It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

To Enforce, or NOT to enforce?
Poll ended at Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:02 am
Yes. Please enforce. This form of farming ruins BD! 66%  66%  [ 94 ]
No. I would like to be able to have "friends" be my conquer! 25%  25%  [ 36 ]
I do not care. 9%  9%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 143
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 am 
Lieutenant Major
Lieutenant Major
 Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:13 pm
Posts: 1786
Quote:
Good examples of this are when you attack an alliance, and suddenly anywhere from 1 to 4 or more conquers of that alliance suddenly come to life and spam you, or nuke you or anything that hurts your attempt at harming the conquerors.

OR when an alliance is gearing up to attack you, and suddenly their conquers come to life and begin to soften you up or spread your forces out before the main attack happens.

These are relatively common scenarios, and you players have been on the fence for a while about it. Cast your vote and leave no doubt from now on whether or not you want me to police this sort of thing on F4 at the very least.

Should I just allow this outright? Allow people to have their friends "watch" or "quit" in such a way? The only reason I could see allowing someone to conquer an ally in such a way is if they are 'playing keep away' with crystals (in which case I would hope to see a prompt liberation of conquer), or if the player legitimately was quitting and the alliance wanted to consolidate the crystals earned together (in which case I would hope to see the colony delete asap).

Should I just completely disregard these types of play?


I find this a very hard decision to make.. I myself have had times when I was completely losing an era, and decided to simply rally the entire world against a certain alliance. I would send tons and tons of messages to everyone conquered by that alliance, and to their friendlies etc. Many of them indeed turned against them, and that made it possible to eventually defeat them.

One of the only possible ways for a weak alliance to eventually beat a much stronger alliance is to forge friendships, gather allies and attack together. As for the conquers suddenly attacking and softening alliance X up, to me it seems they have a very clear incentive to attack the alliance as they have them conquered and it is very much in their favor to see alliance X lose.

Quote:
if people continue this system it ruins the game for the true players who are trying to rise to the top by tactics and economy and instead they try to win by threats, flattery, "protection". please admin outlaw sub alliances. if your conquered why not just make it so that you cant help your conquerer like not being able to attack other colonies while being under someone else? it doesn't even make sense why a person would attack someone else while under rule of another player. you get a crystal but what's that going to do? it just makes you a target. please do something soon its bad enough to go to war with a huge alliance its worse to go to war with all their little indoctrinated too.


Tactics? You mean gathering allies, using spies, finding out where to attack etc? As for economy, if you aren't on the winning side initially, there is a good chance the rank 1 alliance will have most of the mines and conquers. Their economy is much stronger. You can try and beat them using economy only, but you will need allies for sure.

As for only being able to attack your conqueror, if my conqueror is the rank 1 guy then I would much rather first go for outposts around me and resource OPs, as to get some sort of income going. Sending my full army at the rank 1 guy will most likely not even have use.

I think the main problem with this scenario is that you can't know who are friends and who aren't. Maybe player A just is very easily convinced, and alliance X used that to its advantage to make him do their bidding in exchange for not killing his units. I know more cases of people letting their crystals get taken and letting themselves be conquered to conserve their army, I've done it myself.

Not enforcing it brings problems, and enforcing it brings problems as well. I think we might just have to accept that Battledawn is for a large part about friendships and about having other people do what you want, and therefore not enforce this.

_________________
Image

Made by KazeToushin, thank you!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:35 am 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:32 am
Posts: 624
Location: Eire for life haha
Gender: male
hmm fair point, I think the main problem is people always tend to say something similar to "We will give Alliance X the relic/We will let them conquer us as they will ally with us next round/as player X in alliance X is joining us next round" as long as there are multiple worlds people will concentrate on one and dont really care about the other so will allow themselves to be conquered in one to be safer or keep relations high with a player on another and doubt we can ever change that lol

_________________
Image

Thanks for the Sig Dawnice ;}~
Skype: cianoige

Wins on this account:F4 Era 16 (Led JFF and finished Rank 1)
Image

Allies ATM:none ;{~


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:05 pm 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:52 pm
Posts: 982
Location: Sailing in Black Pearl
lol BMAC.. so it was you due 2 whom this situation arised... :p

Then I say ban BMAC :p

_________________
Image
Sig thx to Darklighter...
Life’s pretty good, and why wouldn’t it be? I’m a pirate, after all.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:51 pm 
Corporal
Corporal
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:22 pm
Posts: 49
LOL, Bmac wasnt farming. Bmac didnt do anyones biddings. I left my alliance and they conquard my colony spliting my xtals...Thats all i did and thats farming? Naaa, this situation is bs its ment to mimic me but didnt cause i didnt do the work of alliance X once i left. I was accused of farming without proof basicly. lol i would have ratherd the bann then removale of my colony honistly cause i could fought the bann but kinda hard to fight when u dont even have a colony anymore... If u can find proof of me farming please do some if not dont complain about something im not doing:D


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:13 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:04 pm
Posts: 271
Location: Behind you!
Hey, lets not be derailed by petty personal attacks here... btw I see that most of the comments here are either divided or no. Yet the yes votes more than double the votes for no. (Wth?). Well, if the ones who vote Yes could please post their reasoning... As, this way it looks like ppl entered, clocked yes, and left before reading any of the commentaries...

And, the point of farming is that colonies come in just so they serve as a conquer to a player, and not actually play himself/herself. But if the conquer, even though he works for the conqueror, still plays the era, then it just means he took a decision of what direction to take... but he's still playing, so whats the issue? That it is unfair to the newbies? Well, we cant just take out all of the advantages of being a pro, just cause the newbies dont stand a chance. They already dont. And this isnt something grave, or even worrying to them. These conquered friends dont have the posibility to conquer, so all they will do is attack noobs around the hive to destroy their armies, and possibly suicide into any enemy that breaches said hive, but they cant do much anyways.

And that is, if they actually do anything. Plus, how many players would simply let a friend conquer them, work theis butts off for him, to win nothing in the end? Perhaps you know of a few, but theyre so little. And even then this barely influences things. Plus, there is the aspect that you cannot know for sure that that "friend" wont turn on you. Sure, he let you conquer him and all, but if you constantly request or even demand stuff out of him, when he doesnt have a care for the era, this makes ppl angry. It may sound easy to get a friend to just give himself up as a conquer, but keeping him that way and also cooperating with you, it aint so easy. This oly reinforces my reasons why I say no to this, and again I make a call for the ones who agree with this idea. I havent seen much support to it, other than the voting bar.

_________________
Image
Special thanks to Aister for the siggy!!!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:44 am 
Private 1st class
Private 1st class
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:21 am
Posts: 13
Gender: male
vaultdweller101 wrote:
Hey, lets not be derailed by petty personal attacks here... btw I see that most of the comments here are either divided or no. Yet the yes votes more than double the votes for no. (Wth?). Well, if the ones who vote Yes could please post their reasoning... As, this way it looks like ppl entered, clocked yes, and left before reading any of the commentaries...

And, the point of farming is that colonies come in just so they serve as a conquer to a player, and not actually play himself/herself. But if the conquer, even though he works for the conqueror, still plays the era, then it just means he took a decision of what direction to take... but he's still playing, so whats the issue? That it is unfair to the newbies? Well, we cant just take out all of the advantages of being a pro, just cause the newbies dont stand a chance. They already dont. And this isnt something grave, or even worrying to them. These conquered friends dont have the posibility to conquer, so all they will do is attack noobs around the hive to destroy their armies, and possibly suicide into any enemy that breaches said hive, but they cant do much anyways.

And that is, if they actually do anything. Plus, how many players would simply let a friend conquer them, work theis butts off for him, to win nothing in the end? Perhaps you know of a few, but theyre so little. And even then this barely influences things. Plus, there is the aspect that you cannot know for sure that that "friend" wont turn on you. Sure, he let you conquer him and all, but if you constantly request or even demand stuff out of him, when he doesnt have a care for the era, this makes ppl angry. It may sound easy to get a friend to just give himself up as a conquer, but keeping him that way and also cooperating with you, it aint so easy. This oly reinforces my reasons why I say no to this, and again I make a call for the ones who agree with this idea. I havent seen much support to it, other than the voting bar.

It could go either way really, I had to think about this for a while....


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:12 pm 
Corporal
Corporal
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:41 pm
Posts: 77
Location: Everyone can see it, only I can get in.
Well, to enforce this rule basically denied a part of diplomacy, but not to enforce this rule will result in more diplomacy and less strategic gameplay.

_________________
Image
如果要想赢,必需保持平常心。


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:09 am 
Private
Private
 Profile

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:38 pm
Posts: 2
[color=#00FF00]
vaultdweller101 wrote:
Hey, lets not be derailed by petty personal attacks here... btw I see that most of the comments here are either divided or no. Yet the yes votes more than double the votes for no. (Wth?). Well, if the ones who vote Yes could please post their reasoning... As, this way it looks like ppl entered, clocked yes, and left before reading any of the commentaries...

And, the point of farming is that colonies come in just so they serve as a conquer to a player, and not actually play himself/herself. But if the conquer, even though he works for the conqueror, still plays the era, then it just means he took a decision of what direction to take... but he's still playing, so whats the issue? That it is unfair to the newbies? Well, we cant just take out all of the advantages of being a pro, just cause the newbies dont stand a chance. They already dont. And this isnt something grave, or even worrying to them. These conquered friends dont have the posibility to conquer, so all they will do is attack noobs around the hive to destroy their armies, and possibly suicide into any enemy that breaches said hive, but they cant do much anyways.

And that is, if they actually do anything. Plus, how many players would simply let a friend conquer them, work theis butts off for him, to win nothing in the end? Perhaps you know of a few, but theyre so little. And even then this barely influences things. Plus, there is the aspect that you cannot know for sure that that "friend" wont turn on you. Sure, he let you conquer him and all, but if you constantly request or even demand stuff out of him, when he doesnt have a care for the era, this makes ppl angry. It may sound easy to get a friend to just give himself up as a conquer, but keeping him that way and also cooperating with you, it aint so easy. This oly reinforces my reasons why I say no to this, and again I make a call for the ones who agree with this idea. I havent seen much support to it, other than the voting bar.



i voted yes because its totally not fair to players who aren't newbies and the ones who are. if a player is doing the bidding for an alliance while under his rule then how will that player who is honest and not a sub ever win when he needs to fight an essentially unfightable player. He is unfightable because the sub player may lose his troops and all but what will the player who is trying to fight the main alliance lose as well? he will lose everything, be weak, and get conquered. why should an honest player lose the game simply because players are allowing themselves to be meat shields for the bigger alliances just so that they can have "protection". its not fair at all why should the honest players lose. yes your right, if players who are conquered just give up then ya that is totally their choice and totally reasonable but the issue is for those players who make themselves meat shields and suicide forces to weaken another player. lastly the issue of how many players do this is still large even though it is a tiny majority of people who do it. people get banned for making multiple accounts because this allows a player to make many alliances and conquer himself many times giving him a boost over all other players, how is this any different if you know the guy and get him to make an account for you and have him let you conquer him? for all we know they could just have multiple computers in multiple locations and all be the same person. these "few" players who do this become the power players so yes it is a big problem because these players dont earn their power they take it through cheap ways. enforcing this will be a step toward a more equal and fair battledawn why wouldn't anyone want that?


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:55 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:52 pm
Posts: 982
Location: Sailing in Black Pearl
@Seth...
So I see enforce got more yes than nays... So was it enforced in f4?? curious... Coz similar things happens in other severs also.. So was this enforce thing just for f4 or other servers as well...

_________________
Image
Sig thx to Darklighter...
Life’s pretty good, and why wouldn’t it be? I’m a pirate, after all.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Enforce / Do not enforce... (your thoughts?)
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:56 am 
Specialist
Specialist
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:24 am
Posts: 36
on one hand, BD is trying to increase the number of players in a server. on the other hand, they cannot play the way they want to play.

everybody has the right to choose their friends and build a relationship on their own terms. this happens in real life. don't see why BD shouldn't reflect that. otherwise act against subs as well. ":P" or even better, let's all play BD solo. ":P" [oh shucks, guess thatz too sad. XD] and guess what, this game is ALL ABOUT FRIENDSHIPS AND RELATIONSHIPS and less of armies and ops and scans and nukes, as i see it.

otherwise friendships and subs can only be overridden by an era winner only if they BOOST heavily. why don't somebody want to start on the "game imbalance" boosting creates? [shhhhh..... they need to make money, don't they? ":P"]

if an alliance is going to kill another one, guess they need to prepare for all eventualities before they get out. otherwise guess they are suckers.

i feel BD should reflect real life more than some rules in a game. ":P"

and oh, don't forget that admins will not be able to judge correctly; hence proper enforcement is not possible.

btw, this is a game to make money and also have some fun. things cannot hence be completely "balanced." but to "balance the game", friendships and relationships are not what is to be burned. so, everybody, don't get too imbalanced trying to balance BD. :lol:

I VOTE NO!!!

cheers,
crazy harry [F4:era 15]


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl