PDA

View Full Version : Claiming Territory


NobleIre
02-11-2011, 02:16 PM
I have an idea to potentially give players more to work towards in the game.

It might be interesting to have a system wherein the strongest players in an area (large zones on the map) have the option to 'claim' that zone as theirs. Basically, say the top 3-5 players in a zone are presented with this option. (Top players could be judged by a combination of resources, army size, and successful battles).

Now, claiming ownership over a region would primarily only have the 'vanity' benefit. Basically, you're claiming to just be that awesome - but it is also inviting attack. Only one player can claim ownership at a time. So, it basically paints a big target on that player. Now, to make it worthwhile, it might also confer some sort of passive benefit. Perhaps that player receives an improve economic standing (reduced cost, etc.) with merchants or something along those lines.

Also, in order to encourage people to contest his/her position - successful attacks on the 'self-proclaimed' ruler might return greater than average rewards.

Also, in order to further enhance the 'vanity' aspect of it - there could be a persist board which lists the top 10 'self-proclaimed rulers': basically, the 10 who have held a region for the single longest period of time.

Now, in order to prevent abuse: you could claim ownership at any time when it is not being claimed by someone else - however, time when you are 'logged off' does not count. Also, in order to claim the right you have to actually have your stronghold within that zone. Lastly, after abandoning a claim - you cannot reclaim it for 1 week.


Thoughts?

master0p
02-11-2011, 02:37 PM
Sounds interesting.
I can recall there was a topic like this. But instead of a territory it was a regional castle.
I like the idea. But i think those accomplishment should be "guild" accomplishment.

I would go for the claiming territory by capturing the regional castle( perhaps that is what you mean? ) but it should be a guild accomplishment only so you really need 4 guys and you can reinforce the regional castle with any troops from people in the guild. Once in the regional castle it can't be pulled back only the guild leader or officer can give the order to send the troops back.

What you think about this?

NobleIre
02-11-2011, 03:55 PM
I could go for this being a 'guild' feature - however, it would require that an entire guild be within the location together. At that point (assuming it's a sizeable guild) who is going to oppose them?


Also, i'd be game for a capturable castle type arrangement. However, this would require you to keep a sizeable army in that castle for defense.. and prevent you from using your forces for other activities. You'd have to defend your stronghold and that castle.. between that, you probably wouldn't be able to attack or really do anything else. However, it would give people something solid to attack, etc.

master0p
02-11-2011, 04:30 PM
I could go for this being a 'guild' feature - however, it would require that an entire guild be within the location together. At that point (assuming it's a sizeable guild) who is going to oppose them?


Also, i'd be game for a capturable castle type arrangement. However, this would require you to keep a sizeable army in that castle for defense.. and prevent you from using your forces for other activities. You'd have to defend your stronghold and that castle.. between that, you probably wouldn't be able to attack or really do anything else. However, it would give people something solid to attack, etc.

There are always other guilds that are up for a challenge!


Btw i read that if you do some tech research you can have up to around 7 armies walking.
To defend that stronghold you can split the defense between the members in your guild.
For example you have 10 members and each member give 2 battalions.
Thats quite alot 20 battalions. Btw for the people its just an example i am not sure if 20 battalions fits in a castle.

Merku
02-11-2011, 07:18 PM
This isn't a bad idea; however, as discussed in some other recent posts - the liklihood for such a thing to be around is low due to the technical limitations of how players will interact on the game world map. Also, should it be true (which it seems like it is) that players cannot be attacked while they are logged off, a regional owner is likely to simply log off to consolidate the regions that he conquers. You know, assuming someone is to abuse it.

Not a bad idea though, regardless. :P

NobleIre
02-11-2011, 09:54 PM
Looking at the issue of potential technical problems. Keeping this on a 'player vs player' instead of 'guild vs guild' level would also help to alleviate some of those. ;)

master0p
02-12-2011, 06:25 AM
I would really vote for that regional cities could be taken over but you just need 3-5 people + you need to be in a guild.

And merku the logout-can't-be-attack shouldn't be applied on the regional castle.

Mokhir
02-12-2011, 09:15 PM
Love this idea, so i can show off my strength and get benefits.
But i have a suggestion. How about the regional castle owner also provide benefits to all of those in the region, almost like a head of county. And in return if the region own is liked, the regionals will provide the castle with troops at the garrison to defend it.
Also as a possible counter to the offline this, what if it can be taken over at all times but has a larger percentage of garrison possible?


p.s this sounds as if it came from stronghold kingdoms, but the idea was given to me from a friend.

NobleIre
02-13-2011, 11:07 AM
My problem with that is.. it kinda diminishes the pvp aspect of it. The original intent was to give a powerful player a symbol of status - while simultaneously giving other players in the region a target to focus on.

Neutral884nz
02-13-2011, 10:58 PM
I think having a few neutral towns that players can fight over and gain control of would be a good idea. perhaps giving a small boost to resource gathering depending on the town.

NobleIre
02-14-2011, 11:03 AM
That is, actually, a really good idea too.

Mokhir
02-14-2011, 07:22 PM
With my idea, you would win the love of the low levels of your parish, but will still be a target for those equal to you because we are all human. And humans are greedy. Why else do we still have wars over resources several thousand years into man's civilization. (Now nobody start a flamewar/discussion about their ideals about human wars)

Neutral884nz
02-14-2011, 07:51 PM
I wish we could capture other peoples towns, you are able to do it in SH kingdoms. You have to be a certain level to actually do it but even if you attack new players it costs massive amounts of gold and you lose renown so no one really attacks anyone other than those of equal rank and it is a fair fight.

It is quite well done.

NobleIre
02-15-2011, 10:01 AM
I still like the idea of powerful players being able to vie for a 'title' - with a ranking system to determine who has held the title for the longest time.

I do, however, like how Neutral's idea would give people of all levels some (smaller) things to fight over.

swedishviking
02-15-2011, 11:38 AM
so it is basically a hegemonic system

NobleIre
02-15-2011, 01:19 PM
I suppose.. though I don't really see how that fits. It fits in that it is a system wherein the 'powerful' would be able to obtain temporary 'status' reflecting their power (as long as they could hold it against others), however, it isn't a system of control. The person with 'status' might have some small benefits to production or unit strength/morale, but nothing more. It would basically just be a luxury/frivolous attribute for people to fight over.

As for the other concept brought up by Neutral: that's more an idea of map-based buffs for people to fight over (in essence). Small villages and what-not could be fought over for people to capture in order to gain specific resource benefits.

Mokhir
02-15-2011, 01:55 PM
Support Neutral, the SH kingdoms system for capturing cities is done very well.

swedishviking
02-15-2011, 08:45 PM
I suppose.. though I don't really see how that fits. It fits in that it is a system wherein the 'powerful' would be able to obtain temporary 'status' reflecting their power (as long as they could hold it against others), however, it isn't a system of control. The person with 'status' might have some small benefits to production or unit strength/morale, but nothing more. It would basically just be a luxury/frivolous attribute for people to fight over.

As for the other concept brought up by Neutral: that's more an idea of map-based buffs for people to fight over (in essence). Small villages and what-not could be fought over for people to capture in order to gain specific resource benefits.

The benefit would have to outweigh frivolous...Something that reflects power and provides a useless bonus would useless in itself. If the system were to be more beneficial to the most powerful over everyone else in the region then you may see hegemonic alliances....those that ally with powerful and those that ally against the powerful. In essence, the hegemonic system is encouraged and and created with this system you propose contingent on whether the bonus is worth it or not

NobleIre
02-16-2011, 07:29 AM
The benefit would have to outweigh frivolous...Something that reflects power and provides a useless bonus would useless in itself. If the system were to be more beneficial to the most powerful over everyone else in the region then you may see hegemonic alliances....those that ally with powerful and those that ally against the powerful. In essence, the hegemonic system is encouraged and and created with this system you propose contingent on whether the bonus is worth it or not

It depends on the benefit. There are some people for whom a 'status' symbol is worth a good deal. Specially when they have grown really strong and may not have much else to fight for/over. Additionally, any benefit given because of the status would be not so much to put that player over the others - but to help compensate for being a target. To allow them to regenerate their forces more quickly between attacks, etc. In essence, it would 1. give them a status symbol, 2. potentially put them on a 'leaderboard', 3. provide them with tons of action and 4. provide them with an increased means to keep up with that more frequent combat.

MurdaMunkey
02-16-2011, 05:24 PM
It sounds like a good idea.

Kaiserjoe
02-16-2011, 06:39 PM
My problem with that is.. it kinda diminishes the pvp aspect of it. The original intent was to give a powerful player a symbol of status - while simultaneously giving other players in the region a target to focus on. That's what I was thinkin, it's just a way to kinda push players to work together and stop the most powerful person in the region. In a sort of way to balance things out or provide added difficulty for someone who's gained that much power.

NobleIre
02-17-2011, 07:49 AM
That's what I was thinkin, it's just a way to kinda push players to work together and stop the most powerful person in the region. In a sort of way to balance things out or provide added difficulty for someone who's gained that much power.

Exactly. Also, it would give the powerful person something to do so they hopefully wouldn't get bored in their 'position of power'. "Well I can build up a huge army.. claim the title/take over this spot.. and laugh as people try to stop me!"

Inevitably: "oh that army is gone.. guess I have to rebuild it now."