Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - War
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWar

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
Author
ivyleaves View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 04:08
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


Our first will probably consist of a (prominent, Herald-based) overview of all the current Sieges, as well as a player-profile "Sieges This Player Is Currently Attending" kind of link.  We know there are enmities between players, and sometimes simply the knowledge that player X is sieging someone would be enough to get another player/alliance involved because of their history.`


I almost forgot - this brought to mind the frustration of using the Herald to monitor military action. Most of the time, if you look at the coords for military actions, they involve npc spawns - very frustrating and useless to sift through, so that portion of the information becomes anti-information, at least to me. Having categories like Sieges, and limiting the Herald to pvp military operations, or having pvp in one category and pvf(action), with the faction named, in another category would be really, really nice.
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 09:00
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


We're going to move slowly towards a solution, in some baby steps.

Our first will probably consist of a (prominent, Herald-based) overview of all the current Sieges, as well as a player-profile "Sieges This Player Is Currently Attending" kind of link.  We know there are enmities between players, and sometimes simply the knowledge that player X is sieging someone would be enough to get another player/alliance involved because of their history.

Our second is that we're looking at some "Help Me, I'm under Siege!" button with some text fields for freetext "Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope"-style messages -  and these 'pleas for help' would be visible to the entire world somewhere.  Sure, they're potentially manipulative - but isn't that the whole point here?

Our third (and one that's been mentioned before quite often) is that we will put together some kind of Mercenaries For Hire interface, so players can bring other players or alliances in to help defend / counter-attack.

We'll see how these changes go first, before introducing any more radical ones.  But we do think there's things that need changing for sure.

Anyway, please continue on with this thread, it's very informative to us!

Best,

SC


3. Yay!  Makes it easier.  But more competition.  The payout is probably going to suck though...  People usually don't want to pay enough to cover the potential losses... 
Allow this not just for siege defense, but the siege encampment too!

2. Easy 1 button press free help!?  Boo!  Bad for business.

1. Hmm... interesting, serves to polarize things.   If you are going to list players in the siege camp, also list players in the siege defense.
If player X or player from alliance Y is helping out in a siege encampment or siege defense.  Player Z will want to join in the other side!
Though, for small timers with little support like me, I will probably become a 'low risk' retribution target....


Seriously though, you guys need another thing 'worthy' enough for players/alliances to do mass coordinated battles over, that is not as destructive.  (Yes, other then sieging factions too.)

Perhaps the Faction Trade HUBs... can be fought over...
1. Alliances can takeover these HUBs, by force from Factions or other Alliances....
2. The HUB will still be controlled by the factions/AI, but, the controlling alliance will acquire trade taxes.  Also, access to goods otherwise reserved for 'friends'...?
3. Its up to the Alliance to protect it now... or at least foot the cost to protect it...  don't expect any 'help' to be free in this case...


Faction Capitals...   Puppet Faction.  (You could just go straight for the capital... if you can take the pushback...)
Freeing a Faction Capital... an alliance that is 'friendly' with the Puppet Faction may declare a campaign to free the Faction.  The more friendly the alliance is with the faction, the more of the Puppet Faction reinforces the campaigners or at least 'do nothing' instead of helping to defend the Faction Capital.
Could also be determined by how much they hate the puppeteer alliance... which should be very hard to fix...
Or perhaps the Faction may try to free itself, if the puppeteer alliance gets into too many wars... or they determine that they are strong enough...
Back to Top
Thexion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 10:28
1+ Puppeteer idea

 Is good but maybe it could be also done by diplomacy by friendly alliances to faction could compete rule with "Advanced diplomatic units" in Factions to get part of tax revenue and then you could send assassins to take out the diplomatic competition.. and spies and so on. Also information on who is using factions bridges and moving around in faction area could be available to the "puppeteer" Of course some factions could be immune to diplomacy and lot of diplomatic power and some factions would have huuuge armies.
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 11:52
What about combining the puppeteer idea with restart after a siege.
After taking over a city, the looser has to pay tribute (10% of everything is hard, but manageable) to the winner, and has his army numbers postet (perhaps with the diplomatic option to go underground and free himself with some guerilla actionWink). Other players could be keen on freeing the little one, if he had some friends out there (some don't have friends with some reason  LOL).
Or the looser has the option to pack up some things (maybe some building stuff up to level 5, as HM mentioned) and move away (trying to leave no trace where to, hiding in the mountains).

Would give the looser a chance to rebuild up from the lvls the ballistas left over and free himself, or others to free him. If he wants a new start, it's his choice.

Will be complex, but that's what I like in this game Clap
Back to Top
col0005 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 14:59

So a city can no longer be razed or captured.

I kind of like this idea, how about siege becomes far less damaging to the city and that once a city has been captured it becomes an NPC city that pays tribute to the alliance. However players within the defeated players alliance or in a NAP or confederation can attempt to siege back the town. Obviously the player would have the option to give up the city or their smallest town if the returned town would give the player too many towns for their population.
 
The main problem with both these ideas however is that it would encorage, and reward bullying smaller alliances.
Back to Top
Larry View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 114
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 15:28
The problem isn't that cities can be destroyed. The problem is that there isn't anywhere safe, and you can't run.

Take a look at eve. One's assets within the game can (and frequently are) lost, sometimes on a personal scale (the loss of a ship) and sometimes on a massive scale (thousands of players, BOB vs Goonswarm). 

The difference is threefold. First a given player's skill points (trained over time, they improve the bonuses one gets with different ships / modules) are essentially safe from destruction and thus the most time consuming part of the game (skill points generate at an essentially fixed rate 24/7) is kept safe and yet a player can still have their ability to be a danger effectively nullified through the destruction of their physical assets (ships, stations, etc). 

Secondly, there is the concept of security levels, whereby the most destructive weapons and ships are not allowed in the higher security (more central geographically speaking) zones, and police come and shoot you if you attack another player (at least at the higher levels). Formal declarations of war allow combat, but capital ships and the like aren't allowed in highsec systems. On the other end of the spectrum you have 0.0 space which is owned by Player factions (instead of NPCs) and  you get all manner of chaos mayhem and destruction.

Finally you can run. You're in a spaceship, and generally speaking you can gtfo when someone shows up in system that looks scary. There are methods and means to prevent this (the most effective of which are of course reserved for 0.0) but you've got a shot nonetheless. The concept behind illyriad makes this far more challenging given the generally immovable nature of cities.

Not all of these ideas translate well to Illyriad due to differences in the core domain (space flight vs. medieval Europe) but some of them are worth looking at. Tiered security zones make a lot of sense to me, because they allow players who don't wish to get involved with highly destructive sieges to avoid them whilst allowing those who do want them to make use of them.

The biggest challenge with that idea is how a player goes from one zone to another, and to that I honestly don't have an answer given that current limitations on city teleportation wouldn't make that easy.


Edited by Larry - 27 Sep 2010 at 15:29
Back to Top
Grunvagr View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 16:20

I don't see a problem with veteran players being destroyed in sieges.  They have allies (or should, at that stage in the game) and stand a chance.  Especially if proposed changes such as retaining their highest city's level of research + HM's idea of all lev 5 resource fields are put into the game.

(those ideas should, or some version of it.  Restarting has to be quicker for the health of the game, imo)


Here's the thing:  

New players should not get obliterated before they even know what this game is all about, or how awesome *most* of the community is.


Thing is, I don't think anything really special needs to be CODED in to protect noobs.  Let players play police.  There are already numerous alliances, (Toothless?, FDU, among others, who try to protect and take new players under their protective military wings).

That's great.


But knowledge is power.  How can players help protect new players from bullies sieging if they don't know it's happening?


Proposed Solution:

Make the HERALD link have fields that can be sorted.  For instance:  sort by area (northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast), sort by attack type (attack, raid, siege, etc).

This would allow players to see, ok who is sieging who in my quadrant.

If it's some war or seemingly a fair fight, who cares.  If it's a 6 town bully demolishing a 49 pop new player, that might enrage quite a few of the playerbase to react.


Picture this:

How cool would it be to join a new game, get sieged and initially think, wtf?!!?!?... only to have your mailbox fill up with a few players saying:  Hang in there!  Help is on the way.  Here are some supplies and 1,000 troops to reinforce. 


Try to use the rocks I sent you to build your walls.  Keep hope alive!



I don't know about you, but I think that would be one of the coolest gaming experiences ever.  To go from rock bottom to hopeful and to have such community involvement. 



Edited by Grunvagr - 27 Sep 2010 at 16:22
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 16:45
Originally posted by Larry Larry wrote:


The problem isn't that cities can be destroyed. The problem is that there isn't anywhere safe, and you can't run.
.
.
.


Lots of good points. You can choose to settle (as some have already done) so far away that attacking is too much of a pain to bother with - but that's hardly a sustainable tactic for a player or the game as a whole and it doesn't help your existing assets.

Originally posted by Larry Larry wrote:


The biggest challenge with that idea is how a player goes from one zone to another, and to that I honestly don't have an answer given that current limitations on city teleportation wouldn't make that easy.


http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/enabling-disloyalty_topic838.html

So, you need three things:

1) Some method of upping sticks and moving out.
2) Different security level zones (closer to King Sigurd = safer?)
3) Incentives to move out into the wilderness to get better stuff/more resources.

For me - half the reason for moving is currently missing because you take your underlying square with you when you go.  I'd rather be able to pick a new square and use it.

Back to Top
Shrapnel View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 180
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 16:46
This is a tough isssue.  On one hand, I want to be able to destroy and /or conquor other cities, on the other hand, I don't want to upset or drive away someone from the game.  I want people to be safe from unjustly losing what they built up, but I want the ability to punish/deter people who attack my alliance.  I'm pretty much against crippling warfare as it currently is.  I tend to side with the group that wants to see the ability to rebuild quicker.  When I used to play MUDs where PKing was common, I remember getting annoyed whenever I was killed, but it went away real quick, because my character was still the same, he just got replaced in the starting spot and got a count on my character sheet for how many times he died.  Nothing to dishearten me or make me want to quit.  So it's not the dying part that sucks, it's the losing everything.  As I said though, I want to be able to deter people from attacking so I see a need for some kind of penalty to accomplish that.  So what if we restart with what we had before the siege began, but with "a pound of flesh" taken?
 
I don't believe any of us are bad people.  We are all just trying to have the most fun in this game that we can.  Having wars is nothing personal, it's just part of the game (very fun part or at least it's supposed to be).  It merely becomes personal because the loser becomes disheartened by having to start all over rebuilding.  In this game, we actually need bad guys, but every player who has actually tried to be a bad guy had been thrashed totally and driven from the game (Tubana, Diablito to name a couple).  I'm not feeling sorry for them, but their only real offense was that in making the game fun for some of the people, they made the game not fun for others and in reality, this was not their fault, as they were simply working within the current game mechanics.  We need a better way to encourage friendly conflict and I feel all we have now is unfriendly conflict with people who have offended us in some way. 
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2010 at 20:02
Originally posted by col0005 col0005 wrote:

So a city can no longer be razed or captured.

I kind of like this idea, how about siege becomes far less damaging to the city and that once a city has been captured it becomes an NPC city that pays tribute to the alliance. However players within the defeated players alliance or in a NAP or confederation can attempt to siege back the town. Obviously the player would have the option to give up the city or their smallest town if the returned town would give the player too many towns for their population.
 
The main problem with both these ideas however is that it would encorage, and reward bullying smaller alliances.


I didn't think of an NPC City,  just to have the looser pay tribute to another player and to have your army kept down (nearly same effect as constant raiding, but much more simple for both sides).
It could be combined with the puppetteer having to post an army there constantly for fear of a counterattack or an guerilla attack from the underground (some diplos making assaults). would make siegers think twice of constantly taking a town.

Originally posted by shrapnel shrapnel wrote:


We need a better way to encourage friendly conflict and I feel all we have now is unfriendly conflict with people who have offended us in some way.


I think, one better way is discused on the topic "Non instant battles" by HM
Still quite unfriendly, but leaving the city alone LOL


Edited by Hora - 27 Sep 2010 at 20:07
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.