|
Post by Jenlyn on Jan 30, 2014 12:18:15 GMT -6
Okay, so I got a little wound up in T'A'R this morning, so I had to take a step back. Maybe I need to take a bigger one, but I'm going to move forward from where I'm at right now, anyway. First off, let me begin by apologizing to Mesaana: I am glad that you have joined the game, I think you are good for the game, and I'm sorry for making personal comments to and about you in T'A'R today. I don't think you are trying to ruin the game, and I was way over the top. It was wrong of me to go off on you like that, and I will make every effort to put myself in check before going off on someone again, you or anyone else. My attacks don't help the game either, and words hurt, even on the Internet. Again, I'm sorry.
Second, I'm a hypocrite, as I have, many rounds ago, done a very similar thing. Back before control of towns really meant anything, the White Tower lost a town to another clan (I think it was NVS--we weren't always allies), and I could see no way for them to gain so many points except by "cheating"--bending the spirit of the rules if not the letter, so I made a ton of alts, like a hundred of them (there was no restriction at that time on the number of accounts a player could have), and used them to take over the lower half of the map--Tear, Ebou Dar, etc. by kicking one out of the clan, parking it in the town, then attacking it with all the others over and over again. I thought this was justified because I didn't think it was fair how we lost a town so quickly. The rest of the players thought I was ruining the game with a blatant abuse of the implied rules. A squabble on the forum ensued. Feelings got hurt. I quit for awhile.
When I returned, the game was hardly alive. I continued to exploit the mechanics of the game for personal benefit, like abusing the Queens talis (we used talismans before the more WoT-worthy nomenclature of Ter'angreal was adopted) that boosted a player's XP. I was not the only one; it was a rampant abuse that eventually culminated in the removal of all XP enhancing items in the game. It also upset all the players who did not abuse the talis by engaging in naked battles with their friends, which due to the nature of the game's mechanics at that time, maximized the benefits of the Queens talismans. To undress and sissy-slap each other until the duel ran out of turns just to get max XP seemed clever and intuitively obvious to those who were driven to be at the top of the XP ranks, but it was cheap, dirty, and unfair to those who wanted to play within the spirit of the rules. Since there were hardly any players anyway, and the game had numerous flaws in it's still-incubative stages of development, many people, myself included, didn't care what the others thought and just kept doing it until Tim took the XP bonuses away entirely.
A few things have changed since then. Most important among them is that this is a fully developed and functioning game at this point. It is still being tweaked a bit, but everything that was "wrong" with it before has been fixed. There are all kinds of different things to do in it, all kinds of different achievements and titles to aim for, all kinds of different builds and strategies that are effective, a variety of classes that have balance, things to spend your gold on, warfare that has something at stake without threat of ruining someone's account (there are games like that, one of which this game has borrowed a lot of good ideas from), an equal starting point for everyone, a Light side and a Shadow side that each have something at stake per their alignment, and an ending, almost an epic one, before we start all over again. Finally, it has an expanding player base. This game is primed to take off and be a ton of fun for everyone!
SO...it isn't cool to twist the spirit of the rules at the cost of upsetting large portions of the player base and the consumption of the coder's time in trying to stay one step ahead of the rule benders. I have seen this happen in another game, and it is a game killer. I also don't like being on the receiving end of some of my own dirty tactics. There, I said it. Some of it IS sour grapes, but not enough to taint the whole grapevine. I think we need to address and define, as a community, what the spirit of the game is, agree upon, and stress the importance of trying to play within that spirit each round, and as each new gray area develops, as they surely will. Perhaps these new gray area strategies, as they arise, should be sorted out with the Creator before being implemented, such as, "Is it okay if we jump clans with our alts in order to boost our allies' Ji in a clan battle," and "Is it okay if we jump to an ally, undress in a contested town, and allow our former clan mates to beat on us for a clan battle Ji advantage?" If the Light had sought permission first, perhaps he would have said "No" and this would have been avoided, and if the Shadow had asked first, perhaps he would have said "No" and this would have been avoided. It served to highlight a problem within clan battles though, and that is the reduced effectiveness of allies. If allies are eliminated from participation, then small clans will never control anything, so I think that would be the wrong way to go, but would there be harm in giving allies the same weight in a battle as the primary participants? I can see how it makes sense, from a rational perspective, to give the main participants in a CB more weight than their allies, but in the game environment, perhaps it makes more sense to make all the points equal Then no one would hop, as there would be no benefit.
Maybe we should look at a lot of the rules and sort out what was done sort of arbitrarily, like because it made rational sense at the time, from rules or mechanics that are in place to prevent abuse, imbalance, etc.
Finally, and this is important, we run the danger of having a handful of experienced, elite players dictate changes through their ability to quickly exploit them. What I mean by that, is that someone like Dahl or Felic will probably be quicker to see an unintended use or advantage of a new rule change than a less experienced player, and then use that rule change (legally, of course), to wield destruction upon their foes, prompting the player base and/or Creator to change the rule right away before letting the rest of the game catch up to it first. Perhaps once most of the players understand how to use the new changes to their own benefit, what looked like an unfair advantage enjoyed by Felic and Dahl will just become the status quo. Again, not to pick on Felic or Dahl--I just grabbed two names out of a hat, one from each "side."
Edited the second paragraph to clarify an old rule that is no longer in place.
|
|
|
Post by Seitaarin on Jan 30, 2014 16:23:55 GMT -6
Firstly, I think an apology such as this in public media shows a great strength of moral character, and I applaud the self-corrective attitude. We all have blowouts at times, recognising and rectifying is nowhere near as common. Now, onto the bits where we are going to have to agree to disagree Grey areas are created by imposing laws. By nature laws, or rules enacted by code place definitions on what one CAN'T do ... that leaves open to the imagination and SELF moral guidance of the players to figure out what they CAN do, as well as what they SHOULDN'T do ... But everyone has a different set of liberal sensibilities, so my grey area is very different to yours, it's the same argument that is rampant IRL with regards to cultural differences. Is another culture in the wrong because they hold to a different set of key values to yourself? Purely from your point of view, yes, because you are the centre of your own little universe ... but in the big picture where everyone else is taken into account, no, because your opinion is simply one tiny isolated set of neurons firing with limitations set by nature/nurture and a very limited experience to form opinions FROM. /Philosophy-rant-off! ... down to the game ... Taking advantage is a term that can be stretched a long, long way - well into the realms of idiocy. Just as an example ... I have been called "a cheap, no talent loser" because my advanced class combination was judged by that person as "OP" ... Most people would call that a pretty stupid comment I think, class combinations are defined by the rules ... s/he did not think so. I simply state that as a glaringly obvious and extreme difference of opinion on how people think the game SHOULD be played. The moral of that story is, I don't play by YOUR rules, or even the rules of the few that care to share their OPINIONS on their PERCEPTIONS of the rules on a public forum, be it Tel'Aran'Rhiod or a chat forum. I play the game within the rules DEFINED by the developer, and much as I may get sour grapes myself if someone takes advantage to my disadvantage, I either find a way to deal with it, or I tip my hat to them for being more creative than me, or I get cranky at myself for not thinking of it myself, or any combination of those. My personal take on this, and the rules I impose on myself in this specific instance, are that during a clan battle, advantage taken is fair against viable war targets. Conversely advantage taken against non-war targets is a strict no-no for me. That gives the enemy the opportunity and means to remove my advantage if they are mindful of what's going on, therefore it becomes a valid move on the game board. Attacking a friend's character purely for self gain outside of the clan battle environment is a closed system whereby all elements are in control of the participants only, thus I consider that cheating, and will not participate. Viable war targets are 100% attributable to the opposing faction, therefore if they are the ones to hand me the advantage, then I am going to take it fully as far as I can, provided it's within the definition of the rules to do so. If you choose to do otherwise, so be it, that's your choice - I won't chide you for disagreeing with me, and I expect that same courtesy to be extended to me. RP-wise, I consider naked fighting during a clan battle akin to having an unidentified infiltrator within an enemy organisation, which SHOULD confer a SIGNIFICANT advantage, but there are no mechanics within the game as it presently stand to confer such advantage, apart from what we saw yesterday. I place the blame for what happened solely at the feet of the clan with open recuitment policy who entered into a war. More thought and care should have been placed on their part, so they deserved to get not just beaten, but beaten badly. Guild hopping ... I think bonuses should NOT be equal. Equal benefit with no cost? No. Currently you must decide to give up any guild vault items in order to hop, which is as it should be. Cost for benefit. If you are lucky enough to have all of your items personally, then more power to you, but some of us must pay significantly in stat bonuses to gain any ji advantage, and hell, it was fun going into battle with some of you guys unknowing what was going to happen, because items were a fair way off where I am reasonably comfortable with them being. Experienced players being able to exploit ... that is always always always ALWAYS going to be in play, you can't stop it, ever, period, full stop ... The thing about experienced players is if you have been around a while, then you can be roughly sure where their moral compass points, and figure out if they WILL exploit a new system. They are simply a resource that Tim should be tapping for their thoughts specifically on what they imagine could be exploited, before a rule is put into place. There's always the unknown element though ... and hell, sometimes new people are just purely gifted at finding loopholes. I think Mesaana has been pointed at a number of times for being an example of such
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 23:47:28 GMT -6
I have to admit, i have a bit of a knack for it. I havent been sitting down and thinking to myself hey how can i cheat the system today. Usually i come up with it in response to something that will cause me to lose, and i bloody hate losing. For instance the creating characters and deleting them came about before the EC and the SC were allies. They were pressuring both the cities i owned and would have taken them if i didnt do something. And no this is not an excuse it is an explanation. Nor am i justifying what i did. That was cheating and i regret that i continued on when it was no longer needed. And as for what happened in the Ebou Dar clan battle, it was in response to clan hopping that i came up with this, unfortunately not original, tactic to counter the extra points your clans were giving to the Band (Which Gavid even said bravo on realizing his mistake and exploiting it). i saw it as cheap and i responded in kind. But that being said, the naked battling is something that i shouldnt have done. I didnt take Ji/XP into consideration and that was just dumb on my part. As i am a woman of my word, regardless of what some think, i will not be doing it again. You can bet your a$$ that i will send my weak alts into open clans again though, that worked out VERY well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 23:49:10 GMT -6
That being said i would like to hear Felic's idea about a gradient scale on equipment and stamina. He proposed a 'slide scale' for it and it seemed like it would work.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 31, 2014 0:44:41 GMT -6
So here's the problem's I see that I think should be addressed next round if possible. Not just things I've been thinking about since this last battle, but some I've been thinking for a while. I'll throw out a couple ideas of how I think they could be addressed (some of which I've only thought of for only a day) so odds are there will be some holes to cover up. Or rethought out. Hopefully this will get you guys thinking and talking and we can figure out a good path forward. 1) Clan hopping during Clan Battles:This is something I admit I'm guilty of, because I haven't thought of it as a problem. Allies send support troops to help reinforce defenses. Or offenses. Helps give the smaller clans a chance against bigger clans in battles and it's something players on both sides have done. Upon further thought though, I do see some problems. By moving character in and out of the clan during the battle, they get the offensive bonus while they are in the clan but then leave and get a defensive bonus by not being in the clan. Yes, you can accomplish a better defense by staying out the battle zone completely (see below), but still an advantage. Plus, there's not stopping someone with 6 characters from running all 6 of their characters in 1 clan, which skirts the rules of only have 2 characters (3 for donors) in one clan. Suggested fix: During clan battles, the main clans involved are locked down. No one can join or leave. The one exception is that leaders will still be able to kick members, but they can't rejoin until after the battle is over regardless of if they have an invite. Players can move their characters around as much as they want before the battle begins, the battle lines are drawn. Anyone not in the clan at start time will have to work in one of the support clan, which will not be locked down.
2) Naked battling: This one is a tricky one. I think purposefully depowering a character just so your friends can use that character as a punching bag and reaping the extra benefits of beating them is super cheap, and at least toeing the line about using your characters to benefit others (if not crossing it completely). It unbalances things and just ticks off people who have been working to build their characters/clans honestly. There is no reason a player should be able to beat someone 40 levels above them. It is a temptation though, and frankly I'm surprised it's taken this long to become a problem again. Taboo only works so far. The reason this is tricky is that I don't like the idea of people being 'safe' while they are offline. My original thought was that if a player was weakened to a certain point, battles against them would be dramatically less effective. That stops naked battling, but as someone point out, it would probably mean that before most players log off they unequip themselves just to the point where battles against them become less effective. Based on how similar games with similar mechanics run, it'd likely become common practice. Also, with degrading gear there is little difference between someone who has intentionally unequipped and those who have just been beaten to a pulp. Suggested fix: Complicated problem has a complicated fix. First, no dueling anyone more than 15 levels above or below you. I'm all for someone being brave and trying to hit upward, but beyond 15 you're just stretching and really battles with huge level differences just screw up a lot of my formulas . Hitting anyone more than 15 levels below you already is discouraged (no exp or gold steal). I don't like the idea of limiting available targets, but with 15 levels you should have enough range to work with. And it's important that it's the same number up as it is down: if someone can hit you, you should be able to hit them back. Second, expand the effect of the how well equipped you are with the rewards for beating you. Currently the lines are: Using > 90% of your equip points: Heavy Using 60% to 90% of your equip points: Average Using < 60% of your equip points: Light The only effect it has right now, the experience you get goes up or down by 2 for each level difference between you and your opponent. My thought is to expand this into more levels and give it a wider affect. I don't have exact numbers figured out yet, but my thought would be that it would be more percentage based so the effect would be more precise. The effect would still be linear, with no sharp drop off on benefits if they equip below a certain point, but also it won't treat using 59% of your equip points the same as using 0 points. Need to do some number crunching, but the bottom line is the amount of xp earned from duels would be more affected by how equipped the 2 combatants are than they currently are. 3) Not participating in Clan Battles as a defense / declaring Clan Battles you don't care about: This is something that I saw play out this round that was interesting, but I didn't care for. The Shadow clans decided to bombard the Light clans with near constant Clan Battles. The Light responded by ignoring almost all of these battles. Some of the battles declared on the Shadow side were for cities they really didn't want to strengthen, but only declared to distract the Light. The Light began defending battles by running turns BEFORE/AFTER the Clan Battle and avoiding the battle as much as possible. While both were valid strategies, I think it cheapened the idea of the Clan Battle. Clan Battles should mean something. If you rule a city and a clan declares a battle against you, you should be compelled to stand and fight for your city. If you declare a battle, you should realize there are consequences for doing so and not be declaring them just for the sake of it. The problem as I see it is that neither side currently "has much skin in the game". The prize for winning the battle is coin (not a big deal) as well as half the Ji earned by players involved in the battle + 100. If one side doesn't participate in the battle, the clan really only earns 100 Ji more than they could have without the battle. When clans have 5-10k Ji in a city, it's less risky for the defending clan to avoid the battle and let the attacker get their 100 Ji, instead of putting up a fight and risking the attacker getting hundreds of Ji from you. If you're the attacker and you don't think the opponent will defend, why not just declare a battle and get an easy 100 Ji. If they fight back, you can put up a fight and have a chance to win big. Starting a battle somewhere as a distraction is a valid strategy. But there needs to be a penalty for losing that distraction battle as well. Suggested fix: When I added clan battles originally, the idea of Clan's Ji in a city ever decreasing wasn't heard of the game wasn't setup to handle it. That's obviously not the case anymore. So I propose changing the prize pot for the winner of the clan battle. Half the Ji earned by players on either side of the battle still goes in the pot, but instead of a measly 100 Ji coming from nowhere and going in the pot, the prize comes from the 2 clans involved at the end of the battle. If the defending clan loses the battle, 5% of the clan's Ji is taken from them and put into the prize pool. If the attacking clan loses the battle, 10% of the clan's Ji is put in the pool. Two reasons it's twice as much for the attacker if they lose: 1) the attacking clan only needs 50% of the ruling clan's Ji, so this way they are always risking at least as much Ji as the defender and 2) they are the ones choosing this battle. If you're picking the fight, you should have more to lose. 4) Avoiding the battle zone during clan battles:When a clan battle is being fought, it's become standard practice on both sides to avoid the battle area as much as you can except for running your own battles. The problem is there is no incentive to stay in there and every reason to avoid it (unless you know that no one on the other side can earn more points than you get if they hit you). Gameplay wise is makes a lot of sense, but RP wise it's completely opposite of what you should be doing. If someone is trying to burn your city, you don't get to stay ruler by running away and hiding. You can argue it's guerrilla warfare, but those who employ guerrilla warfare usually don't rule in large cities where they are responsible for protecting a large number of people... Suggested fix:Not sure on this one, but would like to fix it. Was thinking perhaps hourly point bonuses for characters who have been parked in the zone, but would be tough to balance. Would need to be enough to make it worth the risk of getting pin-cushioned by the other side, but not so big that the battle is simply decided by which side has more members sitting in the area. Open to idea
So that's what I see as needing addressed. Feel free to add more problems that you see and suggestions. If you see holes in my suggestions, please point them out now rather than just waiting and exploiting them next time. Go Team!
|
|
|
Post by dahllia on Jan 31, 2014 3:56:21 GMT -6
Not gonna post a long one now, but I like the idea for 3).
Battles should be costly to start and costly to lose. Really didn't like ignoring every battle this age.
An idea for 4) could be as you say, a bonus for staying in the zone. But you could maybe add that you get x% points for winning a duel with a char from the enemy clan no matter where they are?
|
|
|
Post by Seitaarin on Jan 31, 2014 7:10:36 GMT -6
Needs more thought, but initial feeling is that 1), 3) and 4) are all able to be treated as symptoms of the same problem ... 2) is an exploitable mechanic, different issue altogether. So my thoughts at the moment go something like this ... mercenary pay for allies ... keep the 1/2 ji restriction, offer gold payment per hour along the lines of performer/cutpurse as incentive to remain inside the battle zone for allies of the attackers/defenders. Higher gold payout for the winner (incentive to win battles), reduced payout for losers (incentive to win battles) Don't restrict clan battles being announced, but rather have a clan battle cost a fee to initiate, propaganda costs, costs involved in false troop movements to appear as if preparing for battle, ringing in mercenaries to the borders, etc. That leaves the battles open to be announced at any time, as long as the attacker is willing to pay for it. That fee is added to the pot, used in distribution of mercenary funds, whatever, Non participation by a defender MAY result in total loss of the city, regardless of invested ji. If an attacking army marches up to the gates and there is nobody there to defend, they take the city. The people won't support a ruler that doesn't defend them at all, no matter what good deeds they may have performed in the past ... perhaps order/chaos can be the modifier for the amount of win required for a TKO Are the benefits for ruling a city big enough to warrant the risk of defending? That's an honest question, I don't know what the benefits are, other than financial, haven't looked at it. Should do ... population ... taxes? ... population loss during clan battle based on total ji earnt for the battle? If ji is the measure of the battle raging between clans, then perhaps imposing a population (taxes again? defenses?) cost on a clan battle might make things a bit more even and tactical, as neither attacker nor defender will want to mount huge losses on the city for taking it? City defenses ... do they currently provide a bonus to the city owner when faced with a Horde/Army incoming? As an added incentive to own cities, perhaps a bonus of some sort can be built into that system? I'm not sure how the exp works on hordes and armies though, so some small balancing may be needed for extremely built up cities ... although that could provide incentives for an attacking army to fork out $ and time to decimate population/defenders as well, providing another tactical element to light vs shadow battling ... I have to stop thinking on that topic now, and just throw those ideas out there ... As for 2) ... I don't see this as particularly difficult to fix ... currently exp for duels revolves around a base exp with key +/- being derived from character level difference and the difference in the player's gear scores compared to their theoretical cap ( the light/avg/heavy) ... so wouldn't a viable system simply be to use that % gear score value as a modifier for the exp gain from the loser, rather than bracketed, hard set values? Then keep the bracketed set values for the modifier from the winner's gear. eg ... player's gear score is 0% (naked) ... attacker gets huge exp for winning, yay I rock the haxxor ... x 0 ... + 0 from using ANY gear (attacker), compared to light gear (defender) ... d'oh! That would be a very minor code change in the exp formulae wouldn't it, that would effectively remove it as a viable exploit for exp. ALSO requires the level restriction for duels, however. I shall explain why ... No I Won't ... Tim I sent this paragraph as I typed it to your inbox. This is what happens when I get to thinking. The level cap for duels NEEDS to be in place, full stop. End of rant, please pick to pieces, it's all just ideas
|
|
|
Post by Seitaarin on Jan 31, 2014 7:55:07 GMT -6
Non participation by a defender MAY result in total loss of the city, regardless of invested ji. If an attacking army marches up to the gates and there is nobody there to defend, they take the city. The people won't support a ruler that doesn't defend them at all, no matter what good deeds they may have performed in the past ... perhaps order/chaos can be the modifier for the amount of win required for a TKO As the difference between attacker/defender ji becomes more pronounced, so does the chaos/order within a city increase/decrease ... if chaos reaches a particular threshold value, or %, then the ruling ji can be flipped ... introduces much more tactical use of offices as a part of overall strategy, too. Oh and speaking of offices, either make them sellable but keep the 6 restriction (the preferable option for balance, I think), or remove the restriction for only 6 of them to be allowed altogether. Make them more useful tools in the light/shadow struggle. Another thought doth occur ... battle fronts and supply lines ... mechanically speaking, there is no travelling as such in our world, no ways, no flying around on toraken, you need a horse to get from A to B to C etc. That being the case, should clan battles only be able to be fought on a controlled border? Got this idea from Felic's map, actually That again would allow a more tactical element to come into play between the controlling factions ... Linked cities then increase Order, unlinked city steadily shifts more towards chaos, making the city easier to capture ... thus simulating supply lines in controlled territories ...
|
|
|
Post by Jenlyn on Jan 31, 2014 12:56:11 GMT -6
I don't see the benefit of changing the way it's done now, with Ji, to a fee-based system. I don't see what's wrong with Tim's suggestion, nor how your reworking of the system improves upon it. It would be easier and simpler to implement his solution for 3.
Losing a town by default for not defending it at all makes sense, though. You couldn't reasonably expect to abandon a town and have it withstand a siege.
Linked towns and needing to border a town to fight for it might be worth exploring, but it would further complicate things. It might be better left for a later version, something that we could work towards gradually.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 31, 2014 13:10:23 GMT -6
Problem is see with the border idea is that clans that don't rule any cities wouldn't be able to declare clan battles...
|
|
|
Post by Shylah.Sedai on Jan 31, 2014 13:32:40 GMT -6
Another thought, is that if a clan declares a battle, they shouldn't be able to go and hide from it. Seriously, when the only massive points you can get are from duels, it should count for the CB if you successfully duel a person, no matter where they are banked. We may have ignored a lot of CBs, but there were to many freaking CBs being called. And those we did fight for, the enemy HID in outlaying areas that didn't touch the city. I, personally, think that if you're clan declared a CB, no matter where you hide it's a point for the CB. I hope that makes sense. I'm not feeling even close to 70% today.
|
|
|
Post by fearless on Jan 31, 2014 16:29:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Seitaarin on Jan 31, 2014 20:37:59 GMT -6
Jenlyn - Not a change from, an addition to @tim - fair point on not restricting to border conflicts for battle lines, supply lines could use some debunking still though, it offers a practical and attractive application of the order/chaos system, particularly if combined with below, maybe? fearless' linked post, which is certainly relevant here ... another suggestion perhaps ... a building that can be purchased by a clan, the "Clan Hall" ... novel egs would be White Tower, Black Tower, Fortress of Light ... each clan needs a base of operations, the further from it you get, the more difficult it is to maintain control. Make it movable once per week or so, so play to nomadic type clans that keep no static command post, eg Aiel clan in the wetlands ... putting a time limit on though prevents it from being spam moved to offer influence bonuses all over the place all the time, also accounts for the time it takes to erect the command centre. I'm a dreamer perhaps Going to harp on the order/chaos balance shift being the sliding scale measuring stick for difficulty holding a city's leash, just makes sense to me
|
|
|
Post by Felic on Jan 31, 2014 23:23:40 GMT -6
i like the border idea and the clan hall coul dbe interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Jenlyn on Feb 1, 2014 18:41:07 GMT -6
Another thought, is that if a clan declares a battle, they shouldn't be able to go and hide from it. Seriously, when the only massive points you can get are from duels, it should count for the CB if you successfully duel a person, no matter where they are banked. We may have ignored a lot of CBs, but there were to many freaking CBs being called. And those we did fight for, the enemy HID in outlaying areas that didn't touch the city. I, personally, think that if you're clan declared a CB, no matter where you hide it's a point for the CB. I hope that makes sense. I'm not feeling even close to 70% today. I think this idea has merit, but there should be a mechanism in place so that no player can be treated like a Ji-filled pinata. A clan battle in Tar Valon should not be won or lost because of the relentless pounding of an account or two hiding in Haddon Mirk or something. On kind of a side note though, it is cool that we are even having this conversation, that this has become a problem. The game is alive and starting to thrive. The game means something to a larger player base, and they don't all have the same aims, so the conflict between them, and the creativity that conflict brings about, is stretching the limits of the game a little bit. More work for Tim, but it's better than building an awesome playground and only having one or two kids show up and then only use the swings.
|
|