Viability of Defense

What I mean is: A team life pool that is substantially large, like 99 lives large or something, and if that entire pool was depleted then no-one would be able to spawn anymore.

 

A pool of people sounds like a bad idea, if someone isn't that good at the game people will accuse them of feeding but they will argue bad play as a rebuttal but could very well be trolling as well. It sounds like a moderating nightmare.​

Edit: gameplay wise I'm not sure if its bad or good idea, just from a guard perspective I wouldn't look forward too it.

 

True, I think that would be a problem, but can't you already argue bad play for jumping into enemies? Maybe allow each person to accumulate their own stock of lives as well so even if the life pool was depleted they'd have some left, however once they also lose their own stock they have no lives left and cannot respawn.

 

I think limited lives is a good idea but the issue with that is that games could go in the totally opposite directions and get super campy. It wouldn't change the fact that knights are what gets shit done nor would change the fact that knight is a hazardous job.

Could lead to people sitting back and waiting for the enemy to come to them where they have a huge cover advantage, with no one moving out to cap the flag.

 

Hmm.. maybe make it rewarding to attack and do well. Attacking produces resources after all, and maybe with enough resources you can buy an extra life. Extra resources means more upgrades and siege weapons which means better attack which means even more resources. The promise of a continuous flow of resources might be enough to stop super campiness, especially if the life pool isn't small anyway.

This would mean good offense is viable, but good defense is still viable, as if you're good at defending and killing off the enemy within a fortified position, then you're going to deplete their lives faster than they can get any more. If you're good at attacking and killing people this way, the flow of currency into your bank might allow you to stave off the ever reducing life count enough to win the game.

 

Hell yes Fellere. I don't feel like rewording my thoughts so I'm just gonna quote myself.

 

There will definitely be some of this, but I don't think it would be a huge problem because there will be strong ways to counter it.

If your whole enemy team is sitting in their base and spamming arrows as archer, they probably won't be losing any lives, but they are about to lose a base. While it's hazardous to push with archers spamming down on you, once you do there's no one stopping you from building. As long as you're doing a good enough job keeping those archers in their base, that stone wall and catapult your builder just made is going to wipe them out.

(sorry for double)

 

I think we should just test all of these ideas. Too many theories not enough testing to provide proof of what will happen lol. But anyways yes camping would be an issue but if lives kept on resetting after a certain amount of time you would have a somewhat guaranteed wave after every so often instead of campers on both sides. If you had limited lives then everyone would get campy maybe... But if you had limited lives for intervals and after each interval lives replenished, then you will have a cycle of camping, attacking, and who knows what. I don't think anyone would enjoy everyone having a set number of lives forever. Because after you die... Then what? People would just quit the server after they lose all of their lives.

 

I think wave spawns are a great idea, definitely a good compromise. That point about people leaving is good too.

 

You wouldn't lose all your lives only to find the game continuing for ages on afterwards, as everyone else then has their own lives left. I think if a timer was included that started counting down once the teams life pool was sapped, then it would be a timer to the next game essentially, it could even end more quickly than that.

But yeah, i'm just throwing out ideas for the hell of it at this point. Nothing is more important that actual testing. I think Geti and MM should just test what they had in mind originally, we'll probably find that the problem will be solved without our input, but at least it's still there in case they need inspiration.

 

I think the team life pool is quite an interesting idea. What about this: each team has a 100 lives bar that regenerates slowly. Rushing repeatedly would deplete the pool too quickly, so switching to a defensive strategy would be necessary for it to recover. It could have the following effect: the lower it is, the longer it would take to spawn. So that with a full pool it would take 5 seconds, and with a depleted one 20.
This could mean a constant change between offense and defense, as a team whose attack fails would need to recover in safety.

 

Or how about this, if you die as a knight 3 times in a row, you can't play that class for the next 3 lives (you can only be an archer or builder)? Maybe that's better than having to wait a penalty time of 10 minutes or any prolonged duration.

 

Oh my god. This means we can have multiple teams! Yes! Put in yellow and green team or something and have 8 v 8 v 8 v 8 (32 player server)

 

...

You can't win by defending, but i agree sometimes the matches are a bit too long, and one team wins when it's really much stronger than the opposite.
We need a new game mode (WAR mode!). Or what about moving the default flag position from the spawn point to a dedicated building closer to the enemy? It would be easier to get the flag then!

 

Yes it would be unfair if a team could pick up his own flag.. But the flag pedestal could be cool!

 

I have an idea for curbing knight suicide bombing, and generally less cautious maneuvers.

We're getting animals in the future, yes?

Why not turn those animals into food? Food would be a sort of "spawn currency". Say, a Knight costs 5 food to spawn, An archer 3, and a builder 2.

This, coupled with all the spiffy workshop things we're getting, should put a stopper on the giant bottle of lolbombs we have now.