Fire Vs. Ice type round for next set?

[Holby]

i've seen gun indies lock land from day 1 until the end of the set

Not on this server. Well, not in the last 5 years.

Do it here and I'll eat all of my limbs AND my hat.

Actually, maybe not my limbs. That's kinda gross.

[Neobaron]

Gross or not, first consideration should always be: "would people pay to see it done?"

[Sevz]

remove make attack ops, make it so you can set 3 empires to war for 20 hours and it can't be undone, war is like 40 attacks on top of the regular hitlimit

i'm pretty certain that there's gonna be some good players eager to change strategy, forcing an indy round doesn't help with comparisons of solo play against teamwork and leader users,

i'd be happily change race if people couldn't murder 20x make attack ops 10x, murder 20x, attack ops 10x. poison crops 20x, make attack ops 10x and get land,

build an empire for that to happen? i think not, crazy talk

[Holby]

Open Attack Op is a good feature, but Raise Defenses should reduce its effectiveness to 1 attack per Open Op.

Leader players aren't particularly fond of opening op on someone who is either too big or too small, causing them to lose leaders. And that's not uncommon when attacking an indyer. A good indyer will never let his shields come down, either. And if Open Op is fixed to only allow 1 attack per mission with shields up, it won't be much of a problem anymore.

Having an individual warlord setting ensures there is no benefit to being an unclanned player. With max attacks on whoever you like (even if it has to be locked in for 24 hours/3 days/whatever) and with no losses for high or low attacks, there is no protection for anyone. It means that player is disadvantaged by not joining or creating a clan, because they may as well have the extra war slots and everything else that goes along with it.

[Neobaron]

Depending on who you ask, being unclanned makes you an idiot anyhow if you want to get anywhere in this game.

Clans arent so much of organizations for mutual defense like they were when I quit a couple years ago as they are stepping stones or overglorified banking systems, allowing any individual or group of individuals to collect resources for the sole purpose of stockpiling someone to the point they are nigh untouchable. If theyre really clever, they landlock and go camping. But I digress.

The overwhelming opinion of the intent or objective of this game is highly contradictory. On the one hand, it is effectively required of an individual to be clanned in order to progress via the collection of resources and on the other, its still called Redwall: Warlords rather than Redwall: A Simulation in Mercantilism.

With so many people high up being holders, and the ensuing ranks being suppliers or the occasional poor indy doot whos hit the glass ceiling (Juska), the objective for most is to make as much for the holder as possible, so they can ship it off. When theyre not idling out anyways.

From a Warlords perspective, you dont find an account worthy of emperor status (in my mind anyhow) until you hit the #4 position, that being Volkov at the moment, and to my knowledge, there is only one player in reg right now endeavouring (succesfully anyways) to fulfill the purpose of this game as i've always understood it; that being to make yourself the warlord to beat.

Grouping and carebears is fun and all, but you cant have it both ways man. I'm pretty sure people are finding ways to game the game and bypass all that hard work to get on top and stay there. I'm faily confident peace didnt earn that 3 billion. I know for a fact NW didnt. Being a midrange independent looking up is cool and all until you realize theres no real interest outside of yourself in making progress towards eliminating the complacent folks lurking in the top ranks or putting a stop to the massers who probably know more about numbers than you but that you know for a fact couldnt hold up in one of our fights from back in the day.

Its an endless circle of boring at the moment. If you're going to give people the highway to the top, you might as well make it interesting for them to stay there rather than "LOL SEND ME I DELCAN." The individual war thing killing independent warlords kind of goes hand in hand with the prevailing clan mentality anyhow if you wanna go there. Baseline more attacks would certainly help and force folks to be more scrappy and less backspace/enter.

---

Off topic but semi-related, how do we petition for a reset?

[Shadow]

I don't see a reg reset any time soon.

And NW did earn that net, he and a few others have been storing it for weeks now.

No indy can lock land here for more than a day or two at a time. Of course that might change if open atk op were removed, but anything is possible if you tweak the code to make it so ^_^

[Daryn]

can we have a reset? i want to restart on a new strat...

[Marell]

can we have a reset? i want to restart on a new strat...

Just revolt...if we reset that means we're back to having low land again  :P

But I think we're starting to go way off topic lol. I started writing a reply to Neo before realising I was in the turbo forum and was talking completely about reg.

Anyone want to update me on whats happening in turbo seeing as I'm not playing this round?
By the top tens I've seen it looks like Wind have been leading thus far, but I've been told that Fire is loaded with experienced members...

[Juska]

Wind has been winning the entire round.

Fire is storing food/cash from what I've seen.

Ice is having a bit of trouble.

[Checkerpaw]

Wind has been winning the entire round.

Fire is storing food/cash from what I've seen.

Ice is having a bit of trouble.

Ice is on ice.

Get it?

Haha. I'm so witty.   :P

[Gen. Volkov]

Wind has been winning the entire round.

Until the clans close and the war starts, we're in a holding pattern. So Wind isn't so much winning as just generating lots of NW. As soon as Duels actually becomes Duels, the "winning" clan will be the one with the most members at the end of the day.

that's a ridiculous statement, Indy's usually have heaps of power, people aren't as good at indy as they are at using magers, think about the 5 years experience behind half of the wizard users

I've played in nearly every promi game there is Sevz, and in my experience, a competent mager can ALWAYS break the power of an Indy, if he really wants too. The indy may be able to generate more NW, but the mager will always have a better ratio. 21 murders, even shielded, will do a number on anyone's troops. Removing open atk ops won't change that. What it will do, however, is make it possible for leaderers to make truly unbreakable emps once again. We'd have to massively increase the hit limit to make those hard to do once again, and that just hurts indiers and unclanned players more.

Oh, and by the way, there are quite a few competent and more than competent indies at RWL. Snare, Rudder, Juska, Shadow, etc.

i've seen gun indies lock land from day 1 until the end of the set

Well, either there were no competent magers, or the setup was radically different from that of the standard promi code.

Open Attack Op is a good feature, but Raise Defenses should reduce its effectiveness to 1 attack per Open Op.

I like this idea Holbs.

[Juska]

The obvious problem is this:

Attack ops are necessary in order to stop leaders from completely dominating.

However, attack ops are unfair to non-leader players. You have to agree that giving one strategy an absolute advantage in attacks vs. another is unfair.

An attack credit with a high limit that isn't affected by players in the war slot and refills at the same relative rate as turns for the server is the solution.

[Gen. Volkov]

However, attack ops are unfair to non-leader players. You have to agree that giving one strategy an absolute advantage in attacks vs. another is unfair.

Yes, I agree it's unfair, though I'm unclear on how much they are actually used.

An attack credit with a high limit that isn't affected by players in the war slot and refills at the same relative rate as turns for the server is the solution.

This also brings up problems of it's own. I'm assuming the attack credits are going to replace max attacks, otherwise you run into the same problem of just removing attack ops. So you've got each player with a high limit of attacks per day. I can see the benefits, but I can also see how it would make kills ridiculously easy, and if the leader players are will to give up one run of making NW to instead destroy someone else's NW, they could do so really easily. It depends on exactly how many credits there are, but even just 21 murders are going to do a lot of damage, even shielded, and since there are no max attacks, another leader player could give up his 21 attacks to murder right after, and so forth. It wouldn't noticeably slow the leader players down, and it would utterly destroy their target. Jotun proved the concept last Turbo round, when they took out the NW holder for Warlords. Granted, it took 3 leader players to do it, and Rally had no shields, but with more attack credits or a couple more leader players, the same result is achievable. Shael had left max attacks in, so it couldn't be done to unclanned players, but if we are talking about removing attack ops, then max attacks will have to be removed as well, and replaced with the attack credit system you described.

The way I see, both the current system and the proposed solutions have severe drawbacks that hurt indies much more than leader players. Unless we want to remove murder altogether though, I don't think there is any way around the fact that leaderers just flat out have an advantage over indiers. But of course, removing murder would unbalance the game so drastically that it would cease to be functional.

I think the best idea is to make attack ops affected by shields. This does hurt in the area of emp take-downs, but it still makes it possible if one is dedicated enough, and it reduces the damage a leader player can do to an indy, unless they want to waste lots of turns.

[Juska]

Making atk ops shielded-able does nothing to level the playing field. Indies are still disadvantaged. Leaders can still open continuous attacks. If you want to fix Atk Ops write a code so that each successful Atk Op makes it exponentially harder to open the next one and run it on a timer like the current defense limit.

What indy cares about murders? Seriously Volkov. Murder me 75 times with 1% I could care less (Actually it was done to me 100+ times eariler).

Leader land grab is the big qualm in the leader-indy debate.

Do you know how many players it takes to kill someone of moderate land currently in regular Volkov? At least 3, if they max their attacks they can each do 56 attacks.

If you gave 45 attack credits it would take at least 4 players to kill a solo, not incredibly easy, harder than it is to kill a clanned emp.

If your really worried about solo's getting killed (QMT has this same type of system and no solo has ever been killed) then put in a safety net. I.E. a very high defense limit of perhaps 100. So that you can't kill solo's, but you can de-emp them.

How does an attack credit system hurt indies?

I can farm solo's who currently protect their land from by the hit limit.
I currently have no hit limit because of attack ops, any moderate leader player (60% land huts) can attack me basically indefinitely or open attacks on me for other players. Any system benefits indies over the current system. 

[Gen. Volkov]

Do you know how many players it takes to kill someone of moderate land currently in regular Volkov? At least 3, if they max their attacks they can each do 56 attacks.

Unclanned, maybe 3, but a clanned player? Closer to 2 people. Call it 2 and 1/4. I've killed people under the current system. It's not all that dang difficult. Certainly can do more than 56 attacks apiece.

Making atk ops shielded-able does nothing to level the playing field. Indies are still disadvantaged. Leaders can still open continuous attacks. If you want to fix Atk Ops write a code so that each successful Atk Op makes it exponentially harder to open the next one and run it on a timer like the current defense limit.

How does it not level the playing field? It makes atk ops nearly worthless as a spell. You are using more turns than you are creating opportunities to attack. 4 turns, 1 attack. As is, it's creating more attacks than turns used.

What indy cares about murders? Seriously Volkov. Murder me 75 times with 1% I could care less (Actually it was done to me 100+ times eariler).

100 murders... that's basically your entire army, even at 1%. You may say you don't care, but lets be honest, it's going to set you back a bit.

Leader land grab is the big qualm in the leader-indy debate.

Honestly, if the leaderer wants to kill his leaders and waste his turns grabbing land off you that way... let him. It's part of the game, and is there to counter the fact that indys can make so many more troops than leaderers. I thought your big qualm was unlimited murders and then attacks due to attack ops. If the leaderer is grabbing land with leader land grab, he's not going to be ABLE to open attack ops after a little while. By the time he's hit max attacks his ratio will be so crud he won't even be able to cast the spell.

If you gave 45 attack credits it would take at least 4 players to kill a solo, not incredibly easy, harder than it is to kill a clanned emp.

It's still far too easy, given that it would take far more turns to kill a solo right now. Furthermore, you may not care about murders, but I'm sure others do, and 90 murders from two different people would gut any army. About the only benefit, if you can call it that, that I can see, is that it truly would make taking emp or winning a round through skill impossible. Turbo would become, "Redwall: Who can hold the most net for the longest" and reg would become "Redwall:Murderfest". The only point to having clan is that it would be slightly easier to annihilate people in other clans than it would be to annihilate an unclanned person. It's actually much harder to take someone out in the present system than it would be in your system. In the current system, 2 guys have to spend most of their turns taking someone out, if they aren't clanned. In your system, it's 150 turns, max, including healing.

It doesn't stop there, it also hurts indies because they can't attack as much. Most indies attack for the majority of their run. Much more than 45 attacks, because more land means more troops. Limited attacks benefits leaderers more than indiers, since leaderers can operate at any decent land amount, and make excess resources.

I agree that the current attack ops spell is a disadvantage to indies, but I don't see your system as a benefit to them either. I think making attack ops more trouble than they are worth because of shields is probably the best solution. Technically you would still have "unlimited attacks" on you, but practically speaking, no one is going to bother after the first 21 attacks, because it would just eat so many turns that it wouldn't be worth it. Practically speaking, the only people that are going to be the target of open atk ops, if we make it shield affected, are emperors.