Regional Attack Restrictions - Alternatives

Hi Everyone,

NOTE: If TL;DR skip to end segment.

INTRODUCTION

I wanted to throw out some alternative ideas to the way difficulty and attack mode restrictions work when one Faction is attacking the opposing Faction's Capital and the regions bordering it.

As you are aware, currently cooperative mode is entirely unavailable on these regions for the attacking Faction...while the defending Faction has no such limitation.

In addition, solos are difficulty restricted so that only insane and suicide-level attacks are allowed on the regions bordering the opposition's Capital and only Suicide-level attacks on the Capital itself. Again, the defending Faction has no such restriction.

This makes conquest of the opposing Capital almost impossible...and while it is obviously POSSIBLE to win (Light side - Erevos server), the why and how of how it occurred spoiled the victory.

Therefore, without abandoning those restrictions, I've suggested some adjustments that I believe might make the end game more tolerable/enjoyable.

I would like to hear what people think of these AND any of their own suggestions.

Thanks

---

Alternative 1 - Proportionate Response (Credit Ysosad)

The "attacking faction" is still restricted in the same manner as the current setting by default.
The "defending faction" has no restrictions to attack type.

However, the attacking faction is permitted to match any and all CP generated by the defending faction produces at difficulty levels and modes that the attacker is not able to access by default.

(e.g.: if the defending faction generates 50 CP via cooperative, the attacking faction can match that with 50 CP of their own, but no more. Such that a 60 CP attack would only cause 50 CP worth of influence, with the additional 10 not influencing the targeted region.)


Alternative 2 - Broken Defenses (Credit Ysosad)

The same attack restrictions exist by default. However, if the attacking Faction is able to generate enough influence on a region with such restrictions, restricted difficulty levels/combat modes will become available.

For example, if the defending Capital is at 100% influence for the defending Faction, then only PvP and Suicide-Level Solos are available.

However, if the attacking Faction is able to gain 25% or more influence Insane-mode becomes accessible. At 40% Nightmare, 50% Cooperative mode, 55% Hard, 70% normal. (All percentages are used for the sake of the example. By all means, provide alternatives)

Also, if the defending faction is able to reduce the attackers influence below those thresholds those modes become inaccessible.


Alternative 3 - Depleted Storehouses (Credit Ysosad)

A new feature is added: "Faction Storehouse" (or vault, coffer, etc.)

Players and guilds may donate to this vault, but cannot make withdrawals. This feature only becomes "necessary" when a Faction has less than X regions and has not conquered a region in Y number of cycles.

A faction that is limited to X number of regions does not have enough land to be self-sufficient and if that persists they will have to dip into their Faction Storehouse.

If after Y amount of cycles the defending faction has not conquered a new region, they will lose Z amount of resources from the Faction vault. This penalty is assessed again after Y cycles have elapsed, steadily increasing each time.

If a penalty should exceed what is available in the storehouse:

Alternative 3.1: The defender loses the ability to defend at a given difficulty level
Alternative 3.2: The attacker gains the ability to attack at a given difficulty level.
Alternative 3.3: The attacking faction conquers a region and can defend it at any difficulty/mode
Alternative 3.4: The defenders starve to death, the attackers win!


Alternative 4 - Reduce Difficulty Restriction (Credit Johntheright)

Reduce both the difficulty restrictions from Suicide-only at the Capital and Insane+ for regions bordering the Capital to Nightmare and above. Allows for more players to attack these regions, particularly the Capital.


Alternative 5 - Remove "Stalemate Mechanisms" (Credit Anduin)

Difficulty and battle-mode (cooperative) restrictions are removed entirely. In addition, Capital Armies are changed so that they attack regions in equal frequency. Finally, conquest point generation bonuses that are given to the "losing" faction are removed (incentives to join a Faction are not impacted by this change).


Alternative 6 - The Equitable Alternative (Credit uflb999)

The restrictions to the attacking/advancing Faction remain unchanged. However, those same restrictions will also apply to the defending Faction. Such both attacking and defending a Capital region may only occur via PvP and Suicide-level solos AND when attacking/defending the regions bordering a Capital players may only do so via PvP and Insane or Suicide-Level solos.


Alternative 7 - Solo/Coop+ (Plus) (Credit clambam)

The restrictions for difficulty level and attack type are removed. However, attacks on the regions bordering the Capital are made 10% more difficulty (measured by AP) and attacks on the Capital are made 20% more difficult (also by AP). This applies to every solo and cooperative-mode battle by the attacking/advancing Faction.


Alternative 8 - Walled Capital (Credit LSLarry)

The restrictions for difficulty level and attack type are removed. Walls are made more efficient, they absorb more total conquest points before being destroyed. Additionally, Capital regions will start with fully upgraded walls (60%). These walls can be destroyed in the same fashion as regular guild-controlled regions' walls. Each Faction may rebuild/repair their Capital's walls by donating, individuals or guilds, resources to this endeavor. Successive repairs will become progressively more expensive, eventually becoming unaffordable.

---

For TL;DRers

Alternative 1: Allows attacking faction to do the same amount of CP generation as the defender does on restricted regions.

Alternative 2: When attacking Faction gains influence at certain benchmarks it unlocks the restricted difficulties for the rest of the Faction on that region. The defending Faction can reverse this if they lower the attackers influence below that threshold.

Alternative 3: The defender is under siege, restricted to the Capital or just a few regions. In order not to give the attacker an advantage to advance they have to conquer a new region or pay an every increasing resources penalty until they do conquer a new region. If they can't pay the penalty, then the attackers will gain some advantage, possibly win outright.

Alternative 4: Restricted areas are changed to allow Nightmare difficulty and above fights.

Alternative 5: All restrictions are removed, Capital Armies are altered to attack in equal frequency, and conquest point generation bonuses are removed.

Alternative 6: Regional restrictions are also applied to the defending Faction, everything else is unchanged.

Alternative 7: Restrictions are removed, but attacks via Cooperative and Solo are made more difficulty if they are fought on the Capital or the regions bordering it.

Alternative 8: Restrictions are removed, but walls are made more efficient and can be built on the Capital. Capital walls can be repaired by members of a Faction contributing to repairs, but cost will progressively increase (without limit) for each new repair.

Provide thoughts, support, etc. in response.

Thanks.

Some good ideas Yso. We really do need something to be done. With Olympus being so young, not many can swing suicide. Not being able to win almost exclusively by a game restriction is silly. It's like running a marathon, but being stopped feet short of the finish line for no real reason. Rune, you should consider this topic carefully.

I always read everything Sevenduster1 and I like a lot of suggestions.

In fact, ysosad has already PMed me about his ideas.

Let us see what the future holds... and what changes are coming...

I dont expect any changes for capital takedown before PVP AI and guild controlled capital armies get introduced. Because those two factors may change everything. Currently capital armies are in fact able to attack the capital and they are quite successful with it. Assuming guild armies will also be able to do that you have a major game changer. Much bigger than pvpAI imho. On erevos one needed 700CP for 1%. A capital army can deal 5%+ with its roam. It will still depend a lot on which faction is richer and can afford to run more capital armies. And also motivate ppl to invest gems. But it will definitely be an improvement   .



The actual sieging part of a capital can be introduced with the chokepoints on olympos. There are 6 tiles in the row. If first two (neon green) are controlled by a faction the defenders are cut off supplies and have less strengh to defend, lets say attackers are allowed to do nightmares on the next to capital tiles. If next two hexes are taken (pastel pink) attackers are allowed to do insanes on the capital. If last two hexes are taken (deep red) the attackers are allowed to do nightmares on the capital and on the next to capital tiles. Progressive siege.

Tibr wrote:

I dont expect any changes for capital takedown before PVP AI and guild controlled capital armies get introduced. Because those two factors may change everything. Currently capital armies are in fact able to attack the capital and they are quite successful with it. Assuming guild armies will also be able to do that you have a major game changer. Much bigger than pvpAI imho. On erevos one needed 700CP for 1%. A capital army can deal 5%+ with its roam. It will still depend a lot on which faction is richer and can afford to run more capital armies. And also motivate ppl to invest gems. But it will definitely be an improvement   .

The actual sieging part of a capital can be introduced with the chokepoints on olympos. There are 6 tiles in the row. If first two (neon green) are controlled by a faction the defenders are cut off supplies and have less strengh to defend, lets say attackers are allowed to do nightmares on the next to capital tiles. If next two hexes are taken (pastel pink) attackers are allowed to do insanes on the capital. If last two hexes are taken (deep red) the attackers are allowed to do nightmares on the capital and on the next to capital tiles. Progressive siege.

I was never really sure about when, if ever, to make this post. I agree that certain updates might change everything...it could happen next week and make this post obsolete....or never.

Being that I could not predict what will happen, I thought the better option was to make the post.

Both of those features sound great, I hope we get them quickly...even if they might require some tinkering in the future.

-------------------------------------

Loosely related to your post: On Olympus the time for a Capital Army to reach the opposing Capital would be 7 hours. This followed by 2 hours to attack and 7 hours to return. Disregarding respawn time, that is a 16 hour round-trip attack. In comparison, to move 1 region a round-trip is 2 hours and 40 minutes. For every 1 attack to the Capital, the defender does 6 (respawn time makes the ratio better, of course). If a Capital army did 3K damage, that would be a 15K CP differential for every 16 hours. That is just...wow.

Guild controlled armies will launch from guilds capital, it will require an upgrade to hire them too. And those armies can be destroyed in the future, maybe one can defend them as well. Mechanics mechanics.

Tibr wrote:

Guild controlled armies will launch from guilds capital, it will require an upgrade to hire them too. And those armies can be destroyed in the future, maybe one can defend them as well. Mechanics mechanics.

Yeah, I figured as much regarding where they are launched from. My point was only with regards to Capital Armies as the exists currently. (Thankfully, 3K Capital Army attacks have not occurred on Olympus...yet)

I'm all for fighting the darkies but I really hope this new pvp against the AI will help the darkies conquer the capital    In the long run the darkies are getting all these advantages with the guild regions and making this new aether shop with most of the stuff in it not available for purchase until either capital is taken multiple times unless you are in the top 3. Also by the way with the Aether I feel like 10-100 is way too broad. I think around top twenty should get titles too.

Scaren wrote:

Also by the way with the Aether I feel like 10-100 is way too broad. I think around top twenty should get titles too.

Totally agree, if you check the rankings especially on olympus you'll see that it is totally inapropriate to award the 11. with the same amount of Aether as the player ranking 50.

To speed up attacks on the capital and the bordering regions, simply make it NM solo or higher for the attacker. NM requires lvl 14 Baracks, so more players can help. Suicide needs lvl 20 Baracks....there are way too few players (sticking around) that can attack in that way. That was abundantly clear when we attacked the dark capital. Unless 1 side just decides to give up and let the other side win that round, it is currently not possible.

To make things more difficult for the winning side as they push forward is a stalemate mechanic, and in my opinion stalemate mechanics should have no place in the game.

It is not a good feeling when you know that you've been repelled, not by the tenacity of your enemy, but by an automated balance mechanism.  You can put in far more effort than your enemy, and watch your hard work get negated while your enemy puts in far less effort to defend.

I think that such things detract from the feeling that we're playing a game with a goal that was intended to be reached.  A game like this needs a goal so that players feel they are making progress.  It gives them a reason to keep attacking.  I believe that we should all be playing on a level playing field.

So, I think that attacker restrictions on the final regions, capital armies that attack more often as their side loses ground, and bonuses to the losing faction need to go.

Making the losing army more effective as they lose ground is especially silly, as this seems contrary to most of recorded history.  In a war between countries, the army that has lost its country and has retreated inside it's capital for a final stand is not going to be stronger than ever.  They're going to be on their last legs by the time the winning side is knocking on their doors.

This is the current state of Olympus:
https://2img.net/h/oi58.tinypic.com/2qusozt.jpg

The overwhelming majority of the dark side is unable to attack the capital.  I think that something needs to be done.  The light is clearly defeated.

EDIT: As of today we lost region 92, purely because the overwhelming majority of the dark side were unable to attack it with solos or coops, while the light side was able to go all out defending it. This sucks.

Anduin wrote:

To make things more difficult for the winning side as they push forward is a stalemate mechanic, and in my opinion stalemate mechanics should have no place in the game.

It is not a good feeling when you know that you've been repelled, not by the tenacity of your enemy, but by an automated balance mechanism.  You can put in far more effort than your enemy, and watch your hard work get negated while your enemy puts in far less effort to defend.

I think that such things detract from the feeling that we're playing a game with a goal that was intended to be reached.  A game like this needs a goal so that players feel they are making progress.  It gives them a reason to keep attacking.  I believe that we should all be playing on a level playing field.

So, I think that attacker restrictions on the final regions, capital armies that attack more often as their side loses ground, and bonuses to the losing faction need to go.

Making the losing army more effective as they lose ground is especially silly, as this seems contrary to most of recorded history.  In a war between countries, the army that has lost its country and has retreated inside it's capital for a final stand is not going to be stronger than ever.  They're going to be on their last legs by the time the winning side is knocking on their doors.

This is the current state of Olympus:
https://2img.net/h/oi58.tinypic.com/2qusozt.jpg

The overwhelming majority of the dark side is unable to attack the capital.  I think that something needs to be done.  The light is clearly defeated.

EDIT:  As of today we lost region 92, purely because the overwhelming majority of the dark side were unable to attack it with solos or coops, while the light side was able to go all out defending it.  This sucks.

"Winning" Faction can almost never win unless the "Losing" faction absolutely gives up, for the restrictions on the regions are FAR too challenging to overcome. If rules were changed to only Suicide on Capital regardless, and Insane on borderline regions, that would be much more of a competition

I'll update the 1st post to include solutions that individuals suggest going forward.

uflb999 wrote:

"Winning" Faction can almost never win unless the "Losing" faction absolutely gives up, for the restrictions on the regions are FAR too challenging to overcome. If rules were changed to only Suicide on Capital regardless, and Insane on borderline regions, that would be much more of a competition

I wouldn't even call it a challenge.  A challenge would be when you're faced with a tough encounter that you need to overcome with your skill and ability.  What we have here is simply a mechanic that prevents us from playing.

An analogy that I would compare the situation to would be two soccer teams, each consisting of 11 players.  In that situation a challenge to one of the soccer teams would be another really good soccer team.

What's happening on Olympus is different.  Imagine if one of those soccer teams was restricted to a single player on the field. That single player would have to go up against an entire team, and it would still be more fair than what is going on in Olympus right now on region 92.

A better analogy, then, would be a single player trying to go up against an entire team while the fans in the stands throw things at the lone player.  The things being thrown represent the light horse, which is attacking so much faster than our own.

So, yeah, I think that something needs to be done ASAP to fix this, as the end game is flat out broken right now.

I can understand making it more difficult to attack capital, but at the moment hardly anybody can attack the regions bordering the capital, let alone the capital itself. It really needs to be changed, fair enough to make it a little harder to attack the capital, but it should be possible for EVERYONE to attack the capital

Making it suicide only does not make it harder, once you upgrade to that level that is the option you would chose anyway as it would give the most CP/battle. I only fight on insane mode now...why would I bother fighting nightmare, let alone hard or normal for less CP from my precious command points? Instead of making it harder, all the current system does is make it so that only a select few can attack...whilst everyone can defend.

If it should be harder to attack the capital, then my suggestion would be that you can play whatever level solo on the capital, and also coops (this is where the swing in power happens, those that put the extra effort in and do those extra fights outside of their command point allowance)....but the AI gets say 10 or 20% more AP added to their army to add a little difficulty

At the moment there is one way that everyone can attack, PVP, but unfortunately that is not a viable option, because you cannot find an opponent to fight. If pvpAI is ready to be introduced, then OK that could solve the problem, but if it is not ready then please find something else....and soon.

At the moment the only hope is that the losing side gives up, some are already, but then some of the winning side are also, out of boredom and a sense of futility. If I were a new player now I would not see the point in investing any time or money into this game when I would not be able to even attack the enemy for several months....I'd just move on to a new game

The future better hurry up and actually address our concerns. If we can not win, why play/ invest time/ energy/ and especially money?

We the Dark Faction have had control of the map for weeks now on Olympus, the light faction has two regions left on the entire friggen map.

And when we get to the capital only 4 of us can actually attack it. I will not spend another penny on this game till this is addressed and fixed. You want me to buy gems and premiums? Give me/us what we want.

Enough is enough, reset the map make it a win win, it can not be that hard.

ST

Added alternatives suggested by Johntheright, Anduin, uflb999, and clambam to the first post.

Clam, I took some leeway in interpreting your 10-20%.

If I've translated anyone's suggestions incorrectly, let me know.

Thanks.

ysosad wrote:

Added alternatives suggested by Johntheright, Anduin, uflb999, and clambam to the first post.

Clam, I took some leeway in interpreting your 10-20%.

If I've translated anyone's suggestions incorrectly, let me know.

Thanks.

No problem, you've improved it...I don't know what the correct %s should be, but I'd say that sounds about right

Holy Text Wall Batman!

My main issue with solo and co-op limitations at the 'endgame' is that they do not, to me, make any sort of logical sense.

The only real allegory to players 'not fighting' that I can come up with is a prolonged siege where troops do in fact just 'hang out'. This makes sense in the real world as you can cut off supplies and starve your enemy out, send sappers to attack his walls, try to poison the water supply at its source, all sorts of dirty, real life war stuff.... None of which are mechanically feasible options in a game

There is already a mechanism in place to give a defending faction the advantage over attackers. We call them walls and they've been deemed pretty much useless on Olympus. My suggestion is simple; revamp walls to make them a) more effective in general and b) automatically present at the highest possible bonus on each capital.

Capital Walls would follow all the normal 'rules' about walls, most importantly that they can be knocked down. There would have to be some sort of communal way for the defending side to rebuild their capital walls as well however. I would suggest a 'maintenance' fee on the capital walls once they're damaged. Any player or guild in the defending faction can contribute resources to 'repair' the walls, but the actual cost should be large enough that any practical repairs require a significant amount of resources from the defending faction.

My immediate concern here is players buying res with gems to defend the capital. Some sort of limit to res/player or res/guild based on CP generated in that 6 hour cycle is my current solution... but that's a pretty vague solution! Thoughts?

LSLarry wrote:

Holy Text Wall Batman!  

My main issue with solo and co-op limitations at the 'endgame' is that they do not, to me, make any sort of logical sense.  

The only real allegory to players 'not fighting' that I can come up with is a prolonged siege where troops do in fact just 'hang out'.  This makes sense in the real world as you can cut off supplies and starve your enemy out, send sappers to attack his walls, try to poison the water supply at its source, all sorts of dirty, real life war stuff.... None of which are mechanically feasible options in a game

I agree with this 100%. Also, in a siege the enemy hides within their own walls, yet the light army is stronger than ever in this situation. It leaves the capital continuously.

LSLarry wrote:

There is already a mechanism in place to give a defending faction the advantage over attackers.  We call them walls and they've been deemed pretty much useless on Olympus.  My suggestion is simple; revamp walls to make them a) more effective in general and b) automatically present at the highest possible bonus on each capital.

I dislike the idea of communal, stronger walls for CP reduction, because I think it could lead to a stalemate situation. Such things just lead to players quitting and stagnation in the game.

Instead, I like the idea of making combat on the capital a bit more challenging for cooperative battles instead. So, if you have skill or a powerful army you could still generate full CP and eventually win the game.

Anduin; three* quick points.

1) "Sallying forth" during a siege is historically and realistically accurate. The light army riding out from capital in the 'endgame' portion represents this to me. Desperate attacks on strategically important enemy units (siege towers, battering rams) or fortifications (routing an artillery position). In the same situation I regard the dark army as "reinforcements" arriving from the dark regions to bolster the besieging army. So, to me, the armies fit a role. They may require some tweaking in terms of how effective they are but that is a separate issue of whether a random AI controlled mechanism should have such a large impact, not whether they 'make sense'.

2) The communal walls at capital would be no more effective than a fully upgraded region's walls. I meant all walls in general, in Olympus specifically, should be more effective.

3) The idea behind the resources required to rebuild capital walls would be that they are in fact nearly crippling to that factions ability to progress. Combined with the regional bonuses available only to the winning side I would like to see it so something like a timeframe of "if your capital is under siege for 2 weeks you will be in BIG trouble, the other side will heal faster, progress faster, repair faster and continue to beat you down" becomes established. This would put a 1 week capture as "holy crap great job attackers" and a 3 week capture as "nice try Defender's, you stubborn jerks!".

We all remember the squeeze on progress from a messed up economy; I am basically proposing using it as a mechanism in game. The more of a map a faction controls, the more of an economical advantage they (should) gain from bonuses. A faction trapped in its capital should not have access to a similar economy. This allows the human element into the game as well. The winning faction can choke of the market for resources; forcing prices higher and buying large available stocks to prevent the other side from having them for repairing the capital.

clambam wrote:

I can understand making it more difficult to attack capital, but at the moment hardly anybody can attack the regions bordering the capital, let alone the capital itself. It really needs to be changed, fair enough to make it a little harder to attack the capital, but it should be possible for EVERYONE to attack the capital

Making it suicide only does not make it harder, once you upgrade to that level that is the option you would chose anyway as it would give the most CP/battle. I only fight on insane mode now...why would I bother fighting nightmare, let alone hard or normal for less CP from my precious command points? Instead of making it harder, all the current system does is make it so that only a select few can attack...whilst everyone can defend.

If it should be harder to attack the capital, then my suggestion would be that you can play whatever level solo on the capital, and also coops (this is where the swing in power happens, those that put the extra effort in and do those extra fights outside of their command point allowance)....but the AI gets say 10 or 20% more AP added to their army to add a little difficulty

At the moment there is one way that everyone can attack, PVP, but unfortunately that is not a viable option, because you cannot find an opponent to fight. If pvpAI is ready to be introduced, then OK that could solve the problem, but if it is not ready then please find something else....and soon.

At the moment the only hope is that the losing side gives up, some are already, but then some of the winning side are also, out of boredom and a sense of futility. If I were a new player now I would not see the point in investing any time or money into this game when I would not be able to even attack the enemy for several months....I'd just move on to a new game

Perhaps having harder coops, such as Realf's Nightmare Weekend

http://www.battleconforum.com/t1990-nightmare-weekend-should-be-added-to-a-player-generated-lore-of-bc#14899

Hi LSLarry,

I'm taking your post as a suggestion that I want to add to the first page in some capacity. Before I do so, I want to clarify a couple of things.

LSLarry wrote:

My main issue with solo and co-op limitations at the 'endgame' is that they do not, to me, make any sort of logical sense.

In your scenario there should not be any restrictions for difficulty/combat mode, correct?

LSLarry wrote:

My suggestion is simple; revamp walls to make them a) more effective in general and b) automatically present at the highest possible bonus on each capital.

A) Increased effectiveness of walls to block CP. & B) 60% wall on Capital at outset.

LSLarry wrote:

Capital Walls would follow all the normal 'rules' about walls, most importantly that they can be knocked down.   There would have to be some sort of communal way for the defending side to rebuild their capital walls as well however.  I would suggest a 'maintenance' fee on the capital walls once they're damaged.  Any player or guild in the defending faction can contribute resources to 'repair' the walls, but the actual cost should be large enough that any practical repairs require a significant amount of resources from the defending faction.

Perhaps a progressive increase to repair cost over time. (e.g. A 20% increase in cost repair; 1st Maintenance=10K/res, 2nd Maint. 12K/Res, 3rd Maint 14.4K/res., etc.)

Eventually, it would become impossible to keep up with cost.

LSLarry wrote:

My immediate concern here is players buying res with gems to defend the capital.  Some sort of limit to res/player or res/guild based on CP generated in that 6 hour cycle is my current solution... but that's a pretty vague solution!  Thoughts?

If coupled with a progressive increase, would this be necessary? Even heavy spenders will hit a limit eventually, granted that ceiling might be very high.

Let me know if that takes into account what you are thinking of or let me know what needs to change.

Thanks.

LSLarry wrote:

1) "Sallying forth" during a siege is historically and realistically accurate.  The light army riding out from capital in the 'endgame' portion represents this to me.  Desperate attacks on strategically important enemy units (siege towers, battering rams) or fortifications (routing an artillery position).  In the same situation I regard the dark army as "reinforcements" arriving from the dark regions to bolster the besieging army.  So, to me, the armies fit a role.  They may require some tweaking in terms of how effective they are but that is a separate issue of whether a random AI controlled mechanism should have such  a large impact, not whether they 'make sense'.

What I don't like is that the light army has a considerably bigger effect on the battlefield than the dark army, at a point where they should be at their weakest.  It makes no sense for an army to attack more and more fiercely the more they lose, yet this is exactly what happens.  

I can understand them sallying forth, but if we were besieging them, then our army would not be returning the capital everytime it attacks.  We have to wait for the dark army to cross the entire map for it to attack once, before it runs all the way back to the capital.  That's not a siege.

LSLarry wrote:

2)  The communal walls at capital would be no more effective than a fully upgraded region's walls.  I meant all walls in general, in Olympus specifically, should be more effective.

I kind of like the way walls are.  I think the attackers should be able to tear down walls faster than the defenders put them up, or you would have a stalemate, because defenders would never stop putting them up.  Part of the reason why walls fall so quickly on Olympus is because the entire dark faction is focused on attacking a few regions, so they should fall very quickly there.

Quote :

3) The idea behind the resources required to rebuild capital walls would be that they are in fact nearly crippling to that factions ability to progress.  Combined with the regional bonuses available only to the winning side I would like to see it so something like a timeframe of "if your capital is under siege for 2 weeks you will be in BIG trouble, the other side will heal faster, progress faster, repair faster and continue to beat you down" becomes established.  This would put a 1 week capture as "holy crap great job attackers" and a 3 week capture as "nice try Defender's, you stubborn jerks!".  

We all remember the squeeze on progress from a messed up economy; I am basically proposing using it as a mechanism in game.  The more of a map a faction controls, the more of an economical advantage they (should) gain from bonuses.  A faction trapped in its capital should not have access to a similar economy.  This allows the human element into the game as well.  The winning faction can choke of the market for resources; forcing prices higher and buying large available stocks to prevent the other side from having them for repairing the capital.

I do like the idea of taking ground to cripple the losing side in some way.  They certainly wouldn't be getting stronger as they lose.

ysosad wrote:

I'll update the 1st post to include solutions that individuals suggest going forward.

My solution is to allow Nightmare for both the regions. That's how it used to be. Still allows the defending side to have the advantage but gives the attacking side enough firepower to take both the capital and it's regions. Larry your ideas weren't bad but would be way too of an advantage for the other side after they had taken the capital. They would be left with all the aether, resources, and gold in the game. Basically just letting them take the capital again.