Login

**Atuan** · 08-19-2016, 04:41 PM

I could get behind that approach.

**Lord Diamond** · 08-19-2016, 05:55 PM

(08-19-2016, 04:33 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote: I think giving the sanctuary a hidden status and allowing them to be attacked as IT suggested is a good compromise of the two camps on this. Still very difficult to kill someone off but possible if you want to start searching square by square. Hidden would not allow you to just divine location of an Emmy you really would be pressed to find it. Also makes issuing the order super early in the game not so much a get out of jail free card.

Luckily, you can move the Sanctuary around. I haven't actually built one as a precaution. It has been more of a "Holy Crap, this dude might eliminate me!" reaction.

**Jumpingfist** · 08-19-2016, 08:01 PM

(08-19-2016, 05:55 PM)Lord Diamond Wrote:
(08-19-2016, 04:33 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote: I think giving the sanctuary a hidden status and allowing them to be attacked as IT suggested is a good compromise of the two camps on this. Still very difficult to kill someone off but possible if you want to start searching square by square. Hidden would not allow you to just divine location of an Emmy you really would be pressed to find it. Also makes issuing the order super early in the game not so much a get out of jail free card.

Luckily, you can move the Sanctuary around. I haven't actually built one as a precaution. It has been more of a "Holy Crap, this dude might eliminate me!" reaction.

After you have no PC would not be able to move it since you have no PC to be within enough squares of. i have no issues having the sacuaey moved around while you have a PC.

**unclemike** · 08-19-2016, 10:21 PM

I remember when we had a discussion like this regarding the sanctuary's predecessor (a mysterious camp that wasn't even on the map and couldn't be targeted -- back when Cipher was running the game), half the player based wanted to eliminate kingdoms while the other half wanted to stay in the game as long as possible to get their full money's worth. You can search for those forum threads if you want because it was a pretty heated argument back and forth on both sides.

It put Rick in a bad position because no matter what he did, it would anger someone in not having the game that they wanted to play. But I think he made the right decision with the sanctuary concept which was a compromise between the two. The new sanctuary would exist on the map so its emissaries could be targeted (in the floating camp they were immune and agents could attack at will without harm to themselves) but not allow the sanctuary to be conquered as a pc (to become a safe haven for players to continue in the game if they wanted). So it was a compromise between the two sides in an attempt to satisfy everyone.

I haven't done a statistical analysis of how often players create a sanctuary but I've done so myself in games to protect my kingdom from being eliminated due to no pc's left. Perhaps some changes may be possible for a sanctuary in the next release but I'm definitely not in favor of allowing the sanctuary to be attacked/conquered because then the concept of having a sanctuary in the first place would serve no purpose.

Personally, I would leave it as it is but add a new game variant where sanctuaries are not allowed (the code would prevent creating a sanctuary in such a mode). In fact, I suggested this idea back when we originally discussed all of this so the player base who wanted to eliminate kingdoms may do so in those games. So don't change the concept of a sanctuary but just add a new game variant to satisfy others...

**Tomag Ironfist** · 08-19-2016, 10:31 PM

I second Mike's idea on making the sanctuary allowed / prohibited rule based game-to-game prior to the game's start.

**Ry Vor** · 08-19-2016, 11:44 PM

(08-19-2016, 10:31 PM)Tomag Ironfist Wrote: I second Mike's idea on making the sanctuary allowed / prohibited rule based game-to-game prior to the game's start.

Sounds fine, but then that's some of Mike's time and I don't really know that digging deeper into sanctuaries is a priority. The server conversion he is working on, some other in game things probably are.

**DuPont** · 08-20-2016, 03:17 AM

I think there are enough variants. I'll never play in a 'no sanctuary' game, myself, if such a thing is ever created.

**Frost Lord** · 08-20-2016, 04:58 AM

I like the concept of sanctuaries (even though I have not been in a situation to need one...knock on wood!) But that being said, I also like UM's suggestion...options are always good.

But, Rick is 100% correct...getting migrated to a SQL server DB will offer a lot more to the game (and all of us) in regards to automation, reporting, statistical analysis, event tracking....and a thousand other benefits.

**VballMichael** · (This post was last modified: 08-22-2016, 02:35 PM by VballMichael.)

Can someone point to or remind what reveals a hidden cap? Landing with a group does. Does 978? Eagle Eye? What else? I think Mike listed but I can't find that. Thanks.

**unclemike** · 08-22-2016, 03:05 PM

(08-22-2016, 02:33 PM)VballMichael Wrote: Can someone point to or remind what reveals a hidden cap? Landing with a group does. Does 978? Eagle Eye? What else? I think Mike listed but I can't find that. Thanks.

http://www.kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/s...4#pid37874