Suppression gas cycle in land control

[______________Thromp]

Originally posted by Bionitrous
The problem is that 250 towers are invincible…

I'm not saying it's not possible.

Wait, I'm confused? 250 towers are invincible, but your saying it is possible to destroy them?

Originally posted by Sanskrit
I am well aware of your "accomplishment" ...

I understand why you would come here and advocate for your bases to remain the bastions of invincibility they are now.

OK I'm lost again? You're well aware that we destroyed a QL250 controller but you still feel they are invincible?

You two need to whip out a dictionary and look up the word invincible.

I'll save you the trouble.
in·vin·ci·ble: incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued

Go ahead and argue your point that you think the window should be made bigger, that's fine, but if you avoid such false ridiculous claims you may be taken a little more seriously. Do you also like to walk up to people wearing Notum Tank and tell them Peter Lee is invincible?

I happen to feel the window is perfect as it stands. Right now I suppose it would be fair to classify taking out a QL250 base as a monumental accomplishment, but over time as more and more people hit 200 and get better equipment and nanos it will become much easier.

[Darkbane]

Jynne and Bionitrous are making good points here.

Towers should be immune to attack/damage in any form regardless of the gas level until a shield disabler is used on them at which point they become vulnerable until the gas cycle back to 100%. [EDIT: And towers should not attack regardless of gas level unless they are shield disabled.]

Shield disablers should be expensive and one-shot. If needed, delete all existing shield disablers in game before making these changes to stop stockpiling or the like. Maybe even make them unique so no individual can have more than one at a time.

If and individual attacks a same-side tower then they should be attackable by same side. Different Pvp flag markers around the name could be used to indicate this.

Lower QL towers should have a narrower window, the current 6 hours a day is just to long and too much hassle in many cases. It's fine (and maybe even slightly short) for the highest towers, but. Though someones suggestion that that be adjusted based on base size might be worth looking at too. Or maybe based on the size of the LCA itself (since even at the same QL they do vary a lot).

[Ulltima]

My thoughts on the subject:

1) A base needs to be open for attack no more than once every 2-3 days. The base should be open for attack at least 6 hours; warnings regarding the change in gas levels should be broadcast on the org towers channel.

2) Shield disablers need to be the ONLY way for someone to initiate an attack on a base. I can't recall how many times I had to explain to another guild that so-and-so was just passing through when he got shot at by that Guardian Conductor of Ransacking, throwing both of our guilds into a war we didn't want.

3) Once shields are disabled, the shields stay disabled for 6 hours + 1 minute per QL of the base's CT. Using a disabler of a higher QL than the CT should improve this time. When that time passes, the shields go back up and the base reverts to 100% gas. The base's owners need to get a visual AND audible warning (make the sound really obnoxious so everyone knows what it is) to the attack... a lot of people miss the visual cue and don't get word until guildies start spamming about it.

4) I don't think that the gas should change gradually when shields are disabled. I do think that defenders should be allowed a chance to be warped into the base by the Control Tower... or maybe a new type of tower could be made to handle it. This would cut down on the defenders' reaction time and make a tower battle less one-sided.

Hope this helps.

[_____Poweredge|vault]

Another side to the issue for guilds with towers, is that it's nice to be able to do something else during peak-time for a guild. Having all your members on-line, with them all twitching at the fact that they might have to run off every night to protect a base from some wannabe attacker get really tiring when you wanna do something else while your majority of members are on.

Having a bit of time inbetween tower cycles at least lets people get something out of actually having a base.

As for people saying that bases are invincible... they ain't. The problem is that with all timers being set equal as they currently are, and given that bases vary massively in the amount of damage they can take, and the number of towers within a base, this creates an imbalance between takeable and untakeable bases.

Every base should at least be takeable, but as it stands, some are stupidly easy and some are stupidly hard (you could almost say untakable).

I think the other problem is the actual amount of damage that QL150 bases can handle. They are far too weak considering the amount of damage that a QL200 (+) can take.

[Canto]

Originally posted by Thromp

You two need to whip out a dictionary and look up the word invincible.

Perhaps you need to whip out your polygraph and use it on the "details" you posted about how exactly that base was taken.

Wait I'll save you the trouble; the gas was unwisely set to go 25% in the early morning when very few defenders were on.
Moreover, the base was not fully built up was it? Estimates are that there were about 30 ql200ish towers up, a far cry from full for that base.

I never agreed with how that base came into omni hands frankly, and I congratulate clan on getting it back, but that is not really the best example of how a ql250 base can be taken, now is it?

[Defiler]

I have a GREAT IDEA!

Sanskrit and Thromp and whoever else, this is not a place for a flame war, just put ideas up, not argue with eachother.

Oh, and I like my idea on towers as per last post

[Snuble]

The only reason to shorten the attack window would be if it was made easier to take down bases.

Problem isn't the attack cycles, problem is that as soon as the base is there, it doesn't cost anything to maintain. Or the fact that you *can* keep them forever. Make them cheaper, make them incredible expensive to maintain. And introduce a 7 day disgrace to the faction previous owning the destroyed base.

As for QL 250 bases, it would perhaps be possible to keep up an attack for days just destroying towers as they are rebuilt. How long could an org keep rebuilding 60 QL 250 support towers? They sure wouldn't be able to blitz the credits needed, and if they did, increase the price

Another good one would be to have them in 100% until someone actually disabled the shields. This way we could get rid of the stupid "no message" exploit.

[Sheffy]

Originally posted by Bionitrous
RK2 and ONE instance. How often has this happened?

Just a note, Synergy Factor's current 250 base used to be an Omni 250 base which we successfully took down over the course of 3 days of constant attacks.

I loved the challenge. I loved the planning needed to accomplish it. It made it that much more rewarding when the CT finally fell.

More 250 bases are not destroyed because people like quick fights. Its fine how it is now. A 250 base SHOULD require a lot of time, planning and manpower to take down. It's very possible.

[Sheffy]

Originally posted by Krabbus
edit: may be a bad idea when everyone is from same timezone, but attacking another land should open your land for attack for 6 hours...

I agree, I don't want the 25% rotation to change every day. Its nice to have your bases go 25% during your guild's primetime.

And 6 hours of attacks if you initiate war on a base? Why? 2 hours is fine. Think of all the "oopsies" that happen, especially during 5% gas and AE nanos. 2 hours seems more than fair for an oopsie. Opening your guild's bases to attack for 6 hours because of an hour of gas suppression which shouldn't even exist in the first place is a little much (I'm talking about you showing up to defend a base during 5% and not being able to join a team with a member of the guild who owns the base right away, but this is a whole 'nother discussion in itself).

Also, 2 hours is plenty of time for guilds to form and take down your base. Perhaps not an entire 200 base (although its very possible), but certainly enough to seriously cripple the base's defenses. Then you'll have less work to do for when the base goes 25% and you have a full 6 hours to finish the job.

[Tenkx]

I think the number of conflicts going on is about right. I think 5% gas sucks quite a lot but accept that there is a need for it. However... if there is a need for 5% gas then realistically the window of time (1 hour) is never really going to be long enough to actually destroy anything but the smallest bases.

I agree with what others have said that 24h is a bad cycle time. I would prefer longer than 24h.

More than anything I want a bit more information about who has what and what time it cycles. As it stands at the moment planning raids is quite difficult.

[_________Necrofiliak]

I dunno what the situation is in Atlantean server but on Rimor servers, more and more towers are going 25% at ~ 5 am EST to 12 am EST Why? because those are the times when there are the least amount of poeple online. Why is this bad? It makes the base nearly impossible to take because no one can attack them. Any high lvl base takes more than one team to take.

The supression cycles is making more and more towers in this wierd time zone that no one is online and basically making these towers stagnant. Towers should go to 25% at different times but less often. Perhaps by making towers 25% every 30 hrs so guilds cant hide their towers in this warped timed zone.

[Cenelia]

I don't care much bout the cycle, but could it please be possible to lower the 100% to 75% and stop the towers from eating monsters?

[askiles]

chanig how meny taims a day gas drops to 25% or 5% vont mak eny difrens

[______________Serath]

Qlvl 250 bases should be open for attack Atleast 8-10 hours a day... Having a 250 base should be risky...

And the HP on qlvl 250 towers should be lowered... with about 10-15%

Thromp... its nearly impossible too take down a 250 CT, it has happen 1 time on RK1... And clanners attacked that base for 6 Days straight.. not 3 days as sheffy says... Last day there was about 80 clanners and maybe 10-20 OT's defending/standing in 75%..

It takes 5 hours... without the defenders that is....

[Sheffy]

Originally posted by GreyWind
Thromp... its nearly impossible too take down a 250 CT, it has happen 1 time on RK1... And clanners attacked that base for 6 Days straight.. not 3 days as sheffy says... Last day there was about 80 clanners and maybe 10-20 OT's defending/standing in 75%..

It takes 5 hours... without the defenders that is....

Actually, I think it was 4 days.

And yea, the final day took 5 full hours (the CT fell just before 5% started), and the base was not full of towers. If it had the full 60 towers, there is no way in hell it would have fallen in that 6 hour window -- unless perhaps we attacked it with 4 groups of 20 in different parts of the base for faster tower consumption.

And saying there were 80 clanners is a bit of an exaggeration. We had about 40-50 people at the peak (when the Controller was being attacked). Crowd Control was whisking many of us away too, so I don't think we ever had everyone there all at once.

[delsabre]

I'd say the gas cycle is fine as it is, attacking a tower should open up your base for a longer period tho. Considering once you attack, it takes aprox. 30 minutes-2 hours to finish the first battle before the defenders gets a chance to retaliate, unless it's a very large guild. (If there's any guilds that large)

I also think that the strength of ql 200+ towers is about right, but lower ql towers needs a major boost damage/hp-wise to pose a threat to low level twinks with all possible buffs running.

The ideas to 'have to use a shield disabler' and a few minutes delay before the towers are attackable is great. Usually when I get a tell to help defend, there's maybe 1-3 towers + controller left, unless it's a large guild.

Also, I'd like to see unguilded people (PvP marked) to be attackable in 100% zones, and that the pvp mark timer stops when people log out/hide inside grid or other buildings. As it is, it's just too easy to ignore the bad side-effects.

[Peisinoe]

Sub 200 towers are a joke.

On a quiet night you can solo them.

I'm amazed that lower level orgs can find NW any fun at all.

Every range of tower should be somewhere around what a ql 200 controller is set at now in terms of difficulty.

I know none of that actually falls under the topic. :P

On topic:

Simple concept. Bigger bonus. Bigger risk.

The way it is now. Bigger bonus. Smaller risk.

Jynne's suggestion would help move towards fixing this mess.

[agentgimpy]

What I hear most of in this thread it seems is people who's guilds already have towers and are getting tired of defending them. So, stop defending them, if you dont have the time to defend them, and are bored with them...let them go. No where was it stated that having NW gave you the right to a tower, or that once you had one it should be easy to hang on to. If there are a lot of other things in the game that you would rather be doing, then do them.

There are many guilds in this game that do not yet have towers, and they deserve a fair shake at getting them, to change the rules now to suit the guilds that have towers already and just dont want to defend them is wrong. These are not supposed to be things you put up and and reap the benefits from for the rest of your game playing time, they do and should continue to take a great deal of effort to maintain.

If your guild decides to be in the land control business then I agree that you should be able to set it up so that the attack window is always during your guilds peek hours. So, once a day at the same time makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise dont try to control land if you dont feel like watching it.

PS. on a side note about being PvP enabled, do you think you could expand this feature to include people who attack their own guards/faction? And make them 100% enabled for ALL factions as soon as they attack, so I can drop those (insert faction here) losers who attack there own kind in fun. Some of us still try to do some RP in this game believe it or not, and that is the most annoying thing to see.

[Shadelore]

NW is all about manpower, the guild/side with the most ppl will eventually win due to beeing able to wear down the other side.

Towers beeing attackable every day put less strain on the side with more ppl, as the side with fewer ppl will have the same few ppl fighting every day. This is a key point, as NW is taking the fun away from quite a few ppl, them beeing forced to pvp oten for days straight when online. I love pvp, but it should not be required to do so every hr you are online..

In this sense omni is at a dire disadvantage, as the clans know to use their numeric advantage well. The only thing keeping the the situation somewhat balanced is CC.
AS FC decided they wanted to test how it was turing CC off, they decided to do so in the omni "stronghold" of EFP, promtly leading to the place beeing almost overrun to the point that where the side with most ppl NOT going LD(clans) would eventually gain the upper hand.

I think FC need to evaluate if this is the way they want this to work, because in the case of NW, as in "most" other basic wars, numbers will eventually conqueor.
All credit due to clanners for beeing more than omni, but in the end that will kill NW and the game it self the way it is going now.
I hardly see either FC, clans or omni take any benefit from such a "victory".

Concerning tower thoughness:

Any base below 200 is soloable at this time, if no defenders.
A ql 150 base will be overrun if the defenders dont show in force in 10-15 minutes.
So basically, the less benefit the base gives, the harder to defend, whic his quite illogical in some ways, in other ways it makes perfect sense.
A 250 base takes massive numbers to take down, and today it is only feasable for claneners to accomplish(and hold afterwards), as you need massive numbers to kill the base quick enough, and pvp at the same time(again a question of who have numbers, little else matters).
Then again, if it was easier, there would prolly be no ql 250 omni bases at all


Alererts & disabling:

Attacks on a towers should only be allowed at all using a disabler(should be high cost) to avoid all the sneak attacks, which only manages to keep some poor players spending their game time sitting in the forrest watching base and hear the birds sing.

A common tactic today is to attack a base, go away, let the guild attacked see that is was prolly only a lone looney, then come back an hr later and kill it while the attacked guild get no new msg..

[Darkbane]

Originally posted by Sheffy

And 6 hours of attacks if you initiate war on a base? Why? 2 hours is fine. Think of all the "oopsies" that happen, especially during 5% gas and AE nanos. 2 hours seems more than fair for an oopsie. Opening your guild's bases to attack for 6 hours because of an hour of gas suppression which shouldn't even exist in the first place is a little much (I'm talking about you showing up to defend a base during 5% and not being able to join a team with a member of the guild who owns the base right away, but this is a whole 'nother discussion in itself).

Originally posted by Wrathgrit
I don't care much bout the cycle, but could it please be possible to lower the 100% to 75% and stop the towers from eating monsters?

Both these are solved/made possible if towers are invulnerable and passive *until* a shield disabler is used (which would only be possible during 25% and 5%). No more 'oops', normal gas could be 75% quite easily etc. And it would make handling tower attack messages simpler and more certain. You'd get a message when the disabler is used or when one of your own towers is attacked. You'd not get spurious messages cause someone mongo'd near your tower and if disabler's are costly enough, there would be less tower griefing (wouldn't eliminate it though).