URAS 7 Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 The ability to "disappear" off the map for one other player/enemy by surrendering and never proposing a truce is a somewhat frustrating mechanic. It seems at times counter to the very idea of an augmented-reality-domination-war-strategy game. Domination and strategy mean nothing when an enemy can remain a threat to your allies by making himself invisible to you, at no cost, with no time limit. As an alternative to this mechanic, I would like to propose a time-limited, resource-intensive, binary option for a player to be in-game (and able to attack or be attacked) or out-of-game. For simplicity, let's call being out-of-game "Going Underground," to describe when a player is unable to attack or be attacked, but still able to grow flags/bases. Going underground should have a cost: limiting resource production throughout and costing resources upfront, else it provides too much of an advantage. The cost and resource penalty should also scale with base level, to provide some measure of protection to new players and to prevent exploitation by established players. When "underground," a player can gather his forces and resources unseen but cannot interract with any other players. He should still be able to see all players "above ground." Meanwhile, "above ground" players cannot see the underground players' forces until some number of days before he returns to the battlefield. Longer periods underground should result in longer periods of visibility prior to being able to interact with the active "above ground" players. The price of going underground should be significant unless following a defeat and surrender, with price dependent on resources and troops lost (i.e. more losses = cheaper transition to underground). This change would: -disincentivize resource-free surrendering for strategic advantage. -prevent players from permanently removing themselves from the battlefield for only select players/enemies. -still protect new, developing players from established "bully" bases by providing a safe-haven in which to grow. -allow teams of small players to effectively counter established "bully" players by preventing strategic surrendering. Ultimately, this change would likely keep all players more engaged and satisfied. Currently, the game has a tendency to unravel after a war, becoming far less interesting when an enemy disappears by surrending at no cost to his strategic or financial position. And the game then becomes frustrating when your invisible enemy destroys your allies as you are forced to watch, unable to assist. Then the game loses all integrity when the enemy offers you a truce and you are actually tempted to accept, just to see him again, just for the chance of revenge. But of course when you attack, if he is in any way disadvantaged, he need only surrender, and repeat. I feel like this may be the game's greatest hurdle and limitation at the moment, and I look forward to Mr. D's solution. Hopefully this discussion can help guide the change. What do you think? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.