Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
veeshan

Suggestion for the new tower/camp systems

Recommended Posts

The new towers/camp systems are great atm but i feel we can expand this a little more than the currennt system. here my suggestion on it :)

- Add a territory overlay for the faction in the world map this territory expands when you take near by towers and reduce when your towers are taken.
- Towers/keeps exert a contested zone X distance from them any other towers or keeps in that area can be attacked by the faction exerting Control over them.
- You may not capture any towers/keeps your faction is not exerting pressure over with nearby keeps/towers
- This method should make thing easier to show a clearer line of where the conflict is increasing PvP encounters aswell as promoting Pvp to push your territory further out

 

here quick sketch for an example

https://ibb.co/fm4cQp

 

Edited by veeshan
Added image for example

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Points start with basic level rangers however they can be upgraded up the ranks with various resources or something like you mention above till there max level.

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/08/2018 at 3:45 PM, veeshan said:

The new towers/camp systems are great atm but i feel we can expand this a little more than the currennt system. here my suggestion on it :)

- Add a territory overlay for the faction in the world map this territory expands when you take near by towers and reduce when your towers are taken.
- Towers/keeps exert a contested zone X distance from them any other towers or keeps in that area can be attacked by the faction exerting Control over them.
- You may not capture any towers/keeps your faction is not exerting pressure over with nearby keeps/towers
- This method should make thing easier to show a clearer line of where the conflict is increasing PvP encounters aswell as promoting Pvp to push your territory further out

 

here quick sketch for an example

https://ibb.co/fm4cQp

 

I think this is a brilliant idea pal! 

It would save the map from being just this chequered mess of different towers banners. 

The only reservation with this though is that it will detract from their whole reason for existing. They are meant to be accessible content for 1-3 players ArtCraft have said. 

So makimg them a frontier may detract from this because of population density. 

So for example if there are always 10-30 players pottering around the towers then the small group content is estopped. 

Perhaps apply your model to only the very highest rank towers and leave the outposts and smaller towers as they are? 

Certainly a well thought out concept though well done! 

Thanks,

Fabulex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your sketch is a little rough for the hardcore pvp community. Maybe if that's a very basic sketch of 2 beach heads and a fort in the middle. I don't like the idea of not being able to capture THAT many forts. Maybe 1 or 2 (depending on the size) close to the beach head, but your sketch/idea would really limit player freedom, politics, and would create nearly a safe zone for care bears - something that many of us already hate in the beach head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Unfolded said:

I think your sketch is a little rough for the hardcore pvp community. Maybe if that's a very basic sketch of 2 beach heads and a fort in the middle. I don't like the idea of not being able to capture THAT many forts. Maybe 1 or 2 (depending on the size) close to the beach head, but your sketch/idea would really limit player freedom, politics, and would create nearly a safe zone for care bears - something that many of us already hate in the beach head.

sketch is basicly a very small snipit of the world map for example, i wasnt gonna do a ssketch with every towers and the network.
Pretty much the each tower allows x distance from it that tower to be taken. Alot of the time the keeps are uncontested capture because people rock up with 10-15+ in an instant bash a wall down in 2 minutes and capture the keep before anyone can rally to actually defend it. this kinda helps with that because the towers being captured allows for a force to group up to counteract the large force invading. I feel it will allow for healthier PvP in the game for everyone. Capping a fort contested by like 2 people is not fun :( this will allow for some defence to form to actually give a real competition.

 

 

3 hours ago, Fabulex said:

I think this is a brilliant idea pal! 

It would save the map from being just this chequered mess of different towers banners. 

The only reservation with this though is that it will detract from their whole reason for existing. They are meant to be accessible content for 1-3 players ArtCraft have said. 

So makimg them a frontier may detract from this because of population density. 

So for example if there are always 10-30 players pottering around the towers then the small group content is estopped. 

Perhaps apply your model to only the very highest rank towers and leave the outposts and smaller towers as they are? 

Certainly a well thought out concept though well done! 

Thanks,

Fabulex

I dont think it be a big issue the front line will be across a large section to allow for smaller groups to take points and escape if they get scouted out and attack another portion of the front line :) Right now there kinda pointless for PvP conflict because they get taken so fast and randomly its hard to tell where the force is quite often forts go uncontested because a group of 15 runs in randomly ktakes a wall down in 2 minutes and capture the fort in under 5 minutes with maybe 2 people defending it because a group to counter act 15 cant even get there fast enough to defend it.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I'd like there to be different permanence levels to various objectives based around what kind of objective they are versus where they are physically located. Camps<towers<forts<keeps in terms of resource requirement and sense of permanence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, veeshan said:

Capping a fort contested by like 2 people is not fun :( this will allow for some defence to form to actually give a real competition.

I learned in this forum that the forts aren´t important and that it´s enough to have a short timer for the castle in the middle.

But I think you´re right. It´s good to have long lasting fights with early enemy detection. At the moment it´s not possible to react if you read the "Faction A attacks your base XYZ" if you´re not already there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shnoo said:

I learned in this forum that the forts aren´t important and that it´s enough to have a short timer for the castle in the middle.

You've been mislead.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fabulex said:

I think this is a brilliant idea pal! 

It would save the map from being just this chequered mess of different towers banners. 

The only reservation with this though is that it will detract from their whole reason for existing. They are meant to be accessible content for 1-3 players ArtCraft have said. 

So makimg them a frontier may detract from this because of population density. 

So for example if there are always 10-30 players pottering around the towers then the small group content is estopped. 

Perhaps apply your model to only the very highest rank towers and leave the outposts and smaller towers as they are? 

Certainly a well thought out concept though well done! 

Thanks,

Fabulex

Perhaps the towers could be wide open, BUT to take a fort you need to have an unbroken group of enough (3-6) towers near the fort.  So the 1-3 player groups could enter behind enemy lines, and start capping back/middle towers to create a break in the lines and force that side to try to deal with that, or support the forward groups by making sure their entire "area" is properly backfilled. 

That would also work for non-faction campaigns.  Have to think about what a map may look like with 20+ groups fighting individually for territory. There always has to be a way for a new group with no towers to start up, or a team that has been beaten back to zero towers to start, and I don't think using the starting rune gates as a open zone would really work all that well.

A good board game example of what I think it could play out like would be the game of "Go".  You can alway place a new piece on any square, but the rules of the game naturally drive good strategy to require certain connection patterns and enclosure strategies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...