Alright, so I recently had an encounter where a faction attempted to "surrender" to us. Now, I know this system has been designed to keep it as fair as possible. However, it's still very geared towards inhibiting PvP. The way I view it from my experience is that a faction can literally pay off a faction to leave it alone for 30 days. They have "the right to pay for peace". Now, for a server that likes to be "realistic" (at least I gather that from the RP community), that's horrifically inaccurate. If a party views the opposing party's surrender terms as inadequate in real life, there's nothing that would prevent them from denying the surrender. For a faction of our small size, 800 regals is max tribute. I'd consider that pocket change in the grand scheme of things. 800 regals doesn't nearly equal the potential a faction can gain from raiding. Basically, a faction could have thousands of regals worth of material to be obtained through raids, however they can just through 800 regals at us and prevent us from raiding for a month. However, if we were to surrender to a mega faction like Asteria or Tyberia we'd have to pay them over 2000 regals. Doesn't that seem a bit wack? Now, don't worry I'm not here to just complain.
Here's my suggestions for how to reform the strategy so that it's more fair:
1) Consider making Max Tribute based on the amount of players in a singular faction. Either make it so it's based on the size of both factions or potentially even a fixed amount. This somewhat limits factions from inviting a bunch of random noobs/alts/inactive members just to increase their max tribute.
2) Consider making it so that they have to pay more for a longer treaty. For example, they can surrender for 15 days, for less money than surrendering for 30 days. This will promote people to consider surrendering for less time to save money, but at the risk of being raided again sooner. This is also better for PvPers who don't feel like waiting a whole month just to kill people from a faction while still giving the option to the surrendering party.
3) Consider adding another repercussion for surrendering, like offering the party they are surrendering their weapons, leaving them weakened like surrendering should.
I'd like to here other ideas from people, especially about suggestion 1. I really think the current calculation is unjust, and I'd like to hear other's ideas because personally I don't think my ideas were all that much better than the current system in regards to max tribute.
Thank you.
Here's my suggestions for how to reform the strategy so that it's more fair:
1) Consider making Max Tribute based on the amount of players in a singular faction. Either make it so it's based on the size of both factions or potentially even a fixed amount. This somewhat limits factions from inviting a bunch of random noobs/alts/inactive members just to increase their max tribute.
2) Consider making it so that they have to pay more for a longer treaty. For example, they can surrender for 15 days, for less money than surrendering for 30 days. This will promote people to consider surrendering for less time to save money, but at the risk of being raided again sooner. This is also better for PvPers who don't feel like waiting a whole month just to kill people from a faction while still giving the option to the surrendering party.
3) Consider adding another repercussion for surrendering, like offering the party they are surrendering their weapons, leaving them weakened like surrendering should.
I'd like to here other ideas from people, especially about suggestion 1. I really think the current calculation is unjust, and I'd like to hear other's ideas because personally I don't think my ideas were all that much better than the current system in regards to max tribute.
Thank you.
