PVP - Storm the Forest - Extra Turret

Discussion in 'General Archive' started by Deefje, Dec 19, 2013.

Dear forum reader,

if you’d like to actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, please log into the game first. If you do not have a game account, you will need to register for one. We look forward to your next visit! CLICK HERE
?

Adding a turret on the Attacking side's base in STF is a good idea!

Poll closed Jan 19, 2014.
  1. I agree

    7 vote(s)
    58.3%
  2. I disagree

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deefje

    Deefje Advanced

    Hello, as a frequent player of all PVP battles I have found Storm the Fortress the most tedious. (Besides it obviously being harder for Dragon Knights to score points ;). )

    The main reason is, that it's far too easy for high rank/highly geared people to just stand on the edge and shoot into the spawning area of the attackers, litterally farming other players.

    It happens a lot, and really upsets the gameplay and it's boring. That's why I was thinking that the first base the 'attacking' side have, would get a single turret.

    Besides making it impossible for a sneaky ranger to stand still in a corner and farm us with 600 damage standard attacks. It would also force a more tactical approach to defending, instead of 'king of the middle' people would have to move around to the flanks more to defend where-ever the attacking side chooses to attack.

    I thought it was a good idea, could always be not... it's not like I put hours in thinking it up. So, evaluate and be gentle.

    (I reposted this topic since I read in the Dutch forum sticky it's best to make suggestions a poll, my apologies to those that already posted)
     
  2. Amend

    Amend Junior Expert

    Agreed
     
  3. reetman60

    reetman60 Board Analyst

    I agree with your ideas but this only works for the low levels. 6 vs 6 is messes up at the higher levels: the attacking team always wins if they have enough mages.
    This was an idea that i really liked but never got any response from, please take a look.
    http://en.board.bigpoint.com/drasaonline/showthread.php?t=550015
     
  4. ArcaneMaster

    ArcaneMaster Active Author

    lol are u a dk? this is so bad idea for sw!!

    anyway strom the fotress needs works. 99.99999% attacking team win. few suggestion:

    1. make it 5v5 - waiting for 12 ppl on low populated server like tegan is buzz killer.
    2. each team gets a node which is surrounded by turrents.
    3. so every team gets to defend as well as attack thier opponents castel
    4. first team to take off opponents castle or team who took most turrets off wins.
    5. reduce the time frame to 10 mins. anything more than 10 is overkill
     
  5. reetman60

    reetman60 Board Analyst

    DId you even read what i wrote?
     
  6. Amend

    Amend Junior Expert

    That sounds good
     
  7. Deefje

    Deefje Advanced

    @reetman60 I actually considered including the suggestion to only do this for low levels. But really I don't really know anything about high levels yet, so it was not my place to say... hence I didn't.

    But thanks for your feedback.

    @ArcaneMaster tbh you're talking about changing the entire battle... which isn't the point here.

    Also, I had no idea that at max level the attacking team always wins. Again, I don't know max level pvp so these are just my suggestions as a relatively new player and please consider them as such.

    Furthermore, choosing to play on a lowly populated server was your choice. It's clearly indicated when you pick a server when you start to play. I always pick highly populated servers for just this reason. There's a lot of other privy's while playing on a low populated server. (such as usually less twinks that absolutely destroy you at low level). So don't complain, or reroll to a server with a higher population.
     
  8. ArcaneMaster

    ArcaneMaster Active Author

    the point is making game play better and giving each palyer equal victory chance in the game. if that would mean changing map so be it.

    my point exactly. so what i said does not only apply to high lvls. it does same benefits for low level gameplay. so what is the problem here?

    lol do u know what the word suggetions means? plz look up, its def not complain.
    so nxt time dont put words on others mouth rather try and understand what the other person is saying

    fyi....do u know how ppl choose servers while starting a game?
    few choose server based on thier languge (population doesnt matter)
    few choose based on latency to naturlly avoid lags while playing.
    few choose servers where they have friends.. and probably zillion more ways who knows

    so choosing highly populated server blindfolded is not very smart in many ways.

    about reroll u suggetion to better gameplay on low populated server is to reroll to highly populated server, cos thats our choice? amazing.
    so why complain about high lvl killing low lvls in arena? isnt it your mistake u playing 6v6 being a low level?

    here's my alternative suggestion to u : try a simpler areana like 1v1 at low lvl till u reach a decent lvl and then and only then play 6v6 and avoid getting bullied by high lvls.
    as you are on a higly populated server finding same lvl opponents in 1v1 shouldnt be a problem.

    lol yes.. u said u like the idea of of 3v3 race. someone already replied to that saying why that is a bad idea . hence i rest my case :D
     
    Last edited by moderator: Dec 21, 2013
  9. Deefje

    Deefje Advanced

    @ArcaneMaster
    Once again, you're not reading what people are typing. I literally said that high populated have an advantage in things like queue times. I also said that low populated servers have their own advantages... such as the ones you just listed. So you basically just repeated what I said, be it in a more aggressive tone.

    Also when I say low level, I mean low experience level. I already got my fame up to 26 at this moment by mostly grinding duel's such as you said and even though there is always someone significantly stronger in a group, I can usually hold my own at this point.

    The problem is the twinks at low level or perhaps the pay2win players, since they seem to be full legendary/unique items, high level gems and pvp rank. These are the ones that will be hit most by the 'turret' idea, since they can't stand still and toss auto-attacks into the spawning area anymore. (which is explained quite well in my first post, did you read it?)

    The suggestion is there so that newer players will perhaps enjoy their pvp more than I did. Since it was a chore to become competitive and it might scare people away... scaring new players away is never good business.

    Also, this thread is about adding a single turret in the STF battle. Which is quite easy to do for the devs. You're talking about making an entirely new battle. If you want to post about that you picked the wrong topic and you should have made your own topic and poll to publish your own suggestion/idea. Also, queue times where never a subject of the original post.

    So please stay on topic.
     
  10. ArcaneMaster

    ArcaneMaster Active Author

    if u knew there are reason for lot of ppl to choose low populated server then why on earth will any wise man ever suggest reroll as solution to waiting time? or is that u belive players on low poulated server shouldnt enjoy let alone suggest things to make game play better?

    so what basically you are saying is, I made this post about 6v6 for a specific point and one point only and i want ppl to agree or disagree (m not sure u will take that kindly) anyone else dont bother commenting/sugessting alternates to "my" theories, even if this is a forum where ppl are suppose to discuss/debate/talk of soulutions/issues/suggestions and loads of other nonsense.

    anyone who dont oblige ill shun them off saying "THIS IS MY POST STAY OUT OF IT OR STAY ON MY POINT".. yeah i can get that.. my bad.. sorry ..lmao
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page