The Brain Farts - Brainstorm of ideas here

  • Thread starter Deleted User - 1278415
  • Start date

DeletedUser

Town destruction? There are a ton of towns around the west, whit 1,2 or 15 members, thats a bit sad, i just had a brainfart that towns would selfdestruct themselfs ower time, for example, they would lose 100 construction points a week off a random building, after all buildings are to 0 points a random building would drop a level off, and so on and on and in the end the town would go abandoned and dissapear, this would make people join up in one town not make his own town, less 1 people towns and more 50 people towns, would be more fun. On the other side, each town would need atleast 1 builder to keep it up and running. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo watcha think?
 

DeletedUser

Uum. This is planned on the Roadmap 2011. We don´t know if it will get implemented tough it may be it may not we´ll see.

Also I odn´t either like 1 man towns but some people like to live alone in a "1 man town".
 

DeletedUser

i just wanna see towns as a more exclusive feature then just "oh this sector is spammed with towns aswell"
this might help people to get new friends aswell
 

DeletedUser

Tubijs said:
i just wanna see towns as a more exclusive feature then just "oh this sector is spammed with towns aswell"
this might help people to get new friends aswell
Click to expand...
People can play how they want. If they want to build a town by themselves or just be in a town themselves, that's their prerogative.
 

DeletedUser

So if I bought an item on the market in a low points town, engine removes it when it becomes ghost town and I can kiss my item goodbye for good. Your idea is plain awsome. :)
 

DeletedUser

alliance stats......showing things like how long it has existed, how good it is at dueling/forts/crafting, how active its members are, etc.....it would be a better metric on the quality of an alliance and more detailed than the current system.
 

DeletedUser

Fort Battle Idea

Hi guys,
Not sure if this has been suggested before but here goes.
Do you think it would be a good idea if in fort battles you could call for reinforcements?

This would apply to both attackers and defenders alike.

My idea is this:
When the notification is sent that a battle will take place, the town that owns the fort and the initiator of the battle would be able to pre-select (I'll pick a number) say 5 players to be the reinforcements.
The reinforcement players will also be sent a notification which they can accept or refuse,
If they accept they can continue to work, but can not be dueled or duel others.

Once the battle has begun they are automatically moved to the forts but can take no part until called upon.

At the end of a battle round the highest ranked player can choose whether to bring them in or not. Reinforcements may only be called once and all the reinforcement players come in to the battle.

The idea behind this was I thought it would put an extra challenge and strategic spin on fort battles, defenders and attackers can choose to save some high skilled players till the critical moment or bring them in at the start.

Or, is this idea impossible to implement.
 

DeletedUser

Large alliances don't need help. Reinforcements help more the more alliance members you have to draw from. Five isn't a lot, but it would have a much bigger impact on small battles than large. It would also help defenders more than attackers because defenders' reinforcements will be more likely to be somewhere useful, and reinforcements will almost always be offliners.

If this were implemented in some form, absolutely no to "they are automatically moved to the forts".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

It seems a bit cheap, in terms of strategy, since it could turn the tables on a battle. Where would the reinforcements place themselves? They're coming late, they have to wade through all of the dead bodies and stuff, they can't just plant themselves in front of the flag at full health and stop a victory that would've otherwise gone to the other side.
 

DeletedUser

Not that I like the idea, but I think they'd still be limited to starting sectors.
 

DeletedUser

in my example, 'they' would be the defenders. even in the case of the attackers, there would be many opportunities for sabotage. a blocked sector here, having tanks flag rush after the way has been cleared by the vanguard there, and many upsets everywhere.
 

DeletedUser30834

This sort of happens in game already. It seems that there are always high skill and high HP players who either hide or aren't paying attention, offline in the beginning then online later or something in battle and at the end of the battle tend to be all that is left.

Just start doing this on purpose and having the front line players use a little more strategy with swaps instead of brute force. At the end of the battle, have the hiders take point.
 

DeletedUser

It can be sorted by implementing anticamping measures like in some other games.

For example if you don't move at all in three successive rounds, your health drops by 5%. If you don't move next three successive rounds your health drops for 10%. Etc.
This of course wouldn't work if a player is in a sector from where he can't move anywhere else (blocked).
 

DeletedUser

Elmyr said:
So players who can survive 3+ rounds on point are punished?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not - if they bail the point and let someone else to continue the survival instead of hiding behind others all the time like Gaga does on w12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top