Joined: 10 Dec 2014 Posts: 185
"Ban Siege" votes system Soo hello everybody.
There is some new function to get rid of Siege-campers.
With the "ban siege"-vote, a player can not use siege anymore during the entire match, which is basically a cool command.
However I think that the voting system is very unfair, because only the enemy team is able to f1 or f2. Due to this fact, many players receive a ban for siege for a match, although they didn't camp at all, maybe they just annoyed some players with a ballista, or they used a behe too often in the opinion of some players.
What I want to say, the vote doesnt check, if somebody is really camping, or if he is just annoying with siege. Who would f2 an enemy siege user? Probably only Gridfon
Hence, I suggest to change the voting system, so both teams are allowed to vote. Of course this is not a perfect solution, because many players will simply f2 a clear siege camper just because he is a team member.
However, I think that this is still a better solution, just compare it to the kick/mute voting system.
What do you think about it? Any better ideas? Let's discuss!
Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:53 pm
Joined: 19 Sep 2008 Posts: 42
Letting both teams vote, weighting less the votes of the team where the camper is in.
Also an 'unban' siege vote.
Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:25 pm
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 Posts: 370
I am going to set this vote for both teams and also I agree that we need an unban. + finally todo some !help command to list these custom votings.
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:18 pm
Joined: 25 Sep 2014 Posts: 554
The success of siege camping benefits the team the said camper is on, thus disincentive is created for that very team to agree with any ban vote. The reason is quite obvious only the one team can vote.
Having both teams vote will seldom, if ever see the vote pass, making the vote almost moot. As I've discussed with various players including drk, the problem exists in the mechanics of the game and ease of use.
1: The cost in gold.
2: The effectiveness (1 hit kills).
3: Team benefit.
Although siege gold reward was changed to zero, the real problem was ignored and that approach was almost irrelevant in terms of solving balance issues. Siege camping was the issue, not gold drop offs that reward random players who happen to be within the area to pick it up, as mostly the siege won't have the speed to get to the drop-off area to collect anyway. And now we find ourselves with unrealistic game-play where one action although despite being almost identical (killing) is rewarded when the other is condemned. Besides which, and referring to #3, camping with siege with very little threat of death around spawning areas cost nothing.
The problem with siege camping and I'll add siege spamming is and always has been "easy of use" or "effectiveness", however I do not suggest removing 1 hit kills but instead rewarding the units core usage.
Usage being what the unit was designed for, destroying buildings - rather than farming easy targets from the safety of a spawning point.
If the variable building damage is exposed globally for individual players somehow (used for homewrecker and/or outpost basher), and unit status i.e what unit is being used currently over time. It doesn't take a mathematician to formulate a simple solution to this problem based on reward over time.
Think about a player spawning bali with a few hits on a shrine for example, gets a small amount of gold but dies easily as they are not camping near a spawn area, it's unlikely a few hits on a shrine will recover the cost of the lost unit - yet the camper has 6 kills in a row and has lost nothing.
Imagine an economy where losing large sums of money repeatably is punished i.e spamming siege, and imagine a player doing the right thing (amassing building damage points) is rewarded (a tax concession if you will). The camper plays a high risk game where, if they die, they receive higher tax until they can prove they are of some mutual benefit to their team.
If building damage is greater than threshold A ~ for example, tier 2 tax concession is active (Player receives 20% siege discount) otherwise the base rate is required for cost.
To cut a very long post short - raise siege cost by at least 40%, and work an incentive scheme that rewards good game-play, and punishes poor - like proper games do
Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:00 am
Display posts from previous: Sort by: All Posts 1 Day 7 Days 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending