Pages: << prev 1, 2 next >>

Tiles going neutral

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 We need to decide on a system for tiles reverting to neutral. A closely related issue is that we need to make it feasible for a new camp to open to pvp and not be immediately squashed (assuming it doesn't set up in a silly location). Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss! ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 11:46 am Last edited Jul 12, 2020, 11:46 am by *sam*

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 *sam* said: Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. Seems to me only doing it once per game year is likely just going to create a single week window for things to happen isn't it, unless someone rolls incredibly poorly? Given the effort required to build up a camp, it might be to small for a new camp to take advantage of it. Granted, I don't have a much better idea aside from the bi weekly hotspots requiring CR to squash as I mentioned in earlier threads, but that seemed undesirable and was more about diverting how much CR a camp had to deploy to the front rather than creating openings. Quote: - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). A good one, with the caveat that it will not take tiles within a few  tiles from an already pvp open camp, or x% of heavy CR. Even with limiting it to once a game year, there could be some incredible shenanigans pulled if it lets tiles near a camp get swiped. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 12:05 pm

*Ninesticks* The Wombles Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 3,371 Joined: Apr 11, 2008 *sam* said: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. Not entirely sure what you mean here? *sam* said: - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss! Possibly, could still be used to mess other up quite a bit though - though expensive to do. ......................... vet wv marshal pvp4 community pvp20,1,0 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 2:49 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 *Ninesticks* said: *sam* said: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. Not entirely sure what you mean here? . It's probably clearer to camp owners, sorry.  When you're deploying CR you're shown exactly what % will arrive in each tile as it travels out from your camp. I was suggesting that (1) there'd be a threshold above which you'd never lose a tile, and (2) below that threshold the chance of losing it would get greater the lower your % was. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 3:06 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 *sam* said: We need to decide on a system for tiles reverting to neutral. A closely related issue is that we need to make it feasible for a new camp to open to pvp and not be immediately squashed (assuming it doesn't set up in a silly location). Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss! The 6 tiles around it 'unlrss any of these are adjacent to / within 2 hexes of the camp that currently owns them?' ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 4:48 pm

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 Sometimes we do agree goat ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 4:49 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 Yep, makes sense. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 5:14 pm

*Longo* Longos Merry Men Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 6,671 Joined: Dec 15, 2007 *sam* said: We need to decide on a system for tiles reverting to neutral. A closely related issue is that we need to make it feasible for a new camp to open to pvp and not be immediately squashed (assuming it doesn't set up in a silly location). Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. I get this and understand the concept and reasoning, but I would run a few simulations on this and check the results before going forward. *sam* said: - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss! I agree with what the others have said on this, that if there is another camp close by then they only get the 6 tiles around them that are not within the other camp's 6 tiles. Id also like to add a few other things here that  I have thought about - Doing these camps wars seems almost like a league to me, although a much longer one. I almost feel like after a longer period of time, that the maps resets. Maybe a real life year, or maybe 2 full game years. The more I play, the more this seems to make sense to me. Just a thought, nothing more at this point. Alternatively, maybe Sam, you throw out the option to those present camps that do not like their location - You will buy back their camp, excluding any building costs, for 1/3 the market price of that size camp. So a SS camp in the wilderness could raze their camp and receive $2,720,000 (8 mil x .34). This would maybe clean up the map a bit and change strategies around, although at a significant cost but also allowing a small down payment for the new camp. Again, just a thought. ......................... vet combatL1 ped1 paintladder semiprocombat ped2 wv pvp4 pvp1 gwped paintball pvp3 pvp5 slay2013 marshal circuit2 combat1 e2g raceL1 gwextrav gateautumn pvp2 triangle1 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 5:51 pm Last edited Jul 12, 2020, 5:52 pm by *Longo*

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 *Longo* said: I get this and understand the concept and reasoning, but I would run a few simulations on this and check the results before going forward. Definitely agree. It's once-per year code so needs to be correct first time. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:24 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 *Longo* said: Doing these camps wars seems almost like a league to me, although a much longer one. I almost feel like after a longer period of time, that the maps resets. Maybe a real life year, or maybe 2 full game years. The more I play, the more this seems to make sense to me. Just a thought, nothing more at this point. Alternatively, maybe Sam, you throw out the option to those present camps that do not like their location - You will buy back their camp, excluding any building costs, for 1/3 the market price of that size camp. So a SS camp in the wilderness could raze their camp and receive $2,720,000 (8 mil x .34). This would maybe clean up the map a bit and change strategies around, although at a significant cost but also allowing a small down payment for the new camp. Again, just a thought. Yep, I agree that the map needs shaking up periodically. A full reset seems pretty severe though.. it has to feel 'fairly' permanent when you win tiles. The idea of losing a bunch of tiles each year is a kind-of partial reset. Option to 'sell back' camps: good idea. How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:26 pm Last edited Jul 12, 2020, 6:27 pm by *sam*

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 *sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). Would that include getting to keep your pvp tiles or would you have to close? Either way I don't dislike it. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:28 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 FireFly said: *sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). Would that include getting to keep your pvp tiles or would you have to close? Either way I don't dislike it. Keep them, I'd say. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:31 pm

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 *sam* said: FireFly said: *sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). Would that include getting to keep your pvp tiles or would you have to close? Either way I don't dislike it. Keep them, I'd say. Got my vote then, it'll both help getting camps that want to fight get closer as well as help swamped camps get clear. It's not a bad idea. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:33 pm Last edited Jul 12, 2020, 6:33 pm by FireFly

*Longo* Longos Merry Men Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 6,671 Joined: Dec 15, 2007 *sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). I don't like this. All the mats, sweat, time, to get the camp built and then for some cash you can just pick it up and move it. I kinda think of camps as permanent. Next year I could hire a puppet government at Satellite one and move it right next to Xman's camp. It would be funny for a day, thinking of poor X opening up Darkwind to his morning coffee, seeing the move and spilling his coffee down the front of him. But totally not cool, in my mind. Not fair to X, not fair to the game and could totally unbalance things. Abandoning a camp, saving some mats (in the form of 1/3 the price) and building a new one, sounds much better to me. ......................... vet combatL1 ped1 paintladder semiprocombat ped2 wv pvp4 pvp1 gwped paintball pvp3 pvp5 slay2013 marshal circuit2 combat1 e2g raceL1 gwextrav gateautumn pvp2 triangle1 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:35 pm

*The X Man* Better Off Dead Darkwind Guru Slavers Faction Group: Game Manager Posts: 2,216 Joined: Jul 25, 2012 I have never been a big fan of random dice rolls determining outcomes. Is there something that could be put in place where a hard number of tiles lost is known? Maybe at end of game year, the total amount of tiles a players camp owns would be subject to a percent loss? If you own 50 tiles, end of year, 20% of those tiles go neutral? In this case, 10 tiles lost. (I could see this percent higher if needed) Also, to avoid randomness, allow the camp owner to select the tiles to lose? Just another option, whether it is acceptable or not, but option choices are nice when there is more than a few. ......................... vet wv marshal paintladder zom circuit3 paintball raceL1 race1 pvp4 hammer circuit2 pvp2 circuit1 gwped pvp5 pvp3 pvp1 deathrceL1 triangle1 combatL1 elmsautumn combat1 northernsummer1,3,0 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:49 pm Last edited Jul 12, 2020, 6:50 pm by *The X Man*

Tez Blood Roses Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 579 Joined: Sep 13, 2009 A full reset every DW year sounds good to me. Keeps the camps in play without completely wiping people out. ......................... vet wv combat1 pvp3 pvp51,4,0 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:53 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 *The X Man* said: I have never been a big fan of random dice rolls determining outcomes. Is there something that could be put in place where a hard number of tiles lost is known? Maybe at end of game year, the total amount of tiles a players camp owns would be subject to a percent loss? If you own 50 tiles, end of year, 20% of those tiles go neutral? In this case, 10 tiles lost. (I could see this percent higher if needed) Also, to avoid randomness, allow the camp owner to select the tiles to lose? Just another option, whether it is acceptable or not, but option choices are nice when there is more than a few. I kind of like the idea of some randomness, as it shakes things up more. It would give a chance for a lucky roll which gives someone a headstart expanding after the yearly losses. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 7:05 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 further away more likely deploying CR reduces or removes possibility possibly influenced by local piracy level i think random is the best thing for this stuff. It is supposed to be outside your control. But there should always be ways to manage / mitigate the risk. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jul 12, 2020, 7:10 pm Last edited Jul 12, 2020, 7:11 pm by *goat starer*

Madbooth The Dapp Radars Racer Merchants Faction Group: Sinbinned Posts: 123 Joined: Apr 23, 2020 Sam way the maps go new camps are gonna be squashed anyway no matter what.the maps gonna be fully taken over by x mas... As for taking the first 6 titles nope thats a bad idear. means if i want said location asap no fighting for it i buy next to it and watch my enemy just lose it without a fight. My suggestion is a CR Boost. (how much would be up to you to make it fair) And a MASSIVE defence bonus (for a certain period of time say 1 month 2 possible attacks if not more) This means a starting camp (anyone buying a camp should'nt be clueless to the game having that sort of money in the first place) has a chance to expand into the enemys hexs (if someone built up in my terriorty id see it as a uprising which would need to be squashed) means i have to dirvert cr around the said camp to keep it locked in if possible which would be 6 hexs which is alot of cr if you think about it sam...and it would take away cr from my front line....there is a deep stratagey in this...sorry for all the spelling mistakes and typing so poorly...but what i said is a good idear.. and if i was to try and attack the camp directly i would need alot of CR to take it out.... Thats my 2 pence of this subject. ......................... wv vet combatL1 Posted Jul 15, 2020, 10:34 pm

Madbooth The Dapp Radars Racer Merchants Faction Group: Sinbinned Posts: 123 Joined: Apr 23, 2020 For tiles going netural my suggestion is Towns have a certain chance to go neutral if not a 100% chance..give the towns a faction if they players are a enemy to that faction they are gonna struggle to keep it if you are an allie of that faction chances of losing it at like say 5%... Factorys stay under ur control as well as radio towers ect. Whats should go neutral is the Boarders of the camps all the camps..if any that boarders another camps boarder should turn neutral so it would be each player losing a hex freeing up 2 spaces Obv it would be alot more as a whole..but all the players lost was there front boarder would also means the larger camps would lose enough CR at end of year to make it slightly easyer for a smaller camp to expand if the larger camps didnt grab there boarders back fast enough. ......................... wv vet combatL1 Posted Jul 15, 2020, 10:46 pm

Pages: << prev 1, 2 next >>

Powered by MercuryBoard [v1.1.4]
© 2001-2005 The Mercury Development Team

0.0866 seconds - 30 queries - 1.45 load