Guild Wars 2

Upgrades should have a continuous maintenance cost to upkeep them. A fully upgraded structure, denied supply, would slowly tick to 0 supply, and if it stays at 0 it will start losing upgrades. Waypoints will disappear, walls and doors will turn to paper, cannons/oil/mortars will vanish, workers and services gone into thin air, guards quit and leave their posts, etc.

This creates a new battle strategy for attacking fully sieged opponents. You take their supply camps and interrupt their supply lines and “starve” them out of the keep or tower. Eventually they have to come out and fight you to reclaim their supply lines. If they don’t, well you get the idea.

—It reduces the virtually unlimited supply that ‘winning’ servers have
—It creates new strategic options
—It adds a new level of depth
—It encourages more open field fighting over camps and supply lines
—It makes small groups and roamers a more important part of the game
—It’s new
—It’s not that hard to do – the only challenges I really see are:
A) Do all upgrades have an upkeep or are some basic ones free?
How much and how often is the cost?
C) What order do the upgrades decay in?
D) What happens if a damaged wall/gate un-reinforces? Back full?

Since all the towers/keeps receive supplies at different rates, it seems like another balancing problem waiting to happen.

Also, doesn’t this give griefers even more reason to use up supplies? not only would they be burning off your supplies, they’ve be actively degrading your defenses.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Since all the towers/keeps receive supplies at different rates, it seems like another balancing problem waiting to happen.

Also, doesn’t this give griefers even more reason to use up supplies? not only would they be burning off your supplies, they’ve be actively degrading your defenses.

I think balancing the game around griefing is a mistake. To combat griefing there could be better reporting options and actual actions taken against known griefers, not changing the way you look at designing the game.

There would certainly be some balancing involved, but the speed, HP, and capacity of dolyaks would likely be the only balancing needed. Also we could potentially remove enemy dolyaks from displaying on the map.

This would make it virtually impossible to hold keeps for lower tier servers where a group of 5 oceanic players can already devastate a BL during the right hours of the “night”.

Faux Sheaux.6179:

This would make it virtually impossible to hold keeps for lower tier servers where a group of 5 oceanic players can already devastate a BL during the right hours of the “night”.

If you have a group against an empty BL, straight up capping them is still going to be the same.

Starving the enemy of supply would be the really “slow” way to siege them. You’d first have to take the camps, then defend and hold the camps for quite a long time until the tower/keep supply drops to 0, then keep holding the supply until upgrades decay, then siege it.

If they chose this method, it would GREATLY slow them down compared to what they’re doing today.

Solstice.1097:

There would certainly be some balancing involved, but the speed, HP, and capacity of dolyaks would likely be the only balancing needed.

Perhaps I didn’t make it clear: currently, each of the towers/keeps receive supplies at different rates. this is based on the length of each yak’s path(and on how many yaks deliver to a given objective).

making yaks go faster won’t change the relative difference in supply rate between objectives.

Solstice.1097:

I think balancing the game around griefing is a mistake. To combat griefing there could be better reporting options and actual actions taken against known griefers, not changing the way you look at designing the game.

I strongly disagree. being aware of potential exploits is a key element of proper design.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Solstice.1097:

There would certainly be some balancing involved, but the speed, HP, and capacity of dolyaks would likely be the only balancing needed.

Perhaps I didn’t make it clear: currently, each of the towers/keeps receive supplies at different rates. this is based on the length of each yak’s path(and on how many yaks deliver to a given objective).

making yaks go faster won’t change the relative difference in supply rate between objectives.

Solstice.1097:

I think balancing the game around griefing is a mistake. To combat griefing there could be better reporting options and actual actions taken against known griefers, not changing the way you look at designing the game.

I strongly disagree. being aware of potential exploits is a key element of proper design.

You were clear. For a longer path, that yak could move a little faster, so that all the paths took the same time. OR you could argue it already is imbalanced this way and intended so why would this be a new imbalance?

Being aware of potential exploits and preventing them is smart, but limiting your developmental creative options due to they would not fix already existing exploits is not logic. People already waste supplies so what you’re saying is it doesn’t make sense to make any changes to what supplies are used for because they’re currently being abused??

I think this is a very interesting idea in that it could work to hamstring an opponent who is trouncing the opponents. There are precious few mechanics that favor the underdog, and there should be more (low hanging fruit, COUGH outmanned)

Solstice.1097:

You were clear. For a longer path, that yak could move a little faster, so that all the paths took the same time.

So each individual yak would have different walking speeds? that sounds.. messy.

Solstice.1097:

People already waste supplies so what you’re saying is it doesn’t make sense to make any changes to what supplies are used for because they’re currently being abused??

No, this specific change doesn’t make sense because it provides more motivation for griefing as it becomes a much more effective disruption.

What happens while upgrades are currently being built? supplies are often at zero between supply runs, would this feature only be active if no upgrades are currently being built?

The way I see it, it would give an other reason to not buy upgrades in the first place, making defensive gameplay even less appealing than it is now…

Applying the advantage / disadvantage method:

+ calls for open field combat
+ make siegeing a real strategy
+ Give advantage to organized force

- lessen the incentives to buy upgrades – what is the point of buying upgrades if 3 thieves can make my structure back to paper? (which would add to the current “what is the point of buying upgrades since ennemies can flip it with no resistence when most server is asleep”)
- lessen defense play (what’s the point to defend a paper objective?)
- leaves too much room to supply griefers
- What happens to structures under attack where players use supply on building defense and some are just taking the opportunity to do their daily? It’s already annoying, if, on top, these supply wasters putting supply in the doors/walls are bringing the structure downgrading, there will be lots and lots more complaining and aggressiveness than there already is.

Can’t think of more, right now…