View Full Version : Attacks of home base have meaning
nytransit
11-03-2005, 08:07 PM
If a home base is attacked and the armies inside are defeated, the city(s) the user has occupied become unoccupied. If there are no armies in the home base, then defeat is immediate.
Armies in the cites that become unoccupied are not lost. Maybe they could be expelled to the outskirts of those cites, or automaticaly sent back to the user's home base (taking the travel path and time).
The home base isn't lost.
nytransit
11-03-2005, 08:10 PM
- While this would force users to keep resources tied up at their home base, it would also force users who take over large, special cities or lots of small cities to divvy up resources, giving other users a chance when attacking them.
- It would also introduce a new strategy element, as you would be launching and coordinating multiple attacks at once.
- It would also make the home base location more meaningful. Throw your home base in the middle of Europe, and it is easy to attack lots of cities but your home base is also an easy and quick target... keep your home base in the middle of nowhere, plenty of time to prep for attacks but it take times to get anywhere
Timmetie
11-03-2005, 08:23 PM
wowa this sucks.. So now when a multiple city owner loses a city he loses just 1 and the armies there.
Now you'd have to defend the cities, AND your homebase? This is insane, and would give noobs a far to great advantage.
Lukepuuk
11-03-2005, 10:24 PM
I'm sorry to say this nytransit....but this must be the worst idea i've heard. With all due respect ofcourse :). Just won't work.
speedfreak227
11-03-2005, 10:57 PM
i agree that losing everything by losing your city is too extreme but as it is there's no point in attacking someone's base except to beat up their armies.
maybe you could steal the "keys" to one of their resources or something.
though this would probably just end up with the strong preying on the weak and making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
right now it's nice to know that with no armies out there i can safely sit back and build up my economy. ;o)
speedfreak227
Radeon
11-03-2005, 10:59 PM
NO.... I would just leave the homebases the way they are right now...
His Lord Uberdude
11-03-2005, 11:01 PM
NO!
Good lord, this is loony! Someone can take out your cities just by taking out your homebase?! Geez, there'd be nowhere to hide your base that'd be good enough!
Master Of War
11-04-2005, 03:26 AM
Even I, still a noob, think it would be a bad idea, because for noobs, if they took one small city, they would lose money becuase of upkeep of the defense at both places.
Timmetie
11-04-2005, 06:50 AM
Maby small things like, when you "win" against a homebase, there cant be any armies made from there for 12 hours.
or he/she loses 100 geo's with a 24 hour timer. Or their armies morale (6 am next monday mickey?) goes down.
nytransit
11-06-2005, 05:41 AM
of course this helps the noob... i.e. ME ....
but, if it goes into effect after a reset, then it is different.. never suggested it happens. now...
BUT, the replies have done the trick... I, and I think a lot of other people want meaning when attacking a home base....
by the way, not to tooting my own horn, but the only people who don't like my initial iadea are those who own a ton of sh!t ..... of course they wouldn't like it..
as a side note to the guys who objected, I respect your thoughts....I am a noob.... but I really enjoy this game, and I am trying to learn from you cats..and just trying to help Mickey out... If it is a bad idea, i respecte your thoughts......
I for one think its a great idea, just not as extreme as you put it.. but I do agree if you slaughter a home base you should be able to pillage from that users supplies.. maybe randomly select resouces to steal based on a percentage of what that user has (maybe 10%?).. so if you attack a warlord you get a hell of a lot of Geos/Jewels/Oil/Cotton.. but if you attack a newb you get next-to-nothing :) This would benefit everyone, but affect the Warlords the most..
T.
Lukepuuk
11-06-2005, 10:30 AM
This cannot be done...i'll give you a very simple example why not:
Vacations
When one is on vacation now all he could do is hope he doesn't get beaten up too much, but expects he will.
He'll just have to build up from the resources he's gathered in the time he was away. If this idea was to go through, he'd come back from vacation and start as a newbie again.
Bad idea. Leave as it is i'd say.
Timmetie
11-06-2005, 10:40 AM
i'm actually all for the attacking of homebases, but not causing your cities to run empty (i mean wtf?). cause i dont like them untouchables, who have no cities nor armies, but a lot of geo's. I'd like to be able to kill those.
Ooops, I forgot to mention anything banked is safe ;)
Luke; Your right.. maybe 10% is a bit harsh.. but there should be a reward.. 2%?
T.
Timmetie
11-06-2005, 10:43 AM
woha! banked shouldnt be safe! or a safety measure, anything below 1000 geo's is safe.
Banks should be safe, we can get to them another way.. bank robberies!! :menacing: you get a random % of the entire value of the bank, world wide.. quick way to get rich... but there WILL be hurdles ;) the national guard is watching
T.
Lukepuuk
11-06-2005, 10:59 AM
There's still a problem.
Another example:
You attack a homebase and get say 2%...you've dealt with all the armies there and notice he's not rebuilding.
Can you attack it again then?
Because if so you could go on all night(or all the time if one is on vacation) and get everything.
Maybe araT is right...what you have banked should at least be safe...
But then the resources should be safe also.
I like the creativity, but I also like the idea of going away for a week without one guy nonstop attacking me ;)
Timmetie
11-06-2005, 11:31 AM
when you go away for a week, you should leave enough troops.
I say nothing is safe except 1000 geo's banked, and maby you can buy more bank space to save your money.
Lukepuuk
11-06-2005, 01:08 PM
You really want to hurt gameplay don't you?
Just because you are here every day of the year doesn't mean the rest is too ;)
Don't make the game TOO tough. It's supposed to be fun, not annoying, and what you propose can be very annoying in a game.
Timmetie
11-06-2005, 01:25 PM
anyone with over 1000 geo's is doing fine, and can afford a proper base defense, even more so cause troops take away geo's from that 1000 geo mark.
The game would be almost exactly thesame, only you would be discouraged from having a larger reserve then 1000 geo's, which i believe, harms the game.
PS. And yes, i hate gameplay, i go from game to game doing this, leaving sucking games in my wake MUHAHAHHAHAHAHHA.
Lukepuuk
11-06-2005, 01:36 PM
I hope it is the object of the game to collect as much in the bank as you can. 1000 isn't much.
Don't you agree that a player who has been playing hard for a year should be able to have collected 50k geos in the bank?
Or do you still think he should also be on the level of a newbie?
1000 geos is enough?
1000 is what a newbie could get in a week.
The system till now was working fine with the homebases...if it's not broke, don't fix it please.
Another thing:
Lets say I played well and I'm rich and everyone knows that. I can keep 10k troops in my homebase but as soon as one would notice or know that I am on vacation, they would attack it to death and steal all away.
Thoughtfull idea, but I think attacking the homebase and just getting info on the player would be more then enough. Like a spything.
Timmetie
11-06-2005, 01:47 PM
lol i dont agree the point of the game is to collect the most geo's. It's to use em in cities and armies and anything upcoming.
saving up money will ruin this game. what if everyone did that? say the new bank bonus city is huge. 1 person has it, all the others save up. Someone attacks, gets the city, the rest is still saving up, the first one now also starts saving up to get it back.
where would the gameplay go?
PS. from now on id like to be adressed as "Destroyer of Games" or DoG, to be short.
Lukepuuk
11-06-2005, 02:05 PM
What would be the point of playing, of occupying cities and all that, if you can't save up money in the bank?
If it was upto you, you wouldn't even be able to save up anything more then a 1000 geos... you'd soon be the only player playing as the rest would move on to a webgame which holds a future to work for.
Ladies, Please take it to Trash Talk (http://www.googleearthhacks.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=20) .. You're scratching up the curtains... :menacing: :lol:
T.
Lukepuuk
11-06-2005, 02:18 PM
I'm sorry, i kinda was thinking about asking to move it to the trashtalk forum, but was also trying to make a point about this idea ;)
Anyway, nothing personal here, but I liked the idea that was said a few times before of being able to spy on someone for a brief moment when attacking a homebase? I'd love to see a function like that in the game.
You know what, that might actually be the best idea I've read in this thread! That would be awesome! Good work Luke!
T.
His Lord Uberdude
11-06-2005, 07:09 PM
I'm sorry, i kinda was thinking about asking to move it to the trashtalk forum, but was also trying to make a point about this idea ;)
Anyway, nothing personal here, but I liked the idea that was said a few times before of being able to spy on someone for a brief moment when attacking a homebase? I'd love to see a function like that in the game.
After all that noise, there's finally a decent idea.
blitzkrieg
11-06-2005, 09:35 PM
If we intergrate home base attacks, maybe we should allow the defensive army to have zero upkeep costs as there are no financial advantages to "owning" your home base. These troops do it for the love. The can look up into the top window of the top tower and know I'm looking down at them with a smile. Then they feel warm and fuzzy inside and require no upkeep because they farm the surrounding land and supply me with gifts from mother nature's ample bosom. They will have a feast in my honour and all from the surrounding areas will be invited. There will be laughter and merriment for all and through tourism, I will get a bonus geo payment. The being as I'm such a inspiration leader, I will personally divvy up the tourism bonus among my defensive troops for them to buy new hats and table tennis tables.
If you stopped reading about 1/3 of the way through that paragraph, I don't blame you :)
blitzkrieg
Timmetie
11-06-2005, 09:52 PM
flower power ftw!
His Lord Uberdude
11-06-2005, 11:56 PM
If we intergrate home base attacks, maybe we should allow the defensive army to have zero upkeep costs as there are no financial advantages to "owning" your home base. These troops do it for the love. The can look up into the top window of the top tower and know I'm looking down at them with a smile. Then they feel warm and fuzzy inside and require no upkeep because they farm the surrounding land and supply me with gifts from mother nature's ample bosom. They will have a feast in my honour and all from the surrounding areas will be invited. There will be laughter and merriment for all and through tourism, I will get a bonus geo payment. The being as I'm such a inspiration leader, I will personally divvy up the tourism bonus among my defensive troops for them to buy new hats and table tennis tables.
If you stopped reading about 1/3 of the way through that paragraph, I don't blame you ;)
Anyway, I like your idea. No upkeep for homebase armies.
blitzkrieg
Oh gosh. :lol: I read it, but I regret it...geez, Blitz, way to feed your ego. ;)
creeper
11-12-2005, 12:26 PM
attacking a home base drives to nothing, as you only waste troops on both sides.
what if you could invade and stay there for a while, like 24h. in that period of time, the homebase pays for all invading army´s expenses (1 army limit). after that, the army is forced out of the city and can´t come back.
if the owner discovers that has been invaded, he can buy an army and kill everyone (give some advantage to him... like 1 to 5).
this way, invading means that you can stop paying your troops expenses for a while but it is very unsafe because of the owner´s advantage.
this can be used as a part of the alliance schema. if I don´t have any armies, i still can contribute to the alliance letting someone else park troops on my hb before an attack.
besides, this will include noobs on the game, as they can fight between them for a good reason and not just for the taste of blood. somehow this will be a second division.
LtScoundrel
12-01-2005, 03:09 PM
For the "vacation-problem" I think it is the best to include a "vacation-mode" so if you make a journey you can't be attacked but you also don't earn anything. So your account is frozen.
Perhaps a select-field from 7 up to 365 days or so.
I'm just a newbie - but was my idea while i read this thread!
Timmetie
12-01-2005, 05:02 PM
so i go get some big cities and go in vacation mode making them unable to take back?
or do you leave all your cities? in that case vacation mode wouldnt have any use.
At the moment this game has no building up of infrastructure or anything whatsoever, so i can get beaten back to full zero, and get back in days. I dont like it, but its the way it is, so vacation mode wont work.
LtScoundrel
12-01-2005, 05:49 PM
the vacation-mode is just to safe the homebase...
Timmetie
12-01-2005, 06:37 PM
ah right, never mind anything i said then.
so you're saying you should be able to go into vacation mode to protect you from everything said above. I dont think that would be good either, has to have some limits.
Maby make it a 14 day minimum or something, or whatever is decided homebases should "pay" when attacked, cant be totally safe in vacation mode, only 50%.
or you'd just go into vacation mode when attacked.
anthonywitt
12-02-2005, 02:00 AM
For the "vacation-problem" I think it is the best to include a "vacation-mode" so if you make a journey you can't be attacked but you also don't earn anything. So your account is frozen.
Perhaps a select-field from 7 up to 365 days or so.
I'm just a newbie - but was my idea while i read this thread!This was brought up in the first beta and there was a lot of talk. It is a good idea but I think you should only be able to vacation with your armies in the home base.
I don't want to see resorces frozen. Take your first vacation and see what your resorces done when you return.
Holiday mode should also be limited to a month or so.. especially when we bring in the donations section.. we will be setting a limit on inactivity before the account gets deleted.. our server cant handle more than a couple of thousand players and its not fair to keep new fresh blood out because there are 100s of inactive accounts. :)
T.
anthonywitt
12-02-2005, 02:06 PM
Holiday mode should also be limited to a month or so.. especially when we bring in the donations section.. we will be setting a limit on inactivity before the account gets deleted.. our server cant handle more than a couple of thousand players and its not fair to keep new fresh blood out because there are 100s of inactive accounts. :)
T.On that note "T" will inactive accounts be deleted on reset?
Brendo
12-02-2005, 03:06 PM
On that note "T" will inactive accounts be deleted on reset?
They will be deleted automatically won't they? - Along with everyone else.
They will be 'deleted' because they won't have been reactivated after the reset.
Timmetie
12-02-2005, 03:07 PM
we didnt have to reactivate right? just reset homebase.
so just delete all accounts that havn't set their homebase 4 weeks after reset or so.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.