Outposts no longer available for capture?

Given we no longer able to capture resource villages but can still fight over kings towers, metro's and capitals I think the game has probably moved on beyond the point where capturing outposts seems like an option that should be available.  

The investment in outposts now seems to be significantly greater in time and money than in main castles because of their ability to hold more troops and yet they can be taken whilst main castles can't.  My understanding and hopefully I'll be corrected if I'm wrong is that the biggest war server US1 has a agreed rule that ops are off limits, a rule that was also agreed to by the majority of alliances on GB1.  I'd imagine this is probably the case also on other servers.  Given that we as players in general recognise the value of ops and wouldn't wish to take them could we perhaps not collectively encourage the designers to follow the same path as with resource villages and afford players protection for their investment.  

Recently the number of cases of players setting up shell accounts to capture live players outposts has been increasing and the outposts taken have been surrendered or stripped effectively ruining them.  This from my perspective is a concern and if a player who can't afford protection and comes back to find they have lost all they've invested in some cases five plus years of investment has gone what recourse do they have.  

My view is that it would be better to introduce more strategic features like hill forts, river crossings, bridges, ports, temples that had specific strategic advantages like temple heal 50% more troops after a battle or similar.  I just wouldn't spend again to rebuild ops after six years and I don't believe any player should be put in that position by other players operating outside of the terms and conditions who take your resource as a result of a massive imbalance of alliance or player strength and maliciously wreck it.  I don't believe it's what the game designers intended and I believe action should be taken against any player found to have used a multi account, password sharing or a shell account in this way.  Yes it a war game but that type of nastiness goes beyond war. 

So what I wanted to do was to test the waters to see where other players are at what I proposing is that you should get extra points for your alliance or rewards for a capture with a related impact on the players and alliance level without more damage than can be done through fire to an op occuring.  And further that GGE run one of their excellent twitch sessions with players to allow us to positive be part of the process to explore alternatives that might make the game more interesting with elements we would be prepared to pay for. 

What do other players think?  
Batten @ en 1

Comments

  • Imperius (GB1)Imperius (GB1) Posts: 852GB1
    In my own opinion that'd be going back years of players switching outposts that they capped from ruined players and so on sure shells capping outposts are a problem but that's a small percentage what about newer players joining the game finding an occupied ruined level 70's outpost gives them a boost with building up so tends to keep them on the game longer and even if they add similar things like private resource villages half will never fully switch over to them even if there is a small difference between the two. 
    [email protected] - Previously [email protected]
    Leader of Wraith
  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) Posts: 1,120GB1
    I think the idea is that when a player leaves their outposts should be removed with them.  I think passing outposts on have caused signficant issues given the real lack of clarity around the ownership of a signficant number of outposts.  Perhaps that could be solved by mock property deeds sent by email by GGE to the outpost's original owner and then those deeds by passed back to GGE for reissue to a new player agreed by the original owner and GGE.  Allowing Outpost exchanges has been clearly abused consequently in my view the practice needs to be discontinued completely.  Assurances were given to all alliances on GB1 this wouldn't happen again I understand 4 op's to have been taken from long term players.  Future assurances in my view are worthless given the action was taken by VPN accounts as I understand it.  You want outposts you build them yourself, I happily supply you with resources and you want RVs you earn them.  New players need to take responsibility for identifying and reporting VPN, multi-accounting and password sharing and they need to earn the trust of senior players whose inactivity, complacency and silence have put at risk.  It would be a mistake to underestimate just how unhappy established players are about this.  It isn't okay and it isn't going to be okay any time soon.  
    Batten @ en 1
  • Zenzer (GB1)Zenzer (GB1) Posts: 2,713GB1
    edited 30.01.2019
    I think the game becomes more interesting and enjoyable when there is more versatility to it. 
    Instead of just one way to fight in the game, there are multiple ways to fight. So if you don't want to fight other players the traditional way, there are always more options available for you therefore making the game more interesting. 

    Removing outpost captures will not only remove a way to fight in this game but also make the game more linear. 
    I already believe the game is too linear as of right now with the events we have, making it more linear isn't then really going to improve anything. 
    For example: You play nomads for horsetails, use the horsetails to earn glory in foreigners/bloodcrows, play samurais for troops, tools, whatever you may need, only to later play more foreigners/bloodrcrows, to later return to the nomads to supply horsetails again. This is pretty much the game right now in a nutshell for the most part. 

    Outpost captures shouldn't be restricted.
    If multiaccounting is the real problem here, then that's where you should look for solutions and take action, you shouldn't ignore this and try to go around it instead as that will not help to improve the game quality. This game itself is a perfect example of this, because going around the real problems ignoring them is what the developers are currently doing. 

    I also believe that restricting outpost captures will create a lot of problems for larger servers with a lot of players on them. An example of such servers would be US1 and DE1 where it may not be that easy to just go out there and find a pair of free food 8s within a reasonable distance. 


    No, i don't play on GB1. 


  • Removing the ability i disagree, but making it easier to break the capture would be fine imo
  • Batten (GB1)Batten (GB1) Posts: 1,120GB1
    Essentially as it stands any alliance can set up a VPN multi-account buy a top level castellan cap you op and ram it with enough support that with only four waves and limited tools even multiple alliances will find it difficult to release.  This is clearly an area of the game that badly needs another look and significant redesign.  Essenitally even best players can't defend their ops against this exploit as it stands.  This isn't established players this is level 20 or 35 accounts during wars.  Players think this couldn't happen to them it has happened to better players than me and older in game terms players with stronger ops so yes you could be next unless a. you take it seriously and b. you start supporting action on change.  One somebody else is sat in the ops you spent a small fortune on remember I told you this could happen...
    Batten @ en 1
  • Sounds good to me but you could just make it so you can only cap level 70 outposts if you are over level 70 yourself.




    STEVIEBEANZ @ en 1
Sign In to comment.