1 Reactie door Brak

(153 reacties, geschreven in General chat)

OK, before I go into RANT mode, I'd like to point something out about my earlier post that seems to have been missed.

I don't completely disagree with DoomPope's suggestion that changing player behavior might have an impact on the activity and participation levels on Speed.

What I question is how one expects a set of "house rules" to be followed if there is no enforcement built in to the game mechanics?

SOMEONE is going to "break the rules" either inadvertently or intentionally, or perhaps only just APPEAR to. If they benefit from it, others are likely to consider it, too, when an opportunity arises.

Before Doom starts accusing me of committing the "slippery slope" fallacy, consider this: A certain Moderator has frequently commented in open chat on Speed that the leaders of a certain clan are "liars." Does this indicate a level of trust & respect needed to follow a new set of "house rules?"

RANT

Oh my freaking gawd!

Helli & Whamra did you two actually read the opening post?

In post #38 above Tyranicus quoted from DoomPope's FIRST post, one of the extremely pertinent points raised by "the original poster" in this thread (in the General Chat forum no less -- does that not imply others are invited to chat?) titled "Speed Server," a point a number of people have tried to address in different ways. DoomPope did not invent the various categories of "logical fallacy," so his simply asserting that others' suggestions are logically flawed does not necessarily make them so.

Why don't you just admit you don't want to see debate on this subject, instead of outright squashing ideas you disagree with?

Or does your concept of the original poster "owning" a thread also apply to the rules of logic, too?

/RANT

Ga naar forum: General chat

2 Reactie door Brak

(153 reacties, geschreven in General chat)

I'm short on time, so I may not have thought this through correctly, but it seems to me DoomPope is guilty of the "false dichotomy" logical fallacy in his position that EITHER the large clans stand and everyone eventually quits OR the large clans break up.

Having others point out that this situation was predicted, other alternatives were suggested (and rejected) IS NOT a Red Herring argument -- rather, they are pointing out the hole in Doom's position -- there are not only two logical alternatives.

Further, Doom's suggestion ignores the fact that breaking up the largest clans will not prevent NEW large & dominant clans from emerging again later on.

The game mechanics allowing this situation to develop need to be changed, or the situation will repeat. Human nature doesn't seem to be able to resist the "gray area" activities that lead to success & dominance in Dolumar.

Ga naar forum: General chat

3 Reactie door Brak

(88 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

Thank you, Daedloth.

For my part, I think putting a cool down period on vmode would be a great start.

Please also consider auto-recall of any troops out when a player enters vmode, regardless if those troops are attacking or supporting.

Ga naar forum: Feedback

4 Reactie door Brak

(88 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

whamra1987 schreef:

regarding most requests about vacation mode, you have some points, unfortunately, regarding chat, that's not how it works, you just don't add more coding, bugs, and debug time based on player emotions. strife? that's your own, if anyone feels the chatter of vacationers causes him strife, he has his own ignore button for it.

Interesting, so Whamra is making Dolumar feature & coding decisions now? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ignore player emotions...uh...what? How is "having fun" not an emotional response, just as "not having fun" is an inverse emotional response? For cryin' out loud!

As I'm sure you have already inferred, you have been on my ignore list for some time on Speed.

But that doesn't prevent the negative influence you have on global chat pretty much every time you are on & start in on who lied, who cheated, who you don't trust, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Hey, what ever happened to the idea of moderators NOT PLAYING on servers they moderate?

IMNSHO this is a perfect case study in favor of that proposition.

Ga naar forum: Feedback

5 Reactie door Brak

(88 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

I challenge whamra's assertion that "no good reasons" have been presented why vmode shouldn't have chat capability.

If you are on vacation, you have chosen to remove yourself from active play, no?

As such, I see no good reason to ALLOW chat for accounts in vmode, assuming vmode still allows PMs and such.

Rather than question "why remove it" I say reverse that question: Why should players in vmode be allowed to participate in global chat?

As it is, I have seen a pile of direct evidence that allowing vmode players in chat creates strife and out-of-game bad feelings.

At a minimum I propose auto-adding vmode players to a global ignore list, oh, and lets not forget auto-recalling all troops a player has out (attacking or supporting) when they enter vmode.

Ga naar forum: Feedback

6 Reactie door Brak

(88 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

Demonic schreef:

Chat should be disabled for vacationeers as well!!
When your on vacay you should get your but out in the sun (or anything that fits your style)not hang out in a games chatroom!

I second this feature request.

Being unable to post in public chat while in vmode shouldn't prevent people from dropping in and checking on things. They should still be able to *see* chat, right? And if they need to actively communicate, there are still PMs, right?

Ga naar forum: Feedback

7 Reactie door Brak

(24 reacties, geschreven in Announcements)

Is there any in-game bonus to having a tree in one's village?

Or is this strictly a decoration & charity thing?

Just asking out of pure ignorance smile

Ga naar forum: Announcements

8 Reactie door Brak

(25 reacties, geschreven in Questions)

Ishtar schreef:

Why do I feel like a bunch of little boys are trying to sneak a peek up my skirt??

LOL! Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out this game mechanic...

Ga naar forum: Questions

9 Reactie door Brak

(6 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

Hellikin schreef:
DoomPope schreef:

I think the problem happens when the units are grayed out when they are placed.  I had it happen to me once, and they were grayed out.... now I look for it and it has not happened since.

I can truthfully say that I did not notice if anything was grayed out or not.


I didn't notice any greying out, either, but it may have happened.

Ga naar forum: Bug archive

10 Reactie door Brak

(4 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

I agree a feature like this could add a formal layer of diplomacy to the game.

Especially if rune & resource trades are built in to offers of "armstice" (tie) and "surrender" when clans are at war.

I'm not sure I'd advocate limiting alliances to two clans, though. I suppose it would depend on the benefit/risk balance overall.

Ga naar forum: Feedback

11 Reactie door Brak

(25 reacties, geschreven in Questions)

DoomPope schreef:
Brak schreef:
Vilmore schreef:

dev:

Vacation mode is for people that want (need) to go on vacation or have a busy time period in which they want to sleep assured that their Dolumar town will not be laid to waist.

So, is it cheating? No, its not against any rule.
But it is (mis)using an imperfection in the vacation mode option. Hence some of your fellow players wont appreciate it to much. smile

We plan to remove this misusage by only allowing to go into vacation mode when all your troops are home, or by pulling all troops home when you go into vacation mode automaticly.

Thanks for the post, Vilmore! It is gratifying to hear the Devs view this as a problem, too. smile

Oh, this brings up another question I had, about troop numbers.

Do the Devs consider it a bug that one can gather intel on the number of troops in a potential target village without even sending troops? I've noticed that I can open the "send troops" window on a village and see the number of "slots" for regiments in that village.

For example, right now Ishtar has 13 slots, but her current networth 2060, so unless she's making many regiments with very small numbers of troops, it would seem she's got a LOT of support regiments.

As mentioned upward it is based on runes so you cannot get regiment numbers.  But what you can get, is a rough amount of runes in their village.  big_smile


So, just to fully illustrate the example used above, ~2000 networth + X runes = 13 slots, is that correct?

Anyone have any approximations for networth -> runes, and runes -> slots?

Ga naar forum: Questions

12 Reactie door Brak

(3 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

Daedeloth schreef:

We're working on a javascript update that prevents this behaviour.

Excellent!

Thank you!

smile

Ga naar forum: Bug archive

13 Reactie door Brak

(25 reacties, geschreven in Questions)

Vilmore schreef:

dev:

Vacation mode is for people that want (need) to go on vacation or have a busy time period in which they want to sleep assured that their Dolumar town will not be laid to waist.

So, is it cheating? No, its not against any rule.
But it is (mis)using an imperfection in the vacation mode option. Hence some of your fellow players wont appreciate it to much. smile

We plan to remove this misusage by only allowing to go into vacation mode when all your troops are home, or by pulling all troops home when you go into vacation mode automaticly.

Thanks for the post, Vilmore! It is gratifying to hear the Devs view this as a problem, too. smile

Oh, this brings up another question I had, about troop numbers.

Do the Devs consider it a bug that one can gather intel on the number of troops in a potential target village without even sending troops? I've noticed that I can open the "send troops" window on a village and see the number of "slots" for regiments in that village.

For example, right now Ishtar has 13 slots, but her current networth 2060, so unless she's making many regiments with very small numbers of troops, it would seem she's got a LOT of support regiments.

Ga naar forum: Questions

14 Reactie door Brak

(6 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

I've had the same thing happen a couple times, but for me it was all non-cavalry units (Dark Elf).

In other words, the cavalry units were the only ones sent, all others "stayed home."

*This happened to me on SPEED

----
EDIT: added clarification.

EDIT2: clarified where this happened

Ga naar forum: Bug archive

15 Reactie door Brak

(25 reacties, geschreven in Questions)

DoomPope schreef:

From my perspective I see three groups of "things" a player can do.

1)  Clearly legal actions.  Building a building, attacking someone.... no question that they are good to go.
2)  Clearly illegal actions.  These actions such as multi accounts, or some of the various ways to get free runes, hacking an account... no one questions that they are wrong.
3)  Gray area actions.  This is what this situation falls into.


The big difference I see between 2 & 3 is that 2 in general uses mechanisms outside of the game to give a player an advantage.  2 Cannot be completely programmed out by daed, only mitigated through programming and moderating while 3 can be.

IMO using 3 bring interesting and unstable strategy into the game.  Some time ago we had a war in which the other group used a sub-string of " 's village" to hide them from spell and thief actions.  The strategy of my side had to adapt, then it was fixed... it was fun dealing with it.

This is the same situation.  Its just a temporary strategy that people are using as a crutch, and when its fixed they will need to adapt, or die.

DoomPope describes the "things" very well, but IMHO dismisses the "crutch" aspect too quickly.

It seems to me there is a significant player population who think finding & using "gray area actions" (not to mention other social engineering techniques) "makes them good players."

Ga naar forum: Questions

16 Onderwerp door Brak

(3 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

I just experienced a problem with the spell casting dialog on speed.

I noticed the server seemed to be laggy, as a number of screens opened very slowly, some requiring more than one click to activate, some even apparently failed to respond to the initial "submit" click, throwing an error/warning upon second click that the transaction had already been submitted.

However, time was critical to what I was doing, so I had no choice but to proceed.

The end result is that the same spell was cast twice on a single target, effectively costing twice the gems for the same result:

09.12.2009 03:46    You have casted Haste on Braktopia.
09.12.2009 03:46    You have casted Haste on Braktopia.

My position is that this is a bug in the design of the spell casting dialog & code. Double transaction submittal should not happen on such high-cost actions.

Ga naar forum: Bug archive