Expanding the Castle Casino

CyberPtra

PS I had many paragraphs condensed with AI, then I heavily edited the AI response taking tour the nonsense.

Now I am really confused as to how this is different than what I propose before. Between the 10 and 20 castles it was just a one castle guaranteed plus land with no castle. Jumping from 20 castles to 2q castles just have a chance of gaining that additional castle, they only guaranteed to lose one.

I am thinking about the attack perspective, deterring attacker from hitting down (in addition to the BF penalty already). And give opportunity for smaller kingdoms to retal for more.

Smaller kingdom alway have the option to attack up (in all systems), the risk is greater is greater. This doesn’t often. Now they can shoot their shot for double… but higher kingdom can still retal for castle + additional castle/land (still net loss over time and bad luck).

With the proposed system. Jumping tiers is still hard, but not “as bad”, if luck is on your side.

This also prevents larger kingdoms in the upper part of any teir feeding on the kingdoms in the lower part of the SAME teir (26 keeps attacking 21).

If larger kingdom attack first, they have smaller chance of full gain and smaller kingdoms has higher chance of gaining more on the retal.

Nolio

Strider lol while I do appreciate the humor, the math doesn't agree with you.

If you have 19 castles and 380 land, you lose 1 castle and 20 land. That's about 5.3% rounded up

If you have 20 castles and 380 land, you lose 2 castles and 38 land. That's 10%

The point of the post is that having these jumps that go from 1 to 2 castles and so forth, prevent people from building more castles. As confirmed by Keeper, Myself, and many others.

By making it so that the second castle is chancified, when over 20 castles, it helps both lower kingdoms who attack into them, and the larger kingdoms who build more.

The Expected Value (EV) of a kingdom attacking a kingdom with 21-29 castles will always be higher than the kingdom attacking down. Which means that more castles will be passed downwards.

It's the same effect with the castles from 1 to 10 currently. Players much rather hit targets that have 10 or more for the guarantee, but the ones hitting down are hesitant.

Having the second or third (and so on) castle chancified is a good thing and promotes more attacking, and more building of castles.

Lord Thane

Nolio it's not the same effect as the chancify from 1-10 though, because there aren't any players under 1 hoping to attack the players over 1. The original proposed idea as you've commented on it would be a huge safety net to players jumping to 20 castles and a detriment to anyone under 20 castles that wanted to hit-up.

@FriendsInSpace idea is the only way this idea would be fair to existing rules imo. So a player at 19 hitting someone at 20 would still get 2 castles, so there's no negative change in the guaranteed spoils dynamic that we currently have. The big change with this idea though is that hitting for 2 castles starts at 10 or 11... So we still get the benefit of easing transitions between castle tiers, without the added 'new' safety net for players over 20 castles (they'd still be able to lose 2 castles, just with the added small chance of losing a 3rd as well).

Strider

Nolio you should go talk to math again

Nolio

Lord Thane it's not the same effect as the chancify from 1-10 though, because there aren't any players under 1 hoping to attack the players over 1.

I agree with this part. I've made a suggestion on how to fix that previously because the fact that a person with 2 castles loses 50% of their kingdom when anyone who passes the 10 castle mark only loses 10% at most, bothers me.

I suggested that up until 10 castles you can only lose 10% of your land with a castle loss. This makes it in line with the harshest land loss beyond 10 castles.

Lord Thane huge safety net to players jumping to 20 castles and a detriment to anyone under 20 castles that wanted to hit-up

Yes it would be a bit of a safety net, but not as much as you might think. We can put it in terms of probability and Expected Value, which shows that the lower players who hit up, still end up with more castles on average, and that the players hitting downwards still end up with less castles on average. Sure sometimes people get the bad luck, you lose 2 castles at 21 when there was only a 10% chance to lose that second castle, but that's the beauty. There's never a chance that a player at 15 can lose 2, only ever 1. But they can win 2 from hitting up.

So I don't see the detrimental part. It incentivizes players to keep attacking up, while also incentivizing players to build their 20th and so on castles.

If there was less chance to lose 2, Keeper would have built his 20th. But as it stands, it makes no sense for him to build or even attack since if he does he will lose 2 for gaining 1. But with the lower probability he'd be risking that 2nd castle but not completely.

We want people to guild more castles, we want people to attack more. By doing this it makes it so that players with 19 castles will build 1 more, and that players with 20 castles will attack more. They will still lose more castles on average though, and that's the good part for the lower player!

Nolio

Strider Math and I talk frequently, we have a great relationship!

What part is it that you're saying is incorrect? It's absolutely possible I've made a mistake, I do that from time to time. But what specifically? We can break it down and find the correct answer

Strider

Nolio adjusting the castle loss numbers to cradle players going to 20 castles makes losses less than it would be for players at 10. Why would you want it easier for top players to create separation from the pack

Nolio

Strider This is incorrect

The maximum number of castle losses a player can have at 10 castles is 1

The maximum number of castle losses a player can have at 20 castles is 2

With chancification, a player with 21 castles would have 1.1 castles lost on average per failed defend

A player with 10 castles would only ever lose 1.

A player with 22 castles would lose 1.2 castles on average per failed defense

23 would be 1.3
24 would be 1.4
...
29 would be an average loss of 1.9 castles.

They lose more than the player with 10 castles.

The point is this would make more people build more castles, which is always a good thing

skigglez

Nolio
math talk you go again to

KingLear

Nolio you always finding ways on your favor dont you? With this kind of mechanics, the player at the bottom will be discourage on suiciding on the top guys to have big lands. So i dont like this part. It will only favors you who are at the top to lose less when invaded and lose.

Strider

Nolio stop using castles as the constant and factor total % of kingdom lost in an attack. As it stands it is equal. What you are suggesting sways the odds in favor for kingdoms with 20 or more castles when using % of land lost per defense lost.

skigglez

KingLear
That's what you got from his posts? He's trying to find solutions to the current issues in the game - nobody wants to jump up to 20 castles because it just isn't worth it. He offered a potential solution - rather than petty remarks, maybe offer an alternative or explain in detail why his suggestion makes no sense to you.

KingLear

skigglez then stay below 20 castles. Why? Because you guys will be harder to beat at the top if you only lose less at 20+ castles.

Nolio

KingLear I see you don't understand how this works.

You lose MORE at 20+ castles

I could describe it again, but the numbers are falling on deaf and blind, ears and eyes

Lear, you are the one who complains. You complain about the Bottom feeding Penalty

"wtf... So if i hit 85% my KS, my troops will only have 85% attack power?? For real??"

You complain about winning attacks but losing troops

"Coz last time i bottomfeed 71% my KS, i lost 98% percent of my troops died. And knowing i have .80 per land of my MC. still few troops coming back after the hit."

You complain when other provinces help each other

"feeding your crew mate to reach on top is a form of cheating already."

You complain about mechanics you don't understand

"this will also be unfair to the kingdoms who upgraded it. The time they spent to upgrade the tech and then suddenly implemented to everyone again. "

Then you go on a tirade after losing a 2v1, comlpain and delete your kingdom. You owned up to your shitty behaviour, good job for that

"I was frustrated. Deleted my kingdom. And thinking of not playing this game again. You can say whatever you want to me. I apologize of being rude to some of you guys. not my intention. I just got carried away."

But the devs gave you back your kingdom with everything after you acted like the multi you complained about above by giving your castles to your ally.

I don't aim to make things better for me, that's what you do.

I aim to make things fair and balanced. I let the numbers speak

Lord Thane

I think the reality of crossing over to 20 is less of an issue than is proposed:
8 players above 20 castles (7%).
37 players at 10-19 castles (32%).
70 players at 9 or under castles (61%)
18% of players above 10 castles crossed over to 20 castles already.

Those numbers don't scream "everyone is afraid to cross to 20". How many players could we consider "waiting to cross over"? There's actually only 10 players at 18-19 castles that we might consider "waiting", or 9% of total players. I don't think the top 16% of players need a buff to protect themselves from the bottom 84% and encourage them to grow more/faster to widen the gap between them and the bottom 84%.

Nolio

Lord Thane That may be the case, though there are players like Keeper who outright stated that it's the reason they don't. I simply tried to offer a solution, or expand on it, in order to soften the losses while NOT outright removing them.

Players with over 20 castles would still lose more. It's just simple math

KingLear

Nolio you know what? if only that time i have 24 hours CLI you will never reach on top. your just lucky. But it will never happen again by next round.

Lord Thane

Nolio there's 2 variations of this idea floating now, so I'm speaking broadly about the original one, and since most people seem to be pushing/talking about the original I will defer to being against both options to prevent a situation where the original might gain steam due to people being confused.

The original idea as presented is an absolute no-go. The secondary idea that solves problems of the 1st is a possible - but I won't even support that anymore since people are getting confused by both ideas, it's too risky to support either now.

If someone starts a new thread about solely the second idea, I would support that, but as far as this thread goes it's busted lol

And Keeper's note is invalid, he went up to 20 castles the day after his remark :p

Nolio

Lord Thane I think that's fair, I don't think it's a major issue to jump to 20 castles, but I know for a lot of the player base it can be. It's just another plateau where there is slight stagnation. Just like the leap to get 2 castles. But it does pass as more people start doing it

skigglez

KingLear
Weren't you in the top spot when the CLI techs came out?

Nolio

KingLear That's the spirit!

What race will you go with?

« Previous Page Next Page »