The Kaezulan War

G

gorgetrapper

Dalayan Beginner
I really really like this idea, I really do, but I only have one problem with it. I'm sitting here listening to zones being taken over left and right, with only a handful of people trying to defend them. I ask in OOC why people aren't doing anything about it, and the general response is "it's more fun to take the zone back than defend it". Now the problem that I have with this kind of attitude is... what's the point of trying to defend something in the first place, is if all that happens when a zone is taken is that people just form later and take the zone back with no drawbacks at all to it.

What I'm trying to say is, could there be MORE of an incentive for 60+ people to DEFEND the zone, rather than just wait for it to be taken over, so that they can raid it later? I mean, make it so the zone doesn't repopulate for like... a week or two after it's taken back.

I ask in OOC, what about us lower levels who have to travel through those zones to get to other zones to exp in, and the response is "use the mansion of portals". This kind of attitude is disgusting at best, and I wish it wasn't like that. Lake Starfall has fallen, but I doubt anyone is going to take it back right away because it's not a zone 60+ people need to go to, so us lower levels have to suffer because of the mentality of "we'll just take it back later when we feel like it".

So could something be done to give incentive to defending, rather than just taking back?
 
gorgetrapper said:
Lake Starfall has fallen, but I doubt anyone is going to take it back right away because it's not a zone 60+ people need to go to,
Click to expand...

Cmal


idk why peopl think it's more fun to retake the zone, because it's not really.
It probably has to do with loot.
 
Waldoff said:
nameds have a much higher spawn rate on defending versus taking back.
Click to expand...
Why?

When defending a city like, say, Athica, wouldn't they take it as an outpost with generals there forming strategies for new attacks to conquer new territory? It would make more sense to me if there were more nameds when attacking for that reason, rather than when defending since the leaders of the attacks would be sending waves of soldiers at the area they are trying to take over, and not endangering themselves.

Just doesn't make much sense to me for that to be the case.
 
Does seem strange....

I would think the loot should be better defending then taking back. Since I am guessing Defending is harder to do then taking back. (then again never seen a war so dont' really have much to stand on here)
 
Kirin Folken said:
Does seem strange....

I would think the loot should be better defending then taking back. Since I am guessing Defending is harder to do then taking back. (then again never seen a war so dont' really have much to stand on here)
Click to expand...
Generally I would think the opposite. When defending you have time to prepare for attacks so it would be easier to defend than attack.

But thats just the way I see things.
 
Brimztone said:
Generally I would think the opposite. When defending you have time to prepare for attacks so it would be easier to defend than attack.

But thats just the way I see things.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that you really didnt have much time for a proper defense before they just started pouring into the zone and attacking anything that moved.

If it really is a much slower more controled assault, then yeah Defending would be easyer.
 
Kirin Folken said:
I was under the impression that you really didnt have much time for a proper defense before they just started pouring into the zone and attacking anything that moved.

If it really is a much slower more controled assault, then yeah Defending would be easyer.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean, but when the attacks happen there are like 15 zone-wide messages saying they they have been spotted near the area and to form a defense.
 
If you think about it, more generals and named should be in the attacks, than in the defense. The leaders of the war should be leading the fight, not defending what they've taken already. That's what you leave for the "peons" of the army to do.
 
Brimztone said:
But it doesn't make sense. :psyduck:
Click to expand...

It also doesn't make sense to just lay down and die instead of putting up a fight, which is essentially what is being done right now. When incentive is involved, it throws the "doesn't make sense" card out of whack.
 
Xeldan said:
It also doesn't make sense to just lay down and die instead of putting up a fight, which is essentially what is being done right now. When incentive is involved, it throws the "doesn't make sense" card out of whack.
Click to expand...
I understand that. We were talking about it in guild and Vent earlier and I said something that a bunch of people agreed with.

In the past the invasion that almost took Athica, it was a long fight. From what I hear the last wave that the defenders won the zone by holding off was easier than the rest of the waves that were thrown at Athica by the Kaezulian forces. Was this just the luck of the defenders, or was it meant this way by whomever was watching the fight from an outside area(A GM perhaps. Speculation of course :tinfoil:.)

From what I see, people want to take over zones. I'll say what I said in OOC when people were discussing it. Taking back zones is alot more fun than defending tem. The people that are "sitting back" and laying down without a fight are the ones that a loss of a vital city like Athica or Newport would hurt the most. If Athica or Newport was taken over if would push people into gear to defend the zones rather than just sit back without a fight and let them take it. It would give the incentive to take back the zone, and defend it more in the event it was attacked again.

I just think sending the biggest Kaezul force(within reason) at Athica and just completely overrun it to bring out the higher end players that are just "sitting back" and letting the zones get fought over waiting for them to be taken to they can liberate them and have more fun.
 
Brimztone said:
I understand that. We were talking about it in guild and Vent earlier and I said something that a bunch of people agreed with.

In the past the invasion that almost took Athica, it was a long fight. From what I hear the last wave that the defenders won the zone by holding off was easier than the rest of the waves that were thrown at Athica by the Kaezulian forces. Was this just the luck of the defenders, or was it meant this way by whomever was watching the fight from an outside area(A GM perhaps. Speculation of course :tinfoil:.)

From what I see, people want to take over zones. I'll say what I said in OOC when people were discussing it. Taking back zones is alot more fun than defending tem. The people that are "sitting back" and laying down without a fight are the ones that a loss of a vital city like Athica or Newport would hurt the most. If Athica or Newport was taken over if would push people into gear to defend the zones rather than just sit back without a fight and let them take it. It would give the incentive to take back the zone, and defend it more in the event it was attacked again.

I just think sending the biggest Kaezul force(within reason) at Athica and just completely overrun it to bring out the higher end players that are just "sitting back" and letting the zones get fought over waiting for them to be taken to they can liberate them and have more fun.
Click to expand...

Why should that need to be done just to make people go out and defend what's already rightfully "ours"? Why don't you just throw up the white flag now, and surrender every zone, and then just try and take every single one back, bit by bit, because that would just be more fun.. right?

This is exactly the reason why there should be a change in what happens with the war. If a zone gets taken over, make it so you can't take it back for a week, or if not that, when it gets taken over, then taken back, make nothing in the zone spawn for a week... that should get people off their asses to go and defend.
 
gorgetrapper said:
Why should that need to be done just to make people go out and defend what's already rightfully "ours"? Why don't you just throw up the white flag now, and surrender every zone, and then just try and take every single one back, bit by bit, because that would just be more fun.. right?

This is exactly the reason why there should be a change in what happens with the war. If a zone gets taken over, make it so you can't take it back for a week, or if not that, when it gets taken over, then taken back, make nothing in the zone spawn for a week... that should get people off their asses to go and defend.
Click to expand...
Why do people play the game? To have fun. People will be people and people will do what they want to do to have fun.

Yes. That would get people up and willing to go and defend the zones. People just don't find it fun to go thru all the obscure zones on the way to said vital zone to prevent the attacks.

If you actually sent a huge force of troops at a vital zone and let it fall, and it was lost and liberated and then unusable for a week after said liberation people would definitely have incentive to defend the zones if there was a steep consquence.

In a perfect world there wouldn't be this problem, but the world isn't perfect and people will be people, even in virtual world.

And just as a note, everything I have said when using "people" has been my observation and assumptions(as bad as assumptions can be).
 
Once the defenders rallied at the North badlands bridge they seemed to have a lot of fun defending, and a few groups went in and liberated south badlands as well.. I believe the lake is still overrun however. The efforts made were not coordinated enough to retake it.

Was anyone in this thread at the bridge, or are we all making observations based on assumption?

gorgetrapper said:
I ask in OOC, what about us lower levels who have to travel through those zones to get to other zones to exp in, and the response is "use the mansion of portals". This kind of attitude is disgusting at best, and I wish it wasn't like that. Lake Starfall has fallen, but I doubt anyone is going to take it back right away because it's not a zone 60+ people need to go to, so us lower levels have to suffer because of the mentality of "we'll just take it back later when we feel like it".
Click to expand...

To address one of your original concerns, if a zone is overrun, it can be travelled through, but is inhabited by things that are usually a lot stronger than the original mobs, and want your blood. This is war. So the MoP IS the alternative for foot travel, as well as a druid/wiz port.
 
Hmm, we (PR) were raiding last night when starfall & badlands came under attack. So basically there were some ppl that suggested going over there and defend it all... but we decided raiding was a better purpose for our time :p
 
Just an idea for another incentive since people use MOP to go around zones:
Perhaps Kaezul might have his wizards jam most of the MOP so people who use it end up near a zone which is occupied at random instead of their regular destination, so he can pick them off one by one! After all, mobility is key to many wars and if he can tamper with that of his foes it gives him an advantage :eek:
In implementation this is like the portal effect that ports you to darkwoods at random, but the chance of being ported into his minions claws is larger (and you cannot gate or port from there since the evil Kaezulian wizards will jam that too! You have to run away from that zone to one that is unoccupied before you can port/gate again). Of course going to the zones with a portal that he has a foothold in will work as usual, but getting out will be another matter (he will trap you! - incidentally this will keep it easy for players to join fighting in the war!). So if Kaezul has a foothold, using the MOP will be much more dangerous!

It sounds logical the way it is now with defenders having more chance of nameds to spawn, after all most generals are at the forefront of their armies to direct all destruction. Being the defender should also be easier since you have the advantage of fortifications. So retaking something should be harder.
 
BeittilBonker said:
Hmm, we (PR) were raiding last night when starfall & badlands came under attack. So basically there were some ppl that suggested going over there and defend it all... but we decided raiding was a better purpose for our time :p
Click to expand...

Raiding or not leaving that awesome exp group during double exp week.
 
gorgetrapper said:
This is exactly the reason why there should be a change in what happens with the war. If a zone gets taken over, make it so you can't take it back for a week, or if not that, when it gets taken over, then taken back, make nothing in the zone spawn for a week... that should get people off their asses to go and defend.
Click to expand...

Because the high level players who are needed to defend care about the spawns in Goblinskull, Greater Fay, Lake Starfall, or South Badlands? :psyduck:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom