Forums

War system 3.0

Open Archived Joe opened this discussion on

Joe -

It's never doubted that it's a good strategy, just that it's quite boring to wait several weeks for it (rather than, for example, just reset all together straightaway).

Anyway, I don't see the problem so much. The two 8k tribes just have to turtle heavily till they die and the 1.5k tribes should hurry up growing. Yes, your position will be somewhat ugly for a while. That can happen with an ongoing game.

Sonix -

Quote
The two 8k tribes just have to turtle heavily till they die


That is exactly why i think the reduced success rate should be taking out from wars with this new system. The game shouldn't be where once you cross a certain point in acres, all you can do is pretty much sit there if your alliance isn't close to your acreage. Bigger tribes should be key factors in wars not easy targets forced to play defensively.

Honestly, heritage isn't a big enough reward, imo, to make up for uselessness past like 6-7k acres. I would just rather stay at 5-6k acres for 30 years and be more of an asset then a resource for my alliance.

Bolle -

I feel the same as Sonix. My thanks to CD for ensuring that role for me this life.

But I have no clue how to make those big tribes more useful.

Actually, after staring at the screen for five minutes, I do. The new market system gives them the rather important role of goods producer and science producer. And the tribe could just reset, when heritage is removed. Or he could stay big, if there's competition at that size [;)]

sanzi -

Quote
And the tribe could just reset, when heritage is removed

PLEASE REMOVE IT QUICK I AM SOOOOO BORED!!!!!!!

Joe -

I always stay at 5-6k acres for 30 years at least. Why would I grow past it? I only lose power while my size doesn't increase dramatically.
The whole point of growing is to gain power. Once you gain no power by growing, why would you grow? Maybe to beat someone in rankings if they keep growing. The whole game is a balance between size (which counts for winning) and power (which counts for nothing but is needed to keep winning).

Sonix -

Quote
Once you gain no power by growing, why would you grow?


But why should it be like that. Growing bigger should ALWAYS give more power. Honestly, the only race that I can think of that would get stronger growing big no matter what right now is templar cause they have the potential to get like ML 80 if they want.

It should be that no matter what, growing = more powerful, it's a fatal flaw to a game when you are forced to camp out at a particular size to be at ur strongest.

Quote
But I have no clue how to make those big tribes more useful.


Won't removing the spell success rate reduction make them more useful? Just in wars tho so they can't fame rape small tribes out of war. Simply being a resource farm for ur alliance is ok from 90-100 but if you have to do it from 70-100 its really not worth it.

Plato -

I agree with sonix, big is not beautiful atm and need to be fixed.

Joe -

Quote
It should be that no matter what, growing = more powerful, it's a fatal flaw to a game when you are forced to camp out at a particular size to be at ur strongest.


It's not a fatal flaw but a balancing system. And a much needed one. If power doesn't decrease in some way with size but rather increase, there will be no way to stop someone once he is the biggest. He can and will keep growing at top speed and become more and more invincible until he dies of age, bullying everybody as he pleases.

It makes more sense to trade power for acres after some point.

Joe -

Btw growing does increase power. It just doesn't increase exponential and against all tribes (which is what you propose by removing limits in war).

For attackers, growth simply means more tribes to break (higher off). Their damage is sort of capped though (although you can choose an extra damagin race).

For t/m's, the damaging ops cost increase slightly less fast than the size (so the bigger you get, the more ops you get from the same percentage of guilds/hideouts).

All tribes do suffer penalties against tribes outside their range though.

Sonix -

First, I should rephrase what I say. I don't mean to make bigger tribes stronger than they are now, I mean (by removing the limits) make them able to use their power. Also, they are far from unstoppable, just because they don't have their limits doesn't change anything about the smaller tribes being able to take down a bigger tribe. In fact it also makes bigger tribes more vulnerable because the EVEN smaller tribes that couldn't be as effective before with the 75% success rate will also now have 100% success rate. So toppling a big tribe still just takes coordination and it'll be exactly the same it is now, just bigger tribes can fight back now.

Also, just by being able to get big and stay alive should give them the right to be slightly stronger (be able to use more ops).

Quote
For attackers, growth simply means more tribes to break (higher off). Their damage is sort of capped though (although you can choose an extra damagin race).

For t/m's, the damaging ops cost increase slightly less fast than the size (so the bigger you get, the more ops you get from the same percentage of guilds/hideouts).

All tribes do suffer penalties against tribes outside their range though.


I'm sorry but, based on this attackers have a clear advantage. Not only can they attack, but they can supplement mage as well which can be quite devastating in that they can do DM damage, OR they can take the job of doing MV allowing for another pure mage to concentrate on fully DMing instead of having to spend some mp MVing.

Sonix -

First, I should rephrase what I say. I don't mean to make bigger tribes stronger than they are now, I mean (by removing the limits) make them able to use their power. Also, they are far from unstoppable, just because they don't have their limits doesn't change anything about the smaller tribes being able to take down a bigger tribe. In fact it also makes bigger tribes more vulnerable because the EVEN smaller tribes that couldn't be as effective before with the 75% success rate will also now have 100% success rate. So toppling a big tribe still just takes coordination and it'll be exactly the same it is now, just bigger tribes can fight back now.

Also, being a bigger tribe and survive by itself should give the bigger tribe the right to have an advantage. And the limiters are still on out of wars so bigger tribes are still vulnerable to out of war kills, which isn't a rare event at all.

Quote
For attackers, growth simply means more tribes to break (higher off). Their damage is sort of capped though (although you can choose an extra damagin race).

For t/m's, the damaging ops cost increase slightly less fast than the size (so the bigger you get, the more ops you get from the same percentage of guilds/hideouts).

All tribes do suffer penalties against tribes outside their range though.


I'm sorry but, based on this attackers have a clear advantage. Not only can they attack, but they can supplement mage as well which can be quite devastating in that they can do DM damage, OR they can take the job of doing MV allowing for another pure mage to concentrate on fully DMing instead of having to spend some mp MVing.

Joe -

Let me find something you might find interesting then ;)

Sonix -

Lol, if that has some hidden meaning, I'm slow and i'm not getting it [:D]. But I don't think the game is boring at all, especially after our alliance broke into the top 10 and top 5 temporarily. There was always something going on when you are mixed in with the top. But (and nothing taken away from them, it was a good win) when OMEGA declared on us, if I (when i as a big-ish owl) was in range to op them, things might have turned out differently. Not saying we would have won, but we probably wouldn't have surrendered right off the bat either and potentially put up a fight. Aside from me (too big to help) berserker and leviathan (who ended up their first target and died), everyone else in our alliance was under 2k and couldn't do much as it is.

Joe -

It has no hidden meaning at all, I am trying to find a thread where I propose to define the penalties on alliance size rather than personal tribe sizes. But I can't find it :p
Most people hated it because it would mean a 10k tribe can hammer a 1k tribe to dust if they happen to have a similar alliance size. I though that it would simply mean that if your alliance is BIG you need protection both at 1k and 10k ;)

Joe -

Seems the thread got deleted :(

Sonix -

While that is true, honestly no one is going to start of going after a 1k tribe during a war (maybe for the very last kill). If we take of limiters for wars only, during non-war times there is no risk of a big tribe hammering a smaller tribe because they still have the penalties.

Also, in KP's Viking story, their templar pretty much solo killed the Eagle or Spirit in CD while he was still smaller. Even if he wasn't out of range and still had full success rate, that example was just to show that the big tribes are still vulnerable to die by smaller tribes even more so if there is no reduced success rate. Then, there will obviously be tribes in other alliances that are big as well, its not like there will be one massive tribe way bigger than everyone else.

Also, the increase in strength (power not actual strength) will eventually start to slow and cap as you get bigger because, yes they can caste a few more spells/ops (depending on race ofc), but after a while its not like mages are going to be able to run 50-60% academies and still do enough DMs to take advantage of the ML. ML (expect for templars) will eventually stop growing so the bigger tribes won't have a bigger ML. Also, TPA will start to be a lot harder to sustain and since op success is based more on TPA than # of thieves a 5k 50 tpa tribe can do good arson damage to a 9k 35 tpa tribe (just an example).

Joe -

http://aatw-live.rob-franken.nl/forums/game/381499/fame-based-on-damage/0-12

Found the thread I was looking for just now. Couldn't find it because the principal idea was to base famegains on damage done and the size penalties based on alliance rather than tribes was a secondary thing in the idea ;)

Cecil -

on a side note, will be working on fame stuff hopefully on wednesday should have 4h free time to play with it on devork[:D]

Sonix -

Yea I gave the thread a read. Unless I misunderstand, and tell me if I did, the alliance size thing was in general right? What if we incorporate that idea and make it a war only thing. So basically, during wars, instead of success rate being based on tribes, it is based on alliances. So during a war, you can do full damage to any alliance you are able to war (even though you shouldn't really be targeting other alliances during wars :P). Or maybe during wars instead of a reduced success rate for tribes less than 60% of ur size, it becomes less than 80% of ur size.

I don't know, I guess I'm really strongly pushing for this because I really don't like that the game becomes pretty much a turtling till the end after a certain size. You can kind of see why people would want to VM if they can't do much to defend themselves (not saying VMing is the way to go but maybe giving bigger tribes more offensive usefulness will stop people from VMing as much too).

Joe -

Quote
So during a war, you can do full damage to any alliance you are able to war (even though you shouldn't really be targeting other alliances during wars :P). Or maybe during wars instead of a reduced success rate for tribes less than 60% of ur size, it becomes less than 80% of ur size.


Yes, I would be happy with it although I'd be more happy with it in general. But it removes a lot of currently stupid stuff like having to explore 5 acres to increase your succesrate by 50% etc. which don't make sense at all. Instead you target always primarily an ALLIANCE instead of a tribe.
Anyway, the problem with it is that loners will have a really easy time because they are out of range for every alliance capable of killing them. Loner attackers will be a pain for any alliance.

Bolle -

I like sonix's idea.

You misunderstand it Joe (I think) - he says “in war only”. So the current size penalties apply in out of war kills, but the alliance size is taken as the measure for wars.

Sonix -

yea, like Bolle said, with it being wars only, the loners can't do much since they need to be in an alliance of 3 too war and there is also the 80-120% tribe size rule as well.

Joe -

I understand Sonix idea. But my point is that the warcriteria are pretty strict and that I feel the alliance-system on penalties makes more sense than the tribe one. (it is after all an alliance-game). This is not only true in war but also in general imo.

Loners can't do much in terms of killing but they can do loads in terms of being annoying by grabbing and keeping you down. The typical way to get around this is to kill the loner. But with alli-penalties this means you suffer a huge penalty when trying, while he suffers no penalties on taking your acres.

Sonix -

Well to counter something like that, we can make it a general thing (as in outside of wars as well) where the alliance penality is set at alliances in the minimum warable range or bigger. I don't think a loner tribe will be in range of an alliance of 5-12 active players. And even if the loner is in range and grabs the lowe tribes, then the bigger alliance memebers can kill him because they won't have a reduced success rate.

Cecil -

ive killed solo, so thats not entirely true joe

@sonix, apply the 80-120% rule to tribe member totals to go along with the rest of ur suggestion
Page 1 2 3 4