Passed Bartbot: Hideouts [updated]

Discussion in 'Development Discussions' started by Gem, Feb 22, 2009.

Share This Page


Would you like to see this in game?

Poll closed Mar 15, 2009.
  1. Yes

    81 vote(s)
  2. No

    64 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gem

    Gem Guest

    Discussion for one week: end 1st March.

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2009
  2. Black Jack

    Black Jack Guest

    I'm all for it.
  3. Luap Nor

    Luap Nor Guest

    Seems overly complicated to me.
  4. Diggo11

    Diggo11 InnoGames

    Nov 26, 2008
    Likes Received:
    There were two options but Gem obviously made up her mind ;)
  5. BartBot

    BartBot Guest

    I couldn't get the thumbnails on-screen... sorry Diggo.
  6. Jesse James

    Jesse James Guest

    Great idea.If the devs are patient enough to read the whole thing they'll surely like it.;)
  7. Gem

    Gem Guest

    There were? I was following the thread and saw that had already been decided :bandit:

    Think they're a bit big to put in the thread at the moment or I would have :p
  8. BartBot

    BartBot Guest

    Won't be in-game.

    Just you need alot of info for the devs to consider it well-thought out i tink.

    Edit: And I forgot to mention that you will get a normal duel report for when two people duel for the hideout.

    and maybe dueling for the hideout could be not necessarily forced, but optional, kinda like a saloon.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2009
  9. Diggo11

    Diggo11 InnoGames

    Nov 26, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Meh links are good.

    Yeah most people preferred the detailed option, but thought that the developers would only allow the simple option. But since you thought the detailed one was appropriate then I'm sure the developers will too. Besides if we just make short mention of it in the submission notes they can think for themselves :p

    Lol sorry I don't know why I used to make them entire page screenshots, rather pointless. I'll crop them down to the window if you wish.

    Exactly, it only has to be coded once and then it won't provide any complex issues.
  10. I'm kind of with Luap on the complicated, but if the system is implemented it won't be complicated to use.

    I don't think there are any changes that need to be made.
  11. Grumbold

    Grumbold Guest

    I think its complicated and I'm also confused about the duelling aspect.
    - If two playerss are intent on doing a job, why would either of them be interested in precipitating a duel? Particularly while dressed to work?
    - If the site gives duel protection, how can using it precipitate a duel with someone who has duel protection for being inside?
    - What happens to the player who 'bounces' - do they lose their work instruction, reset to doing the job without bonuses, walk back to town?

    This has the potential to mess up people who don't have the time to monitor their activity.

    I'd rather separate out the aspects. You could find sites that give working bonuses as described, or you could find sites that give defensive advantages if ambushed but a small work disadvantage for the inconvenience. e.g. a rocky outcropping could add 5 to the job difficulty (lowering job gains) and provide +10 tactics, +10 dodge if dueled.

    Any number of workers could be using that outcropping if they've found it (no need for additional proximity/duel checks at a work site or unsolicited duels) but if they are successfully duelled by someone at their town and lose, they have to rediscover the location as suggested.
  12. John Rose

    John Rose Guest

    I don't really see the point in this feature at all.

    If it gets approved though, I can see loads and loads of changes I'd prefer to see prior to this one.
  13. BigDawg

    BigDawg Guest

    I kind of like the idea that you can find random advantages at job sites, but have to agree with Grumlord with the dueling aspects being very confusing.
  14. BartBot

    BartBot Guest

    Gem didn't get the revised summary. Let me clear this up.

    Revised: You will have the option to duel at these hideouts with the other players within the hideout(similar to a town saloon), but have complete outside protection.

    Now let's say you are a dueler, who wants to target a worker at a hideout for his job. Let's use constructing a bridge. Firstly, the dueler who wants to attack the worker has to be able to do the job (unlikely because of labour points), and find the hideout (unlikely, because of the base requirements), and then, be in the same dueling level range. Also if the dueler requires work clothes to build a bridge, then he probably won't have the full dueling bonuses to an advantage.

    Now if you add a +5 dodging and +5 tactics bonus to the defender in the hideout (versus the attacker in the hideout), then 9 out of 10, it will be even.

    That answer it?
  15. VinWij

    VinWij Guest

    I also think this is overly complicated, and requires a serious amount of programming for rather small advantages. Why would you only be able to use it once in 24 hours? I respect the abuse-protection, but this gets too rediculous. If you know about a cabin, why not use it every time? I mean, it IS there, right?

    Also, linking them to towns and players, unlinking them, the whole time based aspects... Too tedious, even if it is simple to use it.
  16. angelaiah013

    angelaiah013 Well-Known Member

    Nov 2, 2008
    Likes Received:
    if tis is voted wit a mojority of YES...will it be implemented?

    (did te teddy bear made it to te final?) :D
  17. Grumbold

    Grumbold Guest

    So you're saying that working one of these bonus locations gives you total immunity from being duelled at town while you're in this site, plus you can duel with anyone else at that spot regardless of their town location? While I like the idea I can't see it being accepted by the developers because its very complex. The more new features needed, the less likely it will make the list. It also cuts into their approach of making it reasonably easy to find duelling opponents. I suspect that goes against their concept, unfortunately.

    I'd suggest that anyone could work a site openly (normal difficulty) or riskily (more danger, increased reward) defensively (higher difficulty, defensive bonuses if duelled) or lie in ambush (no work done, big defence bonuses if duelled) but you still travel to the home town if you want to fight. These modes don't need to be invisible until found. That would have a better chance of passing because it requires less remodelling of the game system to be implemented. It also adds some strategy - if you're duelled often it could well be worth hiding in ambush a few hours each day to discourage anyone who is victimising you.
  18. BartBot

    BartBot Guest

    *Sigh* Please read the whole summary before you comment.

    You can only use these sites once per 24 hours (<< READ AGAIN!!!), and duel anyone else inside the hideout for dibs on it to kick them out of the hideout, otherwise no, you cannot duel anyone outside the hideout whilst doing the job until you finish the job and leave the hideout.

    Optional... No, actually no changes to current programming system, only the fact that you would create a network of "safe" spots, and a link and non-link. Heck, I know a friend that could do those codes.

    Also a lot of people would complain about having no targets if you could use the hideout 24-7.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2009
  19. Luap Nor

    Luap Nor Guest

    :laugh: :laugh:

    Of course. His point was that the restriction was unintuitive in the real-world analog, which is correct (not that that stops anything in this game, heheh). He wasn't lobbying to implement it without the 1/day restriction, he was giving you one of the reasons he's lobbying against the idea entirely.
  20. BartBot

    BartBot Guest

    Please put that in the Ideas and Brainfarts section. That is entirely different to what I said.

    And as to Luap Nor, does Grumbold have a winning argument? I get what he's saying, but that doesn't stop the idea altogether. Heck, it is better the original way of once every 24 hours.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.