So... How its possible to set a 5vs3 battle (allied clans, read chat) just to raze it/conquer without anyone from home side? Such "set" battles are allowed? Just read chat: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/24365Any idea how to fix this?
+0 / -0
|
"Make it quick, its just for IPs" "Lets destroy structures, then re" (structures are destroyed even if game was stopped) "Anyway, IPs for alliance"
+0 / -0
|
And I would ask how is it possible that when Imperium invades planet belonging to V, NC who are our ALLIES are forced to defend, instead of V and what is the most absurd thing - V players are on Imperium side attacking its own planet?! Balance is out of any logic in Planetwars, so consider this invasion as tactical advantage of sending ships to your planet by surprise and invading it only by allied forces themselves. But if you wanted, you could come to defend it of course, you have been notified of this. And it might as well happen that you could be fighting on our side and helping us defeating yourselves lol :D
+0 / -0
|
> And I would ask how is it possible that when Imperium invades planet belonging to V, NC who are our ALLIES are forced to defend, instead of V and what is the most absurd thing - V players are on Imperium side attacking its own planet?! This has nothing to do with it. Shitty balance and set games are different things, and don't try to wrigle out. > But if you wanted, you could come to defend it of course, you have been notified of this. Sorry, we have real life and don't play spring 24h/day, like omygod and some V players.
+0 / -0
|
That has much to do with balance, Conrad. Our players are unwillingly forced to play AGAINST their own clan (See Restrepos logs!) and he needs to decide whether play normally or resign or sabotage or whatnot.. Then by this logic of balance, if it is accepted to allied (even clanmates!) to play regularly against their team as "opposing force" and the match is perfectly OK, why shouldnt it be allowed for allies to "fight" between each other and gain planets? Even better argument is that if we are allies, we are allowed to cooperate. And where is no opposition on the planet - why shouldnt we destroyu your structures and take over your planet? Should I send you written request to kindly come to defend your planet ? =D Your activity is not interesting to me. Moreover, if you actually look to that replay, you would see that NC really did put up serious fight (even if they didnt have to !!) and there was at least one random player as "opposing force"..kkthxbye
+0 / -0
|
Balance could put greater weight on alliances and refuse to start if teams cannot be ok . I dont see another solution
+0 / -0
|
Thats really the only solution ive seen as well, as right now ELO balance too heavily overshadows alliance/war dec balance, and to me prevention due to alliance issues would promote more small games, something Id like to see.
+0 / -0
|
I totally agree. Anyways I suggested this solution on forum recently but it needed some complicated coding and is to be implemented later. (http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/704) If you want to prevent such unopposed clan/ally rampages on planets, all the clan/allied players should be strictly forced in one team and server should therefore refuse to start a game because of unbalance. That would force these strong allies or clans to drop their players until balance point is reached (either levelled by enemy or mercenaries). One more question about this matter: If my highest ELO clanmate gets unwillingly balanced to opposing team, what should he do - can he resign immediately and refuse to help enemies? Or play AFK and get kicked, or even sabotage/teamkill (which is surely bad for community) ? Keep in mind that he does not get any warning about the upcoming balance, its instant after pressing start. If we at least knew that someone is about to be outbalanced, so we can drop some players :(
+0 / -0
|
Sabotage is not acceptable. If he does not want to play i recommend resign - his allies can take and do their best
+0 / -0
|
Indeed. But you see it will crush the balance previously counted by server if he resigns, the match will become overkill anyways (without one strong player). That might lead to !exit overuse...
+0 / -0
|
>Sabotage is not acceptable. >If he does not want to play i recommend resign - his allies can take and do their best So I was told the game wouldn't unfairly balance in PW because doing so is not "noob friendly". Those were your words, Licho. The current solution is not pro-friendly. You're sacrificing your core users to try and get noobs to play. You are FORCING someone to either hurt themselves in their own PW game (why should I be forced to kill 4 of my clan mates?!?) or forcing them to resign. How in holy fuck is this fair? I play PW to P L A Y. Not to resign because of shit balance.
+0 / -0
|
So say if we balance strictly along clan lines, what do you do about 3 enemies in a battle?
+0 / -0
|
U guys have it the wrong way around, the system is fine and easy to understand. And it does its best to give a good game all the time, What should be done is the game should balance before immediately starting so we can have a chance to rebalance the match ourselves by spectating if we are not happy with the balance, As is sadly the case in Restrepo's case daily. ELO or PSR (player system ranking) as its known eleswhere works great, Back on OP Fighting on a planet gives you influence from locals right. If 2 allied clans are fighting on the planet they should still get influence as a fight still happened, they are still fighting for a planet its just a matter of who gets to kick your arse of it first. Lastly we really need a rank limit (game time) on PW servers
+0 / -0
|
I mean rank requirement not limit nothing worse than noobs wrecking a game cause they spam fusions shields and HLTs on the back line
+0 / -0
|
GoogleFrog - That would be more tricky of course I see two solutions: 1. when strict clan balance fails, two enemy clans will be temporarily teamed like allies (ELOwise) while possibly forced to drop a few players to keep number of players even. ELO should be the second applied criteria in such cases, but not before strict diplomatic balance. E.g: 4 players from warring clans A,B,C. A is the best one (by ELO) so teams will be AAAA versus BBCC, maybe BBBC. 2. if competing clans won't be happy with it, allow them to set 3 sided fight, boxes all over the map to be fair... What a deathmatch, I would love to see that! :)
+0 / -0
|
Nothing wrong with this battle as far as I can see. NC put up a decent fight, but was a bit underpowered in a 5 vs 3 match. This was not a 'set' battle in that there was no agreement to just raze the planet. Obviously, one of the two allies would gain IP on this planet, in fact so much so that it was lost to Imperium. Note how the team (V) about to win the planet refrained from destroying the mining outpost. One could argue that an occupied planet would be safe from conquest if there is no member of the occupying clan to defend it, but then I think PW would rapidly devolve into a stalemate. In short: live with it.
+0 / -0
|
New balancing of PW wil likely prevent this from happening (it will say it canno tbe balanced well)
+0 / -0
|
