Better than any solution I’ve yet thought of!
Protection from Castle raid. Change flag.
Maybe I’m just a bit slow, but I’m having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make here.
Set an ally to have different flag, then retalliate (have them change flags) at certain times.
In response to the three-way battle question, or are you suggesting a way to exploit this proposed feature? As the idea stands, only the castle owner’s officers/officials can revoke a flag, and only a friendly flag. Obviously if an unfriendly flag could be revoked by the defenders of the castle and such would disable the ability of the attacking team to attack…it would be a horrible exploit.
If you’re talking about the “Alliance C” faction having their teams alternate which flag they fly in order to clear both other alliances, perhaps this would be an answer to @JaorbTNP’s question. Although any sort of duration attached to the flags (like blockade delay time) would hamper this ability.
I suppose we could make this feature optional, sort of like what @Moonswirl is saying. Three options: Friendly, Unfriendly, Rogue (or something). The “Rogue” designation would be for a team that declares no allignment and thus, forgoes any protection from friendly fire in exchange for the ability to hit unrestricted.
This sounds interesting. And would certainly help prevent friendly fire, like you said.
Am I understanding correctly that it would be impossible for a team that is flying to a castle to change their flag once they arrive? That the only changes that can take placce to a team’s flag status is if the castle’s owner decides to turn a friendly into an unfriendly team?
Also, moving this to the Atlas section of the forums
Think we have safe passage as well. And that can change things I guess…
Reenter the area can reset the flag.
Hmm, but if it’s a whole team thing, wouldn’t the entire team have to leave in order to get their flag status changed? (If it wasn’t changed by the castle owner.)
Perhaps I’ll need more details on how this is executed, and possibility of abuse…
Thanks Liz, I was debating which section was more appropriate.
In response to your question:
I thought that it would be reasonable to attach some sort of duration to the flag feature. If you go to a non 5TA castle, you are trapped by their blockade for xx minutes; why not make this feature the same. Also, going in “bannerless” or “rogue” if that was made part of the feature would essentially be the same as going to a battle now: free for all.
My Atlas experience is admittedly limited, but I can’t recall any situations where I went to a castle defense or raid and swapped my allegiance mid-fight.
This seems to be more a question of mechanics design and programming, which I am not particularly knowledgeable in. I’m more of the "baseless idea guy "
I’m sure at least one of the clever people in our community could come up with a solution.
Hey, we’re throwing around ideas here I’m trying to figure out what sort of parameters would work
I see the concern with abuse. I would prefer it to be at the discretion of the team who owns the castle, not the individual player.
Have this banner system set up as a form of temp passage. They can call friends for help and auto establish which teams will receive friendly banners on arrival. Other teams arriving would automatically show up as unfriendly unless the castle owners change their status. It would give teams a lot more control over battles being waged on their doorstep.
What about a system where a castle could only have ## teams on it, and X/Y amount on each side. Call it 10/15 per “side”, side being friendly and enemy. Once Z teams (say 3) showed up on any castle, it would flag it as a “siege” and notify the defending team and then the move restriction menu would be accessible/put into action. At this point, all primarchs entering the zone would have to have X troops to move to these coordinates.
Castle Owner (team, leader, officers, marshall) would have a pop up menu which they could adjust to allow their T5A plus ##-5 (5 in this case) other SELECTED teams to be on the defense side of the castle. They would be able to swap out entire teams (with a cooldown) if the teams got low on troops or primarchs were all defeated. That “slot” would go on cooldown to prevent just swapping out teams, and the defense slot would have to strategically be given out to teams that were actually bringing lots of troops to defend instead of 1 primarch per team x 80 teams.
Castle attackers would maybe have a slightly larger slot # (call it 15?) and would still have a team change out cooldown. This would force attacks to be more organized (more people per team to show up rather than 1 primarch x 80 teams).
- Would keep battles between smaller tighter groups typically
- You would have your 5TA slots filled, and only 5 other defending teams so it would be more essential to rely on your 5TA for defense
- Better choices on who you invite for defense
- Possibly more takeover if you can overwhelm the defenders slots and put them all on cooldown, then those teams couldn’t assist in defending anymore if you killed them all before they resummoned.
- You would only be able to hit people on the opposite side, no friendly fire accidents or asking whose side each team is on.
Issues i see:
- What if a defending team’s buddy wanted to show up and be on the “attacking” side to just take up a team slot?
Could possibly set a “siege lead team” as the first team to show up/largest army when the siege flag is set and give them the access to the attacker side of the primarch restriction menu and only let them set teams to join the attacking side of the battle?
Very fabulous mock up
- Clicking on a team name as an authority member of a side would give you options to kick/remove teams on your side
- Invite team would allow you to type in an exact team name like passage list, then they would get passage to be able to move primarchs above X troops to the castle
Definitely a more cohesive idea than my rough outline. I’m a anxious to see what everyone thinks. Thanks for taking the time to put in some real thought and effort on this!
Thanks! I’ve obviously given it a bit of thought before when I was pondering stuff and it seemed like a good time/place to try and wrangle an idea together with other people who had some form of similar idea
I actually like this idea, Cat herding grows quite old. My idea is simple. On the primarch screen when you load the castle, there is a button marked “request friendly”. This could be a pop up to officers and leaders on the team that owned the castle. If friendly was granted, your team could be marked in a different color on the prim screen to prevent friendly fire. After the last member of your team leaves the castle, friendly status goes away.
Oh my gosh! This is basically the kind of thing I’ve been thinking about myself.
Having some sort of limiting factor to teams coming in and teams able to help is absolutely needed!
I’ve been talking about something similar (not as well thought out, granted) with other leaders/atlas reps in my 5ta for a good while.
Really love the idea @mechengg
I’m going to re-read and digest it
I thought about passage list being the limiting factor. By doing that it stops some teams having teams on passage just for show or to show their affiliations (which is sometimes a good thing )
I believe the initial idea for atlas was for there to be “wars”, I’m intrigued by how this would have worked and if this is similar to what you are proposing?
I think 15 would be too many but I suppose it depends on if you can “siege” anybody or if there are further limitations?
What about smaller teams? So, my 5ta starts a “siege” on a platinum team, their 5ta is 1st port of call, can they ask all D1 teams for support? Guessing it would work on a team by team basis rather than 5ta basis.
Sorry for all questions, I am pretty excited about this suggestion
I would think that Mega alliance C would mark the castle as friendly if they don’t want the castle or glory from that alliance A. And if they want either glory or the castle or both Mega alliance would mark it as an enemy. At least that is how I see that happening. Mega C would want to either help this small alliance against Mega B or just wants to kill all and hurt Mega B for the fun of it.