Forums-->Ideas and suggestions-->
1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|>|>>
| Author | Losing battles intentionally should be stopped |
|---|
forgot to mention the above would start from level 3 onwards...
(otherwise a level 1 with its first victory gets +5 attack and vice versa...) | 65 sven91
Not very amusing.
I am sorry I really lack some sense of humor,
well...you also really lack some sense of logic, so let's call it even;)
The game is fun, especially in tournaments, you appreciate other player's wits and luck, or blame yourself for silly moves in a posive way.
And the game(all good games) is design to achieve realative balance, that's the whole point of the thread here.
btw, I was not argueing for myself to win tournamets.
although I did not win tournaments, I did participate and enjoy it and learnd from it, because all my opponents played well and fair.
08-01-08 17:17: Received 3223 gold from Empire : Congratulations on Victory in the First Minor tournament among level 4 players! Third place.
hopefully the game can improve further and attract more fellow players:) | 76
+1 for Gewehr
although as dArtagnan pointed out,
" It's definitely not a bug. It's not prohibited by Game Rules. = It's legitimate."
he's so right about it,
but, this is exactly why we have this idea and suggestion forum and this thread here
-to make good suggestions and improve the game:) | In addition to 83 I refer to 24:
iron_eagle wrote:
To be honest, i also want to lose ...
See? Exactly my point! Players shouldn't want to lose battles!
My point:
possibility to become very powerful by losing battles isn't a bug, but losing battles shouldn't be the fastest way to become powerful.
Winning should be the MAIN way to become powerful, not losing!
I also refer to 29:
a game where losers are awarded and winners punished can't be a good game.
for Harros (80):
your idea is sound!
What do you think about this rule:
90%-100% wins => +1 Attack, +1 Defence
80%-90% wins => +1 Attack
50%-80% wins => no bonuses or penalties
40%-50% wins => -1 Morale
30%-40% wins => -1 Morale, -1 Luck
20%-30% wins => -1 Morale, -1 Luck, -1 Attack
10%-20% wins => -1 Morale, -1 Luck, -1 Attack, -1 Defence, -1 Spell Power, -1 Knowledge
0%-10% wins => -2 Morale, -2 Luck, -2 Attack, -2 Defence, -2 Spell Power, -2 Knowledge | Im completely against it!
You're just jealous.
People wast a lot of time to become better, and you just rush through levels, because you don't have patience! | hey, what about the ones who completely unable to win even though they want to?
what about if i lost alot of battles when i want to win?
if i lose and get those (-) marks then i will be completely slaughtered!
so, can u think a more better rule, like... u have less hunt when u lose more than ur wins, like than once in 1 hour to once in 2 hours? | | i dont like its either its just going 2 make ppl lose more and going 2 be harder for them 2 get back up 2 70% win |
but, this is exactly why we have this idea and suggestion forum and this thread here
There are players wanting to rush through levels.
There are also calm players, wanting to be the best on their level.
Why are you suggesting to prohibit the second game style just because you're not able to play it?
Is that what they call greed?...
See? Exactly my point! Players shouldn't want to lose battles!
Why not? | Robai (84):
That's a terrible idea, because then once people start losing, it becomes extremely hard for them to ever start winning. New players just learning the game will automatically be at a severe disadvantage.
All that needs to be done is for the skill points and experience to be awarded proportionately in duels and group battles.
When the winning players gets 600 EXP and 0.56 SPs, and the losing player gets 60 EXP and 0.55 SPs, and exp is not necessarily desired, then there is an incentive to lose for those players who prefer SPs over EXPs.
Perhaps too much EXP is awarded in duels and group battles. It's certainly extremely disproportionate, with winners receiving ten times as much EXP as the losers. But skill points are obviously carefully calculated with regard to how much damage the player did in the combat, thus we could use that as a basis for awarding EXP, perhaps 0.1 SP to 100 EXP. Give a bonus for winning of BOTH SP AND EXP to the winning team, perhaps 0.3SP.
Thus, in the above example, which was obviously quite close, the winner would get 0.56 SP + 0.2 winning bonus = 0.86 SP and 860 EXP. The loser would get 0.55 SP and 550 EXP.
Someone on the winning team who got knocked out early might get 0.19 SP plus 0.2 winning bonus = 0.39 SP and 390 EXP; a dam sight better than nothing, but less than the losing player who fought to the bitter end in a close fought battle.
Because it's proportionate, the more you win the more you get. Winning means you advance faster in both SP and EXP, losing means you get less EXP, true, but also less SP. Therefore there's absolutly no benefit in playing to lose, whereas winners get a bonus. The winning bonus is worth fighting for, and worth helping your team to win. | I meant +0.2 winning bonus. How can you edit posts?
Thus, in the above example, which was obviously quite close, the winner would get 0.56 SP + 0.2 winning bonus = 0.76 SP and 760 EXP. The loser would get 0.55 SP and 550 EXP.
Someone on the winning team who got knocked out early might get 0.19 SP plus 0.2 winning bonus = 0.39 SP and 390 EXP; a dam sight better than nothing, but less than the losing player who fought to the bitter end in a close fought battle. | Robai (84) yes any such combination that would be deemed appropriate could work but this bonus/penalty should kick in after the first 100 battles perhaps so that new people get a chance to familiarise with the game.
Iceraven (89) at any level the chances of you bringing your % to a positive bonus are very high because the hunts are so easy, you have hunts and later on assisted hunts that would bring your % easily over the needed x% to have no bonus or penalty... but you are right this shouldnt kick in from the very beggining of a characters creation... 100 battles is 50 hours of hunting game play more than enough for anyone to grasp a games basics so the rule could kick in after battle 100.... | Dartagan (88)
There are also calm players, wanting to be the best on their level.
Why are you suggesting to prohibit the second game style just because you're not able to play it?
did you read the thread before writting that?
nobody here wants to prohibit the second style.
we don't want losers to be strong, and winners to be weak.
we want a game where you can really play (and playing means try to win of course. nobody plays with intention to lose)
here, the ones playing for losing don't really plays.
they waste their time on boring battles and loses them intentionally, because losing makes you become stronger.
they don't do it because they like losing, it's only because it's the best way for them to become powerful.
we would like them to be able to maximise their character's power without being forced to lose boring battles.
WE WANT A GAME WHERE THE MAIN WAY TO BECOME A POWERFUL HERO IS TO WIN BATTLES.
is it difficult to understand such a simple proposition?
we wants a game where you will never lose intentionally, because it will no longer makes your hero stronger.
a game where you can have fun by playing battles AND have a strong hero.
like it is now, you must choose between fun or power:
-play for fun, win battles, be weak and unable to win any tournaments
-or play boring hunts battles, lose them all, and be strong enough to win tournaments. | WE WANT A GAME WHERE THE MAIN WAY TO BECOME A POWERFUL HERO IS TO WIN BATTLES.
There's no need to change the game with regards to this. The main way to become powerful is still to win battles. Take this dude as an example:
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4385827
He's fought more than 2000 battles, losing at least 2000 of them. If he ever goes up against someone who's fought 2000 battles who's won more than half the fights I assure you he's going to have his arse handed to him in a plate. Compared to players who fought same amount of battles as him, he's just a bug to be squashed. Now the fact that he's still on his first combat level may cause some concern for some low level players with low battle counts. But do you expect someone with less than a hundred battles fought to be as strong as someone who's fought 2000? Where's the justice in that?
a game where you can have fun by playing battles AND have a strong hero.
Erm, are you suggesting that your definition of "fun" should be everyone's definition of fun as well? Players who do this obviously get a kick out of what they're doing. Why'd you want to spoil their "fun"?
-or play boring hunts battles, lose them all, and be strong enough to win tournaments.
I used to play MMORPG a lot. I don't play in any of those 10X, 20X, or 30X experience and item drop private servers. I know what it feels like to play an hour just to get 5% progress to the next level. These guys are no different. They sacrifice "fun" to make their characters strong. Do you think that's easy? And besides, at higher levels there's another way of gaining faction points without sacrificing victories. It's called "Hunt assistace". I look forward to meeting these guys in battle. Muwahahahaha! XD | They sacrifice "fun" to make their characters strong
at least you can see the problem.
why can't they have fun and be strong?
why are they forced to sacrifice fun to be strong?
that's what i want to change.
Compared to players who fought same amount of battles as him, he's just a bug to be squashed. Now the fact that he's still on his first combat level may cause some concern for some low level players with low battle counts. But do you expect someone with less than a hundred battles fought to be as strong as someone who's fought 2000? Where's the justice in that?
totally agree with you.
but unfortunately, very few here seems to share this point of view.
i was arguing a lot about this fews weaks ago in an other topic.
i wanted fights to be done between players with same ammount of battles.
50-100 battles, 100-200 batlles...instead of combat level1, combat level2...
everyone thinked it was a stupid idea :(
they look only at combat level, they want to be stronger than other players of same level. if they fought 2000 battles and are opposed to oppents with only 100 battles, it doesn't matter to them.
devellopers and admins seems to share this point of view:
just look at the last tournament, categories were combat level 3 to 9.
combat level3 with 2000 battles and skill level7 were in same category than 3 days old lelel3 players with 100 battles.
we must resign to it: in this game only combat level is used to compare heros and to determinate which players you will meet in battles.
this means that 0Xp/battles is a lot better than 1000Xp/battles, because you become stronger without changing combat level. | | there's also the problem that i'm running into guys. at my hunt level 90% of my hunts can't be won by me even if i ask for assistance. i'm still gonna do my best in every fight. whether i win or loose, i enjoy the fight. besides, if i can't take the critters the first time, sometimes the numbers actually do go down. i play longterm and don't fight people because the sp for beating players is worthless compared to the sp for beating monsters. |
nobody here wants to prohibit the second style
we don't want losers to be strong, and winners to be weak.
Ehm... by expressing it in another words, you don't change the subject. )
WE WANT A GAME WHERE THE MAIN WAY TO BECOME A POWERFUL HERO IS TO WIN BATTLES.
I want a game, where I don't rush through levels, but can just rest down and change the game style.
I don't want the game to be "collect xp, lvl up, collect xp, lvl up" simply because then there won't be any gold to build new constructions|buy new artifacts etc.
is it difficult to understand such a simple proposition?
they waste their time on boring battles and loses them intentionally, because losing makes you become stronger
Comparing to real life, if you make a same mistake 100 times, on the 101 time, you probably do not repeat it... it makes you stronger. )
they don't do it because they like losing, it's only because it's the best way for them to become powerful.
Well, currently the game offers no other way to become powerful on lower levels (3-8), so the players looking for power (and not xp) are forced to lose battles, to get FSP. | Well, currently the game offers no other way to become powerful
that's the problem.
that's what we are asking here: being able to be strong without being forced to lose battles.
i played a lot of games, i never found any other game were you need to lose to become strong. lordswm is the only one like that. | ^^ It's more like lose patience than lose battles :)
Beside no one force sm to do it.
>>> That's why it called other game, not like lordswm :P | 92
well said, and good reasoning, Karsot.
88
Why are you suggesting to prohibit the second game style just because you're not able to play it?
Is that what they call greed?...
I would not make accusation such as "greed" towards people rather than opinion, maybe for mods it's an exception:)
Personal accusation is not always constructive, plus your attack was not well supported by your reasoning.
These players value their exp so much that they will stay far beyond my combat level, what greed do you think I have over them?
If anything, I should keep silent to make the thread less noisy, and play this style myself (oh, believe me, people can and will go for the style in the future, you don’t see it now because they are busy losing at the early stage of the game)
I maybe greedy, hoping that the game thrives and attracts more people, for myself and everyone here to interact with.
And why are you supporting the losing style? Is that what they call…oooops, almost fell into the trap:) | Actually loseing a few battle against neutrals on purpose is fun and relaxing because you don't have to worry about the end of the battle but to lose 100%/90% of the time when knowing you could win is not really fun.
I have always been for +++ than ---, so if you not against people using the current slow gaming style there is no reason to penalize them after all the time they spent training, I would rather agree with Robai who suggested some extra skill points bonuses for winning battles as incentive and(or if it can't be done) for some new ways of obtaining skill points (as the Robai training rooms idea but for free please hehe). |
1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|>|>>Back to topics list
|
