Forums » Suggestions
Make the Serco / Itani war dynamic
Idea:
Three consecutive wins by either nation converts the contested system to the winning nation and the next adjacent enemy system to contested.
Loss of a system gives the losing nation the following advantage in the next round of contests- namely that support capital ships begin their journey from Eo or Geira. The reason for this is to make it progressively more difficult to take and hold enemy systems. Support capital ships would spawn at the current rate for the nation defending or retaking a system.
It might be necessary to rework the map so that progressive loss of systems cut off but do not include the capital system.
Off topic: Yes, I still play, just 1) bored with the current state of the game, doing other things and 2) very busy with work atm so not really much time to meaningfully commit.
Three consecutive wins by either nation converts the contested system to the winning nation and the next adjacent enemy system to contested.
Loss of a system gives the losing nation the following advantage in the next round of contests- namely that support capital ships begin their journey from Eo or Geira. The reason for this is to make it progressively more difficult to take and hold enemy systems. Support capital ships would spawn at the current rate for the nation defending or retaking a system.
It might be necessary to rework the map so that progressive loss of systems cut off but do not include the capital system.
Off topic: Yes, I still play, just 1) bored with the current state of the game, doing other things and 2) very busy with work atm so not really much time to meaningfully commit.
Yeah this is a great suggestion and one that has been suggested before I think. Im sure draugath the suggestion link nazi will show up any time and point it out.
In any case, I think what the devs are going to want to see here is a more considered thinking out of the deneb war, rather than a broad plan like this. Having the fight for deneb as it is at the moment is alright expect it clearly favours the Itani. The justification for this is that the serco are attacking, but when they win theres no reward or change to defense as the itani try to take the system back.
In any case, I think what the devs are going to want to see here is a more considered thinking out of the deneb war, rather than a broad plan like this. Having the fight for deneb as it is at the moment is alright expect it clearly favours the Itani. The justification for this is that the serco are attacking, but when they win theres no reward or change to defense as the itani try to take the system back.
I twould be nice if the Devs just got Deneb fixed so it could change sides....
I wouldn't be surprised if it has. After 300+ pages of suggestions, the majority being made these days would be. Such as the one I commented on recently regarding p2p trading.
However, while I'm sure this would be a significant undertaking, I think it would add substantial value to the game.
The Deneb war has pretty much been talked to death by now and I'm fairly satisfied with the game play and the slight advantage the Itani have, so I'm not recommending changes to that.
As I mentioned the map would most likely have to be redrawn because I don't think you want to lose the capital (new player) system in succession to say losing Geira and Betheshie. I think isolating the capital system should be scored as total domination by the winning side and the board reset.
So really the only changes I'm suggesting are to 1) allow nation ownership of contested systems (definitely already suggested many many times) and 2) to finally expand the war allowing the nations to be conquered (suggested not only for Serco / Itani but also for UIT) by moving the contested system to the next adjacent system held by the defeated nation.
The real danger that I see to this is isolating new players in the nation who is losing territory or having them quit or switch to a winning character.
By requiring 3 consecutive wins or perhaps 3 out of 4 wins in a month it gives nations a chance to work towards the long range goal of domination. It also makes it a fairly heavy investment of time and resources for players while not allowing a single nation with the occasionally large active population to easily drive into the opposing nation that may be short on players during that month or so. Also, it should be implemented in a way that is easy to tweak until the right balance of wins is found.
Like I said, I'm bored with the current state of VO, so I'm suggesting the type of improvement that would reignite my interest. And in the mean time, I'm hanging out and watching.
However, while I'm sure this would be a significant undertaking, I think it would add substantial value to the game.
The Deneb war has pretty much been talked to death by now and I'm fairly satisfied with the game play and the slight advantage the Itani have, so I'm not recommending changes to that.
As I mentioned the map would most likely have to be redrawn because I don't think you want to lose the capital (new player) system in succession to say losing Geira and Betheshie. I think isolating the capital system should be scored as total domination by the winning side and the board reset.
So really the only changes I'm suggesting are to 1) allow nation ownership of contested systems (definitely already suggested many many times) and 2) to finally expand the war allowing the nations to be conquered (suggested not only for Serco / Itani but also for UIT) by moving the contested system to the next adjacent system held by the defeated nation.
The real danger that I see to this is isolating new players in the nation who is losing territory or having them quit or switch to a winning character.
By requiring 3 consecutive wins or perhaps 3 out of 4 wins in a month it gives nations a chance to work towards the long range goal of domination. It also makes it a fairly heavy investment of time and resources for players while not allowing a single nation with the occasionally large active population to easily drive into the opposing nation that may be short on players during that month or so. Also, it should be implemented in a way that is easy to tweak until the right balance of wins is found.
Like I said, I'm bored with the current state of VO, so I'm suggesting the type of improvement that would reignite my interest. And in the mean time, I'm hanging out and watching.
The war already is dynamic: territory (sectors) can be claimed for either side and, depending on the outcome, war convoys are sent out daily to blockade the entrance to the losing nation from greyspace. This thread should have been titled "Make the Serco / Itani war *more dynamic".
I think, at the end of every week, whichever side has more wins should claim a station in Deneb. If at any time either side controls all the stations, Deneb would change colors.
I think, at the end of every week, whichever side has more wins should claim a station in Deneb. If at any time either side controls all the stations, Deneb would change colors.
Well the stations are a kind of reward, probably should happen anyway, but we need much more of a reward system built in to make deneb, which is an incredibly time consuming activity, worthwhile, in my view.
You have a point Phaserlight. I see the conflict as static because the border never moves. The war convoys are a great idea, but so far my experience with them has been disappointing. But again, a fair point.
Actually being able to lose and retake control of Deneb or some of it's stations would be a step forward. I think instead of just focusing on control of Deneb, that the better reward system would move the border back and forth until one nation is fully conquered, however many systems it is decided upon to achieve that goal. I'm thinking Deneb plus 3. And leading a successful conquest should provide huge bonus' for the winning participants.
Those rewards should be based upon player involvement during each stage of the conquest as it would be disappointing to invest the massive amount of time needed only to not be present and credited at the final battle.
I'm also thinking that the borders should shift on a weekly basis rather than my original 3 weekly victories in a row.
Actually being able to lose and retake control of Deneb or some of it's stations would be a step forward. I think instead of just focusing on control of Deneb, that the better reward system would move the border back and forth until one nation is fully conquered, however many systems it is decided upon to achieve that goal. I'm thinking Deneb plus 3. And leading a successful conquest should provide huge bonus' for the winning participants.
Those rewards should be based upon player involvement during each stage of the conquest as it would be disappointing to invest the massive amount of time needed only to not be present and credited at the final battle.
I'm also thinking that the borders should shift on a weekly basis rather than my original 3 weekly victories in a row.