Game development ideas

[Fherlayt]

Whoever designed the original Wartune was a true genius. This game has really captured and amazed me.

When stuff got boring - I could blitz it.
When I no longer needed lvl 4 crystalloids - I could convert them into lvl 5 ones.
I had a devotion list to check what needs to be done still.
When I maxed out my soul crystals, I got events where I could exchange the surplus into mount whips and runestones.

Too bad this genius is either no longer working for 7Road, or is working on a different project. Because the current designer is someone who is ruining the game, literally.

We got tons of additons in the past year - but nothing can be blitzed.
I have a tons of items I maxed out - but cant upgrade it to superior items (fate to bead, sc to ss, sepu to adv sepu etc)
The devotion list wasnt updated since an eternity, its hard to follow which of the gadzillion daily events need to be done.
Instead of giving exchange for items which became junk, we get a million new resources - which is balen only for 2 month, then it will be a junk as well (but I never dare to throw away because who knows when will an event ask for it).
I understand the China has the market so they don't worry about recycling junk items, but we don't have it. We need a solution.

So my question is, what is the official way to contact the current game designer, and make him remember how things should work? Can someone from R2 - their biggest distributor - get a message to them with these important points?

Would be great. For the game and for the players.

[R252856585]

Oh, you do not know that the game is "imported" from China, where they basically steal good ideas and put them together in a new game ... and from that point on, it's just adding more items to sell.

[Carassimira]

who knows what original 'wartune' was like xD but the wartune that we love and hate (love to hate) is a jigsaw game from China known as [A/The] Divine Comedy. fitting eh

[f.choate]

I too do not know how to contact the right people; here is the bit of code for the battleground.

Wartume Battleground I hate being killed in the first round over and over again by the same player. How can we fix this. The difficulty of matching levels is too hard and would required to many resources, so that is out.
I thought of a one kill system,

Following pseudo code:
As a player enters battleground a kill string is created for that player a dummy entry is entered to prevent a not found error, later in the code. IE string kill-list 0-15 max, entry zero is the dummy entry, the length is depend on how you id players.
—
player blue A1 mouseover player red B2 a check is made to see if B2 is on A1 kill list if B2 is on the list the red sword does not show, for he is protected. otherwise red sword shows as normal.
on click and battle begins
Player blue A1 attach red B2; a check is made of B2 kill list, if A1 is on B2 list he is removed.
—
at end of combat on the win side (A1) B2 is added to A1 kill list.
at end of combat on the win side (B2) A1 is added to B2 kill list. same code.
—
What I see as the outcome of this code, is that the strong player we'll no longer get free points for killing the same player over and over again.
And force them to attack a harder, player each time he attacks.
He may come across a player that will kill him, and that would be sweet revenge.

[Alsatia01]

Wartume Battleground I hate being killed in the first round over and over again by the same player. How can we fix this. The difficulty of matching levels is too hard and would required to many resources, so that is out.
I thought of a one kill system,

There's already something like this in the game. There are dozens of kills every single game, this system would result in a game where everyone would fill up their 'kill list' within the first 3-5 minutes of the battleground. No one would be able to kill each other afterwords, and it would just be a scramble to see who was the most non-laggy at taking towers.

Following pseudo code:
As a player enters battleground a kill string is created for that player a dummy entry is entered to prevent a not found error, later in the code. IE string kill-list 0-15 max, entry zero is the dummy entry, the length is depend on how you id players.
—
player blue A1 mouseover player red B2 a check is made to see if B2 is on A1 kill list if B2 is on the list the red sword does not show, for he is protected. otherwise red sword shows as normal.
on click and battle begins
Player blue A1 attach red B2; a check is made of B2 kill list, if A1 is on B2 list he is removed.
—
at end of combat on the win side (A1) B2 is added to A1 kill list.
at end of combat on the win side (B2) A1 is added to B2 kill list. same code.
—

You don't have to mouse over and click someone to fight them, merely getting close is sometimes enough to trigger a battle to start. In very close proximities (like when everyone is stacking up on a tower), you can also mouse over a person and click another.

I presume you just mean this as a way to stop people from attacking people whom are on their kill list already? I'm not sure I understand.

What I see as the outcome of this code, is that the strong player we'll no longer get free points for killing the same player over and over again.
And force them to attack a harder, player each time he attacks.
He may come across a player that will kill him, and that would be sweet revenge.

So basically an auto-revenge dryad-bomb of some kind? Even without towers this would result in a tie almost every battle wouldn't it? Everyone can kill only one person, and people who died in the first 'rounds' would get a mega-dryad bomb to get revenge.

I like the idea you have but the details would probably need to be tested out I think.

[f.choate]

thank you for your response.
Do you really want the big guy to continue to kill small player in first turn or round over and over again, no fun for the small player. I think better of you than that,
Yes I do want to stop the second kill.
If the player is so strong that he will get his 15 kills in the time allotted so be it. But I don't see that happening,
The code could be set up so that if you lasted more than three or four turns you are not put on the kill list.
But Then you are still being killed by a stronger player, it just takes longer.
As to the proximity attack was not really aware of that and yes I would have the code stop the attack, having an easy kill once is enough.
You're have to have it fun, for the weaker player as well as a strong player.

[Alsatia01]

thank you for your response.
Do you really want the big guy to continue to kill small player in first turn or round over and over again, no fun for the small player. I think better of you than that,
Yes I do want to stop the second kill.
If the player is so strong that he will get his 15 kills in the time allotted so be it. But I don't see that happening,
The code could be set up so that if you lasted more than three or four turns you are not put on the kill list.
But Then you are still being killed by a stronger player, it just takes longer.
As to the proximity attack was not really aware of that and yes I would have the code stop the attack, having an easy kill once is enough.
You're have to have it fun, for the weaker player as well as a strong player.

Your solution wouldn't solve anything. Let's say there is a battle ground of 20 people, 10 on 'Blue' team and 10 on 'Red' team. Consider player X. Player X is by far, the lowest BR/Strength of the entire battleground, and is on team 'Blue'.

Ten(10) people on the 'Red' team can attack player X, and kill them 10 times (1 each). Then what? Well.... nothing. If player X attacks someone, they die; they could just not attack anyone.... which leads me to ask the question - why are they playing?

I get the idea behind your solution, not wanting people to gang up on someone who obviously doesn't have a chance of winning. But this goes way too far and doesn't even attempt to address the issues surrounding the bracketing.

[f.choate]

Thy have nine more players to attack, why should they get the free points for attacking the weakest player.
I am not too sure what you were calling bracketing, but that I'm adding is The least disruptive, that I have seen so far, it goes after the multiple attacks of the week player, which is the issue,
as fore player x after dying 10 times goes on collecting the stone to get what ever points he can
My code is like saying this player is already dead to you. What are you going to do go over and kick the dead body again, now what fun is it to the dead body.
to to change how I player is selected for battleground A, B, C or D is too complex, and may not solve this issue at all, adding level of player online at the same time of the battleground how many servers do you see that using oops server not found

[Arandeath]

be nice to see a few solo options for stuff,not being
able to get online at just the right time and not
being able to do the runs you need to do is annoying.
I've watched a few in the guild start out at half my br
and not only catch up,but pass and keep right on going.