Bottom Feeding countermeasures implemented!

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

Lord Thane

You can say whatever you’d like to me. Call me a crybaby or a complainer, idc. Just fix the damn problems like nerfing your retal ability if the offender is smaller than you. Just make this game make sense logically. I wished for the game to be back a long time and now that it is, I am quite invested in trying to make it work as best as I know how to suggest. If you’d like, I’ll stop. No worries.

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.

Xliest

Still unable to explain why i should let the retals fall off. If you hit me, it’s my right to hit you. If you misjudged, i shall try not to. Just because you’re small you get to kill my troops and I should do nothing about it? Larger kd are larger as they are investing time and effort and to some extent strategy. Don’t penalise retals. Penalise offensives.

saadht I don’t want to argue what’s in the past. I’m saying it’s extremely dishonourable that’s it.

@TheKeeper please head the suggestions let’s balance the core of the game make it work make it useable for kingdoms both big and small. Then make the additions and changes to things that are cosmetic

I have done some modeling and and at 50k peons we are looking at 70k gold, at 100k peons 140k gold I dont think it is sustainable to move higher than 200 land based on my current calcs. There needs to be closed testing at all stages to make sure it all fits and where it starts to break we need to figure out why and to make it function again.

Retaliations are no longer affected by the bottom feeding penalties. Tested and it works good.

saadht One more thing.. You opinions are all good (minus the bottom feeding, we're trying to grow the game and stomping out casuals isn't gonna help. Take it as a badge of honor it took 4 people to break you) But adding those ideas to the bottom of a 50 post thread is a good way for people to miss/ignore your suggestions. Try to keep one subject per thread so the discussion can stay on point and it's easier for Thane and Keeper to pick out the key points with their AI witchcraft. Also, polls help a lot by getting a feel of what other people think who don't want to argue numbers

I have too many to say but i will shut-up for now about these new implementations.

Although i have one question: What stopped you at 50%? Why not allow all attacks based on "Attack Penalty Based on Strength Gap?"

Leo
Im curious about this one.