New World Map Concept

Following the poll regarding the merging of the two game worlds, we would like to present you a concept of the new world map. (THIS IS MERELY A CONCEPT AND NOT THE FINAL WORLD MAP, SO ART WILL BE A LOT DIFFERENT WHEN IT IS FINISHED.)

With every reset, there would be a new world map with new challenges and new surprises.

Following the Community's suggestions and remarks on Erevos and Olympus world maps we have made the following changes to the new world map:

1) We have increased the world map significantly (number of hexes).

2) We have removed the bottleneck at the Capitals and we have added smaller bottlenecks to other parts of the map.

3) We have increased the number of Regional Bonuses.

4) We have added a new feature to the World Map, 2 new AI Factions which will spawn armies similar to the Capital Armies attacking randomly. Dark and Light Factions can "bribe" them to ensure that they attack the enemy Faction. This bribe window will open every 5 days and the Faction which has "donated" the most, will be the one which will be protected by that Faction's attacks. All types of resources can be used, but with different weights (Eg. Gold is 1:1, Wood 1:5, etc.) In the near future, these AI Factions shall receive their own unique units against which the players can fight and even recruit them.

Click to see the World Map:New World Map

Comments?

It looks great!

Oh god, it's really bigger...
I like these ideas.

It looks awesome!

But - just suggesting -
The top/bottom left/right mountains, merge them together and leave pathways at the sides. Or merge the middle top/bottom mountains and leave pathways at the sides.

I like the sound of the changes, and the map looks great, you have taken the best of Erevos and Olympus

More hexs is good, but I think more hexs should go hand in hand with lower regional cp caps like on Olympus

The AI factions are interesting...will they take territories for themselves or just attack and reduce %s to our factions?
Will those AI factions have a capital that can be destroyed taking them out of the game?

clambam wrote:

The AI factions are interesting...will they take territories for themselves or just attack and reduce %s to our factions?
Will those AI factions have a capital that can be destroyed taking them out of the game?

They won't be able to conquer regions, but they will be able to make the regions neutral. CP will be cut by both Factions, IF both Factions have CP in a Region.

No, they won't have a Capital and therefore they can't be destroyed.

RuneSlayer wrote:

With every reset, there would be a new world map with new challenges and new surprises.

Novelty is a big plus!

RuneSlayer wrote:

1) We have increased the world map significantly (number of hexes).

I didn't think the size was an issue, but if allows for a more interesting war then OK.

RuneSlayer wrote:

2) We have removed the bottleneck at the Capitals and we have added smaller bottlenecks to other parts of the map.

Thank you!

RuneSlayer wrote:

4) We have added a new feature to the World Map, 2 new AI Factions which will spawn armies similar to the Capital Armies attacking randomly. Dark and Light Factions can "bribe" them to ensure that they attack the enemy Faction. This bribe window will open every 5 days and the Faction which has "donated" the most, will be the one which will be protected by that Faction's attacks. All types of resources can be used, but with different weights (Eg. Gold is 1:1, Wood 1:5, etc.) In the near future, these AI Factions shall receive their own unique units against which the players can fight and even recruit them.

I'm very much looking forward to how this will be implemented.

looks good, but there should be more than two forges at the center.

The map is good, few minor tweaks with bonus distribution would be needed. But that is closely related to the necessity to rework the bonus regions in general.
It takes too long and too much to build them.

How about a leasing type of region tile ownership ?

Let us take a forge in the middle, it is a very iron expensive region and very useful one, however noone would built it out there, because its too risky to invest millions of resources into it. Big and rich guilds dont really want to be on the front because it is better for the faction if they provide "safe" bonuses for many active ppl instead of "loose" half-heartedly upgraded bonuses on the front. To fix that i suggest a leasing concept. That guilds are paying for bonuses daily or weekly, the initial bonus they can lease ranges from lvl 1-5. If a guild controlls a tile for 2 weeks it can lease lvl 5-7, and another lvl every additional week the region is held. You can also reduce the cost for leasing the longer a guild controlls it (long term customers). If a guild lost the tile, the whole leasing progress is reset and upon reclaiming it can again only lease lvl 1-5 for first two weeks. You get the idea, change the system so CK and UL are not throwing with mud over 20 regions from the backyard, but also engage frontline combat, while offering best they can to their members and support the faction

And guess what, a tax on battle or resource buildings income! would be great.

Tibr wrote:

The map is good, few minor tweaks with bonus distribution would be needed. But that is closely related to the necessity to rework the bonus regions in general.
It takes too long and too much to build them.

How about a leasing type of region tile ownership ?

Let us take a forge in the middle, it is a very iron expensive region and very useful one, however noone would built it out there, because its too risky to invest millions of resources into it. Big and rich guilds dont really want to be on the front because it is better for the faction if they provide "safe" bonuses for many active ppl instead of "loose" half-heartedly upgraded bonuses on the front. To fix that i suggest a leasing concept. That guilds are paying for bonuses daily or weekly, the initial bonus they can lease ranges from lvl 1-5. If a guild controlls a tile for 2 weeks it can lease lvl 5-7, and another lvl every additional week the region is held. You can also reduce the cost for leasing the longer a guild controlls it (long term customers). If a guild lost the tile, the whole leasing progress is reset and upon reclaiming it can again only lease lvl 1-5 for first two weeks. You get the idea, change the system so CK and UL are not throwing with mud over 20 regions from the backyard, but also engage frontline combat, while offering best they can to their members and support the faction

And guess what, a tax on battle or resource buildings income! would be great.

Solution is simple: Reduce upgrade costs for Regional Bonuses

How about the time? If a bonus hex is lost, that also destroys weeks of upgrading time (close to 30 days for lvl 10 upgrade, pure construction time). I would welcome a solution that allows the hexes to get lost and reclaimed without it being a catastrophy. Possibly speed up the time for repeated construction for same claimers (they already know what they are doing).

and those neutral faction units are: monsters? mercenaries? elementals? Bandits? Barbarians? or something like that?

Tibr wrote:

How about the time? If a bonus hex is lost, that also destroys weeks of upgrading time (close to 30 days for lvl 10 upgrade, pure construction time). I would welcome a solution that allows the hexes to get lost and reclaimed without it being a catastrophy. Possibly speed up the time for repeated construction for same claimers (they already know what they are doing).

I would like more region upgrades cant be destroyed, for example is there a region with a temple lvl6 and that region is abandoned, taken by another guild or the enemy faction, that temple should keep on lvl6 but that will make players of the same factions fight more themselves to steal the bonuses    but will be interesting how people will do more sabotage xD

Tibr wrote:

How about the time? If a bonus hex is lost, that also destroys weeks of upgrading time (close to 30 days for lvl 10 upgrade, pure construction time). I would welcome a solution that allows the hexes to get lost and reclaimed without it being a catastrophy. Possibly speed up the time for repeated construction for same claimers (they already know what they are doing).

I guess what we could do instead...is provide a chance....and depending on the roll the level of the Regional Bonus could drop x levels.

Ulises21 wrote:

and those neutral faction units are: monsters? mercenaries? elementals? Bandits? Barbarians? or something like that?

Lore...

RuneSlayer wrote:

I guess what we could do instead...is provide a chance....and depending on the roll the level of the Regional Bonus could drop x levels.

I like this idea. I would prefer just 1 level lost per time it is taken, though. That means if you lose a region and get it back (and the taker hasn't upgraded it back) it will have lost two levels which need to be rebuilt.

But I still like "x" levels lost much better than all levels lost of course, especially with smaller region containers.  

Bobba wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

I guess what we could do instead...is provide a chance....and depending on the roll the level of the Regional Bonus could drop x levels.

I like this idea. I would prefer just 1 level lost per time it is taken, though. That means if you lose a region and get it back (and the taker hasn't upgraded it back) it will have lost two levels which need to be rebuilt.

But I still like "x" levels lost much better than all levels lost of course, especially with smaller region containers.  

Agreed.

Yet more good news, are you Devs tryin' to suck up or something here?! ;D

1) Increasing the number of hexes will allow for an increase in #guilds & emphasize using walls strategically. Right away I like this. My immediate concern is; longer run to the capitals means longer games. I would almost like to see the map squished in the other direction, to create a long, mobile front.

2) Bottleneck right in the middle of the map is a lot more interesting, it lets a faction feel like they've 'broken into the backfield' if they can get by it. Instead of staring at an even harder slog to the capital they now have the opportunity to slash, raid and wreak havoc across the enemies homelands! I can't help but point out that if you sqished the map you could have one large obstacle in mid (AI Factions) then something else behind the lines to offer more choices for both attackers and defenders. Ok I could've helped it... but it still makes sense! xD

3) More regional bonuses just makes sense w/more tiles. A quick look makes me wonder if the % of tiles with a bonus has actually decreased though? If map size doubled and so did #regions w/a bonus it didn't really change at all. Regarding regional bonuses I think the top priorities should be fixing the RoI for guilds (already mentioned, yay!) and increasing the effects of the mine regions. If the mines provided a smaller %bonus to battle rewards (can't be a large bonus, some people never stop playing!) they would be much more valuable. Res buildings represent a very small portion of an active players income.

I would also like to see a quarry and logging operation bonus region, to balance out the input of stone and wood into the economy. A quick thought; make these LESS valuable than mines but more frequent. ie right now on your new map each 'side' has three of each mine. If this became two of each mine and three of each quarry/logging camp It would add 4 (8 total) regions with bonuses.

4) AI Faction armies you say? Targeting mechanism for armies you say? Guild based armies to come I immediately wonder?!?! As soon as I read this post I got all giddy just thinking about it. Then I read the 'bribe' section. This entire thing now breaks down to "oh cool, so whichever side wants to pay more gems can have an AI army, never mind....". I am against any idea that (to my mind) leaves the door open for pay-to-win abuse. I love the idea of bribing the armies but I constantly fear the power of the credit card!

Perhaps an alternate means of winning influence with the AI factions? Quests could reward 'influence' with them as well as other rewards. Players would have to choose their quests more carefully to avoid diplomatic consequences. Conquering specific 'regions' (has to be accessable to both factions) for the AI to use could gain their allegiance while you hold that region. This would allow factions to fight directly, on the map, over the armies. These are just a couple quick thoughts. Point is; plz disconnect it from the gems

Another quick thought; a 'minimum' to whatever system of influence is decided on. If neither side pays the faction 'enough' they get angry (WE DEMAND TRIBUTE!) and just try to take a contested region and make it neutral.

- - -

Clambam's point about keeping more dynamism in the CP containers is a good one. I would like to know more details about how the containers are reflective of the server population. If one of the reasons (especially if the main reason) that regions on Olympus flip so easily is just low population, this system may indeed be superior on a larger map.

LSLarry wrote:

Yet more good news, are you Devs tryin' to suck up or something here?! ;D

To all the haters saying that we do not respect the Community and we never listen.

LSLarry wrote:

I would almost like to see the map squished in the other direction, to create a long, mobile front.

You lost me...You mean reduce the world map on the Y axis?

LSLarry wrote:

3) More regional bonuses just makes sense w/more tiles. A quick look makes me wonder if the % of tiles with a bonus has actually decreased though? If map size doubled and so did #regions w/a bonus it didn't really change at all. Regarding regional bonuses I think the top priorities should be fixing the RoI for guilds (already mentioned, yay!) and increasing the effects of the mine regions. If the mines provided a smaller %bonus to battle rewards (can't be a large bonus, some people never stop playing!) they would be much more valuable. Res buildings represent a very small portion of an active players income.

I would also like to see a quarry and logging operation bonus region, to balance out the input of stone and wood into the economy. A quick thought; make these LESS valuable than mines but more frequent. ie right now on your new map each 'side' has three of each mine. If this became two of each mine and three of each quarry/logging camp It would add 4 (8 total) regions with bonuses.

There is a thought having Regions produce resources which are stored in the Guild's Vault. The more Regions you have, the more resources are being produced. Still WIP....

LSLarry wrote:

4) AI Faction armies you say? Targeting mechanism for armies you say? Guild based armies to come I immediately wonder?!?! As soon as I read this post I got all giddy just thinking about it. Then I read the 'bribe' section. This entire thing now breaks down to "oh cool, so whichever side wants to pay more gems can have an AI army, never mind....". I am against any idea that (to my mind) leaves the door open for pay-to-win abuse. I love the idea of bribing the armies but I constantly fear the power of the credit card!

Perhaps an alternate means of winning influence with the AI factions? Quests could reward 'influence' with them as well as other rewards. Players would have to choose their quests more carefully to avoid diplomatic consequences. Conquering specific 'regions' (has to be accessable to both factions) for the AI to use could gain their allegiance while you hold that region. This would allow factions to fight directly, on the map, over the armies. These are just a couple quick thoughts. Point is; plz disconnect it from the gems Smile

Another quick thought; a 'minimum' to whatever system of influence is decided on. If neither side pays the faction 'enough' they get angry (WE DEMAND TRIBUTE!) and just try to take a contested region and make it neutral.

I understand your concerns and I like the additional ways of gaining "Influence" with one of the AI new Factions.

LSLarry wrote:

Clambam's point about keeping more dynamism in the CP containers is a good one

Hmmm? Link?

Quote :

More hexs is good, but I think more hexs should go hand in hand with lower regional cp caps like on Olympus

^From his post in this thread. With more containers available having them flip a little easier make sense to me, so the Olympus mechanism might actually be a better baseline to work on when setting up this map. I've mentioned before that I don't think they're that slow to flip on Erevos, but with more of them the slowdown would be a lot more noticeable.

Right now the map (if I pretend it's a square w/no mountains) is 29 hexes wide and 13 hexes in height. This means the maximum length of a battle front is going to be ~13 hexes as well. You can gain one of two by drawing it diagonally behind the central chokepoint but that's unlike due to the chokepoint itself.

If the map 'as a square' were ie 17x24 (width height) the battle front could be up to ~20 hexes long (!). It would also make a 'punch through' of the battle lines more threatening, as players would be not only past the choke points and into the enemy factions guild territories but close enough to threaten an immediate drive towards the capital.

IMO the longer front of battle is fundamentally more vulnerable to disruption and less likely to result in stalemates/trench warfare situations.

i agree that here should be one or more bottle necks in the middle so it makes it more fun and cant wait to see the final map   

LSLarry wrote:

Yet more good news, are you Devs tryin' to suck up or something here?!  ;D

I would also like to see a quarry and logging operation bonus region, to balance out the input of stone and wood into the economy.  A quick thought; make these LESS valuable than mines but more frequent.  ie right now on your new map each 'side' has three of each mine.  If this became two of each mine and three of each quarry/logging camp It would add 4 (8 total) regions with bonuses.

I too agree with the idea of having wood/stone. And, I like the idea of them being more common and less valuable than the iron/gold mines (raises by 0.5% each level, instead of 1%?)

[quote="LSLarry"Perhaps an alternate means of winning influence with the AI factions?  Quests could reward 'influence' with them as well as other rewards.  Players would have to choose their quests more carefully to avoid diplomatic consequences.  Conquering specific 'regions' (has to be accessable to both factions) for the AI to use could gain their allegiance while you hold that region.  This would allow factions to fight directly, on the map, over the armies.  These are just a couple quick thoughts.  Point is; plz disconnect it from the gems

Another quick thought; a 'minimum' to whatever system of influence is decided on.  If neither side pays the faction 'enough' they get angry (WE DEMAND TRIBUTE!) and just try to take a contested region and make it neutral.

[/quote]

THIS. I ENTIRELY favor the idea of the "bribing" not being associated with paying the "AI faction" resources; instead have it cost some form of (not purchaseable) renewable resource- such as (perhaps...) another use for "Prestige"? I would love to see the Prestige system implemented, AND have there be "factionwide" uses for it, in addition to the personal uses it offers!

Plus, I agree that if the faction(s) don't get "enough" then they should just be angry at everyone!


Now, about one other part of this, Rune- you say they won't take territories for themselves... but. BUT. THAT WOULD BE awesome! they could be "limited" such as, putting out 10% of the max CP for (1) territory per cycle, expanding outward from their "non-capital" base in concentric rings as they gain territories... (in other words, it would take 7 cycles for them to take the first territory, then they would either randomly "target" 1 territory in the next "ring", or they would evenly spread their "CP" output towards all of the territories in the next ring...

THIS could be variable- even switch depending on "which" faction it is (change the setting for AI #1, compared to AI #2) etc.. the possibilities are limitless. This would enhance gameplay (map gameplay, at least) massively, by adding some random chance, as well as slowing "initial contact" with the REAL enemy... as well as (potentially) catching a faction "off guard" when the AI targets their area. Or, it could potentially help them fend off a super-massive attack, by the AI randomly targetting the enemy's hex! soooo many "pluses".

However, I'm guessing this would be *extremely* difficult to implement, as well as be *extremely* costly in server speed...


Hmmmm, ANYWAY, good stuff. =)

the map *really* looks cool. BUT, what say you- take each 'side' and randomize which bonus goes where? concentric "oh, this bonus goes here, this bonus goes here, this bonus goes..." is a major complaint that I've heard from BOTH servers! It would be much cooler if the map were more random, where you weren't looking at a "flipped" map side to side!

One more thought- As the layout of the merc regions stands right now, it would be possible for a single guild to control 4 Merc regions. 4 out of 5 on their side! those regions ESP. need to be more "scattered" around the map...

LSLarry wrote:

If the map 'as a square' were ie 17x24 (width height) the battle front could be up to ~20 hexes long (!). It would also make a 'punch through' of the battle lines more threatening, as players would be not only past the choke points and into the enemy factions guild territories but close enough to threaten an immediate drive towards the capital.

Wouldn't the map look....weird that way? I do understand that it would definitely provide a broader front, but imho it shouldn't be that broad either..

Realf Lantow wrote:

I too agree with the idea of having wood/stone. And, I like the idea of them being more common and less valuable than the iron/gold mines (raises by 0.5% each level, instead of 1%?)

It's not that these resources are in demand, so filling the economy with more of them would create even a higher surplus and therefore oversupply...

Realf Lantow wrote:

THIS. I ENTIRELY favor the idea of the "bribing" not being associated with paying the "AI faction" resources; instead have it cost some form of (not purchaseable) renewable resource- such as (perhaps...) another use for "Prestige"? I would love to see the Prestige system implemented, AND have there be "factionwide" uses for it, in addition to the personal uses it offers! Very Happy

Plus, I agree that if the faction(s) don't get "enough" then they should just be angry at everyone! Very Happy

I understand your concerns... That is why we will not only associate resources to the "Bribe" mechanism, but other elements as well. Resources are important in the game and the Regional Conquest will provide more resources which should be invested in order to help the Guild/Faction warfare. However, as I mentioned above, it will not be the only means to bribing an AI Faction.

Realf Lantow wrote:

Now, about one other part of this, Rune- you say they won't take territories for themselves... but. BUT. THAT WOULD BE awesome! they could be "limited" such as, putting out 10% of the max CP for (1) territory per cycle, expanding outward from their "non-capital" base in concentric rings as they gain territories... (in other words, it would take 7 cycles for them to take the first territory, then they would either randomly "target" 1 territory in the next "ring", or they would evenly spread their "CP" output towards all of the territories in the next ring...

THIS could be variable- even switch depending on "which" faction it is (change the setting for AI #1, compared to AI #2) etc.. the possibilities are limitless. This would enhance gameplay (map gameplay, at least) massively, by adding some random chance, as well as slowing "initial contact" with the REAL enemy... as well as (potentially) catching a faction "off guard" when the AI targets their area. Or, it could potentially help them fend off a super-massive attack, by the AI randomly targetting the enemy's hex! soooo many "pluses". Wink

Well...let us just say that their primary goal is not to conquer Regions but to wreak havoc in this particular area of the world (World Map). They do not have any organizational structure and they live out of scavenging and looting... Their goal is not to conquer, but to destroy for the highest bidder.....(for now...grin).

Realf Lantow wrote:

the map *really* looks cool. BUT, what say you- take each 'side' and randomize which bonus goes where? concentric "oh, this bonus goes here, this bonus goes here, this bonus goes..." is a major complaint that I've heard from BOTH servers! Wink It would be much cooler if the map were more random, where you weren't looking at a "flipped" map side to side! Smile

And what if the resources are set randomly on one side and not on the other...Can you imagine the amount of complaints? You would then have the MAJORITY of the Community complain about it and say that we SHOULD make the world map balanced.

Realf Lantow wrote:

One more thought- As the layout of the merc regions stands right now, it would be possible for a single guild to control 4 Merc regions. 4 out of 5 on their side! those regions ESP. need to be more "scattered" around the map...

.....more competition....right?   

RuneSlayer wrote:

Well...let us just say that their primary goal is not to conquer Regions but to wreak havoc in this particular area of the world (World Map). They do not have any organizational structure and they live out of scavenging and looting... Their goal is not to conquer, but to destroy for the highest bidder.....(for now...grin).

hmmmm, I got a reply from Rune! and quickly, too! Cool, so now I'm expecting Pirates, Buccaneers, Highwaymen, Thieves, and Pick Pockets as their units. get on it!

RuneSlayer wrote:

And what if the resources are set randomly on one side and not on the other...Can you imagine the amount of complaints? :)You would then have the MAJORITY of the Community complain about it and say that we SHOULD make the world map balanced.

.....more competition....right?   

This is why I specifically wrote "each side were randomized" in other words, if you split the map in the middle (obviously the center column is a difficulty), each SIDE would have random placement... but side to side, or, Light vs dark, they would be the same. (so, factions would have equivalent access, but guilds would have random access).

Hmmm, "more competition" but... which guild is going to compete with, say, C Kings, or Unceasing Legion, or us (R-G) or The Fallen? if any pair of those two work together... O.o only the absolute strongest of external influences could affect them. which is why I support the idea of splitting those ones up... or randomizing it!

Realf Lantow wrote:

Hmmm, "more competition" but... which guild is going to compete with, say, C Kings, or Unceasing Legion, or us (R-G) or The Fallen? if any pair of those two work together... O.o only the absolute strongest of external influences could affect them. Razz which is why I support the idea of splitting those ones up... or randomizing it! Wink

I am expecting more competition in one game world than in two.