Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kttdestroyer]

Well, i think it would be good idea to allow more factions to be able to compete for northen towns. If factions more concentrate on one city, then maybe they will care more for it. Right now, all northen towns is a lot like one big battle, the one that wins owns all towns. Some ideas how to promote this situation:

A) What if factions would require more people to take towns for each town they own? For exemple if a faction owns one town, to take next town they need 8 people (+3), if they want a third town they will need 11 people and so on. That would make it harder to attack at nights with fewer people. In the end i think its logical that the more towns one faction controls the more people it needs.

B) Other could be to dissalow to hold some towns when you hold another, like, you cant hold Modoc and Klamath at the same time, or BH and Redding, or the Den and Gecko. (but this one i like less, its too extreme and leaves little to imagination).

C) What if towns instead of giving caps, cost caps? Crazy huh? Simple and true.

Some Experimental ideas:
C-2) Maybe if towns cost caps, the factions would need to do something in town, work on it somehow, to avoid the money loss, invest. Open a shop? Auction? Boxing Matches with betting? Take taxes for mining?

C-3) If a faction would like to roleplay raider factions they maybe should be able to do that, meaning, if vendor is killed, he can be looted for X amount of caps? Those caps are then subtracted from the loss of the owners, so if vendor is killed, the controlling faction has to pay it. If they dont manage to pay it, they loose control. And Vendor can be killed only between a specific time frame, like from 18 PM to 23:59 PM, otherwise he neither generates money or anything, he just dies like now without any loot, to give the fatction in control some chance to defend.

C-4) Once the controlling faction looses the control, they will have a dept to pay to the town if they want to regain control. Acually all factions have to do it, the deps is on the town, not in the faction, the town is bankrupt. However, Those that raided the town maybe should have a stash someplace, their raider base, which would be visible for one day(from 18 PM to 23:59 PM) after the raid. So, the owners of the town will have one day to hit back at raiders and get back the money, if raiders loose, they will loose their base, maybe to extreme but something like that.

Well, some ideas  

[Michaelh139]

Hell to the no for c and c-2.

Others seem fine alternatves.

[John Ryder]

I think that first thing to do is to replace TC guy with a terminal to avoid killing him. Also about A) I'd rather though that you will need alliances to take some town for example BH. Few gang members from different factions to speak with a leader or something.

[Izual]

B) Other could be to dissalow to hold some towns when you hold another

Best idea.

[Lordus]

Point B does not solve anything.

 BHH/Rogues could hold Broken Hills and Redding and they are de facto same team (almost same personal substrate).

 TTLA/VSB/Hawks = alliance,, could hold even 3 non compatible cities at one time.

 And we are not doing this to violate the rules, it is current state.

 But i like idea that small teams could take part on TC. But it is impossible, because every time 10+ hostile player will arive (does not matter what alliance is it). Maybe like on TLA, there are some places that you can hold without any major screen display, that gives some gear and will be at distant places (Necropolis,...) so even small groups could try competitive action. If the output of this kind of capture would be 2 metal armors mk1 and asault rifles, major gangs could ignorate this and only small groups and PKs would be attracted by this.

[Sarakin]

As long as faction system wont change, both A) and B) are  abusable. One gang will just take towns with different faction names, and with this change it will mean just a little annoyance to them. Anyway, it might prevent one gang from hoarding all the cities. C) seems bad, even now if you dont control wealthy city for a several days, the equipment lost in the fight is more worthy than caps generated by the footlocker.
(were still waiting for better TC rewards such as ammo, drugs, armors and weapons  )

[Kirkor]

A) What if factions would require more people to take towns for each town they own? For exemple if a faction owns one town, to take next town they need 8 people (+3), if they want a third town they will need 11 people and so on. That would make it harder to attack at nights with fewer people. In the end i think its logical that the more towns one faction controls the more people it needs.

Big factions still could afford taking citys.

C) What if towns instead of giving caps, cost caps? Crazy huh? Simple and true.

So why bother Tc if you can only loose on it? :S

Some Experimental ideas:
C-2) Maybe if towns cost caps, the factions would need to do something in town, work on it somehow, to avoid the money loss, invest. Open a shop? Auction? Boxing Matches with betting? Take taxes for mining?

No, it will not work. There is many better towns for auctions/bartering and trading. Also there are too small amount of active players. And noone want to risk their stuff to bring it to some dangerous, unguarded city...

C-3) If a faction would like to roleplay raider factions they maybe should be able to do that, meaning, if vendor is killed, he can be looted for X amount of caps? Those caps are then subtracted from the loss of the owners, so if vendor is killed, the controlling faction has to pay it. If they dont manage to pay it, they loose control. And Vendor can be killed only between a specific time frame, like from 18 PM to 23:59 PM, otherwise he neither generates money or anything, he just dies like now without any loot, to give the fatction in control some chance to defend

I can only see here another opportunity to get free caps for bluesuit suicide noobs...

[maszrum]

probably you guys forget about something, sooner or later small gungs will be absorbed by bigger and stronger organisations
anyay we have plenty ideas of changing tc system and entire gameplay, but looks like nobody want to change anything - even fucking namecolorising

all this suggestions will be pointless, becouse -  GANGS HAVE NO REAL INTREST IN KEEPING CITIES its gameplay problem, caps as reward ? who needs them after 2 weeks after wipe? we dont need defend our cities , they are ghosttowns, dont remember when i saw some players in klamath, den or gecko

heh we need to wait for FOG sever or awakening of developers:/

[Kilgore]

This suggestion doesn't really make any sense.

A/B is abusable (Izual, please...)
and C is just stupid, you would invest money (equipment, ammo, militia) just to lose more money (keep the town)...

TC is at the moment pretty much bugged (failed takeovers, crazy timers, reward not appearing). I reported few bugs already, but still there are more that need to be fixed and I'm not sure why they occur.

Changes that I would suggest are:
1) disable completely "feature" of making town belonging to "Unknown" when a member of controlling faction kills controller. By that "feature", small gangs will have a problem to join new members, because any of them can kill controller while the rest of them is away, thus losing control. Personally, I was always against this "feature", from the very start, as it soon started causing problems, stupid exploits and bugs,
2) introduce an option of adding "allied" faction in towns other than Modoc. The feature is implemented already, but for some strange reason, only in Modoc. I tested it before, seemed to work nicely, but because of no militia in Modoc now, it's totally useless currently.

Also, there is no need to replace NPC controller with terminal, as he respawns frequently.

[Izual]

Kilgore/Lordus, about B) suggestion:

BHH/Rogues could hold Broken Hills and Redding and they are de facto same team (almost same personal substrate).

It is of course abusable, but the money taken would go to different teams. Instead of (maybe) Rogues/VSB holding 2 towns, they would be forced to share the towns and give one to BHH/TTTLAs. The money, by then, would be shared. Also it is of course abusable, but it'd be slow and boring to bypass. My two cents.

[Gunduz]

I do like the idea of needing more power to hold more cities. TC needs some adjustments, but I think that when npc factions actually start keeping members, the whole system will work differently.

[kttdestroyer]

Some further details/preview on the ideas:
A) Ofcoures that number 3 i took up from the air, and it could be even higher, like 5 per city. Meaning, to take sixth city a faction would need 35 registered members, for fifth 30 members. That wouldint happen every day i assume? and to hold it, 35 members would be needed online all the time, for faction not holding a single town, it would be a lot easier, needing only 5 people. But yeah, the abuse problem... See the problem now, well, maybe remove "Faction Friend" thing, and give faction ability to buy unlimited amount of bases on their name. Even though there still would be a problem, players in one faction could all make alts and create a second faction with diffrent name from alts. I will think about it a bit more i guess i was a bit tired when i wrote this first.  

C) What would be the point of TC? Well, exacly, factions that have no intrest in holding a town other then caps (the "raider" factions) i see no reason why they would need the towns? Raiders should be raiding, not holding cities right? I also believe there are factions that want to have towns for other reasons, like BHH. If there is no other interest to hold towns other then to gather money, then why should this money factor exist in the first place?

[kttdestroyer]

Well, solution to abusable part of A) could be to make faction allies work properly ingame,

1)remove the green tagging of faction players (If you green tag one player you would only give karma to him maybe, not make him green, but thats diffrent topic).

2)The only way to green your allies would be to set them as allies in faction terminal, also would enable the factions to guard eachother towns and make militia act towards them as allies.

3)If a non-allied character attacks another player in unguarded city the militia should attack him (they should try to keep order in town to some extent right?) at least if the shooting player OR the victim is in militias FOV. Therefore, if non-set allies try to help defend a town, they will get attacked by militia.

4)A limit towards non-allied faction members in town control zone while taking a town could also be in place.

5)The Faction and its allies are counted as ONE towards the amount of players needed to capture a town (5 players for one town, 20-35 for sixth). If first faction has no town, and second has one and they are allied, the first faction will need 8-10 players/allies to take a town.

6)Now, if one big faction makes a second faction that is non-allied towards their first faction, then its gonna get easly outplayed as they cannot be logged on to two towns at the same time, and cant protect two towns at the same time without reloggin.

7)Adding an ally to the faction should result in unability to remove them for next few days (or other set time), the same with removing, when removing you should not be able to add them after few days again.

[Lordus]

No way. Too complicated. Imagine that new teams would like to join TC and they will have study this huge list of what you cant do...

1) faction scenarios where only limited numbers of players would be availbe is preparing (8 vs 8 players)

2) give back old colourising, because current state is worse than ever

3) make economy output of kind of beacons TC so little for huge teams, so they will not have intention to raid small groups

4) create some TC without current display beacons, so no general team alert would exist

[kttdestroyer]

No way. Too complicated. Imagine that new teams would like to join TC and they will have study this huge list of what you cant do...

I dont agree ponts 1 to 9 are complicated at all, they are pretty obvious to me, and i bet would feel natural to a new comer to the game. It only makes the alliances acually set up though ingame system rather then set up outside game.

1) faction scenarios where only limited numbers of players would be availbe is preparing (8 vs 8 players)

2) give back old colourising, because current state is worse than ever

3) make economy output of kind of beacons TC so little for huge teams, so they will not have intention to raid small groups

4) create some TC without current display beacons, so no general team alert would exist

Not sure those things would change much to be honest. Some minor changes not changing the core of the problem in my honest opinion.

Currently we have some empty cities which gangs packed with best equipment fight in, they are battle grounds, not towns. A lot better in my opinion if the towns meant something, like BH started to represent something, it become intresting. Fight for BH become a point, becouse there was something more then a battle ground, thats why CS attacked BH not Klamath. Thats how all cities should be.