Forums

War system 3.0

Open Archived Joe opened this discussion on

Sonix -

Then rebellion :P which ever one destroys churches. What do you mean my splitting them up? Make them into 2 separate buildings?

Bolle -

We were thinking of turning the % of block they give from 2.5 to 4, and alter one building to provide x% (max 20% of the building type, so say 1.5-2.5%) damage reduction against all damage types.

Sonix -

Out of curiosity, which way would make it harder to destroy buildings 4% block and 2.5% dmg reduction or 4% dmg reduction and 2.5% block?

Joe -

It would result in equal damage done.

The 4% block however works only against 1 damage type (magic or thievery) while the 2.5% damage reduction works against 3 (magic, thievery and attacking).
So if you're fighting 6 mages CH will be better than the new building. But if you're fighting 2/2/2 t/m/a the new building type might be worth it.

Frisbee -

so one will reduce the dmg from all kind of action with 50% (20%) and the other one will have 80% block?

so in thst case if ure a thieve and go Turtle mode u will have ure TPa and thieve traps as a protection against thieves and u still can run 20% CH and 20% reduction and top of thst SoD aswell. feels kinda imba protection? :) its like 105% spell protection :) and if u are lucky to break u have 50% reduction of doing dmg :). and what i can see for now u dont have a singel attack that destroyes CH/GH so will theives be over protected then? or Templars ( dont know if ure going to change them soon)

Sonix -

Oh it's a new building entirely. I kind of agree with Frisbee on this. 80% block seems like a huge amount when combined with SoD and even potentially the Nazzie's protection. They already pretty much act like half of walls, GHs, and CH. (I don't know what race changes are) but can't a dwarf just run like 20% of those and 80% labs and be indestructible?

Bolle -

Currently, Ch/Gh each block 70% when you run 20%. ML, TPA, Thieves Trap and SoD work on top of that, so do size penalties.

Dwarf will be changed. (We don't know yet how!)

80% is the defense that was usual in the old orkfia. You're arguing thieves will have an easy time defending themselves, that's true - that's why thieves still have 33% chance of success when arsoning a guy 20 times their TPA. Thieves remain vulnerable to other thieves even when they have proper TPA.

So, in fact, it's a bit useless to run 20% GH and 20% other building, cuz that other building now provides you with only 10% defense. Granted, it halves the remaining 20% to 10%, but it's still only 10%.
We expect it'll more likely be used as a general defense (20*2.5=50% blocked, nice investment for a safe growth mode). And it's too good at that. That's why I said 1.5-2.5% up there: 2.5 is the absolute max, less might be better.

Sonix -

Btw, what would be the required difference between points for victory? and if its different for every war, what formula would it follow, if you guys have any idea yet that is :P.

Bolle -

The difference is the same POINTS as the current ACRE worth in wars. Except there's more ways to earn points, and ways for the enemy alliance to earn points as well, minimizing the difference.

Read carefully [;)]

Oh yes, and the difference plus difference needed for win will ofc be shown in the war room to make it easy to grasp.

Sonix -

OH i completely read that wrong :P. I read it as “X = acres/3, is the value of the starting points for each respective alliance”.

I get it now [:)]

Cecil -

heres a cookie[:p]

sanzi -

So basically you can win a war by poisoning your enemy? Considering they have boat-loads of food?

Cecil -

once again the early version allowed u to win by visioning...

Sonix -

wait... what? i'm confused. win by visioning?

Frisbee -

Vision gives fame :P

Sonix -

[:|] Fame counts towards war wins now??

Bolle -

Nope. That's a myth.

Poison does work. But killing a 4k tribe gives you about 2500 points. That's 2500*6667=16667500 food, or over 16 million kgs of food.

Don't forget we're fixing the market system long before this is implemented, so you don't want to keep 16 million kgs of food in your tribe. It's a bit of a waste for the alliance. Warring without farms will become less viable overall.

Bolle -

Poison may need to be made more difficult to cast in war.

sanzi -

well on the plus side...

new players aren't good at killing and like to annoy other people with poison, fireball, etc... so this might be a fun way to enjoy wars without killing.

surely the quickest and easiest way to win should still be by killing, but mixing things up by having new strategies may be fun as well.

the only thing I'm concerned about is a small alliance declaring on an alliance with a couple of big tribes and just poisoning/PWing/FBing their way to a war win

I don't think making poison a harder spell to cast is a good idea either, because of those crazy people who don't like farms during war [;)]

Bolle -

Quote
the only thing I'm concerned about is a small alliance declaring on an alliance with a couple of big tribes and just poisoning/PWing/FBing their way to a war win


I think this equals the '12 3k tribes declaring on an alli with 9 1.5k tribes and 2 8k tribes'. Sort of. That sort of thing happens, but it's not something a war system can solve unless you forbid people to declare on such alliances. So I see that as an inherent AatW flaw.



Quote
I don't think making poison a harder spell to cast is a good idea either, because of those crazy people who don't like farms during war [;)]


I dunno. I was thinking about PWing the farms and then have fun when the guy has to buy food. But I guess we should see how that strategy unfolds before preventing it [:p]

sanzi -

Quote
That sort of thing happens, but it's not something a war system can solve unless you forbid people to declare on such alliances.

Yeah, you're right. People should expect what they have coming to them, instead of feeling free of dangers[:)]

Bolle -

Besides, they can always pause! [;)]

Which may be sucky, but it's made all the more sucky because of heritage. So maybe we ought to remove that.

Joe -

There seem to be a lot of misinterpretations about this war system. What is so hard to understand of it? Basically the 'only' thing changed is that not only grabs/kills count for a win, but also other types of damage (in some arbitrary way which needs to be balanced by dev). The idea behind this (as stated in first post) is to make war easier for newer and less coordinated alliances. They might still lose, but at least they get the feeling to fight and are encouraged to do some damage back and are rewarded for it.

The rest of the system can be attached or not but are just a bunch of ideas (for example the gains and the way war ends). They can even be attached on the old war system if the ideas are nice. (IMO a truce proposal + payment is a pretty nice idea if defined within certain bounds to prevent abuse).

Bolle -

Quote
There seem to be a lot of misinterpretations about this war system. What is so hard to understand of it?


It misses a preface saying what it does specifically not do [:p]

Sonix -

Quote
I think this equals the '12 3k tribes declaring on an alli with 9 1.5k tribes and 2 8k tribes'. Sort of. That sort of thing happens, but it's not something a war system can solve unless you forbid people to declare on such alliances. So I see that as an inherent AatW flaw.


I guess going green till everyone can start together doesn't sound to bad anymore huh?
Page 1 2 3 4