 Atention, new patch! |
SushiMaker
Administrator
Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89
 |
|
Please be informed, that tommorow, 18th of June 2007, shall be lunched a new patch.
This Patch is a trial version, so I will not have a number (will not be listed in the change log).
The following changes will take place:
- person that was sieged and lost his/her square will gain "siege grace"=24h starting at the siege end (now the timer starts with the siege begining),
- a clan will not be able to recruit new members during active atack siege on a sqare (the defending clan can rally his allies without restrictions).
In the name of BW Team,
SushiMaker
Edit:
The patch will cover one more feature, there will be a special, coded 'show the report' link in every combat report so You could share it with everyone You want (even if he is not a BW player.
Just copy past it to any browser and it will download the report.
The patch will be lunched afternoon as soon as Szeszej completes translations.
The patch is now on line. We have decided to mark it with the letter F.
__________________
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 10:33 |
|
|
Hyperborean
Double Ace
Registration Date: 05-02-2007
Posts: 145
Race in game: Beastmaster
|
|
| quote: |
| a clan will not be able to recruit new members during active atack siege on a sqare (the defending clan can rally his allies without restrictions). |
I don't really see how this is going to help the weaker clans. After all, this was a good idea for weaker clans to organise a siege, and than recruit new fighter an hour or half before it entered phase two. This was one way in which weaker clans could misguide the stronger clans into confidence, and take over what was theirs. Thus, the opportunities were equal for both the weak and the strong. The new rule, however, brings inequality, as it favours passive gaming over aggressive tactics. We'll see less sieges, which I cannot consider a good outcome.
There is a much better solution to cut the loophole. Because, as much as I believe powergaming is good, this is a loophole. And to prove this, there is no other way, but to relate to Necropolis. I can well remember that phase one of a siege in there amounted to 12 hours (don't know about these nights, but that's the wat it was). Analogically, the period of time one had to remain in a clan after joining it was 12 hours, as well. And then, the duration of phase one was changed to 18 hours (on demand of the players, of course). Yet, the period forementioned has not changed. Tactics changed, but it turned out that this arrangement can be used menacingly as could the old one be. Strong vamps could take in two sieges started at the very same time. This cannot have been planned.
What I find a proper solution, and one which would tame neither creativity, nor aggressive gaming (so the good stuff), is changing the period one has to spend in his or her new clan to 18 hours, thus making it correspond with the duration of phase one of every siege. Of course, that would mean both sides of the struggle could be given freedom of recruitment.
|
|
|
06-18-2007 22:25 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Hyperborean
I don't really see how this is going to help the weaker clans. After all, this was a good idea for weaker clans to organise a siege, and than recruit new fighter an hour or half before it entered phase two. This was one way in which weaker clans could misguide the stronger clans into confidence, and take over what was theirs.
|
But that wasn't the way it was working, because the clans with the biggest players were using this 'tactic' (which you cite as a way for the smaller clans to get ahead by misdirection) to steamroll everyone else and basically destroy the spirit of the game.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Hyperborean
Thus, the opportunities were equal for both the weak and the strong. The new rule, however, brings inequality, as it favours passive gaming over aggressive tactics. We'll see less sieges, which I cannot consider a good outcome. |
Equal opportunities were not part of the plan under the old system, and the sheer number of inactive accounts (players who gave the game a chance and left because of the inequality of the old system, which you don't seem to see) attests to this.
Something you seem to advocate is struggling through hardship, and a game is supposed to become more challenging as it progresses ...... can you imagine what Final fantasy 7 would have been like if you started off fighting Sephiroth and ended up fighting a shinra soldier? pretty boring, so the logical step is to make the game more challenging for the upper echelons of the high score table (something that this patch has been implemented to address) Now as we have given the old system a try for quite a while, I believe that it would be hypocritical to discard the merits of this system without at least giving it it's time in the limelight, and giving constructive feedback as and when problems are encountered.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Hyperborean
There is a much better solution to cut the loophole. Because, as much as I believe powergaming is good, this is a loophole. And to prove this, there is no other way, but to relate to Necropolis. I can well remember that phase one of a siege in there amounted to 12 hours (don't know about these nights, but that's the wat it was). Analogically, the period of time one had to remain in a clan after joining it was 12 hours, as well. And then, the duration of phase one was changed to 18 hours (on demand of the players, of course). Yet, the period forementioned has not changed. Tactics changed, but it turned out that this arrangement can be used menacingly as could the old one be. Strong vamps could take in two sieges started at the very same time. This cannot have been planned.
|
As has been said so many times before, Necropolis is an entirely different animal .... it has a playerbase from more or less 1 area, Underworld is international, therefore what happens in Necropolis bears no relation. Also in retrospect, if 2 sieges were started off at the same time, phase 2 would begin at the same time, therefore no matter how strong the vampire, it would be physically impossible to take in 2 sieges in that way unless exploiting a flaw in the program (basically cheating in anyones books), as it would mean leaving the clan and joining another while still involved in a siege. Please let me know if I've misunderstood what you said there, but thats the way it looks to me on given information.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Hyperborean
What I find a proper solution, and one which would tame neither creativity, nor aggressive gaming (so the good stuff), is changing the period one has to spend in his or her new clan to 18 hours, thus making it correspond with the duration of phase one of every siege. Of course, that would mean both sides of the struggle could be given freedom of recruitment. |
Ah, so we change the time in clan to 18 hours ..... that would, in most cases with length of Phase 2, still allow a player to switch between sieges unless they were started at near enough the same time ..... exactly one of the situations that we're trying to address in the first place
so basically all you are suggesting, without actually saying it, is that the way it was previous to this patch was the way all versions of BW should be (including powergaming, which you stated as a good thing, when even SM has stated that they have been trying to find ways to eliminate it for the last 9 months ...... surely that tells you something about what you consider acceptable and good practices of BW play).
The Devs and some players are working to make this an international game, while other players are trying to stagnate underworld down into a sequel to Moria and Necropolis ..... We've given the original format a chance, now its your turn to give a revised version it's shot.
__________________
Back for a while.
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Gendibal: 06-19-2007 01:37.
|
|
|
06-19-2007 00:16 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
|
|
| quote: |
| I don't really see how this is going to help the weaker clans. After all, this was a good idea for weaker clans to organise a siege, and than recruit new fighter an hour or half before it entered phase two. This was one way in which weaker clans could misguide the stronger clans into confidence, and take over what was theirs. Thus, the opportunities were equal for both the weak and the strong. The new rule, however, brings inequality, as it favours passive gaming over aggressive tactics. We'll see less sieges, which I cannot consider a good outcome. |
Have you see this tactic in underworld? Think why it can't be used here.
This rule will help weaker clans to defend because they can recruit players and stronger attacker can't.
| quote: |
| Strong vamps could take in two sieges started at the very same time. This cannot have been planned. |
I made suggestion abut morale boost. If you have any other idea please tell administration instead of complaining.
I'm trying hard to think of a way to balance this game.
| quote: |
| What I find a proper solution, and one which would tame neither creativity, nor aggressive gaming (so the good stuff), is changing the period one has to spend in his or her new clan to 18 hours, thus making it correspond with the duration of phase one of every siege. Of course, that would mean both sides of the struggle could be given freedom of recruitment. |
I don't agree it wont help. You forget that if enemy lay siege and we attack their allies they can always send others to aid that allies.
|
|
|
06-19-2007 07:03 |
|
|
SushiMaker
Administrator
Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89
Thread Starter 
|
|
updated the first post.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
06-19-2007 08:33 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
|
|
I watch this siege because I send already reinforce to DB.
At start EoD had 26 players now they have 27.
|
|
|
06-19-2007 22:18 |
|
|
Death12
Triple Ace
Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK
|
|
Well people should be able to join the clan, just not allowed to join the siege...
and as far as i can see no one new has joined the siege, only on DB side...
|
|
|
06-19-2007 23:19 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
last name on the list (newest member) has joined the siege, they weren't in the clan when the siege was set up
__________________
Back for a while.
|
|
|
06-19-2007 23:34 |
|
|
Hyperborean
Double Ace
Registration Date: 05-02-2007
Posts: 145
Race in game: Beastmaster
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Gendibal
| quote: |
Originally posted by Hyperborean
I don't really see how this is going to help the weaker clans. After all, this was a good idea for weaker clans to organise a siege, and than recruit new fighter an hour or half before it entered phase two. This was one way in which weaker clans could misguide the stronger clans into confidence, and take over what was theirs.
|
But that wasn't the way it was working, because the clans with the biggest players were using this 'tactic' (which you cite as a way for the smaller clans to get ahead by misdirection) to steamroll everyone else and basically destroy the spirit of the game. |
But it was your faul only that you could not organise your-self in a better way. From what I have just seen, your clan is very badly organised (like most of the non-Polish clans RoD included) - vamps don't use arcana, and disposable items for sieges. The Polish players treat this game seriously (as seriously as they very life), and you want to punish them for sacrificing their life to play the game, just because you are not ready to do this. This game is not for people, who are ready to spend two hours a day playing it. It's for blokes, who are ready to miss classes, and not go to their jobs, but stay at hope plaing it. It might have not been planned this way, and, from what SM says, it was not, but it went this way. Now, the players should be given the deciding vote, and SM should just do, what the majority wants him to do. That's all his use, apart from gathering money on his account.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Gendibal
| quote: |
Originally posted by Hyperborean
Thus, the opportunities were equal for both the weak and the strong. The new rule, however, brings inequality, as it favours passive gaming over aggressive tactics. We'll see less sieges, which I cannot consider a good outcome. |
Equal opportunities were not part of the plan under the old system, and the sheer number of inactive accounts (players who gave the game a chance and left because of the inequality of the old system, which you don't seem to see) attests to this. |
Nothing extraordinary. Same happens in Poland. It's part of the game.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Gendibal
| quote: |
Originally posted by Hyperborean
There is a much better solution to cut the loophole. Because, as much as I believe powergaming is good, this is a loophole. And to prove this, there is no other way, but to relate to Necropolis. I can well remember that phase one of a siege in there amounted to 12 hours (don't know about these nights, but that's the wat it was). Analogically, the period of time one had to remain in a clan after joining it was 12 hours, as well. And then, the duration of phase one was changed to 18 hours (on demand of the players, of course). Yet, the period forementioned has not changed. Tactics changed, but it turned out that this arrangement can be used menacingly as could the old one be. Strong vamps could take in two sieges started at the very same time. This cannot have been planned. |
As has been said so many times before, Necropolis is an entirely different animal .... it has a playerbase from more or less 1 area, Underworld is international, therefore what happens in Necropolis bears no relation. Also in retrospect, if 2 sieges were started off at the same time, phase 2 would begin at the same time, therefore no matter how strong the vampire, it would be physically impossible to take in 2 sieges in that way unless exploiting a flaw in the program (basically cheating in anyones books), as it would mean leaving the clan and joining another while still involved in a siege. Please let me know if I've misunderstood what you said there, but thats the way it looks to me on given information. |
With the phase one equal to the period vamps had to spend in a clan was no problem. Everything went the way it should have gone. The changes were implemented because of the phase two being abused. It would last two hours, and it was possible to phase-two the whole clan for like six hours. Lovely, was it not? A new use for sieges, which you cannot see here due to the number of vamps struggling - there ain't enough clans.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Gendibal
The Devs and some players are working to make this an international game, while other players are trying to stagnate underworld down into a sequel to Moria and Necropolis ..... We've given the original format a chance, now its your turn to give a revised version it's shot. |
What I can see, in return, is a dangerous attempt of SM to implement changes proposed by a minority, which happens to be the target of this venture. This has never done any good, and I don't expect it to do now.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
This rule will help weaker clans to defend because they can recruit players and stronger attacker can't.
|
This will also help the stronger part of the conflict defend. Thus, it helps the defender, regardless of it's strength. What you find good means extra benefits for inactive clans which scarcely start sieges, but are sieged often. In this was, this is certainly a biased rule. The one I propose is not biased at all. Even though I am biased my-self.
|
|
|
06-20-2007 09:14 |
|
|
SushiMaker
Administrator
Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89
Thread Starter
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
I watch this siege because I send already reinforce to DB.
At start EoD had 26 players now they have 27. |
We have just checked on the test serwer and the limit functions properly.
Please, remember that the limit is only for attacking clan, and only if the siege is made on the square. Further more if anyone manages to brake (bug-use) this limit, please, add note in this topic.
PS. Please add sieges id so we could see it.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
06-20-2007 09:56 |
|
|
Death12
Triple Ace
Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK
|
|
|
|
06-20-2007 12:16 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
Its ok SM, was posted prematurely ...... siege was for resources not square, my apologies.
Now lets get to the other points:
As has been made quite clear by admin, this game is for all players. and to turn part of your comment on you Hyp, if this game is only for those who are addicted (and what you have described IS addiction) then it is a bad thing. A gaming addiction can ruin REAL lives, lose REAL jobs and destroy REAL families ...... the old phrase 'get a life' was invented for exactly the situation you describe.
People who act this way need one thing, and that is not humouring, it is professional help.
SM's only 2 uses are doing what the players want and collecting money?????
you make it sound like some sort of well paid servitude, and that is not the case.
The Admins and Devs have provided us with this playground, and they facilitate the idea that we all play nicely (and no, that doesn't mean running round with daisy chains and playing the game like some form of 100% cooperative dance party), it's high time you realised this and started showing them a little respect for creating this game, and for ALLOWING us to share it.
"Same happens in Poland" ........ Quick pointer for you (for the umpteenth time), Underworld is NOT the Polish server Moria, Underworld is NOT the Polish server Necropolis 2, Underworld is the UK server which is usable by an international playerbase without the ability to speak, read or communicate in Polish. This International playerbase have different styles of play from the type of player that you describe (pigoenholed as addicts, although I am sure that is a minority of the players even on the Polish servers) and this server (as stated by Admin) is to be made Player friendly to all those styles, even if it means making sacrifices that SOME players do not like, and will not even give a fair chance to.
"There ain't enough clans"?? There ain't enough players to populate the ones we have ....... and why's that? because most of them have been driven out by the powergaming style of play displayed (and as SM has said, that is something they have been trying to find a way to combat for some time)
as to the 'minority' comment, the reason its a minority is most of the international players have given up on the game already BECAUSE this sort of change hadn't been made ...... What the Devs are doing, in actuality, is formulating a method of keeping those international players in the game and therefore extending it.
Just to make it simple for you ........ it takes a logical progression:
More players ---> More funding for development ---> More features/Better game ---> More players
The solution you have suggested is unbiased only in the fact that it does't functionally do anything to address the points that have been raised .... apart from preventing the 'non-addicted' players who have to go to work and school/college, or have other commitments outside the game from getting a chance at playing the game properly (therefore proving itself to be biased in a completely different way than suggested).
If you disagree with these suggestions as much as you claim, then there are always the Moria or Necropolis 2 servers which match your style of play, and the rules there are exactly what you're proposing here ..... As the original rules are still prevalent on 2 servers, why is it too much to ask that the 3rd server be made more player friendly to an international community?
__________________
Back for a while.
|
|
|
06-20-2007 12:22 |
|
|
Death12
Triple Ace
Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK
|
|
Well said and on thw whole i agree with you.
Personally (and i have mentioned tis to SM) i think more interactive game play (ie graphics) would get more people interested, because for many all the reading... they just cant be bothered it is not a simple game (not saying that it should be). But graphics is a language everyone can understand!
|
|
|
06-20-2007 12:27 |
|
|
Death12
Triple Ace
Registration Date: 05-11-2007
Posts: 156
Location: UK
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Gendibal
He had internet problems and couldn't get on to change as far as I can tell .... these things happen 
Well they happen to most of us from time to time, evidently some players are above that kind of problem |
that sucks... we may have one... oh well, im sure we will re-mach soon 
| quote: |
| evidently some players are above that kind of problem |
like who? :/
|
|
|
06-20-2007 12:30 |
|
|
SushiMaker
Administrator
Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89
Thread Starter
|
|
Graphics are being made all the time.
Right now we have a 10 graphics patches w8ing to be finished and that is a LOT of work.
One of them will be finished this month, there is a slight chance the second will be ready also.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
06-20-2007 12:35 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Death12
like who? :/ |
Like the one who openly criticizes players choice of weaponry, arcana and items in open forum without necessarily being in possession of all the information.
i.e. whether they could get on to change weapons, whether they had the blood points to use arcana, the cash to buy items, or even whether they'd been attacked before the siege and that used their items ..... like it did with mine
__________________
Back for a while.
|
|
|
06-20-2007 12:36 |
|
|
SushiMaker
Administrator
Registration Date: 02-21-2007
Posts: 89
Thread Starter
|
|
I close this topic down. Any comments please address in the system>griefing.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
06-20-2007 13:05 |
|
|
DrGreenthumb
Double Ace
Registration Date: 02-28-2007
Posts: 146
Location: Pszczyna, PL
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: [..l..]
|
|
because DrGreenthumb didnt play for last 3 weeks ... ;]
BTW... aaaaa sry for OT 
__________________
sorry for my english xD
|
|
|
06-25-2007 15:00 |
|
|
|
