| Author | Military Clan Caravan Ambushes |
|---|
There are 2 parts to this. One is a way military clans actually make money and have a purpose more than just a logo. The 2nd is a way for much more PvP combat.
Combat idea 1st. After the military clan has made money from the map, a caravan is created and moves from the money making location to the clan treasury. This caravan can be guarded and ambushed.
The clan must nominate 3 people to guard the caravan. This must be locked in place 15 minutes before the carvan departs. The 1st military clan to put 3 characters of equal level then have a fight. Winner gets the gold the caravan is carrying.
There is a lot more to do with this. Should it be a CG fight? Should it have it's own Xp table and rewards? Should a high level of arts be compulsory? How often should caravans run? But I didn't want to make it a "Too long, Didn't read post". |
Part 2 . Money making. The map makes money. For example, the sawmill in East Bay, Every piece of wood sold means a 2 Gold profit. Whichever clan owns that location, saves up that cash and that makes the money in the caravan instead of it just sitting in the sawmill.
You would also have clan battles over which clan owns the location. Same dynamic as above. 3 people are nominated to protect the location. 1st clan to nominate 3 attackers that match, they attack. |
Part 1
What do you mean by after the military clan has made money from the map?
Part 2
As in instead of facilities being owned by the Empire, it is now owned and fought over by Military Clans? I like this idea, although I don't know how it will affect the game economy and dynamics. |
for Skuwak:
He's jumping ahead by putting the cart ahead of the horse. He's assuming that MCs already own the facilities. His idea is just allowing equal level vanguards to be created to defend/attack facilities and caravans. With caravans being the old means of transporting facility gold to MC treasury.
I would like to expand on the idea. Maybe requiring caravans to move MC gold into facility treasury as well. And instead of same combat levels for the vanguards, I would implement a range of levels. The problem with same combat level is the difficulty of finding 3 players for every single level from 5 to 15. For the defending party it is difficult, but it's even more difficult for the attacking party. The attacking party needs to have 3 players of the exact same level as the defenders, which could be from lvl 5 to 15. On ru this wouldn't be an issue, but here it would be. |
@4 Sorry. I explained it poorly. The attacker could be a combination of any level between 5 - 15. For example, If there was a level 8, 12 and 14 defending, then the enemy needs to get a level 8,12 and 14 to attack.
If the correct group can't be put together, you could look at having some game implemented handicaps if the levels are close but not the same, such as reducing morale, luck attack adn defence levels for the higher rated group. Be hard to get that right though. |
#5
I see; different levels make more sense that way. But even with this change I still see a problem for the attackers. It is much easier for the defender to pick whatever 3 players are available. The attacker might have a hard time finding the right levels to match. Though if this does get implemented, it would help a lot more if it was announced several months in advance. This way MCs can kick out inactive or non-preferred players and then recruit active players of all levels. So MCs with less players of a certain level should actively seek players of that level.
Because if this mechanism, I can see defenders purposely picking certain combat levels because attackers may have a hard time fielding certain levels. I know the aim is for fairness and letting players of all levels play, but our server just isn't big enough to make so many levels work.
I didn't play TG during the times monks were given to the lower level victims, but a similar balance system could be implemented. But yes, balance is always a problem. For example the complaints on the dynamic balancing in caravans and mixed tourny balancing. |
| +1 |
@6 I do think we'll never get a perfect balance. From people whining, but you had a knight, and knight pwns barbarians, it's unfair. We had 2 wizards and you had 2 barbs, barbs pwm wizards it's unfair. We just want close.
I know you aren't the type to do that and are just discussing the problem Pantheon, so there is no criticism of you. |
| +1 |
for the levels i guess there must be a system which says how much total level is allowed
For eg.
30 is allowed so it can be
15+15
15+5+10
and many more and it should be common for all MCs and if there is any levels in this then the limit should increase each level. |
| and if there is anyfaction level kind of levelsin this then the limit should increase each level |
| +1 |
30 is allowed so it can be
15+15
15+5+10
i like the idea, but with a better algotithm than the addition of all levels.
because it would lead to totally unfair battles.
in last mixed tournament, i was level 11, and i won alone against a team of levels 7,8,9
battle link: https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=492992402
if you look at the total level it was 24 VS 11, but victory was for the level 11.
maybe something like that:
level 5: 10 pts
level 6: 12 pts (small level, small increase)
level 7: 18 pts (medium increase because of fort)
level 8: 40 pts (huge increase because of tier 2 upgrade, tier 5, and magic guild 2)
level 9: 48 pts (small level, small increase)
level 10: 75 pts (good increase because of tier 3 upgrade and magic guild 3)
level 11: 100 pts (medium increase because of tier 6)
level 12: 175 pts (good increase because of tier 4 upgrade and citadel)
level 13: 190 pts (small level, small increase)
level 14: 300 pts (good increase because of tier 5 upgrade, tier 7, and magic guild 4))
level 15: 330 pts (small level, small increase)
defenders make a team of their choise, attackers must make a team with nearly same number of points (+ or less 10%)
exemple: defenders make a team of levels 10-12-13.
they have 75+175+190=440 points.
attackers must create a team between 396 and 484 points to ambush them. |
| +1 for any idea (like this) giving more reason for being a proud member of any military clans |
| About the first idea. I like it overall. However, instead of clan choosing 3 people... Just have these caravans leave every hour or may be a few times a day and have any clan members sign up. Multiple caravans can leave, not just one, so as many people can engage in this as feel like. The escort is 2 people, not 3 and ends up as when a thief ambushes 2 players at the same time. Except perhaps there are also 2 people ambushing. It's a CG fight, so people escorting have to meet a certain AP requirement and the points count towards CG. |
for Karsot:
I like the point system to balance out the levels.
Though not necessarily the points you used for each level.
#8
You brought out an interesting point. I would like to add that the attackers should not be able to see the defenders other than the point system noted by Karsot. This is to prevent the attackers from purposely choosing the right factions to go against the defenders. Of course the attackers still have indirect ways of finding out who the defenders might be, but at least this way the info won't just be given to the attackers.
for Flour:
Not sure I like the idea of every hour; this seems too excessive. Caravans leaving should only be when funds are moved. Of course if a MC choose to move 10 million gold once in a blue moon, then there's that risk compared to moving only 10k gold everyday.
But I think facilities should be guarded once every hour (or some other interval) so attackers can choose when they want to attack.
And I'm for the CG points for these MC fights. |
well more to this.
If empire could organize a sort of a mini event in which MCs fight for territorries it would be good and MC's owning facilities would add Roleplaying to it in a large amount.
So +1 again |
