[Conquest] Insurgency

7 posts

Flag Post

Yet another suggestion for conquest which probably won’t work out… please bear with me and comment, though.

As we’ve seen, conquest stagnates for several reasons:
1. Static borders. It’s very difficult to attack anything beyond the heavily fortified front lines because you can only attack one damn tile at a time.
2. Alliances. These make it very hard for new entrants and makes conquest stagnant.
3. Passive rewards. This benefits anyone that can hold tiles as opposed to anyone that can actually take tiles. Although this isn’t a bad thing, it does make conquest less dynamic.

To get around these issues, I suggest Insurgency.

In Insurgency, a faction on its last tile can attack any tile within 2 tiles of its last stand, ignoring anything in between. Attacking like this would cost more stamina per fight than normal (or need longer cooldown between attacks), balancing up the possibility of hitting potentially unprotected tiles by making any residual defences on those tiles more effective.

With any hope, this means that factions can “hop” through fortified/allianc’d front lines and avoid extermination. The fact that you need serious people for conquest and can only get ~1CR a day if you’re just going to dick around like this should prevent abuse. I’d also hope that it encourages fatter factions to split up their defence a bit and makes them more strategic about it.

And yeah, some kind of reward for actually taking a tile or winning battles would be good. New components could be good there, especially if droprate scales with your CR – if you’re gonna make it hard to keep tiles, you better damn reward people for keeping them!

Thanks for reading the textblob and have fun poking out anything that doesn’t work!

edit: You can currently attack the next tile before yours is taken, although that’s a tactic better suited to intensive factions that have enough people active to hit back. Not all factions are that dedicated, so this could be beneficial for anything under level 10 factions or so.

the effect on alliances might also work weirdly.

Flag Post

I think it would make things interesting, but it also makes ganking much easier.

Flag Post

Funny that you call alliances a reason of conquest being stagnant, since the only factions that have been fighting in conquest from the first day in the first map untill today are factions in an alliance while other factions just sat/sit on their tiles doing nothing for ages ;)

I do agree with 3 being the main issue of the map becoming more stagnat. I don’t see how the devs have missed it last time. It’s not that hard to reward fighting, but the devs just rather choose to reward sitting on tiles. Just half all rewards of sitting, and add 1 token for each faction members for each succesfull invasion and you’re there.

Flag Post

True ^ But SOME factions have tried attacking to increase their tile count/Cr rating only to be attacked 3 on 1 or 4 on 1 (mainly alliance factions) as to “force them into peace”. And launching another attack will result in further “ganking” and loss of tiles and all its other repercussions.
I personally believe if it was for factions like WB that the map will have been stagnated a long time ago.

Back to the OP; I don’t particularly see anything against it. A slight annoyance for higher factions to further spread out their def decks but it is a very nice lil thing for lower factions so if it was implemented, it would be overall “good” but I can’t predict it having much of an effect. Though I hope it would to get more factions on the board.

In regards to 3, more active rewards would be great, for example taking a tile earns rewards more than sitting on them but surely that would increase the amount of tile swapping/arranged conquests that exists? If active rewards could be implemented without forseeable exploitation it would make CQ a lot more interesting. Personally, I like the idea of a “Conquest infamy”

Flag Post

You could just create tiles that can only be held for 24 Hours around the edges.

Flag Post

Conquest infamy seems like it’d be a good solution to ganking. Not being able to attack anyone for 24 hours gives the defending faction some wriggle space.

Flag Post

I was thinking more like, if you attack a faction that’s either not attacking anyone or in a CQ themselves = okay. But if you attack someone who is already under attack (ganking) then you will gain an infamy point and not be allowed to attack anyone with less infamy than you for 24hours.

Of course if like 5+ factions were allied together (which is an absurd possiblity..) then they could all attack you and gain 1 infamy point, n+1, n+2 etc but wipe you off but then be exposed completely to other faction with no way of retaliating.
Yeah..? It needs work and tweaking and such.

(Read in 4x speed)…But next time certain factions wish to gang up on a faction to send a message of “attack again and we will really get you” then complain about map stagnation because no one else is attacking they will at least have repercussions, you know, if that stuff did happen. Which I am sure it doesn’t. As that would be wrong. And Tyrant is a shining beacon of sportsmanship and truth