Unfair Dueling

DeletedUser

Duelers actually have to send more time actually playing the game, if you look at what they have to do to duel.

Workers just queue up 4 jobs and come back eight hours later.
 

DeletedUser

And exactly what is that? You pick your victim, click challenge to duel, and thas pretty much it. From what I see duels can also be queued up one after the other, so frankly I dont see your point. It sounds like no more than a restatement of what others have said too many times to mention
And as far as that blather about coming back in eight hours, well that assumes that you dont get jumped during that time frame and robbed/injured/killed. Only way going to prevent that is to check into a hotel and sleep for that time frame.
In other words if youre looking for sympathy because of your character shoice, its three doors down. You know, the door marked "Ulthor."
 

DeletedUser

and your looking for sympathy because you dont take the time to make sure your protected from combatant characters.
 

DeletedUser

Yeah right

Combatant characters? I think you mean highwaymen, robbers, common thieves, or any of a number of similar adjectives. Sympathy? Hardly. I carry a shotgun as my weapon and the last several duelers who attempted to rob me had to go chasing their heads after I gave em what for with that shotgun. This just underscores what I have said all along about a screaming need for balance between the two sides of this issue. It cant be biased either one way or the other. I dont know how to say that any more clearly. Parity between offense and defense is all I am advocating. After all, the inevitable result is a very boring competition with only one competitor on the field. Thats what you have if this balance is not achieved.
 

DeletedUser

If the world you describe was actually happening then you'd have a point. You got balance with your shotgun, fair play to you. I'm currently K.O.'d by two players from separate towns who conspired to do this. Am I moaning that the rules should be changed to prevent them doing this? In actual fact I'm adjusting my strategy to negate this and learning from their excellent example.

Too much screaming, not enough balance. If duelling gave such an unfair advantage how come it's adventurers that dominate the top of the charts? Prudhomme you're not a stupid man, I just don't see why we can't actually agree to be able to play and prosper using different strategies. It's perfectly possible for non-duellers to prosper and many do. It is beginning to smell of sour-grapes and bad sportsmanship. I think you would find it extremely enlightening to play as a dueller on another world. I just can't see the imbalance you are talking about.
 

DeletedUser

Ahhhhh yeah

Ulthor, old son, FYI only I have tried the game as a duelist and I am fully aware of the down side of these issues. I fully agree that it should be possible for both sides of the equation to "prosper" to use your term, in fact that is essentially what I have been advocating the whole time......
Y'know? Balance? Parity?

I guess having a law enforcement background colors my perspective...freely conceded. I dont know what that remark about sour grapes was intended to convey. If sour grapes was all this was about I wouldnt still be here, trying to achieve the apparently impossible. Of course you dont see an imbalance....after all, there are none so blind as those who will not see. 'Nuff said.
 

DeletedUser

OK then as one side feels so strongly that it is biased one way and the other feels equally strongly that it is biased the other way. Then maybe, just maybe the balance is right?
 

DeletedUser

Actually Ulthor is about our most eloquent and sane member of the opposition. And while I agree with our retired lawman, I appreciate that Ulthor is looking for a middle ground.

Ulthor, some of the heat here comes from a lack of understanding. What do you mean by "prosper"? To add XP and rank? For many of us (the non-Tribal Wars crowd), stat-bumping is not why we play. Prosper means something else entirely.

I'm looking for a way to play a GOOD guy. That's why the typical comeback "if you don't like getting beat be like the robbers" gets no traction with me.

We're not asking for every fight to be fair. We're not asking to dueling to disappear. We want to defend our friends. We don't want to be forced to stand by picking our noses while a robber walks into town and starts shooting folks one after the other.

I don't mind bad guys. The world is full of evil people... I don't hate them, but I want to oppose them.
 

DeletedUser

Okay, this may be not be quite in line with this thread, but it seemed as good a place to put it as any-
First, As many of you have pointed out, the dueling restrictions are a little too hazy.
Currently, you can challenge anyone if the winner of the fight gets exp, no matter which is the winner
[exp = 7*Losers(dueling) level - 5*winners(dueling) level +5]
so a level 10 can challenge down to 7, (fair), but a level 20 can challenge down to 14 (bad), and a level 50 can challenge down to 35(hopeless)
They attempted to balance this, by making the dueling level increase faster than your level. If you look at the Dueling rankings, most duelers have a dueling level 5-10 levels above their actual level.
But the dueling level is strictly based on exp earned, so IF a deuler consistantly challenges people at the bottom of his range, he only earns 5 exp per fight, and he can keep fighting people who are helpless against him longer.And if he is fighting with low motivation, he earns even fewer xp, but the same amount of money..
So yes, the challenge system needs some tweaking.
The bigger, and more difflecult change I personally would like to see is WHERE the duel is fought.
I would really like to see the duel fought at the VICTIMS location, not the VICTIMS home town. {NOTE- I would still like to keep the part about not being able to DUEL someone who hasn't joined a town- Or else make banks linked, and available to everyone)
consequences-
First, it would make it easier to run other towns DUELISTs[bandits] out of your town- you wouldn't have to travel to their town to fight them, and risk being bushwacked because of travel time.
second, it would have a slight increase in risk to the bandits- instead of hanging out at the hotel, fighting a couple duels at 10 min. each, then ducking back into the hotel. There would be a larger window of opportunity to hit them.
Third, the VICTIM would have a better chance of avoiding attacks- since the bandits would all be hanging out at the High paying job locations, picking people working there, instead of the hotels, picking anyone they felt like.
Fourth, since you can only see 3 people at the worksites, fewer people would know where you are at. I am not sure how those 3 people are chosen, tho. If everyone sees the same 3 people, I can see some more complaints about frequent attacks.
Fifth, towns would probably start claiming territory (by challenging anyone who dared to work at "their" coalmine, for example)
Sixth, it would make the bandits claim of "bank your money" closer to actually workable. The bandit would either have to be at the worksite with them, or have a faster horse, to beat them in the race to the bank.
seventh, it would make the "Duelist" class's movement bonus mean something again.

The next change, of course, would be to put a blue "silouete" [similar to the red/yellow ones] anywhere a duel was fought in the last 2 hours...



Final notes- Duelist CAN queue 4 duels in a row, its just risky. And hopefully the sheriff's office will make some impact on fighting bandits
 

DeletedUser

One idea I posted elsewhere was to allow the Soldiers to act as guards for the town - to be more useful to a town than just defending themselves unusually well.

What if a Soldier could designate 1 town member per 10 levels as a ward under their protection? Anyone challenging a soldier's ward would then face the Soldier instead of the other target - almost certainly a Worker or Adventurer, the favored non-fighting-type victims of most predatory duelists.

All that being said, I would also - for the sake of maintaining balance - make the Duelist class just a little bit better to compensate. They seem a very weak class option right now, and perhaps could afford to be given a little more of an edge when challenging.


All that being said, I certainly wouldn't mind a smaller variance in levels that you can duel below your own; -3 or so seems about the reasonable limit, anything lower tends to be a slaughter not a good fight.

However, there shouldn't be a cap on how high you can challenge - foolishness has built-in rewards already, and so should successful audacity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Good thinking gents

Kevlar33 makes a whole string of good points. These would add a lot of fun dynamic to the game.

If we could combine his duel location argument with Jeremiah Jones' soldier defenders then my allow-the-weak-to-attack-the-strong idea would work.
 

DeletedUser1105

It would also have to be combined with the 'see all people at a site' idea, otherwise duellers would never know who was where.

I like the ideas kevlar.
 

DeletedUser

Since i last posted there has been a lot of sense talked by pretty much everyone. I've always supported a mechanism for the non-dueller to fight back and challenging in actual location makes a lot of sense. the acknowledgement of the need to balance such 'anti-duelling' measures with with a balanced increase in duelling abilities is also refreshing. There's very little here that i have a problem with.

See also that idea about doubling attributes and reinstating greenhorn.
See also threads about rewards and jails and bounties and i think we may all be able to agree and get a better gameplay experience.
 

DeletedUser

Jeremiah Jones said:
What if a Soldier could designate 1 town member per 10 levels as a ward
Click to expand...

Not so keen on this . In the suggestion of allowing Soldiers to Guard , it was to be a job like any other .
mine coal , hunt beaver , guard town .
What I'm hearing here is a guardian angel concept . No . To be a protector a soldier has to be actively defending an area .

However I am terribly fond of the "duel' occurring at the two players location idea .
It gives "duelers" more targets (point out My error if it is one), and would allow others to respond to attacks much quicker .
You hear gunfire , You have the choice run towards or away .
I agree with You assessment Ulthor .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

the duel at location has been talked about before, and it is a good idea. thats how it should be. i shouldnt be in a corn field and get shot inmy home town. just doesnt make sense. and yes, the challenge system could use some tweaking. i dont think that making it a one way system would be a good idea though. in fact i think it would have the exact opposite effect that your looking for. why would i waste my time using my lvl 20 characters stats on construction or animal instinct to make a few bucks and do a few quests when i could just as easily put them all into dueling skills and pick off that nice rich lvl 40 builder any time i wanted? you would degenerate the entire world into offensive dueling strategies.

the problem you run into with the location build is that now you have duelists hanging out at every jobsite waiting to pick you off. and if you think its hard to avoid a duel now, just wait until you have to travel 6 hours to do a 2 hour job in safety because all the good jobsites near you are camped by 5 gunslingers.

these are all good ideas in theory, but we are dealing with people, not ideas, and people will find a way to abuse almost any system you put in to play. the goal of these types of discussions needs to be focused onfinding the least abuseable system, and i just dont think this string of ideas is headed in the right direction for what you want to achieve.
 

DeletedUser

Re duelling at location, why not make it you have to be in the player's home town to challenge him and then travel to the location to fight? This would solve the 'camping' issue. Also, part of the problem with duelling (imo) is that the defender has no idea he's been challenged until he sees the duel report.

If you're in the player's home town, issue the challenge, the system sends an automated message (preferably in a pop-up window not the reports menu) saying 'X has challenged you to a duel', and then the dueller has to travel to the player's current location, wait 10 minutes and then the fight happens, system sends duel report. At least then the challenged player has a chance to move on or change clothing if they happen to be on line when the challenge message comes through.

Personally, I would prefer the dueller has to be in his home town to issue a challenge - it gives more time for the defender to react - and it's the complete lack of ability for the defender to react that I feel is hugely unfair about the current system. I can be online selecting jobs and I've absolutely no idea that I've been challenged until I check the report screen and see the duel report.

What I would like to see is:

Dueller in his home town issues challenge. Defender is notified via a pop-up window that they have been challenged.
Dueller travels to defenders home town and/or travels to the defender's current location to 'ratify' the challenge and to fight. During this window, there is an icon showing (similar to the incoming attack icon on Tribal Wars) that takes you to a screen detailing the list of incoming challengers with count-down timers. The main problem with this is that it will be impossible (?difficult) for a dueller to queue multiple duels back-to-back as they will have to travel back to their home town to issue another challenge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top