Delayed attacks

Zeus,

HonoredMule wrote: An important distinction of my proposal from a "ticks" based combining of troops was that timing was still crucially important--battles still always began immediately.  If, for example, a bunch of small armies tried to hit a heavily fortified tile, then whichever army arrived first would be sustaining high casualties (comparable to the way it would be overpowered in the current system) until more allies arrived.  Thus, the closer together armies arrived, the safer individual participants were from getting singled out and decimated alone. Also, because larger battles took longer to resolve (and sustained casualties over time), players would have opportunity in the big operations to influence the outcome of a battle after it has already begun and partial/to-date outcomes are being reported.  The whole proposal was largely focused on making battle more engaging and empowering reactionary decisions without compromising the payoff of a well-planned and executed operation.  Ongoing attention to a situation was worthwhile and interesting but not necessary (even in the most intense conflicts, provided the right strategy is applied).

This is exactly, maybe not exactly, but somewhat the same as I meant with:

CranK wrote:  The human aspect. Not knowing everything about this game is actually something that keeps me playing. I'm a curious guy and I always try to find out things that give a entire new dimention to the game. For example.. peace of camp... The first time I got in touch with that rule I was.. uhhm... stunned. Some people even petitioned it because they also didn't know what the hell was happening.

What HM suggested will give a entire new dimention to the game and will still keep the human aspect in the game.

Yeah, I didn't really mean to derail the topic, especially with one I've covered far better elsewhere.  But my idea and limited ability to schedule delayed launches are fully distinct and compatible ideas. 

Obviously I'm in favor of my own idea.  I've not had much to add to this discussion directly, but I do also favor the idea of allowing players to schedule launches around 8-9 hours in advance and I don't mind if an active prestige account is required.  Having to spend prestige for each scheduled launch, however, would likely be pushing for too much--it would be perceived by those who don't use it as an unfair advantage, and for those who do as a tax on player activity.

A thought on timing:  Players who launch manually have to ensure on their own not only that they've calculated the correct launch time, but also that they actually launch right on that time.  The more careful people (and especially alliances) are, the more satisfying and impressive the payoff (even if only in show of unity and talent).  That's valuable player experience and participation, and should still be made worthwhile--especially if some people can't partake in the easy way.  The fix is that scheduled launches should not be perfectly accurate.

Instead, timing should end up being off by an unknown amount, the magnitude of which being based on a simple probability function (i.e. super-high chance of being off by 10 seconds, substantial chance of 2 minute error, marginal chance of being off by 15 minutes, tiny chance of being off by 3 hours).  You set the schedule and it reports when it is supposed to launch, but you don't know when it really will until it does.  This way, doing things the easy way comes with some small risk and thus encourages players who can do better to try if their personal schedules allow while consoling players who have no choice and are fighting enemies who do.


Edited by HonoredMule - 21 Jan 2011 at 11:15

Please consider, for example, that my attacks on the west flag in the tourney required 16 launches spread over a 16 hour time span (3 "groupings" each lasting between 1 hr and 1 1/2 hrs).  So 8-12 hours advance timing is too short in my opinion.  I suggest a min of 24 hours advance which would be a reasonable allowance for players with real lives.

Sorry acidently put my message with the qoute:|.