Username:    Password:    Remember Me?         

Reverie World Studios Forums - View Single Post - Concern List
Thread: Concern List
View Single Post
Old 05-10-2007, 01:23 AM
Darvin's Avatar
Darvin Darvin is offline
Reverie Super Moderator - Ambassador
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 666
Darvin is just really niceDarvin is just really niceDarvin is just really nice

I think the first issue you point out with regards to the "all out attack" isn't so much a problem. Historically, castles could be left with very small garrisons while the main army was out controlling the battlefield. Their defences were strong enough that in the event of attack, the main army could return before they fell. In this way, holding a castle allowed you to control the surrounding area because you could launch any attack decisively.

I feel this should be the benefit of having strong defences; you can use your army with impunity in full scale assaults. Conversely, someone who invests in little defences will see his settlements razed or at least heavily damaged before he gets back. I think this is a rather fair setup if it's done right.

As far as rushes go, I think the real solution to them is simply to incorperate it into the game. Early battles should happen, but they should only decide the game if someone is seriously outmatched. I don't think it's fun for either player when there is a severe skill difference, and the "rush game" should be designed to end such a lopsided match quickly. If the skill levels are more in line with each other, I think rushes should still happen, but their focus should be less on winning than gaining a strategic advantage that carries into the midgame.

I personally believe that a game that ended on the rush and a game that had no rush are both disappointing. If it ended on the rush, it never went anywhere to begin with (mind you, if it saved two players some headache with regards to a lopsided matchup, it's the lesser of two evils). If it never had a rush at all, then a very interesting portion of the game that can lay the groundwork for the coming conflicts has been lost.

As for cheaters, they'll always exist. The idea that Reverie (or anyone) could come up with a foolproof way to deal with them is laughable; there will always be people coming up with a new way to break the rules and get away with it. I think the best they can do is approach the issue with good faith and do their best to close exploits promptly, and punish cheaters.

I do personally like the idea of a permeanent "cheater" blackmark attached to your CD-key. Any time you log on you'll have the "cheater" mark next to your name, regardless of your account. The key to this setup is then to offer an appeal process for "good behavior" (not cheating for a long time). I find traditional banning just encourages cheaters to go to even less savoury depths (stealing CD-keys, for example), but such a method as described above encourages reformation.
Reply With Quote