Username:    Password:    Remember Me?         

Attack Griefing - Page 6 - Reverie World Studios Forums

Go Back   Reverie World Studios Forums > Dawn of Fantasy > Main Square
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-15-2011, 09:22 AM
Uzik Uzik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 44
Uzik has a default reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vish_Virtus View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Shingles View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-15-2011, 09:23 AM
Onomas Onomas is offline
Human Sect:
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 80
Onomas has a default reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunleader View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-17-2011, 03:45 PM
Laceretti Laceretti is offline
Human Sect:
Maceman
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 19
Laceretti has a default reputation
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-17-2011, 04:33 PM
andreicde's Avatar
andreicde andreicde is offline
Elven Sect:
Treant
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mirkwood
Posts: 689
andreicde has a default reputation
Default

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.
__________________
IGN ingame: Arkantos
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-17-2011, 09:36 PM
Sunleader Sunleader is offline
Human Sect:
Cavalier
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Somewhere between the Westcoast of the USA and the Eastcost of Japan
Posts: 451
Sunleader has good reputation
Default

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
__________________
In the Shadow of the Black Cross. We Fullfill our Duty in your Name.
And Look forward to the Day we Return to your side Silvanos.
Watching over our Comrades as they Fullfill their Duty in your Name.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-21-2011, 10:00 AM
arifel arifel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6
arifel has a default reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andreicde View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-21-2011, 02:59 PM
Dreamwalker Dreamwalker is offline
Elven Sect:
Mounted Grand Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: formerly Doriath, now Rivendell
Posts: 380
Dreamwalker has good reputation
Default

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?
__________________
That was so funny, I laughed twice.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-22-2011, 09:55 AM
andreicde's Avatar
andreicde andreicde is offline
Elven Sect:
Treant
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mirkwood
Posts: 689
andreicde has a default reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamwalker View Post
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.
__________________
IGN ingame: Arkantos
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-22-2011, 12:29 PM
arifel arifel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6
arifel has a default reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamwalker View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-22-2011, 04:06 PM
Dreamwalker Dreamwalker is offline
Elven Sect:
Mounted Grand Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: formerly Doriath, now Rivendell
Posts: 380
Dreamwalker has good reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arifel View 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.
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.
__________________
That was so funny, I laughed twice.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 AM.

ESRB Rated T
US/CANADA
PEGI 16
EUROPE
USK 16
GERMANY

privacy policy   |   Copyright © Reverie World Studios INC.

Dawn of Fantasy and Reverie World Studios are trademarks of Reverie World Studios, Inc. Developed by Reverie World Studios, inc. All Rights Reserved. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.