Loka Forums
Type /register while in-game to register for a forums account.
Suggestion Add back the win trading rule
- Thread starter fa1c
- Start date
ItzrealCore
Member
+1 People are already abusing it being gone on balak
+1 yea its so annoying and ridicilous
the problem with this rule is that its hard to define in a precise way, since the previous definition was quite easy to work around it
iirc it went along the lines of "placing without the intention of fighting" (or without the intention of winning?) or something like that - and its hard to prove that one side didnt try. What i mean is a small town warping maybe 10 ppl could say they were hoping they could sneak all the charges and win, and you cannot really prove that this wasn't their plan (if they at least pretend to try to do it)
So if we are posting suggestions, we should also come up with a way to patch this hole in the rule
but other then that i agree, wintrading sucks
we fixed vulns and made a great step towards improving conquest, getting rid of wintrading should be next on the list.
iirc it went along the lines of "placing without the intention of fighting" (or without the intention of winning?) or something like that - and its hard to prove that one side didnt try. What i mean is a small town warping maybe 10 ppl could say they were hoping they could sneak all the charges and win, and you cannot really prove that this wasn't their plan (if they at least pretend to try to do it)
So if we are posting suggestions, we should also come up with a way to patch this hole in the rule
but other then that i agree, wintrading sucks
we fixed vulns and made a great step towards improving conquest, getting rid of wintrading should be next on the list.
I must have missed when this rule was removed and I still do not understand why it was removed to begin with. From what I understand it was removed because interpreting the rule was confusing? I have no idea why such a decision would be made. If the wording of the rule was flawed then reword it to accurately describe what is and is not allowed, but removing it alltogether just makes 0 sense. Fundamentally you can not allow people to engage in conquest fights where one side has no intention of victory and intends on helping the other gain strength, just breaks the entire flow of conquest. +1
The reason the rule was removed is that we felt that we could prevent win trading with the system of conquest itself. Effectively, we think we can make it impossible to win trade with the way strength calculation works. The recent changes to the strength formula aimed to do just that.
It's still early days, so we haven't observed every possible scenario just yet. As others said, it is also very difficult to define. We hated enforcing it because of this. More adjustments are always subject to come.
It's also the first week of the month, so perhaps focus on riding things out over time rather than immediately complaining. Winning conquest months is not meant to be a cake walk that occurs in the first week!
It's still early days, so we haven't observed every possible scenario just yet. As others said, it is also very difficult to define. We hated enforcing it because of this. More adjustments are always subject to come.
It's also the first week of the month, so perhaps focus on riding things out over time rather than immediately complaining. Winning conquest months is not meant to be a cake walk that occurs in the first week!
people are not only complaining about what will happen, but they are unhappy with what has already happened last month
u might have noticed the ascalon wintrade sceme that took place recently, where a bunch of towns came together to feed each other strength to win the continent cap. This is in the past, but more situations like this will happen, and people don't want that
Curious what the entire month looked like outside of win trading. Why didn't the would-be cap attack anybody to earn strength and stay ahead?
fa1c
Well-Known Member
well the main guy who lead the alliance was banned and they were a mostly asian alliance and all the other vulns were later on so it wasnt rlly worth it for them to place
fa1c
Well-Known Member
and they already neutralized the others on the continent if you think they didnt place on anyone, it was only because a lot of merc towns left their alliance and started placing on eachother towards the end of month
the situation was quite bizzare, cuz from what i understand the cap to be was pretty much all asians, and the contenders who ended up winning were all EU
so EU people couldnt rly find a good time to attack bcuz of their vuln, and asians couldnt rly place in EU times cuz they would just lose + open their vuln
VoladorDOWN
Active Member
honestly daqniel could have won if he placed on matrix since a lot of the ppl were locked to garama but matrix tiles were on cooldown since they were feeded and tile were in cooldown and then got another town to get feeded again when the cd was over and close the vuln .
The only towns that fed daqniel str were the ones in their own alliances that had to town a leave which is stupid.
The main problem is more about wasting the defences, closing vulns and leave tiles on cooldown with meaningless fight. Just add more regulations to prevent ppl from abusing those. The new str formula is perfect since the defensive side always got the advandtage (which normally is the one with more str).
good suggest to nerf wintrade