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

War system

AsmodronAsmodron Member Posts: 3,030 @@ - Legendary Achaean
Discussions of the War system
RyxCailin
«1

Comments

  • ErylEryl Member Posts: 19 ✭✭ - Stalwart
    It is not good, but we have one!  While it can definitely be way more robust and interactive, it's had quite a few iterations already.  The current one is easily my favorite.

    What we are currently missing in our war system:

    1. A way to define a win condition when declaring a war.  (Note: I feel like if we start adding defined win conditions, though, we'd also need a new way to declare a formal war other than someone in power with twitchy fingers not really understanding the implications of setting relations to hostile.)

    2. A way to actively progress conflict outside of player-versus-player engagements.

    Frankly, I don't think we need to scrap the war system and redo it.  Tanks are awesome and raiding here feels really, really good as a whole.  However, just like in RL, there are people who can carry a war without ever setting foot on the battlefield, but we don't have anything analogous to that in the game outside of diplomacy (read: newsboards for boasting).

    Add in things like starving out a city by not letting entry/exit or otherwise cutting off supplies, some sort of means of gaining influence with the enemy's populace so that they actively oppose the war effort, or maybe some way of convincing denizen villages to help you launch a full-scale assault (this one would be questing-related; you perform war-quests for villages, etc etc).

    While obviously any amount of additional coding or tweaking is going to take quite a bit of effort, we really don't need a sweeping mechanical change to the current system; just some minor tweaks and additions to the mechanics we already have.
  • RangorRangor Member Posts: 3,263 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Bring back landmarks! Everything old is good.
    image
    ArchaeonCaelan
  • ArchaeonArchaeon Ur mums house lolMember Posts: 408 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Rangor said:
    Bring back landmarks! Everything old is good.
    control points, but outside the city.  excellent idea, and one that didn't rely on off-peak raiding because both factions involved had the chance to ramp up numbers on off hours and have large scale conflicts during peak hours.  
  • TorinnTorinn Member Posts: 1,281 @ - Epic Achaean
    Strategic objectives to fight over.  Tracked stats per war of interesting things.  A rolling timezone vulnerability window to fight over the objectives (they're not always available) with multiple fights done throughout a single war.
    Deucalion says, "Torinn is quite nice."
  • AndrasteAndraste Member Posts: 19 ✭✭ - Stalwart
    Something dynamic and the ability to bring about lasting change (or at least intermediate change) to the landscape to make the system feel impactful. Right now one of my biggest complaints about Exterm/Vivify is how quickly reversible and inconsequential it feels. Ignore the threat, go back later and firelash or use a few ice to reverse it. I'd be happy for both vivify and exterms to take more effort and time to remove. I do like the idea of old landmarking style conflict that isn't tied to orders like crusades are. I'll think more on it and come up with some ideas about how to make war more attractive and viable RP option than humiliate one another or beat each other up until someone or both parties get bored.
    Cailin
  • AstarodAstarod Member Posts: 491 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Farrah said:

    I think some very simple additions that would really help players handle wars better have been suggested in other threads:

    1. During war time, you should be able to just SANCTION RAID on the city you're at war with (maybe only once per 24 hours or something). If you want to sanction avoid, you shouldn't be at war. I think sanction mechanics work great for casual fighting, but in a war, it should be less avoidance based.

    2. There should be a WAR STATUS command that tracks certain statistics during the war, as suggested by someone before. It could be number of tanks detonated and disarmed by each side since the war started, number of enemy soldiers slain by each side, number of guards slain by each side, whatever else might be relevant to war. It doesn't declare a victor, but people being able to look at the objective statistics would make OOC cooperation in determining a victor and RPing it out as more than "we won" "no we won" a lot easier, I think.

    With those two things, I think the current system would work a lot better already.

    Another idea I had for WAR STATUS, besides the example point values I set for certain actions (would be cool if there was a running total of points that weighed certain actions so that one team couldn't be like, we won since we detonated more tanks! No, we won since we killed more guards!), would be something like HOSTILE STATUS <CITY> that did a yearly report for casual conflict- I know this might not even make it to the drawing board but it'd be neat to see how much you dished/took every year!
    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."
  • TorrentTorrent Member Posts: 202 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Adrik said:
    Honestly, I kind of wish there were 5 'statuses' for relationships

    Allies - Friendly - Neutral - Hostile - WAR!

    This way it doesn't show in the relations screen that say.. Targossas is neutral to Mhaldor, because we don't want to be immediately in war (because War is just ganksquad galore).

    This, alongside the aforementioned suggestions from Farrah would be lovely, and make for a much better RP environment, so that people (generally city leaders) cannot simply go "I set them to hostile bcz we are hostile to most cities!"
    Hehe the minute that would be enacted all cities aside from Cyrene would immediately go hostile to everyone else. I do like the idea that we can still be hostile but not at war with other people.
    Athelas
  • AthelasAthelas Cape Town South AfricaMember Posts: 325 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Andraste said:
    Something dynamic and the ability to bring about lasting change (or at least intermediate change) to the landscape to make the system feel impactful. Right now one of my biggest complaints about Exterm/Vivify is how quickly reversible and inconsequential it feels. Ignore the threat, go back later and firelash or use a few ice to reverse it. I'd be happy for both vivify and exterms to take more effort and time to remove. I do like the idea of old landmarking style conflict that isn't tied to orders like crusades are. I'll think more on it and come up with some ideas about how to make war more attractive and viable RP option than humiliate one another or beat each other up until someone or both parties get bored.
    Please don't!

    Honestly, we've had the whole exterm-griefing for long enough, and it has been a pain point for as long as it has existed.

    Right now, it's a good mechanic for either side to say: "Hey, you want to play?" rather than the "I'm going to force you to play." that it used to be.

    Please, just let it be. There are other ways to do meaningful change.
    Ysela
  • ArchaeonArchaeon Ur mums house lolMember Posts: 408 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Athelas said:
    Andraste said:
    Something dynamic and the ability to bring about lasting change (or at least intermediate change) to the landscape to make the system feel impactful. Right now one of my biggest complaints about Exterm/Vivify is how quickly reversible and inconsequential it feels. Ignore the threat, go back later and firelash or use a few ice to reverse it. I'd be happy for both vivify and exterms to take more effort and time to remove. I do like the idea of old landmarking style conflict that isn't tied to orders like crusades are. I'll think more on it and come up with some ideas about how to make war more attractive and viable RP option than humiliate one another or beat each other up until someone or both parties get bored.
    Please don't!

    Honestly, we've had the whole exterm-griefing for long enough, and it has been a pain point for as long as it has existed.

    Right now, it's a good mechanic for either side to say: "Hey, you want to play?" rather than the "I'm going to force you to play." that it used to be.

    Please, just let it be. There are other ways to do meaningful change.
    I don't understand how one single person can come up with so many poor ideas.
  • AsmodronAsmodron Member Posts: 3,030 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Now that I finally have some free time...

    I like raids as they are but I dont feel like the raiding mechanics do much justice for the purpose of all-out war. City-states are filled with NPC soldiers and are suppose to represent contending powers on a continent, yet the best they can achieve is a few army members going into an enemy city to blow up a room, which seems underwhelming.

    I would love if there was some way to incorporate a troop building system that can be used to some conflict mechanic.
    LennTierra
  • AthelasAthelas Cape Town South AfricaMember Posts: 325 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Archaeon said:
    Athelas said:
    Andraste said:
    ...
    I don't understand how one single person can come up with so many poor ideas.
    @Archaeon

    You try having fun with a game where there is a one-sided griefing mechanism, that you are on the receiving end of.

    Exterm as a mechanism, means you have to be ready to defend any one of the forest rooms, in any forest area, anywhere in the game. Be that mainland or island, it doesn't matter.

    The sheer number of rooms makes the task impossible! Until the advent of vivify, there wasn't even a way to properly retaliate. So as much as characters were supposed to respond to exterminations IG, the players simply got fed up with it and started ignoring it. To the point where you would get blatant messages on CT stating something to the effect of: "Ignore them, they're just griefing again."

    i.e. Yet another in game mechanic, that caused OOC considerations to result in players abandoning proper in-character responses.

    If it is a bad idea to streamline game mechanics, to fall in line with both faction motivation and RP, in such a way that neither side can grief the other to the point of frustrating the player into no longer participating ...

    Then sure, my idea is bad.
  • RangorRangor Member Posts: 3,263 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Adrik said:
    Honestly, I kind of wish there were 5 'statuses' for relationships

    Allies - Friendly - Neutral - Hostile - WAR!

    This way it doesn't show in the relations screen that say.. Targossas is neutral to Mhaldor, because we don't want to be immediately in war (because War is just ganksquad galore).

    This, alongside the aforementioned suggestions from Farrah would be lovely, and make for a much better RP environment, so that people (generally city leaders) cannot simply go "I set them to hostile bcz we are hostile to most cities!"
    If two cities are hostile with eachother for 2 IG years, the status can change to WAR. So that wars can't be jump-started without any warning. :)
    image
    AthelasAdrikFaedwynZbaco
  • ArchaeonArchaeon Ur mums house lolMember Posts: 408 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Athelas said:
    Archaeon said:
    Athelas said:
    Andraste said:
    ...
    I don't understand how one single person can come up with so many poor ideas.
    @Archaeon

    You try having fun with a game where there is a one-sided griefing mechanism, that you are on the receiving end of.

    Exterm as a mechanism, means you have to be ready to defend any one of the forest rooms, in any forest area, anywhere in the game. Be that mainland or island, it doesn't matter.

    The sheer number of rooms makes the task impossible! Until the advent of vivify, there wasn't even a way to properly retaliate. So as much as characters were supposed to respond to exterminations IG, the players simply got fed up with it and started ignoring it. To the point where you would get blatant messages on CT stating something to the effect of: "Ignore them, they're just griefing again."

    i.e. Yet another in game mechanic, that caused OOC considerations to result in players abandoning proper in-character responses.

    If it is a bad idea to streamline game mechanics, to fall in line with both faction motivation and RP, in such a way that neither side can grief the other to the point of frustrating the player into no longer participating ...

    Then sure, my idea is bad.
    Tldr
  • AthelasAthelas Cape Town South AfricaMember Posts: 325 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    @Archaeon Thank you for teaching me why the forums have an ignore function.
    ArchaeonMroxylZbaco
  • SilasSilas Member Posts: 2,549 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 8
    Eryl said:
    It is not good, but we have one!  While it can definitely be way more robust and interactive, it's had quite a few iterations already.  The current one is easily my favorite.

    What we are currently missing in our war system:

    1. A way to define a win condition when declaring a war.  (Note: I feel like if we start adding defined win conditions, though, we'd also need a new way to declare a formal war other than someone in power with twitchy fingers not really understanding the implications of setting relations to hostile.)

    2. A way to actively progress conflict outside of player-versus-player engagements.

    Frankly, I don't think we need to scrap the war system and redo it.  Tanks are awesome and raiding here feels really, really good as a whole.  However, just like in RL, there are people who can carry a war without ever setting foot on the battlefield, but we don't have anything analogous to that in the game outside of diplomacy (read: newsboards for boasting).

    Add in things like starving out a city by not letting entry/exit or otherwise cutting off supplies, some sort of means of gaining influence with the enemy's populace so that they actively oppose the war effort, or maybe some way of convincing denizen villages to help you launch a full-scale assault (this one would be questing-related; you perform war-quests for villages, etc etc).

    While obviously any amount of additional coding or tweaking is going to take quite a bit of effort, we really don't need a sweeping mechanical change to the current system; just some minor tweaks and additions to the mechanics we already have.

     These things happen naturally. They don't need to be hardcoded.

    I've participated in a few wars, and the win condition is to unambiguously defeat the other side. These will differ wildly based on who you're at war against, so a hardcoded win condition system will never improve the war system, since it will only impose unnecessary mechanical restrictions on one of the few purely player-driven and decided parts of the game.

    Likewise, the populace of the city will already make it known to the leaders if they're unhappy with the way the war is going. There are always huge political ramifications to going to war - especially if you lose. People get overthrown, regimes change, maybe even whole outlooks change. You don't need to code in denizen unrest to try and simulate something that already happens.

    Unless it's changed since I was last active, which it doesn't seem like it has, the current pretty simple system of war - especially backed by the existing raid mechanics with tanks and guard changes - is probably the best we're going to get.

    ETA: Cities definitely should be able to sanction a raid during war time as Farrah said - if you've chosen to go to war with another city, you should never be "safe" from attacks from that city until it's over.

  • AsmodronAsmodron Member Posts: 3,030 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I'd worry about the abusive nature of free sanctions being used when there are very few defenders around. A 24hr cooldown seems fair here but not sure it would be enough. Perhaps if it is set that you need to have 5 soldiers in the enemy city to begin and at least 5 enemy soldiers online as well. This would deter people entering on an empty city, as well as deter from 1-2 people deciding to just come in for a quick tank.
    RyxFaedwyn
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,506 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 8
    Honestly, it's war. So it's one of those things where the worst thing that happens is an off hours tank is blown, which isn't a huge deal, but it'd make things feel more "dangerous" for the factions at war. If your city is unprotected, it gets blown up. You might wake up to devastation, but that's cool! I'd rather war not be safe.

    Currently, the only thing that mechanically differentiates war from no war is open pk soldiers, which encourages the mentality that war is just a gankfest targeted at the individual soldiers and also makes it unattractive to me as a city leader. I want to do damage to factions, not grief their solders! Opening up tanking in war adds another element to justify going to war in the first place rather than just having "increased hostilities."
    CaelanAthelasCailinTierra
  • AndrasteAndraste Member Posts: 19 ✭✭ - Stalwart
    edited July 9
    This is going to be a long one, but as I stated before I was going to put some long and hard thought into my input. Some of the biggest gripes and dysfunctions of the current war system have already been stated, but i'd like to speak a bit more to some of the nuances in behavior brought about in the current system that leave it feeling unfulfilling and lacking and make some suggestions about how to approach them.

    I feel that having some kind of a tangible score based war system is probably best due to the necessity for some sense of finality. Most people want to know who won or lost a war (case in point the most recent war with Eleusis and Hashan.)

    Time limited - I think having a time limit on war (while it's not the best from an RP standpoint and removes some of the elements of diplomacy that go into wartime), it would set up cleaner definitions for when victory or loss conditions are achieved. For example, 2-3 years.

    Mutuality - I would perhaps suggest a mechanic that replaces mutual declaration of hostilities (diplomatically under the current system) with one that has to do with how often and successful raids are against that city. For example... City 1 attacks city 2 regularly and gains 6 tank detonations within a period of a year. This would trigger an automatic war status for the next 2-3 years between the two of them. This would incentivise more active defense, and deincentivise avoidance of city defenses by army or non-army members and perhaps encourage more non-army members to defend.

    One of the biggest gripes I feel like that has already been addressed is timing (peak vs. off peak). While there is some sense of strategy that goes into when a team attacks another, i feel that disparate odds make it so that these engagements feel unfair at times which lends to resentment and a lot of backbiting about who did what and when. I would be all for being able to immediately start a sanction every so often (thus negating avoidance) as long as there are an even number (or close to even number) of army members about. This would require some further tweaking about how often someone can join or leave an army to avoid tampering with the enemy's ability to sanction.

    Out of city conflict - without clearly defined out of city objectives, the current system is set up to encourage group ganking. I'd like to suggest a set of out of city combat related objectives which could contribute to a team's overall war score. I would also suggest the creation of a 'supply' mechanic tied to denizen villages, offering viable alternatives to world ganking. Each city has a supply score which determines their ability to effectively keep their parent city afloat. If the city does not adequately defend their supporting village they enter crisis mode, having adverse effects on the city during incursions. Poor food rations means lower health or resistance to damage, loss of a village that supplies weapons means you do less damage to enemy players during battle, loss of a village that provides intelligence would make it more difficult to sense and track enemies in the land, and so forth. If the city's allied villages are destroyed or captured, the city's supply score drops over time. If this supply score reaches critical levels, this would be a (choke out) defeat condition.

    I'd also suggest that there be some additional neutral objectives out in the world which could be held in order to provide passive supply or combat bonuses. For example, offering support to certain non-allied villages could offer combat bonuses, intelligence, city guards or help defend your world assets. Could even have the goblins or mhuns do some crazy sabotage to destroy rooms on their own.

    I would like to suggest that real world objectives have options for multiple team objectives, encouraging multiple smaller groups of 2-3 as opposed to large group incursions. This would be friendlier to newer players and folks with screen readers. Assault a checkpoint by killing enemy guards on their checkpoint while also defending one of your own. For example, there are quests that can be completed to undermine the denizen village support, including supply lines, sabotaging weapons, intelligence reports. there would have to be rules about not killing citizens who are aiding their allied villages, but could be PK if trying to do quests to harm the enemy. This would further encourage participation in war-time objectives by less combat inclined members and help them to feel useful and included in the process.

    Victory Conditions - these could be a couple of things.
    Capturing and holding an enemy's allied villages (thus starving them of supplies)
    X number of tanks within the pre-defined time period (less attractive option if done on its own)
    Reaching the desired war score before the end of the pre-defined time period

    Scores could be based on a number of factors, including, but not essentially limited to. Successful tank detonations or repelling of invaders during a sanction, supply score, morale, soveriegnty, total kills in the world of enemy soldiers, held enemy or neutral objectives.

    Rewards - while cityfavours are often a means of rewarding folks. I would also suggest a new currency be created, or that there be commendations which could be tied into the current adventure system rewards. Small amounts of these points could be offered for success in the above objectives to encourage longer term progression benefits of engaging in the war system.

    Consequences - I would also be interested in some discussion about creative consequences that could be the cost for losing a war. This could be something as simple as fewer tanks being able to be maintained by the other party, hindering of certain city improvements, or other things that I'm sure you guys could think of. This could be where some of the more RP driven consequences could occur. But these should be fair and equitable and may require some Garden oversight to ensure fairness is maintained.

    Sorry for the TLDR, that's about all I had for now.


    AstarodCailinTorinn
  • ArchaeonArchaeon Ur mums house lolMember Posts: 408 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    tldr  
    AndrasteSophi
  • CailinCailin Member Posts: 350 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    1. I disagree with the automatic war status. It would suck to be forced into a war that the defending city didn't want, especially since tanks can be blown when defending city has a low number of people online and tries to defend but fails.

    On the other hand, what if you CAN'T declare war unless relations are sufficiently hostile? As in, relations default to neutral, and climb up every time you raid that city, similar to how feelings villages works. It would be silly if you never raid a certain city, and then suddenly you want to declare war on them. But perhaps that mechanic would be too limiting.

    2. The villages idea is intriguing, not sure how well it would work out, but it would be cool if supporting your own village / undermining the enemy's was done by questing, to provide a way for non-combatants to help. And doing the quests would not make them free pk. The counter to the village quests would be doing quests back - but there would be a limit to the number of quests you could do in a day, so that it didn't become endless and exhausting.

    3. I like cityfavours just fine. And we already have so many alternative currencies. But what would be cool would be to be able to see in the points score, how many points individual citizens contributed. You could for example do WAR POINTS ANDRASTE, and it would give the breakdown of how many points Andraste scored in each category (tanks blown: 2 points, guards killed: 5 points, quests completed: 3 points, etc). Then you could give cityfavours based on points scored, and people would not get overlooked. Also, WAR POINTS ELEUSIS could also list the names of people who scored so you'd know who to check.
  • AthelasAthelas Cape Town South AfricaMember Posts: 325 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Andraste said:
    This would trigger an automatic war status for the next 2-3 years between the two of them. This would incentivise more active defense, and deincentivise avoidance of city defenses by army or non-army members and perhaps encourage more non-army members to defend.
    True, this does provide some incentive, but this is a negative form of incentive. i.e. "Defend or bad stuffs happen." We've seen this kind of thing causing players to simply ignore a system. Again, one has to consider both the character and the player. The two are not the same. One can scream RP as much as one wants, but unless the player is actually having fun with the RP, they will abandon it in favour of something else.

    Keep in mind, this is a game that provides many different things for many different people. Also, the number of players that enjoy regular PvP, has always been far less than those who do not. What we really need, is a way to motivate those who would rather go bashing/chatting/whatever, to feel as if they get at least the same level of reward for taking part, in raids/defence.

    If we want more people to take part in the combat portion of inter city conflict, we have to find ways of rewarding the players for taking part. Note: The Player, not the Character.

    This has always been difficult, and it will always be difficult, exactly because rewarding the player vs rewarding the character is complicated. You can reward a character with items, credits, gold etc. Rewarding the player is a completely different problem.

    For example: How does one motivate the person that logs on to go bashing because they had a tough day at work, and really just wants a quiet solo bashing session for an hour or two. To abandon that and take part in a raid/defence?

    I've never seen any game do this successfully, and if I'm brutally honest, I don't think any game mechanic can do it successfully.
    Mroxyl
  • SynthusSynthus Member Posts: 163 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Athelas said:
    Andraste said:
    This would trigger an automatic war status for the next 2-3 years between the two of them. This would incentivise more active defense, and deincentivise avoidance of city defenses by army or non-army members and perhaps encourage more non-army members to defend.
    If we want more people to take part in the combat portion of inter city conflict, we have to find ways of rewarding the players for taking part. Note: The Player, not the Character.

    This has always been difficult, and it will always be difficult, exactly because rewarding the player vs rewarding the character is complicated. You can reward a character with items, credits, gold etc. Rewarding the player is a completely different problem.

    For example: How does one motivate the person that logs on to go bashing because they had a tough day at work, and really just wants a quiet solo bashing session for an hour or two. To abandon that and take part in a raid/defence?

    I've never seen any game do this successfully, and if I'm brutally honest, I don't think any game mechanic can do it successfully.
    So, I want to offer a few thoughts on this with the caveat that it's solely my opinion and as such completely subjective rather than objective. For me personally, if you want me to openly engage more in combat and/or actively engage more in raids over bashing, there's a few things that are going to have to change.

    Firstly, as long as there is a tangible loss attached to dying against a player in combat, I am going to be heavily disinclined to engaging. It's not even a matter of risk/reward, it's a matter of I am going to die, I am going to lose experience, and I am going to have to spend more time bashing to make that up. That's not fun, that's a chore.

    Now, if you drop the experience loss on death mechanic between two warring states (and limit it to army only and make army open PK for the duration of the war so that non-coms aren't affected), you create an opt-in system that I feel would get far more people engaging in PvP.

    Secondly, it's really hard to feel like you personally contributed to a fight as a player when after everything is said and done you don't feel like you have anything to show for it. Doesn't matter that you helped take down five of the big scary dragons, doesn't matter that you helped hinder the entire fight so that the bigger damage dealers could prep quicker, you didn't get a killing blow, so you get nothing. You lose inks, venoms, curatives, elixirs, arrows, bombs, sigils, and other expendables without really getting any sort of return back over the course of the entire engagement. Shifting that exp gain instead to share among those that helped contribute to a kill would help incentivize individuals to contribute, as well as push those players that just wanna log in to bash more toward helping raid/defend because, hey, they get exp just like if they were partied up and hunting.

    Granted, I know messing with experience gain/loss around PvP is a big can of worms, but honestly it's the one thing that makes me really back away from duels and being on the aggressive side of raids. I mean, I still think experience loss overall is a pretty silly mechanic these days, but hell, if sanctioned raids didn't waive experience loss for defenders, I don't think I'd be defending nearly as much as I do.
  • AntoniusAntonius Member Posts: 4,926 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    @Synthus No experience loss for the person dying means no experience gain for the person - or people, if they implement a shared experience system - killing them, otherwise you end up with an easily abused system where you can just kill each other for experience. Experience loss eventually caps (I think at level 92), so you do start losing a smaller and smaller percentage of your total experience (which translates to losing a smaller and smaller percentage of a level), but you're unfortunately stuck in the worst part of that at level 80. Unless you're one of the few people who really cares about levelling past dragon, experience does become pretty irrelevant once you've hit 99 (as long as you maintain enough to avoid losing the level). It definitely can be rough before then, though, because every death just sets you back.

    There's an experience bonus for PvP kills when you're below your highest ever attained total experience to help make any losses back when you do get kills. However, if you're not getting kills that's not much help. I don't know if applying that to bashing too would be feasible to reduce the burden of regaining the lost experience.
  • KhelKhel Member Posts: 257 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    War system giving out shared xp to all members of your city who hit an enemy soldier in the last 30 seconds prior to their death would probably fix that too. If a level 80 guy gets .5% for helping take down an enemy soldier, I don't think it'd be the end of the world, and it would help mitigate their chunk of xp lost too.
    Lenn
  • LennLenn Member Posts: 592 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Sharing EXP is a bit tricky.

    Not impossible, but definitely a lot to consider.

    Just as a hypothetical, suppose Armali, Calira, Shirszae, and I team up against Trusad'an in an exhibition match.

    He targets me, so I start putting up reflections to stall him, while Calira focuses on healing me when he manages to hit faster than I can reflect. Shirszae tries to stick aeon, and Armali ends up just biting his head off.

    Ideally, all four of us worked together to beat him and thus deserve shares of EXP, but in this case, I only got attacked, and Calira neither attacked nor defended directly, but might have been invaluable in beating him anyway.
  • PyoriPyori Member Posts: 1,856 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 10
    Shared exp in Imperian works for everyone in the same party, present in the room with the person who got the kill.
    Shared exp in Aetolia (iirc) works for everyone who hit the target.
    Both are fine, for 'support' exp just use the former. Otherwise Aetolia's is also fine.
    Alas, Makarios said he has zero plans whatsoever to ever add shared exp.

  • TaryiusTaryius Member Posts: 738 @ - Epic Achaean
    Lenn said:
    Sharing EXP is a bit tricky.

    Not impossible, but definitely a lot to consider.

    Just as a hypothetical, suppose Armali, Calira, Shirszae, and I team up against Trusad'an in an exhibition match.

    He targets me, so I start putting up reflections to stall him, while Calira focuses on healing me when he manages to hit faster than I can reflect. Shirszae tries to stick aeon, and Armali ends up just biting his head off.

    Ideally, all four of us worked together to beat him and thus deserve shares of EXP, but in this case, I only got attacked, and Calira neither attacked nor defended directly, but might have been invaluable in beating him anyway.
    I don't think any theorized system should be balanced around the Tsol'teth when they are an incredible exception. 

    That described scenario is very rarely going to occur in actual fights when offensive attacks and hinder are monumentally more impactful then trying to defend an ally.

    I think the biggest kink would be outside group combat, for example people watching a duel and attacking your targets at the last second to skim off xp. Would their be PK justification for retaliation from the party that killed? What about aoe attacks, if I hit all my allies with an arc will I skim xp off all their deaths should we lose?
Sign In to Comment.