Outposts Outlined

[madnak]

I think the defenders should have a major advantage over the attackers. I agree there be a cost to attack and think that "elite troops" should cost more for the attackers. Still, this makes it a matter of only dappers. A high-level attacking group will be able to take a low-level outpost effortlessly.

Many players have a goal of peaceful outpost-building. I really think that should be a viable option, but under this system it sounds as though having an outpost will entail a constant tug-of-war. It also seems like the uber-guilds are going to get LOTS of outposts.

By the way, a number of my biggest questions about outposts weren't answered here. How much does upkeep for an outpost cost? What are the actual benefits of an outpost? How do the benefits/upkeep scale? Most importantly, what option will we have to build on an outpost that we own?

[mrshad]

Well this seems good hopefully the release of outpost aren't going to turn out like the Encyclopedia release.

Ohhh....

That just about killed what was left of my optimism.

[andy707]

This looks like it could be fun. Seems to be an improvement over the "towers" in Anarchy Online where, more often than not, the defenders didn't have a chance to gather and organize against an attack. Often the defenders would not even bother to try to defend and just hoped there were enough of the static towers in their turf, that the attackers couldn't destroy them in the alloted time.

I'm wondering, though, how Outpost battles will work out in practice. Assume that the attackers and defenders are of equal strenght, that is, in a (non-outpost) GvG fight it's a toss up who will win.

Now during the attack phase, the attackers have to fight PC-only against the defenders who are PC+NPC squads. Would the attackers be able win any levels at all? (Assuming they are othewise equal GvG).

On the othere hand, if the attackers get a few levels, does the defense even have a chance? After all, the attackers were able to win PC vs. PC + a few squads worth of NPC's. When the roles are reversed, the defenders, it seems to me, would not have a chance, the battle is already over.

Only if the guilds, otherwise equal in GvG, are unbalance with respect to when their players play (one strong in US the other Euro, say) would the defense phase be meaningful. Which I think is great, but to avoid humiliation, a guild should be able to surrender when it's clear they don't have a chance.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something though and in the case of the guilds being equal during the phases, you'll still be able to wipe out the squads up to a few levels or so. If that's the way it will work (for some reason I can't see, perhaps because the NPC's are not very strong), then, I think, there will be much more tension and excitement in the outpost battles.

Monco
Eleytheria

[grimjim]

Couldn't you find a friendly guild to declare war on your outpost and then not show up?

Then you could annihilate the attacking force of NPCs and ramp up your defence value to a stupid level for several days making you harder to attack for other groups.

Also, couldn't alliances of guilds constantly declare war on each other's outposts to prevent anyone else from declaring war and trying to take them?

Sorry, just seeing potential exploits.

[kwhopper]

System sounds decent. Could be fun if tested correctly. Few ideas that could make it a tad more interesting/fair (some realistic, some just wishful thinking) -

- Defensive structures (tower, walls, gates)
- Offensive siege units
- Unique "Hero" units. Can only be summoned in one defensive wave. Costs a buttload. (2h Weapon Dual Wielder, Mounted Fighter, etc...)
- Safe period. Few days after a successful defense where an outpost cannot be subject to another challenge (3 days).
- If an outpost capture is failed, guild may not attack ANY outpost for 2 days. Also, cannot attack same outpost for a week.
- Cost to mount attack
- Thresh level degrades slower

I do like the fact that it doesn't always have to end up being a direct PvP encounter, leading to potential exploits. Sounds decent, hope it gets a lot of testing.

[xenofur]

Couldn't you find a friendly guild to declare war on your outpost and then not show up?

Then you could annihilate the attacking force of NPCs and ramp up your defence value to a stupid level for several days making you harder to attack for other groups.

from what i have read so far there will also be a certain amount of dappers to be paid for being allowed to declare war, aside from the constant upkeep. also, the level the attacker reached to take over the outpost will be the minimum threshold, not the level the defender managed to reach, so there will have to be a certain amount of effort to be put in by the attackers. this effort will have to be at least as big as the effort of any guild the would-be-exploiters are trying to prevent take-overs from. add to that the danger of accidentally losing your outpost by not reaching the necessary def-level while trying this maneuver and the added costs you will have to put in to have squads ready for real take-over attempts and you have an exploit that is almost useless. =)

Also, couldn't alliances of guilds constantly declare war on each other's outposts to prevent anyone else from declaring war and trying to take them?

true, there should be a time limit from one take-over attempt to the next from the same guild, although this will still leave gaps open.

Sorry, just seeing potential exploits.

why apologize? that's exactly what they're asking for, in order to prevent a desaster similar to aen.

[pr0ger]

/agree with kwhopper suggestions

edit : xenofur post addendum

also, the level the attacker reached to take over the outpost will be the minimum threshold, not the level the defender managed to reach, so there will have to be a certain amount of effort to be put in by the attackers. this effort will have to be at least as big as the effort of any guild the would-be-exploiters are trying to prevent take-overs from

Not in case of friendly take over : defenders let attackers reach insane level and let them control an insane-min-level outpost, and vice versa

/edit end

Couldn't you find a friendly guild to declare war on your outpost and then not show up?

Then you could annihilate the attacking force of NPCs and ramp up your defence value to a stupid level for several days making you harder to attack for other groups.

Also, couldn't alliances of guilds constantly declare war on each other's outposts to prevent anyone else from declaring war and trying to take them?

Sorry, just seeing potential exploits.

Well
- add cost per war declaration as thebax said
- set up that outpost reward is enabled only after x days of peace time
- set up war declaration tax to raise up if war is declared always between same guilds too often...
- and for others, let GM monitor guild activity...

Oh, about "friendly outpost war" : one guild wanna give its outpost to another... defenders PC will not help npc squad, even more they could join attackers (members join temporarily the attackers guild) to help raise the threshold ... exploiiiiit ! allow an "abandon outpost" instead


I just think of something :
.there is squad (spawn) level
.there is also outpost overall level (who depends of how many investments is made in by guildies... it allow better rewards) - big guilds would not have any interests into them, beside bothering small guilds -
.the outpost overall level limits the maximum squad (spawn) level attackers could reach (so it avoid insane min threshold on weak outpost) - that have to be fine tuned. if strong guild deliberately let their outpost be weak, they could always win the counterattack battle... solution : when counterattack battle reach the max squad (spawn) threshold of current outpost's level, the outpost's level increase at end of war!... what ? "free" outpost level improvement w/o dappers expense ? not really since daily outpost upkeep increase with outpost's level -

so there is : delay between fight, cost of war declaration, tax growth rate of war declaration between same guild, max squad (spawn) level, decrease rate of min threshold, outpost level, outpost level's improvement cost, upkeep of outpost's level, outpost reward interesting enough to justify improving outpost level (ouch so many factors here), global upkeep malus when a guild control many outposts (and avoid "all ur outpost are belong to us").... ....

omg devs must have an hard time to fine-tune gameplay

On the othere hand, if the attackers get a few levels, does the defense even have a chance? After all, the attackers were able to win PC vs. PC + a few squads worth of NPC's. When the roles are reversed, the defenders, it seems to me, would not have a chance, the battle is already over.

True, very true and very concerning. There must be a "malus on npc+pc team" and "bonus on pc team only" somewhere. And it's prolly a kinky one to equilibrate sides... ?!!?

[toneh]

Remind me again? Why would anyone bother with one in the first place?

Will they have things like:

Unique forage spots
Training grounds
Produce a steady income over time
etc

[xenofur]

my guess based on several statements by nevrax: they'll make it possible to produce consumables

[jinnear]

8. Conflict area The conflict area is unlimited, the two guilds are in PvP mode everywhere during both attack and defence periods.

((Now, wouldnt this mean that an attacking force could simply use some sort of kamikaze-strategy?
Example: Attackers stand and wait or just run and hide somewhere far from the outpost while one elected homin of their team goes to nearest group of mean aggro-mobs, uses invul and drags them to the camp. If this dont kill the defence Im sure its a pretty good way of weakening them... or even so, if the attacking force would close in while the aggros are in the outpost, but stand far enough away not to get the aggro and then start nuking the defence...
I hope they make this forbidden.))