Forums-->Ideas and suggestions-->
1|2|3
| Author | Training battles and training hunts |
|---|
This idea contradicts the purpose of the game. All battles will become a mere replica and mathematical formula of training.
Now, where did I whine, and how about the total morons thing, and calling yourself kind and posting it up on the forums? How contradictory. Post 39 was meant to be a sarcastic response to your name-calling and to remind you to be more mindful of differing perspectives.
And since you want me to elaborate..
This idea is essentially a simulation of sorts, running in parallel to the game. The thing is, why should this simulation exists when the main game itself provides for the same playing experience, albeit in a less dynamic way, but imo more robust manner?
And thus when I expressed my opinion that it is a replication and mathematical, you mentioned that its training. So let me quote you an example to show you that your training is just imitating the game:
And so, our dear hero, Player-X gets a challenging hunt of say 160 elven bowmen at lvl5. "Can I do that?" he ponders. "Well, let me do some simulated battles." Ok I set the enemy strength to 160 elven bowmen, equip the simulated equipment, and after that I shall test out my battle tactics based on bowmen stacks of 2,3 4 & 5... And so our hero goes out and does his simulation, and finds out which stacks the bowmen will target in attacking order, and what are the best ways to place troops and such to ensure victory against the AI. And after finding out the best method to displace his foes, Player-X goes on to use the same tactic against the hunt, praying that the number of stacks given is similar to how it was in the simulated battle.
And then Player-X rinse and repeats this procedure for MG, and other hunts...
And so I'll like to ask people in support of the idea, whats the purpose of the game? Imo, the only way to implement this w/o defeating the purpose of the game would be to hold it as a tournament of sorts, i.e. simulated top hunter tourney, or along those lines.. | 41: I disagree with that.
In your example, it is true that player X would gain an advantage from the training hunts, but remember that every game would is random with features like luck, morale and max damage making sure every game won't be the same, so at the really top end hunts, even though they have practised, there will always be some element of doubt whether they can do it, so the game will still be just as challenging.
You said that: "This idea contradicts the purpose of the game. All battles will become a mere replica and mathematical formula of training." But it wouldn't be a mere replica because there are just too many variables that will continue making all battles unpredictable
And to 34 and 35 who disagreed with me statement that the training battles would be fair because everyone would benefit equally, you said:
"Suppose you're playing a game in which everyone has a chance to use a cheat. Does that make the cheat fair?"
To this, yes of course the cheat is fair if everyone benefits equally from it. For example, below lvl 5 players have a very good advantage in hunts: they don't have to wear arts and they can hunt more, but no one ever calls this unfair because every body had the same benefit when they were below lvl 5. It will be the same with the training hunts, because everybody can use the training equally, so it is still fair.
People have also said that it would just be giving people experience freely because they can practise, but it isn't free because they still have to work with good tatics and put money into arts to get that experience. Its like calling all of the "piece of cake" hunts free experience, but its not free at all. | To this, yes of course the cheat is fair if everyone benefits equally from it. For example, below lvl 5 players have a very good advantage in hunts: they don't have to wear arts and they can hunt more, but no one ever calls this unfair because every body had the same benefit when they were below lvl 5. It will be the same with the training hunts, because everybody can use the training equally, so it is still fair.
Yes its like
Level 1-4: No ap needed in hunts
Level 5+: Training hunts enabled | Ivo999: Sorry, but now i'm a bit confused. I thought that the whole point of training battles was so that new players could get better, so then why would you ban these training battles from the players that need training most?
I was just mentioning the ap rule before as an example to show how you can't call something that effects everybody equally unfair. | #1
i think "exp gained 0" is a must here...
but great idea | #42
I expected someone to bring out these non-controllable variables, and I'm glad someone did. To summarise your post, these variables make it impossible to imitate the actual battle. I agree with you on that point, but the core benefit of this idea here is to fine tune game strategy, tactics and troop placement, not fuss over variables that only the god of random can dictate. This leads back to my perspective that it'll run parallel to what the game itself provides for; improvement of tactics and strategy as you learn from actual hunts and battles.
Therefore, since the actual game already provides for the experience, how will this idea add value to the game?
I see that there is more votes for this idea than against, but imo I'll still say no, as I see that this will ultimately bring detriment to the game were it to become a regular feature.
Cheers | Ivo999: Sorry, but now i'm a bit confused. I thought that the whole point of training battles was so that new players could get better, so then why would you ban these training battles from the players that need training most?
Sure it is, and i dont ban training battles from them, im just looking what God5end actually wants.
This leads back to my perspective that it'll run parallel to what the game itself provides for; improvement of tactics and strategy as you learn from actual hunts and battles.
Therefore, since the actual game already provides for the experience, how will this idea add value to the game?
Maybe because 50% of the players dont know how to play? This would really help them, and it's everyones dream to test out tactics without having to pay for art durability right? But i think you should stay against; its your choice, i don't blame you. |
1|2|3Back to topics list
|
