You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

CTW NetCampaign
Moderated by alincarpetman

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.60 replies, Sticky
Rise of Nations Heaven » Forums » CTW NetCampaign » Suggestions & Bug Reports
Bottom
Topic Subject:Suggestions & Bug Reports
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-24-05 04:44 AM EDT (US)         
Please post your suggestions and Bug Reports Here!

Thanks

AuthorReplies:
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-01-05 09:55 AM EDT (US)     26 / 60       

Quote:


1. You can't gain anything from repelling an attack. What will happen is that everybody will challenge as many neighbors as possible (the weaker ones first)


That's fine...thats how the real world works.


Quote:

and try to accept incoming challenges in the latest possible moment. Because everybody will do that not many games will be played.


There is a rule that if u deliberately delay accepting incoming challenges, you will be penalized. If you dont play defend within 48 hours. you loose your territory for forfeit.

Quote:


2. How do you claim a win if your opponent doesn't show up? There seems to be no rule for this although it happens quite often in the MoR leagues and the Infidels CTW tournament. The defender might try this, see above.


Umm there is a rule. You have 48 hours to answer the challenge, 24 preferable, if u wish to contest it after. But as long as its resolved within 48 hours its a go, If the defender doesnt show up, then it is considered a forfeit and they loose the territory.

Quote:


3. Or this: Do not agree on a time to play the game. With participants all over the world, it could be a major problem to find a suitable time to meet.


With a 48 hour time span for there should be some overlap that is suitable to meet.

Quote:


Considering 1-3, I think it will be difficult to catch the player you want to attack (while not being caught online by your attackers).


See my response to 2)...if the defender doesnt show up. they loose the territory.

Quote:


1. Remove the prizes, especially the money. ;-)


Eventually it will just be a plain old Netcampaign and not a tourney. This time is special as it is the 1st one.

Quote:


2. Instead of blacklisting nations, prescribe them according to the countries involved.


We have various ideas under works. But for the tourney, the idea is to try to not have any civs that are too powerful for attackers.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-01-2005 @ 09:57 AM).]

bgk
Member
posted 11-01-05 12:47 PM EDT (US)     27 / 60       
In the meantime I noticed that Shilkanni had brought up the issue of unrewarding defensive battles already in a different thread. Nobody listened to him either.

I don't see what the 48 hours limit could do about the problem. Rule 6 states that if there isn't a result the attack will effectively be cancelled. That's the best the defender can hope for.

Concerning blacklisted nations: Honestly, I don't understand your answer. If you prescribe the nation according to the country/province used in the battle (NOT the player's starting country), strong nations won't be used often. Did you consider the following suggestion: Let the defender choose which of the two nations in question he/she prefers?

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-01-05 04:55 PM EDT (US)     28 / 60       
now i dont understand your question...there isnt any restrictions on the defender's nation choice
Diveloperz
Member
posted 11-01-05 07:13 PM EDT (US)     29 / 60       
I think he's suggesting that the two nations used could be based on the territories involved, and the defender could pick which one of those he wants to play while the attacker has to settle with the other. Now that would be just weird.
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-01-05 09:25 PM EDT (US)     30 / 60       
yes well thats an idea we already had floating around including (i think i mentioned having the map based on the territory)...

but we dont have the infrastructure to support that at the moment.

nor the idea that the attacker essentually puts in his own territory as a bet and if he looses he also looses territory. which is something we will consider adding.

but like anything else....we had to release this sucker SOMETIME cause we can keep adding stuff we want to do with it. we actually had a lot more features that are half done... which we will roll out after the tournamnet.


as far as rule 6. yes the game is cancelled if the attacker doesnt show up for the designated time (so no change in territory). If the defender doesnt show up (to defend his territory). then their adsence is taken as a forfeit. I guess i wasnt very clear about that, and the additional tourney rules implied it but unless u correlate all of it, it maybe missing a specific explicit rule to cover this case. Since there is confusion I will spell it out on the rules page that is is what we mean.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-01-2005 @ 09:35 PM).]

PlayForFun
Member
posted 11-03-05 09:56 PM EDT (US)     31 / 60       
Some rules on the arrangement of games should be in place for the smooth running of the tourney. I think bgk has a valid point there:

A person can deliberately delay incoming challenges. Unless he's a super noob, he'll probably not admit that he is "deliberately" delaying the challenge to let the attacker claim the forfeit victory. Rather, he'll make up excuses for being unable to play on that particular date or time, e.g. I have to go to see a doctor, go to school, a party tonight, blah blah blah. If you rely on the participants to schedule a match time then the success of the tourney will also rely heavily on the quality of these players but it is then vulnerable to abuses for those who decided to take advantage of the weaknesses of this system. What I'll suggest that in order to handle this kind of problems, in case of dispute, a neutral party (maybe the tourney organizer or someone else) should have the right to make a "final" decision as to who wins or loses, and whether someone is considered deliberately delaying an challenge, etc.

As for allowing as many challenges on neighbours as possible and giving no penalties to a defeated attacker, I don't quite understand how the real world works like this. In the real world, depending on the battle outcome, the attacker and maybe sometimes the defender, have to rebuild his army/economy before going into another battle. For this reason, I'd suggest the attacker should be penalized so that he is not allowed to schedule another attack within a fixed time period, say, the next 48 hours (96 hrs if against the same defending country) if he is defeated in the last attack.

In addition, one country should only be allowed to attack one neighbour at any given time. I believe this is necessary because otherwise there maybe a situation where everyone is scheduling attacks everywhere. Bearing in mind that we have only limited time to schedule/accept/play the challenge game, if we allow multiple simultaneous challenges the result is likely that there will be a lot of disputed matches (unaccepted challenges, no-shows, back-and-forth negotiations on the play times,....), eventually creating much more frustration than fun.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-04-05 01:25 AM EDT (US)     32 / 60       
Well what i mean by the real world is that a defender that wins. Doesnt gain any territory, they just keep what they have. Its like if France in WW2 didnt capitulate to the Germans, they still have France. They dont get both Germany and France. They only get Germany if they COUNTER ATTACK.

As for the scheduling, and deliberate delaying of accepting challenges. I am inclined to change the lock to 72 hours at the moment. If someone doesnt accept a challenge within the 1st 48 hours then they will be consider to have forfeited as per the rules.


Also, you will NOT get multiple challenges for the same territory from different players. There is a lock out period for each territory. The 1st person to challenge for it gets to fight for it. No one else can issue a challenge to that territory until that 1st one is resolved. You will therefore at most GET as many challenges as you have territories. and since its locked from other challenges and by geography. You will probably get less then that as say if one person is on the north and another opponent is south of you (the south having only you as their neighbour). You being in the middle, gets challenged by the north person 1st. The south neighbour will then be completely locked from issuing any challenges. Since they can challenge you, as u are already engaged, and he has no other neighbours he can challenge. So being isolated like the south player can be good and bad. You can be blocked from expanding, if you are not on the ball, but you are protected more also.

You can attack from one territory to multiples, and I want to keep it that way. Cause I dont want the tourney to drag out too long especially with 72 hours lock out. The next thing is that eventually the number of places you can attack from one territory will be determined by your "military level" or something related to that, when we get territory development into the game engine.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-04-2005 @ 02:22 AM).]

Shilkanni
Member
posted 11-04-05 04:53 AM EDT (US)     33 / 60       
Okay, here's an issue I have with the whole no-penalty-for-losing/no-repreieve-for-defense issue, and I'm sure it's mostly just that I don't understand the rules or perhaps they haven't been fully explained.

I'll describe a situation (a tiny little world map):
(A)-------(B)
\---(C)---/

1. I own 1 territory (me = A), surrounded by two others (B, C).
2. The tourney starts, I happen not to be online.. no big deal, I miss out: B challenges A and C.
3. C gets online, tries to challenge both his neighbours. He can't challenge me (territory lockout - A is under threat from B) and I'm not sure if he can challenge B (since B is attacking him along the same link). I'll he can challenge back.
4. I get online (A) and I can't challenge either of my neighbours, (Territory lockout, they are both under threat?) so I wait and sit patiently, try to organise my game with B.
5. B and C have two games to play (?) and they play their games. Neither wins their attack, so no territory is exchanged. When they leave the game they both immediately challenge each other again.
6. I play my game with B and defeat him. I go to try and challenge B or C but it is too late, they are under lockout again.

The rules (under number 10) promise me I'll have a shot at challenging B, but it's not looking too likely at this stage.

So far:
A: 1 win, 0 losses
B: 1 win, 2 losses
C: 1 win, 1 loss
Pending Challenges:
B vs C
C vs B
Also, Someone will probably challenge my territory again, probably B as he will know it is available when we finish our game.


I'm mostly basing it off these rules:

"6. Each territory under dispute will be locked from other challengers for 48 hours, until a pending challenge is resolved."

"10. If the attacker did not win the game for that challenge, there is no territory exchanged. The defender can however choose to issue a challenge in the reverse direction later with the roles reversed."

Maybe I misunderstood the lockout thing, and you can't issue a challenge the other way on the same bridge? Could this be clarified?

[This message has been edited by Shilkanni (edited 11-04-2005 @ 05:03 AM).]

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-04-05 02:13 PM EDT (US)     34 / 60       
right ok i see what your saying. ok maybe either we allow challenges back in the reverse direction (a ATTACK b) before u resolve the b ATTACKS a to avoid that situation.

of course what that person did could be considered a strategy also. let me think about which makes more sense. more then likely, we will impose a penalty where the person can can attack the same person again for 24 hours if they loose an attack. Giving the previous defender to counter attack.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-04-2005 @ 03:39 PM).]

Shilkanni
Member
posted 11-04-05 07:35 PM EDT (US)     35 / 60       
I'm still not really clear on what the current rules are. At the moment, can you issue a challenge back on the same link before the first one is resolved?

I think that would make sense... some sort of 'no new challenges after you lose a battle for 24 or 48 hours' or 'no new attacks along the same link for 24 or 28 hours'.

My personal favourite would be (and I think this make sense) if you attack from A --> B and lose you can't issue any new challenges from territory A for 24 hours.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-04-05 11:39 PM EDT (US)     36 / 60       
right now u cant challenge back on the reverse link before its resolved. ie) if that is allowed, and both win against each other. u end up trading territories/positions which i dont want to happen

so right now, u cant do that

but in the case u outlined. we will most likely prevent someone from issuing a challenge (attack) another territory they just tried to attack but failed.

Shilkanni
Member
posted 11-05-05 06:18 PM EDT (US)     37 / 60       
Okay, new example.
Player "Bob" owns territory A
Player "Fred" owns territoy B
Bob (from A) attacks Fred (at B) along the A->B link.
We'll assume they may own other territories...

1. B is under 'lockout' and no-one else can attack it.
2. Fred (B) cannot attack Bob (A) along the B->A link.*
3. Bob & Fred play Ron, if Bob wins he takes control of B. Otherwise no change in territory, and there will probably be a 24hour lockout to stop "Bob (from A) attacking Fred (at B)" again.**

My questions are:
* (Relating to point 2 - before A->B fight is resolved)
- Can Fred attack Bob from another territory -> A?
- Can Other players attack Bob at A from another territory?

** (Relating to point 3 - after A->B is resolved and Bob loses.
- Can Bob (from ?) attack Fred (at B) from another territory (other than A)?
- Can Bob (from A) attack Fred (at ?) hitting another territory of Freds (not B) from A (where he just lost attacking from.

I'm not trying to be annoying with all the questions, but it's not really clear in the rules yet.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-05-05 09:17 PM EDT (US)     38 / 60       
No those are good questions.... one of the reasons for the longer start up time is to iron out some of the rules and situations we didnt think of...cause there will always be ways to abuse the system that no one thinks of until it happens. (and why there is always a caveat that the moderators can take action against players who exploit the system todestroy the spirit of the tournament).

as for your questions...

Quote:


* (Relating to point 2 - before A->B fight is resolved)
- Can Fred attack Bob from another territory -> A?


No, as it is now no player can attack the same player from multiple territories. There can only be one pending challenge between a pair of players at a time.

Quote:


- Can Other players attack Bob at A from another territory?


Yes. Since Bob at A is fighting Fred at B, the only person who cant attack back before the challenge for that is finished is B (he must defend 1st). If he wins. Then he has a 24 hour period where Bob at A can not attack again, so giving Fred at B a chance to challenge and attack back for the next 24 hours without A being able to lock him out again from attacking. However, other players may attack Bob at A and lock out that territory. So if Fred wants to attack A to get a chance at it, he should immediately send a challenge to Bob at A as soon as their match has been resolved or expires.


Quote:


** (Relating to point 3 - after A->B is resolved and Bob loses.
- Can Bob (from ?) attack Fred (at B) from another territory (other than A)?

Quote:


- Can Bob (from A) attack Fred (at ?) hitting another territory of Freds (not B) from A (where he just lost attacking from.


Yes to both. Having multiple territories and using position, I want to reward, and I want players to use some strategic thinking with the map positions to get the best advantages. As long as its not from the same territory, where the situation can be abused too easily. That we have to prevent.

I mean the defender should be also looking at the map to make sure he doesnt get strategically blocked, and immediately challenge back when the 1st game is resolved also. I want to reward aggression on some level.

However, I might give this somemore thought if we need to lock out for 1 to 4 hours challenges between the same set of players no matter which territory if the attacker lost, just to keep it from being too much like trying to immediately beat the guy to the button. But right now I dont think that is necessary. Since if some has many good strategic positions on the map (which means theyve been playing and winning), I want that to count for more, and allow someone a chance to take the field.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-05-2005 @ 09:36 PM).]

Shilkanni
Member
posted 11-07-05 02:39 AM EDT (US)     39 / 60       

Quote:

I mean the defender should be also looking at the map to make sure he doesnt get strategically blocked, and immediately challenge back when the 1st game is resolved also. I want to reward aggression on some level.

However, I might give this somemore thought if we need to lock out for 1 to 4 hours challenges between the same set of players no matter which territory if the attacker lost, just to keep it from being too much like trying to immediately beat the guy to the button.

This is what I'm concerned about...
I don't think it will be as much fun if there is ever a "race to reissue a challenge" and I think this needs to be avoided.

I basically want to make sure nobody gets stuck surrounded by a bunch of 'lockout'-type situations and sits around waiting while others keep battling.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-07-05 04:59 PM EDT (US)     40 / 60       
ive decided to go ahead and add the 24 hour lock out for attacking the same player for the same territory and 4 hours for not allowed to attack same player after a loss

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-07-2005 @ 05:10 PM).]

PlayForFun
Member
posted 11-08-05 11:20 PM EDT (US)     41 / 60       
It seems that the ones who initate the challenges first will be at a definite advantage?! So if I happen to be not online right at the tourney starts, I'm screwed. I'll be challenged everywhere and am on the blink to lose (as I have to win in order to survive, and once defeated I'm out??)
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-09-05 00:01 AM EDT (US)     42 / 60       
Well you still have to be on the ball to win. But the time to start is well known and announced already, be ready by noon this saturday EST.

We are making it so if someone loses a challenge they are penalized from attacking somewhat.
and if you do get eliminated early...well it happens... just like tournaments you can get eliminated in the 1st round.

when we do non-tourney seasons, we will make its hard to to eliminated (which I kind of wanted to do initially. but for this one we decided we want it to be a little faster).

As long as you have 1 territory, then you still get to keep playing of course and try to recover. But ya if you get all your territories taken then ya...thats the luck or i guess skill of it.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-09-2005 @ 00:03 AM).]

Arcadia1
Member
posted 11-15-05 05:07 AM EDT (US)     43 / 60       
This is either hypothetical or really just happened. either way i wish to get your feedback:

Prester John challenged voodoo...i challenge prester john...it is start of tourny so we only have one territory. I play game with Prester before he plays voodoo (and this is the part i'm not sure if really happened--they may have played first) and win. Does he still get to play voodoo or is he out of the tourny? if not, at what point may i challenge voodoo? When win gets posted? Along that line, how long does a defeated defender get to confirm a loss, and how much time will it typically take between loss confirmations and having the result posted to the map? Thanks.

Arc

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-15-05 05:17 AM EDT (US)     44 / 60       
yes Prestor if he plays u first and looses his territory, as long as he still had a challenge issued before the confirmed loss of a territory, he can possible win against woodoo and "migrate" to a new location by gaining one territory and loosing one to you.

The normal time is to wait 24 hours after the attacker confirms (if not disputed) but generally i check the replays anyways just to make sure its valid. Regardless by the time the lockout period is expired and someone reported a win/with no dispute, then it is recorded automatically as a win for the reported winner even if I dont manually do it ahead of time.

For the looser to confirm and thus quicken the pace, they just go to the same screen that they would to confirm a win, but in that case you'd see a slightly different set of choices. Just click on the confirm loss link, and hit continue.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-15-2005 @ 05:19 AM).]

Shilkanni
Member
posted 11-16-05 01:03 AM EDT (US)     45 / 60       
I was just thinking, there's no really much strategy involved on the world map, is there?

Proper strategy is to challenge all neighbours at every possible opportunity, and there is never any compelling reason not to attack.

I can think of one rule which could effect this:
- Only one challenge FROM each territory you own at a time.

Just thought I'd offer that up as a suggestion, perhaps for future games.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-16-05 10:14 AM EDT (US)     46 / 60       
thats a consideration yes...

actually the plan is when we get this done...to have territory development. then what happens is you develop an economy, which lets u buy armies..which lets you attack..so if u only have one army then u can only attack one place with it. if u have two..then two places etc.

also debating...if we want to have it so that u can "spend" more then one army attacking one place, and that gives u a handicap bonus against that territory.


one of the key things i wanted for this time round to try to get a season that went fast (but to a degree), so i decided to award being aggressive. As far as the just attack everyone..yes although the strategy comes in the territory pick you had. to find an isolated spot or to be in the middle of it all. also if u loose against someone u tried to attack, you cant attack from that spot for awhile. so it doesnt always pay to just challenge everyone around u.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-16-2005 @ 10:22 AM).]

Shilkanni
Member
posted 11-16-05 01:01 PM EDT (US)     47 / 60       
Okay, that sounds interesting. :-)
KRG_4Stars
Member
posted 11-18-05 10:27 AM EDT (US)     48 / 60       
I think defenders should gain land... Since it has been like a week that tourney started, I still cant manage to challange anyone, it kills fun for me. And I feel like a stunt here, sits and wait to enjoy ppl when they attack me.

If defenders would gain land, ppl wouldnt attack every1 they can carelessly, so lands wouldnt be locked that often, and others could attack when they want to.

And in real life, yes defenders can gain land, once the attacking army is dismissed by a sucessful defending move, defending army can march in enenmy lands and can get the win. However defenders now sits and wait at our scenario, like thats realistic :s

I also believe that there have been formed an unvisible(or unnoticed) flow of challanges, that can enables challanging for only the ones that challanged at first day. They keep challanging after finishing one and goes on. Thats because some of us just traped at our lands while others keep going and going without affected by any land lock.

Also I have to mention that, I managed to challange once to voodoo, however that challanged disappeared for some reason... that was also annoying.

I have anotolia, I am like at the middle of everyone...middle of all 3 lands,africa asia and europe, and still cant get a challange :s

Dont get me like a whining *****, I just want to get a reply about my situation, since I couldnt to my previous 2 posts. I suppose I may try another week to challange while defending hopelessly,actually I can defend like to the end of the tourney there since no1 around to beat me yet, however its really annoying to be trapped by system while u can do much better than defending.

At least it would be good to see a note saying that "You ll be able to challange to this land *DATE*" instead of seeing "scout" text all the time. It feels like, nothing changes to see same thing and puts you out of whole action.

P.S: Also I played vs arcadia1 yest, and he said, attackers can pick all civs too now, and picked dutched. Is blacklisting rule changed?

[This message has been edited by KRG_4Stars (edited 11-18-2005 @ 10:42 AM).]

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 11-18-05 10:45 AM EDT (US)     49 / 60       
yes no black list...please make sure u review the rule change thread http://ron.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=14,16,0,30

As for defenders gaining land. we may do they in the future, but just to be fair to all those who had to defend before sucessfully. we cant change the rules in that way in this time round as that kind of rule change would affect the state of the map too much.

as for u trying to challenge others to gain land. i sympathize, but just try to look for opportunities a lot of new lands have been open to challenges recently after the 1st round of locks.

To address this and the fact that people are taking longer then expected to resolve their challenges. I will now restrict each territory to one pending challenge. So if u have more territories you can launch one attack from each of your territories. This rule will only affect subsequent challenges, and not any currently on the books.

as for showing u the date it will be open ..we will try to see what we can do about that.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 11-18-2005 @ 11:06 AM).]

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 04-16-06 09:40 PM EDT (US)     50 / 60       
well one idea i want to promote is to have something based on geography and the strategic map, and people fight on the settings that nature/providence/fate put them in. Not just have a default tourney 1v1 map setting that is optimized for that. I am sure the Tueteberg forest wasnt fun or to the likings of the Romans. Of course I wouldnt want to put 1v1 on huge map, or even large map, but I do wanna make people have to deal with battle situations that aren't optimal for them, so that people who have optimal strategies for certain civs and map size/types arent just going to win every battle, and that they have to adapt to the territory (on the strategic map) we laid out. basically I want it to reflect reality more (but of course not so far as to make thing completely boring or unworkable as a tournament).

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 04-24-2006 @ 04:20 PM).]

« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Rise of Nations Heaven | HeavenGames