New Crime and Land Spoils Talk

Konkistador

Gathering most people feedback seems to lead to at least 20% land gain for initial attacks. Assume you still want to keep the chancification factor so maybe (17%-21%) range?

Do think that 25% would be optimal.

Lord Thane

Konkistador why do you think that? For 30 years Thardferr was at 10% spoils after 10 castles, and now you think it needs 20%? Then people can lose 36% of their kingdom all round getting 1 prere. No, that's not a good idea.

You're only looking at the early round that it's too easy to grow, that's good because every past round it's nothing but complaints about it being too hard.

Konkistador

Lord Thane maybe the land gain in army return agreed before could close the loop here? With a 5% land gain on army return.

So it balances the things with low losses for the defenders, so you don't get as much backlash from the farmers community?

Konkistador

Don't think is an early round. The attack gains didn't worth it last round and been half with the changes and is not an early round only.

Examples 1
4 castles 100 land hit.
Legacy rules
1 Castle 25 land gain
New rules
1 Castle circa 10 land gain

Examples 1
2 castles 50 land hit.
Legacy rules
1 Castle 25 land gain
New rules
1 Castle circa 5 land gain

Examples 2
4 castles 100 land hit.
Legacy rules
1 Castle 25 land gain
New rules
1 Castle circa 10 land gain

Examples 3
30 castles 1000 land hit.
Legacy rules
3 Castle 150 land gain
New rules
1 Castle circa 100 land gain

Nolio

Konki, I understand what you're trying to say by cherry picking examples, and yet your math is still wrong.

Konkistador Examples 3
30 castles 1000 land hit.
Legacy rules
3 Castle 150 land gain
New rules
1 Castle circa 100 land gain

If you have 30 castles and 1000 land, in the old system you lose 3 castles and 100 land. In the new system you lose.... 3 castles and 100 land

Nolio

But if you want a more detailed explanation of how it used to work I have this:

Nolio Here are the percent losses of land per castle:
2 - 50%
3 - 33.3%
4 - 25%
5 - 20%
6 - 16.7%
7 - 14.3%
8 - 12.5%
9 - 11.1%
10 - 10%
11 - 9%
12 - 8%
13 - 7.69%
14 - 7.14%
15 - 6.67%
16 - 6.25%
17 - 5.88%
18 - 5.56%
19 - 5.26%
20 - 10%
21 - 9.52%
22 - 9.09%
23 - 8.7%
24 - 8.33%
25 - 8%
26 - 7.69%
27 - 7.41%
28 - 7.14%
29 - 6.90%
30 - 10%

Konkistador

Attacking in the old way was still not beneficial enough for genuine attacks, as farming and "exploits" were the only way to actual grow a kingdom.

I just want the game to be right for both people that want to farm and attack. That's why maybe adding the land gain on return will make attacking balanced.

And, maybe we both use data in a favourable way.
But don't think waiting to be 1000 land for an attack make sense is good for the game.

It should make sense to attack at any stage.
Not sure anyone thinks that in a real round attacking for 5 land makes sense at all.

Lord Thane

Konkistador why do you think we had to invent castle chancification? All the way up to 10 castles in round 2, and then castle chance to 5 castles in round 3. It's because everyone complained it's too hard to grow in the beginning. Everyone.

Like Nolio said, your example 3 was wrong, it's exact same spoils in the old way as the new way. Except one minor detail I think is important to note, crime.

In the old way, a 1000 land and 30 castle kingdom would have 30 crime, or 25 crime with tech. In the new way, that kingdom would have:

Base crime (land ÷ 10): 1000 ÷ 10 = 100
Coverage (land ÷ castles): 1000 ÷ 30 = 33.3
Multiplier (coverage ÷ base 1:20 ratio): 33.3 ÷ 20 = 1.66
Total Real Crime (base crime X multiplier): 100 X 1.66 = 166

In the new system that kingdom would have 166% crime, or 83% crime with tech. A 30 castle and 1000 land kingdom would be a disaster for economy. In the old way we would see 30/1000 kingdoms, in the new way we will not. Instead, we'll have 60 castle and 1000 land kingdoms, and when you attack you'll get 6 castles and 100 land, etc.

It's not so simple to manage things at that level anymore, and it will be impossible to stay at 19 or 29 castles and continue growing.

It's much more strategic now, and it will be much more difficult for big kingdoms to run away from everyone else. Can't even hide in quick retreat anymore.

Konkistador

Again I like the change, just think most changes are farming biased rather than a balance between farming and attacking.

Konkistador

I see what you trying to aim for. And again I do agree with changes. Just think it massively benefits farming. Which I agree with you it benefits 95% of the player base.

Can see the stance and probably is for best of the game to make the game suitable for farming and therefore the overwhelming majority.

Unfortunately, there isn't space for me in an only farming based game. But fully support if means the game will continue to exist and thrive.

Lord Thane

Konkistador it's only farmer friendly in the beginning. In the first 25% it's easy, in the next 25% it's harder, in the last half of a round it will be brutal.

We can always adjust the numbers if it's needed, but it's too early to know yet. The game right now if it was a regular round it would only be 10 days in.

Konkistador

Lord Thane I can't knock your efforts to make the game right for the biggest player base.

For me attacking every 18h is about right. Waiting half round to make an attack just won't cut it even then 100 land in a 1000 land hit think is too low.

Only asking for a 5% added land on army return think is a good compromise without affecting who wants to farm. As this wouldn't affect the farming community in any way. While making it right for who wants to attack too.

Konkistador

We won 1 Castle(s) surrounded by 5 lands.
In this lands are also constructed : 1 Advanced Training Center , 2 Farm , 1 Forge , 1 Guard House , 0 Guard Tower , 12 House , 3 Market , 3 Medical Center , 3 Mill , 3 Mine , 3 School , 2 Training Center ,

We managed to kill : 34 Shadow Warrior 40 Rusher 176 Slother 94 Wolf Master 249 Slinger 83 Axe Thrower

But we lost : 31 Mage 160 Swordman 84 Lanceman 22 Caragous 166 Archer 23 Elite Archer

What is the sense of this? I understand making it easier for the transition but this just makes attacking in a real round pointless.

Lord Thane

Konkistador you want to take 50% of the enemy lands in one hit and then they can quit and never come back, just so you get 1 attack of satisfaction? It's not worth it, and not fair, no game works like that because nobody wants to suffer that.

I think exploring extra land when the general comes back is a good idea, and it might get added at some point. I don't think Keeper liked it too much when we talked about it during round 4 changes talk, but now that the new land spoils is working maybe he will change his mind about it.

Zones

it makes land more valuable. you are just used to seeing huge numbers.

Konkistador

10% on attack with added 5% or army return in not 50% is 15%.

On 100 land is 15 land don't think is an unreasonable ask.

I don't want people to quite, I want both to be playable. Again thunk that's a good compromise so farmers lose 10% they happy but attackers get some benefit, not enough but at least something.

Currently attacking is just untenable.

Full pop in explore with FS you can get 4 land in one tic vs an attack getting a 5 land.

Konkistador

I see that I'm outsiders view here and don't want to be a burden to the game. Though the mini round was prone for feedback and trying things before the round start.
Defo should follow a direction that please most and is best for the game. And I hope it keeps thriving.

Adamastor

I fully agree with konki. Thard was always a game about land gains. If you gain 3 or 4 land, no one will attack. The game just became even more boring. The constant being hit can make people leave, but so does boredom, and mzn its becoming really boring...

Nolio

I agree with you Konki about making attacking worth more than exploring. Despite what people might think, I'm not in favour of farming over fighting. That's why I also suggested that attackers gain land beyond the attack, they get an extra 5%, or even 10% that doesn't come from the defender that was hit.

So if you had 100 land and I hit you, I win 10 land from the hit, and an additional 10 land from the expedition the army was sent on.

The biggest issue with this is the new CR system that shouldn't be attached to Land % gains, since castles are so much more powerful. The CR system being added to land and Castle ratio is not meant to be with Land % gain, and makes things far worse and more difficult.

That said @Konkistador, here's how the old system vs the new system works without cherry picking or adding a heavy bias:

at 1000 land and 30 castles as per your example,

Old system, win 3 castles and 100 land
New system, win 3 castles and 100 land

at 1000 land and 29 castles

Old system win 2 castles 69 land
New system win 2 castles 100 land <------ notice how in the new system you win 3.1% MORE land

at 1000 land and 21 castles

Old system win 2 castles and 95 land
New system win 2 castles and 100 land

These are all the extreme ends of the spectrum, not just 1 end.

the middle is around 80 land vs 100 in the new system

It can still be worth it to attack in the early game if certain changes are made. But the early game definitely favours farming because exploration is a fixed rate, whereas Attacking is variable depending on the size of the players.

Konkistador

@Nolio you are an excellent player and have a good understanding of the game.
It is biased giving an example for 1000 land to prove it worth it a it at the end of the round. As it was my examples too with lower land proving it isn't at the beginning of the round .

I was just trying to give my opinion to balance the game as this direction is heavy leading to a farming, majority want it.

Not even mentioning that retals get more land than intital attack as the attacker usually has bigger land mass than the defence. As usual you down hit then the proportion is bigger for the retailer to take back. ( I attack get 5 land retaler takes 8 land)

I don't want to create animosity in the game. it is prone to exploits and big alliances farming. Was advocating for space for attacking style to have space without stopping others play styles.

End of last round was lame for that reason and i was really optimistic about the changes as though could balance things out.

Hope players enjoy it dont take me wrong. Unfortunately for me this is the only deal breaker

And agree with Thane here, devs should priorise the majority of the game base. Which most would never want to be attacked.

Nolio

Konkistador Not even mentioning that retals get more land than intital attack as the attacker usually has bigger land mass than the defence. As usual you down hit then the proportion is bigger for the retailer to take back. ( I attack get 5 land retaler takes 8 land)

This was part of my design on purpose, it's an incentive to attack up. Attacking smaller kingdoms yields less land gains, but attacking larger kingdoms yields larger land gains. It was a built in catch up mechanic.

Put it this way:

Example 1

Player A 200 land 10 castles
Player B 100 land 5 castles

Player A attacks player B

Player A 210 land 11 castles
Player B 90 land 4 castles

Player B retals

Player A 189 land 10 castles
Player B 111 land 5 castles

End result is the attacker loses more, the defender wins more on the retal

Example 2

Player A 200 land 10 castles
Player B 100 land 5 castles

Player B attacks player A

Player A 180 land 9 castles
Player B 120 land 6 castles

Player A retals

Player A 192 land 10 castles
Player B 108 land 5 casltes

Result the attacker wins more land

The point
In both cases, the larger kingdom falls behind. This is an incentive to attack larger targets and not smaller ones unless you're positive you can defend the retal. The catch up mechanic is designed so the players at the top have to work harder to stay on top, and the players just below have more incentive to hit them. This is why I specifically suggested 10% land wins, with NO variability. With variability the smaller kingdom can still lose more and feel like the game is against them.

There is one flaw and I didn't add it in when suggesting the system because the math would fly over most people's heads, but if you are even with someone, the defender has the advantage for land gains. But this is ultimately solved with the additional land gained from army expedition.

Nolio

Konkistador I don't want to create animosity in the game. it is prone to exploits and big alliances farming. Was advocating for space for attacking style to have space without stopping others play styles.

This part resonates with me because it is full heartedly what I want and agree with.

The way to achieve this is by making attacking earn more than exploring, and not just in the means of land. But by cost and ability to grow. BUT it also means that the people who farm need to feel as though they are growing as well. When a game makes all parties feel like they are advancing in the game, that's what makes people enjoy it. And by having attackers advance SLIGHTLY faster, it promotes the fighting and strategy that is supposed to be the CORE of this game.

Konki, you're a great player to have in the game. You maintain a kingdom well, and you love to attack a lot. This is what we need more of in the game. But we have to find a way that makes players who attack more earn more. And to this I do believe that I have a solution that requires a bit more fleshing out mathematically. The idea is simple, the more units you kill on your attacks, the more you gain in return. Not so much that it's OP, but enough that it puts attackers ahead of those who sit to defend, and puts attackers ahead of those who simply explore and don't have to rebuild armies they don't lose.

« Previous Page Next Page »