Fix leadering

Shadow · July 16, 2009, 06:41:26 PM

Nobody said that suicides were enough, I am simply saying that getting rid of them for indiers is a terrible idea. Sack and capture together have the potential to be enough, though, once they are fixed and balanced right.

Juska · July 16, 2009, 10:13:17 PM

As we seem to have decided to leave the current leader loss system in the game (w/e I'm all for making leaders lives harder if you want them to loss ridiculous amounts of leaders for no reason fine).

Can we please Nerf Food Net?

This would honestly solve a lot of problems, it would force leaders to hold troops if they wanted net, making them have to pay upkeep, and making them vulnerable to a strong indy (i.e. standard attacks).

Gen. Volkov · July 17, 2009, 11:28:41 AM

Food net has already been nerfed... multiple times. People have to feast up BILLIONS of food to even get a few hundred mil NW. If they want to spend the time and effort to do it, let them. It's going to be rather difficult to make a pure food emp. Impossible to make a land-locking one. No, I think fixing sack and capture is the better idea. That would give indies a route to attack leaders where it would hurt them the most and balance the game better, since it would still force leader players to put up a strong defense.

Juska · July 17, 2009, 10:18:46 PM

The fact the food contributes at all to networth is a factor that should be addressed.

Marell · July 17, 2009, 10:41:58 PM

Quote from: Juska on July 17, 2009, 10:18:46 PM
The fact the food contributes at all to networth is a factor that should be addressed.

Yeah and why don't we just remove Generals Hut from the game so only indying is possible :P lol.

Neobaron · July 17, 2009, 11:11:21 PM

If you think about it, the same leaders who can net on the food can also make enough money to support enough troops to compete with our outpace the indys who cant sustain the food due to consumption - even if theyre just sitting on the troops as a means of holding net.

So as a brute force way of fixing the net disparity, this might help, but then the focus for leaders would shift to making as much money as possible and buying out all the mercs right before a reset, for example, which is still going to give the leaders an advantage... just not one that would be immediately visible.

But it doesnt change the fact that leaders have more tools available to them to actually win the games. Leaders would still be able to run a truck through an indys work with poison and murder over the course of a run and then just buy out the market and mercs with the money they dont actually use to sustain their play style, and the indys would be helpless to retaliate. Completely helpless.

I think addressing that helplessness would be the best way to start, and the way to do it would be to give the indys comparable capabilities to leaders in the form of sack/capture that can carry out (effedtively) the same objective as murder/poison.

Also, I understand sack and capture are designed to give the user all of the resources taken, and I understand it would need to be adjusted down to compensate for the actual net shift, whereas leaders just nuke the hell out of their target with no benefit to themselves.

Gen. Volkov · July 18, 2009, 11:15:27 AM

QuoteThe fact the food contributes at all to networth is a factor that should be addressed.

Why? Having immense amounts of food certainly is beneficial to an empire, if we were really warlords of Redwall. It makes sense to me. This is not Redwall:Indylords Juska.

Juska · July 19, 2009, 07:57:45 AM

It just seems to me that if you give a certain strategy a way to make and hold networth that hurts them not at all, ie. the way that food adds to networth but does not require any upkeep and that cannot be destroyed by other players in the game, then you have an unfair advantage.

Make a resource that is producible from a building at large quantities, worth decent net, massible, doesn't cost upkeep, and can only be taken by a surprise attack w/o the offense bonus and it can be defended by a spell shield and then you make things fair as they currently are.

If you nerf food net you won't need to fix sack because leader will have to hold troops to have net and then indies can standard them.

If they store cash all set (turbo) so what? It's easy to get killed in turbo, but at least cash doesn't add so much to networth. Last turbo set I stored cash and ended with 1.4 bil networth. Mercs don't come back fast enough to buy up in one day and the market doesn't get enough action you need to buy over a period of 3-4 days the whole time you will be vulnerable to standards from indies and murders from other leaders.

The Obliterator · July 19, 2009, 08:46:14 AM

*Points out poison on the generals hut missions*

Shadow · July 19, 2009, 08:57:43 AM

Or we could fix sack like we have been planning to all along. If you get rid of food net, you end up with FAF, where there is basically only one viable strat that just has different means of getting to the same end, but mages still dominate.

Gen. Volkov · July 19, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

QuoteIt just seems to me that if you give a certain strategy a way to make and hold networth that hurts them not at all, ie. the way that food adds to networth but does not require any upkeep and that cannot be destroyed by other players in the game, then you have an unfair advantage.

Except that food can be taken with sack, destroyed by poisons, and it takes 40 billion food or more to even approach the NW levels you need to hold #1 in either server, which can take the entire set to accumulate, and one guy can destroy in one run if he's feeling ornery. I hardly feel that's much of an unfair advantage. Sack needs to be fixed anyway, so once that's out of the way, the playing field is mostly leveled again.

Checkerpaw · July 19, 2009, 03:03:50 PM

Quote from: Juska on July 17, 2009, 10:18:46 PM
The fact the food contributes at all to networth is a factor that should be addressed.

You have got to be kidding. Why shouldn't food contribute to networth? It's an asset, just like having troops or cash.

Juska · July 19, 2009, 03:18:33 PM

If you look at it from a solo standpoint #14 Is actually winning in regular with all food net. The two empires above her are clan net stores.

And she has what 35,000,000,000 food? Assuming 64mil of her net isn't food. If sack was fixed then yeah things would be different, because right now a successful sack gets you like 6 mil food. Gonna take me 5,833 sacks to take our her net and that's not calculating the diminishing returns. I don't know about you but I don't have 47,000 turns sitting around. It would only take like 2,000 to kill her at most.

If you get rid of food net you get QM, Valhall, NWO, etc. all of which have a diversity of strategies and active markets.

Obviously, I'm not going to win about removing food net or nerfing leader attack gain, or lowering suicide loses, etc. But since we are in agreement that sack needs fixed we should probably figure out how to fix it.

Edit:

Checkerpaw: you obviously didn't read my other posts as to why food having such a large networth is unfair and I don't technically mean removing food net altogether, I just mean making it impossible to win by massing only food. A formula in which food gives less and less net the more you mass of it is what I would suggest. Or making food net equal to cash net.

Marell: I'm assuming you think that feast is the only way to make net? Or that the general's hut only has the feast option? Because I'm talking about food and I guess if the only thing to do in the generals hut is make food I am suggesting removing the general's hut.

Volkov: One leader can destroy that net is what you meant to say, which is my point.

Oblit: By "other players" I meant non-leader players.

Marell · July 20, 2009, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: Juska on July 19, 2009, 03:18:33 PM

Marell: I'm assuming you think that feast is the only way to make net? Or that the general's hut only has the feast option? Because I'm talking about food and I guess if the only thing to do in the generals hut is make food I am suggesting removing the general's hut.

No, I can do it all :P
It was more of a joke...after reading your posts over some time, always about ways of helping indies and harming leaderers, I thought it wouldn't be that far off if you came out with "how bout we just get rid of leadering all together" as your next arguement.

But that is a decently strong arguement you make for the removal of food net. Made me at least consider it.
But I still think the better option is to have sack fixed, which we all agree with.

Any word from an admin on how far off a fix may be?

Checkerpaw · July 20, 2009, 12:12:17 PM

Quote from: Juska on July 19, 2009, 03:18:33 PM
Checkerpaw: you obviously didn't read my other posts as to why food having such a large networth is unfair and I don't technically mean removing food net altogether, I just mean making it impossible to win by massing only food. A formula in which food gives less and less net the more you mass of it is what I would suggest. Or making food net equal to cash net.

That I could support. As I'm going to point out on a turbo thread, I do think it's interesting that currently in turbo there is not a single indier in the top ten, and only one in the top fifteen. That's a pretty stark statistic.