Combat system stasis

Comments

4 comments

  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    I agree with so much of what you say and I understand that changes to the system must be extremely difficult to implement because not all repercussions are obvious and there must a balance to attacking/defending.

     

    What about a two pronged change - 1st, change rallies against SOPs by having unlimited participants (but keeping the troop maximums) This would encourage attacks as rallies with 800k+ would be more successful and lose less per hit. 2nd lower the cost of healing wounded significantly.  

     

    This proposal would means seats would be won and lost more frequently but the cost of participation would be less for each attack/defense and therefore more people would be willing to take those risks.

     

    Also notice I didn't say rallies against players should be changed. I agree with your point the PVP is essential to this game  yet the fact that someone who has literally spent thousands on this game can be wiped out if they forget to shield for a night is insane. SOPs can provide that outlet without removing players from the game.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer
    While increasing the number of participants in a rally would definitely allow smaller allegiances to participate, perhaps allowing more diversity, I don't think it would have much impact on the overall state of PvP. In the short term you would see an uptick, definitely, much like we saw after the merge. But that increase in offense comes with a corresponding decrease in defense. While losing a march defending isn't the end of the world it's still -- I don't know -- 8-10M food or so, not counting for the actual loss of troops if I'm the one holding it and I reinforce fully. And it's likely that I will lose them; which is only to be expected since I would be trying to do the same to other people. Rationally that means I'm very unlikely to reinforce, especially when I'm AFK, and be quick to drop if rallies start popping up. For example, if I can pull together an 750-800k rally against a 670k defense I'll probably take that, especially if it's off hours and they are less likely to be buffed. So I think all you'll end up with is fewer Seats being reinforced and more people playing "race the siege" defending.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    Which is exactly why I said lower the cost of healing. I would be much more willing to lose a full march in defense, knowing I would kill a decent amount of attackers, if it took a fraction of the cost to heal. 


    At the same time, the bonuses for holding the seats can be improved - provided incentive to keep the seats.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer
    Ah, right. Sorry, poor reading on my part. Yeah, I think the healing costs need to come down for speculative defense to be worthwhile. I don't think the *overall* costs of attacking an SoP need to change significantly, but the current headcount requirements are problematic. I do wish there were a way to bend the curve, if you will, and make numerical superiority not as desirable at it is now. With the allegiance gifts, the allegiance leaderboard events and, of course, PvP; every incentive is aligned with bigger and bigger allegiances.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.