Outposts (defensive and trade)

[dominus()]

Originally Posted by Negthareas

Perhaps the Devs could consider implimenting the ability to build camps on a trade route, forcing other players to pay to pass or fight. [similar to how players can bribe off potential attackers].

i would think that could be do able in a update and trading routes could become attackable or blockable as they grew so that a hostile army can try to starve a enemy out of resources so they attack them

[DarkMaster]

Perhaps the Devs could consider implimenting the ability to build camps on a trade route, forcing other players to pay to pass or fight. [similar to how players can bribe off potential attackers]

This I like

[Yami-Yagari]

Originally Posted by Negthareas

Players can build camps for their armies, etc.. These can have varying levels of fortification.

Perhaps the Devs could consider implimenting the ability to build camps on a trade route, forcing other players to pay to pass or fight. [similar to how players can bribe off potential attackers]

However, the idea of a guild outpost sounds more similar to the idea of a guild city, which, although that idea has been discussed very thoroughly, I am not sure if a definitive conclusion was reached on the issue.

Like the sound of that. Gives us another source of income (2 if they're foolish enough not to pay ).

And guild outposts have a good ring to it. Would considerably help when in enemy territory as a base of operations, where you can train new armies and stuff.

[Josh Warner]

You guys seem to misunderstand how the world map works, you will not be able to control pieces of it or anything like that as is. I mean I suppose it's possible to add roads or something and you can only travel on them, or it's much slower off them and put special areas on those roads that you can capture and such. However, you will not be able to just take whatever parts of the map you want or anything like that, there's going to be too many people to allow players to freely "build" on the worldmap, it'd get all cluttered as hell.

As far as capturable areas and bases etc. can't really comment on our plans for that sort of thing, I just wanted to clear up the misconceptions about the worldmap itself, people seem to think of it as just a secondary RTS map, it might look as good as one but that's not what it is.

[LoveToKill]

i guess it would be allright to have guild tradepost or somethinglike that but no With your current map size theres noway it would support it

[Yami-Yagari]

Originally Posted by LoveToKill

i guess it would be allright to have guild tradepost or somethinglike that but no With your current map size theres noway it would support it

Then perhaps the map has to be bigger.

[LoveToKill]

well if they want it to work mmorts that is it will haveto be i can think of a few major problems with theres allready but i think we can all agree i suck at typeing and i figure my concerns will be brought up in beta However im dreading how long it will prolong game realese

[Josh Warner]

Why couldn't guild cities/outposts whatever work in the same way as player cities - note this isn't how things will work, merely an idea I'm throwing around -they're "on" the map, but they don't physically show up, still have to matchmaking to fight them. Or possibly guild V guild would not be limited to matchmaking but be able to pick their targets amongst each other. Or there could be a limited number of guild cities that do show up on the map, and they can be captured so they trade hands often but they'd be on the map and you'd 'control' a certain area. Tariffs for players that try and go past, who knows, there's so many things we can do everything is very flexible here, the engine is great to work with.


As for actual guild content and stuff like that, again, I can't comment on plans, but I hope to give you some insight on how easy it is to create a simple yet competitive and entertaining system for it. I could probably come up with the basics for an entire system in a day, give me a few weeks and it'd be well balanced too. And I'm not even a design lead or anything, just a scripter. Kon and the other guys in charge of things like this are even better than I at this stuff.

[LoveToKill]

Well Josh honestly if it where to be implimented as you say i think freesky but i think it needs to be on the map for everyone to see if implimented im not the hugest fan of sucha small map BUT if you all decide to keep it that wayy its aneasy way to keep tabs on the dominateing guild in the region id think. id go into it more depth but im nota writer lol

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by LoveToKill

Well Josh honestly if it where to be implimented as you say i think freesky but i think it needs to be on the map for everyone to see if implimented im not the hugest fan of sucha small map BUT if you all decide to keep it that wayy its aneasy way to keep tabs on the dominateing guild in the region id think. id go into it more depth but im nota writer lol

It's not small by any means, it's actually quite massive for our purposes. Why would we want to show all of this on a map when a search tool and match making can do all of this without requiring hundreds(thousands?) of pointlessly rendered cities, and a larger map. Also, you can't really tell the scale of the map until we release a map with a legend that tells you x length = y distance. The cities/terrain is really just there to make it look alive more than to be an exact replica of the world as we see it in our heads.

It provides a simpler, more steamlined gameplay and still let us do everything we could with an absurdly large map and every single city showing up to every single player outside of aesthetics.