Indy net cap

Firetooth · May 02, 2011, 10:52:42 AM

Will we ever see a return of market theft? I'll just be annoyed if it is gone.

Kilkenne · May 02, 2011, 11:07:35 AM

disable huts, kill leaders

this is the only way to enlightenment

Shadow · May 02, 2011, 11:34:44 AM

Market theft will always be possible on a delay, but instant market theft is probably gone for good unless it really unbalances things.

Kilkenne · May 03, 2011, 10:07:26 AM

This probably doesn't go in this topic, and I should make another, but what ever happened to the "Recruit" thing that you used to be able to use like forage/scout/etc? This would make indying more potent, I feel. It wouldn't affect NW, obviously, but it'd be a good early tool when one is running.

The Lady Shael · May 03, 2011, 10:14:32 AM

I'm pretty sure this game never had that option, you might be thinking of another promisance.

Shadow · May 03, 2011, 10:14:38 AM

Not sure. But that gives me a neat idea.

What if there was a spend turn option wherein your upkeep on troops would get lower the more turns you use in it? (to a max of maybe half upkeep after 100 turns or so). It would give indy a productive alternative to constant attacks, and give more production for the cash you have without actually increasing the netting potential in absolute terms.

The Lady Shael · May 03, 2011, 10:19:02 AM

QMT has a "training" use turns action that Kilk is talking about, maybe we can look into it and modify it as needed in our transition.

Firetooth · May 03, 2011, 10:43:16 AM

It's a good idea, but I don't see how it resolves the net cap issue, at least no absolutely.

Kilkenne · May 03, 2011, 11:05:52 AM

It doesn't change anything net-related, I just figured since people are discussing indying in this thread that this would be a good place to mention it.

I like the idea of a turn based thing to lessen upkeep but that also smacks of leaders to me, it's basically a leader "spell" or whatnot without leaders, and I think that is something we'd want to avoid. The big thing here is making the two playstyles seperate but equally potent, I would imagine.

Firetooth · July 20, 2011, 02:22:37 PM

There's been a lot of hot air over this issue lately and I think we need to try to reach some sort of agreed solution in the near future. It may be a large single change or many smaller ones, but some fort of change needs to be made. Fixing indies net cap isn't going to solve everything, but it will be a large step in the right direction.

The ideas suggested so far:

A storehouse of some kind-lots of balancing required. Shadow suggested a storehouse where indies could store infinite net but was still affected by murders, perhaps more so
Gaining more troops depending on how many troops you already have
The higher your troop net, gradually the resource cost falls

I'm not sure how easy 2 and 3 would be to code in, but 1 sounds simple and more easy for a player to wrap their head around, albeit more easily abusable. Does anybody have any other ideas?

Pippin · July 20, 2011, 02:30:25 PM

Idea 1 sounds good, it might balance leader and indy to a equal level and make it a useable solo strategy. But it would also be nice to see other races buffed perhaps to compete with the 2 main lead strategies, team indy and food/cash massing. It might be a lot to ask but even if a few races were buffed so there could be more competition, it might improve the game and make it more interesting for existing and new players who join to not get stuck with just a few strategies that are easy and effective.

Shadow · July 20, 2011, 02:34:59 PM

I don't think I ever suggested a storehouse with no limit on it ^_^.

The thing about storehouses is that they don't fix the problem, they just make it take longer to hit the cap. And they really add nothing to game play other than a way to reduce costs.

The problem is that we are thinking about this in terms of indy versus leader. Neither of those strategies was intended in the original prom. It was supposed to be a balancing act between all of the buildings. So the real "solution" to the problem is to make both indy and leader no longer viable strategies by themselves, and force people to play the balance act. There are any number of ways that this could be achieved.

Thoughts?

Pippin · July 20, 2011, 02:41:35 PM

I read a topic earlier where you suggested it but meh >:D

If leader and indy were nerfed it might make playing more interesting for a while, but then other strategies would just come into play and dominate others after a month or 2 to perfect it as we have with leader and indy.

Firetooth · July 20, 2011, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: Shadow on July 20, 2011, 02:34:59 PM
I don't think I ever suggested a storehouse with no limit on it ^_^.

The thing about storehouses is that they don't fix the problem, they just make it take longer to hit the cap. And they really add nothing to game play other than a way to reduce costs.

The problem is that we are thinking about this in terms of indy versus leader. Neither of those strategies was intended in the original prom. It was supposed to be a balancing act between all of the buildings. So the real "solution" to the problem is to make both indy and leader no longer viable strategies by themselves, and force people to play the balance act. There are any number of ways that this could be achieved.

Thoughts?

Sorry, my bad.

I would love to see at least a round where you could only build say 20-30% max in one building

Neobaron · July 20, 2011, 03:15:18 PM

Military Academy; (0 loyalty, 0 ratio)
Up to 10% of your army is turned into 1% of the value in leaders.

Stand Down; (scaling loyalty, 25 ratio)
Up to 75% of your army is turned into workers.

in conjunction with-

Call to Arms; (scaling loyalty, 50 ratio)
Up to 50% of your workers are conscripted into the army (according to troop settings.)