3 member co-op forward base

[Arachnid]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to convey my idea so that others can understand it, but this is something I'd love to see in an expansion pack or as part of a massive update.

As we already know, each player starts with a single castle. Also, we can form alliances, etc.

My idea was if it was possible to build a forward base. There would only be perhaps 500 to 2000 locations across multiple maps spanning mountains, forests, underground, volcanic, swamps, and deserts each with their inherent benefits. A forward base could house 1 army per player, up to 3 armies total from 3 separate players, and would also be able to be upgraded with nearly overkill defensive structures and walls. The map would be split up into thirds, whether being split at 120 degree angles from the center, or chunked into rows, it doesn't really matter...the players could vote on that prior to setting up camp, but they'd each be able to construct minature economies that would open up new research trees, units, and hero abilities that could only be used during inter-guild conflicts, and would allow one side to gain some advantages in the battle.

These specialized research points would trickle in slowly, and would be split between guild/alliance members based on their rank within the guild and/or activity level, etc., again a decision based on the guild/alliance.

These places should certainly be highly contested, so there must be more guilds than locations, as well as benefits for risking multiple armies in a colossal battle for a single plot of land.

The longer the plot of land has been held, the more research points, etc. would trickle in, and of course the economy in that region would also grow due to buildings being built, etc.

Research points can be won from winning a battle, and the land ownership will also be switched, with the buildings and research being destroyed. Also, many very high risk/reward quests (only two to four would show up per week, and you could only choose 1 or 2 of them depending on what reward you wanted to attempt to earn out of the two), should only be accessible while owning a plot.

Feel free to add ideas of your own or think of different, possibly better ways of making something like this work as well as be balanced. But I think this would make things more competitive, especially with people actually being able to see each forward base. However, nobody could attack unless all the players were online.

[pkdavid]

Co-op is a bad idea for this style game I think, because if you play always alone? not all players can play simultaneously, and I do not play for a guy who logs on once every three months.

[Arachnid]

I'm not sure if you read what I wrote, but this would be for guilds/alliances, not individual kingdoms. Also, the coop part is for mutual benefit & fun, but other alliances will be contesting for the same land, therefore it will take the effort of multiple players to defend it. In its most basic form, it is a 3v3 game, which we've all seen before in rts games. Saying that "this can't work for this style game" doesn't show you as trying to put forth any effort to try and figure out a way to make it work.

Also, as far as the guy not playing for 3 months, there could always be a vote system within the alliance for kicking someone off of their plot territory for specified reasons, especially for being inactive, so that the alliance can develop that land further for additional benefits.

Please take a little time to think before saying that a problem has no solution unless you truly know that to be the case.

[Th3 Mastodon]

I think that this can be a bad idea for this kind of game. but i could be cool if done correctly and in a separate mode

[Negthareas]

I can see many of the advantages to be gained from having something like this in the game, but also am aware of how it might be difficult to effectively implement.

The idea, however, is not a new one. It seems very similar to the concept of a Guild city, which has been much discussed in the past. Though it seemed as if there was a general consensus supporting the introduction of guild cities into the game, I do not believe there was any official thrashing out of the idea by the devs or how it would fit into the game [particulars]. After a lot of speculation, the idea faded a little, and now here it is again.

You can check out the thread on Guild cities for yourself.

http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=1270

I am all for such an idea.

[pkdavid]

Originally Posted by Arachnid

I'm not sure if you read what I wrote, but this would be for guilds/alliances, not individual kingdoms. Also, the coop part is for mutual benefit & fun, but other alliances will be contesting for the same land, therefore it will take the effort of multiple players to defend it. In its most basic form, it is a 3v3 game, which we've all seen before in rts games. Saying that "this can't work for this style game" doesn't show you as trying to put forth any effort to try and figure out a way to make it work.

Also, as far as the guy not playing for 3 months, there could always be a vote system within the alliance for kicking someone off of their plot territory for specified reasons, especially for being inactive, so that the alliance can develop that land further for additional benefits.

Please take a little time to think before saying that a problem has no solution unless you truly know that to be the case.

I only said that the co-op was a bad idea, and it is not for me to find solutions, I already have mine, sorry. I already told you the problem, if you want to build

something and the guy comes over because her daddy has to pay a new game or a new console shook oblige you to kick him, and you will be ****ed for nothing.

Otherwise the rest of your idea has good points ...

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by Negthareas

The idea, however, is not a new one. It seems very similar to the concept of a Guild city, which has been much discussed in the past.

You can check out the thread on Guild cities for yourself.

http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=1270

I am all for such an idea.

Ahh, ok. I guess I felt for some reason that my ideas were a bit different from guild cities, and I agree with pkdavid that something like this would have to be implemented very carefully because there is a lot that could go wrong. Done right though, it would be a ton of fun. I just like certain risks/rewards being more lasting than "I lost some units, etc. but I can rebuild". I'd like to feel that there's something really worth fighting for in the game besides just loot/unit experience, as well as something that makes alliances/guilds more integral to the game than something lackluster. Then again, I don't know how guilds/alliances will work just yet in the game, so I guess I'll have to just wait and see.

[Zary]

I dont know how this game's gonna have PvE. Even more, i think i understood this game can be played as a risk, i mean, a player, alone against computer! is this true? im not english so maybe i have understood badly! thx!

[Lukre]

thanks for the imformation

[snpiccolo]

pve would be really nice as well, or maybe multiple players can attack one npc