Wars attacks tactics and more

[DeletedUser]

Well has anyone opposed the idea on the Romanian forum ?

Some of it is pretty ludicrous and not well thought out at all.

He posted here about the same time as he did there, and there was no discussion at the time, but it's at three pages now.

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.the-west.ro%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D50550%23post50550&sl=ro&tl=en&history_state0=

Once again, forts. The idea is apparently in opposition to the fort concept, which you say is nowhere close to being implemented. I would really like to see what forts are all about before opposing the idea and wasting energy challenging with an alternative idea. This is yet another suggestion intended to fix something that hasn't even been implemented yet.

Edit:

Just a small, tiny, little question: are you suggesting anything about Romanian people? If you do, then come and say it in my face... Then we will have a nice talk about racism

Cheers.

I could just as easily completely misconstrue this remark to mean that all Americans are racist. It would be every bit as valid (or more accurately completely invalid) as the ridiculous leap of logic you made to come to that conclusion about Denisero.

 

[DeletedUser]

I could just as easily completely misconstrue this remark to mean that all Americans are racist. It would be every bit as valid (or more accurately completely invalid) as the ridiculous leap of logic you made to come to that conclusion about Denisero.

I thought Denise was an Aussie.

 

[DeletedUser]

I thought Denise was an Aussie.

Now who's being racist! That's a joke...some of my favorite people in TW are Aussies, but Denisero is American.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm an Onionite. Our native language is tolerance and love. You won't find our country on the globe, you must search within your heart to truly find us.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm an Onionite. Our native language is tolerance and love. You won't find our country on the globe, you must search within your heart to truly find us.

Oh. My bad.

I tried a search but didn't find any responsive hits.

 

[Red Falcon]

It still doesn't solve the bully problem. Lots of towns have one town where their fighters are and one for their builders and adventurers with just a few fighters. Nothing to stop a strong military town from destroying the weaker town. It happens, it will happen, and it shouldn't happen. People already complain about individual dueling and how unfair it is, you put it town wide to destroy what they have built you will see the game die.

Very good point made here. We don't need wear and tear at all in this game. If I had a small to medium-sized town, I would be devastated if I logged in one day, only to find my town torn to pieces! :nowink:

 

[Diggo11]

Now who's being racist! That's a joke...some of my favorite people in TW are Aussies, but Denisero is American.

Are Violette and I your favourites

 

[DeletedUser]

Are Violette and I your favourites

Of course, and how could I pick just one? I don't want to appear biased in the Melbourne vs. Sydney rivalry!

And just to stay on topic, I still don't like the idea.

 

[DeletedUser5046]

no.

and i dun have any idea why peeps here are intrigued wit romanian server...

but hearing(should i say reading) it would do sumthing like 'rebuilding' town buildings...tat would put too much pressure on te workers..and also on te bank

 

[DeletedUser]

*/amazed at the amount of mindless offtopic that's being tolerated on this forum.
tempted to take off clothes and run around spaming people./*
:unsure:

anyway, please try to stick on topic and bring valid arguments when you approve / dissapprove an idea.

also i included a mini-faq in my first post. make sure you read it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I still disapprove even if you take your clothes off, probably more. Valid reasons were brought up against this idea and you made it sound like everyone is just needlessly whining. If you don't want to consider what others have to say then don't expect anyone to consider what you have to say.

 

[DeletedUser]

I still disapprove even if you take your clothes off, probably more. Valid reasons were brought up against this idea and you made it sound like everyone is just needlessly whining. If you don't want to consider what others have to say then don't expect anyone to consider what you have to say.

valid reasons weren't brought up (except maybe for the luap nor exploit)

the towns won't be destroyed (explained in the faq)
big ass bully towns won't crush puny little wimpy towns (also explained in the faq)

so tell me the other arguments.

 

[DeletedUser]

valid reasons weren't brought up

If our opinions are invalid to you, this thread is rather pointless.

so tell me the other arguments.

1. Forts
2. Forts
3. Forts

Opinion here is pretty unanimous on that so, again, this thread has become rather pointless.

 

[DeletedUser]

I hope I've revealed the existence of enough other problems to induce you to rethink this. I agree with you about the problems you listed to begin with, but this way of addressing them creates its own problems. I especially dislike the idea of having a gang of thug towns descend on mine to destroy it, and the whole approach of trying to force people to do what you think they should.

It is pretty clear when they say "in the form of forts" that there has already been some significant discussion on the subject of ways to implement towns fighting with each other.

Even without knowing any of the details, I would choose forts rather than fighting which in any way destroys the town, for all the reasons which have been repeatedly mentioned in this thread. And I would imagine that when they chose forts, damage to towns was one of the things discussed and then discarded by the devs, as it has been discussed and discarded on these forums more than once.

We want options for town-level attacks, and we know the devs are working on that. We definitely do not want anything that limits the ways in which our towns can be run, or destroys what has already been earned.

And quite frankly, as someone who is both a town founder and a general citizen on various worlds, I don't want to see anything enacted which is entirely at the whim of a town founder. Citizens in The West are not toy soldiers. Most towns I know of, and towns that thrive, do not require the level of interventionist control suggested in this idea, so even if no forts were as yet being planned, and even if you removed the town damage from it, I would reject it on that basis as well.

And no offense but all the nonsense about one class doing specific jobs is ridiculous. All my builders are not Workers. If you want to prevent a Soldier from doing Construction then you look at the town's log and lay the smack down on anyone building who shouldn't be - problem solved.

The class of a person has almost zero to do with their ability to win or lose a duel. A person's skills/attributes in duel skills and their weapon's damage is what determines the winner or loser of a duel.

The best duelers on W-1 are Workers - I didn't say highest rank - rank has nothing to do with being a good dueler. High duel rank only says how much you farmed people worse then you ...

Here's another reason this is a bad idea: it's highly abusable.

Say you and I are mayors and friends. Your town completes a shop level, but doesn't get a nice item. You and I set up a "war"; I put in only 1 fighter in my "army" and you put none in yours. We win and your shop gets taken down 100 points. You then re-finish the same level, rerolling the inventory for that level. Repeat until you are happy with the inventory you got.

What about the obvious problem of having 10 players of the same level available in each town? The top 10 players in one town I looked at had their top 10 members with a 20 Dueling level spread. Now what if my town has our top 10 members all the same dueling level? Right there 1/2 the fights would be massacres.

Another town I looked at had their highest player at level 73 and their 10 highest at level 40, that's a spread of 33 levels. Another town had a spread from level 98 to level 62, thats 36 level spread.

My vote is a definite NO. If our town has good items in the stores now, we stand a fair chance of "downgrading" our store after such a war (after re-building, with probably lower quality products) - definite no-no.

god, finally you realise why i wanted more opinions on this matter.

Obviously only if they agree with you.

Very good point made here. We don't need wear and tear at all in this game. If I had a small to medium-sized town, I would be devastated if I logged in one day, only to find my town torn to pieces! :nowink:

Well there are several problems and disagreements with your idea. If you choose to ignore them that is your fault.

for example Luap Nor raised a valid problem that i need to somehow fix. thanks for the input. however while the abuse it is possible, i already pointed that the damage will be random so it's not actually that easy to abuse.

valid reasons weren't brought up (except maybe for the luap nor exploit) the towns won't be destroyed (explained in the faq) big ass bully towns won't crush puny little wimpy towns (also explained in the faq) so tell me the other arguments.

So Luap raised a valid problem you acknowledge you need to fix. Now it might be a valid problem in your newest post.

You even say abuse is possible. Then Stop right there. If abuse is possible this idea will never ever pass. Whether its easy to abuse or not, if it is possible at all to abuse it will never pass. So thank you for shooting down your own idea as it currently stands.

 

[DeletedUser]

I will pretty much always vote against an idea if it takes away options from me and others and forces us to play only in one way. This idea, while it has some kernels of creativity which could eventually prove useful, currently smacks heavily of central planning: you think you know how to improve the game for everyone and you want your new idea brought into all our towns, forcing people to change how they run their towns and start doing some things they don't currently have to do. If this were an optional system, I'd be a lot more open to it, but not if it forces this new combat system on me.

I'd like to know how you address that objection. How could I opt out of all this in-game, if I simply don't like it?

 

[DeletedUser]

I will pretty much always vote against an idea if it takes away options from me and others and forces us to play only in one way. This idea, while it has some kernels of creativity which could eventually prove useful, currently smacks heavily of central planning: you think you know how to improve the game for everyone and you want your new idea brought into all our towns, forcing people to change how they run their towns and start doing some things they don't currently have to do. If this were an optional system, I'd be a lot more open to it, but not if it forces this new combat system on me.

I'd like to know how you address that objection. How could I opt out of all this in-game, if I simply don't like it?

well, actually i already pointed that one part you call forcing is optional:

optionally to further enhance the idea several class limitations can be implemented
1. only workers can construct/repair buildings (this will also prevent stupid soldiers wasting town money by building something)
2. only soldiers can be used for the defensive team
3. only duelers can be used for the attacking team

so if it's not accepted then it's no problem.
my personal opinion is that it will actully be a good adition. but i'm not always right so that's why i made that part optional.

also if you want to make everything optional (so the entire attacking thing) then it's really easy. we simply adjust the idea and say that unless you build at least one level of fortifications and weapon depot you won't be able to attack or be attacked.
so if you want to continue the game as it is now, then just don't build those 2. if however you want to start attacking other towns build at least one level of each and it's ok.
good point and i hope the solution above satisfies you.


PS: before anybody starts mentioning abuse, i already pointed you can't attack or defend. so no way you could just attack without being attacked.


PPS: @Denisero thanks for the quotes but you still haven't achieved anything. you pointed what people said and i pointed how in some cases they are wrong. towns can't be destroyed, big towns won't attack small towns and the abuse is hardly achievable. so please try to be a bit more like luap nor and bring something intelligent and constructive.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. Your suggestions will never come to pass.

2. We have the same amount of developers who read this forum as you have reading the Romanian forums = NONE.

3. There are many flaws in your overall idea and you've repeatedly not addressed the rebuttals to your ideas. You did not address the level range problem or the lack of classes in a particular town and those are HUGE problems.

4. There is no reason to limit one class to doing Construction work since that mechanism already exists in the game via the town log.

5. Your idea of having 10 man teams for defending and attacking and only allowing certain classes to defend or attack is utterly ridiculous.

6. And what about Adventurers ? You completely missed using them as any part of your idea.

7. Tying any aspect of the game to one class makes you sound like a complete noob - ANY class can do anything in the game depending on where they put their attributes/skills.

 

[DeletedUser]

Now you want to make it optional because we don't like the idea. You just can't let go.

What about adventurers? What are their roles?
Is it completely impossible for this system to be abused?
If my level 10 tailor gets torn down (this by just having 1 point taken off the total of what I need for it to be level 10) then do I have the chance to rebuild and get better options?
Can I start a 'friendly' war like this against another town so that we may both benefit by having our buildings torn down just enough so that only 1 hour build time is necessary for us to have brand new top level items?
What if 2 towns are maxed out but the soldiers and duelers in each town are not at about the same levels? How will the one towns weaker soldiers defend against the other towns stronger duelers (and vice versa)?
What will stop the stronger town from repeatedly (even if its just a once a day limit) attacking the town with the weaker players?
Don't you think that will just make people quit towns and/or the game?
Where are the safeguards that this can't be abused at all, emphasis on 'at all'?
Why should anyone choose this option over forts, especially if you plan to make this optional?

Edit: Just because you choose worker class doesn't mean you are a builder. What about those hybrid builds out there? There are plenty of dueling workers, dueling adventurers, building adventurers, trapper solders, etc. Your plan only works if everyone is a pure build and only if you can get your 10 soldiers and duelers on at the same exact time to coordinate. Stupid and impossible.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your suggestion of making the whole thing optional would greatly reduce my objections in terms of how I like my own towns to be, but the posts following your last one have raised some very large problems with the system at all. Even if it is optional, I agree that it's still ripe for abuse. I would abuse it this way:

1. Raise all my shops 1 level.
2. If any of them got great items, raise those shops 1 more level. Repeat this step until all shops have great items at all levels except the current top level, and no shops have great items in their top level.
3. Arrange a "war" with a mayor of a friendly town and lose that war, getting at least 1 shop reduced just enough to lower it 1 level.
4. Rebuild that shop level.
5. Go to step 2 or 3 as appropriate.

Simply keep that up until all my shops have great items at all levels.

The top level is different since you don't build beyond it, so the top level of each shop would be impossible to secure. But every level below that could be jiggered to taste.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your suggestion of making the whole thing optional would greatly reduce my objections in terms of how I like my own towns to be, but the posts following your last one have raised some very large problems with the system at all. Even if it is optional, I agree that it's still ripe for abuse. I would abuse it this way:

1. Raise all my shops 1 level.
2. If any of them got great items, raise those shops 1 more level. Repeat this step until all shops have great items at all levels except the current top level, and no shops have great items in their top level.
3. Arrange a "war" with a mayor of a friendly town and lose that war, getting at least 1 shop reduced just enough to lower it 1 level.
4. Rebuild that shop level.
5. Go to step 2 or 3 as appropriate.

Simply keep that up until all my shops have great items at all levels.

The top level is different since you don't build beyond it, so the top level of each shop would be impossible to secure. But every level below that could be jiggered to taste.

fair enough so here's another idea. the fortifications and weapons depot becom available only after you have built all other buildings.

this way the only possible means to abuse would be to build the whole town and then tear it down completely (takes 1 month) then start rebuilding it in the way you desribed), if you can actually call this abuse.