Land farm

[Firetooth]

I know this was brought up right since beta testing began, but I still think it's a small issue that could use resolving. At the moment land farm can be maxed, but attacks can't be opened, which means at times it's pretty useless as a land source. Would it be possible to clan landfarm, or make it unmaxable or something?

[Durza]

Faster attack refill?

[Sharptooh]

Faster attack refill?

The problem is still there, unless you make it refill at a ridiculous extent (which makes it pretty much unmaxxable)

[cloud]

The optimal idea would to allow attacks on the landfarm until it hit a certain amount of land, let's say 5k. Once it hits 5k than no more attacks are allowed, but unlimited are allowed while it's above that magic number.

Having it unmaxable would likely mean some assrabbit would constantly attempt to kill it.

[Shadow]

actually killing the land farm doesn't do anything (I did it once). As soon as someone drops land, it magically comes back to life.

To be honest I kind of like having the farm work the way it does. Land that is dropped there trickles back into the game a little bit at a time and cannot be locked, so there is some strategic value in dropping land there. On the other hand, dropping land will not be common in 3.0 as there is very little benefit to doing so except to play keepaway with it.

[cloud]

actually killing the land farm doesn't do anything (I did it once). As soon as someone drops land, it magically comes back to life.

Interesting. I figured an Admin would have to recreate it or something, but if it's on some sort of loop then there'd be no drawback for the rest of the server if someone wanted to kill it.

[Rakefur]

lol this reminds me of when Krow, Ryu and I had the Land Farm religion thing...

[The Lady Shael]

actually killing the land farm doesn't do anything (I did it once). As soon as someone drops land, it magically comes back to life.

Interesting. I figured an Admin would have to recreate it or something, but if it's on some sort of loop then there'd be no drawback for the rest of the server if someone wanted to kill it.

The reason it doesn't die is because the game thinks dead accounts are the ones with 0 land. When someone drops land and I think also on the daily auto-scout (brings it back up from 0), the game no longer recognizes it as a dead horde. As long as someone hasn't purposefully hit the Delete Account button, you could bring anyone back to life just by adding land to their account.

[cloud]

So theoretically speaking, before the land loss/1 rat attack strategy was removed, it would have been possible to bring back the dead? I wonder why I never tried this...

[Wolf Snare]

Interesting. 1 rat attack was soooo abused lol. You Josh & I dominated, I remember using that trick when I was like 13. Do you remember when we busted out the original wildcat strat?

E: Shads, are you boldly suggesting code abuse?

[cloud]

Interesting. 1 rat attack was soooo abused lol. You Josh & I dominated, I remember using that trick when I was like 13. Do you remember when we busted out the original wildcat strat?

Haha, yea that was my first round I played and I managed to get banned.

We started the 1 rat attack strat to prevent leader loss and eventually turned it into an entire server land lock...it was glorious. I miss those days.

[Wolf Snare]

For the record, I thought of it. hahaha

Here we are, bragging about code abuse. But then again Kyle is up there suggesting it, so no harm done?

[Shadow]

Code abuse is defined as use of any unintended, unwanted, consequences of the code. I am saying that the land farm being maxxed easily might not be unintended. I am not sure how that dynamic will work until I have seen it next round, after which time we will code it out or leave it to be used.

The fact that a single aspect of the code may not be defined as abuse does not excuse other, unrelated code abuse. Don't be intentionally thick.

[windhound]

So theoretically speaking, before the land loss/1 rat attack strategy was removed, it would have been possible to bring back the dead? I wonder why I never tried this...

Nah, because you can't attack dead empires.

However, I have to imagine with the original promi code that there was a glitch where a horde could be resurrected.  The code used to spew gibberish all over the player's row in the database upon death, completely screwing up the account.  This 'feature' was removed from RWL when the revive option was added.

[Wolf Snare]

Code abuse is defined as use of any unintended, unwanted, consequences of the code. I am saying that the land farm being maxxed easily might not be unintended. I am not sure how that dynamic will work until I have seen it next round, after which time we will code it out or leave it to be used.

The fact that a single aspect of the code may not be defined as abuse does not excuse other, unrelated code abuse. Don't be intentionally thick.

Don't act like you didn't drop the hint intentionally. Strategic value? Code abuse. Any other fix you've made has been instant. You not only suggest how to abuse it, but you say it should stay the same. Now to cover your tail you say it could be revised next set?

I could make the same argument as you have with Sevz locking land, only intentionally dropping land after VTN runs is actually code abuse-- at least people have the option to attack Sevah.

Frankly I've noticed some of your changes are mainly geared toward making it harder for him. Whatever you find suiting-- you're the admin, but you have to keep a level head and remain professional. I'm hardly talking about this thread. In general, the demeanor in which you address people who you dislike is biased & unjust, and you let things slide when others break the forum rules-- so long as it's in your favour.

Stop letting your personal feelings interfere with your job, a level of professionalism is required and you've been lacking in that respect lately, both forum-wise and with ingame changes / suggestions. For one, you can't discriminate between who you discipline for swearing on these forums. & suggesting code abuse because it will stop from more land being locked? Come on Shadow.

You will argue until you're blue in the face that your only intention is balancing, but your personal agenda  is very obviously conflicting with your duties.

Call what I say thick? I think how you respond to inconvenience is embarrassing.

E: mm, edit your first post to make it seem like you're not at fault? of course. Who the hell am I for calling out an admin for foul play, of course I'm wrong. :/

You win.  :o