Game Complaints Here 3

Closed Archived Sanzo opened this discussion on

Sanzo -

... continuation of old thread ...

The aim of this topic:

If you think an element of the game is overpowered or severely underpowered, be it race, spell, thief op or something else, tell here and give us a very good idea (with reasoning) why it is overpowered.

Joe -

Woohoo! I want to complain about the landfarm rule.

First of all I'll give some info which lead to this complaint:

#27 is in war with #17. We find a templar with very little def (clerics only). He might have had this for 24+ hours already since his strength was looking quite decent (due to warmode) and he was out of our tribes ranges (either too small or too big). This morning I asked for a sneak just to have a look if he might be razeable. His def was laughable (about 70k or so) so I grabbed him straightaway. Our little Owl decided to use his 2 hr training time and trained 15k elites to grab in 2 ticks and grow a bit on him. But 2 hours later the tribe was paused, presumably because he was considered a landfarm.

So here's some arguments why the landfarm rule should be abolished.

1- The rule is arbitrary and can not be counted upon by players. It is very vague when someone is a landfarm and it is also very unclear when he/she will be paused if he is indeed a landfarm.
2- The rule does not stop any cheating or abuse. It was intended originally to prevent people from creating farms for growth, money or fame. It's become common usage however to grab the landfarm in question and file a report afterwards. If you decide to cheat and make a nice multi to farm upon, nothing stops you. All you need to do is grab, report the tribe and smile when LnO pauses the tribe (so you're the only one profiting from your own farm).
Also, a much more logical way of 'farming' would be to create a farm which is able to send his def out. You can finetune the amount of def at home and grab while not needing to file any reports at all. Also you can use your farm structurally, letting it grow along with your own tribe. An immortal race like HE or UD is perfect for a nice semi-suicide and feed on it afterwards. Anyone releasing all defspecs to feed his tribe ONE SINGLE TIME is just a fool. Pausing the tribe only helps the fool while letting the whole set of (active) players profit makes much more sense and is more balanced.
So basically I'm arguing that the rule helps cheaters more than that it blocks them.
3- The rule is very unlogical/obsolete from a game perspective. The game sorts itself out and doesn't need admin help. Tribes without defence will soon be tribes without land. A landfarm without def cannot structurally exist in this game. It is pretty counterintuitive for a new player to think 'Hey, a yummy tribe without defence.. Oh wait it's probably a landfarm so I should refrain from hitting him or at least report him'.

hardar -


Sanzo -

being landfat is against the CoC? [cry]

Joe -

[Landfarming: Where the sole purpose of a tribe's existence is to provide acreage to another tribe(s) at little or no expense and/or effort to the tribe taking the land. Releasing defense rendering your tribe vulnerable to standard attacks from tribes outside a reasonable range than should be expected is indicative of landfarming.]

I also have problems with the phrasing of the CoC here. The only person truly knowing the sole purpose of the tribe is the player. Also the CoC seems to suggest that if your purpose is, amongst others, to feed others (for a while) it is allowed. This makes sense since sometimes it is simply much cheaper to feed the attacker above you than to try and outtrain him (especially when you're attacker yourself). Also the no/little effort is vague. Grabbing yourself into the range of an immortal spec-attacker with enough offspecs to break you, even without CB, weaps, sci etc.. while you have all defensive measures running would easily qualify for 'no or little effort'. The tribe in question wouldn't 'pay' anything and receive free acres from you. As immortal attacker I have often enough purposefully fed attackers bigger than me. This should theoretically be qualified as being a landfarm and should be punished by pausing my tribe.

Finally it is 'indicative' when a tribe is releasing defense. This suggests (imo) that it is not definitely/effectively/necessarily/absolutely the case, but is very likely to be the case. How can a player decide which is the case here? He can't even check if the tribe in question DID release defence, let alone the motives he had for releasing defence (maybe he wanted to save himself from getting killed?! Or maybe he was plain stupid and misclicked some button without any motive? Or maybe he wanted to restart and decided to push the market with some soldiers?). Also there is no mentioning of any time frame. Imo if a tribe has had low defence for 6+ ticks without getting hit it could hardly be a 'real' landfarm, as it doesn't make much sense to release your defence and then not grabbing with your multi tribe.

- The CoC on landfarms is phrased on 'intentions' or 'purposes'. This makes it impossible to judge for a player if any tribe is a landfarm as one can't know the players intentions/purposes in question (unless you're the multi yourself).
- Releasing defense is 'indicative' of being a landfarm. It's not clear what this means precisely. It is also impossible to really know if a tribe released defense in many cases.
- Nothing is mentioned of sending out defense (which is much more senseful if you're indeed landfarming). A landfarmer that has any brains would create a raven/owl tribe, sending out the def he wants to be gone for 1 tick and 'hunt' him in the last 10 secs. Owl would be best as one can even landclaim the acres back in the meantime ;)

h3artless -

I agree [up]

Taub -


I aprove of this message

Cecil -

this is why i dont rely on intent or troop changes to report a landfarm

imo anyone with an excess of resources and below acceptable amounts of defense are a landfarm

Sanzo -

ok then lets pause all the money farms on the farm list

Cecil -

i have no issue with that

and most of those were cleared through last night

Moradin -

So I've given the game a shot for about a month now and there's one thing that really disappoint me: this is supposed to be a war game that's about fighting, but it's not.
If you want to kill people you're better off using spells or preferably thieves.

As soon as you become larger than someone else you can't effectively attack that person to kill them because of diminishing returns.
It doesn't matter how large or small you are though when you are a thief and to a lesser extend a mage.

If I'm 3k in size and start attacking someone else of 3k for a period of 24 hours every 4 hours without interruption I would probably take 600 acres give or take before you get deterred by the lack of progress due to size difference. The other attack forms are also not viable once someone disappears from your attack range.
Looking at mages you can just keep casting over and over to kill someone and as long as your mage lvl is a little higher or pretty much the same, you can manage to kill someone while that person is sleeping (preferably as a dark elf). Still, this is a bit harder than the most ridiculous of all:

Thieves. Your size doesn't matter at all, actually it's even better to target someone larger than yourself just to prove the point. You're a spirit, noone will find out it's you that's the rat in their house. You don't need a great army (actually it can suck ass by comparison), you don't need a high mage lvl other than that it'll speed things up if you cast the last few fireballs yourself. All you have to do is successfully poison someone about 20 times (which isn't that hard for a spirit) and wait for 6-7 hours while your target is sleeping (once you found out in what timezone the target lives). Than you can just finish off the remainder with a few simple fireballs.

I challenge anyone to proof me wrong. I bet that if you look statistically that at least 70-80% of the kills are done without involving invasion.

Cecil -

that hasnt been a secret for a long whilst

Plato -

pw sucks now, every sucessful op take out like 1 farm... So pw kill a tribe would take to many successes.

Arson is the option now, and if you upset an ally with lots of thieves, or get opped frequently then either ask your ally to go wm and finish of the pesky thieves, bc, or just get 25% gh.

Moradin -

You're mistaken: over night I got killed and the first poison report in my log says that poison destroyed about 40% of all my farms (over a 100). So that's most definitely not true.

Sanzo -

Raiding and Raze (or Pillage if dwarf) is very useful for kills.
Grabbing also weakens a target's citizen ratio completely. It is super easy to land a kill if a grab is involved.

Also, getting churches or guardhouses can protect you a lot from mages and thieves, but getting walls wont really keep out an attacker [up]

Joe -

So I've given the game a shot for about a month now and there's one thing that really disappoint me: this is supposed to be a war game that's about fighting, but it's not.
If you want to kill people you're better off using spells or preferably thieves.

So basically, killing someone with some heavy magic or sneaky thievery doesn't apply for 'fighting'? If that's the case we could remove both pretty quickly (and many races along with it). But I don't think it would be an interesting idea.
I don't agree with your narrow definition of 'war' anyway. War isn't about fighting but rather about achieving your goals. It's extended diplomacy.

I also wonder where the idea 'this is supposed to be a war game that's about fighting' came from (serious question and no sarcasm intended).

Sanzo -

I think he means that attackers should do more damage (because the attackers are the ones that do the fighting)

Moradin -

In my opinion fighting implies that there's at least 1 party from the offensive and defensive side involved in the progress of defeating an opponent and that force of arms is required.

My conclusion about the game supposed to be about fighting is mainly based on the majority of the racial passives being aimed at physical combat, but also in part on the game's name as well as the war mechanism, although the last two can apply to magic and thievery to some extend as well.

Yes, thievery and magic can be part of fighting, but it has outgrown its supportive role. Combat is (in my opinion) by far the least effective way of killing a player (Sanzi was right in his interpretation of my view on that), resulting in at most a handful of races being truly suited at killing people effectively (spirit and DE most notably). I've witnessed several kills in the first 4-5 weeks that I've played the game, none involved combat.
Instead I noticed that a fair share of people like to use thievery (often with some support from spells) to kill persons while they're sleeping / working, in many cases as a result of a “we may kill your friends but you may not land a single spell on us” policy.

You consider my definition of war narrow, but grab any dictionary and I guarantee you that the majority will divine war as requiring at least force of arms or military operations to be involved.
Call it diplomacy and in part it is, but diplomacy in most cases is nothing else than a show of who's got the bigger guns and can inflict most damage if the weaker party doesn't agree to the stronger party's terms. Nonetheless I've never stated and have no problem with the diplomacy side of the game.

Lord Saggy -

because the attackers are the ones that do the fighting
Fighting isn't limited to sending military units to strike blows with the enemies defensive units in hand on hand combat. It also includes mystical and thievery. Does it not?

Bolle -

May I point to the fact that the new war system is intended to solve many of the above issues by removing size penalties while at the same time preventing biggies from bashing smallies?

Sanzo -

Quote: Moradin
I've witnessed several kills in the first 4-5 weeks that I've played the game, none involved combat.

A lot of our kills (1/2 - 1/3) required a raid, raze, or pillage.

Quote: Moradin
kill persons while they're sleeping / working

Actually in most cases (2/3), it was a 1 minute job [:s]

It's pretty challenging to get tons of kills with only thievery and magic. It's much easier with attackers.

Chonka: I was interpreting what he meant. Physical fighting

Bolle -

It's the final third of people killed which makes us in Dev a bit sad about the current war/killing system. I haven't been killed at all in the past year(s?) except while asleep. Usually I could guess I was gonna get killed and prevent it, but sometimes you're taken unawares.

Attackers sure make it a lot easier to kill people.

The new war system also makes the first two thirds a little harder, but not that much. If you run no t/m def at all, a 50% damage reduction just ain't going to save you.

Moradin -

Noone is going to run a high t/m def though unless they're in war mode. You'd hardly grow at all if you had to keep guard houses and churches up at all times. I'd only consider doing so if they gave 5% protection per % built

Bolle -

I've run high t/m def all my life. At least ML 30 and 10% GH ever since 2k, ML 30 and 20% Gh since 4k. I'm also #1 in the game atm.

mazja -

Poor Bolle u havent been killed? [evilgrin]

Bolle -

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6