[Guest]

**Preface**

Moderators, Admin: This is an honest opinion. If you only want your own opinions voiced I understand.

If the thread is locked and people want to seriously discuss the topic, come over to Geeks ALAnonymous Forum for an uncensored debate. http://www.phpbb88.com/alanonymous/

**Request**
Please read the post in it's entirety before responding.


Discussion
I'm being serious when I say If enough people continue to voice that attacks and war are mostly unfair, I can see changes coming to the game that make it a joke to play. It's gotten closer and closer to that for the time i've been playing.

Gangwars
This is a possible solution to the gangwar dilemma (gangwars as they stand are pretty lame as you really get nothing but bragging rights if your gang wins many wars)
1. Bring back old gangwars with the following modifications
a. A gang cannot be deleted unless the president decides to get rid of it and can't or doesn't want to sell it.
b.Make it so worthless as to be a waste of time to attack significantly weaker gangs.
c. On most other online games, they have a step system of kinds. Specifically, I'm saying you could either make it worthless to attack significantly weaker gangs or separate gangs into however many strength levels and make it possible to attack other gangs within a reasonable range only. (what's reasonable would have to be determined and probably tweaked)

PVP Combat
The re-instated limited hits thing is an easy way to side step having to write all new code IMO. To be honest, I think there are some players who don't like being attacked at all. online or offline.

This could all be remedied if you can choose to be a pacifist in the game. Pacifists can neither attack active players nor be attacked by active players. They would be allowed to attack NPCs or inactive players.

I think it would work. Let those who want to roll around in the dirt and get bruised do so. And let the peeps who have a difficult time with that sort of thing be pacifists.

Seems like a much fairer way to do things. But that's just me.

Finally, poop or get off the pot. Online attacks are against the rules or they're not. Waiting for someone to be offline for 4 hours before you can attack without convoluted consequences seems a little bit of an overcompensation. If someone is offline, they're offline. If online attacks are bad, just make it impossible to attack anyone online.

[Guest]

I think it'd be crazy to play a game like this and not want to fight...what's the point? If you want to be a pacifist, go to HitTheSnoozeLands, not our little crime ridden paradise..not old enough (merely a month) to understand how gang wars used to be run, but, i can see how hospitalizations can play into it...it's not checkers...it's war...fight or go home!!

[Guest]

hey j, i feel ya.

[Guest]

And, frankly, the little red event sign signalling an online attack is kinda exciting..is a mugger in an alleyway gonna say "pardon me, sir, mind if i attack you?" I think not

[Guest]

simple straight forward suggestions that i agree with

[Guest]

These attack limits are surprising, and I'm not sure of their purpose.

Gang wars are generally done in 5 minutes, so having that as an option to continue attacks without consequences is really not much of an option at all.

The way I see it, the limits per-player will encourage more online hitting. My attacks will have to be spread out more -- don't want to go to jail, and I'm too lazy to keep track of whom I've hit, how many times, over how much time these targets were offline. Easier to go down the player list by level and put checks in boxes - online or offline.

Perhaps it'd make more sense if there wasn't a giant 4-hour gray area after someone drops offline. Make online ONLINE and offline OFFLINE.

[Druchii]

Wait, have you tried the re-vamped attack thing? Or are you just guessing how it is and shooting from the hip in regards on how it will affect you? I think you would be surprised at the leverage you have.

I think people overreact to everything new, and then turn around and complain when it's gone. It's the way it has been in all online games I have played during the last 5-6years.

And at this point in the game, I'm actually happy that the old system isn't coming back. Without the gang disbanding, what's the point with it, there would be no politics about it, cause most gangs would just be on 0 respect. But I'm the first one to say here that it could be with a lot of work be made into a functioning system that could please everyone.

And it would be more pointless to bring it back with gang disbanding, cause then we would be right back to square one with the strongest gang in the gang destroying all others at a whim.

Where I'm trying to get at with the new gang system is that the changes Zenith has proposed and the multitude of changes that can be available from now on with these changes, can bring so much more depth to the whole roleplaying part of being in a gang. (yes some roleplay)

[Guest]

Druchii Wrote:And it would be more pointless to bring it back with gang disbanding, cause then we would be right back to square one with the strongest gang in the gang destroying all others at a whim.
(yes some roleplay)

dru, please re read the post. i didn't advocate for disbanding or deletion. That option is only available to keep the number of unwanted gangs down. If you want pages and pages of abandoned gangs, don't allow a president to ever delete his own gang.

Also you missed my whole point about only being able to war a gang within a reasonable range of strength.

I made one simple request. please read the post in its entirety.

[Druchii]

Yes I'm fully aware that you didn't advocate for it. And nowhere in my post did I imply it either.

I'm trying to cover as much ground as I can without making it a too long post for you to read and criticize.

Listen, earlier about 2 months I was totally agreeing with you that the new system had to go in favor of the old system, only that one could tweak the old system to not being able to do disbanding. But then I thought whats the point of that? What possibility other then bragging rights for the gang with the most respect points?

Then I started looking at the current system, and how much more possibilities there are with it. F.ex. Zenith could bring in respect points in the gang desc, and POI, to show how well a gang does in PVP war during a gang war. Points could only be given during a gang war, and only if it was a reasonable loss (that the player losing had the faintest chance of winbing)

This would give bragging right, of which gang not too mess with. Could even use the Respect points to buy items for it.

and split the whole thing up into two systems,

respect points --> items

Gang war points --> gang upgrades

[Guest]

Druchii Wrote:Yes I'm fully aware that you didn't advocate for it. And nowhere in my post did I imply it either.

I'm trying to cover as much ground as I can without making it a too long post for you to read and criticize.

Listen, earlier about 2 months I was totally agreeing with you that the new system had to go in favor of the old system, only that one could tweak the old system to not being able to do disbanding. But then I thought whats the point of that? What possibility other then bragging rights for the gang with the most respect points?

Then I started looking at the current system, and how much more possibilities there are with it. F.ex. Zenith could bring in respect points in the gang desc, and POI, to show how well a gang does in PVP war during a gang war. Points could only be given during a gang war, and only if it was a reasonable loss (that the player losing had the faintest chance of winbing)

This would give bragging right, of which gang not too mess with. Could even use the Respect points to buy items for it.

and split the whole thing up into two systems,

respect points --> items

Gang war points --> gang upgrades

ok dru, i guess the quote from you about disbanding was inaccurate.