Rushing
Karma: 3
|
maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/04 11:45
heh i reckon we need to have a vote from the player for a admin, but everyone would vote for themselfs, so why not have a list of nice people! ... that wouldnt work i can only think of 2 names...........
so why dont the admins put up a list of 3-5 players, and the players, not the ones on the list, can vote. that way we can have an admin everybody likes and is a regular to the game, so we always have a admin on.
of course im not implying we dont like the current admins, aww dont cry weebo, i still love you!
Post edited by: Rushing, at: 2007/09/04 08:46
I deserve good karma 
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Weebo
Karma: 19
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/04 16:51
What do you reckon this administrator would do? We don't have a cheating problem, so the only thing I could see is trying to prevent laming.
Then we need to define which type of laming we should try to prevent and which type is acceptable. Once we find a type of laming that enough people voice their opinion against, we will then release and update to fix it, like was done with leaving when about to be orbed, demolishing, quitting in DFGs, turret rushing, etc...
Not to say it wouldn't be fun to have more admins, but is it necessary until we have more players or until cheating becomes a problem?
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Rushing
Karma: 3
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/04 18:13
hence the reson i said let the admins chose the players, i didnt say when  and maybe we dont have a cheating problem but we have a laming, a bug abusing and a alt+F4onadfging problem
when you say what kind of laming, i thought laming was attacking under 11... thats it
I deserve good karma
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Weebo
Karma: 19
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/04 18:40
It depends who you're talking too. Some players will say you are laming if you defeat them in an equal battle. Some will say you are laming if you use a DFG on defense, the only place you were able to use them in the original BattleCity... etc 
But yes, there is a general consensus that attacking under 11 is lame. It is highly unlikely that doing so will still be possible on BC Java. I don't think we would see that sort of change to BattleCity Classic unless we start noticing 30+ players online!
One change I do hope to see on BattleCity Classic though is removal of money as suggested by Vindkast and supported by many!
Post edited by: Weebo, at: 2007/09/04 15:41
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Rushing
Karma: 3
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/04 21:51
WTF removal of money????? thats bullcrap, i mean it would make mass spamnage of hosps and building would be too easy
take away money and you take away more of the realtivity of it, i mean its warped enough, but building things out of nowhere?
personally i think whoever suggested it should get orbed 400 times, huh? weebo said it.... oh shit
I deserve good karma
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
darkluigi07
Karma: 7
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/04 22:47
as for that hosp thing, i think it can easily be fixed by having a limit of 2 hospitals per city. it shouldnt become a problem.
for the people voting for admins, im all for that idea! just as soon as we get like 30+ players always on. right now the average amount of players is kinda sad really. i log in and i find maybe 4 players on, and Joe Psycho afk in the meeting room, so thats only 3... maybe more advertising? then again idk how that costs 
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Weebo
Karma: 19
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/05 00:28
Regarding money, the problem we face is a bit of an epidemic. We get tons of new people downloading BattleCity all the time, but many of them quit before going past corporal.
Getting rid of money is one idea that could really help with that problem because it would prevent new players from getting stuck all the time. Even if they still get orbed, at least they won't get stuck, out of cash, unable to do anything.
And of course, hospitals would be limited.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Nightwish
Karma: 7
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/05 01:36
on another side: if you dont have to worry about money mayoring and rebuilding will be fairly easy. This game already gives a defending team heavily better circumstances to work with than attacking teams. It might be a good idea to look on the bombtimer to balance the difference.
The biggest problem for this game right now is that people play not to loose instead of trying to win. Anyone can learn to hold a city up forever but there are alarmingly few people between colonel and duke that is actually capable of orbing.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Weebo
Karma: 19
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/05 14:43
The main thing about money is that it is very rarely an issue that comes up during regular game-play.
Worse case scenario, a team will demolish their hospital, if they have one, during a heavy battle, because money is getting low. It's not really much of a strategy to begin with.
The only time money is really a factor is when you are building your city. At this point, skill and knowledge do become a factor. However, unfortunately for us, this is the position we immediately throw new players into, making their first experience on BattleCity difficult.
We could keep money and pretend people get a HUGE loan and only need to start repaying once they reach 39 buildings
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Rushing
Karma: 3
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/05 20:56
Weebo wrote:
The main thing about money is that it is very rarely an issue that comes up during regular game-play.
Worse case scenario, a team will demolish their hospital, if they have one, during a heavy battle, because money is getting low. It's not really much of a strategy to begin with.
The only time money is really a factor is when you are building your city. At this point, skill and knowledge do become a factor. However, unfortunately for us, this is the position we immediately throw new players into, making their first experience on BattleCity difficult.
We could keep money and pretend people get a HUGE loan and only need to start repaying once they reach 39 buildings
i vote that, you start with 100mill, but as soon at u hit 15 buildings it begins to go down as if you have a hosp and 2 facts missing, till the normall 40mill, then it goes down/up as normal... also why not make the HELP button work?!?!?! bit stupid it sitting there and looking like a lemon! also, i play ALOT of online games and i mean alot, i could advertise, i could get a ton of players prolly with the number of games i know
I deserve good karma
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Makaveli
Karma: 6
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/06 07:35
nah, scrap money.
making bombs go off half a second earlier would probably also be good. nerfing mines helped, but defense still definitely has the advantage.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
Rushing
Karma: 3
|
Re:maybe the players need to vote? - 2007/09/10 18:04
Makaveli wrote:
nah, scrap money.
making bombs go off half a second earlier would probably also be good. nerfing mines helped, but defense still definitely has the advantage.
making bombs go off a second erly would help alot, the amout of times ive been counting it, and litterally a millersecond b4 it blows som1 lagg shoots it.
no remote, dont decrease it by a millersecond XD A WHOLE SECOND PLEASE
I deserve good karma
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
