Forums-->General game forum-->
1|2|3|4
| Author | Watchers Guild |
|---|
Wasn't there a similiar thread somewhere here?...anyway
i haven't played any watcher guild battle in a long time so when i decided to play again...here is the result
https://www.lordswm.com/war.php?lt=-1&warid=753069189
https://www.lordswm.com/war.php?lt=-1&warid=753072016
now i remember why i quit playing it,then i remember this thread
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=2410654
why i think this game is great...Not
this is not a whine thread,just a disscution ,,, like why AI has more troops,plays like human,clan bonus,faction resist,insane numbers,etc and why admin thinks its fun to tornment players. | The problem with WG is that it can have impossible battles while there are still gullible people that believe the 10th rule is real. Namely:
10. All guild errands are accomplishable a posteriori (already completed at the given combat level with the given faction and class).
It has proven to be false over and over again.
I try to avoid the hunt quest ones since darkelf has no shooting power. Having avoided those quests for a long time I thought yesterday to try one, needless to say it ended badly. The 3 stacks of fortune genies of 240 per stack were enough to keep one-hitting anything on board while on max AP. It was this one:
2016-02-04 03:05: ° Lawton[15] vs Fortune genies (721), Tamed minotaurs (485)
https://www.lordswm.com/war.php?lt=-1&warid=753020202
I saw hunts where higher level players of 17+ had trouble with only 300 of those genies, but 721? That shows this games idiocracy. And for those gullible ones: show me proof where my given combat level with my given faction has been able to beat this one instead of referring to that rule which has no basis whatsoever. | show me proof where my given combat level with my given faction has been able to beat this one instead of referring to that rule which has no basis whatsoever.
That said.. where is your proof that not all battles have been previously done? Your "proof" is simply "It's ridiculous" but that's not really proof?
plays like human I think this is part of the challenge, personally I'd prefer if the AI played like a human instead of some dumb AI.
I only do a limited number of WG quests, and then only when I feel like having to think. :D | for Lawton: IT has not been PROVEN false. You may feel it has, but a PRROF has not been made, therefore it is not PROVEN.
Citing hard or very difficult or near impossible, does and never ever can PROVE that it has not been beaten. OR is unbeatable - simply by virtue of the fact that people can still try, and so next time it could happen (similar to the idea of the theory of gravity - despite our confidence in it, it is still not a fact)
There is however proof, that people have won every single battle. See those few people that have won every battle.
When balancing that out to me it seems more likely that they are telling the truth about the rules (ultimately it is a no more difficult to code it to look at battle formations of battles won in events, for your level and faction, than it it is to look at and provide you with battles simply fought - irrespective of outcome).
So a) there is no incentive to lie about this
b) the stronger evidence is that they are all winnable
Granted I do feel sympathy for you - it is highly clear that some levels and factions have a MUCH MUCH harder job in this than others - Those were luck and morale triggers (or glass cannon types) play, there is always a chance that someone would get lucky with these and win, where they would have a low likely to. Then everyone that faces this has a really tough time of it.
show me proof where my given combat level with my given faction has been able to beat this one instead of referring to that rule which has no basis whatsoever.
As you no doubt know - the time t would take to trawl through all of these is going to be ridiculous - and while doable if you had a database of all the battle - I do not have this so could never prove this, through this way.
Truth is to prove the rule correct you have to find the link for every battle that has been played in WG and show it has been won befoe (an impossible task)
To prove that it is not true you would have to find a battle that is on WG and show that no one has ever won it before - equally an impossible task.
So the truth is we will never be able to in practice prove who is correct so you have to ask your self - which reality to you choose to view
1) they tell us the truth
2) they are lieing to us for no reason!
PErsonally for me that choice is straight forward | for Lawton:
If you managed to protect your shrews, wouldn't it be doable? | @ParaLeul, that thought had crossed my mind, but the shrews can only kill around 50 per hit, so it will need to be able to do 4 hits per stack but since those 3 stacks one hit all, they would remove all defense around it after first move allready.
@Meshy, my proof has never been saying it's ridiculous, you should go read the other allready conveniently closed topics about WG.
And your comment: 'where is your proof that not all battles have been previously done?' is utter nonsense. The opposite should not need to show proof but the one making the claim needs to show proof to back up it's claim. I have seen how this has been twisted since well over a decade in this world. It isn't innocent untill proven guilty anymore but has become guilty untill proven innocent. And to this idiocy people have become succesfully indoctrinated more and more over the years.
Let me explain to you and all those other gullible people more simplified : When a statement gets made like 'already completed at the given combat level with the given faction and class', one also need to show proof of it to back it up, otherwise it is false. Just by saying it does not make it so without backing it up. Else we can say all kinds of ridiculous statements even like 'on the game server on Mars they have been able to beat that hunt quest for 3 stars'. Since no one can go to Mars to proof it wrong then it must be right according to you. While the one making the claim can also not go to Mars to proof it but again according to you he does not need to show proof just because it has been said you immediately take it for true.
And with this we also come to the meaning of gullible: easily deceived or duped.
@Lord MilesTeg, just because there are a few people, only two right now, that have max points on WG does not mean that every existing WG quest can be won, I have examined almost all of their battles, whenever they ran into an impossible to beat WG quest, they used abu bakirs charm to get an easy one. I had explained this in the other WG thread more comprehensively.
The game has a database of all the battles, so it would be real easy for the game admins to use it to proof their statement but as always they choose to remain as ghosts.
Also if for you the reality on this is only these two options:
1) they tell us the truth
2) they are lieing to us for no reason!
and you go straight forward for option 1 then you are too trusting. | for Lawton:
The hunt event that is just finished is a good demonstration why high CL players get easier WG hunts
14 level is a bad level for DE hunters, but the fact that you can't do it or most players can't do it doesn't mean that no one can do it ever.
The fact that DE gets much stronger opponent in WG , and higher CL DE gets relatively easier hunt is already a proof that the enemy is assigned based on faction and CL | would.. if..
Let's state it: Some WG quests are horribly difficult, some are insanely easy. Same for types of quests. I go around the difficult and do the easier. Works fine for me. | | i don't know what people talking here, i am not a regular WG Guy, but as per my experience i am getting some 20% impossible quest and some 20% easy quests, rest 60% is medium. may be i am not looking for a perfect 3 daily which is stupid to me | | if you arenot looking for a perfect 3 daily, i think the insanely hard quests once in a while should be fine. | conveniently closed topics about WG.
You realised topics get closed if they are inactive for too long?
And honestly... to me it really does sound like a lot of people are whining about quests being too difficult for them.
i think the insanely hard quests once in a while should be fine. I agree with this line very much, but I think some people see difficult quests and start moaning and whining.
You're throwing around that everyone who doesn't believe what you believe is gullible, but why would the devs lie about this? And please don't respond with "to make more money!" when it's obvious that lying about something being impossible will not make them more money (and if you think it will, does that make you the gullible one?) | I hate this WG. told that many times. but since its there, we have to try :D
reading this thread gave me an idea.. probably crude / not too bright. posted already. feel free to enrich ;) | @Lawton
Personally your setup and talents for the DE hunt were very bad.
The first rule when hunting as a DE is to NEVER take ladons, they are too slow and take too much space when you do your starting setup and as a result give you much less options to play around. So the suggestions are:
1. Dont take ladons
2. Change your talents (I think you can take advanced fortune + battle furry and rally atleast, which is much better!)
3. Max DWs (you can split them into 2 stacks for more delays, or split shrews, or whatever you may prefer)
4. Win
Not to say that battle was not hard, it was, but it is doable from my point of view. Post one where you dont make so many mistakes and we will see.
And btw fellas, this topic is pointless ;O | I just want to add something.
In the first (of many) WG topics I suggested that the enemy troops in the hunt quest should be visible just like in a normal hunt. Sometimes you lose that quest just because your setup was "wrong", which is plainly stupid and nerve wrecking. Which is the reason I mostly avoid the hunt quests.
Ignoring everything I said above, if Lawton started with shrews up the battle would be much different. | for Meshy:
If it play like a human,shouldn't it also have human stat? yet they have about 20% more troops in outlaws/smuggler.or insane numbers in hunts
If its AI,i repeat AI,shoudn't it have AI stat? how can an AI have clan? can it join a clan? how? it doesn't exist!
you can't be both AI and human,can you?:)
i believe they don't know what they are even:)
admin's goof
In the first (of many) WG topics I suggested that the enemy troops in the hunt quest should be visible just like in a normal hunt. Sometimes you lose that quest just because your setup was "wrong", which is plainly stupid and nerve wrecking. Which is the reason I mostly avoid the hunt quests.
of course it should be...all battle which doesn't involve AI hero | I guess I approach the advent of WG like I do an event - they are not perfect - but it is better if they are there than if they are not - I can choose my level of participation. If they are not there, then I cannot choose my level of participation - it is automatically zero.
So therefore anything which brings more options of battles is good - perhaps not as good as it could be, but certainly a positive thing, so I will remain positive about it - the variance is the level of positivity not as to whether to become negative in any way.
What seems to be a barrier for a number for people I think is the expectations of what is reasonable for admins to do. Personally I think they expect too much indvidual tinkering to get it right.
If you look at the sheer number of battles etc this is clearly not possible - so instead they need to automate everything. However, this can cause balance issues - they cannot solve this individually so have to do it en masse through checks and balances. How would this manifest - well how they do it for thieves, and survival tournies etc is to give power ratings to each creature - then set a total power limit - and random fill the army such that it meets the total - sometimes it is a good mix that is really hard to beat - sometimes it is not and you walk all over them. You have to take the rough with the smooth.
Then I think they thought, wait a minute, we can self reference the balance and not be accused of being unfair......
If all the AI stats are based off of players, then at the end of the day there IS a player with those stats - so it IS fair for an AI to have those stats - it is attainable and therefore realistic as it has been done.
For evidence of this look at the hero opponents names in level 21 battles and you will see names clearly ripped off of other level 21 heroes.
An extension to this is to use prior events battles that were won as part of a guild. Again, there thinking of this is that they then do not have to re look at balancing - if it has been won, then it is winnable - though often perhaps with difficulty.
This seems reasonable to me, fits with the data (in my opinion) so I have little cause to down grade a positive thing, into a negative (just less of a positive). Hence my overall happines with WG and any event.
Is ay other situation practical - no in my opinion - the devs have to automate the selection of armies - this must have some randomness to it to remain interesting - and some increase in difficuly to remain challenging. The consequence of this is sometimes the army will be very very hard indeed, and sometimes very very easy indeed. We never moan at the easy, but do at the hard. However, it is a symptom of the set up, not desired, but not so easy to fix as an automated system without introducing other issues - so lets not get too hett up about it, it is an inevitability not a mistake per se. | | For me it's very simple, most of my battles finish with 3 stars. As for the ones that I lose and seem unbeatable, I simply ignore them :P | I believe the 10th rule is true.
it is very easy to have a database with won battles and pick 3 in random as easy to have another with lost battles.
Those who think that admins are not telling the truth must provide reason and proof for the lie.
The only reason i could think of would be to make us buy abu bakirs charm.But the the charm is there for a long time.they would have done something earlier if they wanted to boost its sales.
From my personal experience, i had a task with a tribal castle if i remember correctly that i was failing constantly and thought it was impossible. it was reappearing every other day and i couldnt get rid of it.Some day i won it by changing my build.
Most of the quests are easy and can be 3stared with about 40 AP(CL 14).Others are lost even with
full AP. But if i fail in a fight,it doesnt mean that no one can win it.I just dont want to waste too much durability to practice and reach a better player's skill or luck.
Sometimes for hunt quests full def builds and/or no 4square troops help.
Better having a challenge once in a while than having 3 easy boring fights every day.And another guild to get a few more skill points doesnt hurt me. | i don't think there are impossible one,only problem is people do not want to try it again and again with different troop/talent setup. all of them want perfect 3 daily :P
i know few people did 3-4 or even more attempt to get perfect 3 daily... they may be best for some faction. but they are just stupid players for me! | For me it's very simple, most of my battles finish with 3 stars. As for the ones that I lose and seem unbeatable, I simply ignore them :P
Seconded. Except I would substitute "the majority" for "most" in my WG battles.
As a dwarf I find the Pirate battles easiest. IIRC I have got 3 stars for all of them except a couple of 2 stars and one loss (enemy had 5 cannons).
Agree with post 14 too. You have to guess AI setup + dwarves are weak hunters.;) |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
1|2|3|4Back to topics list
|
