What if mobs members would get disabled on each attack?

Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › What if mobs members would get disabled on each attack?

Boat Anchor Sep 2, 2011

What if a certain % of your mob would get disabled after each attack. Certainly, you could "heal" them right away if needed.

Example, both me and my opponent have 1000 mob. I attack. X number of mob members get disabled due to the attack. I then heal my mob...its now my 1000 vs opponent's 950. I attack again and heal again...now it's my 1000 vs his 900. Obviously, they can heal too.

Number of disabled mob can be relative to the strength differences, not a fixed number.

In this way, small mobs can still fight vs big mobs (as long as the big guy doesn't heal just as fast as the little guy.

Mob would auto-heal just like individual mobsters do now.

Seems like it'd add another element of fun to the game, preventing people from being invincible without requiring Vs.
bones73 Sep 2, 2011

No. Gives V's too much power
☢PεtεΤhεβrαvε☢ Sep 2, 2011

bones73 wrote:
No. Gives V's too much power

How about it dosen't apply in vendettas?
👿Belial Sep 2, 2011

I say no. Because then there would be no true point to mob at all. It's already on it's way down this road with the most dangerous players having only 3 mob
Ʈℍㅌ ʘㄕㅌℝ₳₮ミℝ Sep 2, 2011

pete the brave wrote:
bones73 wrote:
No. Gives V's too much power

How about it dosen't apply in vendettas?
Good idea
Mystery Sep 2, 2011

So you want to have to pay money to heal yourself & your mob? Having to pay more would hurt smaller, less wealthy players. 👎👎
fum Sep 3, 2011

The only reason I would say no is cus it would just get annoying all the time
Boat Anchor Sep 3, 2011

Depends how much the % was though. If it was a small %, then you wouldn't *need* to heal that often, but it'd still mean that with persistence, you could still take on the big guys.

Also, if the heal cost was low enough, it'd probably fine. People already pay tom heal their mobster when fighting, so it wouldn't be all that different as far as annoyance.
Tweek Sep 3, 2011

Mystery wrote:
So you want to have to pay money to heal yourself & your mob? Having to pay more would hurt smaller, less wealthy players. 👎👎

Heal cost could remain the same. It could be based on a sliding scale, such as if you have 90% health, you have 90% active mob, 80% health, you then have 80% active mob, and so on. That may be a bit extreme, and if it were to be implemented then I think that the minimum damage from fights would have to be decreased down to 1 or 2 or so, to prevent excessive exploitation, but I do think that this is a pretty legitimate idea. How can you defend turfs if you are in the ER?
👿Belial Sep 3, 2011

🍀 Ꭲཡཇཇ།ཧ 🍀 wrote:
Mystery wrote:
So you want to have to pay money to heal yourself & your mob? Having to pay more would hurt smaller, less wealthy players. 👎👎

Heal cost could remain the same. It could be based on a sliding scale, such as if you have 90% health, you have 90% active mob, 80% health, you then have 80% active mob, and so on. That may be a bit extreme, and if it were to be implemented then I think that the minimum damage from fights would have to be decreased down to 1 or 2 or so, to prevent excessive exploitation, but I do think that this is a pretty legitimate idea. How can you defend turfs if you are in the ER?
We have to think of total game impact. If any noob cam take a turf off a top player then what is the motivation to become the top player?
Tweek Sep 3, 2011

I agree that it would make it possible for smaller mobs to take turf, but what would stop you from taking it back from them or someone else? I love the fighting aspect of this game, and this would bolster it for sure. I'm not saying that it should be implemented, just providing an argument for it.
Boat Anchor Sep 3, 2011

To reply to Borg, big players still have a huge advantage: their mob is still way larger, so they'd still be much harder to attack and win, and they'd still be able to attack and win vs other players much easier, just as is is today.

This suggestion just makes sure that nobody is invincible, which would add a lot to the game.
randombloke Sep 3, 2011

Interesting point. When you're in a vendetta and a target attacks your compatriots turf you lose health. But if someone attacks your turf you do not. I always wondered why your own mob don't lose health when someone attacks your turf. Strange that.
Mystery Sep 3, 2011

1) @Boat Anchor Why would you want to implement something that would be an "annoyance?"
2) @Tweek - Then you would rarely use 100% of your mob since the only way to heal yourself to 100% is with medkits.
3) I dislike this idea even more since the announcement yesterday of the upcoming vendetta change. Players with large mobs will already be less sought after due to the cap range change. If they won't even be able to use 100% of their mob, then they are disadvantaged even further.
4) People might decide to stop buying hench since they won't all be used anyway. While that doesn't bother me, it wouldn't be good for nick. Some players may even get angry that they spent a lot of rl $ on hench that aren't always used.

I still say 👎👎.
Boat Anchor Sep 4, 2011

Mystery wrote:
1) @Boat Anchor Why would you want to implement something that would be an "annoyance?"

People already need to heal after making a bunch of attacks. How would this be that different? It just means that players cant sit idly by...they'll either need to heal their mob, or risk eventually losing a battle. (right now, they'd only have to worry about a V)

In a game whose sole method of increasing mob is punching codes (big annoyance), I think this small annoyance pales in comparison. After all, everyone keeps saying "if you don't want to put the time and dedication into this game, then you shouldn't be playing". :-)

Keep in mind, that if the number of disabled mob isn't crazy huge (I'm not talking about losing 1/2 your mob in 10 attacks), it really wont be that traumatic to the point of being required to heal mob constantly. I'm not trying to set any numbers in stone, just trying to toss up an idea to help make this game more fun.
🔰Superyan🔰 Sep 4, 2011

Well you said it would relate in strength differences. So if a 1000 mob attacked a 23,000 mob. Would the 1000 become 0 and the 23,000 become 22,999
👿Belial Sep 4, 2011

Boat Anchor wrote:
To reply to Borg, big players still have a huge advantage: their mob is still way larger, so they'd still be much harder to attack and win, and they'd still be able to attack and win vs other players much easier, just as is is today.

This suggestion just makes sure that nobody is invincible, which would add a lot to the game.

By your system a large player suffering constant attacks by many players would essentially be crippled out the way I see it.
👿Belial Sep 4, 2011

And as mystery said with everything these days stacked against big players we probably shouldn't be talking of stacking more. And my response to being able to cap you back if you got my is cap limit. Limit on me is well over 100. Limit on you is half that. See my point?
Mystery Sep 4, 2011

People work hard to punch codes to get mob members. I don't think the work they put in should be taken away, whether you have 100 mob or 30,000 mob.
👿Belial Sep 5, 2011

Also anchor you have to look at what what effect things like this will have on massive war situations. Things like a few players taking on several alliances. Things like that happen constantly these Days
Boat Anchor Sep 5, 2011

BØRG OF WAR wrote:
Also anchor you have to look at what what effect things like this will have on massive war situations. Things like a few players taking on several alliances. Things like that happen constantly these Days

Absolutely. But remember, it'll work both ways. Both sides will be able to cap more, leading to a lot more action. Big guys will still dominate (with more mob, they can take a LOT of hits while still having a huge active mob.). At the same time, smaller players will be able to occasionally cap bigger guys with enough determination. Obviously, a big guy could just take it back :-). However, at least people wouldn't be indestructible anymore.
I'm trying very hard to understand how this would hurt big players...can you give me a better example, one that takes into consideration the fact that a big guy could easily just take the turf back right away?
Mystery Sep 5, 2011

No one is "indestructable." Since the range at which you can be capped is partially based on mob size, I think this would make things too confusing. Your range would keep changing, making things very difficult.
Boat Anchor Sep 5, 2011

Mystery wrote:
No one is "indestructable." Since the range at which you can be capped is partially based on mob size, I think this would make things too confusing. Your range would keep changing, making things very difficult.

Cap range would still be based on the number of total mob, regardess of active/disabled. I wasn't suggesting changing that at all. I agree, that would be confusing if was in constant flux....and it could even get abusive if used correctly.
Other thoughts?
👿Belial Sep 5, 2011

See above on my cap limit speech. Smaller players on average could take more turf off a bigger player than that player could from them
randombloke Sep 5, 2011

Boat Anchor wrote:
Mystery wrote:
No one is "indestructable." Since the range at which you can be capped is partially based on mob size, I think this would make things too confusing. Your range would keep changing, making things very difficult.

Cap range would still be based on the number of total mob, regardess of active/disabled. I wasn't suggesting changing that at all. I agree, that would be confusing if was in constant flux....and it could even get abusive if used correctly.
Other thoughts?

So you still want my mob to make it easier for you to cap me from distance but you're quite happy to have it not count for when you attack me repeatedly? And what would be the trade off to me that I am such a sitting duck for you? Fail fail fail.
Boat Anchor Sep 6, 2011

Mystery wrote:
No one is "indestructable." Since the range at which you can be capped is partially based on mob size, I think this would make things too confusing. Your range would keep changing, making things very difficult.

I agree that no one is Indestructable. However, many people are indestructible in 1:1 fights. I'm trying to find a way to make things a little more interesting for the smaller players.
Right now, if a small player gets capped, he has 2 options:
1) punch crazy numbers of codes, hoping to surpass the guy 2000+ mob bigger
2) vendetta, which gets over after 7 days, after which the bigger guy is just more upset about the V, and hits him even harder than before.

Both options suck right now, so I'm trying to suggest alternatives. I'm open to hear other ideas if you have any.
Mystery Sep 6, 2011

randombloke wrote:
Boat Anchor wrote:
Mystery wrote:
No one is "indestructable." Since the range at which you can be capped is partially based on mob size, I think this would make things too confusing. Your range would keep changing, making things very difficult.

Cap range would still be based on the number of total mob, regardess of active/disabled. I wasn't suggesting changing that at all. I agree, that would be confusing if was in constant flux....and it could even get abusive if used correctly.
Other thoughts?

So you still want my mob to make it easier for you to cap me from distance but you're quite happy to have it not count for when you attack me repeatedly?
These are my thoughts as well.
Boat Anchor Sep 6, 2011

Thanks for your thoughts Mystery, especially stating them without the blunt and unconstructive "fail fail fail" . I'd be open to other alternatives.

Maybe I, and many other little guys are simply playing the wrong game. I was hoping to see the fight dynamics change to the point where i don't need to punch tens of thousands of code to defend myself, but perhaps that will never happen.

I guess we should just be thankful for all then little guys that quit out of frustration and leave their turf standing for everyone else to benefit from.
randombloke Sep 6, 2011

The "blunt and unconstructive 'fail fail fail'" were added at the end of the my constructive comments to your proposition that when mystery took out the"fail fail fail" were suddenly constructive. Go figure eh??

Anyway, moving on. With each wave of noobs that comes along we get this time and again, is the proposal that people want to get powerful without putting the effort in. Take call of duty, you start playing that, get owned for a week or two then start finding your feet on it.

Maybe the little guys don't get the social aspect of the game or the penalties that big players have against them.

Cap range is something that is so important that is in the favour of the littler players. At your size mob I practically have to be on top of your turf to cap it, whereas you can destroy my turf from a vendetta from the next town.

Cont...
randombloke Sep 6, 2011

Couple that with the high turf count needed to make money and plant new turf to enable my mob being armed i dont think chasing after you is top of my agenda. You will always get capped by a bigger player. But there are plenty of smaller players for you to cap and still have a great time playing the game.

Put the effort in and over time you will get there.