• SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    The main issue with guards that I feel is that they limit access to singular persons, and require full groups to kill. I don't Kill the guards people have for any reason other than to stop the limited pathways I have. (Or to get paid which is usually to stop the limited access that person has) if we keep them as strong as they currently are, and give them this HETE cost. They just become a wall that isn't worth killing. (Noone is going to get a party together just to go kill guards temporarily to allow hacking of CAC so the CAC bonuses will just pile up to max and never decline)
  • RhindaraRhindara Member Posts: 71 ✭✭✭
    I've thought of three different options for how the HETE contracts can be handled.

    My initial idea was simply an increase in annual upkeep. This would be something like 25k per contracted guard per year. This way, there's a constant drain for having respawning guards, but it's not something that raiders have control over as far as 'camping' guards and causing continual mounting drains every time they feel like it. 

    The second idea would be an annual drain like the first, except each guard death increases the premium of the contract for that year, up to some sort of cap. This could go up to 25k per contracted guard like in the first idea, or further if that's deemed fair. The idea here would similarly be that there's a constant drain for having respawning guards, but it gets more expensive the more action they see in a given year.

    The third idea would be to implement the suggested 5k per guard death, but not charge the faction immediately. Instead, the amount would accumulate and be charged on the first of the following year, giving the faction ample time to budget for whatever costs they might have incurred for the year.

    For all three ideas, it would be helpful to have some sort of command to view what the faction's current dues will be for the year, something as simple as FACTION GUARD DUES.

    Personally, my preference is still the first option. I feel like the cost really shouldn't be something that raiders should be able to heavily influence, if at all. There should definitely be a cost for security, but there shouldn't be a situation where raiders are just clearing guards off-hours with the intent of costing the faction. Guards should be an obstacle in the way of a real objective, and factions shouldn't be penalized for not having defenders to come fight alongside their guards.

    If the problem with guards as an obstacle is that they're too strong, then they can be appropriately adjusted down. However, if the problem is that a singular person wants through them, they can already pay for temporary faction anonymity through FRAY contracts. An individual that has earned enemy status to a faction shouldn't expect to be able to walk around that faction's immediate territory (their main station and their capital city) without paying some kind of cost. Voidgates and PTPs already exist to allow for enemies to access bashing areas (past the level 20 range, anyway) and caches, and you can still get to the homeworld stations to clone there.
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    I want to point out that I have never cleared guards with the intent of just costing the faction marks. I have only done so for two reasons,
    1.) They blocked my access to get somewhere.
    2.) I got paid for it cause they blocked someone else's access to get somewhere.
  • RylekRylek Member Posts: 68 ✭✭✭
    Have the spawn be a crystal cost instead of marks?
  • IndiIndi Member Posts: 199 ✭✭✭
    I think it's already difficult for smaller factions (CA) to gather enough crystals. I may be entirely wrong - basing it on Ata commenting on cesspool that he keeps running out and can't use the CP powers.

    Rhin's idea of a 'bulk contract with HETE' seems good to me. Faction negotiates a per-year set cost, like insurance I guess, rather than paying per death. Or maybe it's a choice each faction can make - per death or per year.

    Soza's concern about it stifling raids seems valid, but I think that can be addressed as needed with tweaks as needed down the track - make them weaker, restrict cluster sizes, add higher rewards for taking them out.
  • PoetPoet Member Posts: 105 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2019
    The main issue with guards that I feel is that they limit access to singular persons, and require full groups to kill.

    I think this is the entire point of them.  You (hypothetical person) have been enemied, presumably for good reasons. You are now not allowed to be [wherever]. If you could easily kill the guards and just go there anyway, then what's the point of the enemy mechanic at all?  So it should be a challenge. 

    Now, you might also say right now, that there is no reason to go to the effort to kill the guards to go to  [wherever] because there is no reward for doing so, which is also currently more or less correct. But, at least to me, that's separate from whether or not the guards function as intended.

    I think the costs proposed by @Ilyos are more than fair, and certainly a good place to start.  

    As for raid mechanics, I'm extremely ambivalent.  They can be fun sure, but I've also been on the receiving end when it was very much "Oh, hell. Not this again." over and over and over.  I like that we are not currently 3 armed camps, with every member of the opposing factions enemied the minute they leave the tutorial. I sincerely hope that doesn't change no matter what mechanics are put in place.

    [Cassandra]: Poet will be unsurprised to learn that she has unread news.
  • IlyosIlyos Administrator, Moderator Posts: 96 Starmourn staff
    Currently went with flat mark costs and flat respawn rate on guards for this iteration. We'll see how it plays out.
    This system is also meant to encourage factions to upgrade their guards since you won't be losing the upgrade when the guard respawns.

    Also, I'm open to having "raid rewards", so long as they are sensible things, so feel free to suggest ideas here. Like it was stated before, the CAC hacking in itself is a good example of a reason to inflitrate an enemy city. I'd be quite happy to have more things like this.
  • gravithiccgravithicc Member Posts: 19
    Does interdict also stop subsystem damage, and if not, should it?
  • CubeyCubey Member Posts: 318 ✭✭✭
    It doesn't, and it shouldn't.
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    Interdict only stops actual damage, not subsys hence how the guards are killed. When can distribute effect guards too tho :chuffed:
Sign In or Register to comment.