Pondering TW rules
Options
bip
Posts: 0 Arc User
TWs are the most fun thing of PWI, until a big faction owns all territories...
My suggestion is very simple:
for each territory a faction owns, 1 less player can enter TW instance.
Means if a faction owns 1 territory, they can defend it or attack another with only 80-1=79 players.
With this system, a faction owning 20 terrritories can only defend with 60 players, making it way harder against a faction aowning no terr, but equal against another faction owning 20 territories.
The only cons with this system is that a few less people of a single faction can play the tws, but since it will lead to a way more colorfull map, on a server many more people will do tws b:victory.
on a second though, we can also ponderate by the difference of owned territories by each faction:
Attacking faction owns 10 terr, defending owns 5 : attacker can enter 75 players, defending 80.
sorry, english is foreign for me, i hope i explained my idea clearly enough
My suggestion is very simple:
for each territory a faction owns, 1 less player can enter TW instance.
Means if a faction owns 1 territory, they can defend it or attack another with only 80-1=79 players.
With this system, a faction owning 20 terrritories can only defend with 60 players, making it way harder against a faction aowning no terr, but equal against another faction owning 20 territories.
The only cons with this system is that a few less people of a single faction can play the tws, but since it will lead to a way more colorfull map, on a server many more people will do tws b:victory.
on a second though, we can also ponderate by the difference of owned territories by each faction:
Attacking faction owns 10 terr, defending owns 5 : attacker can enter 75 players, defending 80.
sorry, english is foreign for me, i hope i explained my idea clearly enough
Post edited by bip on
0
Comments
-
can you think of a harder programming project to implement? Good lord that would be a massive change.0
-
Gwtvix - Sanctuary wrote: »can you think of a harder programming project to implement? Good lord that would be a massive change.
Not really... somewhere there has to be a check of some sort
if (guild has >= 80 inside the TW)
disallow entry;
change it to:
if (guild has >= 80 - number of territories guild owns inside)
disallow entry;
Should be relatively small change and this is a decent suggestion... it might be a little annoying to plan groups though.[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.html0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »
Should be relatively small change and this is a decent suggestion... it might be a little annoying to plan groups though.
Thank you Asterelle.
Yes i think it is easy to implement.Diff = Number of terr of attacker - Number of terr of defender
If Diff >=0 then (Allowed_Attackers = 80 - Diff ; Allowed_Defenders = 80);
else (Allowed_Attackers = 80 ; Allowed_Defenders = 80 - Diff)
And then :
If Attacker has >= Allowed_Attackers disable entry
If Defender has >= Allowed_Defenders disable entry
Concerning the necessity to adapt strategies, yes factions already owning a lot of territories will have to think of new tactics, but hey its only more diversity and more fun no?
If we take Nefarious from Sanctuary as an example, they own 47 territories (not sure of exact number), so they will enter with only 33 players b:chuckle
In these conditions they will need to adapt a lot their strategies, are they so strong, so experienced that they will be able to adapt or not? Good question and lot of fun in my opinion b:victory
Considering they will probably be ganked everywhere by factions who will for the first time have a chance, they will have a lot of practice and will learn fast (i hope for them).
And since they will probably do 47 TWs each week, everybody in the faction will have an occasion to participate, even if its only 33 each time.
In a few week, they will probably lose around 10 (if they are really strong) territories, others factions will have some territories, so things will naturally equilibrate.0 -
A problem with it is that it doesn't make sense and seems like an arbitrary mechanic to gimp defenders. I'd rather do away with arbitrary limits and remove / increase the 3 attacks at a time limit. That is the one rule that lets territory grow unchecked.[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.html0 -
Allowing 5 attacks at a time will lead to defender can only have 40 players on each defense at start, not so far from my 33. Of course they will win some fast and reinforce the others, so defense is still easier.
But i think the 3 max attacks is mainly because of server stress, 5 at a time could lead to massive disconnections or heavy lag, and tws will become about lucky people who dont get disconnected.0 -
TWs are good as they are.
Good strong guilds, that organized properly should and will control the TW.
Why handicap them and make TW more a pain in the butt than it is already? **** up all week-end nights , sometimes for 3 hours from 8 to 11 PM and often **** up week-end days from 9-12am or 2-5 pm should be rewarded. Also, spending time and cash in-game to get to a gear that allows you to perform in TW at high lvl should also be rewarded.
Yes, a lot of people are missing the fun of TW, but I don't think is fair to change the rules to handicap the elites just for a little fun for the mediocre. Doesn't matter if those elites cash-shopped or grinded their lvl or gear, they still made a financial/time consuming effort to get there.
I'm sorry, but I'm just tired of this piece of **** kind of reverse Robin Hood syndrome where everyone tries to spin the table their way to get a piece of the pie someone else worked hard to earn/get.
/end rant.____________
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
George Carlin
~I listen to hardcore FIGHT songs when I visit the forum, just to get into the proper mood~
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Ursa - Dreamweaver wrote: »Yes, a lot of people are missing the fun of TW, but I don't think is fair to change the rules to handicap the elites just for a little fun for the mediocre. Doesn't matter if those elites cash-shopped or grinded their lvl or gear, they still made a financial/time consuming effort to get there.
On Sanctuary there is a guild that is probably about 75% as good as the dominant guild but holds only 3% as much land. If territory held was proportional to guild strength they should hold 75% as much territory but the way the rules are set up the slightly better guild can easily get all the land. If a defender can win in 200vs240 there is nothing to stop them from owning the map. The best TW guilds should hold the most land but its just stupid to think they deserve every single piece of land on the server for always being able to win 200vs240. The only way to stop it is to not gimp alliances.
The flaw of TW is that you can hold 50 territories while never having to defend more than 3 at a time. Attacking alliances have a huge handicap in that they can only field a small percentage of their combined force while a defender can field 100% of thiers.
On new servers the server handles up to 8 concurrent TWs without any lag, just not all against the same target. Keep in mind those are 8 separate instances.[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.html0 -
Ursa - Dreamweaver wrote: »TWs are good as they are.
Yes, a lot of people are missing the fun of TW, but I don't think is fair to change the rules to handicap the elites just for a little fun for the mediocre. Doesn't matter if those elites cash-shopped or grinded their lvl or gear, they still made a financial/time consuming effort to get there.
I'm sorry, but I'm just tired of this piece of **** kind of reverse Robin Hood syndrome where everyone tries to spin the table their way to get a piece of the pie someone else worked hard to earn/get.
/end rant.
Lmao what you call ELite is just people who started at beginning, leveled fast the first 10 days, and then joined the Red faction...
I know that, i have been member of Legendary (the only that was not red and the best fun i had btw) on Sanctuary server, Calamity on Dreamweaver and Infamy on Raging Tide.
And i never considered myself Elite just because i joined THE big faction, each time the lack of fun because tws lasted less than 10 mins made me quit.
The only times i had real fun was Legendary vs Shockwave, and Legendary vs Nefarious, and i just search a way to make it possible to enjoy this game again.
@Asterelle
Keep in mind that if 3 factions owns more than 5 territories (Nef,Leg,Outlaw 1 year ago) this will be 18 instances (15 def+ 3 attacks), and even more if others factions attack some others lands. But ok maybe its not a problem.
Still you need to find 5 factions strong enough to resist more than 10 mins against 40 overpowered players, and have the luck that these 5 fights are set at same time. Sadly i never seen a server where this seems possible, because 'Elite' People like Ursa always join the 2 or 3 strongest factions (i can be wrong again i dont play enough anymore to really know the situation)0 -
but I don't think is fair to change the rules to handicap the elites just for a little fun for the mediocre.
How are mid level players less of a person than a high lvl player? How are those less deserving of having good time in the game than a high lvl person? That's just absurd bigotry.
If you think about it, the current system is absolutely unrealistic. Anyone that has plaid Romance of the Three Kingdoms series knows that you can't own large chunks of territory without leaving someone to take care of the territory and thus that someone is out of the battlefield for new territory.
This way it'd make absolutely perfect sense that the more land you own, the less people can attend for acquiring new territory.
I absolutely love this suggestion, it would make TW more vibrant and colourful and would allow more people as a whole to enjoy TW. It would also take pressure off the *ding, lvl 100, was fun, see ya guys, gonna go to the strongest faction now* issue that majority of the factions have that ain't the strongest faction.
In simple words, this suggestion would bring more fun to TW and for that, I + it!0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »A problem with it is that it doesn't make sense and seems like an arbitrary mechanic to gimp defenders. I'd rather do away with arbitrary limits and remove / increase the 3 attacks at a time limit. That is the one rule that lets territory grow unchecked.
3 simultaneous attacks is unfair as well. I don't know how many times I've seen a faction with 3-5 lands get absolutely devastated. A faction that might be able to take a land or two might not have enough strength to fight two wars at one time, let alone three.
Also the whole 200v240 argument is pretty fail. Not many factions, even dominant factions can muster 160 people to TW at any given time let alone 200.I post in forums. This one and others. That's why I post.0 -
TWs are the most fun thing of PWI, until a big faction owns all territories...
My suggestion is very simple:
for each territory a faction owns, 1 less player can enter TW instance.
Means if a faction owns 1 territory, they can defend it or attack another with only 80-1=79 players.
With this system, a faction owning 20 terrritories can only defend with 60 players, making it way harder against a faction aowning no terr, but equal against another faction owning 20 territories.
The only cons with this system is that a few less people of a single faction can play the tws, but since it will lead to a way more colorfull map, on a server many more people will do tws b:victory.
on a second though, we can also ponderate by the difference of owned territories by each faction:
Attacking faction owns 10 terr, defending owns 5 : attacker can enter 75 players, defending 80.
sorry, english is foreign for me, i hope i explained my idea clearly enough
Your English isn't too bad.
But the thing is, what you are suggesting would require the PW team in china to make many changes in their code, which would cause problems in their country's version of the game (Chinese people are weirdo's when it comes to MMO's. I mean look at ****, it was designed in China and then brought to NA after 2 yrs of release). Now yes, the NA/EU people would, possibly, love this...but the main PWE team is in China and they are the ones doing all the code. The NA GM's can't do anything about the code. They only receive it and then implement it into the game via a test server they have in their system in their CA base.
The type of code needed would be something that would automatically check the amount of people entering for each time. While at the same time seeing how much territory the defending/attacking guild owns and then it would have to go and figure up how many people are allowed in on each side.
That may sound simple to a nlot of people, but for those who have taken programming classes, and know the type's of code you need to deal with in a MMO, then you would understand how much a ***** it would be to implement this idea into the game.
Hope you can understand the problems and complications that would occur.
-LifeHunting.0 -
LifeHunting - Heavens Tear wrote: »
The type of code needed would be something that would automatically check the amount of people entering for each time. While at the same time seeing how much territory the defending/attacking guild owns and then it would have to go and figure up how many people are allowed in on each side.
-LifeHunting.
My english is poor, and i need to stick to simple sentences and express simple ideas...
that does not mean i dont know what im talking about.
- Checking people who enter the TW is already done, atm it is just a static number, 80
- The number of territories a faction owns is also stored, they need it to pay the guild.
- Chinese and Int versions are different versions, even if i agree with you the TW part of program probably share the same source code.
- programming is just taking a big problem, split it in many small problems, find many easy solutions, and tadam, you solved the big problem.
So finally no, i still dont see what can be a real pain in implementing this.0 -
BiNinjak - Sanctuary wrote: »My english is poor, and i need to stick to simple sentences and express simple ideas...
that does not mean i dont know what im talking about.
- Checking people who enter the TW is already done, atm it is just a static number, 80
- The number of territories a faction owns is also stored, they need it to pay the guild.
- Chinese and Int versions are different versions, even if i agree with you the TW part of program probably share the same source code.
- programming is just taking a big problem, split it in many small problems, find many easy solutions, and tadam, you solved the big problem.
So finally no, i still dont see what can be a real pain in implementing this.
You may be right on the "programming breaks thing into easier things." but what most don't realize is the code required to do the TW itself is actually complex.
the computer does code does store the info about the amount of territories the guild owns (to pay them), and how many players are trying to get in.
the thing is for what they would have to add.
This is everything they would need the new code to do while checking with the old code:
Check the guilds to make sure their right (old code)
Check the amount of players entering (old code)
Check the territory they are entering into (old code)
Check the amount of territory owned by both fighting factions (new code)
From previous then determine new amount of players allowed to enter (new code)
Determine if new amount of players entered is correct (new and old code combined)
Determine who wins (old code based on if crystal is destroyed or not)
The new code may not look like much, but in actually it's at least 100-150 lines
0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »A problem with it is that it doesn't make sense and seems like an arbitrary mechanic to gimp defenders. I'd rather do away with arbitrary limits and remove / increase the 3 attacks at a time limit. That is the one rule that lets territory grow unchecked.
I already think 3 simultaneous attacks can be pretty devastating and far from fair. Most guilds can not even defend 2 factions. Seen so many larger guilds, that has a lot of potential to grow strong enough to challenge the dominating faction, being totally destroyed in 3 way attacks. Loosing 2/3 land weeks after week til its nothing left of the land and the faction just fades away.
So often its a same size/strength guild that attacks, than 2 more midsize factions bids as well to get free land by abusing a 3-way gank.
In most cases its really only 1 faction on a server that has a chance to fully defend a 3-way attack. All other factions will loose most their lands if server decides to start double attacking them in TW. So yeah system should change, but there must be a better way b:surrender.0 -
Actually we are not here to discuss if if it easy or not, or even doable or not.
We suggest things that can make this wonderfull game even more enjoyable, then the developpers (who know if its doable) decide to do it or not.
So the only question is: if you had an absolute choice, would you like this suggestion implemented or not?0 -
Michael_dark - Lost City wrote: »3 simultaneous attacks is unfair as well. I don't know how many times I've seen a faction with 3-5 lands get absolutely devastated. A faction that might be able to take a land or two might not have enough strength to fight two wars at one time, let alone three.
Also the whole 200v240 argument is pretty fail. Not many factions, even dominant factions can muster 160 people to TW at any given time let alone 200.
There is nothing at all to stop a defending faction from fielding the full 200, 100% of their force is capable of entering the defense and they can choose how strong of a force is necessary.
Attackers are so much more constrained. In sanctuary right now there are 15 guilds attacking the defender faction but that huge 15 guild alliance can only send in a maximum of 240 at a time.
As for a faction with 3 lands not being able to keep them.. really if they can't defend 3 lands they dont yet deserve 3 lands. I'd rather see land being swapped back and forth than have all land gathered by 1 guild.
In real life its not hard to conquer land but it is hard to hold it.[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.html0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »There is nothing at all to stop a defending faction from fielding the full 200, 100% of their force is capable of entering the defense and they can choose how strong of a force is necessary.
Attackers are so much more constrained. In sanctuary right now there are 15 guilds attacking the defender faction but that huge 15 guild alliance can only send in a maximum of 240 at a time.
As for a faction with 3 lands not being able to keep them.. really if they can't defend 3 lands they dont yet deserve 3 lands. I'd rather see land being swapped back and forth than have all land gathered by 1 guild.
In real life its not hard to conquer land but it is hard to hold it.
i do not understand your logic.. It should be defender is being constrained? You get ganked by 3 faction, each faction only needed 80 of their elite. Where as the defender have to disperse the elite to separate TW.
Yes the maximum attackers can send in is 240 at a time. The defender can send in 200 at most. It is impossible to have 200 people online in a faction and it is always possible to have 240 defenders. You are confusing yourself because you are only looking at the attacker side. You have never stand on Nefarious' side and thought about it (TW wise).
I'm not so sure about conquering the land... I dont think Regicide is good enough to take Nefarious 1vs1 yet. They r relaying on 3 way atk. I think it is impressive Nefarious can defend 3 way attack and still destroy Regicide. That explain that Nefarious is about twice as strong as Regicide? (the faction of 200 as a whole)0 -
BiNinjak - Sanctuary statesActually we are not here to discuss if if it easy or not, or even doable or not.
We suggest things that can make this wonderfull game even more enjoyable, then the developpers (who know if its doable) decide to do it or not.
So the only question is: if you had an absolute choice, would you like this suggestion implemented or not?
The answer is that even though I may be a new player I wouldn't participate because it doesn't seem fun. This idea would make me want to try it cause it seems like it would be more fun. I play to enjoy the game though and others may play for different reasons.0 -
BiNinjak - Sanctuary wrote: »Actually we are not here to discuss if if it easy or not, or even doable or not.
We suggest things that can make this wonderfull game even more enjoyable, then the developpers (who know if its doable) decide to do it or not.
So the only question is: if you had an absolute choice, would you like this suggestion implemented or not?
Actually I disagree. If we're here to make suggestions that we'd actually like to see implemented, we absolutely have to take into account how easy it is to implement. A programming team must take into account the cost to implement and the potential benefits. If our suggestion is not "easy" or even "doable" then we're just pissing in the wind.
http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=6747120 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »On Sanctuary there is a guild that is probably about 75% as good as the dominant guild but holds only 3% as much land. If territory held was proportional to guild strength they should hold 75% as much territory but the way the rules are set up the slightly better guild can easily get all the land. If a defender can win in 200vs240 there is nothing to stop them from owning the map. The best TW guilds should hold the most land but its just stupid to think they deserve every single piece of land on the server for always being able to win 200vs240. The only way to stop it is to not gimp alliances.
actually you aren't exactly right. First off, the key to holding multiple territory isn't the ability how much strength a faction has when it is 1v1, but instead it is how much strength a faction has when it is 1v3. If you cannot defend 3 territories at once you don't deserver to hold more than 2 lands, if you can't defend 2 territories at once, you don't deserver to hold more than 1 land.
That is the key behind tw. Reg power cannot be measured until they hold more than 1 land. and the last time they had 2 lands, if memory serve right, they lost both in a single week.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Evga - Sanctuary wrote: »If you cannot defend 3 territories at once you don't deserver to hold more than 2 lands, if you can't defend 2 territories at once, you don't deserver to hold more than 1 land.
I fully agree with this. Also if you continue this exact rationale:
If you cannot defend 4 territories at once you don't deserve to hold more than 3 lands.
If you cannot defend 5 territories at once you don't deserve to hold more than 4 lands.
If you cannot defend 6 territories at once you don't deserve to hold more than 5 lands.
...
...
Unfortunately PWI has the rules set at:
If you can defend 3 territories at once you can hold the entire map.
Even then saying its 1v3 I consider very misleading since the system enables the defender to field many more players than any individual attacker. Even though most defenders don't typically do it, the hard constraints on a 3-way defense is 200vs240.
Really there is no point in discussing this since the devs don't read this forum. There isn't any money to be gained in a game like PWI by addressing balance issues and bugs. Thats why no matter how many countless threads there are complaining about balance all you ever see come out of China is more packs, mounts, and expansions.[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.html0 -
This suggestion is absurd.
The only reason some servers maps are as bad as they are is because the server is:- Not Competitive Enough
- Lacks Drama
- Lacks players with Interest
You just need to take a stroll on the Lost City Server before reality will hit you.
To put it in prospective Nefarious would maybe last 20 minutes against Kami, Spectral, or Essence.0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »Really there is no point in discussing this since the devs don't read this forum. There isn't any money to be gained in a game like PWI by addressing balance issues and bugs. Thats why no matter how many countless threads there are complaining about balance all you ever see come out of China is more packs, mounts, and expansions.
Balancing TWs will lead to more people doing them, so more people needing charms and good gears and refine, so more money for PWI.angellicdeity wrote: »This suggestion is absurd. <very clever and motivated
The only reason some servers maps are as bad as they are is because the server is:- Not Competitive Enough because of your third point
- Lacks Drama because people are not as childish as you are?
- Lacks players with Interest because TWs are not balanced enough
0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »Really there is no point in discussing this since the devs don't read this forum. There isn't any money to be gained in a game like PWI by addressing balance issues and bugs.
Actually, there should be quite a bit of money in it for them.
A properly conducted TW will burn charms, and the ability to get into TW will encourage people to level up and get better gear.
So the devs would naturally be interested in any suggestion which increases the number of TW participants.0 -
im curious what do u guys think about a server vs server battle ...a TW but on a larger scale... i thought of this because in my server neferious has total control so it will be cool if we can have a cross server war ...like the top faction in pwi ..we can call it "PWI WAR" it's a name in process b:chuckle0
-
A cross server tw war would attract tons of people and would be quite interesting...but its not gonna happen because each character is binded to the server and in order to do cross tw wars the bind will have to be removed and most likely causing tons of glitches and lots of work[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Name-level/class-faction
MagicWaffle-71 Wizard-BlackOath
Kyrozoan-84 Barbarian-None (retired)
Vertebreaker-55-Seeker-None (retired)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 181.8K PWI
- 693 Official Announcements
- 2 Rules of Conduct
- 264 Cabbage Patch Notes
- 61K General Discussion
- 1.5K Quality Corner
- 11.1K Suggestion Box
- 77.4K Archosaur City
- 3.5K Cash Shop Huddle
- 14.3K Server Symposium
- 18.1K Dungeons & Tactics
- 2K The Crafting Nook
- 4.9K Guild Banter
- 6.6K The Trading Post
- 28K Class Discussion
- 1.9K Arigora Colosseum
- 78 TW & Cross Server Battles
- 337 Nation Wars
- 8.2K Off-Topic Discussion
- 3.7K The Fanatics Forum
- 207 Screenshots and Videos
- 22.8K Support Desk