Bottom Feeding countermeasures implemented!

Xliest

Let's take this morning (or last night for you)'s events and recall them.

4 kd's less than 1/2 my size hit and tried to break me, and failed. One was larger, sure, but he also failed. Then a final kd less than 1/2 my size hit me and broke me. One of these people was you, so you have a very good idea what I'm talking about.

Now if the penalty is applied to retals, I cannot take all my retals since all the KD's are much smaller. Even if I now take only one retal, I will lose more troops and won't get much land with the castle.

So I have no recourse. Bottomfeeding penalty is fine, if you're the aggressor. Don't penalize people dealing with 5 hits who had to retrain their armies anyway. Retraining armies, filling empty land, all of this is so difficult in this version because of 40% destruction of gained buildings and peasants eating food which means you must be at double optimum pop for food all the time (more so when army is out) unless you're undead.

But like I said, deaf ears. I know nothing I say will be taken into consideration so I guess the rest should enjoy the game.

Konkistador sending aid outside your province shouldn’t be restricted. What about elves who sell casting spells? How would they get paid? I know the devs are putting it into the market, but even then you should be able to set up a contract with whoever you want and receive payment from them.

Cora that should run throught the market system

Jets

Let me just ask you a question.

Do you have a logic against no penalty on retal?

Big kd’s became big by being active and committed. If you wanna pick a fight with a big kd no problem, but there should be consequences.

If big KD was the aggressor, nerf that fucker. But at least let him take his retals in peace.

saadht good lord, that crying pepe meme is perfect, just perfect lol

I agree the penalty shouldn't affect retals.

TheKeeper
Im not either but i do ok. What i mean is, you currently have players that are not good enough to come to a forum and debate in english. Well, being vocal about things doesnt make them right. If people want you to remove attacks just to see who farms faster, would you do it? Doesnt make any sense to me. Im cool with having an opinion, im cool with you open comunication and the polls to feel the 'pulse' of the people but you cant (well ofc you can, but i think its dangerous) listen to every complaint.

Anyway, let the democracy work then, it's your game, you know better.

Lord Thane
Unnecessary comment about saadht.

Jaxx if he would stop complaining that nobody reads or cares about his comments then I wouldn't have to bully him about it.

Anyways, I was agreeing with him, so that should make him happy

The reason you see other people's ideas getting implemented is because we're throwing so many out there. Only the good ones stick. I've had a lot of ideas ignored cause they were countered by better arguments or just a bad idea in general. But that's brainstorming..

Muh Dude

Well, I don’t know if anybody ever logically told me why some of the ideas are bad. I’ll recap them here:

1) peasants eating too much food. This was already addressed early in the og game so I stand by it.
2) Attacked land only losing 15-20% of the buildings not 40%. We must make attacking attractive.
3) faster pop growth. All your empty pop should be filled within 4hours (1 hour with NG). This would also ease gold production and allow you to use this pop in production. Further, NG is broken as it takes something like 17:1 wizzes so making it powerful enough to fill 200 houses in 1 tick should be there.
4) BF penalty not applying to retals.
5) more than X (150% or 200%) uphitting should be banned.
6) offensive spells only give land retals not castles.
7) fix wiz:land ratio, it was already done in the og game, 15:1 was godbless level ratio not natural growth in the old game.

I’m not asking for radical changes. Heck some of these changes were already made to the og game. I just haven’t heard logical rebuttals to why any of this is a bad idea, except that we can’t “adapt to my playing style”.

saadht One of these people was you, so you have a very good idea what I'm talking about.

lol I do know what you are talking about but. Let’s say that you have 5 generals and 5 people attack you to break you they probably lose their whole army which is more costly than the land, then you send your goons into to pretal for you they each get a castle, then you retal and get 5 castles how is that a good trade?

We are simply trying to find a middle ground, and honestly reduced attack power is a fine way for that to work when you are bottom feeding scum.

TheKeeper

For #6 how about we don’t call them retals? We call them spell payback. This way we’d have a completely new function that gives a retal but restricts your castle being taken. So if you cast offensive, you give a spell payback. Then you attack, you give a retal. You cast another offensive, another spell payback.

Idk I’m not a developer maybe I’m oversimplifying.

Xliest

For 1, I’m not saying go back to 0 food like OG game. I’m saying reduce intake. Maybe try 3 food per pop. Makes more balance since we now also have undead who will have extra spaces because they’re not running 1.2:1 farms.

For 4, I’m saying keep the BF penalty but only if you’re the offender. For example, every time I’ve “BFed you”, it’s been a retal. If you don’t want to be BFed by a larger kd don’t hit them first, it’s simple.

For 5, I don’t mind if it’s 2.5x but it must be defined. It’s not a problem now but in the past I’ve had enemies create multiple kd and a week into the fight keep suiciding me with smaller kds. They never grew beyond 1 castle so at least you can army kill them for some land on a retal.

Ok I’m grateful for @TheKeeper ’s response. I’m actually grateful for your response too Xliest since at least now we’re talking logically and not just dismissing.