+- AwakenedLands Forums (http://forums.awakenedlands.com)
+-- Forum: Awakened Lands - General (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: peace for pacifists/fights for those who like to get dirty (/thread-3133.html)
- Mighke - 2008.Jan.27 08:52 PM
JadedRadiance said:
"Oh, I agree. Out of the 2 choices, the blood and guts would be preferential. But whether it's strictly blood and guts or sanitized, there would be complaints from both sides. Lower level gangs complaining about the cost of losing blood and guts type wars or higher level players complaining that wars are too soft and there is no real point in them. I think trying to find a middle ground that both sides could be happy with would be the best option. One where there is a safety net so to speak to appease the pacifists who don't like warring and where there is also a substantial gain for warring for the ones who like wars.
Unfortunately, trying to find said middle ground to make everyone happy probably is gonna be very difficult"
Yeah that's where we differ I guess. (sorry. i said i was gonna stop posting but i'm an idiot who can't help it. my apologies)
The stronger players have put in much time and much money. I am speaking for myself when I say I become resentful when that which I worked hard and paid hard for is diminished.
I mean, don't take what I've earned and give it to those who haven't, in an attempt to level the playing field.
If a level playing field is what is necessary though, make it truly level. I would resent and do resent things i've paid for and worked hard for being diminished. Fair's fair. If my stuff is going to be taken away for no better reason than I play long hours and donate, please take everybody's away and make level truly level.
I wouldn't feel resentful if donations simply provided convenience rather than advantage though. Because everyone will actually get what they pay for and it can't be diminished or taken away.
- JadedRadiance - 2008.Jan.27 09:19 PM
Well when I said finding a middle ground I didn't mean leveling the playing field altogether
And I completely agree. It wouldn't be fair to "shackle" the more powerful players.
I've seen a couple of threads where the issue of making the game more suitable for lower/intermediate level players arose with considerable criticism thrown at the higher level players.
Things such as (paraphrasing and speaking about higher level players) "you were the ones who put yourself in the position of not being challenged by the game anymore because you got so strong..."
Which is definitely unfair. That is essentially the point of any game, to become as strong as you can. And penalizing a person for being able to leap ahead of the pack is a bit absurd.
Those who have put in the time, effort, and money even shouldn't have all their accomplishments negated and essentially dismissed.
However, most people aren't going to be willing to side with the higher level players because the issues of the higher level players don't affect them.
Hence my suggestion of trying to find some middle ground that would allow both sides to play the way they wish. Middle ground that wouldn't diminish the accomplishments of the higher levels who put forth the time and money but would also let the lower levels play the way they wish without giving them anything they haven't earned.
As I said, I would prefer the hardcore wars over the soft pillow fight type ones but I'm just playing devils advocate to see if there is the possibility of finding a solution to the gang wars issue that would make most people happy. 8)
- Number9Guy - 2008.Jan.27 09:35 PM
Mighke Wrote:Yeah that's where we differ I guess. (sorry. i said i was gonna stop posting but i'm an idiot who can't help it. my apologies)
The stronger players have put in much time and much money. I am speaking for myself when I say I become resentful when that which I worked hard and paid hard for is diminished.
I mean, don't take what I've earned and give it to those who haven't, in an attempt to level the playing field.
If a level playing field is what is necessary though, make it truly level. I would resent and do resent things i've paid for and worked hard for being diminished. Fair's fair. If my stuff is going to be taken away for no better reason than I play long hours and donate, please take everybody's away and make level truly level.
I wouldn't feel resentful if donations simply provided convenience rather than advantage though. Because everyone will actually get what they pay for and it can't be diminished or taken away.
What exactly was done to diminish your donations? I see donator days, cash, energy refills, happiness refills, endurance/intel increases, and get out of jail free cards in the donator house. Which ones have changed?
For being the strongest, wealthiest, and most untouchable guy in the game, you sure do a lot of whining. You ever take a step back and think it's you and not the game?
Where oh where is that violin graphic you are so quick to post?
- JakeBlues - 2008.Jan.27 11:23 PM
Number9Guy Wrote:Where oh where is that violin graphic you are so quick to post?
![[Image: death.jpg]](http://www.utoronto.ca/icm/death.jpg)
- psheehan78 - 2008.Jan.27 11:36 PM
![[Image: 228_violin.gif]](http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/228_violin.gif)
- Saerin - 2008.Jan.28 02:30 AM
Those that can donate should get some benefits for that. after all it is their donations that keep the game available. I have no issue with people donating. By all means if you have the ability to donate $100 or more a month and are willing then by all means donate. I myself cannot so I dont. If you have the ability to play for 16 hours a day then by all means go ahead. I can't so I dont. I play for the sole rerason of I enjoy the game.
Online attacks are not against the rules. If you wanna hit someone...go ahead by all means hit them. I grew so tired of the constant mails complaining I didnt wait 45 minutes to attack them that I basiccally stopped attacking. I level now by crimes and my career. occassionally I throw an attack in every now and again but i level quite slowly. do i care not really have i been hit online sure. do I acre not really Ill just log in 40 minutes later and train again.
as for the new gang war code. My feelings are this.
1) there are a ton of oppurtunities being missed. sure the base is there but there needs to be penalty for losing. I know we dont even fight back the majority of the time due to it just not being worth our time. The upgrades are fine but seriously The amount of damage that can be done just doesnt fit the scale of HP the hideouts have. few wars ever last 5 minutes if the attacking gang is organized and large enough. The new war system was suppose to add strategy to the war system and really hasnt.
2) give the wars meaning...make them actually over turf. for instance Gang A attacks Gang B. and wins. They get 1 block of turf. that one block of turf nets them $100 a day in "protection fees". and a number of gang points and respect points based on "fairness of the war". Respect points helps with "protection fees" The more respect the more the fees. Gang points buy upgrades such as a dirty cop. your gang gets one day of lower arrest rates(just an example)
to add on to what this thread started out as I would like to comment on the career system. While i believe it is a great improvement over the old system I find that the careers are pretty close to being the same. they almost all get combat bonuses and what not. and yes you can argue that people would just choose the combat orientated fields to boost themselves anyway so why change it. but suppose that an engineer could modify a weapon( each weapon could be modified just once) and say reduce one stat requirement, or provide specila ammunition that penetrates armor...etc. or a scientist develops a improvement to an armor a construction worker gets to add 1 block of turf per week to the gang through construction projects.. There are possibilities for improvement they just need to be explore for balance issues.
I completely understand the stronger players frustration. I dont necessarily have their problems but that doesnt mean I can see their side of the story.
- filthymick - 2008.Jan.28 02:48 AM
very well said.
- zingersmack - 2008.Jan.28 03:52 AM
I can see both sides here in the sense of the lower and higher players.
If I had to choose between all out chaos and war and such or a game with no stats, I would choose the chaos. Part of the reason I enjoy playing this game is upgrading my character and reaching that next level in my stats or overall...and then of course attacking someone and seeing the difference as a result of said training.
However, while the old war system had its certain motivations to fight back such as deletion, I think going back to that would result in a few top gangs that very few people are in and a whole lot of people sitting out there by themselves and then wasting more money trying to make another gang. It does lead to certain players dominating (which is where the "crippling" came in).
I understand that it must suck if you think you are being shackled and held back just because you have put more time/money/training into the game than others, but if a few players rule over the game, it discourages others from joining and leveling (which is kind of where the unspoken agreement of no online attacks came about.) But I also don't know exactly how higher leveled players are held back, as can be seen by my own level.
Lastly, I like Saerin's idea of giving some kind of system more to the gang wars. Because there really isnt much at stake right now, I know of gangs that wont fight back because they dont care about the respect level, and they also dont bother attacking others for the same reason--they view it as wasting AP and thus lost money/experience/etc. I think adding something where you can level up the gang for something other than just war purposes such as the said blocks of turf. I can see that the new system was made to kind of meet in the middle and let some violence but not affect those who dont want to be in the middle of it, but it kind of feels like it needs something else and maybe the idea of playing for gang money is it (not the whole vault or anything like that) but I think the turf idea could be it.
Sorry all for the long post.
- coltfanjay - 2008.Jan.28 06:33 AM
I'm a lowly level 11, but i agree with the higher ups like pullo for one good reason..poor people always say they hate republiucans, but 9 times out of 10, if they should land a CEO position somewhere, the republican's thinking all of a sudden isn't so bad..Hell, me, I wanna be a republican, so to speak...so, one day i can be a level 40+, and have new problems to ponder!!
Re: peace for pacifists/fights for those who like to get dir - alinutza - 2008.Jan.28 11:49 AM
mtngti Wrote:These attack limits are surprising, and I'm not sure of their purpose.
What would stop the SV to declare war on 90% of the gangs in Al to get the most gang points and then upgrading their gang and be #1? The war is about strategy too, and they had a very good one.
No matter what the war system would be, they will try to be the 1st.
If hospitalizations would be reintroduced in gang wars, many players would definetly play the game for less time. If you want hospitalizations, i would propose that stims should be more eficient and heal more time, or the time spend in hospital to be shorten.
I believe that war should involve more strategy and guessing what your opponent's strategy is, so you could have a chance to defeat him.
I play to more other games: Torn City and Jockwars, but as much as i play AL.
In Jockwars and TC wars are the same as they used to be in AL. Wars in Jockwars were funny because i had money to buy stims and get out of hospital. There was also the posibility to travel in other places and that takes time so you opponent cannot attack you during traveling.
On the other hand, i just leave a faction in TC, because they were a bunch of low level players and strong gangs always farm them and i was in hospital for 4 HOURS. I dont play TC very much and that's why i want some peace and quite there.
