Suggestion for combat; Commanders reputation

[Itsakinda]

Hi,

I do not really post that often so apologies for any in-correctness.

Just a suggestion; how about some reputation based value for a general that has some impact on a battle and is also impacted by the outcome of the battle. At the moment, there is no penalties (other than time) on a general for a failure and this seems a little odd to me.

The adoption of such a system would reward players for successes of their armies and punish them for failing... ultimately, a general with a poor reputation (from losing many battles) could take more time to recover and have no additional impact on a battle. Whilst a general with a good reputation (from winning many battles) would recover more quickly (after a loss) and have additional impact on a battle

An issue with this reputation approach, I would imagine, is the no. of generals that would be required for waves of armies (as appears to be needed for battles with bosses) - however, this could be easily addressed by reputation also having a impact on the size of an army. i,e the default setting would be as is (200) and with success this no. increases, whilst a loss would have a negative impact on the army size (e.g. -10 troops)

This may also be be useful for future pvp as well, with the reputation (with the subsequent size of army) of a general being used to establish a ranking system for pvp.

Any way, just a thought and please no flaming; I am sensitive soul

[Tierarzt]

Most battles past the easy camps stage (medium and hard) require multiple waves which guarentee that the battle will result in atleast one dead general.
Your proposal could result in people sending in their weakest general (General A) first to "take one for the team" and then sending in the stronger general (General B) to gain all the reputation. This would lead to one weak general and one very strong general if played right.

Secondly, a lot of people like to skip some of the camps on their way to the bandit leaders. Would the general still qualify for the reputation he didn't fight for and which general would get the reward for the skipped battles?

Whilst I commend the idea in principle, the system would need a lot more thought and balance for it to work properly.

[Raymon]

If your General lost a battle and was say Reputation LvL 26 would he: 1. immediatly lose a LvL or 2. lose Xp from toward his next Lvl and vise versa if your General was to win a battle. Also if 1, What would the General recover as LvL 26 or LvL 25?

[Itsakinda]

it was only a suggestion, but:


"Your proposal could result in people sending in their weakest general (General A) first to "take one for the team" and then sending in the stronger general (General B) to gain all the reputation. This would lead to one weak general and one very strong general if played right"


If it was me, the lowest reputation for a general would equate to whatever level was set for a new general procured from the inn....therefore any sacrificial general would never have less rep that one just bought from an inn. However, a general used in the manner suggested would have greater rep and as a result have more influence on the outcome of the battle, as well as having a larger army. The point here is to reward players whilst adding a further dimension to battles.....whilst I admit that by the time a player gets to fight some bosses, the reputation thing will impact on the waves being used at the moment - maybe reducing the no. of waves from (for example) from 3 to 2. But as i said - its a reward! Maybe - add some cost associated with the level as well...i.e 1000g

For me, I quite like the idea of a bigger army as sending in waves of fodder and then applying a killer blow has very little appeal. At the moment the game has several types of troops with many cited as being useless and a waste of resources!!! So, provide a means by which the various troops can be used together in one army.


On xp - I see this being a player thing and not related to commanders... therefore I would see no real change as the player would still get xp from both wins and losses (which appears to be the case anyway).

Reputation was purely a suggestion - a means for commanders to raise to various levels to enable greater impact on a battle, increase size of armies and even reduce time associated with recovering from a loss. With some potential to support PvP as, I would hope, the game will look to provide a means by which to avoid new players fighting those that have been playing some time.


"secondly, a lot of people like to skip some of the camps on their way to the bandit leaders. Would the general still qualify for the reputation he didn't fight for and which general would get the reward for the skipped battles?"


Obviously reputation would be gained from winning a battle, though I do like the idea that you get rewarded for not doing something! In the scenario you have stated, where people place their garrison in such a place to 'skip' camps, on killing the leader the general's reputation would increase and the player would get the xp for all those camps that have been avoid ..... which I understand to be the case now anyway.


"If your General lost a battle and was say Reputation LvL 26 would he: 1. immediatly lose a LvL or 2. lose Xp from toward his next Lvl and vise versa if your General was to win a battle. Also if 1, What would the General recover as LvL 26 or LvL 25?"


ermmm..I avoided no.s but as I have implied that there would be some negative impact on the loss of a battle this; may actually not be a decrease! for example, rather reducing the rep value then maybe:

1 point for losing
3 points of a win

obviously, no points for dying!

Anyway - this really was only a suggestion after a couple of mins of thought!

[FIMLightningDash]

It might result in something that Karyn said, since you (most likely) don't want your general to have bad reputation, it either attack when victory is 100% or just send in another general as cannon-fodder. I think it could be shaped around, so it gets okay eventually. Like no matter which general lose all generals take damage to thier reputation, or at some battles if you have a higher rep. general you MUST send him in first. And again if he win all general's rep incrase.

Also, higher rep generals could bring more units to battle so they would have a batter chance it winning. And some units could be limited to what reputation the general have, so you couldn't just send in generals with cavalry to do massive damage to the enemy but instead would be forced to use your better general. Then again if you just get another general with enough rep to use cavalry and send him in on a suicide mission, he lose reputation and so he won't be able to use cavalry anymore. Or there could be a global reputation scale which would count all your loses and if that scale drop below your general's rep. you lose him, but get the units he had back of course.

Well something like that. Just some quick thoughts. Anyway i think that would get more interesting in pvp anyway since bandits die long before that would come into account.