cRPG
Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: Nessaj on October 24, 2011, 04:12:24 am
-
A persistent problem. People signing up for battles for then not to show. Already happened a lot in the new Strategus and it certainly happened in the latter versions as well. Some by mistake, most due to negligence.
Latest example:
Wolves vs Taznujat
62 Signups for Village Defense.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
34 Show up for the actual battle (The below image is pieced together from these two [1] (http://i.imgur.com/5SKkih.jpg) [2] (http://i.imgur.com/yhtW0h.jpg) screenshots from the last 5 minutes of the battle).
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
~~~
Suggestions for a solution?
- Temporary Strategus Ban (You stumbled upon your way to the field of battle and broke something :P Must rest for X hours)
- Strategus Gold Penalty
- Temporary Gold Earning Penalty in C-RPG
- Temporary XP Earning Penalty in C-RPG
It could also run on a 2 strikes (3 is too generous) warning before a punishment sets in. The strikes would be on a time out (1/2 weeks), where if the player signs up for another battle and yet again does not show he's punished. OR the first strike is punished more lightly whereas the second is heavily punished.
For example the first strike would be a Strat gold penalty, if the player has no gold he should instead not be able to earn Strat gold in C-RPG. The second strike would temporary ban the player from attending any battles for a fixed amount of time.
-
Bump for great justice
-
actually... the reason the AI can sign so many more players than the attackers is to account for the fact that there are always so many no shows... the idea is for them to end up with at least as many players as the attackers... and they have consistently done so... what is not expected and troublesome is when 60+ do show up vs 20-30 people...
-
+1
The current system with no penalty just needlessly prevents players from joining strat battles because of wasted slots
-
actually... the reason the AI can sign so many more players than the attackers is to account for the fact that there are always so many no shows... the idea is for them to end up with at least as many players as the attackers... and they have consistently done so... what is not expected and troublesome is when 60+ do show up vs 20-30 people...
So your logic is that we leave the system flawed instead? If the amount of players versus each other is the problem - and it surely isn't there is almost always a full team during prime time - we could just lower the amount of player slots for a neutral fief.
By installing this change we'd make sure people show up and we'd also get rid of the fake sign-ups where people sign-up on the enemy side for friendlies for then to not show.
~
In my opinion villages should be buffed anyway, better gear, more troops. Thus allowing attackers to have more slots given it'll still be hard to take the village.
-
In my opinion villages should be buffed anyway, better gear, more troops. Thus allowing attackers to have more slots given it'll still be hard to take the village.
The villages are already equipped with 30+ body armor and such, and 500 of them to boot. It's a tiny damn village, not a city or castle.
-
The villages are already equipped with 30+ body armor and such, and 500 of them to boot. It's a tiny damn village, not a city or castle.
Buff troop count in general OR gear slightly.
-
It's already been two weeks, and there have been 3 AI villages captured, and you really want to make it harder?
This isn't supposed to be PvE you know, it's just a speedbump to prevent someone from running over all the villages in a week, but if nobody can take them at all, whats the point?
-
the OP suggestions would be nice to have, making sure people actually show up to their own chosen battles.
+ defenders should get their pay.
meanwhile attackers should have an better roster balance, seing a possible 90 people roster on AI def would be very tough, so to have an better battle experience for all, attacker should at least have a larger roster than this 30 something, wich is way too little.
it's probably made on some kind of relation to troop account, that one should be rebalanced to make it more fair than these ~30.
-
I don't understand why this is a problem. So you signed up to an attack and didn't show up. So what? Does this cause some sort of problem versus not signing up to begin with?
I signed up about 30 minutes before the battle. It said "pending" and I was never on the roster, but it let me into the match when the time came. I guess so many people not showing up meant there was plenty of room so it let the pendings in. So there was nothing stopping late joiners from trying to get in if they wanted to.
-
because not everyone is getting in because of this :wink:
plus people not taking this serious and not showing up isn't helping either to promote better battles.
-
No real motivation to sign up since you don't get paid and you really don't get any experience worth mentioning.
-
No real motivation to sign up since you don't get paid and you really don't get any experience worth mentioning.
This. Who would spend 1 hour+ getting killed for such a weak xp/gold reward? Boring. Best to grind battle, still.
-
Bans + payment = profit
-
Sorry. I went to a party. :o
-
This. Who would spend 1 hour+ getting killed for such a weak xp/gold reward? Boring. Best to grind battle, still.
Because it's fun?
I mean really, if the only reason you're playing a game is because you get "xp/gold" for it, then you need to sit down and re-evaluate your life. I play games because they are fun. Any xp/gold is secondary to that.
And I don't get the comment from bjarky that "because not everyone is getting in because of this".
Who didn't get in? Someone from the attackers? Because like I said, I signed up on the defender side, even with 62 signups already there and I got in. It said "Pending" on the website still but I got to fight in the battle no problem.
-
Because it's fun?
I mean really, if the only reason you're playing a game is because you get "xp/gold" for it, then you need to sit down and re-evaluate your life. I play games because they are fun. Any xp/gold is secondary to that.
It is fun and more beneficial to play cRPG rather than defend NPC villages. Part of the fun of cRPG and Strategus is the advancement of your character and clan. You know, that RPG element? You must also agree that that's fun, or you'd be playing Native. Defending NPC villages currently offers you zero advancement, so part of the fun is missing.
-
Because it's fun?
I mean really, if the only reason you're playing a game is because you get "xp/gold" for it, then you need to sit down and re-evaluate your life. I play games because they are fun. Any xp/gold is secondary to that.
It's not fun, it's fucking boring. Most of the times both sides camp and you have to wait for half an hour or even more for fights to even brake out. And those strat battles are laggy at best, atleast for me.
I play cRPG because it's fun, not because of gold/xp. But if you want me boring my life out defending some random village in strat, it better have good xp/gold rewards.
-
It seems that for wolves , people couldn't sign. When people tried to sign up , wolves where unable to accept them. Is that a bug , or attacker are limited to only 30 attacker?
-
depends on army size. Village always have 90.
-
You can tell me honestly that people are putting as much effort into this strat as last time? Its piss poor slow and boring.
-
I like the suggestion but also i agree with PhantomZero.A lil tiny village of peasants shouldn't have better gear and more men then an organized army of a kingdom.
I think merc amounts should be dependent on troops of both sides.I mean attackers join battle with 1.5k troops but 500 defenders still have more mercs = Ridiculous.
My opinion:
-Add exact same punishments as Nessaj says (Maybe even more cruel punishments.)
-Let AI pay money for defender roster.
-Make merc limit dependent on troop size.
-Increase gold/xp gain from strat battles,shine it so people will be eager to participate.
-
Currently the biggest problem is defenders not getting paid.
The way I see it is, the reward for participating in strategus battles isn't exp, but gold. I am sure 1,000 strategus gold would be plenty of motivation for a very large amount of people to show up. Imagine having 10 of your clan members each offer their sword for 1k gold. 10k gold is a potential 28 rounceys, which can completely turn the tide of a battle.
However, with the pay feature broken, the mercenaries are left without a reason to fight.
Also, the reward for successfully defending a fief should be 2x the amount you signed up for. That way, 10 clan members have a potential to net 56 rounceys. This would really entice clans to sign up as an entirety and try their best to defend neutral fiefs.
-
giving no shows a small punishments would be ok
-automated hall of shame which shows in strategus all guys who didnt attend and how often, those who didnt attend more often at top of list
- small CRPG and strat gold payment
@OP
ban is too harsh, out of reallife always can come something what needs to be taken care of, this is still a game, work with insentives i prefer over punishments. Also at the time a faction would get attacked, you can bet those guys are more organised and disciplened then random applicants.
@Bjarky
no idear how the calculations for the amount of slots work
in the first battle 999vs500, we had 31 slots, in the second 1406vs421 we had 29 slots.
And as long we have these uneven slots i will make the battles at times where it is more even just through bad times for most of the players. I don't like that because a lot of my members are then at sleep and don't get a chance to fight but then again they don't get a chance to fight with only 30 slots as a lot of other players will encounter the same problem. The second problem of that approach i take is that i fuck up my sleep rythem even more. I hoped i wouldn't need to do that anymore through nighttime and EU/NA map split, but here we go again ...
For the first attack i had about 80 guys in the roster and it was just awful to reject those, sry for that again, but i was bound by 30 *fucking* slots.
, not sure about the exact numbers of defenders but it looked like it was pretty much the same perhaps 2-5 more guys for defenders.
-
I have defended 4 villages now, and probably earned less than a 1000xp - and have been paid 0gold.
Heh
-
And I don't get the comment from bjarky that "because not everyone is getting in because of this".
Who didn't get in? Someone from the attackers? Because like I said, I signed up on the defender side, even with 62 signups already there and I got in. It said "Pending" on the website still but I got to fight in the battle no problem.
You're either assuming being a Spectator is part of the battle, or you suck at checking the roster. If you were actually able to fight, then you were actually accepted. And with only 30 minutes before the match, it seems you applied, saw it was pending and didn't check again. It always says pending right after you apply. Also, with only 62 signed up to defend, it would be easy to get in as there's more slots for defense than that.
People that get accepted and don't show remove spots that others could have been using. If you were here last round of Strategus, this showed its full problematic nature when TKoV took out a town with slightly over 10 tickets. Only one registered defender even showed up.
-
Letting neutral villages recruit more mercs than clans is not a way to fix the problem. Only postponing it. It's like peeing in your pants to keep you warm.
Instead find a way to prevent people who do not show up in matches again. Like make a database where people who not showed up are stored and the AI will avoid these people.
-
U have to admit some strat battles are god dam boring.
The 2 ive fought in this round of strat have been fun tho so far.
I just dont wanna be in those 2k vs 2k field battles where u have to hide behind a siege shield as 2h for 30 mins - 1h becos neither side wants to attack
-
TKoV took out a town with slightly over 10 tickets. Only one registered defender even showed up.
So?
If only 1 person wants to defend the place, then I guess that's what you get. Are you saying that the defense roster filled up with dummy names and no other people were able to apply?
Because that did not happen here. I was still able to apply and get accepted at the last minute. The people who signed up and didn't show did not cause any problem that I can see.
-
I just dont wanna be in those 2k vs 2k field battles where u have to hide behind a siege shield as 2h for 30 mins - 1h becos neither side wants to attack
That just suggests that there needs to be a reasonable attacker time limit and/or an attacker goal beyond "wipe out all the tickets".
If attackers don't want to attack then that should be game over, they lose.
-
ok with penalty but only when the defence limit would be correct/just to attacker size. Havint two times more recruits than attacker can lead to nonsence when attacker is forced to defense cause of def. advantage in number
-
Solution is simple - add a rollcall like clans do.
1) 20 mins before the Battle starts everybody accepted onto the roster at that point gets an invite that they must then confirm on the Battle application page.
2) At the same point in time the pending list gets cleared out, but anybody who is around may re-apply for the Battle
3) 10 mins before the Battle anybody from part 1) who hasn't confirmed their place gets chucked out and their places get offered to the best people from part 2)
If there are only meant to be 30 defender for a village then the neutral Roster should be reduced to around 35 which should account for the odd person who has a RL issue that crops up.
-
Punishing people is not the answer. It's a flaw in the system.
I for one know that there have been occasions where I have signed up, been accepted and then for whatever reason haven't actually been able to make it and haven't been able to get to a computer to sign myself off before the battle.
Not everyone has access to the internet 24/7 and even remembers to do such a thing. People shouldn't be punished for that, instead a better system needs to be considered.
-
Punishing people is not the answer. It's a flaw in the system.
I for one know that there have been occasions where I have signed up, been accepted and then for whatever reason haven't actually been able to make it and haven't been able to get to a computer to sign myself off before the battle.
Not everyone has access to the internet 24/7 and even remembers to do such a thing. People shouldn't be punished for that, instead a better system needs to be considered.
Well, the best one would just be fore the first X number of people who log in plays for the AI. Would be bitch to code, I supposed.
-
Why limit the number of people able to play in defense of a neutral village? It's the only chance most non-clan members will get to play in a strat battle. It's exclusionary to do so. It's up to the clans to make sure they have enough warm bodies show up. Shame on them for trying to take villages with 15 people. They need to hire mercs too if they don't have enough people.
From what I've seen, the attackers usually win, even if they are outnumbered in the live player area.
-
Because it's fun?
I mean really, if the only reason you're playing a game is because you get "xp/gold" for it, then you need to sit down and re-evaluate your life. I play games because they are fun. Any xp/gold is secondary to that.
And I don't get the comment from bjarky that "because not everyone is getting in because of this".
Who didn't get in? Someone from the attackers? Because like I said, I signed up on the defender side, even with 62 signups already there and I got in. It said "Pending" on the website still but I got to fight in the battle no problem.
Thanks Dr. Phil. I'll get right on that re-evaluation, based on your professional opinion. Did I forget to mention that playing for low xp and no gold in a disorganized mess, where everyone is a general and no one is a soldier against 3:1 odds is no fun? Would that have affected your diagnosis?
-
That just suggests that there needs to be a reasonable attacker time limit and/or an attacker goal beyond "wipe out all the tickets".
If attackers don't want to attack then that should be game over, they lose.
I agree that there should be a time limit. It could simulate the attacker running out of food and water or worried about disease during a siege.
-
Failure to comprehen problem: check
Aggressive attitude to other users: check
Triple post due to inability to locate modify button: check
Conclusion: Turkhammer should be ignored.
-
Failure to comprehen problem: check
Aggressive attitude to other users: check
Triple post due to inability to locate modify button: check
Conclusion: Turkhammer should be ignored.
Who voted you board arbitrator?
Perhaps you could enlighten me so that I may comprehen the problem.
So you think it was aggressive to respond to an amateur physchologist's diagnosis? I thought I was being mild. I could have told him to fuck off.
What 3 posts are you blathering about?
Feel free to ignore me pal. In fact, you could have done so before you made your post. It would have at least been logical.
-
What 3 posts are you blathering about?
This was my favorite part of his rebuttal.
-
All this limiting of slots is horrible. The whole draw of strategus battles is massive organized battles. Limiting one side or the other to 30 slots is horrible.
-
If 90 people signed up for defense on my first attack, I'd be salty as fuck.
-
What 3 posts are you blathering about
You must be really retarded of a really good troll.
Ill let the people decide and keep my opinion for myself
-
Solution is simple - add a rollcall like clans do.
1) 20 mins before the Battle starts everybody accepted onto the roster at that point gets an invite that they must then confirm on the Battle application page.
2) At the same point in time the pending list gets cleared out, but anybody who is around may re-apply for the Battle
3) 10 mins before the Battle anybody from part 1) who hasn't confirmed their place gets chucked out and their places get offered to the best people from part 2)
If there are only meant to be 30 defender for a village then the neutral Roster should be reduced to around 35 which should account for the odd person who has a RL issue that crops up.
1) 30 min before battle confirmation request
2) till 5 min before battle, every minute server checks for confirmations or decline, those who decline get removed and replaced by pending applicants
3) 20 min before battle all who didn't confirm or declined get kicked and replaced by pending applaicants
4) repeat 3) every 5 minutes with those who got newly accepted(the former pending applicants)
still there needs to be more attacker slots or less defender slots for AI village attacks( does it now only count for AI villages or for AI castles/towns, too?) OR the army size gives more additional slots like every 100 troops +1 slot for attacker with base 30. if i attack with 1500 troops i have then 15 additionally slots. Army sizes with 3k troops +, would then give a full roster, which is tough to reach anyway as that costs a shitload upkeep. (or 40 base, +1 for every 120 troops)
bugs atm:
- autoreattack
- 0 amount items
-
1) 30 min before battle confirmation request
2) till 5 min before battle, every minute server checks for confirmations or decline, those who decline get removed and replaced by pending applicants
3) 20 min before battle all who didn't confirm or declined get kicked and replaced by pending applaicants
4) repeat 3) every 5 minutes with those who got newly accepted(the former pending applicants)
This would work too. Any kind of confirmation system just before the battle starts will work so whichever is easiest to code is best I guess
-
Was thinking about AI flagging account as "Deserter" and making it so that if player with that tag tries to join as merc to AI fight after the desertion AI wouldn't just recruit him/her
Then I remembered that this is cRPG where every good and working aspect of game will be assimilated ten times into row and some half-assed, temporary solution will be slapped on it and everybody just forgots about it
-
You must be really retarded of a really good troll.
Ill let the people decide and keep my opinion for myself
And this coming from someone who wants to remember Panos. ROFL.
-
Do we even know what the current formula is for how many slots each side gets?
-
Why limit the number of people able to play in defense of a neutral village? It's the only chance most non-clan members will get to play in a strat battle. It's exclusionary to do so. It's up to the clans to make sure they have enough warm bodies show up. Shame on them for trying to take villages with 15 people. They need to hire mercs too if they don't have enough people.
From what I've seen, the attackers usually win, even if they are outnumbered in the live player area.
I actually agree with this. The defenders might have more people, but they also need more people. The way I see it attackers will be getting better gear in time while the defenders remain the same. Also there are always people wasting tickets on defenders side. A good clan doesnt have this problem, so I don't understand why people are saying the attackers need more or the same amount of slots as the defenders. It would be nice to have all your clannies attacking ofcourse i can understand that. Maybe a solution would be to make the amount of slots available for attackers bigger, and also for the defenders. But then small clans would have to hire mercs for real to be able to stand a chance, which isn't a bad thing, since their fiefs can be divided among fewer people too.
Hope to be of service to anyone ;)