Shattered Kingdoms

I had made a suggestion like this a few years back when CRT was first established (and quite honestly I didn't like the system at all. Just personal opinion)

It resembles the lineage 2 and ragnarok online castle siege/war of empyreum system and its pretty intuitive and keeps players interested in fighting these battles.

Its also a system that would be constantly used, instead of the CRT system which is usually, or at least for large periods of times, left 'unused' because of treaties and players using mutual courtesy to not rob each other of their abilities every other day.

If I were to make an addition to this system, it would be that for every year you maintain control of a fort/castle/thing/node, you get some items in return. For example, 5 heal heal potions, or something more unique like, 5 scrolls of chaos, or some other otherwise NPC-only skill.

This would make it essential to maintain these forts for your team.

What would also be good would be if these forts are only 'vulnerable' to attack during a certain time of day, once or twice a week. This would ensure player conflict instead of people attacking while the other team is offline. Tihs is again from lineage and ragnarok and other mmo's. It ensures that the team that owns a fort will go there to defend it against any attackers, and, if they own more than one, then the enemy can strategically attack the fort that the deffenders are not focusing on, or create bluffs etc- In general it promotes a lot of tactical thought and would be fun to see in SK.

Its probably a lot of work code-wise, though.

Rather than making wars about PK only, I'd rather see fights over places.

I kind of like the fort idea where there are battle ground locations.

Someone mentioned that it would be too easy to take something at different hours of the day, well if it's not just taking it but holding it for X period of time before you get to keep it, then whatever (make that length longer than a day if you want plenty of time for others to respond)

I do think that nations should have a core zone that's not achievable through war systems, but could be arranged through Imm RP storyline.

That said I think the war games you're creating could put the capital region / city state under siege, making it difficult for "supplies" to get in and/or out

Food shortages, supply shortages in the stores etc.

I'd suggest you could put variable lengths for take over depending on the proximity to the main location.

Forts near the cities would take the country less time to take back, and more time for invaders to take. Forts near the borders would be more or less evenly split for time needed.

I think one of the goals of any type of system like this would be to move and channel the blatant tribunal back-and-forth PK fests out of the main cities into something productive.

I think a much simpler system would work better really.

10 forts, some benefits when you have one, vulnerable once or twice a week, Any cabal/trib can own them. No tough NPCs or elite stuff going on, leave that up to the players to defend it, victory is claimed once there are no defenders in the 'central room' for like a minute or so.


Remember keeping your ideas small and simple will make it more realizable. I think though that if Dulrik decides to go with something like this, he will only use these ideas as a footnote.

As much as I like that idea Erevan, what will happen to that system is the same that happens in CRS. The aggressors will attack when the defenders are offline. Which means that it will just get exchanged everytime the other side is offline. In other words... boring.

Thats why the forts are only vulnerable once or twice a week, at a specified time

Also, forts are something bonus so, if oyu dont feel like attacking, that's also fine. You can just let the enemy benefit from the boons it grants


CRS is not used because it cripples an organization. Its pretty much SK's nuclear deterrence. You don't take the enemy relic because you dont want him to take your relic in retaliation.

The original idea in this thread is way too complex on an obscene level.

Simple is better. No one cares how complex a system is if it isn't fun, and the more complex a system is, the less likely it is to be fun, especially with a low playerbase.

From a personal note, I always enjoy changes that A) encourage me to log in, and B) don't punish me for not logging in a specified time. Conversely, this means that I generally dislike anything that A) is more burdensome than fun, or B) that can only happen at specific times in the day/week.

Here's an easier to implement idea on how to make CRS more enjoyable: Instead of being punished for not having your relic by losing skills, let's have it so that if you hold the relic of a rival cabal, you are granted partial or full immunity to their cabal skills: So if the Crucible holds the hammer relic, the hammer can still conjure up an <adhesive medical strip> but it just won't damage the Crucible members any more than a normal weapon: And in fact, said crucible members can also ignore the <adhesive medical strip> that the Hammer members may conjure up.

I -really- like that suggestion, Edoras.

I voted Wert, but I would definitely vote yes to the idea Edoras stated. I don't think OP's idea would really matter to me much. I truly just didn't care if it got implemented or not. However, this idea that Edoras just posted...yes please.

I see. Instead of having leadership on both sides having to flip the toggle, one side can to initiate the 'Day #1' phase. This would work provided all members of a group could see that declaration? Would the war status auto-toggle on for the other group Day #2 then if a leader has not been around to acknowledge it? Or if war is declared by 1, it is war for both?