Pirate The World - Online Adventure Game

ok im gonna go with my feelings now.. we have been running this attack system for a whole month.. and from what i gather.. it has its ups and downs.. pluses and minuses...

here is what i suggest and id like some input:


Leave it the same for attacks when the attacking pirates attack is lower than the defending pirates defense, so that way they can still attack higher ups, and what not.

HOWEVER

change it back to the way it was for attackers who have higher attack than the defenders with lower defense. This way higher up people who earned to get where they are wont have to fail on people that are no names...

larryx6 Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 15:47:48
ratpatrol Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 15:46:07
codemaster Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 15:24:40
anathema Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 15:23:44
NiceNNaughtyNurse Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 15:23:00
MommaJewels Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 15:02:27
mrsludgemaster Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 15:00:45
mskwik Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 14:59:48
rycechrispy Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 14:58:09
paogeh Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 14:57:53
jack_skellington Failure 0 Gained Sep 28 14:56:41

n those are just the 6 on my log of 50.. and i know theres more on the day if you wanna say i failed go for it hah... (oh yea ozwizard twice once at 23:59 and once at 01:00 or somethin like that)

the only one of those that w/ this method that COULD fail is mskwik (now possibly rat.. idk on that 100%) ... and thats not a gurantee... it still makes it so lower people have a chance to attack the highers and get gold from them, but highers dont get screwd out of a lot because they cant hit the lowers



--------------



here we go again.. another perfect example.. if you know anything about the game you know this is completely wrong.. and should be OPPOSITE if anything...

LordAmbush Failure 0 Gained Sep 29 03:29:25
hainerman Success 3 Gained Sep 29 03:29:20
mskwik Failure 0 Gained Sep 29 03:29:17 --- good
CabinBoy Failure 0 Gained Sep 29 03:29:09
seamanstains Failure 0 Gained Sep 29 03:28:05
Tazomatic Success 1810 Gained Sep 29 03:27:59
ptrdanno Success 2525 Gained Sep 29 03:27:57
zrz1190 Success 1 Gained Sep 29 03:27:44
twalk1 Failure 0 Gained Sep 29 03:27:01
nsng20 Failure 0 Gained Sep 29 03:26:56
paogeh Failure 0 Gained Sep 29 03:26:52


so the stronger people... mskwik taz n ptrdanno.. i fail vs mskwik and succeed vs other 2 ok fine...

weaker ones.. LordAmbush, hainerman, cabinboy, seamanstains, twalk1, nsng20, paogeh, zrz1190-- i succeed on hainer and zrz.. what should happen.. and fail on lordambush, cabinboy, seamanstains, twalk1, nsng20, and paogeh... all which shouldnt happen.. id really like to see other peoples opinions..

I stated my opinion almost a month ago on this subject. I feel the lower people succeed more times than the underdog should win and that higher's fail more times than they should. There should be some element of chance because there are sometimes surprise endings to a battle but that element is currently too high. I think this is contributing to the higher amount for cashout this month. Why should people upgrade instead of cashing out if they can attack the same people anyway and succeed or if the same people can attack them?

i'd like to see the reasons people are voting no? i have no problem with the fact you are, just please state why you feel this way so we actually have reason to back it up...

An alternative to always succeeding on the lowers would be maybe chance only plays a part if they are within maybe 2 or 3 levels of you. That way people that have big stats wouldn't be failing on people that just started.

but define these 2 or 3 levels.. because i fail WAY too often on people that are outside these 3 levels that are supposed to be "very rare"... and then again, i succeed more on the people that are within the 2 or 3 levels higher and lower than me... so i dont think that should happen.. if peoples attack is bigger than my defense, they earned that.. they dont deserve to fail

I agree some tweaking of the system needs to be done. What the levels should be is open to debate. When I think of levels I think of total attack or total defense but I know there are people that think of it as a number they see in their stats.

I voted no because I think it's sexy when popcan fails on me.

so therefore we have 5 votes no.. and not one has provided a legitimate reason for voting that way.. like i said, im open to hear your reasons.. but unless you provide them i really see no reason this change shouldnt take place, or at least one like kate said... because its honestly the stupidest thing in the world when upgrades are not longer worthwhile for players that are "higher up" and its just going to cause cashout rate to hit sky high, higher than it is this month, because players will just farm gold, hit people 3x, and sit on it.. rarely ever getting "raped"

i like the new attack system... although i voted no im thinking that your idea of 'higher level attack always suceeding on lower level defence' may work well....

i dont know im split on the whole thing

so therefore that vote is 5-5.. b/c 3J is split...

for those that arent reading it all and just thinking because im "strong" if you call me that that its against you, its not...

all im saying is that stronger dont fail on weaker, but weaker CAN still succeed on stronger.. so its not taking that option out

Sounds good to me. We'll let the poll go a little longer though.

I voted yes.

and remember 3J is split so his no vote doesn't count.. and we havent heard one person speak up in backing up a no vote

I vote yes !!!!

Yes!! Please!