New AR, anti intentiaonal trigger

[willymchilybily]

after having seen an intentional trigger attempt, i have a suggestion relating to intentional triggering and all ar triggering in general

the AR can be more target specific. more units. Some that hit range, and some that hit all

if some one hits a solo player and triggers, you send sas

if some one hits a solo player and doesnt trigger, no ar.

if some one is following that does trigger, you send the range AR to defence, on account of the first attacker not triggering. Therefore only the person following will die to the range AR defence. when this defence is triggerd, it is very veyr over powered. and will be set to wipe out completely the ranged attacker, therefor when it triggers the polic and riot police are not needed, and will not be sent.


so effect, you trigger intentionally or through ignorance, you are the only one to die. there should be two forms of these ranged AR stunnning units and lethals.
because currently triggering is only a concern if the person doing it is solo.

 

[Polo]

Agreed. I suggested ranged only AR before and still think it's the best (only?) way to stop intentional triggering.

 

[deathscythe]

Suggestion sounds good, but i'll expect peopel to just send on the same tick as the attacker to avoid this.
However, one the other note will this dramaticly increase the rape possiblity on solos during flakwars. Let say you have 2 attackers both 1 tick after eachother with each a mob of equal size, like it is now AR triggers when attacker2 is attf3 and will surely lock attacker 1 and might or might not stay vs attacker 2.
If you implement this you will prob get a situation like this: AR triggers and targets the second attacker ONLY, attacker 1 will have 0 ar worries and will glady stay and get land. Since half of the trigger score is gone ar sees no reason to stay and recalls giving attacker 2 also a good shot at getting land.

Just a quick thought that crosed my mind

 

[Dax]

Suggestion sounds good, but i'll expect peopel to just send on the same tick as the attacker to avoid this.

It doesn't work like that - You need to be following the tick after for the AR to be re-calculated.
It will be difficult to code and implement I assume, but the idea is admirable enough, I guess.

 

[Iamsmart]

Suggestion sounds good, but i'll expect peopel to just send on the same tick as the attacker to avoid this.

It doesn't work like that - You need to be following the tick after for the AR to be re-calculated.
It will be difficult to code and implement I assume, but the idea is admirable enough, I guess.

It can, it's just a little harder. Send extra flak along with the attack, if they specifically calced ar a 100bil extra on your tick will trigger etc. Or you can just send full out and a lot of attackers won't risk staying and dying to SAS even if it means the triggerer dies too (people are stupid, never trust them to have logic)

 

[LuckySports]

Suggestion sounds good, but i'll expect peopel to just send on the same tick as the attacker to avoid this.

It doesn't work like that - You need to be following the tick after for the AR to be re-calculated.
It will be difficult to code and implement I assume, but the idea is admirable enough, I guess.

It can, it's just a little harder. Send extra flak along with the attack, if they specifically calced ar a 100bil extra on your tick will trigger etc. Or you can just send full out and a lot of attackers won't risk staying and dying to SAS even if it means the triggerer dies too (people are stupid, never trust them to have logic)

I would stay and die if they sent all-out to trigger.. cause then I'd send the units I didn't send to THAT solo to the one that triggered.. Who would now be dead.. and I'd only be 1/2 dead... ^_^

 

[Iamsmart]

Most intelligent people aren't willing to spend half their troops at most points in the round in order to kill someone. And you ignored the rest of my post, so I'll assume you agree.

 

[LuckySports]

I didn't see any issues without the rest of the post, and I'll suicide 1/2 my troops just for a decent Br if someone is going to intentionally trigger on my tick with their entire army, I have no qualms with allowing them to die and taking their land ^_^ I'd rather call their bluff

 

[Davs]

Just looking at the original post, I like it. I can't see any obvious downsides and it would indeed stop intentional triggers.

+1 support from me

 

[Iamsmart]

And if he recalls last second and you only have half your troops there and you lose the BR?

And if he has an alliance so you can't take any of your land?

I see many many flaws in your logic Mr. LS.

 

[Davs]

And if he recalls last second and you only have half your troops there and you lose the BR?

And if he has an alliance so you can't take any of your land?

I see many many flaws in your logic Mr. LS.

if they recall last second, AR won't be needed so it will recall. At least I thought that's how the system worked...

 

[Alcibiades]

It's irrelevant. I'd rather not have to lose half my troops to screw over a ****ing ****sack of a triggerer.

 

[Zaheen]

after having seen an intentional trigger attempt from zaheen on the person he was abusing recently and being rascist towards

I only attempted to trigger on one person this round and it was on Chris_.

So what? Did I break some sort of rule? I had been trying to kill this person for days, I had sent at this person about 10+ times, and if Chris_ followed through I would not be able to kill the person myself. I didn't know the person, nor did I care if they died.

I'm also solo, such attempts would make myself vunerable as SAS wouldn't come to save me when required - I care? Not really. The trigger attempt was a fail, Chris_ replied to my "polite" message with a reply saying that he won't attack my target for a week.

Racist? What has that got to do with the price of fish, if you want to post a suggestion willymchilybily please do so without talking out of your backside.

-----

I think your idea is terrible, I think that the intentional trigger implementation should be dismissed and I think the entire AR should be re-worked, the limits of AR should depend on the attackers size, allowing anybody similar in score/smaller to attack with less chance of trigger affects, and prevent somebody 2x bigger than you to attack you with less troops (because they are double in size chances of them having more land is higher, and taking losses has less impact on them). Which is a whole solution altogether.

"I'm in an alliance, I am contactable, and I want to be able to hit any solo player I like without triggering especially if I sent first".

Triggering is a tactical part of solo play, and I'm sure lots of abuse would come with your suggestion, which hasn't been thought out at all, just seems like you've thought it up in 5 minutes after I tried to trigger on someone.

Sometimes I intentionally trigger on people in front of me just so that I get land and they don't, especially if the person tried to piggy my attack with more Geos and refused to recall. I would recall and resend after them, messing up their attack (as they tried to mess up mine), and then I land. In your suggestion it would mean that we both would be messed up, or the person piggying would get all the land.

I don't think stubborn / allied players like that should be allowed to get what they want. AR is what makes us feel safe, any attempts to take that away, or cause harm to alliances attempting to bash solo players by following up attackers with Petrols bombers and suck, early recalls and what not I would be against. I don't see much triggering abuse around these days anyway - attempts to do so by a solo player will probably do more damage to that person surely.

 

[Alcibiades]

On topic: I seriously disagree with you, and I think your suggestion is crap (",) - if you want me to explain then feel free to ask, but meanwhile I have better things I can be doing.

Thanks.

I want you to explain your reasoning please. Triggering has a negative impact on this game, and anything that can be done to remove it, should be done. I would be interested in hearing your opinion though.

 

[LuckySports]

And if he recalls last second and you only have half your troops there and you lose the BR?

And if he has an alliance so you can't take any of your land?

I see many many flaws in your logic Mr. LS.

The only flaw is your understanding of what was being said..

The talk was of someone sending the same tick as me to trigger SAS, should that person recall, SAS would recall as well, as it is figured BEFORE the battle and not after

If he's allied, I'll just go after his alliance until I get the land.. ^_^ Persistance can be a useful tool when it comes to revenge



And on topic - Whilst the basic logic is sound, the system would not work.. at least not when it came to non-lethal mobs. The ranged blockers would be useless and they might as well have not triggered at all.. ^_^

For lethals, its a sound plan.. I'd like to see that, but when it comes to non-lethal triggers.. It just wouldn't work..

Think of that as you will.. ^_^ Not sure how it could be worked to include blockers.. Or maybe just implement the lethals.. Not really sure.. ^_^

 

[Zaheen]

I want you to explain your reasoning please. Triggering has a negative impact on this game, and anything that can be done to remove it, should be done. I would be interested in hearing your opinion though.

I think I did when editing my message.

 

[Alcibiades]

Cheers.

 

[Zaheen]

Cheers.

Did a brick hit your head?

 

[Zaheen]

And on topic - Whilst the basic logic is sound, the system would not work.. at least not when it came to non-lethal mobs. The ranged blockers would be useless and they might as well have not triggered at all.. ^_^

For lethals, its a sound plan.. I'd like to see that, but when it comes to non-lethal triggers.. It just wouldn't work..

Think of that as you will.. ^_^ Not sure how it could be worked to include blockers.. Or maybe just implement the lethals.. Not really sure.. ^_^

Imagine I send pure Assassins/TL at a Striker player (who only has Striker/Apache) and no Marines.

Somebody notices me sending, and see's me at ETA 2. So this player sends 'in front' of me with 100M Guru / 50M Hippy Van, or even 5-6 different players send a whole bunch of Yobs. Since Striker/Apache don't even target NLD/NLT that mob is completely safe.

But what will happen to the original attacker (the one who sent first), he will the one being punished, he will the one who dies, and it'll be the ETA 1 rush that will have caused that to happen. So basically you can defend a solo player without harming them, without triggering, without breaking the EULA (unless it was mutual) - but they could just say "I am getting some H/F".

 

[LuckySports]

And on topic - Whilst the basic logic is sound, the system would not work.. at least not when it came to non-lethal mobs. The ranged blockers would be useless and they might as well have not triggered at all.. ^_^

For lethals, its a sound plan.. I'd like to see that, but when it comes to non-lethal triggers.. It just wouldn't work..

Think of that as you will.. ^_^ Not sure how it could be worked to include blockers.. Or maybe just implement the lethals.. Not really sure.. ^_^

Imagine I send pure Assassins/TL at a Striker player (who only has Striker/Apache) and no Marines.

Somebody notices me sending, and see's me at ETA 2. So this player sends 'in front' of me with 100M Guru / 50M Hippy Van, or even 5-6 different players send a whole bunch of Yobs. Since Striker/Apache don't even target NLD/NLT that mob is completely safe.

But what will happen to the original attacker (the one who sent first), he will the one being punished, he will the one who dies, and it'll be the ETA 1 rush that will have caused that to happen. So basically you can defend a solo player without harming them, without triggering, without breaking the EULA (unless it was mutual) - but they could just say "I am getting some H/F"

So much potential abuse, which would need a lot of work and I don't really see any benefit. Triggering is a real pain in the ass, I cannot stand it when I'm hitting a solo player and some idiot comes 1 or 2 ticks behind me, but it's part of the game and if people hate you, it's something you have to deal with.

The potential abuse would be less than it is now.. So it'd be an improvement on some areas, if worse in others..

wouldn't mind seeing the whole system worked