Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Concern about Keep Defense

  1. #11
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    861
    While I feel for more casual players, keep defense is a competition. In competitions, there are winners and losers. The only danger to someone attempting a keep and someone else beating it mid-attempt is Spectral Lotus (so potentially un-transform), and the initial buy-in (so potentially refund that).

    As they say, to the victor go the spoils. Not to the runner-up. ;-)

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Unhurtable View Post
    Keep Defence is essentially "beat this first to get the gold". If you have a deck that beats the keep faster than somebody else, then you should get the gold if you start at the same time since you are the first person to beat the keep.

    A queue system is unnecessary as it will cause more frustration than good. Imagine the 10 people who have waited for the past 30 minutes who are told that "somebody has beaten the keep".

    Lastly, even if 10 people near simultaneously beat the keep, the system would still only need a check that looks if the keep has already been beaten.
    Really?
    so of the these two scenarios:

    A) you have been in queue for half an hour and then get a message saying "the keep was beaten".

    AND

    B) you have been attacking the keep for X hours only to find out somebody else beat the keep and you get squat. Oh, also your entry fee just went to whoever beat the Keep before you, how awesome is that??

    You seriously prefer B??

    I assume you can do other things while in the queue, you do not have to twirl your beard glaring at the screen the whole time. So A) seems a lot more preferable to me. with B) you just lost a lot of time (and gold), during which you were not doing anything else, for 0 reward. Yes, you were playing the game and maybe that was fun, but nothing stop you from playing the game while in the queue like in scenario A).

    Honestly, though, even the queue system does not work well. I would rather have a list of keeps available and you choose one to attack and the keep remain locked for as long as you are attacking. That way, there is no A nor B, there is just:

    C) you attack the keep and spend X hours. if you win, you get the reward.

    To avoid the scenario of a group of people keeping a keep locked, simply make sure that a keep remain unattackable for X minutes/hours after a failed attempt and the time is random. If there is a group of people so dedicated to raze that keep that they are willingly to continuosly check the list of available keeps until it unlocks to then attack it again... well, let them, I guess. A lot of time they are wasting for nothing really, just some gold. Bots program should be fairly easy to detect in such a case and banned.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by volkmar77 View Post
    Really?
    so of the these two scenarios:

    A) you have been in queue for half an hour and then get a message saying "the keep was beaten".

    AND

    B) you have been attacking the keep for X hours only to find out somebody else beat the keep and you get squat. Oh, also your entry fee just went to whoever beat the Keep before you, how awesome is that??

    You seriously prefer B??

    I assume you can do other things while in the queue, you do not have to twirl your beard glaring at the screen the whole time. So A) seems a lot more preferable to me. with B) you just lost a lot of time (and gold), during which you were not doing anything else, for 0 reward. Yes, you were playing the game and maybe that was fun, but nothing stop you from playing the game while in the queue like in scenario A).

    Honestly, though, even the queue system does not work well. I would rather have a list of keeps available and you choose one to attack and the keep remain locked for as long as you are attacking. That way, there is no A nor B, there is just:

    C) you attack the keep and spend X hours. if you win, you get the reward.

    To avoid the scenario of a group of people keeping a keep locked, simply make sure that a keep remain unattackable for X minutes/hours after a failed attempt and the time is random. If there is a group of people so dedicated to raze that keep that they are willingly to continuosly check the list of available keeps until it unlocks to then attack it again... well, let them, I guess. A lot of time they are wasting for nothing really, just some gold. Bots program should be fairly easy to detect in such a case and banned.
    1. You are assuming you will lose the gold before you lose to the keep. It could just be a "stake" that you put in beforehand. In order words, trying to beat the keep and then getting the message that is has been beaten does not automatically mean that you lost your "stake".

    2. Yes, I would honestly have at least a chance to get the goldz instead of not having the chance. Wouldn't you?

    3. C has the same problem that A has. People do not have the chance to beat the keep if they are capable of doing so (that is, having the free time to play the game and a deck that is capable). The frustration does not come from sitting in the queue, but comes from the fact that you have to randomly check for availability in the case there is a special, high-value keep that you want to attack. Yes, the random time is implemented to prevent people from "clogging" a keep, which is a positive, but in the case of lucrative keeps the interest of even wanting to attempt to attack it. If 100 people are interested in attacking Keep X, what are the odds that you will find the keep open first? About 1 in 100? In other words, you could go for days without even getting a shot at beating the keep only to see someone else getting there first. The essential different between C and A is that C is a queue that is based on chance. C is "The lucky goes first" and A is "The early goes first".

  4. #14
    I don't know yet how long it will take to attack a keep but they can simply 'lock' a keep that's being attacked. this will also all these issues. an iOS game called Clash of Clans have this feature.

    They can then either create a queue of you can just keep checking every x minutes/seconds if the keep is free to attack

    All players will have their own keep though not all might set it up for keep defense / will be attractive enough (rewards) to be attacked but with thousands of keeps out there, people will have a lot of choices on whom to attack

    And this is also just one of the feature of the game so you can do raids, dungeon farming, PvP while a keep you want to attach is 'locked'

    I know it's not ideal but it is a great solution for me to prevent these conflicts about loot sharing / who wins the reward issues

  5. #15
    My guess is more than likely they will have a list of keeps available to attack or an auto-queue. If there is a specific keep you wish to attack, you'll be able to queue individually for it. I don't see keeps being attackable by multiple users at once.

  6. #16
    I would assume that your entrance fee isn't officially added to the "pot" until you complete your attempt. So if you are in the middle of attacking the keep, but someone else beats you to the victory screen, they get the pot, your game ends immediately with a message explaining what happened, and you get your entrance fee back.

    No offense to my man Jax, but I don't think you should get back any consumed Lotuses, either. When you play the game of thrones, you either win, or you die.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

  7. #17
    Haven't read through all the replies yet, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by eioi View Post
    If 10 People attack nearly simultaneously and the Decks in the keep are build to be defeated easily then all 10 People get the same high Goldreward out of the Keep which is surely higher than the Gold the owner of the Keep originaly give away for the Keep.
    Why would that ever be the case? As soon as one person conquers it, the reward will drop... if you're saying that there's 10 people coordinating on a voice chat client so that they all win at the exact same moment, well first off that's not worth the effort it would take, and second off the game will still be able to determine who did it first....
    Visit Youtube: FunktionFails & Twitch: FunktionFails for hex based videos, articles and more.
    Find me on twitter @FunktionFails

    Less fail, more funktion!

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ossuary View Post
    I would assume that your entrance fee isn't officially added to the "pot" until you complete your attempt. So if you are in the middle of attacking the keep, but someone else beats you to the victory screen, they get the pot, your game ends immediately with a message explaining what happened, and you get your entrance fee back.
    if they allow multiple attacks at the same time, this is a good idea / solution too

  9. #19
    An alternative solution is to have the Keep defender select up to how many attackers there could be at the same time. The more attackers, the faster the pot increases and driving more traffic in but the higher the chance that someone would defeat it.

    To solve the concerns on splitting the pot, something like this could be implemented:

    1. Players 1 and 2 both are currently attacking the keep
    2. Player 1 wins
    a. Player 2 continues his attack, pot still not given to anyone. All other players queued will get a notice that the keep is defeated
    i. Player 2 wins
    (a) Players 1 and 2 split the pot. Queued players informed
    ii. Player 2 loses
    (a) Player 1 gets the whole pot. Queued players informed
    3. Player 1 loses
    a. Next person in queue takes Player 1's place
    b. Repeat
    Last edited by d00dz; 06-23-2013 at 02:51 AM.
    http://files.enjin.com/89273/Forum%2...ture_d00dz.jpg
    Producer | 2x Grand King | Pro Player

  10. #20
    Why would a pot EVER be split? If you are the first to take something, it's not still there for someone else to take. It's not about being fair to all applicants, it's about "to the winner go the spoils."
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •