Suiciding

Started by Ereptor, September 17, 2008, 09:14:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Wolf Snare

I think wolfs fix is a good one.

Realistically, if we did anything else, and changed the amount of losses, it would change the game. Besides, with the land difference being so massive, it is extremely hard to get through ereptors leaders even when he is on a low ratio.

Oh, and go ahead and get cocky Chris, (Ereptor) I need some motivation to kick your behind ^_^
1. Fire Bringer (#22)
1. Jaturungkabart (#12)
1. Estranged (#50)
1. Fierce Deity (#17) 
1. bored... (#98)
1. Versace (#24)
1. Noah Calhoun (#10)
1. Day Old Hate (#7)
1. The Grand Optimist (#12)
1. Beast Mode (#7)

Shadow

Quote from: The Obliterator on September 18, 2008, 02:08:34 AM
But you can kill troops like that if you have really low health.
I think it should be kept this way because plenty of shades scemes have failed because of someone coming on at the last minute and suiciding so it works both ways.
If i can do it so can you and it makes it fair.
Like ereptor said he was one of the ones who started it and just because he thinks that its unfair now that it is happening to him he now wants someone to change it.
Somehow i dont think that is fair he did it to others let him deal with it now.

Oblit, you need to stop doing that. We are arguing game dynamics, and you are attacking the character of the people who are debating it instead of coming up with valid points in an effort to make the argument against you seem somehow invalid. If you see a reason for keeping suicides the way they are, post it, but don't waste space attacking character. It turns into a flame war that way, and nothing useful is achieved.

Same goes for anyone else whose argument is "Well Ereptor has suicided people before, so he should have to deal with it now." Saying that his stance in the argument is opportunistic is hypocritical because so is yours. Your argument is just as favorable to you and Ereptors is to him, so that should not be a valid argument for either side. If you have an opinion based on game dynamics one way or another, post it, otherwise please keep out of it.

It's a bit surprising that a development still in discussion made it out here, but that's Shael's call. Since it's public, I think we should go ahead and implement it.

<=holbs-.. ..-holbs=> <=holbs-..

The Lady Shael

I'll look into making it a test change on the Turbo round right now and make a formal topic when it's up.
~The Lady Shael Varonne the Benevolent of the Southern Islands, First Empress of Mossflower Country, and Commandress of the Daughters of Delor

RWLers, your wish is my command...as long as it complies with the rules.


Gorak

wolf's plan seems fair
though I still think defenders casualties should be somehow related to the amount of leaders being attacked with, not just the ratio
Victory without honour, is more shameful then defeat.

Wolf Snare

Wouldn't work Gorak.
That would give major advantages to any leader player who manages to lock land for a run. It would make locking land and emping way too easy. I know we are trying to make defence part of the game again, but that isn't how we need to do it.
1. Fire Bringer (#22)
1. Jaturungkabart (#12)
1. Estranged (#50)
1. Fierce Deity (#17) 
1. bored... (#98)
1. Versace (#24)
1. Noah Calhoun (#10)
1. Day Old Hate (#7)
1. The Grand Optimist (#12)
1. Beast Mode (#7)

Shadow

you could make the success of suicides based on attack ratios, which would take indiers out of the picture completely. Then again, land difference would eventually make them impossible, so all in all I think Wolf has the solution nailed.
<=holbs-.. ..-holbs=> <=holbs-..