"Waqui;c-2093850" wrote:"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093840" wrote:"MasterSeedy;c-2093801" wrote:
@Waqui
In the particular scenario you're using to infer something, Kyno specified that the two players share a payout. '
So the proposal is not asking you to know someone else's Payout. It's assuming that you know your own payout and talking about the situations other than near your own payout ... which happens to also be the other player's.
If you attack someone near their payout (when they are tracked) and it's not near your own payout (when you are not tracked yourself), you may become marked. Yes, you do need to know other players' payouts to avoid becoming marked.
Marked if you repeatedly attack the same player outside your payout and within theirs is what I beleive he was proposing...
So, you agree that you need to know other players' payouts to avoid being marked, right?"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
In practice why would you be battling against me multiple times during my payout and not during yours.
I may not know it's your payout. Maybe you attacked me first (and repeatedly) and I just kept fighting back. I would be marked - you wouldn't. That's just one example."BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
Chain locking is when you fight someone then let the battle time out but you coordinate with another player through shard chat or over any device really and tell them like 5 4 3 2 1 battle ends so they can spam attack the person. They let the battle time out and tell you 54321 so you can spam attack the person. This causes the player being attacked to get the someone is battling you indefinitely and they have to spam through the enter battle, confirm squad, someones attacking you loop and hope they are faster than the people who are coordinating the timing of the chain lock.
I guess most of us know what chain locking means. However, what if it's just guild mates coordinating in guild chats, and it has nothing to do with shard chats? Why should players be punished for helping their guild mates?"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
It's supposed to be a fun game and when you cant attack for 20 min before your payout and you get stuck in 18th place on a climb from a chain lock day after day after day that makes people quit playing because it is not a enjoyable or rewarding experiance therefore bad for the health of the game.
It's supposed to be an arena. A test of skill and strength. PvP and rivalry. An arena where everyone can attack anyone in range at any time they like."BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
Although it is fun to lock people out I do feel bad now in hindsight.
What if the player who becomes locked out, was the one who threw the first stone by sniping you day after day? I wouldn't feel so bad.
I'm happy to only be in friendly shard chats that welcome everyone who behaves nicely, but some players decline the invitation and prefer to attack anyone at any time. I don't feel bad attacking them repeatedly. Rivalry is fun too."BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
This idea by kyno is a good concept I'll definitely give him that much.
I disagree, but I also respect him for attempting.
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093856" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093850" wrote:"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093840" wrote:"MasterSeedy;c-2093801" wrote:
@Waqui
In the particular scenario you're using to infer something, Kyno specified that the two players share a payout. '
So the proposal is not asking you to know someone else's Payout. It's assuming that you know your own payout and talking about the situations other than near your own payout ... which happens to also be the other player's.
If you attack someone near their payout (when they are tracked) and it's not near your own payout (when you are not tracked yourself), you may become marked. Yes, you do need to know other players' payouts to avoid becoming marked.
Marked if you repeatedly attack the same player outside your payout and within theirs is what I beleive he was proposing...
So, you agree that you need to know other players' payouts to avoid being marked, right?"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
In practice why would you be battling against me multiple times during my payout and not during yours.
I may not know it's your payout. Maybe you attacked me first (and repeatedly) and I just kept fighting back. I would be marked - you wouldn't. That's just one example."BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
Chain locking is when you fight someone then let the battle time out but you coordinate with another player through shard chat or over any device really and tell them like 5 4 3 2 1 battle ends so they can spam attack the person. They let the battle time out and tell you 54321 so you can spam attack the person. This causes the player being attacked to get the someone is battling you indefinitely and they have to spam through the enter battle, confirm squad, someones attacking you loop and hope they are faster than the people who are coordinating the timing of the chain lock.
I guess most of us know what chain locking means. However, what if it's just guild mates coordinating in guild chats, and it has nothing to do with shard chats? Why should players be punished for helping their guild mates?"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
It's supposed to be a fun game and when you cant attack for 20 min before your payout and you get stuck in 18th place on a climb from a chain lock day after day after day that makes people quit playing because it is not a enjoyable or rewarding experiance therefore bad for the health of the game.
It's supposed to be an arena. A test of skill and strength. PvP and rivalry. An arena where everyone can attack anyone in range at any time they like."BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
Although it is fun to lock people out I do feel bad now in hindsight.
What if the player who becomes locked out, was the one who threw the first stone by sniping you day after day? I wouldn't feel so bad.
I'm happy to only be in friendly shard chats that welcome everyone who behaves nicely, but some players decline the invitation and prefer to attack anyone at any time. I don't feel bad attacking them repeatedly. Rivalry is fun too."BobcatSkywalker;c-2093848" wrote:
This idea by kyno is a good concept I'll definitely give him that much.
I disagree, but I also respect him for attempting.
You managed to disagree at every possible turn... maybe your a professional arguer.
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093856" wrote:
Anyways why would you constantly be fighting the same person outside of your payout. If your payout is 3pm why are you fighting the same guy over and over at 6pm?
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093856" wrote:
Also what if it's just guild mates coordinating in guild chats. They should should get a warning that what they are doing is frowned upon. Then another warning... then a temp ban during the time they are doing it... then idk what next
Isnt your guildmate strong enough to win in arena without your help?
"BobcatSkywalker;c-2093856" wrote:
The point is... Other people apparently think that kind of behavior should be prevented.
"Waqui;c-2093764" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093734" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
hears an idea, why not focus in on the 2 main bad behaviors of shard chats. Lockdowns and chaining.
the numbers would have to be tweaked, but here is the general plan.
- 1-2 hours before a players PO, they are tracked.
if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:
- repeated attacks (either same player or multiple players in a row), with a special focus on chain dropping a player (this could be tracked outside of tracking period too)
- battling and letting time run out (maybe even winning in the last few seconds, but that is a tough one to add with some of the metas we have seen)
after 3 marks you get a warning, after 5 you dont receive that days PO. after 10 24 hour ban, and so on.
breakdown:
- this in no way interferes with PO battling
- this doesn't have any effect on any players not involved in coordinating attacks on other players (meaning no one outside of a chat would see this)
- helps those being locked out of chats
- only negatively affects players trying to lock down a PO that is not theirs
- gives room for those who can and are having issues to pick an hour that works in their favor to push this issue
Of course these rules would interfere with PO battling. That's the whole purpose, isn't it? To allow players, who are not strong enough to reach top ranks without these new rules, to actually reach top ranks.
These rules would of course also affect players not in shard chats negatively. Maybe they are unaware of other players' POs. Maybe they are inexperienced players who play by a different strategy than others . Maybe they are unable to come online and play in those 2 hours just before their payout and want to position themselves better before going offline. Why should you get marks/warnings for this?
These rules would also affect guild members from the same guild who simply help each other out and coordinate on guild chats. Why should this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds be limited?
Would these rules apply at all ranks? In my experience the top-30 ranks are more static with less activity. Players mostly attack when climbing for their payout and are aware of each other's payouts. However, around rank 50, it's chaos with much more activity around the clock and people attacking anyone to climb with no respect for (or no awareness of) each other's payouts. Would your rules also apply at those ranks?
If a player receives a warning, would he be notified about who he attacked illegally and when that player has his payout? Or would you instead display every players' PO on the screen where you select whom to battle? You would need to have some sort of information about POs. How else would be able to avoid being marked?
why would they get marked for attacking someone outside of their PO, did I say that?
Here?:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
... if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:...
"Waqui;c-2093764" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093734" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
hears an idea, why not focus in on the 2 main bad behaviors of shard chats. Lockdowns and chaining.
the numbers would have to be tweaked, but here is the general plan.
- 1-2 hours before a players PO, they are tracked.
if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:
- repeated attacks (either same player or multiple players in a row), with a special focus on chain dropping a player (this could be tracked outside of tracking period too)
- battling and letting time run out (maybe even winning in the last few seconds, but that is a tough one to add with some of the metas we have seen)
after 3 marks you get a warning, after 5 you dont receive that days PO. after 10 24 hour ban, and so on.
breakdown:
- this in no way interferes with PO battling
- this doesn't have any effect on any players not involved in coordinating attacks on other players (meaning no one outside of a chat would see this)
- helps those being locked out of chats
- only negatively affects players trying to lock down a PO that is not theirs
- gives room for those who can and are having issues to pick an hour that works in their favor to push this issue
Of course these rules would interfere with PO battling. That's the whole purpose, isn't it? To allow players, who are not strong enough to reach top ranks without these new rules, to actually reach top ranks.
These rules would of course also affect players not in shard chats negatively. Maybe they are unaware of other players' POs. Maybe they are inexperienced players who play by a different strategy than others . Maybe they are unable to come online and play in those 2 hours just before their payout and want to position themselves better before going offline. Why should you get marks/warnings for this?
These rules would also affect guild members from the same guild who simply help each other out and coordinate on guild chats. Why should this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds be limited?
Would these rules apply at all ranks? In my experience the top-30 ranks are more static with less activity. Players mostly attack when climbing for their payout and are aware of each other's payouts. However, around rank 50, it's chaos with much more activity around the clock and people attacking anyone to climb with no respect for (or no awareness of) each other's payouts. Would your rules also apply at those ranks?
If a player receives a warning, would he be notified about who he attacked illegally and when that player has his payout? Or would you instead display every players' PO on the screen where you select whom to battle? You would need to have some sort of information about POs. How else would be able to avoid being marked?
why would they get marked for attacking someone outside of their PO, did I say that?"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:
correct this would affect players coordinating attacks, especially if one or both of them are working on this outside of their own PO. thats the point. it doesn't matter if they are guild members. the idea is that talking and coordinating movement to not interfere with each other is "ok", but using that to negatively effect others that are "outsiders" is "not ok".
OK, but I still don't see any reason why this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds should be punished. Guild members chat. Guild members help each other when able. Isn't this part of what guilds are for?
"Waqui;c-2093764" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093734" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
hears an idea, why not focus in on the 2 main bad behaviors of shard chats. Lockdowns and chaining.
the numbers would have to be tweaked, but here is the general plan.
- 1-2 hours before a players PO, they are tracked.
if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:
- repeated attacks (either same player or multiple players in a row), with a special focus on chain dropping a player (this could be tracked outside of tracking period too)
- battling and letting time run out (maybe even winning in the last few seconds, but that is a tough one to add with some of the metas we have seen)
after 3 marks you get a warning, after 5 you dont receive that days PO. after 10 24 hour ban, and so on.
breakdown:
- this in no way interferes with PO battling
- this doesn't have any effect on any players not involved in coordinating attacks on other players (meaning no one outside of a chat would see this)
- helps those being locked out of chats
- only negatively affects players trying to lock down a PO that is not theirs
- gives room for those who can and are having issues to pick an hour that works in their favor to push this issue
Of course these rules would interfere with PO battling. That's the whole purpose, isn't it? To allow players, who are not strong enough to reach top ranks without these new rules, to actually reach top ranks.
These rules would of course also affect players not in shard chats negatively. Maybe they are unaware of other players' POs. Maybe they are inexperienced players who play by a different strategy than others . Maybe they are unable to come online and play in those 2 hours just before their payout and want to position themselves better before going offline. Why should you get marks/warnings for this?
These rules would also affect guild members from the same guild who simply help each other out and coordinate on guild chats. Why should this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds be limited?
Would these rules apply at all ranks? In my experience the top-30 ranks are more static with less activity. Players mostly attack when climbing for their payout and are aware of each other's payouts. However, around rank 50, it's chaos with much more activity around the clock and people attacking anyone to climb with no respect for (or no awareness of) each other's payouts. Would your rules also apply at those ranks?
If a player receives a warning, would he be notified about who he attacked illegally and when that player has his payout? Or would you instead display every players' PO on the screen where you select whom to battle? You would need to have some sort of information about POs. How else would be able to avoid being marked?
why would they get marked for attacking someone outside of their PO, did I say that?"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:
they could apply at all ranks, as they are not anything but protection against chain dropping by players outside of your PO and by players outside of your PO locking someone down to keep them from moving up "when they dont want them too".
^^ this is the point, there is no reason to have any effect on people battling inside of their PO, so no it wouldn't have any effect on PO battles. that is the point.
Your system will punish players even if they are not deliberately trying to chain drop others and even if they have no idea whatsoever of the payouts of the players they are battling in arena(s). It's a:"No, thanx" from me.
"Kyno;c-2093899" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093764" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093734" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
hears an idea, why not focus in on the 2 main bad behaviors of shard chats. Lockdowns and chaining.
the numbers would have to be tweaked, but here is the general plan.
- 1-2 hours before a players PO, they are tracked.
if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:
- repeated attacks (either same player or multiple players in a row), with a special focus on chain dropping a player (this could be tracked outside of tracking period too)
- battling and letting time run out (maybe even winning in the last few seconds, but that is a tough one to add with some of the metas we have seen)
after 3 marks you get a warning, after 5 you dont receive that days PO. after 10 24 hour ban, and so on.
breakdown:
- this in no way interferes with PO battling
- this doesn't have any effect on any players not involved in coordinating attacks on other players (meaning no one outside of a chat would see this)
- helps those being locked out of chats
- only negatively affects players trying to lock down a PO that is not theirs
- gives room for those who can and are having issues to pick an hour that works in their favor to push this issue
Of course these rules would interfere with PO battling. That's the whole purpose, isn't it? To allow players, who are not strong enough to reach top ranks without these new rules, to actually reach top ranks.
These rules would of course also affect players not in shard chats negatively. Maybe they are unaware of other players' POs. Maybe they are inexperienced players who play by a different strategy than others . Maybe they are unable to come online and play in those 2 hours just before their payout and want to position themselves better before going offline. Why should you get marks/warnings for this?
These rules would also affect guild members from the same guild who simply help each other out and coordinate on guild chats. Why should this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds be limited?
Would these rules apply at all ranks? In my experience the top-30 ranks are more static with less activity. Players mostly attack when climbing for their payout and are aware of each other's payouts. However, around rank 50, it's chaos with much more activity around the clock and people attacking anyone to climb with no respect for (or no awareness of) each other's payouts. Would your rules also apply at those ranks?
If a player receives a warning, would he be notified about who he attacked illegally and when that player has his payout? Or would you instead display every players' PO on the screen where you select whom to battle? You would need to have some sort of information about POs. How else would be able to avoid being marked?
why would they get marked for attacking someone outside of their PO, did I say that?
Here?:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
... if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:...
maybe you should keep reading, the statement says ...marked for:... the colon there means the following statement are what you are marked for.
"Kyno;c-2093899" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093764" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093734" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
hears an idea, why not focus in on the 2 main bad behaviors of shard chats. Lockdowns and chaining.
the numbers would have to be tweaked, but here is the general plan.
- 1-2 hours before a players PO, they are tracked.
if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:
- repeated attacks (either same player or multiple players in a row), with a special focus on chain dropping a player (this could be tracked outside of tracking period too)
- battling and letting time run out (maybe even winning in the last few seconds, but that is a tough one to add with some of the metas we have seen)
after 3 marks you get a warning, after 5 you dont receive that days PO. after 10 24 hour ban, and so on.
breakdown:
- this in no way interferes with PO battling
- this doesn't have any effect on any players not involved in coordinating attacks on other players (meaning no one outside of a chat would see this)
- helps those being locked out of chats
- only negatively affects players trying to lock down a PO that is not theirs
- gives room for those who can and are having issues to pick an hour that works in their favor to push this issue
Of course these rules would interfere with PO battling. That's the whole purpose, isn't it? To allow players, who are not strong enough to reach top ranks without these new rules, to actually reach top ranks.
These rules would of course also affect players not in shard chats negatively. Maybe they are unaware of other players' POs. Maybe they are inexperienced players who play by a different strategy than others . Maybe they are unable to come online and play in those 2 hours just before their payout and want to position themselves better before going offline. Why should you get marks/warnings for this?
These rules would also affect guild members from the same guild who simply help each other out and coordinate on guild chats. Why should this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds be limited?
Would these rules apply at all ranks? In my experience the top-30 ranks are more static with less activity. Players mostly attack when climbing for their payout and are aware of each other's payouts. However, around rank 50, it's chaos with much more activity around the clock and people attacking anyone to climb with no respect for (or no awareness of) each other's payouts. Would your rules also apply at those ranks?
If a player receives a warning, would he be notified about who he attacked illegally and when that player has his payout? Or would you instead display every players' PO on the screen where you select whom to battle? You would need to have some sort of information about POs. How else would be able to avoid being marked?
why would they get marked for attacking someone outside of their PO, did I say that?"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:
correct this would affect players coordinating attacks, especially if one or both of them are working on this outside of their own PO. thats the point. it doesn't matter if they are guild members. the idea is that talking and coordinating movement to not interfere with each other is "ok", but using that to negatively effect others that are "outsiders" is "not ok".
OK, but I still don't see any reason why this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds should be punished. Guild members chat. Guild members help each other when able. Isn't this part of what guilds are for?
why, because arena is not a guild game mode. why should being in a guild mean you can lock down a PO that is not yours?
"Kyno;c-2093899" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093764" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:"Waqui;c-2093734" wrote:"Kyno;c-2093458" wrote:
hears an idea, why not focus in on the 2 main bad behaviors of shard chats. Lockdowns and chaining.
the numbers would have to be tweaked, but here is the general plan.
- 1-2 hours before a players PO, they are tracked.
if you are not within that players PO or during your period of tracking (1-2 hours before your PO) you are marked for:
- repeated attacks (either same player or multiple players in a row), with a special focus on chain dropping a player (this could be tracked outside of tracking period too)
- battling and letting time run out (maybe even winning in the last few seconds, but that is a tough one to add with some of the metas we have seen)
after 3 marks you get a warning, after 5 you dont receive that days PO. after 10 24 hour ban, and so on.
breakdown:
- this in no way interferes with PO battling
- this doesn't have any effect on any players not involved in coordinating attacks on other players (meaning no one outside of a chat would see this)
- helps those being locked out of chats
- only negatively affects players trying to lock down a PO that is not theirs
- gives room for those who can and are having issues to pick an hour that works in their favor to push this issue
Of course these rules would interfere with PO battling. That's the whole purpose, isn't it? To allow players, who are not strong enough to reach top ranks without these new rules, to actually reach top ranks.
These rules would of course also affect players not in shard chats negatively. Maybe they are unaware of other players' POs. Maybe they are inexperienced players who play by a different strategy than others . Maybe they are unable to come online and play in those 2 hours just before their payout and want to position themselves better before going offline. Why should you get marks/warnings for this?
These rules would also affect guild members from the same guild who simply help each other out and coordinate on guild chats. Why should this social, competitive behavior and cooperation in guilds be limited?
Would these rules apply at all ranks? In my experience the top-30 ranks are more static with less activity. Players mostly attack when climbing for their payout and are aware of each other's payouts. However, around rank 50, it's chaos with much more activity around the clock and people attacking anyone to climb with no respect for (or no awareness of) each other's payouts. Would your rules also apply at those ranks?
If a player receives a warning, would he be notified about who he attacked illegally and when that player has his payout? Or would you instead display every players' PO on the screen where you select whom to battle? You would need to have some sort of information about POs. How else would be able to avoid being marked?
why would they get marked for attacking someone outside of their PO, did I say that?"Kyno;c-2093738" wrote:
they could apply at all ranks, as they are not anything but protection against chain dropping by players outside of your PO and by players outside of your PO locking someone down to keep them from moving up "when they dont want them too".
^^ this is the point, there is no reason to have any effect on people battling inside of their PO, so no it wouldn't have any effect on PO battles. that is the point.
Your system will punish players even if they are not deliberately trying to chain drop others and even if they have no idea whatsoever of the payouts of the players they are battling in arena(s). It's a:"No, thanx" from me.
if you are seeing that from what I wrote than you are putting in details not there.
"Kyno;c-2093899" wrote:
I didn't define chaining (at this point) on purpose. its just a general idea. if it needs caveats to not punish players who do not realize than try and add them.
Capital Games Team
