Updated Vendetta Rule Released
Forums › General Discussion › Updated Vendetta Rule Released-
Worst update ever in the history of tw!!! Next time u got n idea like this nick run it past me mate!! I'll give u n honest answer 😜
-
MᎧᏓᎧ 🔨🔥💀 wrote:
I don't understand the last minute change. I'm guessing that there must be some tw folks that will be a little more evened out....But I'll give you an example of my current V. Three players, 30k, 4k, and 804 mob have a V against lil ole me. The tiny guy doesn't do anything, obviously doesn't need to, but he sure brings that average down. Isn't this the kind of abuse that the new rule was meant to protect?
It may as well go back to the way it was before, this just makes me feel like I have something to complain about.
This rule only applies when your vendetta is used defensively. You are not in a vendetta so you are not affected by rule.
-
Ok, let me clear something up first. The "30k mobster's" V was started PRIOR to the rule's announcement, so it's not abusing anything. But the point is, without the rule, it wasn't abuse...with the rule, it is. Why create a rule that is just going to be broken and laughed at. You, me, anybody can do the same thing, and what....Nick's gonna spend his days judging whether the problem that he created (ie ,The Rule) applies in this or that situation?
Now, to havoc's comment. I'm not in a V, but I am a target. Since the rule applies defensively, it should expand the cap radius of the players in the V against me...it has nothing to do with me, it's all about the V member....Somebody correct me if I have this wrong?
-
MᎧᏓᎧ 🔨🔥💀 wrote:
The rule only applies to attacks. Only attacks. It makes an attackers range that of the vendettas average mob count. As far as I know, and according to the announcement, that was the only change.Ok, let me clear something up first. The "30k mobster's" V was started PRIOR to the rule's announcement, so it's not abusing anything. But the point is, without the rule, it wasn't abuse...with the rule, it is. Why create a rule that is just going to be broken and laughed at. You, me, anybody can do the same thing, and what....Nick's gonna spend his days judging whether the problem that he created (ie ,The Rule) applies in this or that situation?
Now, to havoc's comment. I'm not in a V, but I am a target. Since the rule applies defensively, it should expand the cap radius of the players in the V against me...it has nothing to do with me, it's all about the V member....Somebody correct me if I have this wrong?
-
I believe that this was to make it so that those vendettas that have a smaller mob in there for range advantage, loses some of their range advantage.
-
Meaning that they can still cap from the same distance, but can be capped from farther out.
-
🍀 Ꭲཡཇཇ།ཧ 🍀 wrote:
Which means it applies to them defensively. Same thing Mojo said...since you aren't really correcting him adding mud to the waters here is just...muddy. The mud being that the attacker has anything to do with it apart from the fact that he's targeted by said vendetta. For the rule to affect the defense of a person in the V, that person has to be attacked by a target of the V. If I attack someone in Mojo's example vendetta they enjoy their usual defensive radius (new word, sorry)--I have to get as close to them as I did before--because I'm not a target of that vendetta.Meaning that they can still cap from the same distance, but can be capped from farther out.
-
Add 😝MARC😝 wrote:
To quote KNC "cry me a river" 😹 😹 😹This list error has fuked me up. I can't knock a turf out of commission then use my armour bullet as it says I am not close enough and won't let me attack again. Please fix this ASAP or I am out of a area.
-
Wait, I was the one "adding mud" to the waters? It's cool that you seem to be sticking up for your fellow alliance member, but I was in no way attacking his point of view. I made a statement that actually confirmed his assumptions. That is all.
P.S.
On an unrelated note, I have seen complaints from larger mobbed players stating that this hurts them in game. Do they realize that this also affects small mobs negatively? I would even say more so, because it changes their range advantage in vendettas, which happens to be their only relevant advantage in the game.👆 That was mud getting added.
-
I was trying to clarify the new rule. This thread isn't about tags or who is allied with whom.
-
BҽӀӀɑԵɾí×🔨🔥💀 wrote:
As was I.I was trying to clarify the new rule. This thread isn't about tags or who is allied with whom.
-
I reread your addition again. Only their defensive "range" so-to-speak gets changed by this rule. It has no change on a small mob's attack in a V. This was a defensive alteration only. It penalizes larger mobs in that some may not want them in their vendettas to bring up the average mob, but it also penalizes the "defensive range" or cap radius of the smaller mobs in a vendetta. Combat calcs for attack, or attack range--since many insist on using that word--have not been altered as of my last read.
-
BҽӀӀɑԵɾí×🔨🔥💀 wrote:
That is correct. 👆I reread your addition again. Only their defensive "range" so-to-speak gets changed by this rule. It has no change on a small mob's attack in a V. This was a defensive alteration only. It penalizes larger mobs in that some may not want them in their vendettas to bring up the average mob, but it also penalizes the "defensive range" or cap radius of the smaller mobs in a vendetta. Combat calcs for attack, or attack range--since many insist on using that word--have not been altered as of my last read.
YOU wrote:
Meaning that they can still cap from the same distance, but can be capped from farther out.
-
🍀 Ꭲཡཇཇ།ཧ 🍀 wrote:
You were, but the combat calcs for an attacker aren't what were changed here. Using Mojo's example only as an example...his stats have no bearing on any cap radius estimate for the V he's targeted by. If he wants to estimate their defensive "stats" (that's what they are) he has to see if each player's mob is above or below the average of all mobs in the V. If above, his mob determines his cap radius and, actually the fix makes no real change for that player. If below, the average mob determines the player's cap radius and Mojo can use that to guess with. If Mojo and I were both targets of that V and attacked player "X" then player X would have his/her same cap radius. It has nothing to do with whether or not the attacker is Mojo or if it's me.BҽӀӀɑԵɾí×🔨🔥💀 wrote:
As was I.I was trying to clarify the new rule. This thread isn't about tags or who is allied with whom.
-
Hahaha. I realized a mistake in my wording. In my first post, I should have clarified that to clearly mean attacks on the vendetta members. If that is what you are going on about, then I apologize.
-
🍀 Ꭲཡཇཇ།ཧ 🍀 wrote:
Apologize? Why? This is a discussion amongst people who enjoy a game. I think night court still exist, but not here. Well, not with me.Hahaha. I realized a mistake in my wording. In my first post, I should have clarified that to clearly mean attacks on the vendetta members. If that is what you are going on about, then I apologize.
-
BҽӀӀɑԵɾí×🔨🔥💀 wrote:
Because you and I are trying to debate, but we are on the same side of the debate. To continue to argue when we are arguing the same arguement is redundant.🍀 Ꭲཡཇཇ།ཧ 🍀 wrote:
Apologize? Why? This is a discussion amongst people who enjoy a game. I think night court still exist, but not here. Well, not with me.Hahaha. I realized a mistake in my wording. In my first post, I should have clarified that to clearly mean attacks on the vendetta members. If that is what you are going on about, then I apologize.
-
Are we making the same points? All of them? And Thank God, no, its not a debate either. Game system works one way. Though I'll be the first to admit there occasionally seem to be foggy bits. And I wouldn't go to all this trouble *just* for you. Sorry, Tweek. Saves me time of posting my thoughts in a Pal room that loses history like a sieve. That paragraph there 👆 that was just for you.
Mostly 💗
-
BҽӀӀɑԵɾí×🔨🔥💀 wrote:
Aww 😻😄Are we making the same points? All of them? And Thank God, no, its not a debate either. Game system works one way. Though I'll be the first to admit there occasionally seem to be foggy bits. And I wouldn't go to all this trouble *just* for you. Sorry, Tweek. Saves me time of posting my thoughts in a Pal room that loses history like a sieve. That paragraph there 👆 that was just for you.
Mostly 💗
-
👆 I'm so glad there was an happy ending. 😿
-
Odysseus wrote:
It's ok for you to cry about a player deleting mob.Add 😝MARC😝 wrote:
To quote KNC "cry me a river" 😹 😹 😹This list error has fuked me up. I can't knock a turf out of commission then use my armour bullet as it says I am not close enough and won't let me attack again. Please fix this ASAP or I am out of a area.
But wen I hav genuin problem I can't log in feedback for nick? -
Add 😝MARC😝 wrote:
We all know what he's like marc.. Pfft😹 👉👶😭⛲ nick nickOdysseus wrote:
It's ok for you to cry about a player deleting mob.Add 😝MARC😝 wrote:
To quote KNC "cry me a river" 😹 😹 😹This list error has fuked me up. I can't knock a turf out of commission then use my armour bullet as it says I am not close enough and won't let me attack again. Please fix this ASAP or I am out of a area.
But wen I hav genuin problem I can't log in feedback for nick? -
You guys 👆 make me laugh!
-
Odysseus wrote:
Great come back.You guys 👆 make me laugh!
-
Basically the change creates better range for mojo if he's targeted by my v. So he's gained more advantage rather losing any. Therefore, nothing to complain about.
-
Λdོdོi🍀 wrote:
☝☝☝this.Basically the change creates better range for mojo if he's targeted by my v. So he's gained more advantage rather losing any. Therefore, nothing to complain about.
-
The capture checklist should work properly now – as an added bonus you can now see the vendettas that would be involved in the fight to capture a turf.
-
nick wrote:
The capture checklist should work properly now – as an added bonus you can now see the vendettas that would be involved in the fight to capture a turf.
Awesome Nick! and thanks for the bonus!!
-
H@VOC wrote:
quick fix as always. Thanks Nick 👍nick wrote:
The capture checklist should work properly now – as an added bonus you can now see the vendettas that would be involved in the fight to capture a turf.
Awesome Nick! and thanks for the bonus!!
-
H@VOC wrote:
Agreed. We coooould go back to Sept 8th's V version, but I'm pretty sure those at the head of the current complaint line would then have two hands in the air...not just the one. 😜Λdོdོi🍀 wrote:
☝☝☝this.Basically the change creates better range for mojo if he's targeted by my v. So he's gained more advantage rather losing any. Therefore, nothing to complain about.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC