View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0008880 | Valley 1 | Suggestion - Boss Ideas | Jul 10, 2012 7:58 am | Jul 17, 2012 12:01 am | |
| Reporter | Ulrox | Assigned To | |||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0008880: Overlord making agressive moves. | ||||
| Description | I really wish the overlord would have an AI that meant that it could attack certain buildings and / or the town and then you'd have the defend against it. I dont like the fact that the overworld is as static as it is. I feel like there's an enormous potential for the overlord to function as an opponent on the world map aswell :) | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Feature Suggestion | ||||
|
|
I agree. This could be extended to lieutenants, as well (who are meant to be extensions of the overlord); I'd prefer that every living lieutenant also be a source of trouble. As it currently stands, the continents doesn't feel all that different between their initial, "fully oppressed" state, and their final, "fully liberated" state. A really simple way to implement this (though I'd prefer something more complicated) would be to have the overlord roam the world. If the overlord is present in a region, you'll simply be unable to enter it. Once you've beaten all 5 lieutenants, the overlord will "retreat" into the Overlord's lair, leaving the end game identical to how it is now. |
|
|
I wouldn't want the overlord running around the map, since it seems a bit odd since the overlord has minions for that rather than having to do things themselves. I'd much rather see the overlord sending attacks and otherwise carrying out various nefarious things. A possible solution would be for Threats to pop up on the overmap that cause the tile and surrounding tiles to have some detrimental effects; these Threats should impose an effect on gameplay (like windstorms currently do) and an effect on overmpa buildings (half effectiveness of structures, can't build wind shelters or ocean buoys, etc.) I'm thinking that Threats could then be destroyed in two ways (either being possible, so you're not stuck on one of them) - either destroy the threat by sending a survivor Attack mission after it, or go into the tile yourself and get to the end-chunk where whatever's causing the problem needs to be fought and destroyed. |
|
|
Good ideas, Benmiff. Maybe each lieutenant could generate a negative effect somewhere on the map, along with the overlord who would generate an extra-powerful effect. If the effects simply made things a little worse (reduced jump height, more enemies, whatever), maybe they couldn't be destroyed - you'd either have to live with them, wait until the lieutenant/overlord responsible moved their power to somewhere else on the map, or of course defeat the responsible lieutenant/overlord. If they were major setbacks though (like preventing stuff from being built), then yeah, I'd agree that there should be some way of forcing through them and driving them away. |
|
|
More ideas here: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,11108.0.html |
|
|
I definitely agree with this. Especially since there are outlaying buildings. They can be attacked without the actual settlement itself being destroyed. So it is always possible to recover. |
|
|
One thing I do want to point out - Threats should never destroy buildings, though. I'm opposed to losing progress (since it's then a double-hit of still needing to deal with the Threat and needing to go get the replacement), but having the progress suppressed until the Threat is dealt with is fine. |
|
|
Didn't something like this happen very early in the pre-release beta process? In any case, it would be nice to see that mechanic come back, though in a modified form to fit the new system of course. |
|
|
I forget where I saw this, but my understanding (though I could be mistaken) was that the devs wanted to avoid putting time pressure on the player to prevent negative events: "You spent too much time adventuring, now all your buildings are disabled/destroyed," etc. I think letting the player go wherever they want, for however long they want, is an intended aspect of the game, and "do this specific thing in X minutes, or else bad things will happen" discourages the player from feeling free to explore. That's why I suggest that the aggressive moves be penalties (50% less building production? Passable but non-enterable terrain?), not outright limitations (building disabled, building destroyed); and that they be permanent until the lieutenant/overlord responsible is vanquished. That way, these penalties can be dealt with at the same pace the player wants to deal with lieutenants and overlords (that is, as quickly or as slowly as they please). A side bonus - Say these penalties are a 2 or 3 tile AoE emanating from each lieutenant's tower? This would give players another reason to pick and choose which lieutenants they want to fight first (eg, "If I beat this lieutenant, I'll get a big chunk of grasslands penalty-free...or maybe I want to beat the other lieutenant, to take away the penalty from those ocean shallows?"). |
|
|
Perhaps invasions could be handled somewhat like enemy attacks in Spore's space stage. Every so often a notification would pop up that says one of your planets is under attack. In AVWW it could be like you get a pop up saying that "X building is under attack! and it places a mission on that region to defend the building. The strength of the enemies in said mission could increase based on proximity to a Lieutenant Tower or Overlord lair, so when placing structures you might have to choose between a safer location or a more dangerous location that gives production bonuses. It doesn't have to Destroy the building altogether but it should at least make it so that the building cannot provide any or reduced positive effects until the mission is completed. "A side bonus - Say these penalties are a 2 or 3 tile AoE emanating from each lieutenant's tower? This would give players another reason to pick and choose which lieutenants they want to fight first (eg, "If I beat this lieutenant, I'll get a big chunk of grasslands penalty-free...or maybe I want to beat the other lieutenant, to take away the penalty from those ocean shallows?")." This is also a nice idea. Or perhaps even special monsters that spawn in a certain radius from each tower. |
|
|
I agree with buildings not being destroyed. Their benefits can be lowered or removed until the threat removed though. |
|
|
Why not have the NPCs you rescue assigned to defend your buildings? Maybe part of the new Civ building is that you have to assign NPCs to defend against the minions that will be attacking your buildings, lest they become disabled or penalized. And not only Adventurer profession NPCs could be used for this. Each NPC could have bonuses to defending certain types of buildings, and/or certain types of terrain. This could even be expanded such that some areas come "under attack" and have something like 2-10x increased spawn amount with a mixture of higher-level monsters and chance of mini-bosses. Sending NPCs to these regions can return the region back to normal. Also defeating a nearby Lieutenant or Overlord. Edit: My friends have stopped playing AVWW right now and I think it's because the game is so passive they don't really feel the need to login everyday. If they login today or 50 days from now, the world will be the same and there'll be the same stuff to do. I think giving the game a more aggressive role that seeks to destroy the players not just when they are actively exploring but at ANY time, like what we were talking about with the Overlords and Lieutenants sending "attack squads" (even if all they do is provide debuffs for land) would make the game feel more "alive" and *interactive*. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10, 2012 7:58 am | Ulrox | New Issue | |
| Jul 10, 2012 8:39 am | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Feature Suggestion |
| Jul 10, 2012 8:39 am | tigersfan | Status | new => considering |
| Jul 10, 2012 9:28 am | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026634 | |
| Jul 10, 2012 9:43 am | BenMiff | Note Added: 0026638 | |
| Jul 10, 2012 9:51 am | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026640 | |
| Jul 10, 2012 9:52 am | Pyrrhic | Note Edited: 0026640 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 2:19 pm | Moonshine Fox | Note Added: 0026689 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 2:59 pm | madcow | Note Added: 0026691 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 3:16 pm | BenMiff | Note Added: 0026696 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 3:16 pm | BenMiff | Note Edited: 0026696 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 3:54 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0026698 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 5:34 pm | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026702 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 8:25 pm | Coppermantis | Note Added: 0026708 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 9:41 pm | Pyrrhic | Relationship added | related to 0005054 |
| Jul 13, 2012 2:33 pm | madcow | Note Added: 0026729 | |
| Jul 15, 2012 5:02 pm | Pyrrhic | Relationship added | related to 0008938 |
| Jul 17, 2012 12:01 am | Matthew Carras | Note Added: 0026805 | |
| Aug 8, 2012 5:48 am | Matthew Carras | Note Edited: 0026805 |
