Attacking for the Sole Reason that Someone is Offline is Dishonorable Play

**Kuro** · Dec 18th, 2002, 09:10:07

Originally posted by Snublefot
You can only attack when the tower is 25%, and its a 5 hour window. So when you get attacked, its the defenders problem if they don't have enough people online. Period.

It would perhaps be more interesting if the defender could choose when the tower went to 25%.

We can start by assuming that every mine need to bleed off some presure from time to time. That causes 25% reduction to the gas level of the tower. Lets say you need to bleed every controller for 5 hours every 24 hours to keep it from blowing up (too much pressure == BOOOOM). To let a guild have some downtime (weekends,mondays whatever), make it 10 hours every 72 hours. /tower bleed will start a 5 hour 25% cycle.

That will make things more difficult for the attacker. So to balance it up, /tower bleed sends a message to the tower channel *XXX's tower in XXX is now bleeding*.

Now the defender can adjust the 25% to their own play window, and there is always someone willing to attack.

Bah...you and your ideas. Completely ruining the impression of the forums of late, offering suggestions and other helpful things

Seriously though, just a small question: How do they prevent tower detonations because the people with /tower bleed can't get online?

If it was made open to all org members, I can easily imagine moles bleeding towers when its convenient for their org to attack (or worse, setting it off so the org can't bleed the tower when it's convenient to defend).

Otherwise it's a fairly interesting idea. I like ideas where the game mechanics appear noto to determine how the game is played and requiring interaction from the orgs does that

**Snuble** · Dec 18th, 2002, 09:16:47

Two top ranks. If none of those can get online in 72 hours, your org got a problem.

And if they go BOOOM (I like BOOOMS

), there is a few standing ready to ninj... uh claim that area

**______________Serath** · Dec 18th, 2002, 10:07:36

U call people cheaters when they attack when u are not online...

Was it your intention too have your towers 25% during morning hours because u now very few people are online?

With your arguements aint u the cheater then?

**_______________Fryli** · Dec 18th, 2002, 12:35:36

Omg...lol...this was a funny tread

All i have to say is....
If your not online, your problem!

**_________Divinecross** · Dec 18th, 2002, 12:46:15

Chances you got place tower at time frame you wanted pretty much unlikely unless you happen be one those very lucky few got nw before rest of us. Otherwise you take tower your looking at using time frame related to that of the previous tower there. See how smaller guild might have problems with this but most larger guild usually have people online at all different times.

**p00finger** · Dec 18th, 2002, 18:07:59

You snooze...you lose!

**Slavor** · Dec 18th, 2002, 23:37:58

This thread is a silly waste of text... Couldn't resist adding more to it, though.

I've got a few suggestions to fix this:
1) Concentrate more on building in-game alliances and friends, so you have people to defend your base!
2) Make sure your org has enough people to protect your land! The Big Dog gets the bone, and that's just the way it goes...
3) Make sure your org/friends know when your base is vulnerable, and plan accordingly. A lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency for someone else.
4) Friends! Alliances! Can't stress those enough!
5) Recruit members from around the world to provide better coverage during the day! It's not the attacker's fault that your members were not online for that 5 hour period of 25% gas!!!

**Jaesic** · Dec 19th, 2002, 00:56:06

Originally posted by Slavor_MoK
This thread is a silly waste of text... Couldn't resist adding more to it, though.

I've got a few suggestions to fix this:
1) Concentrate more on building in-game alliances and friends, so you have people to defend your base!
2) Make sure your org has enough people to protect your land! The Big Dog gets the bone, and that's just the way it goes...
3) Make sure your org/friends know when your base is vulnerable, and plan accordingly. A lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency for someone else.
4) Friends! Alliances! Can't stress those enough!
5) Recruit members from around the world to provide better coverage during the day! It's not the attacker's fault that your members were not online for that 5 hour period of 25% gas!!!

think about what you just said...

online for a 5 HOUR a day period of time. Thats 35 hrs a week. Shoot me for having a life outside the game, perhaps... but come on... anyone who is ragging on people for not being able to be online every time their base is under attack needs to reconsider some priorities. if i had the time i'd run some numbers just to see how many people you'd need in an org to set up a watch rotation that could cover that reasonably well enough to protect a base from an organized attack without having people b eing responsible for more that 10-15 hours a week. just offhand, i'm going to guess that its probably close to 30 players.

besides, my schedule doesn't allow me to have one set time every day when i can play. and it really sucks when i log on, again, to see that someone (outcasts or nemesis, in the multiple cases its happened so far) has wiped out my towers while i wasn't around.

Jaesic
172 NT (rk2)
Org-less, again, due to the ongoing soap opera of AO.

**Kuro** · Dec 19th, 2002, 01:15:52

Originally posted by Jaesic

think about what you just said...

online for a 5 HOUR a day period of time. Thats 35 hrs a week. Shoot me for having a life outside the game, perhaps... but come on... anyone who is ragging on people for not being able to be online every time their base is under attack needs to reconsider some priorities. if i had the time i'd run some numbers just to see how many people you'd need in an org to set up a watch rotation that could cover that reasonably well enough to protect a base from an organized attack without having people b eing responsible for more that 10-15 hours a week. just offhand, i'm going to guess that its probably close to 30 players.

besides, my schedule doesn't allow me to have one set time every day when i can play. and it really sucks when i log on, again, to see that someone (outcasts or nemesis, in the multiple cases its happened so far) has wiped out my towers while i wasn't around.

Jaesic
172 NT (rk2)
Org-less, again, due to the ongoing soap opera of AO.

Jaesic:
Your organization's base survival should not AND does not depend on solely your participation. If you, Jaesic are not on the battlefield it will not determine the outcome of the battle. You, Jaesic, can be replaced by another piece of cannon fodder...er, I mean able body

I think that's what Slavor_MoK was trying to get across.

Cross posted from the original thread nobody can see past that thread's 5+ pages:

Last post on this subject cause I'm tired of it. Jynne is more fun to annoy

Little story. Different game. Star Wars: Jedi Knight II. Anyone that played multiplayer knows it places players in a far more direct competition against another individual that AO ever can.

When released, there were 2 manuevers in JKII. How to do them was outlined in the manual. One was called 'Death From Above', shortened to 'DFA'. Essentially Strong stance, jump and strike with your saber. This caused you to land an unblockable overhead strike on your target for massive damage. The other I called "Nosejob". Essentially rush your target, use the Force to run up him like he was a wall and kick him in the face for moderate damage. Shortly, the players of JKII were howling like rabid monkeys over these manuevers on the forums. People were just as quick to toss around words like "Exploit", "Cheater" and "Dishonorable". I actually did not use these manuevers, not because I didn't know how though. I preferred a quicker stance which allowed faster strikes, parries, and ripostes. But I had them used against me many times.

Now instead of jumping around like a rabbit with its ass on fire, screaming 'foul' and slandering people that used these techniques, I fought on. I lost. I said 'GG' and 'GF' ('Good Game'/'Good Fight') that people that used them on me. I also analyzed what they did. Both were easily overcome using Force Push or Force Pull. And would cost the attacker their life when countered (Force Push on the Nar'Shadda map being especially deadly). I did not quit in disgust. I did not slander people, making personal actions in a game. And while people who took that game FAR too seriously were being frustrated constantly, often quitting or shutting down their hosts in disgust, I was deriving far more satisfaction out of the game than their Honor Code ever could allow them.

Moral of the Story:
It's only a game. Attmpting to force serious, real world concepts onto people who do not care what your beliefs are will not harm their gameplay. It will harm yours.

**Slavor** · Dec 19th, 2002, 03:59:10

It's a bummer that your base isn't one of your priorities... As the saying goes, "what ya put into it, is what you get out of it".

**_____________Thorael** · Dec 19th, 2002, 04:15:30

It is very important to remeber that this is a game, so allowances have to be made to make it fair and, most important, fun. For example, it is unreasonable to have your tower attackable all the time, when the majority of your guild is only on during a certain time. The solution to this is to keep the 5 hour 25% gas, and allow the time to be set by the guild to a certain time. This time could only be changed once a week/month to avoid obvious exploits. A relatively simple solution. An attacking guild would simply have to do a little recon to find out the time that the towers are vulnerable, and plan accordingly.

**Jaesic** · Dec 19th, 2002, 05:23:32

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Jaesic:
Your organization's base survival should not AND does not depend on solely your participation. If you, Jaesic are not on the battlefield it will not determine the outcome of the battle. You, Jaesic, can be replaced by another piece of cannon fodder...er, I mean able body I think that's what Slavor_MoK was trying to get across.

Cross posted from the original thread nobody can see past that thread's 5+ pages:

Yeah, I know I'm expendable.. reeeeally expendable.... but I don't mind that part.

i'm still harping on the same issue... why should i have to join a huge guild just so i don't HAVE to be there for the defense?

doesn't really matter, now, I suppose... I'm officially org-less again... as the one I was part off is now defunct.

Jaesic
172 NT (rk2)

**Jaesic** · Dec 19th, 2002, 05:30:45

Originally posted by Slavor_MoK
It's a bummer that your base isn't one of your priorities... As the saying goes, "what ya put into it, is what you get out of it".

My priorities are
A> Graduate school
B> Teaching the 100 level class that is my assistantship
C> Finding full time employment (because I graduate this summer)
D> Various acting and performance responsibilities (as my graduate degree is in theatre... directing specifically)
E> Social time/recreation (ie... this game)

As to time in game... sure, the base was a priority... and in fact, I am willing to sacrifice leveling and hanging out time to help defend other orgs bases too. I'm just a little frustrated that I've spent $20 bucks and because I'm not a part of one of the big guilds, I'm getting... well... I'm getting a gold yalm. It's nice and shiny metallic and all... but it was NOT worth $20.

And the reason that ties into this thread... is because in both cases where our base was lost, I was not online... even though on several occasions I (and several others) stayed up to (and work up early for) some ridiculous hours of defending a base when I should have been getting some sleep.

Jaesic

**Kuro** · Dec 19th, 2002, 05:44:00

Originally posted by Jaesic

Yeah, I know I'm expendable.. reeeeally expendable.... but I don't mind that part.

i'm still harping on the same issue... why should i have to join a huge guild just so i don't HAVE to be there for the defense?

doesn't really matter, now, I suppose... I'm officially org-less again... as the one I was part off is now defunct.

Jaesic
172 NT (rk2)

Didn't say you should have to join a huge org so you don't have to be there for the defense. I said their should be an alliance system so you can remain in your org and make arrangements for mutal defense

Beyond an alliance system, though, is a requirement for some thinning of the org herds IMO. There are far, far too many orgs out there right now with no purpose, goal or direction. Some exist solely to take advantage of newbies as well. The purpose provided by the NWs shouldn't be to make sure your org is online 24/7. But it is encouraging orgs to organize themselves better, consolidate their power, and make informal alliances with other orgs. None of which I perceive to be a bad thing.

**Jaesic** · Dec 19th, 2002, 13:53:58

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Didn't say you should have to join a huge org so you don't have to be there for the defense. I said their should be an alliance system so you can remain in your org and make arrangements for mutal defense

Beyond an alliance system, though, is a requirement for some thinning of the org herds IMO. There are far, far too many orgs out there right now with no purpose, goal or direction. Some exist solely to take advantage of newbies as well. The purpose provided by the NWs shouldn't be to make sure your org is online 24/7. But it is encouraging orgs to organize themselves better, consolidate their power, and make informal alliances with other orgs. None of which I perceive to be a bad thing.

True... but how rough is it to start a new guild now? Definately would be tough to get people, especially top half of the levels, to sign up without being able to offer base advantages to candidates.

**______________Nelida** · Dec 19th, 2002, 19:49:42

*sighs*

I hate to say it but if I could I'd return NW.

It is obvious that a small guild like I'm a part of can't easily maintain a base of reasonable ql...despite the fact we are non-agressive.

Furthermore in order to actually keep on going requires a major percentage of my in-game time. The benefits I got out of the towers I had never made up for the effort required to defend them.

The side exp bonus never made up for the diminished time I spent getting exp.

The PvP doesn't float my boat.

The skill bonuses for towers didn't make a significant difference in my effectiveness in team missions.

I'll never afford the expensive planes. And I'll never pay twice the cost of my yalm just to paint it it a severely limited number of colors.

Oh, and who actually uses the voices?

IF, defending towers weren't such a time consuming job I might find that little added diversity enjoyable...but it was a nearly 100% consuming task that got old very very quickly.

That leaves me with NW that I paid for and I don't use at all...

**locomdenom** · Dec 19th, 2002, 19:51:28

If you don't like PvP, then it's pretty obvious towers won't be your thing, and that pretty much means NW won't be your thing...

Sorry you aren't having fun, though.

**Jynne** · Dec 19th, 2002, 19:55:40

And therein lies the rub, Dharin. Funcom did everything they could to convince people like Nelida, and indeed myself, that NW would be good happy fun for everybody - us included.

Instead it's shaping up as a waste of $20, multiplied by everyone else like us.

To add insult to injury all the bugs and lag and crowd crap and nerfs that are being slung around because of NW, are going to screw with us even if we do take our toys, type /tower terminate, and go home.

It beats me what to do about it. It really does.

**locomdenom** · Dec 19th, 2002, 20:12:55

There's a reason I haven't bought NW yet, Jynne.

I've not yet been convinced its worth it for me. Well, that and I haven't had time to play, so hell if my $20 is going anywhere but towards late night pizza while I study...

But I understand the point. NW is biased towards guilds big enough to defend their land, and hasn't yet provided a real mechanism for smaller guilds to ally together without merging in order to compete.

I wish I had an idea as to how to make that part of it better.

**Jaesic** · Dec 20th, 2002, 01:07:22

Ok... random thoughts on a solution. I would greatly appreciate feedback and suggestions. If it seems like a reasonable idea, I'll start a separate thread for it and try to get an FC response:

Set up code for a 'formal alliance' system:
1. Allow any leader to pledge his/her org to another guild... and the receiving guild leader the ability to accept or deny the alliance.
2. Give the leaders on both sides the ability to 'break' an alliance.
3. Allow multiple alliances... however A&B allied and B&C allied does not automatically confer an alliance between A&C, etc.

Benefits of alliance:
1. All allied organizations of an attacked base receive comm reports when towers/controllers are attacked.
2. All allied organizations can use the grid features of controllers for organizations to which they are allied.
3. An allied organizations can build towers on an organization site. These towers are labled as 'allied units' and have special conditions and limitations attached (see below). These towers provide personal bonuses to the builder and must otherwise meet all normal construction criteria.
4. Organization leaders are given the ability to synchronize their suppression systems with those of allies. Requires all allied leaders agreement to change this (and when done, it changes ALL gas times to match).

Limitations of alliance:
1. All alliance bonuses and abilities do not apply until the organizations have been allied for a minimum of 12 hours (12 prevents people from allying purely for a single defense time advantage and then dropping the alliance when it is over, but is short enough to prevent alliance breaking by moles from disrupting things for more than one danger period).
2. Allied organizations do not receive the contract bonuses, only the owners of the controller receive this.
3. Having an alliance reduces the available contract 'points' by twenty percent. This is a one time reduction. Thus, a ql200 controller only yields 160 pts for contracts... whether the organization owning the base has one ally or ten.
4. If an organization makes an offensive strike on a base that lowers their own bases to 25%... all allied organization bases are also lowered to 25%.

** Allied units **
towers set up on a base by an allied organization's member:

1. May only be dismantled by the officers of the organization that owns the base or by the builder of the tower. They may not be removed by the officers of the builder's organization.
2. These towers have their local features disabled during 5% periods by automatic circuitry to prevent conflict with equipment owned by the organization controlling the site. During this time, they do not attack hostiles nor do they provide local effects. They do continue to provide personal bonuses to the builder.

An optional third factor to these allied unit type towers:
3. These towers are never considered to be owned by the organization controlling the base and are not . Thus, they can be attacked by any individual or group without the need to disable shielding as long as the proper suppression gas requirements are met.

Other notes:
In all cases, any attack on any tower or controller located on a base that the organization owns or is allied to should provide comm warnings to that organization.

Any significant attack on the property of an organization (destruction of a tower or PvP death of a member) to which you are allied should reset the alliance to a 'conditional' state that requires the leaders to reformalize the alliance. This should only be possible during 5% gas period... but allows moles to be slightly disruptive at a dangerous moment. The leaders should receive a report about the individual who is responsible for this. Ie... mole of this type is only effective once.

Jaesic
172 NT (rk2)

Thread: Attacking for the Sole Reason that Someone is Offline is Dishonorable Play

Thread Tools

Since it's a game...

Posting Permissions