Plazek 说:Personally I think that we can take a bit longer to make the rules Chuck there is no rush.
PS Which clan are you representing Reapy? I think none but that was a pretty well reasoned post
just a suggestion
Council for WB clan match rules NEW VOTE ON ROUND TIME 23 FEB
- 主题发起人 22nd_Chuck_Norris
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
just a suggestion
Hethwill
Master Knight
In three to five months Warband will go Live for good and a massive number of players will join the multiplayer community.
If we can agree on a good base for a setup of leagues and cups and other kinds of competitions the growth of "warband clans" will encompass it, which results in best quality gaming and entertainment while giving the necessary output and input for the developers to carry on M&B to the nexte level.
About the council and rules;
Disscuss one issue at a time - it's easy to derail if every member spews his entire view of the rules. I'm not going to agree with it, nor i'm going to read it thoroughly.
As i can sense many clans/players are antagonists regarding the Friendly Fire issue, I propose we decide ultimately the Friendly Fire solution before we advance to anything else. And being democracy a way of bending and leading votes to specific designed solutions, the agreement about this must be unanimous.
As it is a delicate subject, and demanding an entire clan member corps to agree, i think the 31st January is a viable date to set the final decision.
Meanwhile other issues maybe be discussed and solved, of course.
If we can agree on a good base for a setup of leagues and cups and other kinds of competitions the growth of "warband clans" will encompass it, which results in best quality gaming and entertainment while giving the necessary output and input for the developers to carry on M&B to the nexte level.
About the council and rules;
Disscuss one issue at a time - it's easy to derail if every member spews his entire view of the rules. I'm not going to agree with it, nor i'm going to read it thoroughly.
As i can sense many clans/players are antagonists regarding the Friendly Fire issue, I propose we decide ultimately the Friendly Fire solution before we advance to anything else. And being democracy a way of bending and leading votes to specific designed solutions, the agreement about this must be unanimous.
As it is a delicate subject, and demanding an entire clan member corps to agree, i think the 31st January is a viable date to set the final decision.
Meanwhile other issues maybe be discussed and solved, of course.
Scorch!
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Although I am interested in how this will turn out, I think the Knights of the South will be sitting the council out for now, just to see how things go.
I would rather a base set of rules that everyone can agree on for clan matches, but I would like to point out that there is no reason why clans can't come up with their own rules for a match. I like to think of any rules that this council comes up with as more of a guidline than anything, to speed up the process of organising clan matches.
I would rather a base set of rules that everyone can agree on for clan matches, but I would like to point out that there is no reason why clans can't come up with their own rules for a match. I like to think of any rules that this council comes up with as more of a guidline than anything, to speed up the process of organising clan matches.
Exactly
Pso you wish to be added to the list of clans not interested ? or remain out of both, (note either way you can join at any time)
Ps
o you wish to be added to the list of clans not interested ? or remain out of both, (note either way you can join at any time)
Plazek 说:
We actually should, for this is a very important factor. Normal FF balances the game greatly and prevents spamming, which is very very annoying. I'm not a very techincal player (as in game mechanics) but I play alot and I see many things.
It doesn't prevent spamming at all. It just allows it for the person outnumbered and surrounded. I'm all for allowing melee friendly fire, but you need to recognize the issue that it unrealistically and unfairly limits people in groups. If anything the game should try and reward people for fighting together. The way around this I think is what I said in that other thread, and that is to only have melee FF within an angle of directly in front of your character. Of course, it'd need to be something that the devs implement.
SanDiego
Knight at Arms
Meleé FF has both advantages and disatvantages. As I encountered all three types I'll try to make objective analysis of what we have:
Non-reflective
Just damages ally. It has more 'realistic feel' and can be usefull to finish-off griefers and other jerks. But it opens door for griefers, but also to some hilarious situations (I remember on Zombii server McQuain accidentally killed two people reinforcing zombies and much laughter was had). Overall, this does not much prevent 2-h spamming as spammer is (primarily) unaffected. Yes, he'll be affected by losing, but I doubt 2-h spammers think so much in advance, otherwise they wouldn't spam. Personally, I do not think this is good choice unless there will be an built-in TK counter that would not reset on player leaving and re-joining, but rather say each 24 hours or server update. This counter would keep track of certain players TK's on that day nad let's say that 3 TK's would make him kicked, 6 'vote' banned and 9 'admin' banned, but this is rather matter for suggestion forums.
Reflective
All damage reflected. This keeps griefing from non-reflective FF at bay, but can lead to difficult situations when people mindlessly (or intentionally) jump right before youd weapon, thus killing you. This gets even worse with archers as sometimes it's difficult to aim the right person in the middle of the lump of bodies. It may seem better choice than non-reflective, but I do not think it is.
Shared
Finally, shared FF deals damage to both, creating a compromise between former two. I personally deem this best option as it both punishes attacker for swinging like mad and receiver for standing in way. What's the difficult matter here is balancing the ratio for damage sharing. I suggest best option as 20-35% to receiver and 65-80% for attacker. This way attacker, who still has better control of his arms receives the majority of damage, but receiver also gets decent warning he stands where he shouldn't be.
I say we use shared FF.
Non-reflective
Just damages ally. It has more 'realistic feel' and can be usefull to finish-off griefers and other jerks. But it opens door for griefers, but also to some hilarious situations (I remember on Zombii server McQuain accidentally killed two people reinforcing zombies and much laughter was had). Overall, this does not much prevent 2-h spamming as spammer is (primarily) unaffected. Yes, he'll be affected by losing, but I doubt 2-h spammers think so much in advance, otherwise they wouldn't spam. Personally, I do not think this is good choice unless there will be an built-in TK counter that would not reset on player leaving and re-joining, but rather say each 24 hours or server update. This counter would keep track of certain players TK's on that day nad let's say that 3 TK's would make him kicked, 6 'vote' banned and 9 'admin' banned, but this is rather matter for suggestion forums.
Reflective
All damage reflected. This keeps griefing from non-reflective FF at bay, but can lead to difficult situations when people mindlessly (or intentionally) jump right before youd weapon, thus killing you. This gets even worse with archers as sometimes it's difficult to aim the right person in the middle of the lump of bodies. It may seem better choice than non-reflective, but I do not think it is.
Shared
Finally, shared FF deals damage to both, creating a compromise between former two. I personally deem this best option as it both punishes attacker for swinging like mad and receiver for standing in way. What's the difficult matter here is balancing the ratio for damage sharing. I suggest best option as 20-35% to receiver and 65-80% for attacker. This way attacker, who still has better control of his arms receives the majority of damage, but receiver also gets decent warning he stands where he shouldn't be.
I say we use shared FF.
I do not know if there will be something official, but we can always make a semi-official one.NeuD.ef 说:
Actually melee FF encourages using thrust weapons in a group, such as pikes and spears, while it also encourages two-hander spam by lone warriors. That's why two-hander formations weren't tight packed like spear or pike formations. As long as they tone down the speed between each strike with a two-hander, this would work. I'm for 75% melee FF, non-reflective.
Dimez 说:
That's what I wanted to say. Clanmatches will be held between resonable people. Dimez you stole my line
Hethwill 说:" Clanmatches will be held between resonable people "
I support Arch3r's claim on the 75% non-reflective.
Well... I kinda exagerated but I didn't find any other English word. As for the 75%... no! no! no! 100% is the way to go. But if I can't make people go that far, I will prolly support 75% non-reflective.
Elegy
Squire
The Friendly Fire naysayers do have a point when they claim melee isn't designed with the possibility of friendly fire in mind. I am apathetic to friendly fire, but it appears to me that anything between %5 and %75 is reasonable. 100% isn't reasonable because some leeway is required to cushion the melee design flaws which many people find irksome. Then again, I'd prefer 100% to 0%. You must remember that when it first entered the game the development team considered it a bug. Also, I do not think reflective should be included at all.
For normal play San Diego makes great points. Unfortunately the same cannot be said with regards to clan play.
Personally I think the best option is around 50%. I am against 100% for various reasons but as Madjack pointed out 100% is better than 0%.
I am glad to see however that the majority of people seem to be in favour of non-reflective melee FF. Even if we are not all in total agreeement about the %.
I suggest that Chuck records each clans preferences in the OP so as to make it easy to find this information.
Also I suggest each clan approves one specific person to be a spokesman so Chuck can easily look through the posts and find the ones that are the official clan stance on the issue rather than random people joining the discussion (which there is nothing wrong with).
Personally I think the best option is around 50%. I am against 100% for various reasons but as Madjack pointed out 100% is better than 0%.
I am glad to see however that the majority of people seem to be in favour of non-reflective melee FF. Even if we are not all in total agreeement about the %.
I suggest that Chuck records each clans preferences in the OP so as to make it easy to find this information.
Also I suggest each clan approves one specific person to be a spokesman so Chuck can easily look through the posts and find the ones that are the official clan stance on the issue rather than random people joining the discussion (which there is nothing wrong with).
