Age 74 discussion

Open Archived Bolle opened this discussion on

Vo -

Just looking over the game is now, pokemon is winning easily with only 1 attacker in their alliance.

We may have only one traditional attacker race, but we didn't really climb to our position in the rankings based solely on exploring. That fame didn't come out of nowhere [;)]

There is a big problem that this age is about growing and not warring. You can't war yet because tribes have 100 dpa and are too efficient.

I've enjoyed the reset age, but I understand this point of view. Wars are difficult to justify for the first week or week and a half because killing is necessary for power, and killing is pretty much impossible with these ratios. However, I'd understand if this lull in war action was by design. I haven't thought about the ramifications, but could be more interesting to score wars infinity-style.

Bolle -

This has always been the case in the past. However, players seem to grow a lot faster than they did then.

Tribes will reach a size above which it will be really hard to grow, but with only 4 weeks they'll have a hard time filling those acres with military. So it's likely that exploration costs will increase and/or military unit costs (especially offense) decrease. I'm in favour of a mix of increasing the exploration cost and slightly decreasing attacker offense cost. It'll be hard to get exactly right though, but it should still be a lot closer to the mark.

On Oleg vs Mori:
Mori get 115/101/152
Oleg get 100/107/158

This is the standardized per-point cost (so including Mori's extra income), assuming a mine-maximizing build.

In other words, those Olegs simply suck, it's not a balance issue. The only difference would be if those Mori's mass-trained thieves and spammed self ops. I might have to look into that..

@Vo it wasn't by design, infinity exploration costs were reduced way back because everyone had way MORE military... so they lacked the cash to explore and face the attackers.

TG -

You need to find a way to make it so tribes run normal dpa before half the age is over with.

Bolle -

There's several ways to do that. The easiest ones:

- Increase exploration cost
- Increase starting money
- Decrease offense unit cost so explorers can't out-explore attackers much earlier than they can now (if attackers can catch up at all).

Del -

Lol if Oleg sucks $ wise, Uruk/Raven might need a bump too [;)]

Bolle -

I meant the players, not the race [;)]

I'm sorry, Oleg players.

Vo -

I think I agree with Bolle about Oleg's viability. I think they're still the top tier attacker race. Moris were just much, much more active resulting in the illusion of military superiority :)

Bolle -

Well I'm not entirely right, exploration costs are relatively lower for Mori's (about 9% lower - that's their extra income with a mine-maximizing build) and they lose less citz to exploring, resulting in a slight income boost, and they DO have cheaper defense, which is all that matters if explorers outperform attackers this early.

But it should be mostly fixed by changing exploration rather than Mori. Maybe I'll give Oleg a decreased def spec cost though.

TG -

I think oleg is fine. It does not need to be made better

thedritpwnskkkk -

“normal” dpa? There is no such thing.

@Bolle maybe add something akin to the old formula for exploring; make it much cheaper under 1k acres, about equal to now at 2k acres or so, then rapidly increasing in cost above 2k acres. Will slow people down towards the end of age, creating fertile ground for wars, and making the game a little less forgiving for smaller tribes (cheap acres in circulation). Have you thought about changing research (like removing cap on labs allowed and increasing maximum possible research)?

Acwder -

A big note here:

Moris is and always has been a race that can grow huge and deliver when it comes to both thief and attacker.

If anything I'd say remove Mori and Templar from the playable races next year. Bring back races like Dark Elf and Undead. The 45% homes isn't possible to balance atm.

Also, the lack of variation at the start due to no grow period in protection will continue to hurt the game regardless of lower offense cost and higher cost for exploring.

No matter how you do the rest, with 0 variation at the start, all players of race X will have off and def Y (only difference is if you are a newbie and don't know what to build, then your first few days will consist of getting pounded).

There is your biggest issue atm.

More stuff while I'm at it:

Do not label what races are supposed to be played as, ppl will not follow that and it will only confuse new players when Moris go attacking (and annoy veterans to have the races labeled).

Do not, and I want to repeat myself here, do not add race changes to races not in play. It doesn't matter if there further down the line says the race isn't in place. New player will think that the race is in play, why else would you announce a change for it.

The current citz ratios are actually excellent for making the game more newbie friendly. It makes the game more casual if you can't insta kill a tribe with dmg at xx:59:59 and fireballs/pw at xx+1:00:01.

Sure it isn't as intense as wars we all fought in this game, but it could be worth giving it a shot.

Also, I'd suggest to remove all the blocked ops/spells/attacks and just make oow 50% dmg or something like that and less fame too.

Something interesting to do with wars would be to enforce them the other way around. If there isn't x ammount of dmg done towards any of the alliances then it ends in a truce within 8 (or random ammount) hours. Would solve this whole war blocking discussion.

That was some random thoughts for now.

Bolle -

Exploration formula is already like that.

3000+6*land is the cost per acre.

That's therefore 6000 at 500 acres, 15000 at 2000 acres, 27000 at 4000 acres. That's the per acre cost.

thedritpwnskkkk -


-Not sure what you mean by 45% homes isn't possible to balance. It's just more citz and less room for other buildings. Otherwise: I'm on board with bringing back DEs and UD, those used to be my favorite races.

-What is the real difference between starting at 800-1000 acres with same def as now compared to 500 acres really? Although I do think explore costs can be lowered below 1k acres. If races have good diverse options in troops (low cost low efficiency vs high cost high efficiency) that can lead to enough variance OOP due to there not being a clear correct choice in what to build. I think some of the low efficiency troops may be too expensive atm.

Acwder -



“just more citz”. That's the thing. To compensate for this Mori tends to get low efficient units. This just doesn't matter that much, cause this balances itself during the age with Mori being real quick at the start. Then you'll have attackers in your alli act as a wall letting your moris grow (or using moris as early attackers to create the walls themselves).

The issue is less ofc during infinity play style due to DPA requirements inforced by older attackers.

So when I say Mori isn't possible to balance I mean: I don't see how they can be balanced without destroying the basic concept of it.


Well now you had everyone start at 500 acres, everyone with the same defense (money balanced to make it the same defense). Everyone just calced for what Raven could produce as max off and spent any remaining money on off or to explore quicker. That was all.

With a period in protection you would still check what a raven or an attacker with cheap units could produce, and depending on start go just above that and max acres with that, or something else, like less acres but some off to hunt ravens, run oleg with 1% walls etc etc.

The longer start up makes more variations possible and makes you work harder to get that perfect start strat.

This age the most variation you could get was to use barracks to lower the exploration cost, explore while in protection and convert back (barracks doesn't lower unit cost in protection but it does lower exploration cost).

So to conclude, the biggest difference is that it opens up for more variation.

Sanzo -

Quote: fuzzy34
Sanzo is correct

I knew it! End of discussion

*takes a bow*

Bolle -

@Acwder your point under 2 may or may not be correct, but current focus is on making the game less complex. A protection period makes it more complex, or more varied; it's like two sides of the same coin.

Anyway, that's why there won't be a protection period as part of balancing resets. Addressing the calculating bit: low offense costs means you can calc how to stay safe, but you'll soon be grabbed down if you explore too quickly. That way attackers can, if played properly, slow down the speed of explorers' growth and once again have a place in the early game.

Concerning Mori, my understanding of its basic concept may be based too much on infinity; either way, my interpretation is fast growth, then an easy kill. Your explanation of the problem seems to focus on Mori's capability for fast growth through exploration, which is a trait that can be nerfed.

Concerning ending wars automatically if no damage is done, your thoughts echo Jamzi's. However, declaring war and then having it run out because of no damage will still remain an offense, namely warblocking, even if it only lasted, say, 8 hours.

We'll keep the citz ratios, just not the low explore cost and the relatively expensive attacker units (both of those, or one of those).

So yes, there's your biggest issue which I said we don't want to change. That's a rather bigger change than just balancing, so if you want to discuss that please start a new topic for it, or PM me (#30 elder)

Acwder -

If you want to make the game less complex, then make sure the game doesn't allow you to do things that are forbidden.

If it's possible to do it, then it should be allowed. Instead of having LnO mess about warblocking. Give the declaring alliance a war penalty for declaring and not doing any dmg. Say 500 fame in reduction for example, and something else random that can theme in with a “coward” status. Like less offbonus for x hours.

Something you could do to effect the start a bit more would be to increase the starting money, this would reduce the citz ratio a bit. If you are planning to nerf exploring based on the start when the citz ratio atm is at its peak then late game explorers will have it even harder.

I said what I think would improve the game, if you wanna change it or not is up to you, we are all aware of that and nothing that needs to be pointed out^^

Feel free to comment on the other suggestions in the longer post above my reply to drit.

Sanzo -

Quote: Acwder
If it's possible to do it, then it should be allowed.

Finally something I agree with

taNk -

Sanzo the rager. So typical. As much as I appreciate being called names, no, I didn't report you. As far as I know, nobody in 28 did.
1) We weren't trying to war you. Even though I joke about your apparent attempt to make us think twice before hitting into your “wars,” what would reporting have accomplished?
2) Even if we were trying to war you and you were blocking in the current system, it'd have to be pretty egregious and repetitive to think about reporting. This is a small game with a small player base. What good is it to shit on each other beyond jest?

More important matters...
1) 28 is where it's at because of broken attacker eagles who prevented other alliances from exploring into their 75-80% range. The 28 explorers mostly got ahead because of this eagle wall. And if you think we only have one attacker, you're not paying close enough attention. [;)]
2) I agree with Bolle; a protection period makes the game more complex. We should brainstorm ways to improve the early game without implementing a complex protection period. Helping some attacker races is a start.
3) I do like the idea of nerfing early citz:military ratio for future ages. Imo, something needs to be done to allow real wars toward the end of the first week if we're going to have four week ages. I think it's fair that we're not there yet, but I don't think we'll be there in the next couple days (I hope I'm wrong).
4) I like Acwder's idea of essentially taxing alliances who try to war block. It might help prevent actual war blocking. And it might help reduce potential workload for LnO.

Sanzo -

You appreciate being called names? Ok then... you're a dumbass to think I was talking to or about you [:p]

rEdL|nE -

taNk, you egocentric maniac, the names were for me :)

but I also didn't report you SanZo. I have no bloody fucking idea about what the rules are nowadays :)

rEdL|nE -

could someone please enlighten me on how I can break any rules? pretty please!

Bolle -

Just declare a war and then don't do anything.

rEdL|nE -

but this is lame. I need cool stuff :D

QuazMasta -

With how critical it is to grow/stay big, it is massively crushing to lose acres to an outside tribe when you're focused on/embroiled in a vicious war. There is little to no benefit to war right now in this age, because you can grab lands just as easily outside of it. and land is all that matters. If you want to make war more appealing, give warring alliances some protection against outsiders. There is a marked lack of “let them fight” courtesy toward warring tribes, so legislate it. Gives tribes at war a boost to resisting land grabs from tribes outside war. If you need a real life scenario, consider the citizens of a town whose soldiers are at war. They will be very excitable and energetic and full of patriotism and will take up as temporary militia to defend their homes!
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6