Another question

[Ewing]

yea if the defender gets to decide weather u attack or not bye just going o im under attack hmmm bribe now get along and go back home. if thats true i might as well just make my orc horde a bunch of bankers or something or orcish gold farmers

[LoveToKill]

LoL @ the orcish Gold farmers comment xD

[Ewing]

o a admin thanks for clearing things up josh u da man!!!! my orcs we acually be able to sleep at night they didnt like the gold farmer idea

[Yami-Yagari]

Originally Posted by Josh Warner

Another thing I keep telling people, you're going to have more than enough resources to field several max battalion-cap armies as the game is right now, I doubt people are going to avoid fighting as if it's the plague. You only have to repair your buildings and start raising another army while bringing one of your spare armies back to your city, it's not the end of the world. You don't get set back all that much.

No offense, but this part kinda bugs me. I mean, it is in fact a good system, but if it is really that easy to rebuild after a lost siege, kind of takes the fun out of it for some people. I would like it that there would at least be some setback, like downgraded buildings or something, simply because if is really is that easy to rebuild from it, i think people wouldn't take defending seriously. And why should they, if losing doesn't have any negative effect whatsoever except for building dmg, some lost resources and retraining an army.

[LoveToKill]

Well lategame thats ez as 123 however if you burn a city to the ground thats like hitting the restart button ona city which is why i think players will avoid attacks early game

[Negthareas]

Originally Posted by Yami-Yagari

No offense, but this part kinda bugs me. I mean, it is in fact a good system, but if it is really that easy to rebuild after a lost siege, kind of takes the fun out of it for some people. I would like it that there would at least be some setback, like downgraded buildings or something, simply because if is really is that easy to rebuild from it, i think people wouldn't take defending seriously. And why should they, if losing doesn't have any negative effect whatsoever except for building dmg, some lost resources and retraining an army.

Well, if I remember right, buildings would be destroyed to their foundations, being able to be rebuilt, but it would still take some time [this is MMORTS mode, after all].

Then again, I might be remembering wrong. Maybe there is only slight reprecussions [I do agree with Yami on this though, it should be a significant setback, but not one you would lose sleep over. So not, THAT significant].

I know, I know... probably not very realistic.

[Yami-Yagari]

Well, yes at least some significant reprecussions. I mean, you just lost a siege of your home town, not a bet with your friend which results having to run around your house naked.

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by Negthareas

Well, if I remember right, buildings would be destroyed to their foundations, being able to be rebuilt, but it would still take some time [this is MMORTS mode, after all].

Then again, I might be remembering wrong. Maybe there is only slight reprecussions [I do agree with Yami on this though, it should be a significant setback, but not one you would lose sleep over. So not, THAT significant].

I know, I know... probably not very realistic.

Buildings are reduced to 0 and become inoperable until repaired, and repairing as is takes quite some time. It's still expensive to lose, but it's not game over either, I don't know what the rest of the team thinks of the standard MMORTS browser game gimmick of every building just having levels and them making it more effective/trains units faster. Personally I think it's a fairly good system, and the idea of losing the(some) level(s) when a building is reduced to 0 is interesting and something to look into.

Originally Posted by Yami-Yagari

No offense, but this part kinda bugs me. I mean, it is in fact a good system, but if it is really that easy to rebuild after a lost siege, kind of takes the fun out of it for some people. I would like it that there would at least be some setback, like downgraded buildings or something, simply because if is really is that easy to rebuild from it, i think people wouldn't take defending seriously. And why should they, if losing doesn't have any negative effect whatsoever except for building dmg, some lost resources and retraining an army.

Retraining an army will be fairly expensive and take some time, replacing veteran units will be especially difficult, the point is an advanced player should have SEVERAL capable armies, rather than putting all his effort into a single army and every fight risking putting him back into the stone age as far as veterancy is considered. Again - the idea here is loss is there, but it won't end the game either. You'll be able to continue fighting as long as you don't lose over and over and fail to retreat.

[Negthareas]

Originally Posted by Josh Warner

Buildings are reduced to 0(1?) and become inoperable until repaired, and repairing as is takes quite some time. It's still expensive to lose, but it's not game over either.

Thank you Josh for supporting my memory.

[LoveToKill]

Well were talkin about MMORTS which takes awhileand last for awhile id kinda assumed once you get rolled its get up and start the slow climb again like i said though my idea of mmorts is like alotaprogress monthsmaybe eveniveplayed games where you did the slow brutal climb and i usualy like thosetypes cause i feel like ive earned however something new neverhurts i suppose and nothings permenant now so we should just wait till beta