what strategy? numbers? two very low level players ran to G and took out ten of our guys that way out leveled them to win the game. Grats for finding your way to G?
Printable View
what strategy? numbers? two very low level players ran to G and took out ten of our guys that way out leveled them to win the game. Grats for finding your way to G?
I'll pass this feedback on to the devs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattp169
Can we keep things in perspective here? Prior to this change, the entire defending guild just started at B and immediately won the game on their first turn by attacking A. Few players ever went to G from ANY team. These changes have definitely made things more interesting, but I'll pass on the feedback in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacobe_8068494
Thank you dawn. Theres a couple otehr threads going to with lots more info form players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnseeker
But I think overall teh change was a great idea but it created the alt situation, which I am sure is unintended. SO i personally think you guys had teh right idea just the wrong math.
The most important thing that you need to pass back is that because of the change there are a lot of new alts being created so that they can be used as defenders making the alt problem worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnseeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnseeker
I think the problem is with the guild war design, so any band-aid measures won't solve the problem in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy
If you're going to make blanket statements like that. Give information about what is wrong, why, and how you would suggest fixing it. Statements like yours are unhelpful and won't ever succeed in the game progressing. Being informative and creative will increase the likelihood of change:DQuote:
Originally Posted by koja6049
Your blanket statement here also won't do any help, so would you mind being informative and creative too? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by DrthCaedus
Dawn, how about this proposal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnseeker
Use how much HP a player loses in each fight, to determine the durability loss of the winner for that fight.
The less hp lost in a fight, the less durability lose for the winner.
Therefore, small alts will only do -1 durability loss to "real" players.
0-10% hp lost -1 dura
11-20% hp lost -2 dura
21-30% hp lost -3 dura
31-40% hp lost -4 dura
41-99% hp lost -5 dura
This corresponds to how a fight really happens, as more "health" a unit loses, the less effective it will be in future fights (durability loss).
Losers of any fight should lose -10 durability, regardless of how much hp they chop off the winner.
Part of the problem that makes creation of alts so easy is that there is no email verification when creating an account. The following procedure can be used to insure that the email addresses are valid and remain valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy
- Require a valid email address to create an account.
- Whenever a new account is created validate that the primary email address is not being used as the alternate email address in any other account.
- Whenever an alternate email address is provided verify that is is not being already uses as the primary or alternate email address for any other account.
- If it passes the above tests, send a message to the email address used to create the account with a link that must be used to activate the account.
- Until the account is activated the user can not log on to the game.
- Require that an alternate email address be unique and valid.
- When a user adds or changes the alternate email address validate that it is not already being used as the primary or alternate email address in any account.
- If it passes the above test send an email to that email address with a link that must be used to validate it. If the link in not used within 24 hours suspend the account until the a valid alternate email address is provided (see 2.1 above) and verified (send an email with the link to the new email address) or the alternate email address is removed.
- Require that primary email address is valid if the alternate email address is removed.
- When a user removes an alternate email address send mark the account as not validated and a message to the primary email address with a link that must be used to validate it. If the link in not used within 24 hours suspend the account until one of these two things happen:
- The link is used
- A valid alternate email address is provided (see 2.1 above) and verified (send an email with the link to the new email address).
- One time validation of all user accounts
- Flag all accounts as not validated.
- Validate that the alternate email address is not being used as the primary or alternate email address in any other account. If it is, send a message to the email address in question listing all the accounts that are in violation and saying that they must provide a unique and valid alternate (see 2 above) email address or remove the alternate email address and the primary email address is valid (see 3 above) within a week or the account will be suspended.
- Send a message to the email for every user with a link for all accounts that are not in violation of the above rule. The email should have a link that the user must click on to validate the account and say that if the account is not validates within 7 days it will be suspended.
- 7 days after the messages go out any account that that has not been validated is suspended, When the user attempts to log on to the game he is redirected to a screen that explains why the account has been suspended and that either must remove the violations by doing one of the following.
- Remove the alternate email address and the primary email address is verified (see 3 above except the 24 hour wait does not apply).
- Provide a valid alternate email address (see 2 above).
- Periodic validation of email address
- On a periodic basis (I suggest every 6 months but no more that once a year), validate the user accounts to insure that the email address is still valid. This can be done all at once or a portion of the accounts (one 6th every month if done every 6 month, etc) so that not all the validation is done at once.
- Use the procedure in 4 above for the accounts being validated except 4.2 is not needed since 1, 2, and 3 will not allow duplicates to be created.
- Start the periodic validation 6 months after the one time validation if it is done on a rotating basis so that no account goes more that 9 months (of on a 6 month rotation) or 18 months (if on a year rotation) without the first validation after the one time one.
See I like this idea but think it needs rescaled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby
If a player who losses a battle losses 10 durability then a player who wins but lost 99% of their hp in the battle should lose 9 durability as well to make it even more realistic
SO say 41-50 hp lost -5
51-60 -6
61-70 -7
71-80 -8
81-99 -9
now the only problem is this
say a player fights 1 player and loses 20% of their hp, then the next battle they lose 30% of their total again. The system must calculate properly base doff total health. otehrwise this could become a bigger mess.
This idea is more realistic i think and kudos to herby for the idea.
I still think the ssmpler option is to just take the changes and cut them in half would be the simplest quick fix