My Suggestions For Territory Wars

Options
EntityZero - Sanctuary
EntityZero - Sanctuary Posts: 91 Arc User
edited June 2009 in Suggestion Box
We all know TWs are somewhat flawed, and I've been thinking a way to solve the problem of dominating the entire map. In my ideas, Territory Wars should work like this:

First off, A faction should only be able to hold 3 territories maximum.
Secondly, territory wars would now work in 2 ways:
  1. Sieges: In these territory wars, you can actually claim the territory if you win.
  2. Wars: These are just straight up fights in the territory. You cannot capture the territory upon winning.

Sieges would be the exact same as territory wars are now. Wars however, would remove turrets and catapults and just be a timed team based PVP. Here you could get even more diverse, such as adding multiple modes like who can get the most kills in a set time limit, or eliminating the enemy faction leader a certain amount of times.

So say a faction has 3 territories. All they can do is challenge another territory to a war. This will still keep things interesting because factions who control land can still pvp others. Now say the faction had 2 areas, they can still war OR they can challenge another territory to a siege in an attempt to capture it.


I honestly think a system like that would stop all the complaining about factions dominating an entire map, as well as allow other factions spots to claim.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Post edited by EntityZero - Sanctuary on

Comments

  • vagrant0
    vagrant0 Posts: 290 Arc User
    edited June 2009
    Options
    EntityZero - Sanctuary wrote: »
    First off, A faction should only be able to hold 3 territories maximum.
    Need roughly 7 territories to take a level 1 territory... So fail on that end.
    Limiting the number of territories has always been met with opposition and difficulty since it prevents the faction that has reached that number from being able to expand... Leading a virtually dead TW situation when most of your highbie factions have hit their limit and can no longer do anything other than get attacked by lowbie factions (5 mins). So fail on that end.
    EntityZero - Sanctuary wrote: »
    Secondly, territory wars would now work in 2 ways:
    1. Sieges: In these territory wars, you can actually claim the territory if you win.
    2. Wars: These are just straight up fights in the territory. You cannot capture the territory upon winning.
    Why fight a war without any chance to gain territory? Lots of cost, 0 gain, just for fun?

    Sieges... You realize how badly that would work endgame when 10 people can currently not only hold off a full 80 person force, but also kill their HQ. That would just be an insult to injury.

    Have you even been in a TW that lasted more than 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Or are you just basing all this off stuff you've read and never experienced?

    The way that the TW fights are currently done is not the problem. The problem is that there is no system that allows other people to compete with those in full +8 gear, socketed, sharded who get 2m a person a week for being in the faction. High levels don't leave those factions, and when they do, there's dozens of others who can fill the spot. The problem is because of such an extreme consolidation of power within a single faction, which by nature of earning so much, can remain in power due to having the best equipment.

    Until that problem is solved, or atleast affected to make the field a bit more even, the map will always end up being owned by that faction and everyone else being too weak to matter.

Categories