This suggestion is not for Requiem to make any changes to the game because I realise that he may not have the time to devote to our present version, but this suggestion instead is directed at the population of the game and it pertains to the circumstance of double moves and/or simultaneous attacks which imho is a flawed feature of the game.

The victim of a double move or simultaneous attack is set back as much as if he were gangbanged imho and when I first started here there was a special treatment for gangbangers by the other players ...

All players in a game would cease their activities in a game and direct their units to attack a gangbanger
and imho if a player can show proof that he was a victim of a double move or a simultaneous attack in a circumstance where his attacker has not allowed him at least one hour to make his move, then that double attacker should be treated as we once treated gangbangers.

PS:
As gangbanging was a breach of honor, so must we treat a double move, that is, as a breach of honor ...
this was supposed to be like a game of chess not like an arcade game as a simultaneous attack seems similar imo.

rex

All I know from the experience I've had is that this game isn't either type. Having not played the original , i have no frame of reference to agre or disagree w/ a lot of your points. I tried a shoot 'em up type of game & didn't care for it at all, but at the same time this sure isn't like chess either. It definitely is a strategy game with some interesting design twists , and that's how I accept it for what it is. Reading the posts on the diff. threads, evidently WOL was at one time something quite different than it is today. For me that's okay , for I like what I see. As for the gang banging - that's been gone over so many times that probably the discussion of it is no longer worth doing. I've seen people handle it in different ways, and maybe that's the way it should be. Chronic cutthroats usually wind up w/ no one interested in playing them , and they sort of drift away. Have we got two threads going that are dealing w/ the same topic ?

Trotsky,
when I refer to an arcade game, if you've ever been involved in a simultaneous attack, that is, both you and your opponent moving at the same time, it amounts to being quickest with the mouse like an arcade game.

As far as two threads about the same topic, in the question forum in addition to learning when my turn started, I recognised imo and got some support imo that we may have a problem with some players possibly exploiting imo a flaw in the game where it's possible to purposely manipulate ones' turns so that one can attack a player again before the attackee responds to the attacker's attack from the previous turn.

Anyway, this is the suggestion thread where I've suggested how we should handle the circumstance.

PS:
Years ago Requiem used to describe the game as being akin to muli-player game of chess.

rex

I don't understand the point.

There is a fixed system anyone can use.

When you move your troops at the beginning of the turn, you will be able to move them again at the beginning of the next turn.

When you wait until your opponent has moved at the beginning of the turn, you do your movements (inside the 6 hours window from the start of the turn) you will be able to move again at the beginning of the next turn, maybe earlier than your opponent when he isn't online.

Where is the problem? Everybody knows this! As the commander of your troops you should know this and adept this to your strategies.

Everybody knows this?
Admittedly I've not taken the time to master how to exploit this flaw in the game ...
That's not strategy, IT'S EXPLOITING A FLAW IN THE GAME.

This flaw has turned a great game of strategy into a kid's quick draw arcade game imho.

rex

Remember the old times?

Each hour your units gained about 8 % attacking strength, second attacks could be made by reaching over 40 % (ok, with only 40 % of the strength...) about 5 hours later I remember...

Sorry, but in the case of "double move" I don't agree to you.

I you don't want this to happen, you have to play the duels or battles. But in the duels is a "double move" as well (when deploying units in barracks you can attack immediatly).

Funker, that attack feature I was under the impression is available in any game mode with barracks. I did not know it was only limited to Duels.

As far as I am concerned this is a game feature rather than an exploit(Until req gets his ass in here and starts fixing things this game is played as is...). It happened to me once, that is all I need to make sure it does not hit me as hard next time around. I will admit it is hard to avoid something like that and because of its nature can be quite devastating, but I guarantee that nothing is going to be done about it and we cant hold everyone to not using the feature. That is stupid.

It's no more stupid than it was for gangbanging a gangbanger was or didn't you read my first post?

rex

As Funker said , play battles or duels then you woun't have to worry about it. In a multiplayergame it's not possible to wait for everyone to move before you can move next time. What if there is a multiplayer war? How on earth would you keep track on who moved or not, who to let move before you and who to attack at once? It's simply not feasable.

I did read your first post. News Flash, this is NOT gangbanging. Gangbanging and its repercussions were a choice players made because it was just unfair and annoying and because Requiem could do nothing about it. In this case, something probably COULD be done about it but Requiem refuses to work on this game so it will never be resolved. So why whine about it Rex?

"Nebuchadnezer DoC
Joined 9/06/2005
Posts : 2970
Posted : Friday, 9 November 2012 - 00:15
"Like I said...if someone wants to hit you with a double turn, they will make it happen. No use in crying over spilled milk...it's just a game...""

First of all Ultima Bahamut AAA, I'm not whining and yes, it's doubtful that Req will do anything about this;
So I'm suggesting how to handle it among us the way we used to handle other things we didn't like that we felt were breaches of honor ...

If you don't feel that this is a breach of honor that's another matter, but as I understood it when I did know how to cause it, this can be deliberately caused and that sure seems like exploitation of a feature of the game that seems like an undesireable flaw to me.

It's not gangbanging UB and I don't recall how to make it happen, but I respect that Neb does and imho that's exploitation of a game flaw that's as bad as gangbanging and deserves to be treated the way gangbangers were treated.

PS:
Again, this is a question of honor ...
you wouldn't be waiting an hour for everyone, just the player on whom you jumped the gun.

rex

It's not a game flaw. The mechanocs of a multiplayergamme that is based on that turs start at a fixed time is bound to be like this, there is as far as I can see no way around that. Every game I played using the turn based system has functioned the same way (I tried a few during the years). Be there on time or be killed. The alternative is to let everyone move within the turn and then calculate the result of those moves during a reset periode. That will make the game practically textbased and that is not what we want is it?

From my perspective, I don't think it's a flaw either. I was just interested in the time window that LOD specified of 18 hrs. By the way, thank you for that.

Again, my opinion is based on the idea that the creator of the game has always compared the game to a game of chess and to my knowledge there's no such thing as *"stealing a march"* in chess.

This feature could have been blocked with a line of programming like:
If the game is a 24 hour game and the selected unit has been used to attack in the previous turn, then it may be used again to attack in X+60 minutes where X is equal to the time it could have otherwise been used to attack.

Don't get me wrong, the foregoing is not a line of programming, but the idea imo could have been programmed and so imo because this feature could have been blocked with programming, it's a flaw being exploited by folks by whom it can be forced.

That's my final opinion concerning it and I'd call for a vote if so many of you didn't feel that it's not a flaw.

rex

That is silly, you could block anything with programming according to that logic. Just because you can "block" something with programming does not mean that it is a "flaw".

Even though this issue is a problem it does not mean it is an exploit as you make it out to be. The issue is not whether it is a flaw or not(That is fairly obvious), the issue is whether it should be considered an exploit. I find it highly unfair to go after an individual for using it considering that the only surefire way to prevent it is to do it yourself. Sugarleo may or may not have used it in your encounter but I feel that your reaction to it is unjustified and extremely rude and your constant badgering about the issue just seems like an attempt at some form of vengeance for him having bested you at it.

I was attacked in the same manner not long ago in a campaign by an unnamed player.I was upset about it(I had no clue that this could happen), it really pissed me off, specially because I knew I was the better player(and was close to breaking through his lines), however, you did not see me running to the forums pointing fingers and yelling foul and wanting to penalize its use. I also did not rally people against a player when quite clearly he was playing with what knowledge he had of the game. Comparing this to gangbanging and wanting to give a similar punishment makes it seem like an exploit. It is not.

Look UB,
your buddy started with the rudness and I reciprocated (go back and read the other thread from the beginning (i.e. if you're interested in the truth)).

Now let's take it apart because your buddy got aroused by the words *"purposely timing"* which words imply *EXPLOITING* ...
your buddy used this tactic on me 4 times during our war in the PG game.
He tried to say that it just happenned this time because of the daylight saving time and I was inclined to think he was telling the truth except Neb says that his story doesn't agree with his actions.

In other words your buddy is aware that it's known that the feature can be forced and obviously the victim is going to feel violated by it ...
he's used this tactic before in another game with me in consecutive turns.

Now let's look at your words:
"it really pissed me off, specially because I knew I was the better player(and was close to breaking through his lines)," ...
That's how I feel about your buddy, that is, without this dirty tactic he's not the great player he believes himself to be.

My opinion stands and it's that this feature could have been blocked with programming and it relegates the game to the level of a kid's arcade game;
But worst of all, because it can be forced to occur, it's also an exploitation of a feature that's alien to the idea of fair play for players unable to devote as much time to the game as others.

rex

1. I dont have to look back at it. I was reading from the beginning. You guys have been like this forever. You are just as rude back to him so the point is moot.

2. Looking at Sugar's actions is not the point here. It is this whole thing you are doing(like trying to get people gangbanged) that I am concerned with.

3. If he is aware of it or not does not matter. It is not an exploit as I have explained, so using it means nothing really.

4. Are you saying that you feel pissed or that you are the better player? Ill believe about 50% of that.

5. That is okay, you are entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. If that is how you feel about the game however, maybe moving on is the fair thing to do?

6. I have just as much time if not more time than anyone else here. It was used on me. It makes no difference how much time you have to play in face of this issue.