Fixes Requested

skigglez

Thecatman
Agreed - attacker with full CLI should 100% get more protection than the defender. Defender should get more than 15 hours though for sure. 20 hours defender vs 24 attacker seems fair, not sure we need to add any randomness to protection, there's already enough randomness in castle taking % right now.

trupheus

You come away with a bigger kingdom as the victor. Clearly that’s not enough for you. Want to steal their resources? Take weapons and convert them to yours? Why stop there, take prisoners of war and force their units to fight for you.

Your ideas continue to make the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

Protection time is a snooze fest. It’s a forced pause. As we’ve brought up in other threads, a very viable solution to that is to make it so kingdoms recover quicker. Increase training speed, increase resource production, increase unit upkeep. This keeps current army sizes, you just get to build them quicker. If everyone could train their current army in half the time then current protection times would be fine. A kingdom that’s broken would be able to retrain in 15 hours of protection and take the retal. That’s basically how long you get to retal anyway because that’s when your protection ends. You’re forced to do something before the next guy comes along and you’re already crippled.

Strider

I think we have to be careful about conforming game mechanics to peoples preferred style of play and actually play a round with some of the drastic changes to game play that have been implemented already and see how they play out.

Xliest

Thecatman what are you talking about? CLi sympathizers are welcome here but stay in your lane the risk of attacking is not a risk if you get 24 hours of protection from anyone else attacking you.

skigglez

Xliest
Lol but you’re taking the risk in attacking. Are you trying to say sitting and farming is more risky? You should be rewarded for taking the risk and attacking, if not it’s a boring farm fest. It’s especially risky before 10 castles as well - taking land is punishing

Thecatman

Stay in your lane? Wtf does that even mean?

Thecatman

Read your other post, think you are just a salty boy 🙁

Xliest

skigglez we’ll see what happens when everyone gets to 9castles lol… then we’ll have some reals risky fun…

skigglez

Xliest
Not even sure what you’re arguing here? Do you think that attacking should be punished instead of rewarded?

trupheus

What is difference between making the safest hit you by possibly can to ride 24hrs of CLI and farming? Or if you hit someone and only take land to then have a friend tag you to put you in protection? Or if bottom feed where you’re not going to get CLi then have a friend hit you so that you get 15 hours prot and they get CLI?

What’s going to happen next round when a group of 5-8 people plays whatever they want in whatever racial province they want but then coordinate and help each other like a province and ignore the province they’re in?

Look I’m all for encouraging more attacking. Do things to make attacks more frequent. Do things to make attacking and defending less punishing. Everyone wants a TS before a hit because they don’t want to risk their army in any hit.

skigglez

trupheus
Castle chancification is the biggest contributor to the land passing that’s happening. If it goes from 10 castles to 5 that would eliminate alot of it. Whether CLI exists or not, people are going to hit the safest targets - why wouldn’t you? There’s BF penalties as well, not sure what else you can do to protect kingdoms. The best way to avoid getting bottom fed is to be aggressive and attack - it rewards those who are able to more effectively maintain an army within the CLI windows. Over half of the top 30 are allied together, so of course they won’t have as many viable targets as those who operate in smaller groups. There’s pros and cons to every style of play

DougEfresh

skigglez so if i get this right, the best way to play, is to hit as low as you can, get 24 hours pro, or pass your land for 15-20.
i love this... castle passing with more steps

trupheus

Going from 10 castles to 5 would change the dynamic for sure. And is probably very needed if this is the direction thardferr continues to go.

CLI didn’t magically make people start hitting closer to their KS. Changing bottom feeding to 70% just made Haybol look for targets as close to 70% as possible. Castle loss scaling did weird things that I’d say have potential to be really good. I’m surprised anyone has made an attack that’s not for a guaranteed castle. Too much risk in not taking one. If you do get unlucky and take land all you need is a friend to hit you for protection. I’d rather have my friend get the land and possibly castle than my enemy. All these new systems have just made people find new ways to take advantage of them.

skigglez

trupheus
I do think that defending needs to have a reward system implemented if possible, and protection times for losing should probably match the 24 hour period with retals giving retals. Something that extreme might need to wait until next round, but the current CLI stuff is a step in the right direction but definitely not the end product. There's further tweaks required, but need to test it this round as is to see what those should be.

skigglez

DougEfresh
Once people hit the threshold of 10 castles there will be no more passing - it's currently a function of the castle chancification to make building up early castles feel less punishing. People have always hit as low as they can, this didn't come about because of CLI. At least now there are penalties associated with it. Thane has said that he's considering making those penalties harsher. Speaking from experience, playing with CLI makes it possible to actually compete for people not in the large alliances (even with the castle chancification making things extremely chaotic). Don't think we will know the full impact of the CLI changes until the larger player base all hit 10 castles and all hits result in CLI protection for those who elected to invest in the tech.

« Previous Page