PDA

View Full Version : Attack Griefing


Uzik
10-13-2011, 06:36 PM
SO I've been seeing a bunch of people doing this.


They attack you, but then they refuse to engage. If someone attacks my peasant camp I shouldn't have to choose between being slaughtered and seeing who can wait the longest.

GPS51
10-13-2011, 07:05 PM
Well attacking "work/resource/peasant/villager camps" is part of the game play.. perhaps just putting soldiers in (i know you'd be outnumbered). But it's not griefing as so defined. In fact by refusing to choose either option it appears to me you're griefing them.

Konstantin Fomenko
10-13-2011, 07:33 PM
I think we`ll add a 20 minute something timer for the attacking player to win to avoid that.

Safey18
10-13-2011, 07:48 PM
Don't worry about Uzik he literally does not like any aspect of the game. I would recommend FarmVille as a more suitable game for his enjoyment.

GPS51
10-13-2011, 07:55 PM
I'm curious how the "payout" option works. Is it a random % of your army/resources? Just how does it work?

Safey18
10-13-2011, 08:00 PM
I'm curious how the "payout" option works. Is it a random % of your army/resources? Just how does it work?

It's based on the size of the opposing army. The bigger their army the more you have to pay.

andreicde
10-13-2011, 08:05 PM
SO I've been seeing a bunch of people doing this.


They attack you, but then they refuse to engage. If someone attacks my peasant camp I shouldn't have to choose between being slaughtered and seeing who can wait the longest.

Um well if you surrender you lose less,so I don't know why you are whining.At least he gives you a chance to surrender. If he attacked you instead,you'd lose all of them

Uzik
10-13-2011, 08:14 PM
Um well if you surrender you lose less,so I don't know why you are whining.At least he gives you a chance to surrender. If he attacked you instead,you'd lose all of them


But why should I leave my defended palisades?


The point is that he would die if he attacks, and I can't just ignore him and go about my business.

Don't worry about Uzik he literally does not like any aspect of the game. I would recommend FarmVille as a more suitable game for his enjoyment.

Feedback is the key to improvement. Saying everything is fine and dandy when there are problems is the best way to kill a game.

andreicde
10-13-2011, 09:00 PM
But why should I leave my defended palisades?


The point is that he would die if he attacks, and I can't just ignore him and go about my business.



Feedback is the key to improvement. Saying everything is fine and dandy when there are problems is the best way to kill a game.

Oh really?and what would you recommend to solve the situation?maybe the guy had an urgent call or something and he was busy in real life.On my first pvp duel I ended up with an emergency call and spent like 10 min because of it. It's not always because they wait you but might just be busy or afk.It's also the perfect time to att them

Safey18
10-13-2011, 09:11 PM
Feedback is the key to improvement. Saying everything is fine and dandy when there are problems is the best way to kill a game.

I don't see this as feedback or this even as a problem. You have to structure your army so they have to attack you first or they will lose. Thats why its called a strategy game mate. I'v worked out how to do it and very rarely will be the one to rush the other, they always come to me ;)

Sunleader
10-13-2011, 09:38 PM
Well I think what he meant was


That is Someone Attacks his Camp
He should also be Forced to Attack

After all he is Attacking a Camp
So why should the Camp come out ?


I often see this

People Search for PvP having a Camp themself
and then once they found someone
they sit there and wait
they dont attack
just wait
so you either need to attack and waste troops despite having fewer then he has in the first place
or look who is able to wait his ass off



There needs to be a Timer
and also it should not be possible to look for PvP with an Army inside a Camp

GPS51
10-13-2011, 09:43 PM
Yeah I've seen that happen too. I don't worry much about it though. If the army strengths get straightened out within the next week then both armies will be about equal. I'd hate to see dof reduced to having to send each player out with 3 checker pieces to make everything "exactly fair/even and without bias". :D

andreicde
10-13-2011, 09:43 PM
nope he's talking about regular attacks.But I do agree with the camp part though.Someone in a camp shouldn't be able to att.It kinda doesn't make sense .

chanman20
10-13-2011, 09:53 PM
ihave had this problem quite a bit in pvp its annoying but not that big of a deal

Uzik
10-13-2011, 10:23 PM
nope he's talking about regular attacks.But I do agree with the camp part though.Someone in a camp shouldn't be able to att.It kinda doesn't make sense .

No, I am talking about someone attacking my camp.


Currently the person can sit AFK outside and never attack me, forcing me to either wait him out, or attack.


My camps generally have a lot of peasants and wagons, a few trebs and archers and swordsmen. It is an army designed for defending the palisade, not attacking.


The attacker should have some sort of time limit (and it seems they are going that way).

Novakiller
10-14-2011, 12:09 AM
time limmit solves the problem plain and simple. If no one wins after the timer then there shouldn't be any penalty.

axal011
10-14-2011, 12:34 AM
I had orc players attack my fortified camps several times, never once did they want me to venture out of my camp and instead they were on the offensive, Whoever plays orcs, they have marbles :D

Wolfentir
10-14-2011, 12:47 AM
No, I am talking about someone attacking my camp.


Currently the person can sit AFK outside and never attack me, forcing me to either wait him out, or attack.


My camps generally have a lot of peasants and wagons, a few trebs and archers and swordsmen. It is an army designed for defending the palisade, not attacking.


The attacker should have some sort of time limit (and it seems they are going that way).

Yeah, that would be annoying. They attack your camp, but then wait for you to come out and attack them.

axal011
10-14-2011, 03:20 AM
Yeah, that would be annoying. They attack your camp, but then wait for you to come out and attack them.

Its been this way with RTS games since the beginning of RTS games. People would whine and complain about someone "Camping" but it IS in FACT a strategy/tactic

Defilus
10-14-2011, 03:50 AM
What do you want then OP? That the opponent just suicides at the walls of your camp or pays off to give you an easy win?

White935
10-14-2011, 06:55 AM
What do you want then OP? That the opponent just suicides at the walls of your camp or pays off to give you an easy win?

Well if you are the attacker.. you should attack in my opinion.

If He has a camp (defender NOT attacker) he should be given the option to defend his camp. instead of having to attack. naturally i often sally forth if the odds are even for the sake of honor, but if somone attacks my resource camps. no way in hell i'll sally out.

Defilus
10-14-2011, 07:17 AM
Well if you are the attacker.. you should attack in my opinion.

If He has a camp (defender NOT attacker) he should be given the option to defend his camp. instead of having to attack. naturally i often sally forth if the odds are even for the sake of honor, but if somone attacks my resource camps. no way in hell i'll sally out.
You can't choose at the matchmaker wether or not you want to attack a camp, it would be sad to say that the attacker just has to lose his stuff because the matchmaker matched him against a camp.

andreicde
10-14-2011, 07:31 AM
Well if you are the attacker.. you should attack in my opinion.

If He has a camp (defender NOT attacker) he should be given the option to defend his camp. instead of having to attack. naturally i often sally forth if the odds are even for the sake of honor, but if somone attacks my resource camps. no way in hell i'll sally out.

the worse part white is when attacked has a camp and stays in.That's basically the biggest bs in game.

Onomas
10-14-2011, 07:32 AM
Sorry but Uzik has a point. I was attacked by a guy with nothing but grandmasters (lame btw), and i spent the wood and gold to build a fortification. So why would i send my troops out to slaughter against someone who lacks skill and has to use a cheesy grandmaster army? I planned my defense, took time to get the right troops for it, and paid for the fort. And i should surrender and lose why?

As an example this person yesterday:

http://i735.photobucket.com/albums/ww359/onomas/Screenshot1.jpg

And after 30 minutes.... pizza guy came with my food:

http://i735.photobucket.com/albums/ww359/onomas/Screenshot3.jpg

Just disconnects, not even sportman like to say gg, surrender, pay off, or anything.


Sorry but this is griefing. And anyone attacking should be prepared for forts as well as open field battles! As i put time and resources into defenses, and have multiple armies about. I shouldnt be punished for someone elses lack of battle readiness.

Defilus
10-14-2011, 07:35 AM
The opponent still has the right to wait for you to come out though, not everyone wants to inflate their army strength with siege weapons when the majority of battles don't involve camps. (Unless the attacker is the one with the camp, him not getting out is just him being a coward).

Onomas
10-14-2011, 07:36 AM
You can't choose at the matchmaker wether or not you want to attack a camp, it would be sad to say that the attacker just has to lose his stuff because the matchmaker matched him against a camp.

Attacker should be prepared! No excuse at all. Pointless to have camps in the game if you cant take advantage of them. Excuse for people to have all archer or grandmaster armies to slaughter a balanced army due to bugs and unbalance of units.

andreicde
10-14-2011, 07:54 AM
Attacker should be prepared! No excuse at all. Pointless to have camps in the game if you cant take advantage of them. Excuse for people to have all archer or grandmaster armies to slaughter a balanced army due to bugs and unbalance of units.

is that so?and what's the excuse for people in camps that can attack?Because I don't believe camps can magically move

White935
10-14-2011, 08:00 AM
is that so?and what's the excuse for people in camps that can attack?Because I don't believe camps can magically move

They shouldnt be able to attack while in a camp (only Defend). Also When Somone in a camp is attacked, They should be able to defend their camp.


if a attack "technically" has a camp he should still be forced to attack, Only the defender should defend ect.

Onomas
10-14-2011, 08:00 AM
is that so?and what's the excuse for people in camps that can attack?Because I don't believe camps can magically move

Attacking in camps shouldnt be allowed. They could change that to make it so you have to break camp before you engage. I think that would be an easy fix.

As for defender:
People pay to build these for one reason...... defense. If the attacker isnt prepared he should lose.

I have attacked people in camps. My 5 trebs moved into range and just lit the place up.Half his army burned to death the rest were taken out by my knights and archers. If i couldnt attack him (not having seige) which i have done before against the OP, i still fought him, and surrendered the honorable way.

But to pick a fight, and just sit there, go watch a movie screwing up the other guys game is BS. I didnt asked to be attacked, and shouldnt be the one to give up my advantage or surrender because some guy expected an easy win with his all grandmaster army.

So when you guys start doing city seiges, you going to expect the defender to come outside for you? LOL i wont. Kind of defeats the purpose dont you think?

andreicde
10-14-2011, 08:01 AM
They shouldnt be able to attack while in a camp (only Defend). Also When Somone in a camp is attacked, They should be able to defend their camp.


if a attack "technically" has a camp he should still be forced to attack, Only the defender should defend ect.

that's what I'm thinking too cause right now some people make camps,attack and then wait in.Why should I attack a camp if I have no siege?He attacked me so it's only fair he attacks.A solution to that would be camp removal if the person attacks. That would stop people from camping and attacking in the same time.

White935
10-14-2011, 08:07 AM
that's what I'm thinking too cause right now some people make camps,attack and then wait in.Why should I attack a camp if I have no siege?He attacked me so it's only fair he attacks.A solution to that would be camp removal if the person attacks. That would stop people from camping and attacking in the same time.


Aye but theres a issue the other way around too.


a guy attacks per say my resource camp, which is has workers aswell as Guards. but definately a disadvantage, then the enemy refuses to attack my camp til i "move out to attack him" when am on the defensive, while i naturally have no desire to go out and face him on open combat with per say my workers.

Defilus
10-14-2011, 08:14 AM
Attacking in camps shouldnt be allowed. They could change that to make it so you have to break camp before you engage. I think that would be an easy fix.

As for defender:
People pay to build these for one reason...... defense. If the attacker isnt prepared he should lose.

I have attacked people in camps. My 5 trebs moved into range and just lit the place up.Half his army burned to death the rest were taken out by my knights and archers. If i couldnt attack him (not having seige) which i have done before against the OP, i still fought him, and surrendered the honorable way.

But to pick a fight, and just sit there, go watch a movie screwing up the other guys game is BS. I didnt asked to be attacked, and shouldnt be the one to give up my advantage or surrender because some guy expected an easy win with his all grandmaster army.

So when you guys start doing city seiges, you going to expect the defender to come outside for you? LOL i wont. Kind of defeats the purpose dont you think?
There is a big difference between city sieges and the "world pvp". With world pvp you dont get to choose what you attack, with city sieges you know you need siege items to win.

Onomas
10-14-2011, 08:21 AM
Last time i looked this was a strategy game. What happened to the "strategy" part? So running over an army with grandmasters in open field is strategy? Can i get an "i win button"? The fact is you are going out to attack someone, you know there are camps in this game, that require weapons of mass destruction. And you have a 50/50 chance to catch someone in one or out of one.

It only takes 1 treb, just 1 to knock down those wooden walls. If the attackers cant get just 1 treb in his army.......... I dont pity them.

Thought this game was going to be a real strat game having to use brain power not unbalanced units. Guess iw as wrong.

To make things balanced they should:
1) increase resources for camps
2) make sure attackers cant attack from within a camp
3) allow all the grandmaster armies to have wings and fly over the walls for an easy win.

Problem solved.

Uzik
10-14-2011, 08:32 AM
Aye but theres a issue the other way around too.


a guy attacks per say my resource camp, which is has workers aswell as Guards. but definately a disadvantage, then the enemy refuses to attack my camp til i "move out to attack him" when am on the defensive, while i naturally have no desire to go out and face him on open combat with per say my workers.

This is what I am talking about.

Imagine the same situation, but with a siege. The defender should not have to leave their defended position to attacker their attacker.

andreicde
10-14-2011, 08:53 AM
Last time i looked this was a strategy game. What happened to the "strategy" part? So running over an army with grandmasters in open field is strategy? Can i get an "i win button"? The fact is you are going out to attack someone, you know there are camps in this game, that require weapons of mass destruction. And you have a 50/50 chance to catch someone in one or out of one.

It only takes 1 treb, just 1 to knock down those wooden walls. If the attackers cant get just 1 treb in his army.......... I dont pity them.

Thought this game was going to be a real strat game having to use brain power not unbalanced units. Guess iw as wrong.

To make things balanced they should:
1) increase resources for camps
2) make sure attackers cant attack from within a camp
3) allow all the grandmaster armies to have wings and fly over the walls for an easy win.

Problem solved.

even if they could do that they would still die.they cant att towers

franticdaz1
10-14-2011, 08:59 AM
Have a free surrender option if both sides agree. Then when its a stale mate it can end without a 20mins wait. But a time limit aswel would be good.

Brian Shingles
10-14-2011, 09:15 AM
Ok, none of this is official I'm just putting together different ideas from this thread, but what if we made these three changes? Would that address most people's concerns?
1 - When searching for PvP give three options of what to attack - Army, Camp or Town

2 - Make it so that if you're camped, you can't initiate PvP.

3 - Add a 'Return to Worldmap' style timer, that gets disabled once both players have units in combat. If the timer runs out, the attacker is declared the loser and the defender the winner.

Note: 'I didn't bring siege' is not an excuse for not attacking a camp. Melee units can attack and destroy palisade gates.

Defilus
10-14-2011, 09:20 AM
Note: 'I didn't bring siege' is not an excuse for not attacking a camp. Melee units can attack and destroy palisade gates.
Hmm I didn't know that, and judging by this thread I am not the only one.

franticdaz1
10-14-2011, 09:26 AM
"the attacker is declared the loser and the defender the winner" umm well i will just kite for 20mins? or go rush there seige then camp out the timer? just make it the timer runs out and its a draw both lose or both get off free.

Onomas
10-14-2011, 09:31 AM
Ok, none of this is official I'm just putting together different ideas from this thread, but what if we made these three changes? Would that address most people's concerns?
1 - When searching for PvP give three options of what to attack - Army, Camp or Town

2 - Make it so that if you're camped, you can't initiate PvP.

3 - Add a 'Return to Worldmap' style timer, that gets disabled once both players have units in combat. If the timer runs out, the attacker is declared the loser and the defender the winner.

Note: 'I didn't bring siege' is not an excuse for not attacking a camp. Melee units can attack and destroy palisade gates.

I like 2+3, they are good.

1 - kind of defeats the purpose of camps if they cant be used in combat. Allows people to by-pass them and you might as well take them out of the game or people will just never attack them and we will use them for resource depots. Either way thats a bad thing.

This gives these guys with all mounted grand master armies free reign. Makes people not have to be prepared and use strategy. If spear units actualy were any good against them it wouldnt be bad.

andreicde
10-14-2011, 09:47 AM
I like 2+3, they are good.

1 - kind of defeats the purpose of camps if they cant be used in combat. Allows people to by-pass them and you might as well take them out of the game or people will just never attack them and we will use them for resource depots. Either way thats a bad thing.

This gives these guys with all mounted grand master armies free reign. Makes people not have to be prepared and use strategy. If spear units actualy were any good against them it wouldnt be bad.

I disagree.your idea doesn't make sense anyway.Why would someone be able to attack with a camp?did you saw in real life or in history huge fortified camps magically teleporting in front of your attacking army?And why would it happen here?Someone SHOULDN'T be able to use a camp to attack because a camp CAN'T move!As for fortified camps they wouldn't defeat the purpose of camps,some people want to att camps to practice for castle sieges. Also as a note not everyone feels like bringing all types of units because it weakens the army.For example if in my army i bring 10 stone throwers,that's 100 extra army str which I'm losing. If I'm attacking a regular army i'm at a disadvantage. If I attack a camp though I'm at disadvantage but at least I brought the throwers for a reason and I could kill a part of the camper's army with the fire.

So I actually agree with all 3 options. And brian my issue is not with not having siege issue,but if your melee gets killed during the fight you are losing because cavs can't dismount.

SysOpPsyche
10-14-2011, 09:53 AM
Ok, none of this is official I'm just putting together different ideas from this thread, but what if we made these three changes? Would that address most people's concerns?
1 - When searching for PvP give three options of what to attack - Army, Camp or Town

2 - Make it so that if you're camped, you can't initiate PvP.

3 - Add a 'Return to Worldmap' style timer, that gets disabled once both players have units in combat. If the timer runs out, the attacker is declared the loser and the defender the winner.

Note: 'I didn't bring siege' is not an excuse for not attacking a camp. Melee units can attack and destroy palisade gates.

That would be reasonable, though I 'd add a scaling win reward (based on the number of units that actually engage player units not NPC unit's [I still don't see why NPC's are even on the maps unless they are meant as obstacles as they don't patrol or move out to attack like AI players as they seem like they'd have more reason than either player to hold their territory] - Unit loss should be based on engagement results - ie. the unit loss from the prompt for not initiating PvP should be dropped at the start of the match).

My experience has been attacked while in a fortified camp (and not looking for PvP - refusing to go out of it to engage the attacker) and then losing due to the timer.

If you need to go AFK - go into the ESC menu (I think it may prevent you from being prompted for a PvP match - at least in my experience, I've never suffered unit losses from PvP prompts while AFK which I do a lot)

Also, if possible can units in City menu's or just in Cities be exempted from PvP prompts. Which oddly enough occurs in an Open field rather than on the city map. I figure if an Army is interacting with a City then they are also being somewhat protected by the city unless the City is attacked in which case PvP would occur on the City map.

Onomas
10-14-2011, 11:32 AM
I disagree.your idea doesn't make sense anyway.Why would someone be able to attack with a camp?did you saw in real life or in history huge fortified camps magically teleporting in front of your attacking army?And why would it happen here?Someone SHOULDN'T be able to use a camp to attack because a camp CAN'T move!As for fortified camps they wouldn't defeat the purpose of camps,some people want to att camps to practice for castle sieges. Also as a note not everyone feels like bringing all types of units because it weakens the army.For example if in my army i bring 10 stone throwers,that's 100 extra army str which I'm losing. If I'm attacking a regular army i'm at a disadvantage. If I attack a camp though I'm at disadvantage but at least I brought the throwers for a reason and I could kill a part of the camper's army with the fire.

So I actually agree with all 3 options. And brian my issue is not with not having siege issue,but if your melee gets killed during the fight you are losing because cavs can't dismount.

You misunderstood me.
I am against people attacking from a camp. Thought i made that clear the last 5 posts lol. My statement was for defenders to be able to use them and not be seperated from regular attacks (field, camp, city). Because that would make camps pointless for defenders.

Attacking from a camp shouldnt be allowed at all. You should have to break camp before engaging in pvp.

Did that clear it up for you?

SysOpPsyche
10-14-2011, 11:40 AM
You misunderstood me.
I am against people attacking from a camp. Thought i made that clear the last 5 posts lol. My statement was for defenders to be able to use them and not be seperated from regular attacks (field, camp, city). Because that would make camps pointless for defenders.

Attacking from a camp shouldnt be allowed at all. You should have to break camp before engaging in pvp.

Did that clear it up for you?

That makes sense, since you send out scouts to find an army and catching an army that isn't camped would be rather difficult, I imagine most Army vs Army engagement would involve a camp since they are temporary and one of the few times when one of the armies is stationary.

[not directed at you, Onomas. Just stating to general viewers to make a point]
Furthermore, yes they actually do magically appear out of nowhere, though its Really not magic - its Labor that builds the camp [maybe make Laborer units present in army to use any of the non-basic camps a requirement for building those camps?].

Uzik
10-14-2011, 01:53 PM
Ok, none of this is official I'm just putting together different ideas from this thread, but what if we made these three changes? Would that address most people's concerns?
1 - When searching for PvP give three options of what to attack - Army, Camp or Town

2 - Make it so that if you're camped, you can't initiate PvP.

3 - Add a 'Return to Worldmap' style timer, that gets disabled once both players have units in combat. If the timer runs out, the attacker is declared the loser and the defender the winner.

Note: 'I didn't bring siege' is not an excuse for not attacking a camp. Melee units can attack and destroy palisade gates.

This sounds like a good solution.

My only clarification would be to have the time stop counting down when both armies are engaged, and start counting again when they aren't.


Also, you might need a way to counter if the defender loses everything but one cavalry unit, and just endlessly runs it around the map. Since the map is pretty small this PROBABLY wouldn't be an issue, but just something to consider.

Defilus
10-14-2011, 01:56 PM
Also, you might need a way to counter if the defender loses everything but one cavalry unit, and just endlessly runs it around the map. Since the map is pretty small this PROBABLY wouldn't be an issue, but just something to consider.
This kind of crap actually happened to me, more info on that here: http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4590

Novakiller
10-14-2011, 02:02 PM
Ok, none of this is official I'm just putting together different ideas from this thread, but what if we made these three changes? Would that address most people's concerns?
1 - When searching for PvP give three options of what to attack - Army, Camp or Town

2 - Make it so that if you're camped, you can't initiate PvP.

3 - Add a 'Return to Worldmap' style timer, that gets disabled once both players have units in combat. If the timer runs out, the attacker is declared the loser and the defender the winner.

Note: 'I didn't bring siege' is not an excuse for not attacking a camp. Melee units can attack and destroy palisade gates.

+1

Very good idea and this has been a very good discussion all, a well explored piece of gameplay that definitely needed everyones in put i think to make this game mechanic work properly as intented without griefing or anything, with these changes it would make this situation a lot better, DEFINITELY camps should not have the right to attack, camps dont magiclly move on a whim.

andreicde
10-14-2011, 02:52 PM
You misunderstood me.
I am against people attacking from a camp. Thought i made that clear the last 5 posts lol. My statement was for defenders to be able to use them and not be seperated from regular attacks (field, camp, city). Because that would make camps pointless for defenders.

Attacking from a camp shouldnt be allowed at all. You should have to break camp before engaging in pvp.

Did that clear it up for you?

ok then yeah it makes sense and I agree with that.

Sunleader
10-15-2011, 08:13 AM
Well Actually I dont see why theres so much Arguing about it


Simple thing


Implement 2 new features


1. Time Limit for Battles so if the Battle is not Concluded in Time it will be a Draw


2. Then to make it fair for the Attacker one of those two options

2.1. A "Dont Attack Camps" Button just like the "Be Brave" Button
If marked you wont Attack any Camps
so unless you have Siege Equipment on you you wont end up Fighting a Camp


2.2 A "Attack Camps" Button
If marked you will only Attack Camps
So when you have Siege Weapons along that increase your Army Str without increasing actual fight power you wont hit Armys that dont have a Camp

Of course you can still be hit by other Armys but well thats the risk of going out with Armys right :P


Greetz

Vish_Virtus
10-15-2011, 08:22 AM
Well I think what he meant was


That is Someone Attacks his Camp
He should also be Forced to Attack

After all he is Attacking a Camp
So why should the Camp come out ?


I often see this

People Search for PvP having a Camp themself
and then once they found someone
they sit there and wait
they dont attack
just wait
so you either need to attack and waste troops despite having fewer then he has in the first place
or look who is able to wait his ass off



There needs to be a Timer
and also it should not be possible to look for PvP with an Army inside a Camp

If your attacking a camp, then you better figure out how to attack, and use some honor. Why would I come out of my camp when I have the advantage. If you can't bust the wall and win then the person who owns the camp should auto get the crowns, It should never come down to a DRAW that would be un honorable
Very simple!!

Uzik
10-15-2011, 09:22 AM
If your attacking a camp, then you better figure out how to attack, and use some honor. Why would I come out of my camp when I have the advantage. If you can't bust the wall and win then the person who owns the camp should auto get the crowns, It should never come down to a DRAW that would be un honorable
Very simple!!

I think a lot has been lost due to language issues.


This was my original statement:

When people attack your camp, they should have to initiate combat. Currently there is no timer, so someone can attack your camp, and then just sit there doing nothing forever.

This was the dev's reply:

Ok, none of this is official I'm just putting together different ideas from this thread, but what if we made these three changes? Would that address most people's concerns?
1 - When searching for PvP give three options of what to attack - Army, Camp or Town

2 - Make it so that if you're camped, you can't initiate PvP.

3 - Add a 'Return to Worldmap' style timer, that gets disabled once both players have units in combat. If the timer runs out, the attacker is declared the loser and the defender the winner.

Note: 'I didn't bring siege' is not an excuse for not attacking a camp. Melee units can attack and destroy palisade gates.

Onomas
10-15-2011, 09:23 AM
Well Actually I dont see why theres so much Arguing about it


Simple thing


Implement 2 new features


1. Time Limit for Battles so if the Battle is not Concluded in Time it will be a Draw


2. Then to make it fair for the Attacker one of those two options

2.1. A "Dont Attack Camps" Button just like the "Be Brave" Button
If marked you wont Attack any Camps
so unless you have Siege Equipment on you you wont end up Fighting a Camp


2.2 A "Attack Camps" Button
If marked you will only Attack Camps
So when you have Siege Weapons along that increase your Army Str without increasing actual fight power you wont hit Armys that dont have a Camp

Of course you can still be hit by other Armys but well thats the risk of going out with Armys right :P


Greetz

Camps should just be part of the regular attacknot seperated. This gives people the free will to just have all archers or all grandmasters and not be prepared. This is a strategy game, and you just took all the strategy out of it. Camps are about the only thing we have to defend against a stronger army and shouldnt be excluded.

The timer = draw thing is bogus. The attacker attacked, he better by god do so. Having an attacker just sit there for 20 minutes waiting for a draw is BS. It also wastes the defenders time. We didnt ask to get attacked why should we suffer a penalty by allowing the attacker get off scott free?

If you dont have atleast 1 siege unit in your army and just cram it full of GMM and archers galore you deserve nothing less. These people arent uing strategy, they are using 2 of the most over powered units to just zerg into an army and get a cheese win.

Camps can not be seperated or you will never see a camp battle ever. People will just start using camps for resource depots and thats kind of lame.

It realy doesnt take much to break down a camps walls. Its the ones that dont use all the units they should be and are very unprepared are the ones wanting camps to lose its value as a defense strategy.

Laceretti
10-17-2011, 03:45 PM
Perhaps instead of a timer that ends the match it may be better to have diminishing returns for both parties? For example on the defense side, the longer the the match goes on, the lower the payout for a surrender. This way in these stand-off situations you just wait out your 10 minutes and then quit out for no cost.

On the attacking side, you would offer less wealth for the longer the battle went on. So after that 10 minutes if someone surrenders you won't get as many crowns. Perhaps you need to award full crowns if you can eliminate half of the defender's army before they quit. You wouldn't want all big battles to end in the loser quitting right before they lose to grief the victor.

Now it may be easier to just implement the time, but I would rather see the game influencing the correct behavior through rewards than having a set timer.

As others have said, you shouldn't be able to attack from a camp.

andreicde
10-17-2011, 04:33 PM
I have a better solution for all the problems. One thing that would help would be being matched . When someone has siege he should get matched against a person with similar strength without counting siege machines. Also camps NOT being able to att is a thing too. Why?because a camp CAN'T move. You can only get attacked. Is it a bad thing?not really,it's balanced and you have the advantage of having fortifications.Also if someone has siege and gets matched against a person with no camp,it should be again without counting siege. Right now siege can become a pain specially if you have a few more.Some people say ''get a catapult'' but if the other person has a catapult in the camp and destroys yours,you are losing again.

Sunleader
10-17-2011, 09:36 PM
Strategic Faktor matey includes the free will of NOT Attacking Prey you cant beat


Who the hell would attack a Camp without Siege Weapons ?



If you want to keep the Strategy Faktor take 2. Option
Which means with Siege Weapons you will Attack Fortified Positions


Since you can still be Attacked by any normal Army it wont take Strategy out of the Game
but when you try to scout for a target he will look for a suited one

its your scouts after all
why shouldnt you be able to try and look for some opponent having a camp ?



The one trying to take out strategy here is you

Strategy is which Army you fight and where
what you mean is Tactics which decide how to Fight inside a Battle

If you have no influence at which armys you want to fight and which armys you would like to try and avoid theres no Strategy at all lol



Greetz

arifel
10-21-2011, 10:00 AM
Um well if you surrender you lose less,so I don't know why you are whining.At least he gives you a chance to surrender. If he attacked you instead,you'd lose all of them
I can't believe someone can fail to read the post of the OP so badly that he mistakes the complaint about lack of an attacker timer as a complaint about being attacked. It's also hard for me to believe that someone playing a hardcore game like DoF doesn't realize that most other RTS employ some form of timer to prevent draws where both players just each sit on a hill or behind some other difficult terrain not wanting to expose himself.

In a Total War series the attacker bears the burden of achieving victory within allocated time, or victory is presumed for the defender. In Relic's Company of Heroes and Warhammer 40k series, a ticket system comparable to Battlefield is used. The side holding fewer map objectives would bleed tickets and the side that drains the opponents tickets by holding most of the map wins, as an alternative and in addition to victory by destroying the opponent.

Tossing two players together without any sort of a timer allows those who choose to to simply grief another player by starting a RTS battle and then constantly running away with a faster unit, or at lower combat scores, bring a fort and only defensive units to wait an opponent out. The next time another player sees somebody known to be such a griefer engaging him, he would simply have to pay the tribute to continue playing because combat is a waiting competition.

You can balance the burden of having to attack to achieve victory by allowing the attacker to have a bit more combat score than the defender. But there absolutely must be a burden to attack placed on the attacker. Once you allow city sieges the current lack of a burden to attack on the attacker would only be magnified.

Dreamwalker
10-21-2011, 02:59 PM
Seriously people: why is there this arguement? Not that this isn't a good thread and all, but it seems to me that you are all agreeing with each other. ;)

From reading the posts, this is what I see:

-There should be some sort of time limit to force combat to actually happen

-CAMPS DON'T MOVE!!! So why can you attack from camps? I say the devs should fix this. Nobody disagrees with that, right?

-Without siege, attacking camps can be difficult. After all, camps are pretty much just mini versions of your cities during a battle: they have walls you can hide behind. And you wouldn't want to attack a city without siege, now would you? So some sort of choice to not attack camps if you don't want to (since I don't see how accidently attacking camps makes any sense); maybe something like Sunleader said.

-But I have to say, waiting around as an attacker is a tactic. It might be a cheap one, but it's still a tactic. Now, waiting around as the attacker outside a CAMP is different. Would an army sit around your city and do nothing? No (well, okay, they would if they were trying to starve you out; but that's over the course of months, not hours). But attacking an uncamped army and waiting is perfectly fine; after all, in a field battle, thing like the attacker and the defender arn't as important as in sieges.

Anything I missed?

andreicde
10-22-2011, 09:55 AM
Seriously people: why is there this arguement? Not that this isn't a good thread and all, but it seems to me that you are all agreeing with each other. ;)

From reading the posts, this is what I see:

-There should be some sort of time limit to force combat to actually happen

-CAMPS DON'T MOVE!!! So why can you attack from camps? I say the devs should fix this. Nobody disagrees with that, right?

-Without siege, attacking camps can be difficult. After all, camps are pretty much just mini versions of your cities during a battle: they have walls you can hide behind. And you wouldn't want to attack a city without siege, now would you? So some sort of choice to not attack camps if you don't want to (since I don't see how accidently attacking camps makes any sense); maybe something like Sunleader said.

-But I have to say, waiting around as an attacker is a tactic. It might be a cheap one, but it's still a tactic. Now, waiting around as the attacker outside a CAMP is different. Would an army sit around your city and do nothing? No (well, okay, they would if they were trying to starve you out; but that's over the course of months, not hours). But attacking an uncamped army and waiting is perfectly fine; after all, in a field battle, thing like the attacker and the defender arn't as important as in sieges.

Anything I missed?

I agree here and I don't know what you are talking about arifel,I agree with most suggestions except the so called attacking and then waiting if there is a camp and then this being called griefing. If they wouldn't count sieges in CP that wouldn't be a problem and everyone would bring siege.

arifel
10-22-2011, 12:29 PM
Seriously people: why is there this arguement? Not that this isn't a good thread and all, but it seems to me that you are all agreeing with each other. ;)

From reading the posts, this is what I see:

-There should be some sort of time limit to force combat to actually happen

-CAMPS DON'T MOVE!!! So why can you attack from camps? I say the devs should fix this. Nobody disagrees with that, right?

-Without siege, attacking camps can be difficult. After all, camps are pretty much just mini versions of your cities during a battle: they have walls you can hide behind. And you wouldn't want to attack a city without siege, now would you? So some sort of choice to not attack camps if you don't want to (since I don't see how accidently attacking camps makes any sense); maybe something like Sunleader said.

-But I have to say, waiting around as an attacker is a tactic. It might be a cheap one, but it's still a tactic. Now, waiting around as the attacker outside a CAMP is different. Would an army sit around your city and do nothing? No (well, okay, they would if they were trying to starve you out; but that's over the course of months, not hours). But attacking an uncamped army and waiting is perfectly fine; after all, in a field battle, thing like the attacker and the defender arn't as important as in sieges.

Anything I missed?
To Andreicde,

I was replying to your original replies to the OP, as I had properly quoted in my own post.


To Dreamwalker,

If it is tactics that you want to simulate in this game, you may wish to look into the sieges of cities through out history where an "attacking" army lays a siege, when logistics to the besieging army is provided for, sit around the besieged city for seasons if not years until the besieged is so starved that they sally forth charging the besieging army's defenses to their own doom.

In a way, in a game, the competition in logistics is reflected through symbolism by Relic's ticket system in Company of Heroes and Warhammer 40k series games, where the side that controls most of the victory points (most of the map) bleeds the opponents ticket count, and winning when the opponent runs out. That is, if you consider the victory objectives to represent a source of logistic supply. In this manner, the logistic strategy of an attack to lay siege and starve a defender is adequately represented. Although in game, this usually means fighting for 3/4 of the map.

Meanwhile in the Total War system, the burden to engage and destroy the opponent within time limit is entirely on the attacker. This effectively means that the attacker must kill 100% of the defender, which is hard or even abusive if the defender were the constantly run away yet in terms of the campaign game, still successfully holding ground.

I much prefer Relic's ticket system. It represents through symbolism more options to warfare strategies and Relics games were made from the ground up to be PvP games. Whereas, Total War games by Creative Assembly are single player focused. But, either system is better than Dawn of Fantasy's lack of thought to this matter entirely.

Dreamwalker
10-22-2011, 04:06 PM
To Dreamwalker,

If it is tactics that you want to simulate in this game, you may wish to look into the sieges of cities through out history where an "attacking" army lays a siege, when logistics to the besieging army is provided for, sit around the besieged city for seasons if not years until the besieged is so starved that they sally forth charging the besieging army's defenses to their own doom.

All true, except that the battles take place over hours, not years. If DOF had sieges like in Total War, you could wait years until the enemy surrendered or risked sallying forth. But DOF dosen't have sieges like that (but it might be nice if they did).

But waiting around outside the camp that you attacked is different. Why? Because even if both players wait for days before fighting each other, both armies are as fresh as they were when the battle began. The troops arn't starved, but the players are. So really, what is the point of it? If someone can give a reason why waiting outside the enemy's walls in this game affects the outcome of the battle, please, share; because I can't see one.

Like I said before, waiting in a field battle is a perfectly fine tactic, because neither side has an overly great position. But with a camp, why would the defender give that up? Would they send thier entire army out of their city as soon as the battle begins? No. Salling forth is a risky move that is only done late in a battle, if the defender is desperate enough or if the enemy is in an easily exploitable position. Not just for the heck of it. :D