Reduce Maximum Guards On Epic

[Sevoflurane 141]

Yes, this is a major issue on the epic server. Before 20 guards would have not been much of an issue. This is beause preivously, when a person walked on deed, only 3 guards would ever chase one person. Furthermore, if you walked seven tiles from the deed border, you could safely kill the guards from a one tile distance, and then back out 1 tile if you were getting beat up, and the guards would run back to the deed. This meant that settlements with large guard counts could be killed.

However, guard mechanics have changed. Now, when a person steps on a deed, most of the guards chase that one person, this makes killing guards very difficult, as tanks take damage very quickly. Also, you can no longer fight the guards from the special "7th tile", as guards will walk right up to you, then disengage. Ofcourse, this will probably require alot of work to fix this problem, so maybe just reduce the maximum number of guards on epic to, say, 10? No deed should be safe from raiders, but a guard count of 20 seems to guarentee this (unless the enemy has a champ nogump...)

[Bart 954]

I didnt hear any complaints when Black summit had 20 guards... odd

If people are willing to pay the amounts required to sustain 20 guards, let them pay it.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Bart

[kryton 6]

I have to agree with Bart on this one.

Kryton

[Wiro 370]

I didnt hear any complaints when Black summit had 20 guards... odd

Not that odd, I believe the one paying for it all left.

[Sklo:D 2,210]

3s per guard is a lot of money

[Bart 954]

3s per guard is a lot of money

Precisely my point, you pay a lot so you expect a lot in return, you get the protection you pay for.

[Sevoflurane 141]

I didnt hear any complaints when Black summit had 20 guards... odd

If people are willing to pay the amounts required to sustain 20 guards, let them pay it.

This is not a thread about blacksummit.

If rolf decides to keep the guard count at 20, it goes against the very concept of epic being a fast-paced server, where we no longer had super deeds.

[pierre93 63]

nice pay to win logic in this thread, lets add a cash shop with 100QL weps 100+ stack chants non drop for 20s a pop, i mean if u pay for it u deserve it right?

[krinos78 573]

Cant overcrowd a spirit guard , but they can overcrowd u? Hows that logic?

[Julepalme 39]

i agree with OP

20 guards does seem too many.

If it was 3 guards attacking 1 player at a time max.. i could understand nice to protect against biggest raids that way..

but then again as the others say.. if people willing to pay 60s a month :/ .. why not. i know i dont.

[Bart 954]

This is not a thread about blacksummit.

If rolf decides to keep the guard count at 20, it goes against the very concept of epic being a fast-paced server, where we no longer had super deeds.

No, its clearly a thread aimed at the fact BL failed to raid the JK capitol because they couldnt overcome the guards.

Ironically when Black summit was active, many BL constantly boasted how it was unraidable, so yes mentioning black summit does have a place in this thread.

As for the super deed concept, Kingdoms do tend to keep to one main deed for security, it is a PvP server, and smaller deeds tend not to last as well as a larger more secure deed where everyone can pool resources to hire more guards and provide more security for the good of the kingdom.

Personally i see JK as being more PvP active since we have had our new capitol up and running, we've been out more frequently because we know we have somewhere safe to retreat to if need be, or a safe place to store spare gear with the knowledge its unlikely to be raided and taken while we're out/offline, meaning we can jump back into the action much quicker if we die. so from my point of view the added security a larger deed provides actually promotes PvP on the server

[Sevoflurane 141]

i agree with OP

20 guards does seem too many.

If it was 3 guards attacking 1 player at a time max.. i could understand nice to protect against biggest raids that way..

but then again as the others say.. if people willing to pay 60s a month :/ .. why not. i know i dont.

with capital bonus, it is more like 30s

[Wiro 370]

In the end, though, money doesn't grow on trees.

[Sevoflurane 141]

No, its clearly a thread aimed at the fact BL failed to raid the JK capitol because they couldnt overcome the guards.

Ironically when Black summit was active, many BL constantly boasted how it was unraidable, so yes mentioning black summit does have a place in this thread.

As for the super deed concept, Kingdoms do tend to keep to one main deed for security, it is a PvP server, and smaller deeds tend not to last as well as a larger more secure deed where everyone can pool resources to hire more guards and provide more security for the good of the kingdom.

Personally i see JK as being more PvP active since we have had our new capitol up and running, we've been out more frequently because we know we have somewhere safe to retreat to if need be, or a safe place to store spare gear with the knowledge its unlikely to be raided and taken while we're out/offline, meaning we can jump back into the action much quicker if we die. so from my point of view the added security a larger deed provides actually promotes PvP on the server

The reason black summit was "boasted to be unraible"(not sure who said that), was because we had lots of excellent and experienced fighters on the deed, and we had a very good defense. Whitestone, on the other hand, just has a mediocre defenses at best. The only reason it is still standing is because the villagers all hide behind the guard count and you know it. When we first decided you had enough of an incubation period and raided, you all logged out and failed to even put up a fight.

JK will always be JK, and I doubt their deed will make you any more brave a fighters.

In the end, though, money doesn't grow on trees.

Yes, I said that. So my view has changed? Before I have not experienced how difficult it was to kill so many guards on the epic server, and now I have, and it very difficult, and to an extent I suppose they were justified in using a champ nogump.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Sevoflurane

[Fooligun 591]

The debate about "buying" security is always a big issue for wurm and always will be. The previous system where guards only attached 3 at a time and with the "7th tile" magic distance that made killing guards simple was simply a flaw in the system and meant deeds big or small were pointless. The idea of deed guards attacking at once does make sense, when a place is being attacked why would the rest sit there and wait?

This problem was on Wild with deeds having over a hundred guards and was limited to 50, on epic its now limited to 20 which at a large cost seems more reasonable. Its a system that at high levels isn't well documented or tested to what's a suitable "balance"

[krinos78 573]

Then remove the overcrowding cap for spirits. Cuz attackers attacking at ones makes sense too.

Edited August 6, 2012 by krinos78

[Suntzu 644]

I seen 50 guards die in 5 minutes, it just takes preparation.

+1 even though I never had a problem killing guards, one less thing to cry about.

[spider 842]

candee cool idea whta you say but than must rolf give lop mr mongols jk the spell pain rain and than oyu can see 20 guards is nothing vs 3 priest

[Protunia 735]

lol remove sploits for killing them first and fix their pathing and AI.

And at 3s each a month??

If someone wants 20 they should be able to have them.

Besides that they have been nerfed to hell and back enough.

Oh I forgot and.............. -1

Edited August 6, 2012 by Protunia

[Ols 305]

20 seems reasonable so long as guards fight on exactly the same terms as players and face things like overcrowding penalties. Then it'd be more reasonable for an organised group to take them down. Alternatively the guards could be tied to something other than money, so a large and well organised village can sustain a high guard count via hard work rather than silver's alone.

[Protunia 735]

20 seems reasonable so long as guards fight on exactly the same terms as players and face things like overcrowding penalties. Then it'd be more reasonable for an organised group to take them down. Alternatively the guards could be tied to something other than money, so a large and well organised village can sustain a high guard count via hard work rather than silver's alone.

Reducing it based on anything like size of village would make others not go to new villages and create more stagnation and less people on PvP servers. People need to be able to purchase those guards to get established and find more members first, not sorry I dont have any guards yet but you can come to my village now and later when we get more people I will be able to purchase more and protect our stuff.

[Joanavon 553]

If the deed guards at max are unable to provide a somewhat reasonable amount of deed security and safety especially when most or all of the villagers are offline then the very idea of investing in setting up a deed or other group activity construction becomes suspect. People simply wont invest that kind of cash and metal into something that has no reasonable expectation that it will still be there when they log back in.

[Crusader 114]

Opinions always differ depending on your side, and while I like you Bart I don't think you take into consideration that JK are not known for being offensive raiders, but now if things change around a bit, leadership is found, and you guys go out and raid and someone has 20 deed guards you're going to realize the struggle. I think it's very easy for you (and other JKers) to say -1 because they're more used to defending, not raiding. You aren't being fair to look at it from other's perspectives. I think because you have 20 guards you want to say -1 without taking into consideration how easily it could be you raiding and having this issue. JK would not be able to kill 20 guards (no offense you had trouble even capturing a tower), I really don't even think Mongols can and they're hailed as the dominant PvP force. We did it at Black Summit only with assistance of a Champion No-Gump, otherwise I doubt we could of. Factor in 4-10 people in local shooting you, it's hopeless.

Yes, money buys guards. It's in no way unfair to buy guards even to the maximum, but in truth it hurts PvP. People wish to complain about "backdooring" and "zerging" while a whole kingdom plops down a huge deed with 20 guards and becomes untouchable... okay. I think that personally kills more PvP than anything else, but that is only my opinion. Avarga is big, but it only has 6 guards because we rely on our players to defend it - not NPCs, that is how the game should be. There's little doubt that there's such a small amount of players on Epic. 20 guards? There's barely 20 people in HotS, so how is it meant to be successfully raided? 20 would be more than fair if the population was larger, but it isn't.

The problem with suggestion & ideas is people always take the side of the proposed change, if you have 20 guards you'll -1, if you want to raid you'll +1. Just realize one day you may be a raider, and you may try to raid a place with 20 guards and realize how difficult it truly is. Truth of the matter is Epic was meant to be fun PvP and a lot of it, and I don't think any deed should be granted so much safety from just NPCs.

I don't like 20 guards only because of the low population, it's not a fair amount in respect to the amount of raiders there are in a kingdom. I do think there needs to be more penalty for higher guards though not just in terms of money. Here's an idea: What if the more guards you have the longer they take to respawn? So if you have 5 guards, it'd take 5 minutes for them to respawn or such, but if you have 20 guards it would take the first wave 30+ minutes to respawn. That way if you are a defender - you still can have 20 guards, and if you're a raider you can kill them and hold them back for at least 30 minutes.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Crusader

[Bart 954]

i do like your suggestion, Having a slower respawn would seem a much fairer way, i know its extremely difficult to raid a place with 20 guards, without even factoring in players or Tower guards, however im not sure about them spawning in waves, surely then someone will just raid a place, kill 19 guards, leave 1 alive, carry on for hours switching people tanking the guard

[Crusader 114]

Guards still respawn even if all aren't dead currently, you can't do that (was done and fixed).