Fixing TW to profit PW and the Players

2»

Comments

  • Maestro - Raging Tide
    Maestro - Raging Tide Posts: 152 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »
    Mmm alright.. I was just pointing out its not even 200v240..
    its 80v80... then 160vs160... then 200v240

    Strategically its a significant difference.

    In any case even consistently prevailing in 200vs240 should not guarantee a guild control of the entire map. If you are attacked by 4000 players why do you only have to fight 200vs240?

    I think this was put into place to prevent zerg type attacks where overall skill and tactics lessen and it becomes more of a hodgepodge of numerical assortments that really have nothing to do what TW should actually stand for. I have no problem with 200vs300 or so, but when you start asking why 4,000 people can not attack 200 (If everyone is online), you go into the spectrum of mindless zergotry which results in
    A. Massive server lag.
    B. A lessened feeling of accomplishment for the person partaking in the event because they are just a number and not a true player.
    C. Even if you put all the attacks on the same day, people wouldn't want to hold land because of the overall stress and taxation on said people. Everything would be used up with no care in the world because the defenders are set-up with helpless odds.

    Now, to provide some constructive pieces to this argument, I think this could work BUT it would have to be more viable to defend a territory against these odds. When you are facing 4,000 people vs 200, I really see in all fairness that the defenders should have a much better fortified position a long with some sort of defenders bonus so that a small rag-tag group would be able to have some glisten of hope that they could pull through this with minimal land loss.

    If the defensive structures entailed more sophisticated structures than wood towers shooting arrows, I could see this being viable. Until then, I see it that holding off 200 v 240 people (200 is MUCH harder to pull than 80 from 3 factions might I add) is a large enough challenge to logically say said guild deserves that land because they fought for it tooth and nail.
  • Zenzell - Dreamweaver
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The system Im proposing wouldnt be unbalanced, it would just prevent this monopoly on the map. There are approximatly 50 territories (I did a rough count) and 30 of those are the majority, and by owning 30 territories if the % was 10 percent (which i havent played around with the numbers enough to decide what might be a fair % value) then it would be the same 3 person attack. Hell if you have 25 or so the you could only be attacked by 2 factions and that would make it EASIER to hold the majority of the map, but harder to own ALL of the map.
    The 3 fundamental F's of Perfect World are "Fun, Fast, and Free."

    You may pick two.
  • Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973
    Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973 Posts: 7,881 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Maestro - Raging Tide wrote: »
    I think this was put into place to prevent zerg type attacks where overall skill and tactics lessen and it becomes more of a hodgepodge of numerical assortments that really have nothing to do what TW should actually stand for. I have no problem with 200vs300 or so, but when you start asking why 4,000 people can not attack 200 (If everyone is online), you go into the spectrum of mindless zergotry which results in
    A. Massive server lag.
    B. A lessened feeling of accomplishment for the person partaking in the event because they are just a number and not a true player.
    C. Even if you put all the attacks on the same day, people wouldn't want to hold land because of the overall stress and taxation on said people. Everything would be used up with no care in the world because the defenders are set-up with helpless odds.

    Now, to provide some constructive pieces to this argument, I think this could work BUT it would have to be more viable to defend a territory against these odds. When you are facing 4,000 people vs 200, I really see in all fairness that the defenders should have a much better fortified position a long with some sort of defenders bonus so that a small rag-tag group would be able to have some glisten of hope that they could pull through this with minimal land loss.

    If the defensive structures entailed more sophisticated structures than wood towers shooting arrows, I could see this being viable. Until then, I see it that holding off 200 v 240 people (200 is MUCH harder to pull than 80 from 3 factions might I add) is a large enough challenge to logically say said guild deserves that land because they fought for it tooth and nail.


    If you don't even have 200 in your faction and can still hold the entire map that is more proof defending against large forces is too easy.

    The server has handled 10+ attacks at once many times... Just not against the same faction. The only way a zerg type attack would work is if the guild held more land than they were capable of defending and if they were unpopular enough to motivate a great amount against them. The best defense against an aggressive alliance would be another alliance. Right now those giant red factions have no need for alliances and have nothing to fear from alliances.

    Organizing 20+ attackers is an accomplishment right there and it iud unfair to attackers got defenders to have every advantage.

    200v240 is just not good enough for deserving control of the map.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Refining Simulator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/refiningsimulator.html (don't use IE)
    Genie Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/geniecalculator.html - (don't use IE)
    Socket Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/socketcalculator.html
  • Zenzell - Dreamweaver
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    TBH i think defenders should be able to hold land easier if they have less of it and harder if they have more....otherwise what is the challenge?
    The 3 fundamental F's of Perfect World are "Fun, Fast, and Free."

    You may pick two.
  • Thinkalot - Dreamweaver
    Thinkalot - Dreamweaver Posts: 133 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    TBH i think defenders should be able to hold land easier if they have less of it and harder if they have more....otherwise what is the challenge?

    would indeed be logical, but then you have the big landholders complaining how "hard" they "worked" for it...

    In any case,
    either the current owners are complaining how hard it would be for them to keep the lands and defend against multiple attacks,
    or
    the non-owners are complaining how hard it is to take land in the first place.

    But the main problem isn't there. Like EVERY mmo you can find out there, one faction/guild or whatever they're called, will nearly always dominate part of the gameplay. Here it is called TW, in another one it's called Guild seige,or Castle war...etc etc.

    The base problem lies in the design of the system in total. Not just TW, but the game itself and how it's designed. And no matter how long and how much players can discuss the TW-system and changes, in the end, it's all about the "cost" to the company to implement such changes and how the company can make more cash from it. THAT is logical. So this whole discussion about TW will lead to nothing significant.

    Or maybe we should try to get a new system implemented where you have to buy tickets from cash shop to be able to go to a certain zone(like TW) ? Another mmo has that, and people DO pay for it...lots. b:chuckle
  • Zenzell - Dreamweaver
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    If this system was implemented PW would actually benefit more from it, seeing as sales for charms etc would go WAY up since people actually have a chance in hell at winning TW.

    And to be fair you do have to work to own that much land, I'm not objecting to that...the problem is that once you get it you dont have to try that hard to keep it because the odds are stacked against the other factions trying to attack it.
    The 3 fundamental F's of Perfect World are "Fun, Fast, and Free."

    You may pick two.
  • FitHitDShan - Sanctuary
    FitHitDShan - Sanctuary Posts: 276 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Thinkalot - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    would indeed be logical, but then you have the big landholders complaining how "hard" they "worked" for it...

    And when has that concern led to any restraint in how the company rols out new "features?" In point of fact, from even before this version was released there were statements about how the TW system would be more balanced and new rules imposed to keep it from becoming dominated by one faction (i.e., a problem in all previous releases was known and was supposed to be addressed). They did not end up enforcing the specific rules that were supposed to prevent this. So, a change now that corrects this failure can hardly be called "unfair." Indeed, they claimed there would be a new TW bidding system with one of the releases (albeit in the wrong direction of hiding the identity of other bidders), so there is plenty of notice too. But, most important to the bottom line, the number of people who would be pissed off and leave over this is certainly smaller than the number who will be brought back or who will not leave due to a much more interesting alliance-oriented guild system. The implementation cost to changing a few parameters in the TW allocation is certainly worth the benefits of revitalizing this key piece of content.

    That being said, I'm not sure I like the idea of all the TWs being at one time randomly selected. It seems to risk mega-lag and introduce a possibility of a bad draw of time slot crippling a defender (who would be more vulnerable to this than attackers due to the numbers balance). You could take the four major time slots (Fri night, Sat afternoon and night, and Sun afternoon) and put 1/4 of all TWs - without regard to who is attacking/defending - on each. That is about 12 TWs simultaneously at maximum and introduces the possibility a small landholder can get lucky some weeks and have only 1v1 TWs but would eventually have to defend the majority of their land all at once.
    "?" IS my avatar.
  • Redmenace - Heavens Tear
    Redmenace - Heavens Tear Posts: 908 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Darksylph - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    It's not a bad idea, however, the faction they took it from should be immune, to the immunity. Often land grabs are done when a faction has too many fights. But often if they were to 1v1 the faction they took it from, they wouldnt stand a chance. The faction from whom the land was taken, should maybe be the only one allowed to attack it the following week.

    That completely negates the concept of "giving new landholders a break".

    The only faction that is strong enough to pound the new landholders into sand, after they take a new land, is the established faction the land was just taken from. Not the little ones that battle, and have no chance to take any land.

    Of course, this matches with the common forum wisdom that landholders, no matter how large, are *entitled* to every advantage they get (even more as they get larger and weathier) and then some.

    Strong thrive, weak fail, "If you give the weak any advantages, you are stealing the fruits of the labor of these massive factions, poor things".

    By all means, let's make sure that this game reflects all the inequities of the real world, instead of promoting fun and friendly competition.

    I stay in this game *despite* the people that are determined to make this enviroment as hostile as the Real World. I play because my friends are here, and we have fun together.

    RedMenace

    \Thanks Rad, that was a fun TW
    \\at least *they* fight fair, and for the enjoyment of the battle
    A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
    Robert A. Heinlein
  • Miugre - Heavens Tear
    Miugre - Heavens Tear Posts: 2,390 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I like this idea. I like it a lot. More factions controlling parts of the map might even get my cheap non-charmed **** into TW. :P

    I've never done it, of course - the fac I'm in has dabbled in the possibility of being a future TW faction, but the officers understand how unrealistic it would be. We don't nearly have the numbers for it, and of those numbers, only a dozen or so are in the 90s/100s. Thus, our chance of overpowering even a fraction of Enrage or Tao's members ranks somewhere between a blizzard in hell and having 100k gold again. -_-

    As it stands, the current system does not offer give F2P players (or extremely-"light" CS users like myself) any realistic hope of controlling territory. I'm sure the big-spender factions are fine with this, but from a business standpoint it seems unwise to section off such a big portion of the endgame to heavy-CS spenders. They didn't do it deliberately, but this was the result.

    Consider: for every player in the dominant 1-2 factions who buys less from the CS because of a change like this, there will be 100 more who actually start buying charms and other stuff because they actually feel like they have a chance. So it seems to me this would actually be profitable for PW.

    Then again, it's not PWE's decision. Something like this has to be changed in the game code... hence, China. If you want anything done with the, you need a large demonstration of people whose wishes are then carried to the Chinese devs via PWE staff (such as the GMs, maybe).

    EDIT:
    By all means, let's make sure that this game reflects all the inequities of the real world, instead of promoting fun and friendly competition.
    This. And yeah, Radiance needs to make a comeback. As do Empire and Evolution, IMO. I miss the days of the Big Four (okay, RoC not as much, but... yeah).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]

    Other Active Characters:
    LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).
  • ElderSig - Dreamweaver
    ElderSig - Dreamweaver Posts: 1,247 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »
    Its not 1vs3... its 200vs240, even if the defender is attacked by 4000 players across an alliance of 20 guilds the worst they face is 200vs240.

    Thats also ignoring that those TW are spread 3 minutes apart so if you can kill the first of all attacks in 6 mins you have 160vs160.

    While the giant red factions have earned that land without cheating or anything.. no faction realistically deserves to control the entire map when all they've proven they can prevail 160vs160.

    The best TW faction should hold the most land... holding all of it is just stupid.

    Total agreement here, btw I'm surprised no one pointed this out...

    Not only are the odds 200vs240 (not that bad) ya'll also neglected that the defending faction (dominant one) doesn't have to win the battle at all, they just don't have to lose.

    The attacking faction has to destroy the defenders crystal and protect their own, the defenders can just sit around their crystal and defend it until time runs out....

    ~

    Also you say if you can't beat a faction 200vs240 you don't deserve their land, but here's my question.

    Do they deserve the other 30 territories they didn't have to defend?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Zenzell - Dreamweaver
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Didnt even think about that, mainly because most TW's are slaughterhouses.
    The 3 fundamental F's of Perfect World are "Fun, Fast, and Free."

    You may pick two.
  • WitchBurner - Sanctuary
    WitchBurner - Sanctuary Posts: 1,394 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    There's a pretty clear reason why they don't reset maps. Mainly to do with the weekly paycheck land holders get.

    The idea is to have as few players as possible with access to the free money released every week. Think about it, someone inside the main land owning faction receiving 1-2mil+ per week is much less inclined to charge for gold than someone in a faction who isn't paid.

    They limit this to 200 people and they minimize the amount of people in this situation.

    Think about those guilds trying to claw their way onto the map, in order to survive in a TW a player needs above average gear, an hp charm and typically apoth/hp/mp pots. Not to mention bidding fees, catapult fees and tower fees.

    As for winning TW's against a land holder, it gets stacked against you. You have to be on the offensive, they have the luxury of defending. Meaning in an even match between 2 evenly powered factions the land owner still wins.

    If the system was fair and not centered around cashflow then there would be a territory limit in place.
    Currently flying internet spaceships around dodixie, moving to amarr soon.

    Send me a mail if you wanna ask/request anything

    Sanctuary's retired king of wizards alongside queen Saintblu.
  • Michael_Dark - Lost City
    Michael_Dark - Lost City Posts: 9,091 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    ElderSig - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    Total agreement here, btw I'm surprised no one pointed this out...

    Not only are the odds 200vs240 (not that bad) ya'll also neglected that the defending faction (dominant one) doesn't have to win the battle at all, they just don't have to lose.

    It's never 240v200. There is not a single faction that would have all members on at one time to TW. So it would be more like 240v120-140 at best. Just saying....

    WitchBurner - Sanctuary wrote: »
    There's a pretty clear reason why they don't reset maps. Mainly to do with the weekly paycheck land holders get.

    A main reason why "they" dont' reset maps... who exactly are you referring to?
    The idea is to have as few players as possible with access to the free money released every week. Think about it, someone inside the main land owning faction receiving 1-2mil+ per week is much less inclined to charge for gold than someone in a faction who isn't paid.

    TW pay is nice, but it doesn't really help all that much. When you hit 10x, the couple mil a week you get, especially if you're never a reserve. It basically covers the cost of one charm, not to mention any other expenses you have. Of course it's nice to have salary, but most of the people actually IN a TW faction aren't in it for the salary. It's just a nice perk. I know I didn't join my guild for money, and most everyone else who is in (or ends up leaving) isn't either. Money isn't everything.


    As for winning TW's against a land holder, it gets stacked against you. You have to be on the offensive, they have the luxury of defending. Meaning in an even match between 2 evenly powered factions the land owner still wins.

    Sitting there defending for 3 hours is more expensive than trying to take the opponent's crystal down. There won't be much difference in cost really.

    If the system was fair then there would be a territory limit in place.

    I removed your 'and not centered around cashflow ' from the sentence to better read it. So if there weren't any funds gathered from owning land, there should be no territory limit?

    I agree some changes need to be made, but so far not many ideas are actually all that fair.
    I post in forums. This one and others. That's why I post.
  • Gwtvix - Sanctuary
    Gwtvix - Sanctuary Posts: 22 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Michael_dark - Lost City wrote: »
    It's never 240v200. There is not a single faction that would have all members on at one time to TW. So it would be more like 240v120-140 at best

    He means that there is a limit of 80 players per faction participating in a single TW engagement. If you have to fight 3 engagements simultaneously...3x80=240.

    Anyway, I'd rather see an easier-to-implement system of tweaking which territories can be attacked http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=674712.

    Don't bother to reset anything...that would be unfair to all the hard work that those mega-factions have invested. But the system as it stands let's a single faction control the majority of the map, use the cash reward to by gold, use the gold to buy dragon orbs and +10 all their gear. Once the bulk of your faction is all +10'd, how can a similarly sized/lvl'd faction compete? Once the map tilts a little too far towards 1 color, the current system encourages it to 100% of a single color. Just put a hard limit on what territories mega-factions can declare against and let the system work it's own way out.
  • WitchBurner - Sanctuary
    WitchBurner - Sanctuary Posts: 1,394 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I see your angle Michael, but the only feasible solutions to this are seemingly ignored by the GM's(The players representatives to the Devs).

    I'm against a full all out reset, as Gwtvix said, it's unfair for factions that did put the work in to keeping a faction together for that long and the no doubt impressive amount of work put in by players.

    A cap is logical though, I've played since december last year, I've been in really nice factions with great comradery that were also helpful. Once the factions realised that they stood no chance against the red powerhouses on the servers they split up to try elsewhere, friends grow distant; some change into less likeable people.

    It's easier to make friends in a faction that you know will be around for a while, by splitting the map and letting more factions on it you also decrease the concentration of uber-geared, level 99+'s making TW's more manageable for less mainstream factions. This allows that faction to see a realistic and someday achievable goal. Those bonds will be made, you'll make new friends and ultimately enjoy yourself more.

    The main other option I see is the elimination of timeslots, every territory attacked will be attacked at the same time, making it easy to hold 1 or 2 lands as a faction but difficult to hold say 10 pieces of land at a time. This is pretty darwinian way to do TW's and it might not seem fair to those in power, but it adds realism.
    Currently flying internet spaceships around dodixie, moving to amarr soon.

    Send me a mail if you wanna ask/request anything

    Sanctuary's retired king of wizards alongside queen Saintblu.
  • Nakhimov - Lost City
    Nakhimov - Lost City Posts: 1,829 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Land caps are stupid.

    "Hey! You're the best guild on the server! So good you took half the land, and you could take more! BUT YOU CAN'T. JUST BECAUSE."
    Bladestorm lets you spin around like a carnival ride and do damage. Not using it is almost like having a move called Confetti Rocket Power Leap and saving it for "emergencies"
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Nakhimov the Kingslayer of Kil'Jaeden's <Criminal Scum>
    wowprogress.com/guild/us/kil-jaeden/Criminal+Scum
  • _makina_ - Sanctuary
    _makina_ - Sanctuary Posts: 747 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Nakhimov - Lost City wrote: »
    Land caps are stupid.

    "Hey! You're the best guild on the server! So good you took half the land, and you could take more! BUT YOU CAN'T. JUST BECAUSE."

    Something else that would bug me is couldn't two guilds or more own each half of the map or pieces of it but cant attack each other since the land cap creating in essence just a more colorful version of a stalemate map.
  • Zenzell - Dreamweaver
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I dont agree with caps either, but it should also be harder to own more land etc etc.

    And guys I'm trying to keep this from turning into another GM bashing thread tbh...just sayin. The game is still free after all, I respect them for that.
    The 3 fundamental F's of Perfect World are "Fun, Fast, and Free."

    You may pick two.
  • Delia - Harshlands
    Delia - Harshlands Posts: 227 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    If this system was implemented PW would actually benefit more from it, seeing as sales for charms etc would go WAY up since people actually have a chance in hell at winning TW.

    And to be fair you do have to work to own that much land, I'm not objecting to that...the problem is that once you get it you dont have to try that hard to keep it because the odds are stacked against the other factions trying to attack it.

    Exactly. More TWs = more fun and more gold. Better for everyone.
    WitchBurner - Sanctuary wrote: »
    There's a pretty clear reason why they don't reset maps. Mainly to do with the weekly paycheck land holders get.

    The idea is to have as few players as possible with access to the free money released every week. Think about it, someone inside the main land owning faction receiving 1-2mil+ per week is much less inclined to charge for gold than someone in a faction who isn't paid.

    They limit this to 200 people and they minimize the amount of people in this situation.

    There is the same amount of free coin flowing into the game whether one faction owns all of it or none of it. Letting one faction hold it's land without attack causes there to be fewer and shorter (more unbalanced) territory wars, which results in less need for cash shop items, and less gold being spent.


    EDIT: I agree, caps wouldn't help the problem. But I believe allowing more simultaneous wars against the same guild would.
  • Aneurysmal - Heavens Tear
    Aneurysmal - Heavens Tear Posts: 798 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Sadly the best idea on this post is in fact the first one, percentages, though this only really plays against the largest land holders. A way that it could play in favor of smaller land holders would be 20%+1 rounded properly. If you own fewer than 3 territories, this means you can only have 1 attacked at a time. at 3-7 that's 2 territories at a time, 8-12 is 3, 13-17 is 4, 18-22 is 5, so on.

    What this also serves to do is reduce the number of possible timeslots since the only people the 6th and 7th timeslots are favorable to is the limited number of Australian, Singaporian, and kiwi players who then have a nighttime tw.

    This puts the major guilds in the mass defense situation that will almost never happen with new servers continuously being born in which defending all territories simultaneously results in several 6 territory defense slots.

    No, I'm not presenting this idea from the standpoint most probably are (being the underdog), I'm the leader of Tao on Heaven's Tear and have always favored the idea that "competition should be encouraged, not hindered". We own 22 lands and that would mean 5 attacked at a time in 5 possible timeslots. Yes that would make it nearly impossible to defend if Enrage's attack fell within a 5 defense slot, however a 5 defense against some of the weaker factions (that aren't a 5 min win) would prove to be a greater challenge that I'd be curious to see if we could handle.

    The biggest downside to this method of timeslotting is that if a major guild slips up, a no name gets onto the map only to create a lame bidwar the next week.

    As far as the players getting the land profit investing it in gold, I can make more coin in an hour than an even split of 10 territories across 80 players, multiple wars a weekend, often some lasting 2-3 hours actually equals all the players in the TW paying for the experience. It's something fun to do is all.
    Main:
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Alts:
    Lypiphera 101 Cleric
    Incompetance 100 Blademaster
    MetalPenguin 101 Seeker

    b:dirtySolara_Craft/Disarmonia_Xb:dirty
  • Zenzell - Dreamweaver
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    to be honest though after I thought about it 20% seems a bit strict, mainly because if you own anything 20 and over its 4, 30 and over its 6...etc etc. At 5 attacks in one time slot honestly it is next to impossible to win against good TW factions (200/5 = 40 versus 80 per attack, which is very tilted to the attacker), which is the point. Once it gets eaten up a bit though and 2-3 factions start to dominate though the need for overly strict TW guidelines dissapear because its no longer a monopoly, once you have a few factions on the map than it isnt that big a deal because the possibility of winning against one of them goes up IMMENSLY because they already have to worry about fending off the other 2 factions, so 10% in my opinion would be best really.
    The 3 fundamental F's of Perfect World are "Fun, Fast, and Free."

    You may pick two.
  • Gwtvix - Sanctuary
    Gwtvix - Sanctuary Posts: 22 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Aneurysmal - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    Sadly the best idea on this post is in fact the first one, percentages, though this only really plays against the largest land holders. A way that it could play in favor of smaller land holders would be 20%+1 rounded properly. If you own fewer than 3 territories, this means you can only have 1 attacked at a time. at 3-7 that's 2 territories at a time, 8-12 is 3, 13-17 is 4, 18-22 is 5, so on.

    And as a developer in RL I'm telling you that if you want a solution that complicated, expect it to take half a year to a full year to implement, if at all due to the complexity of testing. Think simpler and you've got a chance of something being implemented in a timely fashion.
  • Rawrgh - Raging Tide
    Rawrgh - Raging Tide Posts: 6,790 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Gwtvix - Sanctuary wrote: »
    And as a developer in RL I'm telling you that if you want a solution that complicated, expect it to take half a year to a full year to implement, if at all due to the complexity of testing. Think simpler and you've got a chance of something being implemented in a timely fashion.
    This is PWI we're talking about here.


    NOTHING will be implemented in a timely fashion.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "My understanding of women only goes as far as the pleasure. When it comes to the pain, I'm like any other bloke - I don't want to know."
  • Bludd - Harshlands
    Bludd - Harshlands Posts: 33 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    If you really want TW to be fun for everyone then they need to reset the maps. I'd argue that the game could easily support maps being reset every 6-10 months. To compensate guilds that owned land you just pay out an extra week of salary before wiping.

    My biggest lament is that I will never get the chance to fight against mobs in a lvl 2 or 3 war.
  • Zenzell - Dreamweaver
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    resetting the map would be pointless, no one would care anymore because why try and even do anything when the slate gets wiped clean every few months
    The 3 fundamental F's of Perfect World are "Fun, Fast, and Free."

    You may pick two.
  • Gwtvix - Sanctuary
    Gwtvix - Sanctuary Posts: 22 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Zenzell - Dreamweaver wrote: »
    resetting the map would be pointless, no one would care anymore because why try and even do anything when the slate gets wiped clean every few months

    totally agreed. resets suck.

    Nef isn't unbeatable...Regicide has proven that. They're just very hard to beat due to the maxed gear they all have.

    Instead make it so that other factions can have a chance at TW http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=674712

Categories