|
Posted by Pazx
First, it's slow. I hate the fact that the attackers (assuming the number of attackers is less than the number of defenders) run in, kill the defenders, then wait a minute for the defenders to come back in to find the flag only dropped to 180, then kill the defenders who in that time will have boosted the flag up to 210, then you just have a little bit more idling around the flag, then kill them, then wait, then kill them, then wait, then probably die a few times. When there are more attackers than defenders, the flag still ticks over so slowly, it just starts earlier as soon as there are more attackers than defenders.
|
"First, it's slow"
Thats not a valid excuse. Next part..
|
Posted by Pazx
It think KotH reduces the advantage defending has always had. In my opinion, it's meant to be easier to defend than to attack, and if the speed which the flag decreases increased with the ratio of attackers:defenders (which would please me otherwise) it would throw out that balance even more.
|
Well its called strategy my friend.
If theres more attackers in the room than the defenders, it starts to decrease. Please notice that you can also defend the rooms. Its actually a good addition because it adds a taste of strategy rather than wasting hours of your time running in with bombs and swords, hoping to get into the flag room.
The people of the guild not only has to focus on their flag but how to prevent more attackers coming in so the amount of attackers in the room won't outrun the defenders in the room. Consider it a new challenge and get used to it
|
Posted by Pazx
It's quantity over quality with KotH. It allows large groups to control forts while small ones struggle. If KotH was meant to allow newer guilds to take forts (as some people have mentioned I believe), it certainly doesn't serve that purpose as they have no chance against large groups of defenders.
|
Um... That applies the same to guild towers...
If you have the larger group, you know you're already gonna win..
|
Posted by Pazx
On top of all that, Castle and Snow were two-
|
Skipped reading this part. Please remember that you're talking about King of the hill, not the castles. Next part..
|
Posted by Pazx
One of the most enjoyable parts of Graal in my (and several others's) opinion is defending or attacking forts in small groups and still coming out on top. This doesn't happen with KotH. It's so frustrating you're defending and there's just a few more attackers than defenders who just run around the flag while it drops. Same goes when you're attacking, trying to kill the hordes of defenders and by the time you've killed enough for the flag to start dropping they're already coming back.
|
Again... Its called strategy.
It adds a whole new challenge to attacking/defending forts because now you have to topple the amount of attackers/defenders in the room. So not only a group of 5 people in your guild have the flag but you also got to make sure that theres not more than 5 attackers coming after your room. You got to chop off the quantity in order to stay on top. See where im going with this?
|
Posted by Pazx
I have no opinion as to whether KotH should be featured on the FB server (I don't play on facey). I feel like the lower overall playercount might cause problems.
|
So far, no one is taking action against KotH in Graal classic. If they did, then the admins would have shut it down long time ago. It just goes to show how much people love it. Maybe you'd let this whole argument go and stop going against the fact that theres some-most people who like it alot
|
Posted by Skitz
First of all, i agree completely with Pazx's opinion. King of The Hill not only has no place on the classic server, but , contrary to what most admins and non-tower takers think, is generally not liked by those of us who actually take towers on a regular basis.
|
While get used to it, cause its not gonna move for a long time..
And please notice how its all about you attackers in
small groups... Your statement has to regard both attackers and defenders... So shut up if you don't have anything to say for the defenders...
We don't care if people who take over guild forts cares... That doesn't make you or Pazx part of any special group and it doesn't support at all..
|
Posted by Skitz
i understand going with what people say they like, obviously. but what youve got to also take into account is the fact that people who never take towers ( ie. people in social, school, roleplay, or other such guilds) outnumber the people who do. and many of those people are just going to vote yes because lets face it, half of them hope any agreement with admins will lead to them becomeing one. what i mean to say by all this is that people who aren't affected by King of The Hill, or at least hardly affected are voting the most for it.
|
Be even thankful its a guild fort update because other than the flag, theres never gonna be one for quite a long time.
And it adds a new challenge to the game.
If you say quality beats quantity, then make sure that quantity doesn't topple over quality. Its called strategy darling. Use it wisely!
|
to begin with, you do not respawn in the same room. and although that would be a nice addition it still wouldnt solve the base problem most of graal's tower takers have with King of the hill : quantity over quality.
|
That wouldn't be a nice addition at all. That would actually piss off alot of players who take over forts. You're lowering the difficulty of taking a fort. Taking forts should never be easy!
King of the hill adds one difficult spice to the whole guild fort taking: Quantity!
The more people, the more harder its gonna be to take over forts!
Quality can topple over Quantity every day but you aren't thinking quality straight. You're just thinking "Oh... Here i go... Im just gonna rush in and hope i get the flag... If not, do it again.." and thats not strategy my friend. The whole point of guild towers is strategy and how you should conquer them. With King of the hill in play, it adds a new depth of strategy because now you got to focus on two things: Quantity and the Flag.
Imagine a war between two castles and while a group of red knights run after the blue knights, half of the red knights attack the blue knights (quantity) while two-three of the red knights go after the blue king (the flag). Thats called strategy. Its better than having a whole group of "attackers" running straight for the god damn flag, slashing endlessly until their blue in the face
|
Posted by Skitz
King of the hill promotes noob recruiting. i know that isn't really an issue point from an admin standpoint, but from a tower taker one it is. as is demonstrated by a LOT of people who focus on building their stats, quality is valued. Azrael also said that he thought king of the hill would promote an active elite group of tower takers. it would do the exact opposite.
|
Oh... So now you're blaming some of this on the new players? Basically, guild tower taking was made only for professionals? HAHAHAHAHA!
Next part!
|
and reguarding the seconf half of the above quote, id just like to day that if your impressing of non-king of the hill towers is "blindly bashing your ipod to hit a flag", i think you should try taking towers with a guild a few times and actually holding it. it takes alot more skill than bashing your ipod.
|
It doesn't take skill at all. All you've been doing in a guild fort is slashing with a group of members through the flag, got it, then slash every attacker in sight. Look at Venus Gospel. They made non-king of the hill towers look like a joke.
|
Please consider that there is a huge group of people on graal who don't like King of the Hill towers. if you remove them from classic, it still leaves the facebook option for those who really like it. and as i mentioned at the beginning of the post, many of the people feedbacking their love of King of the Hill wouldn't care if it was abolished on classic. there are, however, many people who would be upset if it stayed.
|
OMFG! Enough with the "Large Group" BS!
Where is this so called Large Group you have!? According to the feedback, theres people who like it and its not because they wanna be an admin.
Please notice that theres updates that people
DO LIKE and it shouldn't be any of
YOUR CONCERN to butt in and hate it along with Pazx because clearly your statements does not support
ATTACKERS and
DEFENDERS but only
ATTACKERS. Your statements should support both of them. If your problem with it is only about quantity, then don't bother arguing, as you already lost this argument from the very start.
Do us all a favor... Learn the logistics..
Grab a piece of paper and pen with Pazx, write and think through every situation that would involve King of the hill and then using that piece of paper, i want you to tell us every problem and situation king of the hill has. If you're blaming this on quantity, you don't know strategy for sh*t..
---------------------------------------------
Anyone here got actual statements why king of the hill isn't good that does not involve
QUANTITY?