V has some questions

Open Archived VorteX opened this discussion on

VorteX -

i had been missing for a while and came back, and anyway so as not to beat around the bush, i have some questions:

- why has sci been nerfed so much? i mean, i dont see any more allis bothering to use sci... it's not the bonuses that are too nerfed, it's the fact that those bonuses are depleted way too quickly for them to be useful for long.

- has the idea of classes, from classic, been considered for AATW? being a strategist, i really REALLY loved spending like 2 hours writing different race&classes tactics on a notepad, combining different aspects of races together with the class bonuses and nerfs... the more time passes, the more i realise that ork is losing its strategic aspect... at least AATW. wait for age changes, pick the overpowered races, exploit them, take no.1 spot, repeat. i believe with classes this will become more difficult to do so

- ok, something which i really liked... big guys cant bully small ones now. good, some penalties have been introduced. but why can't the small guys pick on the big ones? not that i have anything against #17, but im gonna use them as an example... they cannot be killed when they're 2k, theyre too small and cute. and i doubt there are some people who take the game so seriously as to be willing to stunt their growth, stop at 3.5k to wipe out #17.

they grow to 13k, who can stop them? nothing and no one ofc, they kill anyone nearing 80% of their range

the solution? reduce or remove the penalties of smallies picking on biggies and... REINTRODUCE DA!!! i loved that spell! ok, so theres Earthquake now... but its pretty much useless when there's the size penalty thingy. and i remember i used to use DA,DM and arson in my evil plots... DM deals more damage but DA let the small'uns have a chance and DA was also really good to take out a guy who was uber efficient and had a low amount of homes left to take out

- of course... RAZE. as i said to harry:

WHY DO ATTACKERS HAVE A DOUBLE-BARREL KILLING SYSTEM i.e. raze and DM... i mean, i cant really turtle 20% CH and 20% walls in war as a thief, can i? :|

ofc, i have nothing against raze, in fact i love it, just... might want to consider tweaking it down a bit outside of war. in war, leave it as it is, its up to the alli declaring war to see that it can take out the attackers quick and fast

- the last thing... you guys introduced a lot of things, making ork really interesting and all that, but come on... half of the things are never used. how long has it been since you destroyed research points? or used weather's light? variety ftw of course... but quality > quantity, dont forget!

Darkwing -


Bolle -


- why has sci been nerfed so much? i mean, i dont see any more allis bothering to use sci... it's not the bonuses that are too nerfed, it's the fact that those bonuses are depleted way too quickly for them to be useful for long.

Except that one. The reason is simple: this is infinity. So you don't have a choice. Besides, sci IS useful. The problem is, it isn't useful enough for the teamwork involved to gain it. However, the idea or concept is perfect for infinity.

p.s. I signed the problems you signalled. I don't sign any solutions that might logically be deducable from them.

OrigenX -

Vortex it is possible to bully larger tribes when you have the planning and strategy for it

We at 17 have taken down many “impossible to kill” big tribes over the last 11 ages, it requires a good strategy and planning. Ofcourse you must have the ablility to do it, good attackers or good mages at atleast 50% of that tribe, but i aggree it can be very difficult and if you fail the price will be high as you get retalled without mercy.

I aggree that some tribes are too strong compared to others, some tribes have an almost 0 chance of surviving (outside a good alliance) like raven or HE

Its mostly the same races you see in the top ranking (Balrog/LE)

About sci there certainly are alliances that use it BUT not for war anymore it takes too much time and income away for the benefits you get and almost any alliance will see you coming and try to kill you

In the little time i spent in classic i preffered to use DA instead of DM and found it way more usefull as the succes % was a great deal bigger against a midlevel mage... we killed loads (but now i dont play classic anymore)

now what i would like to see is DV back [evilgrin] although it had a huge failrate it was always a sick sight to see the damage from only 1 succesfull spell imo

Halcyon -

bring back paradise! .. oh wait [:|]

OrigenX -

Hal dude!!!

How are ya

VorteX -

origen, since when did 11 tribes online, most of them nasty savage britts with 60 tpa each, DID NOT succeed to kill at least one tribe? a fully turtled tribe is no match to those... the whole point of turtling should be to avoid having multiple kills in 1 tick. imo, full turtle should not mean staying away for 4 ticks and remain alive after a full-barrage attack

activity should remain the main basis of staying alive after the tick... dont make ork too slacker-friendly, me being a slacker in the first place

believe me, when we took down #32, they were in the same position as you... big, ugly, overpowered tribes with huge space efficiency and decent TM protection...we took them down, easy, simply because they were going a bit inactive.

as for sci... i might have 2 possible solutions:

make sci tribe based, not alli based. after all, no allis are using it... so where's the teamwork in that. waste of code for poor HaRRy


remove sci altogether, and labs, and bring in a new type of building... something that adds TM damage maybe, to counter the overpowered CH/GH, if youre going to keep them the same? dunno, someone from DeV might consider opening a topic on this 2nd option, im dry on ideas atm

EDIT - about raze... another question for you orkfians: when has been the last time since you used co-ordinated BC to take a tribe down???

Dev - Joe -

Someone (forgot who, might be me even) proposed personal science a long time ago. It has some good benefits but mostly people just didn't like it enough. A drawback to me is that it's not very much different from normal income, unless you make the science effects non-economical.
I also think a personal market record would be good to make the different resources more differently. Currently for most alliances there's an endless heap of every resource on the market which is a pity since introducing market shortages will give alot more strategical options :)

Noodle -

Personal science, sounds kinda interesting.

Martel -

Welcome back Vortex. I'll try answer although Iluros might also have some things to say.

1) Dev did at one point consider increasing the time of decay to something longer, but at the time did not rework the formula.

2) At some point you'll learn classes too and they will loose their importance, same with any strategic aspects that come from adding layers of complexity. Perhaps something could be made in AatW to increase the strategic aspects of alliances? If you feel strategy is missing then that might be an area to expand.

3) Earthquake is DA but renamed. Maybe its damage could be altered some way? Not many changes have been made to it besides the relatively new size-difference penalty.

4) Double-barrel killing system for attackers? They can now kill on their own but they only destroy buildings that defend against thievery and magic, not any that defends against attackers (eg walls).

For your less direct questions I can only provide generic replies and I rather not. I share your opinion that Alliances At War can be more strategic. Though personal research or classes isn't my idea of promoting alliances and alliance strategy, which should be our focus.

Joe -

A market decay would bring a lot more strategy though :D

VorteX -

thanks for the answers martel :) idd, if we share the same thought that AATW may need a bit more buff on the strategic side, then i'll be more than happy to help you with some ideas.

of course, nothing remains innovative for too long... and after my rant, one of the conclusions was that adding layers of complexity to the game won't always make it more interesting. so, adding classes might not be the answer, but it would be nice to develop some ideas in DeV and then make a poll, including the idea of classes for AATW. after all, the best product is that which satsifies the largest amount of people... orkfia is a product ofc

no, dont increase damage for EQ... rather, work on the ability for smaller tribes to inflict damage on the bigger tribes, bigger than 50% i.e. DA did less damage than DM but had a better success rate and i liked to use it against turtled targets

well, i doubt many tribes are arsed to keep 20% walls against attackers all their life, unless theyre britts... and i prefer if i have to keep an eye on thieves or mages only instead of keeping an eye on a tribe capable of killing you either by magic or by attacks... something balrogs can do very well. oh now, dont go nerfing balrogs cause i mentioned them... its something any attacker is free to do. i preferred the days where attackers had their uses thanks to BC, and also dealt decent mage damage if used well.

Aqualightnin -

didn't he say earthquake IS da, but with a new name, and a size restriction (Which i think you said you liked)? unless im misunderstanding i dont see why you're not happy with EQ as it is... it essentially is DA, updated for the times.

keeping 20% walls all your life... thats a bit of an exaggeration. most of the time you wont need walls. there are many gaps (and looking at the rankings shows) where you can go a few days of growing without having any attackers in optimal towards you at all, so you only need walls when there are attackers in optimal, and even then only when you think they will have a need/desire to attack you (say like, when you're declaring war on them for instance..)

usually only 1-2 alliances with the ability to war you and only a few attackers per alliance in most cases... so be observant of which allies to watch out for, and use the walls to prepare for whats needed.
just like if there is an ally with 10+ thieves, in range to declare on you, with incentive to do so. you probably will build GH's. but you dont need 20% GH's all the time.

Bolle -

he isn't happy with current DA because he isn't happy with the current size restrictions on opping.

You're right about the walls - you only have to care about the attackers in those alliances who can declare on you. Then again, the damage is imo exaggerated. But it's a rather easy matter to change.

The building problem is different. It's simply that you can't protect against everything. This is no problem, except that if I convert to declare war on you, you do the reverse, declare, and quickly kill those who removed part of their def because they really really DO need to have A warmode.
So if I convert to kill you, you see this --> consequently you declare on me, and kill me in one tick with raze (it's instant so no preparation required). Of course, this requires some coordination. But it does greatly limit this “effect of surprise”. Kinda reverses it upon discovery.

VorteX -

you just dont get the point aqualightning... attackers dont need to convert to kill you. i cant keep an eye on them. basically there will always be an attacker that can attack you; when am i supposed to drop walls? when im 12k or so? come on, be reasonable. i can keep a watch on a TM, but not on an attacker. and besides, you can raze with 50%... so basically im not even safe with 5 mil mod defence either

and no, im not happy with how EQ is atm :)

Aqualightnin -

“you just dont get the point aqualightning... ”

yea, that aqualightning guy's a moron. I, on the other hand, understand just fine :P

you CAN raze with 50%.. but that does crap for damage. thats like doing volleys of arson with only 10% hideouts... whoopty-doo. they do the raze, then you convert and pwn them for trying anything...

raze, outside of war, isn't that amazing. 50% ones are pretty pathetic to be honest. nothing OP enough to complain about.

and my point was that, although many attackers may be in your range, very few of which will be in a position to even consider using raze/bc on you. first off they gain nothing from it if they aren't trying to kill you or stall you, so that rules out most of the attackers. and any time you've done something to make an attacker want to kill/stall you, you should typically know you've done it, thus you know that you should be prepared. the only times a tribe will logically raze/BC you are predictable. watch your war targets, and people you've pissed off recently, and you will know exactly when you will need walls.

you're trying to make it sound like ALL attackers have reason to raze you at all times, which simply isn't true. a single raze isnt going to make or break you, and an ally of multiple attackers coordinating a KT on you is typically predictable. if you dont know when said alliance will be attacking you, put up the walls and initiate the war yourself, this way you take the element of surprise away from them, and stonewall their only offensive option.

had you chosen a more defensive build, you're recent war would have gone MUCH differently, and you would have seen that walls are just fine. the only way i can see to improve them would be to reduce their build time (thus giving you more time to see the weap/unit put, and react) but it's still up in the air if any change is needed...

and EQ - i agree it's not as good as it should be. personally i think “Deals more damage when the caster is less than 2000 acres, and less damage above 2000 acres.” should be a bit larger than 2k.

VorteX -

pray, how can we choose a defensive build when we're declaring war? another point i mentioned was that turtling is too effective atm; you can be afk and still survive after 4 ticks with good turtling

Aqualightnin -

LOL i didnt say a purely “defensive build”, i said “more defensive build”, which technically means more defense than your all out offense builds, not so much that it hinders your ability to do anything...
you could have gone with 20% walls, 5% gh and 5% ch... (since the turtled T/M's couldn't do much, you wouldn't need much defense towards them) thats a total of 30% buildings towards defense, which isn't bad (less than or equal to many T/M vs T/M war builds). you could still, as thieves, have had 35% HO's (or more) with that build and been fine, while still very deadly.

i agree that turtling is strong, but not too much so. there are ways to counter it. the only time it's a hassle is when you're whole ally is one thing. for example, if you're all mages, you have no thieves to burn the churches..

having a balance of tribe types fixes most problems you will encounter.

Darkwing -

I don't really agree with the 35% toward HO's.

30% def
30% homes
7% markets
10% acads
5% guilds

That's 82% so leaves 18% for HO's. Or unless of course you wont cast selfspells so you don't need guilds and some ML to not fail them all the time.

Aqualightnin -

cast self spells above 24 hrs before warmode, then ml5 and 3% guilds should sustain the basic selfs during the war, which gives 7% more, so 25% there, and thats if you feel the GH/CH are necessary. against an attacker heavy ally and the T/M's in turtle, you probably dont NEED any of either.

not to mention some have been known to run less than full homes... ;)

but you're right, 35% is a bit high estimation, 30% is more likely, which is still not bad. you're getting 45% of your land size in TP with that, (~60% for brit) which isn't bad at all.

Darkwing -

if I have 30% HO that would be 2675 plans. Britt gives 30% more so that is 3477 plans. 1 arson costs 179 plans. So that leaves me with 19 arsons. Fail rate is incredible so out of those 19 probably 8 will succeed (I have seen 8 out of 40) those 8 will then have reduced damage if opponent has imho it is all crap.

Aqualightnin -

darkwing, you were probably opping a thief with over 1/3rd your TPA then, maybe even with some GH's. play around with the thievery success rate calc and you will find those results aren't typical. part of the problem is how many damn thieves are around right now haha. probably bad luck

Darkwing -

nah my TPA was 67....must be bad luck

Halcyon -

i still think the best turtle build was atan's 50%+ HOs, no ML no CH and 24hr activity ;)

origen- [:D] about to get my @ss wooped next week

Bolle -

You're all weirdos. I went with 20% CH, ML 1 and 3% guilds, no problem. 0% farms, 8% markets, 30% homes, rest hideouts. Decent warmode.

So aqua suggests we went 20 walls, 5 gh 5 ch. But... we didn't know 4 attackers could deal more damage than all your t/ms. So our warmode was prepared for anti t/ms. Since it makes much more sense to use those as well.. plus there might be others who don't like us. A thief without mage def is generally a dead thief, even in war.

So sure, I agree with Aqua, we COULD have done that. But that doesn't change anything about raze's imbaness in war.

For example, there is still the matter of the usefulness of walls in war. Because you guys could've gone 20% weaps as well. I'll outline your build like you did for ours:

30% homes, 20% weaponries, 8% markets, 3% guilds, 20% GH, 19% CH.

This way, you're unkillable, and we can't avoid getting killed. All that within 4 hours. Behold Bolle's awesome argument*...

* = razes in war only

Aqualightnin -

lol bolle, you know you knew the attackers razing was very likely to happen, or at the very least retal of some sort from them. i just dont see why you thought it was less of a threat than the T/M's with minimal HO's/Guilds, low TPA, and defensive ML at best...

and had you built walls, we COULD have responded by building weaps, but that doesnt do any good for atleast 4 ticks, during which time you could have probably gotten a kill on a converting attacker... and the end result is normal damage razes, hardly worth it. better to just remain without the damage, and hit you 4 times. anything less than 4 wouldn't have gotten the first demoralizing kill. and even then it was due to many factors outside the razes alone. (what few DM's we could muster, voiding his elendian, massive fame rape, his trained units, and the fact that all 4 attackers were online so quickly, and together)

the reason why im stating walls would have been better for you is that you had the advantage of knowing when the war was.. we didnt know so we couldnt possibly have prepared with weaps. yes we could have responded with them, but that has it's downsides too. they probably wouldn't have solved all of your problems, but they would have changed the war. may have changed our decisions, may have made some of our attackers unable to get through attacks, or may even have skrewed your chances of winning at all.

i was simply stating they were a game changer that war, and not using them didnt work, maybe using them would have. personally if i was a brit, with its racial bonus from walls on top of it, i would have atleast used 10% walls. and i would have tried (if possible) to go into the war with my defense above their capable offense.
but thats just me.

if you guys REALLY wanted to play it safe, you could have just not declared and tried killing that way, raze wouldn't have had the bonus haha. (then again neither would you, so i dunno :P)

and yes, raze is powerful in war, but nerfing it makes pretty much anything less than 3 attackers in an alliance comparably weak come war time, 1 or 2 of them would hardly equal 1 or 2 thieves or mages, since they have a bit less utility, and may be completely out of range to do anything at all (whereas T/M can always do something to a target, even if its 10x their size, it's just reduced, but something is better than nothing at all from a team play standpoint, for example one successful void from a lowbie on a giant can be a deciding factor on a kill, but a 2k attacker cant help really at all vs a 10k target short of forsaking his race design and trying to cast/thieve).
Page 1 2 3 4