the odds (Which is fun) to potentially lose twice?. This does nothing but encourage the overnumbered raid mentally so many people on the forum have reservations about.

    I think the first quick fix for this would be that a Retaliation Raid cannot be available unless you have had a tank blown in your city. You already won the engagement at a disarm, there shouldn't be the added bonus of a "free" tank within 24hrs.

    I think the issue here is raid mechanics, there's nothing if you fail. Sure, the defense gets free exp if they get kills, without the threat of losing experience, however there's no overarching point. There's no reason to engage, and I don't think adding ways for the defense to be punished for not engaging is a valid reason either. Even on the attacking side, sure, you get AR, sure you get PK justification. Hell, you may get a lot of experience for kills, but at the end of the day, if you don't love combat there's no reason to even try. Again, let me highlight the fact I'm trying to think of positive reinforcement. 

    There's got to be some form of item, titles, honors, or something for losing engagements, or trying, or even succeeding. There's literally no reason to engage a city, or to not guard them. So what ends up happening is that when there are 'evenish' odds, or hell, even when one team goes over the top, it just turns into a situation no one likes. 

    For the record I'm in no way pointing blame at any one city here, Hashan have taken advantage of this too, I just think we need the mechanics ironed out. 

    Thanks, I appreciate that we're trying to focus on the cure, not treatment. :)

    Maybe I'm crazy and no one agrees!







    The Divine voice of Twilight echoes in your head, "See that it is. I espy a tithe of potential in your mortal soul, Astarod Blackstone. Let us hope that it flourishes and does not falter as so many do."
  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,390 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Retal raids guarantee a tank though, so when Asthan come in with 12 against Hashan's 2, there is nothing we can do to avoid the tank being blown. That's not encouraging conflict, that's encouraging high numbers on the offence, hiding and non engagement on the defence, and a free room destruction. 

    This should not be possible on the back of a Hashan offensive raid that was already lost. That's more my point. 

    I'm happy that Retal raids are a thing but think they need to be tweaked to only be available when a tank is detonated in the first raid. 
    image
  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,390 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Cooper said:
    @Sobriquet

    If you want people to be around to disarm, use the army system as intended and induct everyone who defends or raids into the army, and promote them accordingly. 100% on the city if you don't have anyone to disarm (ignoring retaliation raids that some cities have used to raid literally empty cities).
    But then everyone is AR3, so what is the point of AR1 and 2? 
    image
  • JiraishinJiraishin skulkingMember Posts: 2,100 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Sobriquet said:
    Cooper said:
    @Sobriquet

    If you want people to be around to disarm, use the army system as intended and induct everyone who defends or raids into the army, and promote them accordingly. 100% on the city if you don't have anyone to disarm (ignoring retaliation raids that some cities have used to raid literally empty cities).
    But then everyone is AR3, so what is the point of AR1 and 2? 
    Just designate leaders with an eye to timezone, to make sure there's likely to be at least 1 AR3 officer around no matter what time people raid. Then not everyone is AR3, but you get a good distribution. 
    ________________________
    The soul of Ashmond says, "Always with the sniping."
  • RiellRiell Member Posts: 209 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited February 14
    Sobriquet said:
    Retal raids guarantee a tank though, so when Asthan come in with 12 against Hashan's 2, there is nothing we can do to avoid the tank being blown. That's not encouraging conflict, that's encouraging high numbers on the offence, hiding and non engagement on the defence, and a free room destruction. 

    This should not be possible on the back of a Hashan offensive raid that was already lost. That's more my point. 

    I'm happy that Retal raids are a thing but think they need to be tweaked to only be available when a tank is detonated in the first raid. 
    It’s does NOT guarantee a tank. I’ve already explained, it guarantees a CHANCE. Let’s go back to the pk rules metaphor.

    Vierce  attacks but doesn’t kill Sobriquet for no justifiable reason, allowing Sobriquet to hire on Vierce. Sobriquet hires on Vierce. Jhui gets the contract. The odds are INCREDIBLY stacked against Vierce due to things beyond his control. However, he brought this upon himself by initiating the conflict.

    Hashan raids Mhaldor but doesn’t destroy the room, allowing Mhaldor to retaliate. Mhaldor initiates a retaliation raid. They’ve brought everyone on their cwho because, much like hiring, there’s a much better chance of achieving retribution. This is beyond Hashan’s control. However, Hashan brought this upon themselves by initiating the conflict.

    At the end of the day, if a city attacks another city, there needs to be a way to secure an attempt at revenge and IC resolutions. Bounties bring retribution to the adventurers; retaliation raid brings retribution to the city.

    Its also important to note that retaliation raids have different tank modifiers, so it is inherently much harder to charge and detonate a tank during a retaliation raid. Seeing this being the case, it makes complete sense to ensure the safety of that tank at all costs.
  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,390 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited February 14
    Riell said:
    Sobriquet said:
    Retal raids guarantee a tank though, so when Asthan come in with 12 against Hashan's 2, there is nothing we can do to avoid the tank being blown. That's not encouraging conflict, that's encouraging high numbers on the offence, hiding and non engagement on the defence, and a free room destruction. 

    This should not be possible on the back of a Hashan offensive raid that was already lost. That's more my point. 

    I'm happy that Retal raids are a thing but think they need to be tweaked to only be available when a tank is detonated in the first raid. 
    It’s does NOT guarantee a tank. I’ve already explained, it guarantees a CHANCE. Let’s go back to the pk rules metaphor.

    Vierce  attacks but doesn’t kill Sobriquet for no justifiable reason, allowing Sobriquet to hire on Vierce. Sobriquet hires on Vierce. Jhui gets the contract. The odds are INCREDIBLY stacked against Vierce due to things beyond his control. However, he brought this upon himself by initiating the conflict.

    Hashan raids Mhaldor but doesn’t destroy the room, allowing Mhaldor to retaliate. Mhaldor initiates a retaliation raid. They’ve brought everyone on their cwho because, much like hiring, there’s a much better chance of achieving retribution. This is beyond Hashan’s control. However, Hashan brought this upon themselves by initiating the conflict.

    At the end of the day, if a city attacks another city, there needs to be a way to secure an attempt at revenge and IC resolutions. Bounties bring retribution to the adventurers; retaliation raid brings retribution to the city.
    It's a guaranteed Sanction, which means a guaranteed tank.... 

    Edit - Bolded. I thought you said this promotes conflict?
    image
  • RiellRiell Member Posts: 209 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited February 14
    Sobriquet said:
    Riell said:
    Sobriquet said:
    Retal raids guarantee a tank though, so when Asthan come in with 12 against Hashan's 2, there is nothing we can do to avoid the tank being blown. That's not encouraging conflict, that's encouraging high numbers on the offence, hiding and non engagement on the defence, and a free room destruction. 

    This should not be possible on the back of a Hashan offensive raid that was already lost. That's more my point. 

    I'm happy that Retal raids are a thing but think they need to be tweaked to only be available when a tank is detonated in the first raid. 
    It’s does NOT guarantee a tank. I’ve already explained, it guarantees a CHANCE. Let’s go back to the pk rules metaphor.

    Vierce  attacks but doesn’t kill Sobriquet for no justifiable reason, allowing Sobriquet to hire on Vierce. Sobriquet hires on Vierce. Jhui gets the contract. The odds are INCREDIBLY stacked against Vierce due to things beyond his control. However, he brought this upon himself by initiating the conflict.

    Hashan raids Mhaldor but doesn’t destroy the room, allowing Mhaldor to retaliate. Mhaldor initiates a retaliation raid. They’ve brought everyone on their cwho because, much like hiring, there’s a much better chance of achieving retribution. This is beyond Hashan’s control. However, Hashan brought this upon themselves by initiating the conflict.

    At the end of the day, if a city attacks another city, there needs to be a way to secure an attempt at revenge and IC resolutions. Bounties bring retribution to the adventurers; retaliation raid brings retribution to the city.
    It's a guaranteed Sanction, which means a guaranteed tank if the city rolls over and takes it like a bitch.
    Fixed.

    eta: Had a kid walk in and forgot to finish.

    1. If sanction meant a guaranteed tank, we wouldn’t have to worry about disarms.

    2. I feel you’re glazing over the point. Your city attacked another city. Disarming the tank only prevents you from getting the detonation. It does not take something you’ve already had. The only true repercussion is you have to spend the time charging a new tank.

    3. It’s starting to sound like the argument isn’t because retals are unfair, but more that people don’t seem to like “losing,” let alone “losing twice.”
  • JiraishinJiraishin skulkingMember Posts: 2,100 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Bringing everyone on Cwho is kind of a dick move if you -know- you're going to overwhelm the opposition with force of numbers by doing so, though.
    ________________________
    The soul of Ashmond says, "Always with the sniping."
  • RiellRiell Member Posts: 209 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Jiraishin said:
    Bringing everyone on Cwho is kind of a dick move if you -know- you're going to overwhelm the opposition with force of numbers by doing so, though.
    Well yea. But that’s a player-centric problem, not a mechanics-centric problem.
    Jiraishin
  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,390 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Riell said:
    Sobriquet said:
    Riell said:
    Sobriquet said:
    Retal raids guarantee a tank though, so when Asthan come in with 12 against Hashan's 2, there is nothing we can do to avoid the tank being blown. That's not encouraging conflict, that's encouraging high numbers on the offence, hiding and non engagement on the defence, and a free room destruction. 

    This should not be possible on the back of a Hashan offensive raid that was already lost. That's more my point. 

    I'm happy that Retal raids are a thing but think they need to be tweaked to only be available when a tank is detonated in the first raid. 
    It’s does NOT guarantee a tank. I’ve already explained, it guarantees a CHANCE. Let’s go back to the pk rules metaphor.

    Vierce  attacks but doesn’t kill Sobriquet for no justifiable reason, allowing Sobriquet to hire on Vierce. Sobriquet hires on Vierce. Jhui gets the contract. The odds are INCREDIBLY stacked against Vierce due to things beyond his control. However, he brought this upon himself by initiating the conflict.

    Hashan raids Mhaldor but doesn’t destroy the room, allowing Mhaldor to retaliate. Mhaldor initiates a retaliation raid. They’ve brought everyone on their cwho because, much like hiring, there’s a much better chance of achieving retribution. This is beyond Hashan’s control. However, Hashan brought this upon themselves by initiating the conflict.

    At the end of the day, if a city attacks another city, there needs to be a way to secure an attempt at revenge and IC resolutions. Bounties bring retribution to the adventurers; retaliation raid brings retribution to the city.
    It's a guaranteed Sanction, which means a guaranteed tank if the city rolls over and takes it like a bitch.
    Fixed.
    2019/02/14 02:29:13 - <REDACTED> Retaliation raid by Ashtan in Cottage of the Keeper, raiders were: 
    Dalran, Dunn, Majin, Truax, Penwize, Irimon, Katalyst, Nakhti, Jadys, and Astarod. Cecelia was the only one able to try to defend.

    Yeh, Poor old Cecelia rolling over like a bitch. 
    image
  • RiellRiell Member Posts: 209 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited February 14
    Sobriquet said:
    Riell said:
    Sobriquet said:
    Riell said:
    Sobriquet said:
    Retal raids guarantee a tank though, so when Asthan come in with 12 against Hashan's 2, there is nothing we can do to avoid the tank being blown. That's not encouraging conflict, that's encouraging high numbers on the offence, hiding and non engagement on the defence, and a free room destruction. 

    This should not be possible on the back of a Hashan offensive raid that was already lost. That's more my point. 

    I'm happy that Retal raids are a thing but think they need to be tweaked to only be available when a tank is detonated in the first raid. 
    It’s does NOT guarantee a tank. I’ve already explained, it guarantees a CHANCE. Let’s go back to the pk rules metaphor.

    Vierce  attacks but doesn’t kill Sobriquet for no justifiable reason, allowing Sobriquet to hire on Vierce. Sobriquet hires on Vierce. Jhui gets the contract. The odds are INCREDIBLY stacked against Vierce due to things beyond his control. However, he brought this upon himself by initiating the conflict.

    Hashan raids Mhaldor but doesn’t destroy the room, allowing Mhaldor to retaliate. Mhaldor initiates a retaliation raid. They’ve brought everyone on their cwho because, much like hiring, there’s a much better chance of achieving retribution. This is beyond Hashan’s control. However, Hashan brought this upon themselves by initiating the conflict.

    At the end of the day, if a city attacks another city, there needs to be a way to secure an attempt at revenge and IC resolutions. Bounties bring retribution to the adventurers; retaliation raid brings retribution to the city.
    It's a guaranteed Sanction, which means a guaranteed tank if the city rolls over and takes it like a bitch.
    Fixed.
    2019/02/14 02:29:13 - <REDACTED> Retaliation raid by Ashtan in Cottage of the Keeper, raiders were: 
    Dalran, Dunn, Majin, Truax, Penwize, Irimon, Katalyst, Nakhti, Jadys, and Astarod. Cecelia was the only one able to try to defend.

    Yeh, Poor old Cecelia rolling over like a bitch. 
    Look. This is getting to the point where I’m really questioning your intentions. It seems you’re basing your entire viewpoint here on a statement that’s undeniably false (see the edit), and I can’t contiue to have a conversation with you about this until you begin analyzing the arguments presented before you.

    You haven’t addressed anything else I’ve said except for snippets that could corroborate your viewpoint when taken out of context.
  • AstarodAstarod Member Posts: 450 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Sobriquet said:

    2019/02/14 02:29:13 - <REDACTED> Retaliation raid by Ashtan in Cottage of the Keeper, raiders were: 
    Dalran, Dunn, Majin, Truax, Penwize, Irimon, Katalyst, Nakhti, Jadys, and Astarod. Cecelia was the only one able to try to defend.

    Yeh, Poor old Cecelia rolling over like a bitch. 
    Ehhhh, I'd say that Cecelia was trying her best to enjoy the 0% exp loss during sanction. I'm not coming after you, but maybe if people just tried and said, "You know what, let me try to use this as a learning experience" or "I'm going to do my best to prevent this" instead of "haha, let them sit for 30 minutes" then we'd have more people than the two odd persons who want and try to defend regularly. 

    I love defenses. I love it. Why would I care if you tanked some random spot in Ashtan or Hashan? Granted, I'm not going to 1 v 12, but if it's like,  5 v 5 and I don't have as uniform a team, I still think I'd give it a go, and I have. When Mhaldor guard bashes, there's something I can do, that has an effect. 

    I'm not saying, 'suicide yourself on my guys', but if you have 5 on 7, focus on taking down 1 person. Then once they're dead, focus on the next one. I've heard lots of people say "I have 12 and you have 12 but my 12 sucks more". The only way to rectify this is through practice. there's not really a shortcut, and eventually people get tired and stop sending in only 5 of their combatants so there's a chance of engagement. 
    The Divine voice of Twilight echoes in your head, "See that it is. I espy a tithe of potential in your mortal soul, Astarod Blackstone. Let us hope that it flourishes and does not falter as so many do."
  • JadysJadys Member Posts: 215 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    edited February 14
    Two of those listed weren't there. 

    edit: Whoops: sent before I finished my point, but meh. Changed my mind anyway.
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,484 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Plenty of retal raids fail, so it's not by any means a "guaranteed" tank. That being said, depending on factions, timezones, etc. it can certainly be a guaranteed tank in some circumstances. You really just have to not get upset over that or see it as some huge loss, though. If you weren't even there to fight, you didn't really "lose." Who cares about a room? It's like having shrines defiled when you aren't around. It happens. Who cares?

    Retal tanks serve a good purpose that I think outweighs the bad aspects. You can't attack someone and then deny them a chance to strike back. How they strike back is determined by the players, and people will probably get bored of sitting on a tank for an hour with no combat if they do it too often, anyway.
  • TaryiusTaryius Member Posts: 710 @ - Epic Achaean
    Farrah said:
    Taryius said:
    I'm not sure I could name any specific names right now, but it something that happens semi-regularly with people in Cyrene. Not sure about other places, maybe a few people in Eleusis. I don't think either city is inherently enforcing the idea of keeping people out of army or low-ranking, it just is a side effect of having people being able to opt in and out as they please.

    Also it really depends on the type of raid too, whether or not non-army members join in. If you're having a small skirmish with people odds are only those interested in, or regularly fight will join in. Larger, usually roleplay motivated raids draw greater participation and people who wouldn't regularly defend enough to consider joining the army will lend a hand. It can be frustrating, needing to survive 2-3 rushes to blow a tank, but it is what it is and its hard to balance around.

    Personally, I kinda wish you didn't lose any of your army xp when you quit, or at least don't lose it all. And also that disarming tanks and defending gave more army xp. 

    It's kind of interesting what the different perspectives are on things sometimes. I always saw at least two rushes as what should be the norm for raids and detonating after a single rush because a MoW died too much or whatever as frustratingly fast for a detonation. You destroy a shrine after one win. Tanking a room in a city, to me, should be bigger and require more. So I've also never run into a situation where I thought the tank was taking too long to detonate because of lack of soldiers/ranks. It always seems either about right or too fast, to me.

    I can understand the concern if going for a level two, but as people have said there are other things that prevent you from getting a level two so I guess I just never really cared that much.
    I agree for the most part, probably should've put a little more care into that post, I was mainly looking back on some of the raids me, Aegoth and Syndra have led on Cyrene, where we absolutely fill deathsight with Cyrenian casualties and still the majority of our tank percentage came from the periods of downtime in between where it passively charges. That can feel frustrating, I'm not really saying that needs to change though, just that it can be a bit annoying to see that number go up much slower in certain cities and faster in others, but I suppose that just comes with the territory of raiding those cities.

    The amount of "rushes" to disarm a tank was an awful thing to measure it by, it is almost entirely anecdotal and dependant on how many people are participating, and the AR of everyone participating. Smaller scale raids take more "rushes" to be successful, and I agree that those are way more fun and interactive overall.
  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,390 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Retal raid mechanics as they currently stand allow for City A to be victorious in a raid defence, then be 10v1 later on in the day with a Guaranteed sanction and a Guaranteed tank placement. Given the mechanics of doing this when City B has 1 Army member, it's also a Guaranteed detonation. With zero engagement. This is not conflict, this is not why we all raid, it's text bragging in CT logs.

    I really enjoyed being in Ashtan earlier that day with the odds stacked against us, it was fun even though we lost the engagement (and tank). Ashtan then do the above as "Retaliation". Again, not blaming Asthan here as it's what they have available, but that doesn't seem like the right approach to me.

    I appreciate the mechanics of this and the situation might seem like an outlier. But you ( @Riell ) are stating that City B have brought that last element upon themselves for trying and failing in the first place? Where does that encourage bravery and wanting to learn? Sure, the Retal raid might come at a time when we are more able to defend and it being fun, laughter and engagement, but it might not. 



    image
  • IssamIssam Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 147 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Requiring the detonation to get the retaliation would discourage defending a potential raid in the first place. In most situations you have to opt-in to defending against a sanction attempt, since the chances of having 4 possible kills otherwise are generally low. If you only allow a retaliation in the event that the enemy 'wins', then many people are going to opt not to allow that in the first place. The potential for a disarm and guaranteed retribution sanction is the incentive.

    I really don't see why it's such a big deal though, if a city wants to dogpile a retaliation tank, they're not going to get a lot of fights and they have to sit there for an hour for the tank to charge. Most people who raid actively want to actually fight. Otherwise, they're just getting some token experience and a line in city logs.

    FarrahJiraishinSobriquetTaryius
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,484 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Sobriquet said:
    Retal raid mechanics as they currently stand allow for City A to be victorious in a raid defence, then be 10v1 later on in the day with a Guaranteed sanction and a Guaranteed tank placement. Given the mechanics of doing this when City B has 1 Army member, it's also a Guaranteed detonation. With zero engagement. This is not conflict, this is not why we all raid, it's text bragging in CT logs.

    I really enjoyed being in Ashtan earlier that day with the odds stacked against us, it was fun even though we lost the engagement (and tank). Ashtan then do the above as "Retaliation". Again, not blaming Asthan here as it's what they have available, but that doesn't seem like the right approach to me.

    I appreciate the mechanics of this and the situation might seem like an outlier. But you ( @Riell ) are stating that City B have brought that last element upon themselves for trying and failing in the first place? Where does that encourage bravery and wanting to learn? Sure, the Retal raid might come at a time when we are more able to defend and it being fun, laughter and engagement, but it might not. 





    Sure, but at the end of the day there is no perfect solution. Either you can deny sanction and prevent retaliation no matter how good the odds are for you or you can retaliate raid and get a detonation without giving the defense a chance. Either way, whether a fight ultimately ends up fun is in the hands of the players. Retal raids just make it so in limited situations it is in the hands of the raiders rather than the defenders, which I think is a good thing in those circumstances. 

    Retal raids came after the Targ-Mhaldor war where "lol if we evacuate our city, they can't hurt us" became a predominant strategy. It's a good thing to have some raids where sanction denial isn't the ultimate trump card.
    TaryiusJiraishinYsabelA
  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,390 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I feel you are right. There is no real solution, it comes down to what the players want to do, and if that's to bring 10 into an empty city then so be it.

    Also, don't mistake any of this for me being upset or angry at a room loss, that doesn't bother me at all, at the end of the day I just want fun engagements on both sides, not a one sided dogpile that achieves nothing but a line in the city logs. 
    image
  • ZerisZeris Member Posts: 70 ✭✭ - Stalwart
    edited February 14
    I get Sobriquet's point about it being a guaranteed tank when nobody is around to defend it. I also think everyone is looking at the shitty parts of it. If I'm being honest, I appreciate that retaliation raids are the way they are. I would rather a raiding group have a guaranteed tank when no defenders are around rather than them getting bored and wiping all the guards and uprooting a bunch of totems because there is no other recourse aside from impatiently waiting for defenders. Room repair doesn't require anybody to sit in one spot doing nothing (anymore) for 15 minutes a pop like implanting totems.

    I really don't even care if we lose Crossroads because a movement malus in 1 room for probably a grand total of about 3 minutes over a few days is a lot less than it takes to implant and it's a lot less of an eyesore than reading 1298467128974712 log entries about guards dying.

    To actually contribute to the OP, rather than titles, honours, or assignable powers, I think that the whole army system could be expanded on and additional powers could be created for each rank. What those powers could be, I have no idea, I'm not a particularly creative person.
  • KrizalKrizal Member Posts: 47 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited February 14
    Retaliation raids don't really encourage conflict. Either you can get a fight out of the city you are raiding, and thus could blow a tank the regular way (twice as fast as a retaliation tank, at that), or you can't get a fight and sit there for an hour waiting for the tank to passively charge.

    Every retaliation raid I've seen so far has happened when the retaliators were guaranteed to win because either they had huge numbers, or there were at most 1-2 soldiers around in the defending city, or both.

    IMO it detracts from the enjoyment had when going into an enemy city with a small force and having a couple good fights when you know doing it will just mean you'll log in the next day to a room blown up by an overwhelming force vs a city practically devoid of combatants. You can say "then don't raid!" but where's the fun in that? I don't think any of the (non-retal) raids we've tried to blow a tank in have been unfun for the defending side either, but it feels like for most people winning a raid is more important than having fun with it.

    I believe all of our raiders are already part of the army, but not everyone who defends wants to defend every time there's a raid, so they don't all join the army. A middle-ground solution could maybe be to have non-army members count for tank if they've hit the raiders during that sanction, so killing random non-coms would still not help the tank, but everyone who defends would count.
  • PenwizePenwize Member Posts: 1,533 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited February 14
    Sobriquet said:
    2019/02/14 02:29:13 - <REDACTED> Retaliation raid by Ashtan in Cottage of the Keeper, raiders were: 
    Dalran, Dunn, Majin, Truax, Penwize, Irimon, Katalyst, Nakhti, Jadys, and Astarod. Cecelia was the only one able to try to defend.

    Yeh, Poor old Cecelia rolling over like a bitch. 
    Uhh, so, just to clarify, this is what Hashan's QW looked like when we decided to retal raid:

    [Hashan]     (28): [H]Adirielle, [HE]Ammar, [H]Anze, [H]Argwin, [H]Armali, [H]Calira, [H]Cecelia,
                       [H]Celna, [H]Iphy, [H]Jobaal, [HE]Jyzx, [H]Kaburia, [H]Killuwa, [H]Kotyonok,
                       [H]Laytron, [H]Marra, [H]Martien, [H]Mavrek, [H]Neoskae, [H]Qudroth, [H]Redwan,
                       [H]Reevah, [H]Rhydian, [H]Roenalia, [H]Silica, [H]Tilia, [H]Veilios,
                       [HEO]Zoktos
    That's ... really not "only Cecelia."  Of the people visible in that QW list, you had Ammar, Anze, Cecelia, Killuwa, Mavrek, Neoskae, Rhydian, Veilios, and Zoktos as enlisted soldiers, and a handful of others who occasionally join defenses (Armali, Martien). 

    I know Hashan's got a pretty big contingent of noncoms, but taking into account the people who just log off or only sometimes feel like defending when trying to decide when to retal raid isn't exactly easy.  Our original raid group only consisted of Dalran, Dunn, Jadys, Astarod, Majin, and myself.  We regularly invite non-participants in at the end for tank detonations since they're worth fat chunks of xp, so I wouldn't really count those people as raiders.  Your log's not even right for including those people, though. Evidence:

    2019/02/14 01:40:07 - Dunn declared that our great city shall retaliate against the transgressions of the City of Hashan.
    2019/02/14 02:25:01 - Astarod, Dalran, Dunn, Irimon, Jadys, Katalyst, Majin, and Penwize have destroyed The ruins of Cottage of the keeper.
    I'm not really sure what to tell you, other than yeah sometimes it happens that a retal raid gets called with a much smaller response than is expected based on QW.  Still, if you're going to throw out accusations of impropriety, at least try to have them be correct.
    JadysAstarodTruax
  • CooperCooper Member Posts: 5,273 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    You can only count on about 5% of Hashan's QW to defend, don't you remember the screaming they did when Mhaldor would bring in 3-5 vs a 35 person cwho?

Sign In to Comment.