Yed wrote:
ObjectivistActivist wrote:
I'm fine with the engaging in PK idea, but it requires staff oversight. If a trib member is getting TBs that enemy X is in their base killing their mans but won't come engage because it would be a 1v1 instead of a 1v3+, then the staff needs to step in because now there's more than just really, really bad rp on the line.
I agree that this is a frustrating problem. It would be one thing if it were n00bs regularly ganging up to try to take out a vet player, but more often it's multiple vet players ganging up to take out one solo opponent, n00b or vet alike. Personally, I'm interested to hear suggestions about how to incentivize more fair, sporting competition, and to dis-incentivize the pathetic gang-maulings, if anybody has legit ideas to encourage that.
Not quite how this would work.... but, perhaps instead of a tribunal member having access to only one law NPC at a time, a member could use as many law NPCs as there are the attacking faction that are flagged as "war". However, this number could not exceed the number of attackers unless your tribunal members outnumber the attacking number in which every member would still have access to one law NPC per person.
To clarify, if 5 enemies are attacking your city, 4 of them are from a warring tribunal, you are the only tribunal member on defending your city. Then you would have access to 4 guards.
If you have the same scenario, 5 enemies, 4 warring, but you have 2 tribunal members online defending your city, then you would each have 2. If it's an odd number such as you have 3 defenders then one of you would have 2 the other two would only have 1, usually coordination in defense isn't too big an issue. Most people I have seen usually make a plan for such scenarios and agree who would get the extra guard.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
