Area Capture System

[Folder]

Not sure on the 1 city per guild. Could just mean guilds capture a city and leave it at that?

The number of people on for the large guilds varies widely, areas are going to be changing hands often I suspect.

[Styx]

How about we kill a city official , he spawns like every 30 min or hour, so overabundance of 1 time use keys, then a guild can take a party to capture the flag, flag boss being 2 hour spawn. With abundance of keys and farming the city officials ...

Blah complicated and I'm tired to think atm, long hours at work. .

[daedroth]

I city per clan... how would that work exactly? If you had a city and decided to go for another, does the new city replace the old city, or do you choose which one to keep? Then what happens to the one you do not keep?

If a clan can only hold one city then I would recommend that you can still attack another city, then you choose which city you want, the one you want becomes clan owned, the other one becomes neutral again.
Obviously this would be bad if a large clan decided to mess with small clans, but because of the aforementioned cool down time, the small clan would still have it for a while.
There is a possibility that clan would indeed jut hold one city and stop there if there is no benefit/option to attack another city.

[anthriel]

Not sure on the 1 city per guild. Could just mean guilds capture a city and leave it at that?

The number of people on for the large guilds varies widely, areas are going to be changing hands often I suspect.

I envision large guilds challenging each other for the best cities and changing hands happening less often but more significantly. Eg say the Arkan city/area package is most profitable, followed by Huldar and then Wiken... The big three guilds will probably fight it out over these. On Monday, Guild A has the numbers online and they go seige Arkan and take it from Guild C. Once they do that they move their guild banner to Arkan, vacating Huldar which they previously held. The remainder of Guild C players who just lost Arkan and Guild B players holding Wiken then race over to try and take possession of the now vacant Huldar... After PVP contest Guild C defeats off challengers from Guild B and takes Huldar. Then some X cooldown hours later Guild C has the numbers online and they decide to re-take Arkan from Guild A etc (and the process begins again + plus similar with smaller guilds the lower tier city packages).... Perhaps make the cooldown interval different for diff cities depending on how valuable they are to mix things up (so it's not always the guild that can log most ppl at 7am or 12pm etc that wins X city.... Eg most valuable city might have a 27hr cooldown, second most valuable might have a 22hr cooldown, third most valuable has 18hr cooldown etc)

Basically that's sort of how i envisioned it. Cos with an area capture system where individual areas (most of which are likely small and very unprofitable) are changing hands every 2-4hrs I personally can't really see how I'd be motivated to waste gold/pots contesting them in never ending battles against enemy players that I probably don't like interacting with anyways lol (especially if the reward is something like a mere x% tax on leveling gold in the area, which goes to my guild and not to me as an individual who has just wasted lots of pots/gold, and which my guild might only hold for 2-4hrs anyways!)... Basically the whole area capture idea sounds like a good idea in theory but I think with the current game mood/climate of de-motivation I think it would just serve as "too much work for too little reward for me to give a crap" fodder and likely be ineffective at actually inspiring greater activity and excitement from players (as I'm assuming is NHs intent).

Peace.

[Folder]

Hard to say really. I think we need to see it in action.

As far as endless battles, that's literally why I play lol. I'm here for the PvP. Hell half the time we compete at oad keys just for the fight - we don't even do the oad afterwards . Part lazy, part because group PvP is actually pretty dang fun.

[daedroth]

I agree with Anthriel in that there needs to be a reasonable long cool off period before a place can be taken again, but not too long.
Too short and it would become a chore, too long and it becomes a bore. Yes I'm a poet and didn't know it.
Also I won't give up the day job.

[NiteHawk]

Cities I can understand having a larger timer, 24 or 32 hours. Remember that these timers aren't based on downtime, they are literally timers. They can go well past several days if needed, reset doesn't effect them.

Cities and Areas will be different to start. Though Areas are actually called Zones, and several areas are grouped up if they are too small, (bar highly used ones like the GY, Dreads, Dwarvern mines, etc). Generally the closer to Seamoor you are, the larger the area. We'll release a map but there will also be some easy ways to see zones without hassle.

The zones themselves, I understand they shouldn't be tedious, so they can't have too short of timers. This is why I thought these can have far less HP than city ones. They can change guilds more often than not and are more easier to capture. Hence 4 hour timers. I can understand upping it to 6 or 8 hours but that depends on how it works too. 6 hours might be a better trial and we go from there. These ones aren't mean't to be a big hassle though to deal with.

Cities will promote heavier PVP, and zones will be more minor since the warnings will be shorter and I think we can cut HP a bit. Further more, to trial, I'm going to have a max limit on how many times a player can zombie in. There are means to prevent people from account hopping and such too that we'll see in effect. Thinking 3 times per person (not character). I'm not sure if it will be different from this but it can be for cities or zones. 3 is the base test though.

I don't think the area system is a 'huge' thing yet until guild gold is used more. Guild wars and guild houses are next on my list though, which means this system should see far more use when that occurs.

Those minor cities, some of them may have unique shops in the future too. Might make use for example to take certain cities too. For cities I was thinking of a king or queen that is spawned in a throne room. Like 'King of Revolution' or 'Queen of Silhouette'. Depending on what we add. Possibly with some advertisement for the holder too. In the future I intended on having an image with a blank banner, and the banner can be changed to an image based on who owns the guild. So taking Seamoor might be a good idea for publicity for example. It will be a simplistic thing that will come with guild houses, and it will be limited to start, but imagine having 3-5 layers with certain images. So guilds will be able to make a guild banner for themselves... Offtopic here to explain it:

Let's say we have a 3 layer image. Bottom, middle, top. So bottom is more of a background image, and top is the topmost image. Each layer is colorable as well. Let us say this is our background image:

shield.jpg (5.8 KiB) Viewed 4870 times

A simple shield, obviously the shield can be changed color wise, but this is a simple example. Next layer I pick a hammer.

hammer.jpg (6.3 KiB) Viewed 4870 times

Don't like the hammer, change it to a sword.

sword.jpg (6.87 KiB) Viewed 4870 times

.. Then the final layer, maybe another sword like so:

swords.jpg (7.77 KiB) Viewed 4870 times

Than I add some basic color:

logofinal.jpg (7.48 KiB) Viewed 4870 times

And theres a basic logo. Obviously the above is not aligned or proper images, but it's the example on how it can be 'customizable' that is fairly easy to do and implement really. In game there will probably be image selectors for all of this and possibly some basic things like image reversal and color hue adjustments. (If hue not possible easily or eats too much CPU we will have to make colors per image or something.)

So once you capture a city the entrance image could become like:

image.jpg (52.33 KiB) Viewed 4870 times

Obviously, I can't design, it's a bad drawing, but it's more about the concept than anything. Something a little fun if anything.


----

Anyways back on topic, I think we are starting with zones first, then cities within a week or two after the update. Depends on how much stuff I can get done all at once including lat/lav helping me with a bunch of this stuff.

[NiteHawk]

I city per clan... how would that work exactly? If you had a city and decided to go for another, does the new city replace the old city, or do you choose which one to keep? Then what happens to the one you do not keep?

If a clan can only hold one city then I would recommend that you can still attack another city, then you choose which city you want, the one you want becomes clan owned, the other one becomes neutral again.
Obviously this would be bad if a large clan decided to mess with small clans, but because of the aforementioned cool down time, the small clan would still have it for a while.
There is a possibility that clan would indeed jut hold one city and stop there if there is no benefit/option to attack another city.

You can attack but you can't claim a city if you have one already, you will have to disband the zone or city before claiming another. In the future maybe there will be something else towards this (attacking someone elses city while having another) but right now it's simple and we'll make it more complex later if its needed.

[Ohko]

Those minor cities, some of them may have unique shops in the future too. Might make use for example to take certain cities too. For cities I was thinking of a king or queen that is spawned in a throne room. Like 'King of Revolution' or 'Queen of Silhouette'. Depending on what we add.

Would a king or queen not make sense in term of lore? I think a baron/baroness or regent for each city since we already have a king in Alderra. The guild banner idea looks great.

[daedroth]

I city per clan... how would that work exactly? If you had a city and decided to go for another, does the new city replace the old city, or do you choose which one to keep? Then what happens to the one you do not keep?

If a clan can only hold one city then I would recommend that you can still attack another city, then you choose which city you want, the one you want becomes clan owned, the other one becomes neutral again.
Obviously this would be bad if a large clan decided to mess with small clans, but because of the aforementioned cool down time, the small clan would still have it for a while.
There is a possibility that clan would indeed jut hold one city and stop there if there is no benefit/option to attack another city.

You can attack but you can't claim a city if you have one already, you will have to disband the zone or city before claiming another. In the future maybe there will be something else towards this (attacking someone elses city while having another) but right now it's simple and we'll make it more complex later if its needed.

So there would be no point attacking another clans city, unless a clan wanted it for themselves?
And I agree with Ohko on the King/Queen thing. Baron, Chamberlain, Mayor, Lord (feel free to insert feminine titles).