It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:27 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:59 pm 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 562
Gender: male
I would like to add that even though I dont know if you will get compensation, This is the way it is. Floating squads are even more explotiable since if I want to save alot of squads I simply kick my alliance mate and let him take all the damage...

It is easier and less unfair to let all squads sationed on the Op defend.

_________________
Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:27 pm 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:30 pm
Posts: 371
So you're saying that the game mechanics work fine if you were to kick a member that is returning 10 squads back to an outpost which already has 10 squads at that outpost when he lands he essentially just killed his own self?

That's the worst argument I've ever seen on these forums. Ever.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:42 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:47 pm
Posts: 2418
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: male
The mechanic is that units parked on an outpost / colony will ALWAYS defend.
This means that if you have squads parked on your alliance member's outpost, and he then leaves/is booted from the alliance and your own units land on that outpost, all units that are parked on that asset will still act in defense and yes, those units will fight your own units if you are not the owner.

This has been the case for about a year as that is when we changed it. This happened, because before this change, the units on said asset would then essentially become un-attackable, which was widely exploited and abused to save units from being killed or damaged.

Basically, what would have happened then is that the units would (as I said) be rendered unattackable. This means that if you were on your way to murdering thousands of units on an outpost, and the owner of those units was not online, the alliance leader could simply boot the owner of the outpost from the alliance and save all units parked there that did not belong to the owner.

This is a wide mechanic and affects everyone equally. There will never be compensation in such a case where everyone has to deal with the same mechanic on equal ground. Sorry.

JUST TO CLARIFY THE MECHANIC: All squads parked on an asset will defend that asset until they are moved, even after that member is no longer in your alliance. This means that if Player A is removed from your alliance and you have units parked on his OP, then moving to that OP will result in your units defending that OP, even if this means fighting your own units.

_________________
Battle Dawn Staff
Community Management Specialist
Technical Support
World Administrator
Music Composer

Welcome to the best free multiplayer war strategy game on the web!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:25 am 
Corporal
Corporal
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:14 am
Posts: 48
Seth wrote:

This is a wide mechanic and affects everyone equally. There will never be compensation in such a case where everyone has to deal with the same mechanic on equal ground. Sorry.

JUST TO CLARIFY THE MECHANIC: All squads parked on an asset will defend that asset until they are moved, even after that member is no longer in your alliance. This means that if Player A is removed from your alliance and you have units parked on his OP, then moving to that OP will result in your units defending that OP, even if this means fighting your own units.

I'm sorry, but this is a poor solution to whatever the original problem was. I can see this bug being exploited much more often. If I am understanding correctly, if I were leaving an alliance on poor terms, I could wait until a large number of units were returning to a well defended outpost that I controlled, and simply leave the alliance just before they reach the destination thereby destroying my old alliances army. In fact, a cynical mind may think to insert a covert traitor for just this purpose.

I understand why you would like the units on the outpost to all go defensive, but I don't understand why you can't make incoming allies recognize their own team, much less their own army.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:50 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:02 pm
Posts: 1554
Gender: female
Allyn wrote:
If I am understanding correctly, if I were leaving an alliance on poor terms, I could wait until a large number of units were returning to a well defended outpost that I controlled, and simply leave the alliance just before they reach the destination thereby destroying my old alliances army. In fact, a cynical mind may think to insert a covert traitor for just this purpose.


I agree. We had this case twice the last 2 eras. You don't have to be cynical for that. Its enough to forget that another member will come back with less than eta 1 from a conquer to a full gate and the owner of the gate left the alliance.
This is more easy to abuse than it was before.

_________________
Community Manager BattleDawn/ SuperMechs
BattleDawn on Facebook


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:17 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:47 pm
Posts: 2418
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: male
Once again, you simply cannot please everyone no matter what you decide. We can put it back to the old way, but the first time a war pins on taking a single outpost and destroying the army there, and that player leaves or is booted to negate being able to do any damage at all to that army, we will find ourselves right back in hot water. One simply cannot win for losing.




_________________
Battle Dawn Staff
Community Management Specialist
Technical Support
World Administrator
Music Composer

Welcome to the best free multiplayer war strategy game on the web!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:05 pm 
Corporal
Corporal
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:14 am
Posts: 48
Seth wrote:
Once again, you simply cannot please everyone no matter what you decide. We can put it back to the old way, but the first time a war pins on taking a single outpost and destroying the army there, and that player leaves or is booted to negate being able to do any damage at all to that army, we will find ourselves right back in hot water. One simply cannot win for losing.

I'm not saying change it back, just make it make sense. If I attack a neutral outpost at the same time as a teammate, we don't attack each other, why should we attack each other if I return to a neutral outpost that just became neutral? There is no circumstance that I can think of where it makes sense for units from the same alliance to attack each other, much less the same member.

DEF alliance defending, members DEF1, DEF2, DEF3.
ATT alliance attacking, member ATT1.

Scenario 1: ATT1 is attacking outpost belonging to DEF3. DEF1 & DEF2 are defending the outpost. DEF kicks DEF3 or DEF3 deletes, and DEF1 & DEF2 defend a neutral outpost against ATT1. Fine (although if they win they should now own the outpost, but I bet they don't)

Scenario 2: ATT1 is attacking outpost belonging to DEF3. DEF1 is defending the outpost and DEF2 is returning to it. DEF kicks DEF3 or DEF3 deletes, DEF1 defends a neutral outpost against ATT1 and DEF2 attacks his own teammate. That doesn't make sense, he should be helping his teammate. In this current situation, if my team gets spied and I come to help them and DEF3 happens to delete, I would actually help ATT1 wipe out my own team. That's crazy.

Your using the abuse angle that a team is kicking a member to save their units, but this happens when a player deletes too. It's not the teams fault and they shouldn't lose units because of it.

Scenario 3: This is the case at hand, DEF1 and DEF2 are sitting on an outpost belonging to DEF3. DEF1 is returning to the outpost and DEF3 deletes or leaves the alliance. The current mechanics cause DEF2 to attack himself as well as DEF1, his own teammate. How does that make sense?

Scenario 4: DEF3 owns an outpost and DEF1 has a ton of units on it. DEF3 is ticked off or was planted in the alliance to cause trouble and sees that DEF2 is returning to the outpost. DEF3 leaves the alliance and causes DEF1 & DEF2 to clash and almost wipe each other out. Now that's the kind of abuse that bothers me. That's what we are open for now.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:17 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:47 pm
Posts: 2418
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: male
Ill see what can be done about it. The feedback I got from development was that it was one or the other because of the way that the database processes information. The battle system already soaks up alot of processing at tick change, and adding something which would allow differentiation in these scenarios would cause some sort of problem with the tick engine.

I cannot make promises.

_________________
Battle Dawn Staff
Community Management Specialist
Technical Support
World Administrator
Music Composer

Welcome to the best free multiplayer war strategy game on the web!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:18 pm 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:30 pm
Posts: 371
As it stands it's just a defective game mechanic that needs improved just like the whole nuke situation we were up against a month or so ago.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: What did Power's squads say to the Power's squads?!
PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:22 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:47 pm
Posts: 2418
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: male
Well, I brought the problem to devs and received the expected response.

When inquiring about altering the coding to simply prevent alliances from attacking their own units in these instances, the following scenario was posed to me to reflect the complications that could arise:

"the case is too complicated:
what if you have allied troops docked on target,
but you're attacking it and another alliance is attacking it as well?

what will those troops do? defend? join the attack?
too many bugs and problems will arise."

I puzzled over it for a few minutes myself trying to examine it from a coding perspective, and realized that he is right. Differentiating defense in this situation would be ridiculously complicated, and with the limitations of being a browser based game (as opposed to a downloaded client which can process much more information from within the game client itself without resulting in server lag, stopped ticks or any other myriad of possible bugs), I fear we are stuck with one or the other.

I personally think that no army should ever be able to be completely shielded from attack, as that negates ANY feasible strategy to counter it. A really critical scenario to demonstrate this would be:

-Your enemy alliance captured a gate near to your hive and has managed to defend almost long enough to gain control. Your alliance has managed to widdle the defending force down just enough so that you can muster several hundred units for a final assault (which will be pretty much all of the units you have in the area to adequately do the job). You know its all or nothing, as if you don't win the battle now, your forces will be too weak to sustain any more attacks at this time, but you know that you have exactly what you need to get it done. No more. You launch the attack and ETA 1, the alliance boots the owner of the outpost who also retreats his squads the same tick. You take the outpost without a fight, but hundreds of the enemy troops still remain there and there is nothing you can do about it. Now, not only do you have a sizable force there that you could have potentially defeated, but the enemy has infinite amount of time to bring in reinforcements for those forces and there is absolutely nothing you can do to harm the troops which are already on your doorstep.-

Instead, it may be a nasty inconvenience in short-term attacks, but the current scenario still has the potential to counter and avoid the issue. Granted, in the short term scenarios it is considerably harder to do so, the ability to counter by means of avoidance still exists which makes it overall the lesser of two evils.

_________________
Battle Dawn Staff
Community Management Specialist
Technical Support
World Administrator
Music Composer

Welcome to the best free multiplayer war strategy game on the web!


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 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
WarLingo Android Mobile Game

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