Forums

Eagles are already 50% immune to razes/grabs/other attacks at KTs. They're fine as they are...

Just saying if you want to make every1 with acads easier targets you should just name the game alliance at turtle because smart players will just turtle a little more rather then risk death. Alright I have put in more than my 2 cents I'll shut up now.

smart players will risk death to kill other threats.

Eagles are not 50% immune to attacks. The word “immune” is deceiving. Eagles racial ability only grants them a 50% chance to delay an attacker for 1 tick. (1 tick return time on evasion.) Smart players hit at the emd of a tick anyway, so if they find the eagle, they hit him, if not then they hit him next tick. If the eagles racial ability was -50% invasion building, population, and resources stolen damage, then it would be, “immune”.
A sustaned and determined attacker(s) will inflict full damage (barring racial and spell modifiers) every attack with the ingame reality of a 50% chance to increase army return times (on the front end) by 1 tick, 25% chance by 2 ticks, 12.25% by 3 ticks, ...etc. this effect mearly softens the “burstyness” of each blow and allows for some semblance of a chance at rebuilding before a 2nd or 3rd kill time is attempted or a chance to turtle. Immunity would be more reliable, but then the chanch gods wouldnt be on your side to elude a raven for 2-4 ticks straight, or all attacks go through as intended.
Bringing this back to the age changes, i find eagles weakest to mages already. It is a tough call to run 40ml as an eagle to je both offensive and defensive because your overall spell/op output suffers.

I don't quite see the point of the eagle discussion. Sure, the mages change makes them easier killtargets for core mages; but this change also increases their own success rate as mages.

As for Jay's main statement about mages, I don't think our small change has that great an effect. Partially, however, the idea is to make mages weaker to eachother. Why? Cuz (1) mages have the best citz rate compared to t/a, (2) everyone runs super high ML these days in order to be able to protect themselves (3) everyone runs super high ML in order to deal damage. Reducing acad efficiency as defense lowers the acads run by reason no. 2 and by extension no. 3, while also reducing mages' survivability (no. 1).

The best argument we have for this change is that it reduces the amount of acads in-game. Why is this good? Cuz it increases the versatility of builds in general. Running 30%+ acads by default makes the game boring.


In fact, I'm turning your argument around:



I'm arguing this is how it is. And that we dislike it, hence the change. I've also tried to argue why we think the change is good, and why it works. Of course you can still disagree and be right, too - I just don't think you are atm

Spell changes already allow for academies to be torn down quickly, why make academies worse?
Me thinks this makes thieves better in comparison, if they weren't good enough already.

It is intended to make thieves 'better' in the sense that it makes mages weaker/stronger to mages (the offender improves while the defender does worse) while it makes no difference for thieves (if they use CH as defence vs. magic).

All in all, I don't think this change has much impact really. If the difference in succesrate is indeed larger than expected, it's main result will be that people run a bit additional magedef/homes in order to stay safe probably.

Only people that are putz think that way Joe :p

Uh... whatz?

I'm confused I went back and read what you put carefully are you saying max failure rates against high ML are going down, or minimum success rate is going up against low ML? Because you imply this is against high ML but when I went back the statistics you mentioned made me think you're talking about increase success rates in general not just against high ml. So which is it?

The succesrates are going up for all MLs but the rate of ML 20 vs. ML 1 is alot higher than ML 40 vs. ML 20. So the change in the succesrate is more important vs. ML 20s (which are not great currently) than the ones vs ML 1 (which are already 'maxed').
Basically it comes down to CH being slightly improved as ML vs. high ML.

Okay, first off, success rate is nasty. The only reason we were able to make a reasonable decision is because of max' epic spell table which shows success rates for varying spell chances taking own and target's ML into account.

Max will no doubt skin me for the explanation below.



max failure rate does not exist. Minimum success rate doesn't either.



Both! However, the first one only means that against a guy with little or no ML, you'll succeed more DMs than atm. Like ML 20 vs ML 1. This is pretty much a case scenario in which the 'flat' success rate can be applied, because the enemy ML doesn't detract from it.

For each ML you run, you get a 'bonus' chance to succeed; that's why with ML 30 vs ML 1 you'll get the full 100% barring autofail. Increasing the 'success rate' from 20 to 23.5% means it's easier to reach this 100% threshold. But each Ml the target runs decreases the chance, so you'll fail a lot the higher his ML. If your MLs are the same, the “success rate” is the base success rate; in this case, either 20 or 23.5%. So whether you both run ML 50 or Ml 30, the success rate will still be 23.5%.




---

On to the second part: not just against high ml.

Quite simply, the higher the base success rate, the 'sooner' ML makes the difference: for each additional ML you have that the target does not have, your chance on success increases, more so than it would have if the base chance had been 20% rather than 23.5%.



Why can't I give a simple overview of success rate for each difference in ML? Because ML 30 vs ML 20 doesn't give the same success rate as ML 40 vs ML 30. But the difference increases faster if the base success rate is higher.

“On to the second part: not just against high ml.

Quite simply, the higher the base success rate, the 'sooner' ML makes the difference: for each additional ML you have that the target does not have, your chance on success increases, more so than it would have if the base chance had been 20% rather than 23.5%.



Why can't I give a simple overview of success rate for each difference in ML? Because ML 30 vs ML 20 doesn't give the same success rate as ML 40 vs ML 30. But the difference increases faster if the base success rate is higher.
”

Bolle, this sums it quite well, and I'm glad that the larger the difference in ML's between tribes, the greater the success rate improves per one (1) ML difference.

Okay... sorry for the poor wording but you (Bolle) figured out what I meant to say which was referencing the auto fail rates. This just leads me to clarify part of my concern; if you make this an across the board auto fail decrease then that means CH have to stop 23.5% vs 20% w/ no ML so I still see this as just making mages better in that they have more fire power but worse in that they are weak to mages. My point being, that you wish to make mages easy targets for mages, but it just give mages 3.5% better hits than it currently is against low MLs like T/A (ML 30 vs 1)? Wouldn't this also mean ML 50 vs 20 would still only get maybe 2.5% better success than currently? Thus not improving mages against mages but mages over T/A (and to a lesser extent mages) causing them to maybe run 25% CH rather than 20%. Where I feel like if the admin just made ML 30 vs 1 have the same rate as 50 vs 20 then you would actually achieve your goal of just making mages better against mages.

Jay has a point, and i would have to see the formulas to confirm it.

It's not an autofail decrease (autofail is something that can still occur when your 'successrate' is 540%).

Churches are something separate. If you run 25% CH and 0 ML, a ML 30 will still fail a raw 75% of his DMs. Whether the success rate is 20 or 23.5% doesn't change anything in terms of CH.

The change does of course improve success if the target doesn't run CH.



That was the goal, but that'd require more or less a system change, which is why we went for the current variation.



We chose 23.5% after initially considering 24-27%, because it's much “safer”; it can't quite go wrong in practice imo. 27% might turn out to make mages a very dangerous species to play.

basically what this % means is:

vs same ML: 23.5% success instead of 20%
ML 35 vs ML 20: 47% success instead of 40%
ML 50 vs ML 20: 70.5% success instead of 60%

this % is BEFORE taking other factors such as Seal of Deflection, Nazgul Curse, Churches or Combat Science into consideration

-Sanzo do CHs stop spells before or after success rate? I was under the impression that you had to successfully target some1 with a spell before they would need to block it with CH.
-If that's the case you will see a need to increase CH if you use them. Can you just run a test with the change on a non-mage using CH and let me know the outcome.
-Otherwise CH would just have to block a % of dark spells b4 the success rate is taken into affect which wouldn't make any sense that would be like saying your bullet proof vest stopped a bullet even the bullet never was fired because the gun jammed.
-Unless you are saying CH magically switch out ammo for dud bullets in which case the bullets that still fire would still hit 23.5% vs 20%
-Point being no mater when you calculate it people with CH will still need to block more successful DMs and this affects more than just mages, run the test this will prove it.
-For example what Sanzo posted tells me that if this change boosts success by 10% for ML 50 vs ML 20 just think how much a ML 50 vs ML 1 will get raped and your saying the same amount of CH will block that extra 20% of DMs????
-My solution make a spell or thieves op that negates 10 ML on any1 with an ML over 10 and only affects the player against incoming dark spells kind of like an ES but mage style. (It shouldn't stack and only affects incoming dark spells, he should still be able to cast his own spells w/o affect.)

The order in which defence applies doesn't matter in this case.
Say 100 DMs with 50% base succesrate, SoD running and 10% CH.
100 * 0.5 * 0.75 * 0.7 = 26.25 succes.
If done the other way around:
100 * 0.7 * 0.75 * 0.5 = 26.25 too.

I'm not sure if this adresses your point, as I don't quite get it.

-The order should be ( I think it is ) that Churches only block non-failed spells yes, but by the commutative axiom it does not matter anyway ( what Joe showed )

-The CH will block the same amount of DMs that it would prior to the change to DM success' rate

-The difference is the number of successful casts of DMs from the caster

-a mL 50 vs mL 1 ought to have good success rate

-Your solution is already in the game and is called Tunneling, personally I don't think we need more spells and operations that do the same thing as an existing one.

Joe & Blind my point is
Current success rate: for ML 1 vs ML 1 + 20% CH
100 DM *.20 success * .3 success against 20% CH = 6 DMs get through

New success rate: for ML 1 vs ML 1 + 20% CH
100 DMs *.235 success * .3 success against 20% CH = 7 DMs get through

This change gets bigger as the change in mage level gets larger so

Current success rate: ML 45 vs ML 1 w/ 20% CH might be something like this

100 DMs * .6 success * .3 (CH success) =
18 DMs

New success rate: ML 45 vs ML 1 w/ 20% CH

100 DMs * .75 success * .3 (CH success) =
22.5 DMs

With the new success rate mages hit 16-25% harder against people running only CH

Where this change only leads to mages hitting each other roughly 16% harder and would ruin the eagle race.

I'm curious if the person that came up with this idea knew that it would over power mages or if they just missed the fact it would give them a strong advantage over people with low ML?

Where my idea for a ML negative spell would hopefully be the quick fix the mods were looking for w/o affecting T/As

didn't they say CH give the same protection as before?

Donker!

it's a 17.5% increase actually but that's against everyone