Update on Bloodlines War Dominion
August 4th, 2011 by Lyle MaeterlinckRecently, we proposed a set of rules for Bloodlines War Dominion bases that would apply to any bases that wished to be a part of the public stats on the website. The purpose of this was to attempt to make the stats meaningful by making sure that all of the ranked bases were playing by a minimum basic set of standards. We released a poll that asked players for feedback on these rules. The rules included guidelines for using land controls (bans) for protecting a base. We had suggested a system where players would be able to mark bases as not complying with the final global rules, and then could be inspected by base inspectors that would manage which bases can be in the public stats.
The problem at the root of this effort is the conflict between the flexibility and control that Second Life offers, and the desire to have many bases meaningfully compete with each other in a global ranking. We have come to the conclusion that the level of restriction we would have to put in place in order to put ranked bases on equal footing would be too limiting of the freedom you currently have with setting up bases, and that we would not be able to adequately enforce these restrictions anyway. Also, we would not be able to investigate and resolve disputes over local bans. This means that you could defend your base using individual bans (as many people have done), and there really isn’t anything we can do about it.
What this means is that we will not be able to have a truly meaningful global ranking that compares Dominion bases to each other. So, there will be some changes with the stats displayed on war.slbloodlines.com. The global Strongholds ranking has been removed, and instead, durations that the bases were held by various armies has been moved to the individual Dominion pages. Bases will no longer be competing against each other for how long they can be held by a specific army, but instead, two armies can compete against each other to capture the same base and see how long each of them can hold it for. The system will effectively consider all bases to be privately held and managed by local rules. To put it another way, each base will have its own individual stats that you can compete for. The Strongholds list has been replaced by the ‘Battlezones’ list, representing the most popular bases. Bases that are set up to be impossible to take probably won’t be near the top of this list. As the system currently stands, it provides incentives to make your base as difficult to take as possible. We believe the new system will give armies incentives to work together to set up bases and local rules that are fair and fun to play.
If someone bans you from their land, we can do nothing to intervene, and we suggest you contact them to work it out, or just go somewhere else. There can be no such thing as an “unfair banning”, as a land owner can ban you from their land for any reason, or for no reason at all.
An additional change that some of you have noticed is that we are now throttling pylon captures to one per second. For a long time, certain people have set up bases to “game” the system to get as many pylon capture points as possible, by putting all of their pylons in a row on alternating channels, and running up and down the row, in some cases capturing five or more pylons per second.
We have seen enormous creativity and ingenuity devoted to designing interesting Dominion bases, and we are grateful to everyone who has genuinely supported the system with their efforts, and we hope you will support this effort to keep the game fun, and the stats meaningful. Thanks for everyone’s input and comments that help us continue to improve Liquid games. Feel free to leave a comment if you have any questions or thoughts you would like to share.
August 4th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
So I guess you guys took the path of least effort. WOW. It was fun to take down the bases at the top of the Strongholds list. I guess its all a popularity contest now. Lets see who can throw the biggest arena party to get on top of the Battlezone page. ROFL. You were getting somewhere with the rules list, but just went backwards by taking a lot of the fun away from playing war. Now armies don’t really have much to fight for if at all. (its gonna hit your wallet too cause now mines are useless cause who cares if the base is captured now)
Oh, and about the pylon capturing. It’s a good idea to add throttling. Actually, a great idea. But 1 second is a little harsh considering bases can only be so big and with up to 9 dominions on a base, the pylons can be rather close to each other. You should probably set it to 1/2 sec cause just walking slowly from pylon to pylon is gonna miss lotsa pylon captures.
Cheers on the good parts. Tho its a sad day for Bloodlines War considering we had a good thing going with the rules and laziness came in and shot it all down.
August 4th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Hi Sunder, how do you think we should have done things differently? How would you approach the issue of us not being able to stop people from protecting their bases using bans? I disagree with you that mines are useless, they do the same thing that they did before. They apply to much more than protecting a stronghold. Thanks for your perspective on the pylon capturing. One second is the minimum granularity that we’re collecting times on. Do you think it will make a difference for us to track pylon captures in microseconds?
August 4th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
The way it stand now, i have to pause while walking slowly from pylon to pylon. Thats not fun at all. However you can make it so at least just a simple slow walk can capture them, than that would be great and would totally work.
The way it was before was kinda ridiculous, setting up pylons at a fly base and flying around capturing them in bunches. I admit I did it a few times, then decided not to again cause I thought it just wasn’t fare and not the spirit of the game. So you are going in a good direction with that, but hopefully you can work in a 1/2 sec delay instead of 1 sec or it will turn into a bother rather then the fun were all trying to have.
About being able to stop people, well, you had the public vs private base stats which were great cause if they didn’t comply, they would just be taken off the public list. That’s a powerful thing cause then it’s up to them to comply, not you to force them to. The way I see it is that the work just didn’t want to be done to ensure compliance. Maybe create a better way to report it without having to spend so much time visiting bases to see if they meet the rule requirements? I’m not sure how to do that but automation always helps. Perhaps a change in the dominion scripts to check for some of the things in the rules list that can be checked and auto ban from the public strongholds list if not in compliance.
Cheers to you Lyle for keeping things open and talkative.
August 5th, 2011 at 7:17 am
i think i get the intention of the new dominion statistics, and i really like the stats on each base dominion. i think this is a great idea. i would make one small tweak to it, for each base, allow a spot for the top 3 or 5 longest possessions along with the date it was lost. this gives other armies something to shoot for, staying on another army’s base page semi-permanent if possession is long… which takes a lot of work to do, AND to keep it from being broken
August 5th, 2011 at 9:50 am
There are a few things I would like to touch on here.
In making all bases private and not setting a better detailed general guideline it pretty much looks like you are trying to absolve yourselves of the responsibility of governing over War. Which in a perfect world in a crowd of adults I totally agree you should not have to take on these responsibilities in the first place.
The new battle zone statistic promotes allowing more people to come to a dominion base on a daily basis to move up in it’s ranking board, which in a perfect world would mean less people being banned. But again this isn’t a perfect world, and that isn’t how this plays out.
The Pros
———
Mines although still effective, are completely counter productive to Battle Zone if you take into consideration that mined bases are usually strongholds. Because without a public stronghold listing, there is no reason for anyone to go to another base on their main or alt accounts and blow up mines to claim a base. It will be seen as too much work now for no glory. This overall would mean less fighting with mines and more defending your base with actual fighters which is how the game was intended.
With the new timer put on pylons, it takes longer to capture a base making running overall harder to do. This would require runners to spend more time each day to capture the same amount of pylons they have been previously, or risk losing their spot on the leader boards.
The Cons
———
As Sunder said, the one second timing is a little steep between tagging pylons, and in a small arena where pylons are closer together and you’re at the next pylon almost immediately you should not have to stand there and wait tag the next pylon.
With all bases now basically private there is no guideline for war conduct, that means there is nothing to stop people from creating large pylon areas and restricting access to everyone who could be considered competition for pylon count or conqueror points.
Solution
——————
1. Do away with the Stat Ranking page for war. The stat page is the main reason people have been deceptive to begin with. Alt killing for xp, mine alts for lethality, base running for pylons for pylon count. It all makes the stat page worthless.
All you should leave up is the Battle Zone Stats showing the most frequented bases, the Empire Stats showing the armies with the most pylons, and a new stat set up for current base activity, like the stronghold page only in reverse with the most recently tagged bases at the top, and only show bases captured within the past 24 hrs.
2. Remove the timer between pylon tagging or lower it by half whichever is easier, then set it so no matter what channel the pylons are on they still have to be spaced 5m apart. This still allows bases to be captured in a reasonable amount of time, but doesn’t make it as easy as just running on the pylons and capturing them 1 after the other. Yes this does require some tweeking and extra scripting. But the extra effort will definitely pay off in the end.
August 5th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
If the pylons are placed at least 5m apart, even if you’re running, you shouldn’t be able to hit more than one per second, unless you’re using something to enhance your speed. If they’re not 5m apart and are on alternating channels, well, that’s exactly the sort of thing that the throttle is supposed to make more difficult.
Sunder: you’re right that we could always take people off of the private stats, but there is just no way we can enforce rules about banning people from your land. The rules would have to say that you can’t use land settings to defend your base, but we can’t take away the ability for people to ban people from their land. That means that we would have to hold court on every single ban that’s disputed by any player to determine whether it was a legitimate ban. There’s no way we would have time to do this, even if we could determine that we could even come to legitimate conclusions. In many cases it would just be one person’s word against another’s. Our only choice is to let people ban whoever they want, and this means we cannot meaningfully rank Strongholds.
So, Chuck: it isn’t that we’re trying to absolve ourselves of responsibility, it’s that we’ve found there’s no way to manage the Stronghold ranking in a way that would make it truly meaningful.
In response to your other comments:
About the mines: The way we originally envisioned the Dominion is somewhat like a capture the flag game, where two teams could cooperatively set up a base and play. The mines would be useful in this situation, because you could get to a pylon, tag it, drop a mine on it, and run away. I think that the way that the new stats are shown on the dominion profiles is conducive to this because you can see how long each army was able to hold onto “the flag”.
I already addressed the pylon throttle question.
About creating bases and restricting others who are in competition, you’re right, there is nothing to stop them from doing that, but I don’t see that as a problem, because someone could go to any base and get pylon count or base capture points.
About your solutions:
Thanks for your perspective on taking down the stats page, you have some valid points there, but I don’t think that it’s compelling enough to do away with everything.
The battle zones ranking takes into account both the number of different people who have been to the base, and the number of pylons that have been tagged. The more of both, the higher the ranking.
b0bby:
I like your idea about the top 3 positions, I had considered doing something like this. I’ll see if I can get that displaying.
August 5th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Like I said before, this is now nothing more then a popularity contest. So there is really not as many reasons for others to come to your base cause if they do, then they will be providing you with more base activity and move your base higher in the Battlezone stats. We now have to beg and blackmail people to come to our base to up the activity. Well, I like the blackmail part, but I’M NOT GONNA BEG, he he he.
The three main reasons people came to your base was either to look for XP, capture your pylons for the War Heroes or Conquerer stats, or to capture the base off of the Strongholds list. The three main reasons I went to other peoples bases were to look for XP, capture pylons to climb the Conquerer stats for my army, or to take the base off the Stongholds list (by far the most fun). Strongholds, no more (insert sad face here). And never mind taking pylons cause thats just gonna take too long with the one second delays. Now Its all about XP !!!
It’s kinda sad too cause I’m hearing of a lot of base owners who are either reconfiguring their bases and deleting a few or getting rid of them all together cause of this. Reason being, well, prims aren’t cheap. But at least we had something to fight for, to defend a base for, to refresh that strongholds page and see your base on the first page. Now those were kewl things that were worth paying the prim cost every week to support the bases.
( note to self, less bases means more activity at my bases, hmmmm π )
I’m just crossing my fingers and hoping for the best cause I love this game !!!
Cheers to all.
August 6th, 2011 at 10:20 am
at least we know you screwed your self in the process because now people wont buy mines because it is currently pointless to defend your base at all because if you are known to defend your base people will never come their thus you will limit the amount of players to touch the pylons thus the true way to succeed in this way is to never to anything at all you arent giving anyone else pylons points and you arent preventing anyone from tagging your pylons so people will come to tag them until you start defending them
August 6th, 2011 at 10:37 am
What about something among the lines of Capture the Flag – Each Army Posses’s 1 Flag which would start on the commander who ever was to kill said commander takes the flag thus a bounty system would be set to try and lets say “Chuck holds Flag for bleh bleh army” well bleh bleh army wants their flag back so who ever killed chuck would take bleh bleh armys flag back and so forth and so on
August 6th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Alright.. so this is an open forum thing.. so I’m gonna share my thoughts for everyone to see. In addition to this blog post, I’ll send a NC to Lyle (even though he’ll probably read it here). So here it goes…
I decided to write this and throw in my two cents about the Dominion ranking change that was made in regards to the new Battlezones list as opposed to the Strongholds list. I know i’m only one person, and what I have to say probably won’t affect anything, but it’s just my opinion on things and I don’t expect things to change.
Battlezones
……………..
While the new Battlezones ranking system is a good incentive to get people to make their bases more user-friendly to increase activity, it sort’ve leaves the smaller bases in a lonely place and doesn’t give much incentive for new base owners because who wants to spend $ and use prims for something that doesn’t get used because everyone goes to the larger bases?
It’d be the equivelant of putting a mom & pop store next to a Walmart. Most everyone would pass right by the smaller store to go to the bigger one. The new system promotes conglomoration and doesn’t really support the little guys.
The system pushes the alliance factor of War by effectively making people have to buddy up in order to get their bases active and higher up on the list. While that may seem like a good thing to make War a friendlier place, again.. for the smaller bases it means that you’d basically have to let other armies come to your base and take it repeatedly to get the base any higher up on the list.
Taking out the alliance factor, it brings up the alt factor, because someone could use or make a few alts, put them in different armies, and go back and forth capturing bases that way to get more activity. The new system is supposed to make it where the more people that go to your base, the higher it gets ranked, but unless it actually keeps track of the number of different people that go there, instead of just what army holds it for however long, the stats could easily be jacked up by using alts to take it back and forth, switching armies every once in awhile to add another “new” army to the list to make it seem more active than it really is in order to get/keep the top spot.
The Battlezones thing basically makes it to where in order to get to the top of the list, you have to basically let someone take your base so that your base gets higher up in the rankings. Holding the base for however long it’s held for doesn’t really mean much if nobody goes to your base.
There’s no thrill of taking down a stronghold, because by going to the base that’s on top of the Battlezones list, you’re just helping them stay there.
Strongholds
……………………
I completely agree that with the Stronghold system, certain people have made their bases to be so insanely difficult to capture their bases in order to get/keep on the top of the stronghold list, and it’s unfair to others to have an obviously inpenatrable base up at the top of the list forever.
However, that same system also made it where smaller bases were able to get a little bit of extra activity by having the bases cycle up and down the stronghold list as different bases got captured, thus the incentive for those small base owners to keep their bases open was greater, because it gave them the chance to get on the front page and get more activity to their bases.
Some people locate their bases above clubs or shopping areas so that it can help them out with a little bit of extra traffic, and the ability of having their base cycle up to where it gets more activity/exposure gives them the incentive to keep their bases up and running. Are most of those-type of bases stronghold-holding bases? No. But having the bases cycle as they did at least gave them the chance to get on the first page of the list and have more people see it and go there and snag a LM so that it would maybe get even more activity in the future.
Being on the first page of the stronghold list is something that was strived for. Trying to hold it for as long as possible to show that it was a tough base or that it was highly defended. Again, I realize that certain people build fortresses that are beyond most players’ patience level to get through or that have 50 million mines, but the stronghold list is still more beneficial than the Battlezones list because of the base cycling that occurs and because of the prestige and excitement that goes along with having your base try to make it to the first page and trying to take down a base that’s on the first page.
Suggestions
………………………
While the Battlezones system may be more detailed for keeping track of specific armies that capture bases, the Stronghold system was much more exciting due to the base cycling and trying to take keep/take down strongholds.
My suggestion isn’t to get rid of the new one, but if you were to maybe just bring the Strongholds list back and keep the Battlezones as something where people can look and see where the action is if they’re looking for a fight, I think that it would be most beneficial to everyone.
To combat the issue of strongholds being insanely difficult, I would propose a stronghold cap on the number of days it can be held, and have it reset back to zero at the end of that time period.
Having people be able to hold their stronghold forever gets pretty ridiculous after more than a couple of weeks. I mean.. 30+ days, 60+ days? C’mon… people obviously get the fact that you have a stronghold that’s either impossible to get through, or that has a ton of mines that nobody wants to eat.
14 days would be a more than sufficient amount of time for people to attempt to capture a base before they give up on it. After that 14 days, the base owner could either redesign it to make it more user-friendly, or leave it the way it is and just have it build back up to the 14 day limit again.
As far as base rules in regards to them being standardized to have more meaningul rankings, if there was a cap on the strongholds, it wouldn’t really matter, because if someone wanted to dominate the stronghold list by means of making rules that are unfair, they would still get kicked to the bottom of the list after the 14 days, thus allowing other bases to cycle up to the top spot.
Those who would bitch and moan that it’s unfair that there is a cap on how long they can keep the stronghold. It’s War, not Monopoly. While there are big armies with lots of bases that take pride in attempting to dominate the first page, every stronghold has to get taken down at somepoint, otherwise people get tired of seeing it and attempting to take it.
For those who wish to have their bases locked down tighter than Fort Knox, let ’em have their 14 days, give ’em a cookie, and send their asses back down to the bottom of the list.
…….
Anyway, that is my opinion. I am usually a pretty solid and in-depth thinker on things, so hopefully what I said above makes sense enough for it to maybe be considered, but if not… at least i tried my best to make what I think is a valid suggestion to keep the game enjoyable for everyone, regardless of their base size or how frequent people go there.
The goal of War is to have fun and enjoy it. The goal of having bases is to have something to defend and to show off whatever creative things people come up with.
The new system doesn’t do anything to make me want to continue to defend bases, because having a base get captured has now become the way to get higher on the list. Not to mention the fact of…. why even have a base if it’s gonna be at the bottom of the list?
Not everyone is a social player. Not everyone has a ton of friends in different armies. Not everyone wants to have to be put in a position of having to be more social in order to have their bases get anywhere.
Being social is cool, having alliances is cool, but by having a ranking system that is essentially based off of popularity is not cool. It makes beng social and having alliances more of a rule than anything.
For the sake of everyone’s enjoyment of the game, I would ask that you please consider bringing back the Stronghold list. Using a 14-day or however long of a cap you deem fit to keep things fair and keep someone from dominating the top of the list for 80+ days would be much more fair to everyone than having them be stuck at the bottom of the new list and having to ask people to come take their base.
As far as the Battlezones thing… like I said… keep it as a secondary way for people to find bases and see where the action is at.
Variety is the spice of life, and having more options than one is a lot better than making everyone stick to one set thing. I think most everyone would be happy with having both the Stronghold list and the Battlezones list.
Thank You for your time.
– Hazard Redenblack
PS – To test out how the Battlezones thing could be manipulated by those that will most likely do so to get/keep a high spot on the list, I signed on an alt and captured and recaptured my base, switching the army of the alt every time. in 2 hours time, my base went from the 11th page to the top of the 8th page… and that was just with just me.
With 2 or 3 actual people, i’m sure the process would go much faster, thus obtaining a higher statistical ranking in less time, which ultimately makes the Battlezones stats less accurate and valid than the Stronghold list.
With the Stronghold list, at least people had to accumulate time on their bases to get them higher up. Plus, using a cap limit for strongholds as I suggested, it would keep things cycling all the time (or at least every x-amount of days). Just sayin’. =)
August 6th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
observation on new battlezone stat: the highest rankings are bases with large amounts of pylons that go un-defended. if that type of gameplay is being rewarded with higher ranking statistics, i don’t see how that will help the game long term. the only solution i see currently, is for the community to ‘camp’ at those bases and wait for the pylon runners … but i doubt that will happen consistently.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:41 am
I won’t bother commenting and leaving a long post with all of my thoughts on any of this. I can see it’s pointless. No offense. Since I am banned at most bases, because of association rather than cheating, and since I already visit some of the most popular bases to find fights, let me announce that my base is closed. I’ve lost the desire to have a base. If anyone needs dominions, IM me. See ya on the battleground. I’ll just continue to play for XP and nothing else. π
August 11th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Lyle you said “About the mines: The way we originally envisioned the Dominion is somewhat like a capture the flag game, where two teams could cooperatively set up a base and play. The mines would be useful in this situation, because you could get to a pylon, tag it, drop a mine on it, and run away. I think that the way that the new stats are shown on the dominion profiles is conducive to this because you can see how long each army was able to hold onto βthe flagβ. ”
The thing about dropping mines in this way is only the army who owns the land can do that.. you have to have rez rights, and who is gonna give rez rights to an enemy army? Mines are only useful to the people building the base, and if you get two armies to get along long enough to build a base together and use it to play together, you leave out all the other armies and their players, making it a private game not a public one. I see that as counter productive to your sales since only one or two bases would ever be needed to play on if everyone were to divide up into only two armies.
Overall I have to agree with Hazard. The time cap sounds like a better solution.
August 12th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
When this first happened, I didn’t care. Reason being, when war was released none of us even knew what the stronghold list was or meant. Most of us thought it was just a page that listed all the bases and which army they belonged to. We just simply went out to fight and take all of the bases. And while we were fighting, we would try to take the base over and over. It seems this is the intention of the new Battlezones. However, in order to move up on the active list, you have to let someone take your base first, meaning defending it when people show up to capture, would be pointless. If you defend the base, and prevent others from capturing the base, you’re low on the list, b/c you held your base. To me that doesn’t make any sense. I understand why the strongholds are gone, people and their bases our out of control. People got too worried about doing ridiculous things to keep the stronghold and brag about it (which really meant nothing considering how they were made) instead of making a decent, fun, but somewhat challenging base, and FIGHTING to defend it, like it should be. You were going in the right direction with the rules I think. You’re worried about the whole, can’t govern bans thing. The banning problem is usually only a problem at the same bases over and over, usually involving the same people, and then scattered others here and there. Yes it’s their land, agreed. But, when you sign on to play this game, you agree to play by the rules of the game. You don’t HAVE to have a base on your land, or your HOME land even. If you want to play, then play fair like everyone else, don’t expect special treatment or rules. If people don’t want to abide by the new rules on banning, then they can just have a private base. I think the direction we were headed was at least worth a shot. i think you would have found the “complaints” would probably be on the same bases, which would just show you where the biggest problem was, and you could deal with it from there. The way the battlezones are set up, people have lost interest and the point of the game has been lost. There’s no fights anymore. Someone comes to take our base, yeah we’ll sit here and let you because if we defend it, our bases fall to bottom of the list, so why bother defending? For me, it makes the pylons worthless, might as well get rid of them and just make it all about fighting, in every way, change the game and its purpose completely. if we’re defending our base, we should have credit for it. Now, I still love fighting, but there’s hardly anyone left to fight now, and it’s become a dead game for the most part at this time. I just am really disappointed that you gave up on the idea, before you even bothered to try it. yeah it’s work, that’s why you hire help. I k now a lot of people planned on attending the office hours this week (which was canceled last week and suppose to take place this week). But neither of you showed up, or informed anybody of when it would be or why it was canceled again. we get notice about the office hours the day of, or not at all. This is something that should be given notice on at least the day before. And i understand you may not both always be able to attend on Fridays, so if this is going to be the case, why not schedule it for another day that week, and send notice of the change. There are a lot of us who have paid a lot of money into bloodlines and bloodlines war, and we just want to be heard. The office hours was a good thing, it would be nice to see it kept up maybe a little better. The 1 second thing on the pylons, I have no problem with this. yeah, i have run pylons before, it’s boring to me, that’s why I didn’t do it as much as others, and it’s just numbers. I rather be fighting, taking bases not just running them. So i rather like the 1 second thing. Although, Sunder does have a good point and I have ran across that problem as well. As for the mines, they really don’t have a purpose. Why would you use them now? If you go to a base that has mines, since there are no strongholds, why would you giveaway kills, instead of just going to a different base? I mean afterall, if you don’t capture the base, that base falls to the bottom of the list, so why would we waste the money on them now? Sure, you can rez them on the battlefield, but people will just leave, again, why give away the kill w/out a fight. And it can’t be used more like a bomb type weapon anymore either like in the old days where you just dropped and hit the button and boom it blew up, you have to wait 5 seconds after drop, most people have mine radars and will move out of the way. So I agree, mines have lost their use as well. I hope something changes really soon, because the game i’ve loved to play for 2 years is dead at the moment, more than i have ever seen it before. yeah, i miss the way it was in the beginning, but with the battlezones the way they are, it’ll definitely not be like the old days even with the strongholds gone, b/c defending your base makes your base non popular or “inactive” w/e. I really hope everyone is heard, and i’d really like to see the effort of what originally was being done, be done, and at least tried for a while. And yanno, if after a while things don’t get better, or get worse, then come up with a different better way to do things that will still keep people playing. But these battlezones, just doesn’t make any sense as far as the point of the game as it is now. Thanks for listening π
August 14th, 2011 at 10:38 am
When I joined war there were TWO things that were the main goals of WAR:
1. Protecting your base by fighting invaders
2. Invading other bases in order to get pylons and/or gain xp/level
As I got more involved and grew to love the game another main goal of WAR came into focus:
3. To have fun and make friends fighting in either 1v1s, free for alls, boys vs. girls, or big battles between armies and alliances.
Eventually, like most others, I decided to create my very own base to defend and host fights at. Thus the 4th main goal of WAR:
4. To create a base that will appear on the Strongholds List. It didn’t matter if it was for 4 days or 15 days as long as people came to try and take it. Thus reinforcing the first three rules (defend, xp/level, and have fun).
While some went a little crazy in creating bases which were simply impossible to take for various reasons in a reasonable amount of time, it was still a way to gain xp/level and sometimes have fun.
In the week since the Strongholds Stat was taken down and the new BattleZones stat was created, this is the state of my WAR life.
First goal: Why should I defend my pylons from someone coming to take them if the simple fact of them taking it raises my stats under Battlezones? I even gain more pylon points for myself and my army by taking the base back once they leave! Why defend a base from being taken if there is no ranking system showing who is defending their base the best?
Second goal: In contrast, by going to someone else’s base and taking their pylons you are essentially helping them raise their stats on the Battlezones and WarHero/Conquerors stats. In addition, because people want you to take their base they do not fight you (thus no xp/leveling).
Third goal: Since I cannot gain xp/level by invading other armies bases since they won’t defend, the only way to gain xp/level are through free for alls, boys vs girls, etc. But these generally consist of close friends and my army/alliance members whom I have killed more than 15 times.
Fourth goal: Without the stronghold stat and due to the newly developed problems in my first three goals there is no reason for me to have a base of my own (wasting over 2000L a week). As a small base and parcel renter the main traffic my base would get is from when it would appear on the strongholds list. Any traffic I get now is from invaders who merely want to up their War Hero stat which in turn ups my own War Hero and army Conqueror stats and my bases Battlezones ranking.
In the end, WAR has only one goal now. Waste money and put up an easy base with pylons all in nice and neat little rows. If someone comes to your base, you do not fight them. You LET them take it and then take it back once they leave. If you try and fight them, they are more than likely to leave because they can easily get pylons elsewhere. Thus, what is the point of a HUD that can attack people?
While I understand the basic idea of having individual base stats that you can compete for it is hard to think of a base that can pass from army to army. Is an invading army supposed to defend their newly acquired base on which they have no land rights, no sensors, nothing? This to me, is unrealistic. Each base is individually created, owned, and monitored either jointly by an army or individually and does not pass ownership.
The Battlezones stat I feel has good intentions, but the only thing it promotes are pylon runners and popularity. Even with the 1 pylon per second limitation the bases considered as “running” bases are still at the top of the Battlezones stat.
Ack, I wrote so much rofl Anyway, I spoke my peace. Its ultimately your decision and we have to live with it.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:43 am
I must admit that I cannot see the point of the Battlezone stats and I have been a pylon hunter from the beginnings of the game (when it was actually difficult to gather pylons in huge numbers in a short space of time). I know that some bases had become almost impenetrable due to the construction (not due to actually being defended by an army), with the use of ejectors and invisi prims and such like, but they also added creativity, ingenuity and challenge to the game.
We’ve seen some fantastic bases developed alongside the impossible. People had a choice which of them to visit and they held an attraction for players with different objectives. Those that wanted to take down stongholds targeted the difficult and impossible. Pylon hunters targeted the friendly and accessible bases. Anyone wanting xp just went anywhere a fight was on.
The new Battlezone stat just seems to encourage the placing of as many pylons as is possible in the smallest possible area with a big sign saying come and get em folks. That just suggests ‘boring’ base to me. I liked the Stronghold’s stat because it was a competitive stat, even if the base was unfairly difficult. I don’t see the Battlezone stat in the same way. I’d rather have impossible bases than ‘here you are my friend take all my pylons’ bases. After all we all have a choice about which bases to go to. We have enough alliances and big armies already without introducing another stat to favour them.
BTW how about the Conquerer stat being calculated by number of pylons captured divided by number of soldiers in the army. That would be a real measure of the effort involved for the smaller armies and might just limit the packing of armies with alts to boost numbers π
August 15th, 2011 at 8:13 am
YO! I have a GREAT idea! Have BOTH stats be available to us. For those of us who like holding strongholds- let us. And for those who want to be popular and have ridiculously busy bases- let them too! It gives EVERYONE the ability to play war how they want and follow the select objectives- like we already did.. but now would be including a NEW objective(if we so wished to play that objective). It would be great having different style bases out there anyway!! Not just the same ole thing everywhere!! It would be a simple solution and everyone will be happy! xxx
Please reconsider the 1 second wait on the pylons.. thanks π
August 15th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Miya: in general, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you would be getting along with the people you’re playing with. If you’re not, then I think you should find some new people to play with. If you want to use mines, then you’ve got to find some friendly land where everyone agrees that mines are in play. Also, I think you’re right that when it comes to the dominion, it has to be a private game. Each dominion base is an individual private game. We can’t exercise enough control over how people use their land and set up their base to make it a global game. However, it is still a global game in the sense that the combat equipment works on every sim, regardless of whether that sim has been set up as a War combat sim. So, you can go to any of the thousands of sims in Second Life and have a gunfight or a swordfight with your friends.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:27 am
In addition to my previous post- I think it’s fair because not ANY bases will go unnoticed. People will get the credability they deserve. Just give us our Stronghold Stat back, also keep the Battlezone stat, and I believe you will see that both stats will be competative objectives for all of us. War would be fun for everyone and we can still use our mines, along with making incredible obstacle-style bases. People will continue to be creative and more people will come back to war. xxx
August 15th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Stephy: I think that I might not have been very clear about why the rules would not have worked. We could not have enforced any rules about legitimacy of bans from dominion bases. I cannot overstate this, it would have been impossible. Let me give you an example to illustrate: Person A bans Person B from their base. Person B complains to us that Person A is using bans in order to protect their dominion base and that they didn’t do anything wrong or break any rules. We have a rule that in order to ban someone from your base and stay in the public stats, the ban has to be justified. We contact Person A to ask why Person B was banned. Person A says that Person B was using an attachment that wasn’t allowed, or didn’t follow some local rule. Person B denies this. At least one of them is lying to us, and most likely, this is a personal dispute and both of them are lying. Now we are put in the position of judging whether to allow the base to be in the public stats. Now multiply this times hundreds of cases of banning, of long ban lists of dozens of players. We do not have the power or the resources to make these kinds of judgments.
The system has to be set up so you can manage your own local base any way you want, and if people don’t like your base, they can go to a different one. Part of the reasoning behind the Battlezones list is that it rewards bases that attract more players and gets more pylon captures. In the Stronghold way of operating, there was an incentive to make it so that the pylons would be very difficult to capture. Now I think that the incentive is to make your base fun to play in order to attract more people. To answer your question about why bothering defending your base: you should do it if you think it’s fun. Are you playing this game for fun or just to get to the top of the list? It isn’t a waste of time if you’re playing for fun.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Also, give base owners the responsibility to handle problems on their own. People that come to you with complaints should be for “they are modifying scripts ect). People can disable scripts and can disable object entry ect ect.. and our huds still manage to work. So base owners should not need your help Lyle. If they need a mother/father to help them play a game, they probably are the problem in the first place, as we know the rules and guidelines already since they are available to everyone to read. If people’s bases are illegal- this should be the only thing we legitly have to complain about. If people want to hold a dominion on their land, they need to respect your rules. In your rules it states- land needs to be accessable to everyone.. EVERYONE. Enough said- no negotiations. If they have a problems having their land open to everyone, then they simply cannot have a public ranking base. If this is still a problem, consider giving some people the ability to overlook a base that is supposedly illegal before they come running to you crying “mommy”. Because its ruining war for all of us loyal and long-term players that put a lot into playing Bloodlines, and we havent even done anything wrong. But like I said, if you have both stats available, it gives people a chance to just try the other one, if one doesnt work for them.. xxx
August 15th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Ok how about this as an idea for Strongholds that might introduce an extra element of suspense and challenge if we are concerned about single bases dominating.
The Stronghold system is reintroduced and logs stats as it previously did but one actual statistic is taken at a single point in time, say once a week. At that point in time whoever is holding for the longest becomes the winner for that week and receives points (say 10). But so do each of the other top ten ranked armies (9,8 and 7 points and so on downward). That creates a new league table with points totals potentially close together in order to keep armies interested. It is important that the point stay within achievable reach in order to keep armies interested and motivated.
The date and time might be set in the week so that armies could target bases to invade at the precise time that they need to. The time would be amenable to global players. That would encourage joint attack and joint defense and army solidarity. It could potentially be a fight fest at those points in time. It might also be the case that the date and time is unknown in some weeks (randomly selected) in order to maintain the desire to take and defend during that week.
This idea would continue to promote pylon hunting for those interested in that, both as individuals and as conquerors, and also suit those intent on defending or taking down strongholds. Also at the designated time of the week the activity around bases would be intense (promoting traffic to all bases in order to remove them from the standings))and thus encourage fighting and the continued exchange of xp from newer members of armies defending their base. It would also make the decision about which base to take down a calculated effort that would need to recognise the possibility of leaving a smaller army as the winner for the week by default. It would also require a strategic play bearing in mind the overall points table and how places may be influenced by the strategic taking of the bases of armies close to the points total of your own army.
Is that a possibility?
August 15th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Oh and I forgot to mention that those looking for a fight know that around the designated time in the week there will be lots of activity at the top ranking strongholda thus almost guaranteeing fighting opportunities. π
August 15th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
While I agree you should defend your base because you think its fun but a large part of the fun of the game are the stats, that’s why you have them to begin with. Its a goal that we can strive to reach, a sense of purpose and driving force that keeps us coming back to this game. This game wasn’t just about fun, it was about pride in your own creativity and effort.
I do agree that it would be impossible for you to make decisions about bans at people bases. It becomes a game of he said she said. If someone gets banned from a base it should not be your problem but their own. They can either get over it or try and work it out.
I wanted to suggest a possible database system for bases in terms of difficulty (easy, moderate, hard, impossible, etc) that either we can classify or the dominion owner can establish. I think it would also be interesting if dominion owners could give information about their base such as: fly base, safe zone/detach, pylon running friendly, fights preferred, small/large base or army, etc. The dominion owner could log in and either fill in a descriptive box or check boxes you have available. Then you could have a way to search for specific kinds of bases. I think this would encourage exploration of bases that people don’t normally go to, much like the strongholds stat did with its ever changing base listings.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Lyle: As I said in the beginning of my post, when this first happened I didn’t care. And if you’ll read the rest you’ll see where I also stated that for the first time in the 2 years the game has been out (i joined the game the day after you released it) it’s the most dead i have ever seen it. Every night myself and others tp base to base looking for fights. As a whole, this killed the game. There is no “fun” to it anymore, because most have quit the game b/c of this decision you made. yea i get what you’re saying, but it killed the game. There’s gotta be something better that could have been done, what, i’m not sure, but something, b/c this single handedly killed it, and that’s not an understatement, ask anybody. If i didnt love playing this game i wouldn’t still be here that’s for damn sure, after all the things I’ve put up with in the 2 years i’ve played from certain players, but it’s a game i’ve loved since day one and refused to quit. I don’t know if it’s possible, but maybe making it to where the bases that climb on the list are the bases that are attacked and pylons are touched, but the base itself is active w/out being taken a lot, if that makes any sense, in other words, it rewards the armies for doing what they are suppose to do, defending their base AND being active at same time. Or maybe a better idea. All i know is this decision made the game dead within about 2 days, and that has only gotten worse. It’s like pulling teeth to actually find people to fight these days, even when we defend our base, they just leave b/c they were only there “to tag”. nobody wants to fight now. we don’t want to watch as the game we love to play withers away, is the point, surely there’s something that can be done so that ppl still want to play.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:40 am
That being said, there’s a very few of us still trying to keep the game alive, but we need help from you guys so that others feel like there’s still a reason to play. Like i said, i dunno what for sure, but surely there’s gotta be something we can do that’s better than the battlezone thing, or a better way to do it so that ppl will still want to fight.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Wow. Some people just don’t get it. WAKE UP!!! You’re just doing the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. You’re not gonna sell as much mines anymore (only for lethality players now), you’re not gonna sell anymore dominions (people are leaving war, selling off their dominions, and taking down bases cause of cost and the -no fun anymore- factor, and you’re not gonna sell many more huds and weapons cause the game isn’t fun anymore so people aren’t gonna care to start playing a dead game.
I’m rarely vocal about anything but this is ridiculous. It’s like the worst business move in Bloodlines history. Either you are being ignorant of what people are saying or maybe you just really haven’t been paying attention? But war sucks now and people are leaving in droves. And the people who are leaving are the ones who actually added fun to the game. Is that really how to run a successful business? Wow.
I understand that there were issues with resolving conflicts which took a lot of RL time to deal with, but stop being blind and do something positive about it instead of doing the absolute least and giving up.
We have spent lots of money to support your game, lots and lots. We spend a whole lot more then you take in from each of us who play. It costs a lot to keep a base up with all the prim it takes to present a decent base we can be proud of. You have now taken away the primary and logical reason to actually keep a base, which is to defend a base and be seen on a list so others can discover your base and participate in a fun game of war.
I can’t believe that you haven’t even brought over the liaison idea to war? Why? Unless I’ve missed them, they would do a lot to relieve some of your precious time in resolving conflicts and other issues that may arise. To think you just gave up is a slap in the face to people who have played war for so long with lots of time and money invested.
I think you should admit your mistake and bring back the stronghold list with an assurance that its not gonna go away ever again!!! And I’m sure we would all accept a stronghold time limit so the impossible bases can only stay on the list for say 30 days or so.
Otherwise, say good bye to what was an awesome game cause it’s dead right now and it’s just gonna get worse (can you imagine worse then dead? lol)
Cheers to good decisions and a new refresh to what War, in all definitions, was and is supposed to be. (not a popularity contest where you let the 1 person a day that now comes to your base take it for better Battlezone stats)
Admiral Sunder Avedon
August 19th, 2011 at 8:03 am
I have seen a tremendous amount of change in the game since stronghold stat was removed. As many predicted, we have seen armies completely ignore their base alerts, so the raiders take the base in hope of increasing their battlezone rank. Addtionally seen are requests from armies to capture their pylons, promising they won’t attack you while you are there. All this leads to less ‘War’, in an attempt to ‘game’ this new stat.
This leads me to believe the stats in the game are both the promise and bane of the game. Current stats are easily gamed, and likely new ones would produce the same. WHAT IF THE STATISTICS WERE STUDIED FOR GAMING, AND THOSE FOUND GAMING RECEIVED PENALTIES?
For example, it is easy to spot those who use alts to boost experience points and even lethality. Those killed for the points rarely have killed anyone themselves, and many dont even have a weapon. Additionally, looking at the number of kills done, and the list of names that killed them easily indicates additional names to look at for additional gaming.
I am hoping you will soon introduce those online forums you mentioned, and the statistic gaming can be outed in that medium, with official moderators confirming properly gathered data.
I hope this concept is considered. We all want to see this game grow bigger, but I must say that the current environment and statistic gaming is driving the game to all time lows in combat activity.
August 26th, 2011 at 7:26 am
It is a sad day when you have to take down a once popular stronghold due to 0 traffic in a months time. I will be lifting Enchanted Meadows Cage Base this afternoon. I have better uses for the prims!
Our base activity since the removal of strongholds stands at this…
Mesisa Base, no captures as of 8/9/11
Mellow Yellow Sword Base, no captures as of 8/17/11
Memphit Base, no captures as of 7/30/11
Rekal Thor Base, no captures as of 7/30/11
…and the sad reality of our Enchanted Meadow Base, no captures as of 8/12/11!
Only our excessively large pylon platform in Mellow Yellow has had little to any activity at all. I am also afraid that with the delay on pylon captures that it just takes too much time for anyone to even bother!
I am reluctant to tally up the cost for keeping these bases open nearly a month for no purpose at all. I am afraid it will leave such a bad taste that I become completely disenchanted with the idea of wearing the WAR Hud.
This game is not the same. I have been to once very popular bases to find them empty or completely GONE! I will elaborate on our experience when I have time. For now it is a shame to pay for land that no one uses.
We do truly love this game and we are hoping it can survive these difficult times. For all the active fighters out there… YES we are ready to fight… where are you?
August 29th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Here’s my thoughts:
1)Strongholds/Battlezones, Losing the stronghold list has affected the game greatly, part of the fun of war was teaming up with your army, to go take a stronghold.I do agree that the use of ejecters and suchlike totally ruined it to, whatever happened to just plain old being smart and making a fun, yet challenging base to take. Now the battlezones, well, pointless in my eyes, give you an example, went to a base, ran out to capture the base, expecting the bases own soldiers to follow,leading to a fight, the COMMANDER shouts “let them take them, then we move up the list”. As Bobby said above, you seem to get rewarded ie number one spot, for not defending your own base.
I dont have a solution for the battlezones but i do have a suggestion for the strongholds, bring it back, enforce the rules, no ejectors etc, fly enabled, pylons clear on at least 2 sides and then tell everyone to stop moaning because the base is a bit harder than usual to take and actually use their brains and their army to take it.
I truly believe losing the stronghold list has changed the game for the worse, im in the game everyday and have noticed a big drop in active players and activity on bases.
Throttle on pylon captures, basically i was over the moon when you put this on, and no, not because i can now retain my number 1 War Heroe Status but because it was getting ridiculus, pylon running is all people were thinking about, 3 or 4 big bases were the only ones used because of having lots of pylons. Now, with the throttle, i am now travelling around many different bases again,meeting, i wont say many people as war seems quiet to me at the moment, but yeah meeting new people.
September 1st, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I have an idea that could bring back competition, more product sales, and the best part, does not require an update to any deployed products. This idea *does* require some modifications to the website..
Using the BL War website, army commanders could define a dominion, or set of dominions that they wish to challenge other armies to take and keep possession of the longest. Army commanders agree to date/times, and the website keeps track of the possession times and after the match has passed, posts the winner of the match on the web. There could be all kinds of brackets for the matches, based on numbers of players (think 2v2’s to all vs all) and based on number of pylons/dominions. Armies could then have some statistics based on actual battles won or lost. If there is perceived cheating during a match, either commander could contest the result, and it would show as a draw for both armies. This type of activity would certainly sell more serums and mines as the matches are timed, and they would need to kill and re-enter the match as quickly as possible to recapture the pylons. Because of the this new game play, and the possibility for different amount of agreed upon players, you will see many new type of bases created just for this type of game play, increasing dominion sales.
I think the introduction of this type of gameplay, and statistics that show true combat lethality of an army would inspire many people to start fighting again. I hope you carefully consider this idea and opportunity for growth.
September 25th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Well… I Think Chink has a good idea. Was about a new score system. I myself Will suggest something simular, hopefully it will be seen as not to radical π
Based on Tony Hawk Pro skater combo score system, I could see it very entertaining to have a scoreboard Based on time. It Will start counting when an army takes an ‘enemy’ base. And counting speed Will multiply Based on bases taken “base x sec = conquest time” should work with no script change in-game, just some altering on webpage codes.
I Think it Will contribute to more war, an Will not devaluate mines.
September 27th, 2011 at 8:28 am
Please forgive the long delay in my reply to these comments. I want you to know that I’ve heard you, and I realize that everyone wants the Stronghold stat list back, because it was the stat that encouraged the most fighting, and gave everyone a reason to defend their bases and use mines.
Thanks to everyone for their input and ideas on this, and your dedication to making the game better. I just wanted to let you know that we will be bringing the stronghold list back, with a modification. The fundamental problem is that we don’t have the power to determine if a base is being protected through bans, and that some people, in bad faith, have created bases that have the appearance of being possible to take, but in practical terms are not possible to take. However, everyone should not be punished because of those few.
I know that my response to this issue has been inadequate and is inexcusably late. But better late than never I think. So, here is the solution I propose: we will bring back the stronghold list, but everyone in the war community will be able to rate dominion bases through the website as “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”. Next to each base in the stat rankings will be the sum of the ratings for each base. So, if a base has 10 thumbs up and 5 thumbs down, the rating will be +5. If a rating gets too low compared to other ratings, it will be hidden on the list, perhaps with gray text showing (base hidden rating: -50) Everyone will have the option to show hidden bases on the list, or show a particular hidden base by clicking on the greyed-out row.
I anticipate that some people will make many alt accounts in order to log in and upvote their bases. There’s a limited amount we can do about alts in-world, but on the website, we could limit number of votes on a given base from a particular ip address.
Also, so that down-voted bases have a chance of recovering, perhaps if they make adjustments to make their base more user-friendly, votes will have to have an expiration date. So, if you get downvoted, those votes might only last for 7 days or so, and the base owner would be wise to make changes in that time so they don’t get downvoted again.
Let me know what you think of this idea. In the meantime, I’ve activated the Stronghold list on the website again, and I promise not to make this big of a change to the game again without seeing what the community thinks first. Thanks for your patience with us while we work through these issues.
September 27th, 2011 at 9:50 am
OMG you brought strongholds back….THANK YOU. <3 Let the raids begin π
September 27th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Thank you Lyle for hearing us and taking the time to attempt at creating a system with viewer feedback on the bases themselves π I look forward to the fights ahead and the creative bases being brought back π \o/ Im super excited and can’t stop smiling Woot! \o/ \o/ \o/ I hope that people really vote on the base itself that would be superific π
September 27th, 2011 at 10:40 am
EXELLENT! Good Call Lyle π
Regarding bans, base rules, in the context of ‘public’ I given it alot of thought, so I give ban rights to any who wishes them. Even to fighters outside the group I am in. I believe that the morale democracy will work. Every 24 hours i clear the list, and presume that the ban worked in the situation it was enforced. If the ban has been misused, the error Will only stand for 24 hours, and ban rights are revoked, if misused. I dare this because, Estate Managers cannot be banned. For the sake of realism, all can even rezz mines.
Lyle. How you could evade the role as judge, Think of it like you are a weapons dealer, what a costummer does with the weapons after they have bought them, is up to the law, in this case, Linden Lab. Them you can sit back and relax and wait for Linden Lab to bring the cases to you π remember a disclaimer π
September 27th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
WOW. I have lotsa respect now for Lyle. This is awesome. To admit fault, own up to it, and fix it, raises someone really high on my list. Cheers man.
Although there should have been some sorta mention that this was happening. Since thru time we have lost soooooo many people and bases that some will never ever come back. Lets just hope that at least half of them will return.
This just makes me happy that I and the Hellions never gave up. We kept our bases up and continued to defend them like if the Strongholds list was always there. For having a base is for defending and fighting, not inviting people to come and take it while you sit in safe and refresh the BattleZone page to see your base go up the list as people take the pylons.
I’m sooo happy. Can’t wait to see some of the more creative, themed bases return. War is fun, fighting is fun, bases are fun. YAAAAAY FOR FUN AGAIN π
-Sunder Avedon-
September 27th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Ooops, I forgot to mention that unbiased feedback is essential to keeping things open and fair. That you added a way for us to rate the bases is a great idea. And that you thought about ways to keep people from cheating the rating system is a major plus.
Thanks again Lyle π
-Sunder Avedon-
September 27th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
….and today we put our suits back on! Thank you!
October 2nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Just one thought about the rating system for bases…I guess it will be possible for the big armies to just vote for themselves and thus dominate the rankings through sheer numbers …. without even using alts? So would it be the case that you could not vote for a stronghold that is your own armies? People would thus vote for other strongholds that are interesting or a welcoming place to visit or whatever.
October 3rd, 2011 at 1:40 am
Actually..having given it further thought the same possibility of bloc voting would also affect the ‘thumbs down’ vote i.e. big armies could simply vote against others using their majority numbers to keep other bases low in the rankings. The exercise then becomes simply one of strategic voting to maintain position without any actual relationship to the characteristics of any given base. Maybe I am being somewhat cynical here and individuals will of course vote objectively without pressure from commanders or friends :-P. If players had to vote positively that might give a truer picture of the stronghold?
My proposal would thus be:
1 One vote per player per specified time period (a week)
2 Players may only vote for strongholds (give a thumbs up)
3 Players may only vote for strongholds maintained by armies other than their own.
October 3rd, 2011 at 1:59 am
BTW could voting terminals be provided to place on bases (rather like the vendors)so that people can vote at the base without having to go to the website?
Sorry – one last amendment to my proposal as the original point 1 excluded voting for a number of different bases within the time period:
My proposal would thus be:
1 Each player can vote once, for up to five different bases, within a given period of time (say a week)i.e. 5 votes per week.
2
2 Players may only give a thumbs up to the chosen stronghold/s.
3 Players may only vote for strongholds maintained by armies other than their own.
October 10th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Hey lyle, i’ve been thinking alot about this rating system, I wondered would be be able to change our vote say, if an army changed their base? Bases are changing often for some people, what if i like it one day, vote for it in positive light, then it changes and I’d like to retract my vote? Is that possible? or something you’ve considered? Also wil the vote be based on the dominion that resides at the base, or the land the base is on? For example i currently am part of a base with 3 other base owners, and all of us have dominions at it, so where would you vote exactly? On the land that all of our dominions reside on or a vote per dominion which in our case would be I think about 15 dominions in total… I’m excited to see how your system is going to work and thanks for putting the time into it to make the game better..have a good one!
October 28th, 2011 at 3:38 am
η΅ε¨θ°εε¨εε·…
[…]Bloodlines » Blog Archive » Update on Bloodlines War Dominion[…]…
March 3rd, 2012 at 10:08 pm
how to get traffic for free…
[…]Bloodlines » Blog Archive » Update on Bloodlines War Dominion[…]…
March 24th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
I don’t like the idea of being classed as “dormant” because I don’t feed. Paying $35 for an amulet shouldn’t make my status vie a’ vie the game change. If I work to recruit a player and then they decide to quit SL, that shouldn’t change my soul count or my liege’s total souls. Leave it the way it is or change the time period to 6 mon or longer of not logging into the game.