[Arispotle & Cho] Random outpost idea.

[borg9]

To declare against an outpost, first you must do missions to build up 'attacking credit'.

This credit is scalar (higher level OP = more credit required).

Guilds owning an outpost can build 'defence credit' to pay for guards, etc. This can be earned (slowly) over time for holding the outpost and boosted by doing missions for an OP NPC.

Credit is spent like dappers, once used its gone.

This will address a number of issues:

1. Removes dappers from the equation.
2. Gives non PvP content, to the current PvP only system, without taking anything away from it.
3. Guilds not working to keep there outpost, will lose them more easily than one who work at keeping them.
4. False declarations will be much harder.
5. People will plan more, as the cost to attack will be much greater than sell a few ql250 mats to the NPC.
6. If the credits are stored in the 'guild' it will move the outpost more towards GvG, without pushing the idea of a few big guilds.
7. The 'theory' already exists in game code with the Fame System+Current Outpost game mechanics.

//Discuss the idea above, not the merits of PvP or How any other aspect of Atys 'Should be'!

[vladww]

Excellent ideas, these would make OP PvP more dynamic, add some nice PvE,
and at last give a small chance to the majority of players to participate.

i would add:

8 - Defense malus increasing weekly for the owner guild.

* This is to avoid having big guilds sitting too comfy on the same OP for months+
* Increase the challenge for the defender, decrease the attacker's overtime.
* More opportunities for op fights

[iphdrunk]

Give a time window for both guilds to build up credit, and after that time window, if defense credit > attack credit then there is no point in battling. If attack credit > defense credit then reduce defenders NPCs skills and if att cred == def cred things are as is.

Would it be possible to defend an outpost by digging and crafting a lot? that could be nice....


Yet another suggestion regarding OPs to forward...

[sprite]

Sounds like a plan to me; would it be an "addition/modification" to the current system (ie you still haveto/can show up and PvP for it but the points are used to buy NPCs) or is it a completely non-PvP version (ie the NPCs fight and neither side can interfere)?

Personally I'd like to see this added as an "addition" to some new OPs that get opened up - keep all/nearlyall of the current ones as they are but either add a few, or change a small number, to include these extra NPCcombat options, allowing the guilds to still fight PvP but have a bunch of NPCs as well.

[philu]

Best Idea I've heard relating to OPs in a long time. It would certainly give the non-PvP community something OP related to do.

Would the idea be that you have to build up attack credit to a point where you are allowed to attack? Or use that credit for NPCs like Spriteh said? Or both? Would both sides be allowed NPCs or are the attack credits instead of the fee paid to declare?

I think the NPCs bought with any credit should be in addition to PvP, not instead of it.

A system like this would certainly mean that any guild intending to hang onto their OP in the future would have to do work to strengthen it and keep it.

[mugendo]

Am I blind, or is there no bad side to this suggestion ?.
I like this idea.

[borg9]

Personally I feel it should a an addition.

The Outpost fights can stay very much as is.

Its aimed at controlling declarations and Outpost defence guards.

It will no longer just be a cost in meaningless dapper, work will be required (in the form of missions to gain guild credits) to both take and keep an Outpost.


If a cap was placed on the maximum credit a guild could have at anyone time. It would mean guilds would have to choose between attacking another outpost, therefore weakening the defence of all the outposts they own, or holding one outpost and having a very hard to beat defence.

[sprite]

Personally I feel it should a an addition.

Well then so far I think its a good idea. Still need some clarification on whether or not this would have the attackers "buying" attacking NPCs; if this wasn't the case then I can't see how people wouldn't say it would be PvPonly attacking an even beefier defence. Granted the cost is increased, but in the current Arispotle situation that would only concrete the current distribution I think?

Also, I'm concerned that if it changed any existing OPs then someone would be an unhappy bunny - maybe open up one or 2 extra OPs per racial land with the "improved" system? Possibly even make some kind of event-type thingy where one of each of the 250s or 200s ( *See note* ) was affected by something whereby the community could use nonPvP methods to try to make the OP this new way, or could use (non?)PvP methods to keep it the way it is. That might be stretching things a little tho


( * Note : personally I think there should be at least some pvp-only OPs, and the 250 zones already have all their ops being used, so makes sense that they would be a part of it * )

[philu]

Am I blind, or is there no bad side to this suggestion ?.

None that I can see, it's an awesome idea IMHO.

I like the idea of a cap, doesn't stop guilds owning more than one OP but makes it harder to KEEP them.

[sprite]

I like the idea of a cap, doesn't stop guilds owning more than one OP but makes it harder to KEEP them.

Agreed. Imo its 1000 times better than "1 OP per guild" or limiting participants *Waits for more people to get home from work and comment*