Important Battle/Play Style Poll For Pre-Re/Castle-Pass

Iceman

Sorry if I'm reading this incorrectly. But here's what I having a hard time with.

If Kingdom A of 100,000 KS bottom feeds Kingdom B of 75,000 KS and wipes out his entire army. Kingdom A gets the same protection as B. Kingdom B now has zero chance to get his castle back without a pre. It seems to me this proposal will help larger kingdoms more than anyone and will just promote attacking smaller kingdoms.

Lord Thane

Iceman yes you got it wrong, read the last 100 comments for clarity.

Also, under CLI A there's nothing stopping you from getting a pretal help.

Also, CLI doesn't create a situation where a larger kingdom can feed off you and get protection. That already currently happens - they just use castle passing to bypass pre.

TheKeeper

Iceman you forgot KS difference penalties, the 100KS kindom will have the same power of the 75KS,

TheKeeper

Lord Thane

Iceman

Lord Thane

I did read all the comments thanks.

Yes you can get a pretal with CLI A, but nobody is going to sacrifice there army for a land gain. On top of that giving a retal to lose a castle.

@TheKeeper Even with the KS penalties, the bigger kingdom in this case would be able to build his army 25% faster. Giving the little guy no chance.

Lord Thane

Iceman if you read the comments then you know someone already posted this scenario, which were systematically rebutted. If you can't give a reasoned argument about why CLI would be worse in that scenario then I can't take your vote seriously.

Saying you need pre-re to defeat larger opponents isn't a fair argument, as CLI doesnt prevent that from happening, and nothing is currently stopping the larger opening from nullifying your pre-re with a castle pass. Without CLI in that scenario you're obviously in a worse position defensively.

skigglez

Iceman
In the current system there is also no chance to defeat the larger system, he just immediately passes the castle. CLI A gives you the ability to pre-re, but you only take land in the pre. This makes it more desirable to attack, because it removes the possibility to lose 2 castles after taking 1. Much more desirable outcome for all players, minus the ones abusing castle passing

Muh Dude

Iceman Only Sith deal in absolutes.. I know at least 2 people right now who are usually willing to throw armies away for the homies 😁

I say do, for science. Plus if @Lord Thane and @TheKeeper both decide something is a good idea then it's purely by courtesy they let us have a say. It's their fucking game y'all.. We don't even have to pay to play..

If it's a farm fest then it could easily be voted back down next round.

Iceman

Lord Thane

Pretty sure that’s not how a vote works.

Eri

Lord Thane

Lord Thane for me cli is good.. but what i want to suggest.. there is a consequences when a bigger hit a smaller one.. i mean bottomfeeding or like 25% difference in ks... like what ive said atlst a buff to the attacker and defender..

Lord Thane

Muh Dude yes we've discussed the possibility of implementing CLI for half the round. After 5-6 weeks when people have had a taste of it we could do another poll to see what everyone thinks.

If it sucks we can take it down.

Lord Thane

Iceman lol, sorry I'm just tired of rehashing the same things over and over.

it's disheartening after having spent probably 20.hours brainstorming this one idea with players only to be met with arguments that aren't well thought out or are plain wrong.

If someone says "I disagree with it because I enjoy the thrill of pre-re on my enemy" I can respect that. But disingenuous or misinformed statements need to be squashed.

Eri

Lord Thane haha. Dont be serious bro. Much faster getting old..

Xliest

Lord Thane this is the wrong attitude my dude. If you’re going to play just play by the rules like everyone else. No harm no foul, but if you think that work on the engine has been useless that’s more of a topic of discussion with the lead. Not with the players, reasoning again goes back to what I was saying vision/direction. We can’t be changing things on a macro scale at the whim of a few comments, also why crowdsourcing and voting on ideas doesn’t really work as we’ve seen. It’s going to spit the community, the haves who get their ideas through to implementation and the have-nots who just wanted their fun oldtimey game back with some balance and maybe a well thought out fix for like one or two issues, the game had originally.

Xliest

Eri there is it’s less gains and more losses allegedly. Though still a castle with what ever percentage of land is associated with it there is no variance in the land you get if you gain a castle. It’s always land /castles=land gained when castle taken.

Lord Thane

Eri yes there is already a penalty if an attacker hits someone 50-99% their ks, and blocked from attacking under 50%. The lower ks% the defender is, the worse the penalty gets for the attacker.

I think there may be room to intensify the effects though.

CyberPtra

Lord Thane

This might be an odd idea expanding on the concept.

If a kingdom that captures a castle also gains a form of immunity, can the duration be variable depending on how “easy” or “hard” the battle was (i.e., a bloodier battle grants more time)? The exact amount of immunity time would be hidden.

If the kingdom is attacked during this immunity period, they wouldn’t lose the castle—only surrounding land. However, the extent of this land protection would depend on their defense activity—specifically, the percentage of total defense maintained over the last 12 hours.

To gain full protection, the kingdom must keep a portion of its army stationed at home and not send everything to the front lines.
As long as the kingdom continues training troops while being attacked, the “minor”/“minimal”protection phase will eventually unlock to full protection.
If attacked constantly, they will eventually lose a castle, but “no one” knows when the immunity expires.
The original kingdom that was attacked gets a regular retaliation that can be used any time.

Xliest

Lord Thane hey thane I was thinking about this, and maybe starting right at the top is not desirable it limits peoples options when hitting I’m ok with an 85% difference in KS no incurring a penalty, then start the reductions from 85% down to 50% I think loses being 15%-50% increased for attacker and attacking power being reduced by similar margin is right meaning that you would have to send double what your expecting and would lose twice as much on attack, against someone half you size. But attacking at 80% seems normal and maybe only a 5% penalty is needed in that circumstance.

xiAo-Shin Star

Lord Thane

Have we calculated this with the GATE Spell? What you are pointing here is for normal circumstances, an early game situation. It looks like this is more advantage for the attacker in later game. Unless the defender has buff while the attacker got debuff. Imagine with CLI protection, Attacker is rebuilding all his gain from the attack, so more troops will be added from him before his attacked. I don't think the Defender can recover with all the losses on time. Let's say he can recover all of it still not enough to strike the attacker down.

saadht

Xliest THANK YOU.

It takes you a while but it seems you realize that some of my ideas have legitimate merit.

KS includes tech, wizzes, land, buildings etc so hitting 80% is not BF in any way.

If you want, increase the ban to 70% below. So you can hit between 99-70% of your ks, and 80-70 brings about the penalty.

Xliest

saadht first of al these are all my ideas repackaged so don’t give your self too much extra credit. however, I thought you have been arguing that you want to be able to hit down to 75% below your own KS not limiting the range to only 25% below you… I feel like limiting target to only 75% won’t encourage enough hits really. And it’s harder to feed off multis and farms that way too. Maybe once the player base grows to like 200 or something we can change the number to 70 or 60% but for now there’s no real effect. Because you might only have 4 players within your range at only 75% currently.

« Previous Page Next Page »