|
|
Post by f1zban9898 on Mar 3, 2009 16:00:13 GMT -6
i think a defender in a challenge should recieve xp. if your challenged you gold is at risk so why shouldnt you recieve some XP if you win maybe normal xp if you win against a higher ranked foe and a reduced amount if it a win on an up challlenge
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 3, 2009 16:34:40 GMT -6
The reason I've always been reluctant on this one is that it opens up too many channels for abuse. The last version of GoS that had this ended up with clans allies attacking each other to keep the most xp for their members. Sure, I can say no xp for battling allies, but it would just result in unofficial alliances.
Any system that discourages people from attacking their enemies just seems wrong to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mat Cauthon on Mar 3, 2009 21:17:43 GMT -6
I still think that when you fight Enemies you should get more XP
|
|
|
|
Post by f1zban9898 on Mar 4, 2009 3:34:15 GMT -6
hmm never thought of that
|
|
|
|
Post by hossla on Mar 5, 2009 23:49:36 GMT -6
maybe set something up so you can auto attack enemies
|
|
|
|
Post by nightshade on Mar 16, 2009 21:39:16 GMT -6
i think it should give a quarter of the xp that would normally be given if that player had attacked the aggressor. it should be a set percentage of minimal amount also is thier a way to set it up so that allies that are defending get no xp whatsoever or maybe put a clause of something like
if clanplayera = clanplayerb then defxp%= null
if clanplayera =/= clanplayerb then defxp%=25
or something like that so that it selects by clan name only i dont have a clue how the database is setup yet im sure i could think of something lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 17, 2009 10:24:56 GMT -6
Possibly. It still wouldn't fix the issue of unofficial alliances where they battle each other exclusively in order to up their xp.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightshade on Mar 17, 2009 16:14:31 GMT -6
how about setting something like a duel timer that limits the amount of fighting they do or that limits the amount of times that you can get defense off of a character for say a day and once that limit on that character is reached they no longer get defense. additionally this could still happen say i team up with another character that is far below me or above me and i remove my armor and weapons and basically walk around naked while i am attacked or they walk around naked while they are attacked this is the same issue as the defense issue yet is executed in a different manner
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 17, 2009 16:44:29 GMT -6
how about setting something like a duel timer that limits the amount of fighting they do or that limits the amount of times that you can get defense off of a character for say a day and once that limit on that character is reached they no longer get defense. Keeping track of all that would require lots more database calls and size, slowing things down. Plus there would need to be a mechanism to tell people who they've battled so many times in the past to know who will still get them xp. It'd make things a lot more complex than they need to be. Besides, it wouldn't really stop two clans from doing this as they would likely have enough people to spread it out. If not, then it would effect clans abilities to wage ligitimate wars on other clans. True, but that's why I also made experience effected by how equiped you are compared to your opponent. While it won't always cover the difference, it at least limits the usefulness. Long story short, no to defense experience at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by nightshade on Mar 17, 2009 16:59:20 GMT -6
lol not trying to argue a point here im just trying to think of ways that might be possible to enact certain things and pointing out other things that i have noticed which might relate to said idea. However since i do not completely know the mechanisms and all of the semantics of the battle engine and scripts i can only brainstorm and come up with ways that might or might not work.
Additionally you are the sole coder at this point in time and therefore it is up to you to decide upon which things you plan to implement and which ideas become scrapped.
as an aside and off topic i sent you a private msg which will hopefully help you understand where i am coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 18, 2009 8:44:01 GMT -6
lol not trying to argue a point here im just trying to think of ways that might be possible to enact certain things and pointing out other things that i have noticed which might relate to said idea. However since i do not completely know the mechanisms and all of the semantics of the battle engine and scripts i can only brainstorm and come up with ways that might or might not work. You can check out the Newbie Central board for a lot of the documentation about how things work. As well as the Wiki. As I have often admitted, I've sucked at documenting things in the past, so things aren't all there. If there's anything you want to know (short of me explaining in detail how the code works), just ask and I'm sure I or someone else will be able to answer it. True, and that's probably not likely to change at this point. I love working on this game. I see it as sorta my adopted baby (loosely speaking of course). I have a broad vision of where I want the game to go and slowly but surely we're getting there. However, that doesn't mean that I can't be swayed or won't take in new ideas. I'd say probably over half the changes I've made have either been someone else's idea completely or strongly influenced by them. I've even gone with ideas that I was initially opposed to (Clan Vault, Deleting Alts (it's found it's way onto my todo list now...), and one of Ed's suggestions that I haven't implemented or announced yet to semi-name a few). I'm saying this because I don't want anyone to be discouraged from adding suggetsions. As long as you layout your reasoning clearly, are flexible, and don't try to force things to happen if I disagree, I'm more than willing to listen. I'm actually quite happy to. |
|
