Garrison discussion - discussion on possible change


#1

(not sure why forum formatting odd)

Hi,

I would like to make a proposal on garrison functioning.

Vision for garrisons:

  1. Option for troop tax
  • set same as gold tax on poachers, but on troops built by guild
  • Called ‘conscription’
  1. This gets assigned to the “Castle’s garrison”
  • aka whomever has their home base at said island, contributes their “troop tax” to the “Castle’s garrison”

The Marshal role is assigned to a player per island.

  • Any one player can only be a marshal at a maximum of 2 islands
  • Any specific island’s marshal can only be changed once every 24hours, and not while being attacked.
  • The troops he gains as “marshal” cannot be used for personal primarchs, gets automatically added to the garrison
  • The marshal’s garrison base is the base of the specific marshal
  • It has the base defense stats of a Rusher primarch (250 defense); this gets boosted by fort upgrades, and debuffed by siegers
  1. Players that add additional “garrisoned” troops to a bases garrison ends up adding it to the “pooled” garrison. They still belong to said player and can be removed by said player to his own troops.

    However, there isn’t 50 different garrisons per island, only 1 big garrison. When the garrison gets hit for 20k, it gets hit for 20k. This is taken from the garrison on an equal split bases: aka 10 ppl owning stuff, 2k from each, if player has less than 2k, maximum is taken, and the balance from the garrison pool

So the sequence would be something like this:

  • Island gets attacked
  • Present primes defend first, and reinforces from that players garrison only
  • Once all primes are dead, the garrison defends
  • Both of the above contribute to shields

“Castle garrison” troops are permanently conscripted - they cannot be transferred to a player, nor off that castle. They stand and fall with that castle.

Reasons
1a) Helps officers and leaders to get team participation without having to police every member
b) gets contributions from everyone

2a) This stops people from assigning their level 500 base as the marshal for every island
b) 24h timer / blocked by primes stops the above as well just different mechanism
c) the high base defense (250) makes islands more valuable, and harder to conquer.

  1. This allows you to still store troops at garrison for defense, but also able to pickup again
    This simplifies the tedious part of attacking - currently once the war is essentially won you have to hit the island another 50 times destroying 1-10-48-1888-39-3000etc

Anyways, that would be the idea of the garrison
-It makes Marshal role useful
-It makes upgrades important
-It makes castles easier to defend (harder to conquer)
-On the other hand it makes attacking less tedious

Thoughts?

Edit: Clarified some concepts, including what was added by ForScience


#2

Wording - conscription instead of tax? :smiley:

This does sound neat, though. What happens when a taunter is on the garrison? Does it no longer pull aggro?


#3

It would still pull aggro, but it would not reinforce from the Marshal’s garrison.

Not sure if I would like it to reinforce from the player’s garrison. probably


#4

This progression then - taunter’s/taunters’ troops > remaining primarchs’ troops > proposal above?


#5

Yup. Sounds logical without breaking any intended mechanics.


#6

What if Conscripts are also available to backfill to any teammates’ Primarch at a location? (And have top priority for backfill.)

I think this would make defending feel much less bad (players would generally lose only the team’s conscripts before the fort shield is triggered … giving players a chance to counterattack or retreat without massive personal losses). At the same time, attacking still feels just as good – you’re still blowing up just as many of your enemies’ troops.


#7

Hmm no on the teammates primes bit

Reason:

That would create a too powerful taunter imho.

A high level player would then have a stupid amount of garrisoned troops to fill up his taunter. That kinda brings us back to smalls donating to bigs.

I wouldn’t be keen for that. I’ve already seen lvl 500 players with >600k garrisons. Its unkillable. Not keen on having multiples around


#8

@Gox1201 If the enemy has a massive taunter, just trap it with a Rusher. Then kill weaker stuff (including all the conscripts) and save the big taunter until the backfill is gone.


#9

doesn’t work - even with all that trapping, the taunters were still up and untargetable


#10

Hmm, are you saying trapping doesn’t allow you to attack other targets, or that you weren’t able to physically tap on other stuff? Is this a problem with the 3D only, or does it affect the 2D UI which simply lists all of the primarchs too?


#11

You couldn’t physically see the taunter in 3d, so could not target it
the 2d menu via the garrison view cannot be used to cast spells

The 2d view of the garrison gets completely stuffed as well

  • didnt get a screen grab, but it gets completely jumbled

#12

Oh I see, that makes sense. I forgot abilities could only be triggered from the 3D view. Improvements to the 2D view are in the works … sounds like we should figure out how to add using abilities from that view as part of that project.


#13

I think minimizing it to one garrison instead of 50 is a bad idea. I think this puts new teams in a perilous position, and enhances an already grossly unfair advantage long standing atlas teams have. Having to individually go through a garrison gives a team time to react, and get reinforcements there. Where as with a single garrison any good team could either bubble or conquer a fort in one hit. I do think the Marshall garrison and conscripts sounds good. I don’t however think that any player who has either spent or worked to obtain a certain advantage should have said advantage taken away from them. If there is a taunter with 600k troops good for him. His team is lucky to have him. An option to stun from the 2d menu would alleviate this a little bit, but you are gonna have to deal with those troops
Eventually. Plus, nothing is gonna stop a spender from immediately healing and restocking as well, so again, no real fix there. If you really want to get more people into atlas you need to make it possible for new teams to come in and get established. Not park in a safe zone. Make a small portion of the map inaccessible to older teams for the first 30 days when you expand the map. Provide new teams with a place to grow and learn the game competing with people on the same level as them. The neutral zones kind of cover that, but no pvp. A beginner zone where new teams could compete for land and learn would make things a lot more fun for people entering the game. Then after 30 days it’s open to all and the game begins for real. Most games with a castle system like this operate off servers, that they open new ones constantly. Providing new players the chance to grow and learn without the threat of some overlord team, complete with player protection and everything. You are asking them to come in and compete with dread, right off the rip.


#14

I see this idea mentioned a lot, and would like to point out it would have the opposite effect.

It will merely lead to team being blissfully unaware of their relative strength/weakness, they will over-expand, or claim territory they cannot hope to hold.

So in a month or three or whatever , when said shields come down, they will get annihilated and suffer much greater losses than they would have in current setup.

As Panda has stated before, Atlas is quite brutal at showing teams their true strength and weakness, and teams that are carried by 1-2 bigs, are quickly figuring out that they aren’t as strong as they think.

Its a very very rude awakening in general. This is discussed elsewhere on anti-griefing and haven concepts.

The discussion on Garrisons here, is aimed at tweaking one mechanic, since it is once again falsely giving the team hope - all that happens is they dump a lot of RSS into something that is already lost.

If a proper garrison was setup, they would be able to defend it – win or lose. Current setup just adds hours to the inevitable, and frustrates more than needed.


#15

It doesn’t just add hours to the inevitable if you can last until pvp shields come up and have a whole week to recover. Or until you can get enough troops there to pop a shield of your own. But yeah I do think you are right about the beginner protection, you make a good point there. Better to have them get anihilated once and see if they learn from it. I know it happened to us in a big way and we learned a lot from it.

I like the idea of the Marshall actually holding a garrison, what I don’t like is it being based off the marshalls base. also a minimum garrison donation would alleviate some of the frustration I know you are talking about, 1 troop added endlessly. If the minimum was even as low as 10 it would make people think twice about it. Also, the fact that when you hit a garrison as a team, if multiple attacks go off at the same time they all pull the same person doesn’t help either.

As far as the Marshall base goes why not have it be a base assembled by the Marshall using towers capped by the level of the castles hq, instead of his or her own base. More of a team base assigned to that fort, that would then go in storage with the rest of the infrastructure if a fort is captured.


#16

I don’t have a super strong feeling about this–I probably prefer an interim step of adding splash damage to primarchs, so if you hit a 1 troop garrisoned base and would have killed 1000 troops, the damage splashes starting with the lowest troop counts in the garrison. You could make bases immune to the splash if they maybe had a certain ratio of troops compared to the splash amount (prefer a percentage to avoid gaming the system with a fixed number). Just to pick numbers with 0 thought whatsoever, if the splash damage would have been 1000 troops and ratio set at 50%-- if you have 500 or more troops, immune to splash.

Would obviate the defense by tedium of 3 troops, 6 troops, 1 troop etc. Tiny troll troop counts would be a liability if anything. I kind of like that teams that are more active in getting people to contribute to garrisons get rewarded more than teams who would benefit from a more passive approach.

If that doesn’t solve the issue, conscripts sound like an idea worth developing a bit more for sure.


#17

Very open to alternative suggestions on what “Base” the martial should be. I just couldn’t come up with a fairer system.

But its definitely something that could be changed/improved upon - i just sadly ran out of ideas

That sounds like a tonne of fun, and would give smaller teams a way of competing with big attackers. @PGDave can something like this be done?


#18

Gox running out of ideas? :scream:

Maybe the Marshal gets to assign a base from the team (gets cleared if the team member leaves)? Constructing a base (from TheLepreTRON) sounds interesting too.


#19

You see why I wanted to lock the base selection, is you don’t want a scenario, where every single island a team owns, reflects their level 500 ringer’s base.

Not very fair…


#20

True, though I suppose it could combine the two limit with selection, but that gets into its own complexities/headaches. :see_no_evil: