Protection Times

Nolio

@Lord Thane I was thinking about the length of protection times, and a few things seem odd to me. When a player loses a castle they only get 15 hours, if they only lose land they get 20 hours. If they win a castle they get 24, if they win land they get 0. And retals last for 24 hours.

This seems to be unfair towards the defender. For example, I hit @Rennoc and failed. But then someone else found him and took the softened win. After that I lose a castle to someone else because I didn't get CLI, then Rotting Corpses tries to take his retal. He loses the retal and someone watching gets him again. This seems pretty unfair to Rotting Corpses who can now get farmed every 15 hours, while the people who won castles get 9 extra hours of protection against him. It seems like he has no recourse. And I'm the one who started it.

So I propose this to try and balance things out. Keep CLI and Retal times the same, but make them match the protection players get from losing a castle/land, or even better, give the defender more protection. If the person who loses a castle gets 24 hours of pro, and the CLI/retal length is 15 hours, that would make more sense to me. It still accomplishes the goal you set out with CLI, but also stops giving the larger kingdom even more of an advantage.

Also, consider giving the player who made a failed attack like half protection time since what it currently does now is opens them up for the only true pre/retal in the game once CLI5 has been researched by everyone. That seems extremely punishing for someone who was just punished. Rennoc having lost his retal gets screwed, me for having lost an attack (a gnome with a massive army and 15 BAS vs an Orc, really?) gets screwed, and the people who won the attack get extra rewards on top of the spoils of war. It just seems a bit lopsided in the wrong way.

Cora

Nolio the disproportionate protection times have been commented on a few times now. Hopefully, it will get balanced out soon. It doesn’t make sense to give more protection to the attacker than the defender in my opinion. And the protection times given per losses don’t seem to be calculating correctly.

skigglez

Cora
Interesting thought for new techs would be similar to CLI tree but you can tech into increased protection times

FriendsInSpace

skigglez I vote get rid of protection entirely. Make everyone raw dog it.

Lord Thane

FriendsInSpace I would actually love a round of that. It'd probably need to be a short 1 month round since everyone would die, but it would be glorious lol

skigglez

Lord Thane
With 1 minute ticks

Lord Thane

I used to be onboard the idea of increasing protection times of defenders, but @AdinTheDark raised some interesting points that make me think we should actually not increase protection times.

This thread:
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/356-protection-passing

Adin's concern is an attacker failing an attack will have his ally hit him to give protection to avoid pre-re from the winning defender. With protection times being what they are in current form - this tactic is actually a really bad proposition for the attacker. It's because the protection times are so much lower than the retal that this tactic is unattractive - the attacker would need to let his allies hit him 2X in order to have enough protection to avoid pre-re from the winning defender, meaning the attacker would lose 3X in that scenario compared to not-doing-that-thing.

If we increased protection times, then it would be a much more attractive strategy - to suicide and have an ally give protection if you lost. I think this is a hurdle that people will need to overcome with rationale before we can realistically consider increasing protection times.