Bah, mere technicalities.

PWN

A couple of more comments about Constructs/Colossi:

Defenders SHOULD be able to enter their construct between weakenings.
Defenders SHOULD be able to add upgrades to their construct between weakenings.
Defenders SHOULD be able to link to the construct between weakenings to determine its status.
Defenders SHOULD NOT be able to attack with their construct, or use gears, or use sparkleberry, between weakenings-- only link to it, detach, and check its status, and insert upgrades.

Attackers SHOULD NOT get a safe room in enemy territory from which to launch attacks without fear. This means they:
SHOULD NOT be able to boulderblast from within a Colossus.
SHOULD NOT be able to hailstorm from within a Colossus.
SHOULD NOT be able to push hexes out of a Colossus.
SHOULD NOT be able to throw runes from a Colossus.

Further, trying to channel to your Construct SHOULD NOT give untrapped errors.

(I also believe that the Colossus should be destroyed after the weakening is finished, but I know some don't agree with that. However, the Construct itself has a maintenance upkeep-- a colossus, as a means of gaining a large amount of power, should have a similar upkeep. The best solution I can think of for that is rebuilding the Colossus.)

In that case raising a colossus should become considerably cheaper.

EDIT: Or maybe you can dismantle your colossus and take it with you again when it's over?

Though-- why? You're attempting to destroy something which gives another organization a benefit that you want to remove. Should you remove it, you get a significant power surge.

Why shouldn't it be expensive?

Agreed. Like there isn't enough power to feed everyone in the Basin for a couple thousand years and then some, even assuming no new input.

But there isn't!

That there is a lot of power doesn't really seem a good reason to waste it. And colossi cost is about the commodities not the power really. It takes a LOT of commodities. And it is worth it - if you win. If you don't, that's a lot of waste with no return.

Colossi lasting between weakenings (and they only will last for the initial and one more) gives additional strategy options which makes the whole thing a little more feasible if you don't happen to have a dominant military force waiting on hand every time there is a weakening. Unless the goal here is to make raiding as difficult as possible which would seem to make the entire system itself a bit pointless heh.

ANNOUNCE NEWS #776
Date: 4/6/2007 at 18:41
From: Fain, of the Red Masque
To : Everyone
Subj: Constructs Fixes/Updates

You should no longer cause untrapped errors when trying to focus on a
construct or colossus.

Please note: The syntax is FOCUS
, and works only in the same room as the
construct/colossus. Example - strengthening the Guardian Stone of Black
Granite: FOCUS 7667 POSITIVE, or FOCUS STONE POSITIVE.

Guild security will notice that they can now TELEPORT CONSTRUCT
. This will take them to the room of the construct, -not-
inside it.

Construct upkeep power costs have changed majorly. They will start out
at 1% of the maximum initial power cost of the construct (as usual) but
every day they stay raised, the upkeep cost will decrease. After so
long, the upkeep will even become positive, giving power to the
affiliated Nexus. (There is a cap, of course.) Once they're destroyed,
the upkeep benefit will gradually decrease (or cost will increase) until
they are raised again. But wait! That's not all. The cost to build a
construct is also dependent on the number of days it has been raised
(net). For example, if the construct is raised for 25 days, destroyed
and raised again as soon as possible, 7 days later, then it will be
considered having been up for 18 days, lowering the power cost to
rebuild the construct by a factor relating to 18. (Feel free to try to
calculate the difference yourselves, but we won't just give it out!)

PURELY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE WHOSE NUMBERS HAVE NO BASIS IN REALITY: the
harmony constructs: These cost 35000k maximum to raise, so the initial
upkeep is -350 power a day. Each day the construct stays raised, the
upkeep will gradually decrease. In this example, by 50 power. This means
that, after 7 days, the upkeep will be 0, and for each day after that,
the upkeep will instead be negative - giving power to the nexus, as
opposed to draining it. On day 10, the upkeep will be +150 (gives 150
power to the nexus), but let's say it's destroyed. One week later, which
is as soon as it can be raised, the upkeep will not return to the normal
-350 power, but will be just -200. The power required to actually raise
the construct will also be less than the 35000k initially required, by a
factor relating to 3, which is the net days it has been raised.

As always, please BUG any bugs.

Penned by My hand on the 7th of Vestian, in the year 173 CE.

As for my thoughts... I'm pretty sure these constructs shouldn't be giving positive power. :/

A slightly more in-depth analysis: This rewards an organization with numbers above and beyond any others. Not only do they enjoy the benefits from their construct, not only will it stop costing them after a time, but it will instead give an *additional* source of power above and beyond what is available elsewhere. The fact that re-raising it costs less power the longer it is up is all right, but it doesn't really solve any problems with losing the construct being a hit to morale-- since odds are, if you're going to lose a construct, you will be losing it shortly after it is built anyways.

I really dislike this modification, personally, and though I suppose I can see keeping the "lower costs for it being up longer", I think the positive power gain needs to go. The entire point of the construct is that it gives benefits and it has costs...

can teleport over monoliths right??

I like the idea alot, however I think the initial cost should be closer to 5% than 1%

Having to defend it potentially every weakening is a large cost. The gold cost does also not decrease. The time for it to get to positive is, I imagine, no short period, during which the organisation will have had to defend it and keep it up. I also highly doubt that the construct will ever repay the amount it cost in the first place, power-wise.

As I said, if your organization has a large number advantage, you can be pretty well assured that you're not losing your constructs. This means that the "cost of having to defend it" is, essentially, non-existant... which means that you get the benefits for no cost whatsoever.

Edit: Unless, of course, a couple of organizations band together to destroy the things-- which may be what you're trying to encourage?

i like it because it lets little ones help and gain experience and karma without having to kill people. It takes a little bit of Xenthos' ideas and Catarin's about giving everyone benefits win or lose.

I'm sorry, but there's really no benefit at all for losing. If your construct dies shortly after going up, you get nothing. It's only if you win for a long, long time (or don't even have to fight) that you get any kind of benefit. :(

Mm, it's not often that an extra 'x' power a day will outweigh having lost '500x' power at the beginning. The power benefit is relatively small, and it will always still cost power to raise. Also, the weakenings are randomised - populations rise and fall with time, and it's more than likely that, within a few weeks, there will have been one where said construct's organisation has inadequate defence. I personally can't see many problems arising from the potentially small power gains that constructs will provide, particularly when the initial cost will be so high in comparison - what if it takes even a year RL to regain the power put into the construct? That's a lot of defending to have done, as well as gold spent, commodities used, etc. The benefits will never come free, whether or not the nexus is receiving power from the construct, rather than losing some to it. Alongside this, as has been stated repeatedly on the forums, the balance of the Basin shifts from time to time - one organisation won't be on top forever, and when they aren't, their constructs will start to fall. There is also the implication of organisations briefly 'banding together' to tear down a construct, which isn't out of the picture. We'll see how it goes.

There is no way to prevent the losing a construct being a hit to morale unless you simply do not lose it. And the only guaranteed way to not lose it is to simply not build it. Which naturally is an option. But if you want the benefits you have to accept that risk. The morale hit will be less if you just instill the expectation that the construct will go down eventually but that's not really the point. So every weakening it stays up is a morale boost heh!

No one is forcing anyone to participate. At the same time it seems way too early in the game to be so defeatist about it. You do not need swarms of people to defend your construct. You definitely need to make sure you have enough warm bodies in security in order to operate the construct. You need to understand at which points you can stop them. It's a lot more than just a raid. They can bring a hundred people and if you have a well-trained aether crew and are prepared ahead of time, you can kill them all with just 5.

I do agree with you though about it should not give positive power returns. While this certainly inspires people to build more as the risk is greatly mitigated it might be too much. I don't know though, we'll see as time goes on I guess.

Naturally I like the rest of the changes! Heh

You're really overstating the advantage of numbers here. I don't remember the first time the crypt was destroyed too clearly but I know the advantage of numbers was on the defenders side the second time in pretty much all but one of the nexus battles it was attacked.

Numbers help. But if you don't have a good plan and strategy (for both defense and offense) they do not help that much.