Messages

I stand corrected. Thank you Firetooth fairy my brother. *passes beer*

Erm, isn't Firetooth underage by several years?

Mana-producing run:
1) Scrape up land
2) Build lots of huts
3) Make sure you're in Mossflower
4) Earn loyalty until you're at 100% health. Also ensure you have defenses to last at least until your next run, if not 3-5 days worth.
5) Repeat steps 1, 2, & 4 until you run out of turns

Food-producing run:
1) You'll probably start at a >175 ratio.
2) Scrape up land until your leader ratio is 165-185/acre (not including cities/alt. structures)
3) Build huts
4) Start capturing leaders when you attack; more leaders = more food produced. Otherwise, stop when you reach 160-175 leaders/huts
5) When you've got about 250-300 turns left, drop any excess land
6) Send away extra troops and food to allies; you'll produce the most if you have <$100m NW
7) Run Enrich once, then run Feast until you're out of turns. Perhaps send away food/NW when you pass $100m NW.

shut up bob, you know you're a noob and cant defend yourself properly so you have to resort to killing. You will still lose.

Much like Kyle, I'm not playing this round.
Unlike Kyle, I haven't even signed into the game since I gave up $1b NW when a bit drunk and a bit tired. And I didn't play a round before.
Maybe I will play June's set. Probably not, but maybe, if I can pull a few personal friends back. This last month has been hectic for me. Finals were just a week ago. Just got my grades back and am interviewing to be an RA and am a candidate for "directed work experience"--basically I'd be a consultant.
Now then, I'm off. I've gotta run some errends, drop in a few more applications, and reseal a grand total of 6 tweeters, 10 woofers, 4 passive radiators and 4 crossover plates, and perhaps do a continuity check so I can modify my imaged loudspeakers.

What is the ratio we're talking about here? From what I see, it's a 2:1, so either the readout itself or the damaged inflicted needs to be corrected. The answer to that (I believe) lies in what the mean damage per attack would be and should reflect the screen first seen. So if the attacker's battle report says 1,000,000 friendly stoats lost and 1,000,000 enemy stoats destroyed, then there should be 1,000,000 subtracted from both. In the stead, of course, of the attacker seeing the million lost on each side and then the defender or a third party perceiving a loss of two million stoats for each side.

Highly inaccurate, at a minimum. Double damage, I think.

Losses:

45,768 acres ($22,884,000 networth)
46,534,698 stoats ($186,138,792 networth)
635,381,977 grain ($12,707,640 networth)
$3,211,205,079 cash ($1,284,482 networth)

Total losses: $223,014,914 networth

Quick estimation reveals that I ACTUALLY lost approximately twice that amount. Prior to the losses being inflicted, by networth was approximately $980,000,000. At this point, it's dropped to approximately $571,153,748. That's a greater than $400,000,000 loss reflected as well in troops and cash lost (but not counted, and I would assume grain as well would factor in). That's double the amount lost sans the value of land loss.

So either an exploit was in use by Bewj (Juskabelly, if I'm not mistaken) or there's a rather serious readout bug that needs to be fixed.

So yeah can an admin help me with a password reset? I tried logging in a week ago I think, but I was... inebriated.

Nevermind. I scavenged the past 2 installs of My Docs and found it.

By the way, may an admin PM me on here? I'll be needing my new Reg account deleted/disabled/whatever, so I don't get accused of cheating again.

So yeah can an admin help me with a password reset? I tried logging in a week ago I think, but I was... inebriated.

Anyone over 100 million net worth must send the excess net to someone in SS or FairMaid, or twice that amount will be destroyed. You have one week to comply.

Not coming out of vacation for you. Sorry; won't be making YOU feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Your idea wouldn't be an issue really to players with 200m net. ut what if a new guy with like 40m net has finally got the hang of scraping? Any indy who logs in could just keep trickling him troops and smash him into the ground. The problem with your idea, as I stated before, is that it favors big players while harming little players. And that is not something we want to promote here.

The clan thing is just not something that I think would add anything to this game other than another layer of complexity and would require a ton of balance testing that just really isn't worth it when there are so many other things to test and so little time to do it.

but the current count of having .03% of food sacked or .15% on a good day is simply NOT ENOUGH.

I completely agree, I just don't think that your suggestion is the way to go about it. Your suggestion heavily favors non-massing strategies. And because massers rarely keep a standing army, OP/DP ratios are almost always going to max out, so that isn't a good measure either. The defense ratio system has the advantage of giving leader players a choice between defending against indy or defending aaginst other leader players, but not both, so they would no longer be the invincible tanks they are now. Plus that system has the added advantage of already being tested.

By indy missions do you mean "enslave" and "drive" and all those? I agree, the only 4 needed are drive, sack, capture, and attack, the others are useless code.

I've used it as much as the next major holder in keeping my net protected, but getting maxed at $200m and being pumped to $2b makes it rather pointless.

That's not really that much a problem. Because if you max them intentionally without taking land you get disabled, and if you take land, then who cares how much net they have? They'll go down sooner or later, but for now, they aren't locking. The unmaxxing by net is simply too unblanced and easily abused to make avoiding this rare situation worth the change.

So Shadow and quite a few other people, politely, get the [haties] out of my thread if you can't contribute anything positive to my concept.

Watch where you are going with that line of thought. I am contributing something positive - realism. If all you want to do is argue hypothetical situations then say so so that we can stop wasting time explaining why these ideas won't work. If you want your ideas to get facetime in development, then accept the criticism and modify your ideas accordingly.

I've quite often seen (and done in fact) 21 attacks on an ally to max them before pumping them up. If they had a 175 before they probably have a >280 after. At numbers like that, it's darn near impossible to open ops or even suicide, with the attacks being so random. But overall there are a few things that need to be fixed. I'm not saying that Sack or Capture should be taking 4-5% each and every time; perhaps only using Standard would yield a big number (perhaps 2-2.5%) half the time while using troop-specific attacks would yield half that. What I'm asking for is to give better numbers. There are so many different ways to work it out so that using each feature does not vary wildly. But I really don't think that low-NW players should be so heavily favored. Almost everything in this game (it seems) is catered towards the bottom 10. Bottom-feeders exist in every game. A thought to limit their vulnerability is to limit attacking under to 1/10th and keep attacking over at 20x. Doing things like that will keep the little guys protected from being raped while also limiting their ability to go from protection to takedown in 450 turns.

There are more ways to restrict it fairly that a normal player won't run into the problems. A second thought I had was each doubling of NW opens 2 attack ops. Yeah, it's quite possibly abused, but do you really want to aid your enemy $400m NW to open 2 attack ops? Another thought is you can't attack anyone you've aided in the past hour and also can't aid anyone you've attacked in the past hour.

And the reason I see behind his brainless bashing is the typical "omg it's zep/bob/coby/5/kapitan/...." that I've come to expect. So Shadow and quite a few other people, politely, get the hell out of my thread if you can't contribute anything positive to my concept.

And you think I haven't thought it through? I've said two things now. Cut the personal attacks; this is a dev forum. And the numbers can all be tweaked in multiple ways.

The clan-attack idea was just something that popped into my head. The idea is that they have greater power on a whole but very limited turns; something like a max of 24 and stored 6 or something. In some ways, it'd be a war-game-within-a-war-game. If you really don't like it, please point out how it's so pointless or useless to even discuss the concept. You say, "No. It's not usable", but quite a bit in my concept could be used. Explore the idea yourself and multiple people can knock heads about what the best number is, but the current count of having .03% of food sacked or .15% on a good day is simply NOT ENOUGH. Capture is actually on better terms now-a-days, but there comes a point that it's not worth running because of the splashing and the fact that 2/3 of the people maging don't end up with enough to make it beneficial. Increasing sacking to even 1% will begin to have an effect on the majority of the game. My thought is firmly that those with networth should have more land and more troops to protect said networth. An alternative idea to protecting their networth would be to have troops individually "guard" supplies; say $100 and 10 food each. If you manage to kill 1m of their troops, you get $100m and 10m food OR you get as much as half your army can "carry". There are so many different ways to balance out offense and defense. I don't think it'd be half-bad to entirely remove many of these indy missions either.

Oh and the point of rounding to 20 is to make it easier and more linear. 20 or 21 has very little difference on the big picture. And the open-op thing really isn't silly; maxing is often intentional. I've used it as much as the next major holder in keeping my net protected, but getting maxed at $200m and being pumped to $2b makes it rather pointless.

[entirely pointless]

They're just ideas and part of it would cap off the actual damage. I really appreciate you just wanting to write off everything, though. The problem I see with sack and capture (especially in rounds like this) is the land captured versus the resources or leaders taken are minute in the grand scheme of things. There are literally dozens of different ways to "fix" the system. And yes, part of the idea is that those that horde resources will not be invulnerable with a 350% ratio. It'd fundamentally change how this server treats attacks and defenses in multiple ways. Of course I'd expect there to be splashed success--maybe 50% would succeed, maybe lower. One part of this server is, in my opinion, it's too dynamic. There's too much potential for someone to create an account, grab up a few thousand acres from the land farm, and then ruin any indier and half the leaders. Maybe they're a good player, maybe they got lucky, or maybe the code is too easy to abuse in that manner. I've done it before with great ease. There are ALWAYS players making mistakes. One of my favorites last round was a player who horded >$200b cash with 20k leaders and no shields. If you do something stupid like that, I would endorse no less than having all that money stolen. And that was during a first-run too.

I've put quite a bit of thought into the "average player's experience". The numbers can all be tweaked, but something needs to be done about grabbing 300k food when you consume 5m food per attack and the target has 2b food. That's just stupidly low numbers that make using the mission entirely pointless.

I personally think that the capture should at least roughly follow the average land gain per attack. If you can take 5% of the land from a single attack with 1000 Rats, I fully expect to be able to take 5% of the player's leaders instead. Frankly, the idea would far from suit my style of play. In some ways, yes, it'd be better. But in quite a few other ways I'd be shooting myself in the foot. Discuss it and keep the personal attacks to your head. This is a dev forum.

A few ideas I've come up with.

1) Round attacks to 20 on an unclanned warlord
2) Adjust attack ops based on networth change; if someone is maxed and doubles their NW, half their attack ops open. If someone increases their networth ten-fold, 90% of their attack ops open.
3) Adjust sack and capture potential based on OP/DP basis.

Sack = ( OP / DP ) / 50

So, Sack = ( 1000 / 500 ) / 50 = 0.04, or 4% of food is sacked and 4% of cash is sacked. To determine this number, food is valued at $10 each and cash at face-value. So if someone has 10,000 food and $100,000 cash ($100k in cash, $100k in food), that's the total value for the sack. As they're equal, it'd be half in food and half in cash. $8000 worth would be sacked; $4000 cash, 400 food.

Put a limit on OP/DP at something like 4 or 5. A 4 limit would put the limit of sacking at 8% and a 5 limit would put the limit of sacking at 10%. These are fairly large numbers. The other thought is to give Standard Attack the full power Sack and Capture, limiting Guerilla/Bombard/Aerial/Naval to perhaps half-power or less. This will keep sacking reliable and profitable.

Similarly...

Capture = ( OP / DP ) / 100

So, Capture = ( 1000 / 500 ) / 100 = 0.02, or 2% of leaders are captured in an attack.
Put the limit on Capture at something like 4 or 5 again, so that Capture = ( 1000 / 0 (rounded to 1) ) / 100 = 0.05, or 5% of leaders are captured in an attack. This will make defending as a leader much more lucrative. In order to balance this, give Standard perhaps a 50% boost in leaders captured; make it worth your while to use the tougher attack types.

4) Make clans more lucrative; make it an actual player that can be attacked and defended. Bestow something like 1 turn an hour per member in the clan. Stats are made up of all players in that clan.

George: 100,000 rats, 1,000 weasels, 10,000 stoats, 5,000 skiffs, 5,000 leaders, 1,500 land.
Tom: 5,000 rats, 10,000 weasels, 1,000 stoats, 5,000 skiffs, 100,000 leaders, 1,000 land.
Harry: 1,000 rats, 10,000 weasels, 5,000 stoats, 100,000 skiffs, 5,000 leaders, 500 land.

Boys Total: 106,000 rats, 21,000 weasels, 16,000 stoats, 110,000 skiffs, 110,000 leaders, 3,000 land.
Boys OP: 994,000
Boys DP: 1,160,000
Boys Leader Ratio: 36.6667 on 3,000 land


Sue: 0 rats, 0 weasels, 0 stoats, 1,000 skiffs, 100,000 leaders, 1,000 land.
Betty: 1,000 rats, 1,000 weasels, 1,000 stoats, 1,000 skiffs, 100,000 leaders, 1,000 land.
Martha: 100,000 rats, 5,000 weasels, 5,000 stoats, 1,000 skiffs, 1,000 leaders, 500 land.

Girls Total: 101,000 rats, 6,000 weasels, 6,000 stoats, 3,000 skiffs, 201,000 leaders, 2,500 land.
Girls OP: 340,600
Girls DP: 179,000
Girls Leader Ratio: 80.4 on 2,500 land

Now there are two land attacks and a few leader missions. The Boys would be able to do Standard Attacks on the Girls. If they wanted to use Capture, for example...

Capture = ( OP / DP ) / 100
Capture = ( 994,000 / 179,000 ) / 100
Capture = 5.5531 / 100
Capture = 0.05553
Capture = 11,162 leaders distributed evenly to the Boys (3720.5 to each)

Now what if they wanted to use Clan Leader missions?

Boy's Attack Ratio = 40
Girl's Defense Ratio = 84.42
AR / DR = 0.4738

The Boys would be unable to do anything against the Girls, at least as a clan. Now let's look at the inverse...

Girl's Attack Ratio = 73.0909
Boy's Defense Ratio = 38.5
AR / DR = 1.8985

The girls would be able to do anything BUT use Leader Attack.

Here's how leadering as a clan would be different.

Espionage = Shows the sum of offensive points, defensive points, as well as the total networth, total leader count, and total land count. Less information, but more of what "matters" to a clan attacking.
Murder = 3% on all warlords (cut down to 1% when using shields)
Poison = 9.12% food and 12.76% cash destroyed (cut down to 3.04% food and 4.25% cash when using shields) on all warlords.
Steal = 10-15% cash stole (3.33% to 5% when using shields) from the warlord with the most cash.
Open Attack Opportunity = 1 attack opportunity opened on every member of that clan.

Thoughts? Alternative suggestions?

Nope because Sevah had about6 people on his team.

Everything he described is still a bunch of turns, given any sort of defenses on my part. Poisons, murders, opening the attack ops required, and standarding me down to 10k? It'd take a team of at least two to get all that done. So that's two people not contributing to making net or locking up land. Shoot, now that I think about it, maybe I should have just announced that I had decided to play. I could have eased the oppositions task by a third.

Actually took a single person to do that solo and they recovered quite easily. I did like STD'ing you down to a fraction your prior NW. You were clanned too; it was too easy.