Limitations 3 and 4 are unnecessary.
I don't think a full alliance is necessary. I just want in-game provisions for the equivalent of a mutual defense pact.
Limitations 3 and 4 are unnecessary.
I don't think a full alliance is necessary. I just want in-game provisions for the equivalent of a mutual defense pact.
Gunned down the young. Now old, crotchety, and back.
Limitations three and four are to prevent every org on a side from allying with each other purely for the benefits. There need to be benefits to becoming strong enough to hold a base on your own vs allying with others.Originally posted by Kiryat-Dharin
Limitations 3 and 4 are unnecessary.
I don't think a full alliance is necessary. I just want in-game provisions for the equivalent of a mutual defense pact.
In general, limitation 3 is the cost in Notum to provide the necessary comm reports to allies and to enable your controller's grid system to function for them.
limitation 4 is to make it (as you say) a defense pact... rather than an offense pact. Basically... if you are going to war... your allies are going to want a say in when it happens... after all, they're going to have to be there when you get counter-attacked by your new enemy and defend your base (and their own towers on your base, etc)
That's my thinking on those factors, anyway. I'll jot down your comments to include if/when I post the idea later. Hopefully, I'll get some more suggestions/feedback.
Seems to me that 90% of proposed rule-changes/honor-codes/ etc are self-serving.
Limitation 3 really isn't needed, unless those controller points actually are given to the allies. Otherwise, you're still penalizing smaller guilds.
But I'm also opposed to the idea of allied orgs being able to build towers on their allies bases, so...
For more of an idea of what I'm thinking of, go see my 5% Gas Change Proposal post. Combining that system with benefits 1 and 2 is all I'm suggesting.
An allied org isn't a target of your towers during 5%, gets reports from your tower as well as theirs on the Org Towers channel, and can grid directly to your tower.
Alliances don't require mutual agreement for a unidirectional system under my proposal. I.E. I want A to be able to defend my base. I find a member of A, type /org alliance %t, and that org can now benefit. However, I don't get the reverse benefits at their bases until one of their higher ranks does the same to my org.
Gunned down the young. Now old, crotchety, and back.
If you set up a base, be prepared to defend it all 24 hours of the day. If you don't plan to do so, prepare for the fact that it might be taken down.
When you build a controller you decide when it will be attackable. If you build a controller so that it goes 25% between 12AM PST 8AM GMT, which are graveyard hours of the game, you got to think, you may just get over-run by the rising sun.
What I don't get is how is the attacking org supposed to know when the defenders will be on? You can always place your tower at a time when it is defendable, and if you need to get a new LC area, most attacks take place in the prime-time period, so you just need to find a temp 25% base and make it your new home.
Absolutely. My ideas are very self serving. I'm tired of being in the situation where I have to join a large org of people I may or may not know just so I can benefit from the booster pack I paid 20 dollars (plus shipping) for. I know I'm not alone in that.Originally posted by Nalissa
Seems to me that 90% of proposed rule-changes/honor-codes/ etc are self-serving.
So, taking that into account, I tried to develop some structure that allows people in small guilds to be able to build towers without actually holding a base themselves. The penalties to this being that they do not then get any contract advantages.
Right. I am. Shouldn't there be some benefit from being strong enough to not need any help? Thus the reduction in advantages to the org holding the base if they have allies.Kiryat-Dharin
Limitation 3 really isn't needed, unless those controller points actually are given to the allies. Otherwise, you're still penalizing smaller guilds.
As to the idea of just putting in some sort of alliance toggle... sure, I can agree that that would be useful for 5% times. But that doesn't solve the fact that there are people who will never get any of the skill/stat bonuses because they are not in a guild big enough to hold a base... and even if they 'ally' with an org that has one... whether that alliance is RP'd or appears in the code... if there is not some benefit... either from contracts or personal towers... eventually, the large orgs are going to consume the small ones. Because plain and simple, those bonuses make a HUGE difference between characters.
Pretty easy really. You know what org owns the base, you pull up their members listing on the AO web site. You use the friends list to see if those people are currently online. If most of the guild are around, you postpone the attack... or look at the next base thats in the level range that you are targetting. Since so many are in sync time wise, the people who use this technique have a pretty good chance of finding at least one guild who has dropped the ball on any given day.Originally posted by Ityn
When you build a controller you decide when it will be attackable. If you build a controller so that it goes 25% between 12AM PST 8AM GMT, which are graveyard hours of the game, you got to think, you may just get over-run by the rising sun.
What I don't get is how is the attacking org supposed to know when the defenders will be on? You can always place your tower at a time when it is defendable, and if you need to get a new LC area, most attacks take place in the prime-time period, so you just need to find a temp 25% base and make it your new home.
I would change the last sentence to read "you have a pretty good chance of finding at least one guild who is vulnerable to attack because most of its members aren't playing atm."Originally posted by Jaesic
Pretty easy really. You know what org owns the base, you pull up their members listing on the AO web site. You use the friends list to see if those people are currently online. If most of the guild are around, you postpone the attack... or look at the next base thats in the level range that you are targetting. Since so many are in sync time wise, the people who use this technique have a pretty good chance of finding at least one guild who has dropped the ball on any given day.
Would prefer a much more flexible gas control system as opposed to a highly complex allegiance system, although would support and bump most of the allegiance ideas you have posted.
Ah, but here is what you need to realize.Originally posted by Jaesic
As to the idea of just putting in some sort of alliance toggle... sure, I can agree that that would be useful for 5% times. But that doesn't solve the fact that there are people who will never get any of the skill/stat bonuses because they are not in a guild big enough to hold a base... and even if they 'ally' with an org that has one... whether that alliance is RP'd or appears in the code... if there is not some benefit... either from contracts or personal towers... eventually, the large orgs are going to consume the small ones. Because plain and simple, those bonuses make a HUGE difference between characters.
Let's take 2 different 'sides'. One is a org of 200 people, of average level/power 150.
The other is 10 different orgs, ranging from 5 to 40 members, with a total membership of 200 and an average level/power of 150.
The 200 person guild will overrun any bases it can overrun. But they can have a max of X bases.
The 10 org alliance will be capable of taking down/defending the same level of bases. But they can have 10X bases.
Your problem here is that you're being short-sighted. Sure, if the alliance only holds 1 tower, only 1 org gets a benefit. But if the alliance as a whole is more powerful than any single guild, then the alliance will hold as many towers as the member orgs want.
The disadvantage to small orgs in my system is that they need to defend more territory to get the same benefit as a large org. But they get more flexibility from that territory (imagine a 12 guild alliance, one for each profession, each one selecting advantages most appropriate to their profession - far deadlier than one big org of all those people who can only select a single advantage).
Gunned down the young. Now old, crotchety, and back.
It appears these problems boil down to the simple supply and demand for land. At this time, the supply of usable land is much less than the demand. Over time, I imagine this can be addressed by freeing up/adding more land until a viable equilibrium is attained.
Born on: Wed Jun 27 15:39:10 2001
Slavor, Soldier, RK1
Some orgs flaunt their nationality, quite foolishly. Declaring yourself a "French only" org makes it real simple to figure out.Originally posted by Ityn
...
What I don't get is how is the attacking org supposed to know when the defenders will be on? You can always place your tower at a time when it is defendable, and if you need to get a new LC area, most attacks take place in the prime-time period, so you just need to find a temp 25% base and make it your new home.
I have little to 0 sympathy for those types of orgs. Same way I have no sympthy for any "xxx profession only" orgs. If you built and advertise your weakness you have to live with the consequences.
History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave. - Edmund Morris
The first faults are theirs that commit them, the second theirs that permit them. - Unknown
Did you ever get the feeling that the world had an abundance of idiots? And that God had arranged for you to meet every single one of them before you died? - Kuroshio
I think you're forgetting 1 single fact: Funcom does not want to make enough land availible for everyone. Doing so would negate the whole PvP aspect and be a waste of programmers/code time.Originally posted by Slavor_MoK
It appears these problems boil down to the simple supply and demand for land. At this time, the supply of usable land is much less than the demand. Over time, I imagine this can be addressed by freeing up/adding more land until a viable equilibrium is attained.
If Funcom wanted to deliver something that every org was meant to have, safe bet they'd have chosen org housing first.
History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave. - Edmund Morris
The first faults are theirs that commit them, the second theirs that permit them. - Unknown
Did you ever get the feeling that the world had an abundance of idiots? And that God had arranged for you to meet every single one of them before you died? - Kuroshio
Damn, that's a lot of workOriginally posted by Jaesic
Pretty easy really. You know what org owns the base, you pull up their members listing on the AO web site. You use the friends list to see if those people are currently online. If most of the guild are around, you postpone the attack... or look at the next base thats in the level range that you are targetting. Since so many are in sync time wise, the people who use this technique have a pretty good chance of finding at least one guild who has dropped the ball on any given day.I'm not that bored!
True... but any one person is limited to the number of personal towers they can build and you can only build one of any particular type of tower. So the alliance of guilds may controll more territory... but no individual can get more bonuses than would be true given the way the code is now. In fact, they would get less because the orgs controlling the controllers would receive the 20% loss toward contracts.Originally posted by Kiryat-Dharin
Ah, but here is what you need to realize.
Let's take 2 different 'sides'. One is a org of 200 people, of average level/power 150.
The other is 10 different orgs, ranging from 5 to 40 members, with a total membership of 200 and an average level/power of 150.
The 200 person guild will overrun any bases it can overrun. But they can have a max of X bases.
The 10 org alliance will be capable of taking down/defending the same level of bases. But they can have 10X bases.
Your problem here is that you're being short-sighted. Sure, if the alliance only holds 1 tower, only 1 org gets a benefit. But if the alliance as a whole is more powerful than any single guild, then the alliance will hold as many towers as the member orgs want.
The disadvantage to small orgs in my system is that they need to defend more territory to get the same benefit as a large org. But they get more flexibility from that territory (imagine a 12 guild alliance, one for each profession, each one selecting advantages most appropriate to their profession - far deadlier than one big org of all those people who can only select a single advantage).
And... if that alliance spreads itself too thin, they still won't be able to defend it all.
edit to add: I'm not sure if its the way I'm reading it... but I'm not sure you understand how exactly individuals and orgs benefit from bases (ie... difference between contracts and personal tower benefits... and how many you can have). That may be why you think I haven't accounted for certain things... ?
Last edited by Jaesic; Dec 21st, 2002 at 05:28:12.
Its a good point Kuroshio... except they didn't add it as a patch... they added it as a booster which we had to pay for. I could participate in the PvP aspect without having paid the extra money.Originally posted by Kuroshio
I think you're forgetting 1 single fact: Funcom does not want to make enough land availible for everyone. Doing so would negate the whole PvP aspect and be a waste of programmers/code time.
If Funcom wanted to deliver something that every org was meant to have, safe bet they'd have chosen org housing first.
I agree that freeing up more land isn't really an option though. Just need to be more ways to get involved (without being in a large org... i'm starting to sound like a broken record)
I've posted the alliance ideas in a new thread... please feel free to drop by and smack me around or add suggestions. Thanks for the initial feedback here.
Jaesic
My guild has NW installed on most of our members, and it has been a mixed bag. We at one point had two bases, one in Upper Stret East and one in Perpetual Wastelands. We got both by being lucky and having pretty good relationships with other Clan guilds.
Now we have lost both bases, and our chances of getting another are somewhat limited although our hopes are high. I do not resent the Omni guild The Black Hand for taking out our main base. I do resent the gloating that went on afterwards, but that's another story. They attacked us the only time they could have, during the low gas period that I had chosen. Did they know whether we were on? I doubt it. Would they have cared? I also doubt it. This seems to me to be a typical scenario in most base attacks, and I knew the rules going in. So are they cheaters by Sanskrit's view? They could have meticulously researched when we were on, and then given us a warning, "Sorry old bean, but we are planning an attack on your base next Sunday at 12:05pm. That's your time by the way. See you then!"
I think it's unreasonable to expect attackers to conduct an attack in such a way. If your low gas window is set in an unfavorable timeframe for your guild to defend, then change it! There are ways to do this with minimal risk, and I'm not talking about the fixed exploit method either.
Oh, and to The Black Hand: Very sorry chums, but we plan to take out your base just as you took out ours. Maybe next Sunday at 12:05pm. Possibly later. That's my time by the way. See you then!
^^^ A man of reasonOriginally posted by Strax
My guild has NW installed on most of our members, and it has been a mixed bag. We at one point had two bases, one in Upper Stret East and one in Perpetual Wastelands. We got both by being lucky and having pretty good relationships with other Clan guilds.
Now we have lost both bases, and our chances of getting another are somewhat limited although our hopes are high. I do not resent the Omni guild The Black Hand for taking out our main base. I do resent the gloating that went on afterwards, but that's another story. They attacked us the only time they could have, during the low gas period that I had chosen. Did they know whether we were on? I doubt it. Would they have cared? I also doubt it. This seems to me to be a typical scenario in most base attacks, and I knew the rules going in. So are they cheaters by Sanskrit's view? They could have meticulously researched when we were on, and then given us a warning, "Sorry old bean, but we are planning an attack on your base next Sunday at 12:05pm. That's your time by the way. See you then!"
I think it's unreasonable to expect attackers to conduct an attack in such a way. If your low gas window is set in an unfavorable timeframe for your guild to defend, then change it! There are ways to do this with minimal risk, and I'm not talking about the fixed exploit method either.
Oh, and to The Black Hand: Very sorry chums, but we plan to take out your base just as you took out ours. Maybe next Sunday at 12:05pm. Possibly later. That's my time by the way. See you then!
Yup, you know the rules when you go in...
You build a tower it can be destroyed, it can even be destoyed by your own side for an hour a day. That's the way it works.
When attacking a base the defining factor is when you are able to do so because of the gas. Are you really expecting people to 'leave it alone' because it's not convenient for you?
Ummm, so if your base has 25/5 gas at a time when none of your members are on when do you expect it to be attacked? Never? Ahhh, now there's the truth, and its a selfish one in my opinion.
This is faction based PvP, I expect my base to be attacked every time the gas goes down, if there isn't enough to defend it then hey ho, down it will go. I'll note the name of the guild and plan my reprisal
Likewise if I attack someones base, I expect a reprisal from them, whether I am awake at teh time or not.
This is a game, its supposed to be fun
Enjoy the battles, if you lose a base, look forward to the next battle when you migth get your chance of revenge.
Craig 'Silirrion' Morrison
Old Timer
Posting Permissions
