Official Blood Wars Board | Game system

Official Blood Wars Board » Blood Wars » Game system » Griefing

» Hello Guest [Login|Register]

Last Post | First Unread Post

Print Page | Recommend to a Friend | Add Thread to Favorites

Pages (3): « previous 1 [2] 3 next »

Griefing

Author

Post

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

Nicely said Sushi, but I do have a couple of points to raise on this ..... I'll try to do it as constructively as possible

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
1. Which players are more important.

REP. All players are important for us, we dont care if You are from Poland, UK, Russia, Grece etc.
EVERYONE counts.

I agree, but I will say that if a server is going to be labelled as non-Polish (going by the original players and servers) then you have to understand that using rules and systems from the old ones where they are tried and tested will not always run into the local play styles ... you have already, by reading this thread seen that a few of us from the UK and other places see the 'tactics' that are used (i.e. 'strategic' sieging) as cheap and non-conducive to the spirit of the game. I would also look at the amount of inactive accounts as evidence of the 'voting with their feet' tactic.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
2. Are the suggestions listend to.

REP. Yes, all the suggestions are taken into consideration, we review all aspects of the game and make our best to make the game UNIVERSAL, thus there will be no changes aimed only into on group of players.
We make all the efforts possible to make playing the BW a fun for EVERYBODY, like McD Smile

I HATE McD Smile

seriously, I would agree with this also, but will point to my previous statement .... it is quite clear that the only people who are coming out of this happy are not the intended target group that I assume you had in mind when you opened a UK server

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
3. The Premium issue.

REP. The first thing that we care about are not the Premium activations but the very satisfaction form the game.
PERSONALY I believe that if the game is good and players do like it the premium will fallow automaticly.

This I disagree with to a certain degree, without the funding from the premium activations there would be no game (unless you happen to be a Polish Bill Gates and have money to throw around without concern) so it should be at least close to being as important as the game itself ..... but at the moment, the game is only really appealing to the players that have been in it since the Polish version, which means less activations and eventually a non viable UK server as they leave to start up on new servers

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
4. Auction cheats.

REP. If You find an auction with the overpowered price, just sign it as "cheat suspected", then the Game Operator will review the transactions logs and ban the cheaters, if found one/s.

Now how could that be PROVEN as pushing if it was originally sorted out away from the game .... there are excuses that could be used .... for instance 'I made a mistake, it was meant to be a lifestone' and nobody would be any the wiser.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
5. PLAYER GRIEFING.

Possible solutions:
- diplomacy (not only finding alliances but also makeing peace agreements).
- mergers, weak clans should bind together and make a stronger ones + academy.

Ah, now this is the big one ..... The thing I have commented about before is a need for clan capping, as the alliance of EoD, PHX, ..!.., CoN and the others as they spring up (hereafter referred to as 'THE CLAN', because face it, no matter how many names they go by, all they are is a single steamroller clan) is impossible to go against in any sustained way, no matter how many smaller clans band together ........... They simply have too large a pool of BIG players to switch between their clans at a moments notice, and they do. The gaps do not shrink between the clans and players, the divides get ever wider, and they have made quite clear that they only do peace agreements and pacts between themselves ..... this is one of the big no-no's in most places, because we generally call it powergaming, and its the sort of thing that:

1: ruins the fun and enjoyment of those not willing to stoop to their level

and conversely

2: drives players out of games because of it, even established games such as Galaxies Ablaze and Planetarion very nearly closed down due to this sort of player being given free reign.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
Tactics:

- tactical sieges/attacks.
They give You time to prepare/build up.

Tactical sieges are about as close to cheating as you can get, that is very close to 'pushing' or 'pulling' but using combat. And against 'THE CLAN' they're just delaying the inevitable.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
- Bad swaps.
This is a way to make an attacker sorry for even being born.
The solution is simple, if You are certain that they shall and will atack You just make a siege just before being sieged.
As the siege is atuned to a player not to a certain square the result will be as follows:
a. You shall take over a bad square from some friend of Yours.
b. Your friend will keep the good square for You.
c. The attacker will land on a p.o.s. square (try to make it 5th zone Wink

)

And just how are you going to be certain? ask them if they'll please tell you what time they're going to attack?

As soon as most of these players see the change in square they'll call the siege off, and yes, most players are observant enough to notice that

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
- Attacks
Haveing a friendly clan to make a HP attacks on the attacker to blled him down is allways a good idea.

Thats done as a standard anyway ..... but what happens when you have 3 players out of the top 5 in a siege (even though they were in different clans a few mnutes before)? the only purpose attacking them serves is to waste your own blood and probabally give them a much needed boost.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
6. OTHER PROPOSITIONS.

a. Limiting sieges.
+ less griefing
- less game play
- in an advanced game phase, no chance to wage a war
- cheatres will use this to be permanently safe (one tactical siege and noone can harm you)

ok, I can see your point on this, but as was pointed out by elisabeth (I think) the attacker (being the stronger party) gets 24 hours grace after winning a siege, yet the loser gets far less, allowing them to be demolished in a very short time by 'THE CLAN' ... thereby setting their advancement back by days if not weeks and widening the gaps yet further.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
b. Active defender buildings.
-/+ easy defence
- no way to win if both sides are quite equall (the additional +2k HP would make a hughe difference.

Then another suggestion would be to allow the attackers to purchase siege weapons to offset this (Sieges historically cost A LOT of money and resources to do)

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
c. No clan movement if makeing, a siege - we will review it in the comming week. The idea is good but needs to be a cheat prof.

I can't complain at that ... it's been taken into consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
d. Limiting the efectivnes depending on the joining time.
- would favour the defender
- would block some game tactics (blleding of a stronger clans by fake sieges).

Would also create new game tactics ...... Fakes, Feints, Blindsiding ...... and shouldnt a siege favour the defender anyway? An army vs a Fortified Army will always be at a disadvantage ............... just look at the trench wars in WWI, The city battles in WWII, Northern Ireland ...... a well entrenched enemy is harder to take down than a battlefield charge

7. 2h weapons other items balance (suicader).
A patch is under development concerning this features.

PS. Sorry for my bad english.

If any one has a good game balance idea he my send it directly to me: sm@bloodwars.pl

thoug I ask for sending only a well considered mails.

Your sincirely,

SushiMaker[/quote]

Also, just a quick question ..... would an English language beta server be considered to tweak the rules and features to actually get them to be more universal, as no matter what you say about trying to appeal to everyone, the only feedback you actually get in Beta is from the Polish beta server.

__________________
Back for a while.

This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Gendibal: 06-16-2007 17:07.

06-16-2007 16:45

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

I agree there should be english beta server because you test everything on polish server with polish player.

quote:

We already did have prolonged the siege 1st phase from 12h to 18h! to allow more flexible gameplay.By limiting the sieging strenght with, a factor of joining time this would give, a sieges hard to conduct (how to rally 20-30 ppl to join at one time?).

You don't understand my suggestion. It is about joining clan not siege. When vampires are in one clan they make preparation and leader give them order who to attack. If someone join later clan then leader won't have time to change his plan he will fast give him some orders. That is why if someone will join clan late he won't get 100% damage in siege because he won't know what to do.
It should look like I wrote before you get 100% damage at siege when you are 16-18h in clan. Every 2h you should lessen % of damage by 10%.

06-16-2007 17:29

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

quote:

I agree, but I will say that if a server is going to be labelled as non-Polish (goining from the original players and servers) then you have to understand that using rules and systems from the old ones where they are tried and tested will not always run into the local play styles ... you have already, by reading this thread seen that a few of us from the UK and other places see the 'tactics' that are used (i.e. 'strategic' sieging) as cheap and non-conducive to the spirit of the game. I would also look at the amount of inactive accounts as evidence of the 'voting with their feet' tactic.

Thats why I have decided to take a part in this discusion:
one - it allows us to recognize the problems
two - it is a sign that the game have attracted some dedicated UK players with whom we can start developeing some game style adjustments
THREE - every change that will be applied must me considered acceptable at the widest range of servers, so the game would be universal.

quote:

I dont care if it will take a weak or a year if in prespective I have a clear sign that it will pay of.

quote:

For this we have found an easy solution, we delete from the system the overpayed stones <Big Grin>

quote:

We have spent the last 9 monts trying to weed this out, I am glad that there are ppl willing to join the fight.

quote:

I will look to it. But I dont think that the winning side has a "siege grace=24h". If so I will do something about the issue.

quote:

Then another suggestion would be to allow the attackers to purchase siege weapons to offset this (Sieges historically cost A LOT of money and resources to do)

The sieges are to reflect a gang fights or a knights tornaments not an entranched warfare.

quote:

Also, just a quick question ..... would an English language beta server be considered to tweak the rules and features to actually get them to be more universal, as no matter what you say about trying to appeal to everyone, the only feedback you actually get in Beta is from the Polish beta server.

Possibly, but eventualy it would need a bigger UK population, as at the moment only about 50% of active users is of UK origin.
Other possibility is that the international BETA R4 shall be opened when we will have all the patches ready.

Regards,
SM

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-16-2007 17:33

Azz420
Lord

Registration Date: 04-11-2007
Posts: 384
Race in game: Absorber
Clan: .DB.

Thread Starter Thread Started by Azz420

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
a. Limiting sieges.
+ less griefing
- less game play
- in an advanced game phase, no chance to wage a war
- cheatres will use this to be permanently safe (one tactical siege and noone can harm you)

this option is only for seige for square. seige for rescorces may be done once a day still, also removing honour points from square seiges will limit how often they are used, when a clan is seiged for square the 1st thing you will hear is "all members to join to seige." this way they can make more honour points than they would get from a seige for rescorces.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
b. Active defender buildings.
-/+ easy defence
- no way to win if both sides are quite equall (the additional +2k HP would make a hughe difference.

Buildings will only be active for the person defending a square seige not for the whole clan.
+2k HP how did you some up with that number?? mostly they will get a max bonus of 500 HP even with items to increase HP on top of building bonus.

all these changes are only for seiges against squares to limit how often they are used to keep a clan down and stop them from advancing.
seige for square = Honour points + Better square + crummy square for defender
which means the attacker gets new square and chance of advancing from expeditions while defender gets slowed down from advancing giving top clans more chance to pull away and give others no chance of catching up!!
removing honour points from square seige is the logical way to go :/

__________________

06-16-2007 17:47

Szeszej
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 1,863
Location: Poland
Clan: Overlords

quote:

Originally posted by Gendibalew servers

quote:

If you don't report any suspicious auctions I am not able to judge whether it was a pull or normal auction. I'm just a human being and I can't see the end of every auction and it's up to you to help me Wink

__________________

Before sending a PM, read the PM rules
If Supermoderators or moderators do not listen or unjustly ignore your PMs, write a PM to me.
Heresy grows from idleness.

06-16-2007 18:00

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker

quote:

For this we have found an easy solution, we delete from the system the overpayed stones <Big Grin>

I can't complain at that solution.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker

quote:

We have spent the last 9 monts trying to weed this out, I am glad that there are ppl willing to join the fight.

I've walked from more games than I care to remember for that reason and the fact that the Admins/Devs were unwilling to listen to the grievances of the players when those same points were brought up, citing them as 'player choice'. Which is why it's a refreshing change to be able to have this sort of 2 sided discussion on this matter.

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker

quote:

I will look to it. But I dont think that the winning side has a "siege grace=24h". If so I will do something about the issue.

Direct quote from manual:

After taking over new territory, player is protected from sieges for 24 hours. It applies for besieging empty square and winning a siege that was meant to overtake opponent's square (doesn't apply for defeated player)

So as I said, the stronger player gains 24 hours protection while the defeated player doesn't gain any time to rebuild and regroup before the next possible thrashing ....... in the case of Azz420 that stretched to losing 2 squares in under 24 hours to the same section of 'THE CLAN'

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker

quote:

Then another suggestion would be to allow the attackers to purchase siege weapons to offset this (Sieges historically cost A LOT of money and resources to do)

The sieges are to reflect a gang fights or a knights tornaments not an entranched warfare.

If someone came and tried to take my house (square) over, I can assure you that I wouldn't fight him in the street ... he'd have to bloody well work for it, and he'd be getting things thrown out of the windows at him while he was trying to batter down the (locked) door. On the other hand, I've been known to play a hand or 2 of poker for cash (resources)

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker

quote:

R4 international I could definitely live with, but again, to avoid the same problems we're having now, there would need to be a greater mix of players to get feedback off ....... or another alternative would be to have a limited player beta (invitation only based on geographical location, determined on application)

__________________
Back for a while.

06-16-2007 18:08

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

What do you think of adding siege tactic?

Example (wrote fast without thinking):

-Something(like defending) shooter - melee fighters defend shooters from taking hits effect: shooters -20% to being attacked by enemy, +10% defence, +10% hp, -10% to damage, -20% to initiative
melee fighetrs +20% to being attacked , -10% hp, -10% to defence, +10% to damage, +20% to initiative

- Distraction:
shooter: -20% to initiative when they hit enemy attack at end of round

Don't want to think more of examples. If you will like that idea I will try to write more of them.

Also we could add something like GW morale boost. It will increase health points in siege. When enemy make siege and when any player defeat leader he get +2% to HP, deputy +1%, Other 0.5%. Max of morale boost is 15-20%. Each defeat will give you -0.5-1% max minimum morale is 15-20%.

If you like my suggestion I will think more about it.

06-16-2007 18:15

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

1. removing rep from sieges on square.

efect: to gain rep You need to atack on resources =>defender will not join the siege=>you will have no way to gain rep points, only option will be to make fake sieges with colegues just to gain rep ;/

2. Each level of police station gives 1hp for every 1charyzma/rep point thus having PS lev 10 and charyzma/rep lev 40 gives U 400HP, the Army station gives a multiplayer to PS efect, race bonuses (BL+20%), other efects, and You will have over 1k HP.

* skill/building names are translated by me and my warry in game.

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-16-2007 18:20

Death12
Triple Ace

Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK

Well from what i can see this is goin alot better now it is 2 sided... and dont get us (me) wrong this is a great game and we can only thank you for all the effort and dedication you have put into it.

But as we have out-lined there are many faults, i like the idea of a new beta server, however there are not enough active UK/non-polish players to give blanced feedback...
Also perhapes a way for people who are joining now to have any chance in catching up with the top 100.

What are you doing to (in the last 9 months) to stop powergaming?

oh and as for supposed 'tactics' i agree, i find them cheap, and in effect cheating... somthing i do not like to do on any game because it spoils the fun.

I will contiune you to read this space and let you know if i have any good ideas that have not been mentioned, there is alot to cover! lol

06-16-2007 18:29

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

quote:

Originally posted by Elisabeth
What do you think of adding siege tactic?

Example (wrote fast without thinking):

-Something(like defending) shooter - melee fighters defend shooters from taking hits effect: shooters -20% to being attacked by enemy, +10% defence, +10% hp, -10% to damage, -20% to initiative
melee fighetrs +20% to being attacked , -10% hp, -10% to defence, +10% to damage, +20% to initiative

- Distraction:
shooter: -20% to initiative when they hit enemy attack at end of round

Don't want to think more of examples. If you will like that idea I will try to write more of them.

This sound interesting BUT will require a loot of work to be implemented.
Like:
- at least 10 stances
- full testing
- who decides on the stance that You get? What if You dont want to take such stance? What if leader wants You in 1 stance and You dont want it?

quote:

Also we could add something like GW morale boost. It will increase health points in siege. When enemy make siege and when any player defeat leader he get +2% to HP, deputy +1%, Other 0.5%. Max of morale boost is 15-20%. Each defeat will give you -0.5-1% max minimum morale is 15-20%.
If you like my suggestion I will think more about it.

Temporary or permanent?
Right now there is a penaly/bonus for loseing Clan Leader and Siege Leader, that decreeses Clans dmg.

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-16-2007 18:35

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

Leader will chose what tactic should clan use. Or make voting system leader will choose 2-3 tactic and clan will vote which should they use. Tactic should be like this vs shooters , melee fighters , high damage , high defence , high hp etc. It would help balance game and spying will become more valuable because if you gather more information about enemy then you will know what tactic he should use or what kind of fighters enemy have.

Morale boost could be added permament. It would give you bonus to maximum health but only at siege. We could change that if you defeat stronger player you get +2% morale and enemy lose -2% if you defeat equal(+/- 1 level) player you gain 1% and enemy lose 1%. When you defeat weaker player you don't gain anything. So top players will have harder to get morale boost and weaker could easily boost it to 20% and 20% more health in siege is big difference. When you die in siege you lose 5% of morale when you kill someone in siege you get 1% of morale.

I can think of tactic to make them balanced. If you want 10 then I will think of 10. It should work like disposable item but it would apply to whole clan so it should lessen your "loot of work to be implemented". Tactic should lessen enemy power by 20-30% if chosen correctly. It would add some tactical option into bw.

06-16-2007 19:03

Death12
Triple Ace

Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK

I like the idea of more legitimate tactics to bloodwars, however the HP boost should not be perminant! that would just mean peopel who win sieges just walk allover everyone else, they should only effect sieges and should be lost 24h after the siege finneshes, to discorage repeate attacks etc.

06-16-2007 19:17

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

What I am afraid of is that will impower the strongest clans/users thus thiy will be even stronger.

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-16-2007 20:22

Death12
Triple Ace

Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK

Hmm yeah... good point... i dont have any other ideas or ways to get round it...

Does anyone else?

06-16-2007 20:32

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

Stronger clans will have harder to gain morale boost because to gain them you need to fight with stronger or equal player. When you are in top 10 then you can fight with only few players that could give you morale boost. Weaker players would have advantage at this. So weaker clans would gain faster morale boost than stronger clans with stronger player. It will balance hp of weaker players so they could stay longer alive at siege.
Every 12h without siege you lose 5% of morale. It is logical that when you win often you fight better if you lose then you don't see hope in winning fight.
When EoD or PHX attack BoS or other weaker clan they won't be able to decrease their morale but BoD will be able to decrease their morale. It would give another alliance option so stronger clans will make alliance with weaker clans just to decrease morale of weaker players.
You don't see things like I do. I think that this is worthy of trying. In Guild Wars morale boost is very important game tactic here t should work as good as there.

06-16-2007 20:48

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
What I am afraid of is that will impower the strongest clans/users thus thiy will be even stronger.

Unfortunately I think that it has got to such a stage that the balance of power, as it is, couldn't really be redressed without either:

1: Clan and Action Capping of some form (for instance a maximum points or levels limit on clans as well as the member limit, along with a restriction on how often and how quickly you can change clans)
or
2: The drastic course of action of resetting the server

Another possible suggestion for the clan switching problem is to have a 'Mercenary Register' for those who wish to do that, but clans would have to hire them into their ranks for a siege for instance (paying for their services ..... possibly in stones,blood or Lgo, or making each registered mercenary take up 2 clan slots)

Getting on and off the register would take 18-24 hours each ideally.

For this to work, switching clans would have to be made a longer process too, otherwise the need for mercenaries would be negated.

__________________
Back for a while.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Gendibal: 06-17-2007 05:25.

06-17-2007 05:18

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

I wish to sum up the topics conclusions:

1. No clan movement if makeing, a siege - we will review it in the comming week. The idea is good but needs to be a cheat prof.

This option should be easier to implement than, penalty base on the joining time, and will have even higher efect.

2. "Siege grace" time limit to be made equall.

3. Morale Boost. In a way described by Elisabeth.

This are options that looks promising and possible to implement. If we find no big obstacles the first two options should be made avilable in 1-2 weeks, the third option needs more complex check/balancing but I believe that it can be done. Wink

If there will be any new promissing ideas I will add them to the list or make a new one Big Grin

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-17-2007 10:14

Scillage
Forum Legend

Registration Date: 05-31-2007
Posts: 1,034
Location: UK
Clan: N/A

Good idea elisabeth

__________________

Decir adiós es morir un poco
To say goodbye is to die a little

06-17-2007 10:35

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

I'm very happy. 2 of my ideas have chance to be implanted into this game.
I don't understand point 2 could you explain it.

I thought of tactic option. In my opinion the best option would be that it raise effect of tattoos and lower enemy effects of tattoos.
For example:
Defender only:
- Perfect defense - you know perfectly your territory. After living here for so long you can easily hide yourself.
Effect:
Shooting tattoo(don't know names) +20% to whole effect of tattoo, +0% to Health, +10toughness
assasin and ranged tattoo effect+10%, +10% to health, +5 toughness
melee +0%, +20% to health
Enemy lose:
Shooter tattoo -0%hp
assasin and ranged -10% to hp
melee -20% to hp

Something like that.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Elisabeth: 06-17-2007 11:20.

06-17-2007 11:08

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by Elisabeth
I'm very happy. 2 of my ideas have chance to be implanted into this game.
I don't understand point 2 could you explain it.

Siege grace is the protection time after a siege, currently the successful attacker gets 24 hours 'grace' or protection while the moved defender gets a lot less ...... what he means by equalising them is that both attacker and defender will be given the same protection after a siege .... hence allowing the moved player and clan a little breathing space to rebuild and regroup.

I can see one problem that may come out of that, but at this stage it's unavoidable until we see the effects of the implemented changes (in effect Beta feedback without the beta status on the server Big Grin

), and that problem is that we could start seeing, instead of 1 player dropped down a few times, mass clan sieges designed to cycle through 2 or 3 players in a single clan.

__________________
Back for a while.

06-17-2007 11:22

Hyperborean
Double Ace

Registration Date: 05-02-2007
Posts: 145
Race in game: Beastmaster

That's what every clan war is about. And with no wars, there would be no point in playing this game. Furthermore, I'm very sceptical about the changes. Of course, the grace inequality has to go. That is a very good idea. I think, in fact, the grace was meant to be equal, but something went wrong with programming. Now, surely, SM shall take care of it. No clan movement, whichever way it was meant to go, has little chances of being implemented. Morale boost is a good option, but, again, it shall be very difficult to enhance the system in a reasonable fashion - without rewriting much. But any morale boost, even a simple one, would be nice. I should say, especially a simple one - no need to complicate things.

Capping of any sort is bad, I think. Even stats capping is wrong, and totally unnecessary at this moment. Neither in the Underworld, nor in Moria, nor in Necropolis II can the stats be hyped dangerously. The more freedom of action, the better.

06-17-2007 13:50

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by Hyperborean
That's what every clan war is about. And with no wars, there would be no point in playing this game.

I totally agree, but the one sided situations such as have been seen so far, with one clique of clans almost completely dominating the game is not war, it's genocide, and that is not conducive to encouraging players to stay (by the way, without many players there isn't much point playing the game either)

quote:

Originally posted by Hyperborean
Of course, the grace inequality has to go. That is a very good idea. I think, in fact, the grace was meant to be equal, but something went wrong with programming. Now, surely, SM shall take care of it.

I refer back to a previous post I made which containes a direct quote from the manual, basically saying victor gets 24h grace, and losing player does not. So it was meant to be that way, but without the necessary player feedback until now, there has been no reason to alter it.

quote:

Originally posted by Hyperborean
No clan movement, whichever way it was meant to go, has little chances of being implemented.

No clan movement has not really been touched on, the thing that has been suggested, in effect, is making it more difficult for players to switch clans at a moments notice as happens all too frequently in 'THE CLAN'.

quote:

Originally posted by Hyperborean
Morale boost is a good option, but, again, it shall be very difficult to enhance the system in a reasonable fashion - without rewriting much. But any morale boost, even a simple one, would be nice. I should say, especially a simple one - no need to complicate things.

Agreed, but how to simplify something which by it's very nature would need to have a degree of complexity to work in any way, shape or form ... it will require a lot of work, but it is an excellent idea for evening the playing field.

quote:

Originally posted by Hyperborean
Capping of any sort is bad, I think. Even stats capping is wrong, and totally unnecessary at this moment. Neither in the Underworld, nor in Moria, nor in Necropolis II can the stats be hyped dangerously. The more freedom of action, the better.

4 points to make on this from such a short paragraph:

1: As far as I see it, clan capping in the form of max levels or points is one of the only ways the balance of power is going to be evened out to any degree whatsoever. (if someone sees it differently, please comment with constructive suggestions that the admins/devs can consider)

2: No-one has ever mentioned stat capping, in fact stat capping would probabally drive more players away as the maxed out and got bored.

3: I wish you'd stop comparing the UK server to Moria and Necropolis II, and I apologise if this next bit sounds condescending ...... Underworld isn't Moria or Necropolis II, Underworld is and should be completely different from Moria and Necropolis II. Moria and Necropolis II are Polish language servers, Underworld is an English language server, hence Underworld attracts an INTERNATIONAL playerbase, rather than the Polish language playerbase that Moria and Necropolis II attract. In fact, when talking about the system in Underworld, PLEASE FORGET ABOUT MORIA AND NECROPOLIS II, THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

4: Freedom of action ...... yes . . . . . Exploiting loopholes in the rules, powergaming (and don't even think of calling it tactics), destroying the spirit of the game, driving players out (a practice which you yourself have admitted you do or would use), and pushing the packet on what is and isn't cheating ...... NO!

__________________
Back for a while.

This post has been edited 3 time(s), it was last edited by Gendibal: 06-17-2007 16:28.

06-17-2007 16:22

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

Just another quick question about siege protection:

When a siege for square is successfully defended against, does the defending player have a protection period equal to one that is successfully attacked?

__________________
Back for a while.

06-17-2007 21:49

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

The trial patch will be lunched, that covers points 1 and 2.
Atention, new patch!

As for the point 3. We have found critical exception:

egz. clan has 1000 points, it devides into 2 (or more) sqads (600 and 400 points). The high lev squad is used only to power up members of the low lev squad.
After powering up both squads merge.

We are open for sugestions how to prevent it.

Regards,
SM

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-18-2007 10:37

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

Thanks SM, thats a good start, and even though its a test patch the implementation time on it is incredible.

Could you explain a little more about this critical exception .... I don't understand the problem well enough to be able to try thinking of a solution

__________________
Back for a while.

06-18-2007 12:14

Szeszej
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 1,863
Location: Poland
Clan: Overlords

One clan would only be meant to be constantly defeated so the second clan would get a huge morale boost.

__________________

Before sending a PM, read the PM rules
If Supermoderators or moderators do not listen or unjustly ignore your PMs, write a PM to me.
Heresy grows from idleness.

06-18-2007 12:27

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

One possible solution is that the individual morale boost is wiped out if a clan member leaves to join the other clan, or if a points total of 50% of the clan size joins a clan, the morale bonus is eliminated also.

1000 point clan splits into 400 and 600

400 point clan gains morale from sieges.

If 200 points of players join that clan, the bonus is removed (joining players do not get morale bonus as they have left their clan and become 'turncoats' in a military sense).

It may not work in all cases, but it is just a basic suggestion and open to refinements.

__________________
Back for a while.

06-18-2007 12:46

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

If you leave or change clan you get -5%(or more) morale boost.
Defeating enemy:
equal level if you have - morale boost +0.5% if you have + morale boost then 0%
1-2 level stronger +/-1%
3-4 level stronger +/-2%
5+ level stronger +/-3%
If someone joins clan all clan members gain -1% morale boost.

Siege kill:
deputy/defender/attacker +/- 2%
clan leader +/- 3%
other +/- 1%
Apply only to that person that killed/died.

12h without siege
+/- 5% depend if you have + or - morale.

06-18-2007 13:26

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

Penalty on leaving a clan is just partial solution.

WHY. Becouse You just make (temporary) one strong clan to be defeated. Then the members from defeated clan (the "strong" one) rejoin the mother-clan.

There is another draw back of this feature. Getting allies will not take place.

Other possibility is that strong clans will power up their academies by loseing on purpose.

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-18-2007 15:01

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

quote:

There is another draw back of this feature.Getting allies will not take place.

You are wrong. Now when a clan have strong allies they can defeat anyone even if they are weak. If you make these change clans will 1st depend on own strength and then on allies. There are now few clans that are made only to transfer few people that want to be at 3rd zone and can't do it because mother clan have already 3 people there. When you make this change you will balance game because they will have harder to defend using only allies. They will join weaker clans like BoS or D.W.

quote:

Other possibility is that strong clans will power up their academies by loseing on purpose.

Morale boost from siege can be granted only when you get PoH. So siege need to be equal.

quote:

So if they rejoin mother-clan they will lose 10% of morale and -1% to every member from mother clan. It would be hard to get from siege more than 10% so mostly reinforce will became weaker. So there will be tactic to lessen morale of stronger clan by attacking weaker allies.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Elisabeth: 06-18-2007 15:21.

06-18-2007 15:18

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by SushiMaker
Penalty on leaving a clan is just partial solution.

WHY. Becouse You just make (temporary) one strong clan to be defeated. Then the members from defeated clan (the "strong" one) rejoin the mother-clan.

As I said in my suggestion earlier, you're right, it is only a partial solution. But a partial solution that solves part of the problem is better than having no solution at all ...... it also gives the partial solution that is put in place time to be 'road tested' and completed as the flaws in it are spotted.

This is where the international Beta would be a good thing.

And on a final note SM, i said in the e-Mail to you that when the game got to the stage where it was worth advertising (in my opinion of course) then I'd do so to the best of my ability, FoC and nothing expected except a good game ....... consider the advertising campaign started, might take a while to get the word out, but I like the way that this constructive discussion is being managed, considered and acted upon.

I would ask anyone who wishes to join me in this to do the same ...... we now have a clear and proven commitment of support from the admins and devs, so now I think it's time to step up the commitment of support for them that we've shown since we joined.

__________________
Back for a while.

06-18-2007 16:15

SushiMaker
Administrator

Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89

We will think about this "morale boost" idea, a little longer and see if it can be implemented in a way suggested by Elizabeth.

I will give a feedback as soon as we reach any conclusion about it.

PS. Any further sugestions about it (and other issues) are welcome in this topic.

Regards,

SM

__________________
Pls e-mail me if needed, as I am rarely avilable thru this forum and You may not recieve response to Your PM.

Thank You.

06-18-2007 17:11

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by Hyperborean
That's what every clan war is about. And with no wars, there would be no point in playing this game.

New systems spawn new strategies and new tactics, 'no wars' is something that the game can't function without. But as the human condition is to adapt, players find a way.

In support of this statement I direct all players reading this toward a specific thread started off by Elisabeth:

War: RoD vs PHX

__________________
Back for a while.

06-20-2007 01:27

Hyperborean
Double Ace

Registration Date: 05-02-2007
Posts: 145
Race in game: Beastmaster

Nope. They have won only because you cannot organise your fighters into a disciplined army. Democracy is good for children, and not for clans of Bloodwars. Players cannot be given freedom of choice as far as weapons go. If your men come with Uzi (+0), and clubs of horseshue (+3), it shall always be difficult to win. Add the lack af disposable items, and the fact that some of them never bothered to use their arcana even though they had blood on them-selves, and you have the reason of your failure.

06-20-2007 09:20

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by Hyperborean
Nope. They have won only because you cannot organise your fighters into a disciplined army. Democracy is good for children, and not for clans of Bloodwars. Players cannot be given freedom of choice as far as weapons go. If your men come with Uzi (+0), and clubs of horseshue (+3), it shall always be difficult to win. Add the lack af disposable items, and the fact that some of them never bothered to use their arcana even though they had blood on them-selves, and you have the reason of your failure.

Did I miss an invisible post here?

Did someone say something about the loss of a siege?

Most of the players here play BW as a game <definition from Wiki>

"A game is a structured or semi-structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment "

Now just because a siege is lost, that doesnt spoil the enjoyment of the game ..... what was being objected to was the players that were just allowed to pound repeatedly on a single player or clan, making it all but impossible for them to progress in the game ..... leading in a lot of cases to that player leaving the game.

If you want to play a game like that, all competition and no space for players who don't feel the need (or have the time due to other commitments) to be on the game 24/7, then by all means go and play in Moria or Necropolis, as that is the way they seem to operate, and acceptably so for their playerbase.

Underworld, as has been explained before, and obviously misunderstood, a different playerbase (including the original one of course) and has to evolve and adapt to that specific condition. If sieges and battles are lost along the way for whatever reason, then so be it ..... but at least now they'll be fair battles for all involved ..... and its certainly going to take more planning and work than just clicking the 'siege' option every time someone looks like they're getting too close.

Have you also thought about the fact that they may not have been as lucky as you with quest drops, or not had your experience in planning out their stat training? Evidently everyone needs to have your experience level to qualify to play in your opinion.

As for democracy, you already said yourself, the more freedom of action for players the better ..... so which one is it? freedom of play or control of the players actions within the clan down to the brand of underwear they have on?

__________________
Back for a while.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Gendibal: 06-20-2007 11:06.

06-20-2007 11:00

Death12
Triple Ace

Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK

Players need to be able to have fun as it is a game and help make decitions as a group in order to operate more efficently. However a strong leader is also VERY importaint, if you dont have aleader/deputy that can say the weapon sucks try this or make sure you use desposible items and they obay then you wont get very far at all, and if they chose not to obay then they are not part of the group and should be kicked.

06-20-2007 12:12

Elisabeth
Lord

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440

I guess that on polish servers siege are made almost every day. Here in underworld it is hard to find equal enemy so we can't make as many sieges. Less sieges then you slowly gain experience on them.
That is why I suggested new war made in bw because underworld need also some serious wars. I hope that my method of making war will be accepted here in underworld by polish and non-polish players. If we don't have any enemy or don't want to start all time war this is the best option.
Administration is trying to balance siege so I as player want to help them in it.

Think of something I feel lonely with my invention T_T

06-20-2007 12:31

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by Death12
Players need to be able to have fun as it is a game and help make decitions as a group in order to operate more efficently. However a strong leader is also VERY importaint, if you dont have aleader/deputy that can say the weapon sucks try this or make sure you use desposible items and they obay then you wont get very far at all, and if they chose not to obay then they are not part of the group and should be kicked.

There are, however, all sorts of variables that affect this sort of advisory role ..... if a player doesn't spend 24/7 on the game, then they will invariably miss attacks, maybe they don't have the stats for better weapons, or even the luck with getting the weapons themselves and stones to upgrade. So even giving the advice out may not lead to improvement because of the lack of available materials.

This doesn't mean that they are not part of the team, it simply means that they will not be working at full efficiency until they are able to get hold of (and use) the weapons and armour that would raise their game.

Blood points are scarce at times, so using arcana is not always possible (and a waste of blood for thoughtcatchers), and items can be disposed of easily enough with a well timed attack ..... some players may not be on to replace them (in fact, most players are likely to be offline if the siege hits in early morning)

__________________
Back for a while.

06-20-2007 12:50

Death12
Triple Ace

Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK

All are fair reasons and if these people told the clan what had happened and why, then it would be fine... but that is different from just ignoring advice all together.

Like most games it is a game of communication and people who cant do that are the people who will get kicked cos they wont explain themselves!

06-20-2007 13:58

Gendibal
Viking

Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK

quote:

Originally posted by Death12
Like most games it is a game of communication and people who cant do that are the people who will get kicked cos they wont explain themselves!

Exactly what I'm working with Azz420 to address within DB ranks ..... I estimate that within 2 weeks we will be working as a well oiled team ........ of course a 'certain' player posting on this thread will argue that it wouldn't take that long on the Polish servers.

__________________
Back for a while.

06-20-2007 19:00

Pages (3): « previous 1 [2] 3 next »

Tree Structure | Board Structure

Jump to:

Official Blood Wars Board » Blood Wars » Game system » Griefing