I think I see what you are getting at with an ‘unraidable inventory’ but surely this at best only partially mitigates the bodyvault problem? It might get rid of the need for that exploit itself (which is, in itself an improvment admittedly, replacing an exploit with an intentional system), but it would leave the same overall situation - players/clans can build up a huge reserve of unraidable supplies from which they can then perform offline raids to wipe others. (Of course, those others would have their own unraidable stores, so would not be truly wiped in the same sense, but the biggest problem with bodyvaults would seem to be the unraidable store of explosives ect and that would remain an issue.) Similarly, the need for a ‘ritual’ to access said inventory does provide a potetntial safety valve to some extent - if it takes time and effort to access, then it can’t just be sprung out mid-raid - but it doesn’t stop the raider from taking their time setting up and then launching.
Yes, very much so. I think also if they could only be carried in extremely limited numbers. I suggested earlier taking this out of the control of the standard encumbrance system and just having a flat limit on numbers that can be carried - this could even be taken further (and understand, i am not talking here in exact numbers, they could be adjusted to find the correct level - just using these numbers as examples) - carrying 1 might be ‘safe’, carrying 2 might bring a 5% risk of premature detonation (checked how often? Maybe when the player undergoes an impact? Is struck?), carrying 3 ups it to say 20%, carrying 4 brings it to 50%, carrying 5 brings it to 80%. As I say, not exact, but I think you get the idea of what I’m proposing. Carry too many and you risk blowing up before you place them.
As you say, the trebs are clearly less problematic, because of the need to defend them. This could also apply with an ‘Explosive crafting station’ - make it a large, vulnerable workstation that needs to be brought close to the battlefield in order to keep supplying the attackers with additional bombs. Now they can run in, place a few, run back and craft a fe more - there is risk for them in carrying the explosives, and there is risk of losing the workstation, so now they have something they have to defend when it comes to explosives as well as trebs. But explosives are not negated as a valid tactic.
I believe they are still viable (though it’s a long time since I last tried). It’s not so much that making explosives require star metal would make acquisition of star metal impossible, as just it creates a major bottleneck, as you suggested. I think going in that circular fashion would be broadly negative - and there may simply be better ways to make explosives expensive/time-consuming without having to go down that particular route.
If I remember correctly, DBD would mean it’s only possible to attack someone if they are or recently were online? (So they can’t just see the attack coming and duck out to avoid it, but equally can’t just be offline wiped when they haven’t had the chance to be online.) Seems like a decent approach. As I recall the problem was ‘something something, devs turned it off, maybe not working?’
Well, that’s at least a positive.
Battering Rams a problem (but at least Al Merayah no longer a free source of infinite numbers of them…) Not sure they’d fit into the sort of framework i was suggesting for bombs above. But should be possible to do something to limit them. MAybe nerf the small ones (because they don’t really make sense anyway) and add some big ones that require teamwork to operate - and are more vulnerable to boiling oil? Just spit-balling as I type, but it’d at least look a bit more like an actual battering ram used to attack fortifications than something that the modern police use to break household doors…
