PDA

View Full Version : Boarders.


welshie
02-02-2010, 07:21 AM
Right so i was thinking like, in real life the boarders have boarder lands it wasnt just line through heres this country on that side here the other country that side there was like a place where they could be eaither or. So what im suggesting not now for obvious reasons but maybe in the expansion packs put in boarder lands between the races and maybe alow players to expand their empires in here adding new cities and stuff but when a castle have been captured the people keep the land/castle. it would give the people not more land to conqure but more land to hold, and would also bring in more of the orcs v elves v men thing, as all would have claim but who would be able to stake that claim.

Supreme
02-02-2010, 08:34 AM
I think what your saying is you want race versus race. And I also think they have implemented that already (or going to) using defence or attack of capital cities.

Oh and its "borders" :p

welshie
02-02-2010, 09:36 AM
lol cheers for saying that, and no i dont mean race vrs race as they have that already, what i mean is like there is a strech of land no NPC controlls and you can claim it but if u get attacked and loose in this area you lose the castle, meaning like a pvp type area even tho you can do it in the actual lands u take the land instead of leaving it in the name of your race!

Kire
02-02-2010, 09:49 AM
Why would you take a border castle if you can attack player main castle and plunder it ?=).
But not a bad idea, maybe not normal castles but some kind fortress (that serve just for army station and defense) that defends/control roads etc.. And maybe also faction must control x% of border castles in order to attack main city.
But dont know how will faction vs faction work since ppl friends will take mix faction and form guilds with mixed factions. Maybe it should be made just like at wow alliance and hord where they cant be allies.
But then again ... if 1 person for example takes all border castle and than he goes offline forever .... than noeone could control them anymore. Maybe if attacked a npc takes control while offline, or just as you capture it a friendly npc take it from start and you get just little income from it per day.

Darathor
02-02-2010, 10:04 AM
I cool hardcore pvp area would be nice to have. It would be cool to have territory and fight for more, or to defend it from others. It would also to be nice if you would fight with your guild against other guilds in this area.

Swift sword
02-02-2010, 11:16 AM
A cool idea, but I'd suggest level-specific areas. For example, one area is fought over by players with level...20 cities, and another by players with level 40 cities. (wonder what the cap is?). Otherwise the lower-leveled players couldn't do this sort of PvP. Basically, make a system similar to Battle-grounds in WoW and this would go down fine. I'd love something like this in an expansion personally.

welshie
02-02-2010, 12:08 PM
Aye and if added to an expansion, your cap is still the same so like it wont go up if u get more land, meaning you cant get to much land and take to many soilders to defend these will mean your capitol will be open to an attack. So it would be very tatical and make the game alot harder to balance. do you go for lots of defence in your capitol and leave your newly conqured region with few or do you get lots of land and spread your forces real fine like.

that sort of thing will make levels pointless as no matter how much money you got, you are limited on your force, meaning once the new players have got there capitol to the standard that they want they can explore this region looking for people who thined there forces to finely and conqure it.

blackfang
02-02-2010, 12:33 PM
What about another bonus for taking border towns like additional army capacity (named garrison) this army can be a defense type that will fight the enemy and you can keep your attack armies. Tough it would not be that large it could certainly defend against lesser people and you control it in battle. Would be fun i think:D

Supreme
02-02-2010, 01:13 PM
A cool idea, but I'd suggest level-specific areas. For example, one area is fought over by players with level...20 cities, and another by players with level 40 cities. (wonder what the cap is?). Otherwise the lower-leveled players couldn't do this sort of PvP. Basically, make a system similar to Battle-grounds in WoW and this would go down fine. I'd love something like this in an expansion personally.

Uhhhhhhhh you only get 1 city, you -can- have more (I think 4?) but on different...accounts.

Though you guys are forgetting it would be very costly and not a genius move for a competitive player.

Swift sword
02-02-2010, 01:22 PM
Uhm...I never said anything about multiple cities :confused: If you mean the plural with level 20/40, I was just referring to the level of the player's city. I'm not saying he controlled 20+ cities.
In any case, it wouldn't be that costly-after all, players would earn bonuses for controlling such cities. You could do all kinds of creative things with a feature like this. It'd just need a little smoothing over to get rid of the edges.
Though you're right, the players army would get expended on taking one of these and in competetive play it would theoretically leave the player open for counter-attack after taking the city. A curious and difficult thing to work around, but chances are the fact that the enemies whole army + the player's whole army wouldn't be fighting- it'd just be a fraction of it. What sane person would leave their main city completely open in favor of a border town? :p

welshie
02-02-2010, 01:27 PM
Uhhhhhhhh you only get 1 city, you -can- have more (I think 4?) but on different...accounts.

Though you guys are forgetting it would be very costly and not a genius move for a competitive player.

yeh i just suggested it as when an expansion pack came people would be rich there for got the money to spend, and would just add to the competitveness i mean it would be all good if you got the chance to expand your borders after doing lots of things.

zach12wqasxz
02-02-2010, 04:58 PM
Why would you take a border castle if you can attack player main castle and plunder it ?=).
.

i would if my army wasnt strong enough to take the heart of the players lands,i would just harass him at his border and take his smaller outposts

Supreme
02-02-2010, 05:26 PM
To **** him off and make him attack you?

But anyway that wont be possible in this game so far, full frontal or nuthin at all!

Edit: Seriously, did you ban the word pi ss?

Darathor
02-02-2010, 05:31 PM
It could be done if it were only in a specific area. Such as a heavily contested island that was found to the west of the mainland of Mythador.

zach12wqasxz
02-03-2010, 02:28 PM
To **** him off and make him attack you?

But anyway that wont be possible in this game so far, full frontal or nuthin at all!

Edit: Seriously, did you ban the word pi ss?

well what if i had some allies sending me some troops to help harass him and lure his forces out and then we all anihalate him?

Swift sword
02-03-2010, 04:06 PM
I didn't think you could team up on a player, right? Otherwise guilds would dominate.

ash12181987
02-07-2010, 04:41 PM
First of all, to be devil's advocate to some of the responses:
In response to the mention of guilds dominating: Yeah, but... wont it happen reguardless? I mean... even if you can't necessarily "band together" you can ignore someone's space. If there are 3 players in a match, one is going to be unnecessarily ganged up on.

In response to a mechanic needed for Skirmishes: It will happen even without a mechanic designed to allow for skirmishes.

As for the OP: So your getting at, a No-mans land between castles basically, where anyone can build stuff. What about there are neutral structures that can be taken. It would work I suppose: I mean, this is what C&C did a long while back with their Red Alert series, netural structures that when taken allowed for bonuses and stuff. As for Balance, if the structures can be readily taken over, and say (In response to Kire) someone steals them all and leaves, well... they can be taken over by someone else. Put a flag on them and their yours. They could provide situational bonuses, enrich the surrounding terrain and perhaps add a bonus or two to long term things like resources or supplies.

Ex: Watchtower Outpost. One tower, with a small wall around it. You take it you get a view of the surrounding terrain, and you have a few archers that can sit up in it and pluck arrows at greater range.

Doesn't really throw balance off wildly but it could be useful from time to time. And, lets say you sprinkle them throughout, or even allow heros to put them up with help? That way they could be disposable structures that act more like special effects. As long as their advantages make sense of course. For instance: Don't make a single watchtower give you full view of half the world map, that would be silly, give a range greater than that of your city towers... so your guys can see beyond their firing range and have time to run if someone approaches.

Of course you can also put creeps to guard them. So, powerful stuff is guarded by a necromancer and 300 skeletons, a watchtower is guarded by 1 guy in a wheelchair and his sockpuppet. Also, if someone logs off, the structures go neutral again after x time, so as to take into account crashing and whatnot.

Negthareas
02-07-2010, 08:13 PM
I think that the idea of having smaller AI controlled cities was a good idea - All cities in borderlands are controlled by AIs of varying strengths - to being with. When a player conquers a city or town inside the borderlands, it becomes his - he can manipulate it just as if it was his own. However, heres the catch - it can be attacked while he is offline. It will be defended by hard AI at such times, which, from the skills demonstrated by Medium AI's in the last few Fantasy Fridays, should make it a challenge to take unless overwhelming force is brought against it.

That would solve the problem of one player controlling bordercities and then leaving the game, but it would also allow sginificant fighting in the borderlands.

I think what Ash said might be a valid possibility, but - unless there was a significant benifit to getting involved in borderland wars [like possession of a city, for example] I would not want to risk my troops there. They would get whittled down and divide my attention between them and my main armies/cities/battles. Though it might provide a nice pastime while waiting for your city to grow, though from what I've seen, there will be plenty of quests and the like to take up extra time.

Swift sword
02-07-2010, 09:54 PM
Personally, I think using an AI would ruin the idea of PvP which is basically what these sort of bordertowns are for. It's an easy solution, but I don't think it's the right one. What would probably be more in-line with the idea itself would be to change the town to neutral if the commanding player doesn't log back in within a certain amount of time (a couple weeks at most) It'd be easy to think up a reasoning too-Rebellion! Then the town would be controlled by a set AI and any player could go fight for control of the town and any bonuses it gave.

Which made me think of something- I was playing WotR in BFME today, and I thought that the bonuses players get for controlling territories would be great for this concept. For example:

Say a player controls a town in one of the neutral territories. That player could maybe hire a unique unit to supplement their armies with- not too powerful and the player could only control, say, 3 battalions, but it'd be a unique unit with unique abilities. Or, if that were to over-powered, the player could get a 5% boost to resource production at certain times of day. This way it'd provide unique PvP and a bonus to those who participate but people who don't could still play even with everyone else.

I'll even go to the trouble of providing an example of one of these towns:

Town name: Blanorn
Region: The Dirt Bowl
Difficulty: Hard
Summary: Blanorn is a medium-sized fortress ruled by a tyrant king. It's people live in poverty and fear but obey the king due to his power. He has gained complete dominance over two massive dragons that some say cannot be slain. The fort is set on a hill top by a small river with double walls manned by humans and dwarven mercenaries. It is very wealthy due to a nearby gold mine and thus it's forces are well-equipped and highly trained.
Begginning enemy forces: 250 human swordsmen, 100 Dwarven mercenaries, 150 human archers, 3 Drakes and 2 Dragons
Rewards: The player that hold Blanorn receives 500 gold every 2 days and if they manage to remain in control of it for a week, receives a dragon to aid their cause.

^ That's an example, in my opinion, of what this could end up being like. Keep in mind that the rewards could be easily changed- I was just providing an example. The idea has me excited, as you can tell ;) .
There could easily be, say, a dozen to a score of these in existence with varying difficulty and rewards. The idea has tons of potential to be placed in an expansion. To me, right now, it sounds as if traveling to areas like that would only be for quests. No fun, right? What'd you guys think of my example?

Negthareas
02-08-2010, 08:56 AM
I think it is a good idea. Those bonuses are significant enough to make conflict in borderlands a reality.

welshie
02-08-2010, 08:59 AM
its all good us saying its good we wants some reverie staff opinions !

blackfang
02-08-2010, 09:06 AM
would like to see that in game yeah:D

Josh Warner
02-08-2010, 12:08 PM
You'll need to actually play the game for the most part to see which of these are feasible and which aren't, some of them are cool, but many are also impractical. And it's somewhat late in the development cycle to add too much. Though adding certain things in later on after release might be possible.

Negthareas
02-09-2010, 07:44 PM
As in, can you give any concrete feedback, Josh, concerning which ones might be feasible? Otherwise, further speculation on this point is pretty insignificant.