Alien Assault Traders Game Forum
http://forums.aatraders.com/

good/evil rank change? what happened?
http://forums.aatraders.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3210		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Ash [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
ah, but is not all war bad. Do you not just hurt your self by hurting others?

Anyway. my point is that yes targeting good players to get evil is fine, but in some cases, when you chose to fight back, it just skews you worse. In those instances, it does not make sense to give the larger player the upper hand by keeping the alignments this way.

For instance, let us look at a straight builder that just trades. At some point that person marks good. Someone evil attacks, and if this player hits back or attempts to take back a planet it makes them more good. Not towards neutral where they would be protected.

At somepoint a player should still be protected by the bounty system, or what is the point of it.
Author:  Valience [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
To PJ concerning Vicious:

I'm sure he'll take it as a compliment.
Author:  Tarnus [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
The whole point of the good evil system was to throw a kink into the players that only did one thing. We wanted players to watch their good evil ratings and adjust how they are playing to stay neutral.

We also wanted players that inherently attacked players all the time to go one way or the other creating a way for a large player to get even for someone attacking their planets all the time.

Myself I love the system, when I am smaller I watch very carefully how I am placed in the good/evil universe and try to adjust where I am by attacking alternating good or evil sided players.

Any ideas are appreciated, maybe an option for players to declare war on each other if they have taken more than x amount of planets in a 24 hour period of each others. Then their actions will not effect their overall good evil rating as attacking each other is the key.

I do understand that your feeling like a big target. You only have one evil player to deal with, sounds like its time to lay in wait somewhere with Sector Missiles :)
Author:  Ash [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
I would if I could see him.
Liked nova sectors more because you could hurt them even if you couldn't see them.

I understand the point of paying attention to your evil good rating, but since that changed to where you don't know what it is, and apparently how others rank can skew you, I think there needs to be some adjustment.

If you knew you were at 1000 and 1001 pushed you to good, then fine, your fault. When you are at 1000, and good changes from 1001 to 888 overnight, and you had nothing to do with it, then there is a problem.

I don't recall a discussion on knowing your score hurting anything, or why it skewed the game play.

The declare war idea is nice. Prevents you from making it worse on yourself by trying to retaliate. or retake your planets. I think it would be nice as an automatic though, sort of you have 24 or 48 hours to retake planets taken without changing your rating.
Author:  Tarnus [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
Ash wrote:
If you knew you were at 1000 and 1001 pushed you to good, then fine, your fault. When you are at 1000, and good changes from 1001 to 888 overnight, and you had nothing to do with it, then there is a problem.
.


Technically you already have this by sorting by good and evil. It will show where you are in the overall value of things. Currently I know I am on the edge of going to good. If I were smaller I'd be working at lowering it, but where I am now with my teammates I am fair game to all anyways so it doesn't make much difference. :)
Author:  Panama Jack [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
The number for determining good or evil is a 100% FLOATING value. It is never the same. So you can't just say I am 1000 and 1001 I will be good. Doesn't work that way. Someone can do something in the game that make a change and that value might become 1200 or 900. The actions of other player determin everything with good and evil.
Author:  Ash [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
I understand that is how it works now.
My point was, it doesn't make much sense, and it appears a bit unfair.
I understand the point was that as more people do good things, it is harder to be good, because that is the norm. As people do more evil, evil is the norm, so it is harder to get evil. Or that is how I understand the idea.

In practice, it appears to allow one player to skew the good evil so much that there are no other evil players, and a lot of good players to pick off.
The harder I try to get neutral, the more evil he gets, the further I go to good due to the point shift. Or am I mistaken?

In your principle of the US was not evil in fighting Japan, does it make sense for them to have attacked allies to remain more neutral? That is I now have to seek out and attack other good players, not fight the person attacking me, inorder to get neutral and get back the bounty protection.
That is my point. I do not see how this adds to the game play, if I cannot fight back without pushing me further into the good, thus allowing him to hammer me everytime I turn around.

That being said, I have obviously found some help to turn neutral, it is just wrong to me to have to find a way to get around the system rather than work with it.(well not quite wrong to work around the system, just would have liked it to be more balanced.)
Author:  Tarnus [ Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
One change I have been arguing with PJ over is I think if a evil player starts hammering a good player. The good players alignment should start heading towards neutral, that way the evil player will eventually put the good player in neutral territory. This would prevent the continuous hammering of an opposing alignment user. Course if that player chooses to retaliate they may find themselves back in the opposing alignment zone and will get hit again.

It's actually kind of humorous, its usually me that doesn't want to take an attacker toy away and PJ that does. This time its the opposite ;)
Author:  Panama Jack [ Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
For parity then you would have to have the evil player start moving toward neutral if hammered by a good player. You see the same thing can happen on the good side. You can have very high good players who attack.

The problem in this case most players avoided attacking anyone. You can have a good player who targets only evil/evil leaning players and have the same thing happen. It's just that no one on the good side did that.

And if you look the main reason the evil player is so high is because they targeted SHIPS more than anyone else. Look at how many kills compared to anyone else.
Author:  Ash [ Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
I guess a combo of the two would be best.
If as in my case, where I cannot fight back, then it would be useful to move towards neutral as I am being hammered. Of course vice versa must apply. So in reality any player attacked should move towards neutral.

In the case where the player can and wants to fight back, (though my example is poor, as a true builder would not bother,) then Tarnus's idea of a declared war would be good to prevent pulling your alignment farther out of neutral. Say after taking a sector rather than 1 or 20 planets.

I guess I just hate not being able to fight back, or recover. It is almost as bad when a lower level bounty protected player decides they can work on you unmolested. At least in that case, I can empathize since I am usually doing that working my way up.

In this instance, I don't recall ever hammering on a lower level player just because I can, so all it does is bend me out of shape.

I have fully contemplated quitting a few times, but the stubborn in me, hoping for a chance of sweet revenge won't let me.
Author:  Zoid [ Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
Tarnus wrote:
Myself I love the system, when I am smaller I watch very carefully how I am placed in the good/evil universe and try to adjust where I am by attacking alternating good or evil sided players.


I agree with Tarnus here. I don't think any changes are needed; I think it works great as it is.

If I'm being targeted by an evil player and I don't want to become more good when I retaliate, I simply blow up the planets that I take in retaliation (I don't want them anyways). Blowing up planets is apparently a VERY evil act, and it goes a long way to preventing you from being too good. Although I am 99% builder, my problem tends to be staying un-evil.
Author:  InstinctSage [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
Quote:
One change I have been arguing with PJ over is I think if a evil player starts hammering a good player. The good players alignment should start heading towards neutral, that way the evil player will eventually put the good player in neutral territory. This would prevent the continuous hammering of an opposing alignment user. Course if that player chooses to retaliate they may find themselves back in the opposing alignment zone and will get hit again.


How does it currently work? if an evil player attacks a good player, does the good player's rating becomes more good?

I can understand the attacker's rating changing, but defending against any attack is not a choice, it just happens. It shouldn't affect alignment score. Only player directed action should adjust a player's alignment score.
Author:  Tarnus [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
InstinctSage wrote:
Quote:
One change I have been arguing with PJ over is I think if a evil player starts hammering a good player. The good players alignment should start heading towards neutral, that way the evil player will eventually put the good player in neutral territory. This would prevent the continuous hammering of an opposing alignment user. Course if that player chooses to retaliate they may find themselves back in the opposing alignment zone and will get hit again.


How does it currently work? if an evil player attacks a good player, does the good player's rating becomes more good?

I can understand the attacker's rating changing, but defending against any attack is not a choice, it just happens. It shouldn't affect alignment score. Only player directed action should adjust a player's alignment score.


You are correct, however the players at the opposite end of the spectrum can pull the evil good levels one way or the other based on what they do. So if you are on the edge of being evil the player at the top end could go a little good and throw you evil.

I hope that makes some sense... a little sleepy tonight so who knows :)
Author:  InstinctSage [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: good/evil rank change? what happened?
No, I know what you mean. By being super good/evil, the median shifts further up/down and neutral players can be pushed out of the neutral zone. I didn't think that was the problem you were trying to tackle by suggesting a player's alignment should move to neutral, but now I understand what you mean. I still think it kind of goes against the spirit of the alignment system, though.

Presumably, a counterattack would serve to restore balance to the universe. If not, then the resultant shift is indicative of the state of the game, in a way. :evil:
Also, you could say it's an advantage earned by sticking your neck out. Neutral players are safe until they're large enough that players won't get bounties from them, and thus can afford to "stand up for what they believe in". Then they get yelled at by the neutrals.. Dude, quit being so good, you're making me look bad! :lol:
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/