Market

[Alazar is Back]

I don't have the time or desire whatsoever to split hairs with you in the other topic you made, at least not tonight. I don't care if the changes have been in talk for a year now, I haven't been around for the majority of the last few years and I certainly haven't sifted through pages and pages of hypothetical situations and far fetched suggestions; I take a more cause and effect feel for things, and the game is becoming more and more flawed each round you think you're "fixing things".

bring back the old code and put up a new server, I'll just play there.

You are probably the most useful moderator ever. Indeed, your status as someone who has been around forever means that you can throw stones without having to be constructive anymore at any time, right? Get over yourself. You are one of the people with the tools to do something, instead of slinging crap, if your reputation is to be believed.

.......Really? Did you not read anything else he wrote? You just made yourself look like an idiot.

In my opinion the Farmer strat is essentially useless unless you give it the power to do well solo. And In order for a casher strategy to be any good, you are going to have to greatly increase the size of the bank, and fix the mercenaries back to what they were. I am against all the changes, even though they dont seem to effect my usual indy strategy much..

[Shadow]

In my opinion the Farmer strat is essentially useless unless you give it the power to do well solo

Certainly. Suggestions? The problem comes down to the basic imbalance between leader and nonleader at RWL, and it's not an easy fix.

And In order for a casher strategy to be any good, you are going to have to greatly increase the size of the bank

We already did that. Didn't you read those threads I linked you to?

I am against all the changes, even though they dont seem to effect my usual indy strategy much..

I'm curious if you actually know what "all the changes" are. Could you please post specifically which changes you don't like and why you don't like each one? (without peeking at Snare's post, preferably). Apparently you actually like the increase bank size change, so... please post your own thoughts on the matter, in helpful detail.

Saying "I don't like it" is pretty much useless for everyone. You need to tell us why, or else we can't do a thing about it.




I would also like to hear feedback from the newer members of the game - from a persepective of someone who has only been playing for a few months, how do these changes affect your gameplay? Do they make things easier or harder to grasp?

[Uiblis]

I tried my hand at indying this round to test the changes.

I realize that the changes are made to try and balance out things as much as possible, but sometimes that doesn't make sense. Indy is different from leader, and making them equal to one another seems impossible without completely reworking them.

That being said, indys have been buffed somewhat, especially by the market changes. I can push prices on troops a bit and still have them sell. Sometimes I can even make enough cash off this to fuel most of a run. But solo indy still isn't viable for long term strategy imo. Of course, this is the first time indying in about a year so my opinion could be somewhat flawed.

More aid credits help clan strategies, maybe actually a bit too many, but that's not too important.

As for the market, you should be able to put more troops on it. But it's not always demand > supply, it's sometimes one or two leader stockpiling cash and spending it all on one go.

So I think just adding to how many troops you can pile on the market won't solve the problem. Possibly make it like mercs, where you can only buy a certain amount of troops at one time?

In regards to the anti-clan argument, I would like to point out that a loose coalition of unclanned leaders is currently much stronger than a similarly sized clan of indies feeding leaders. By benefit of having solid leader defense through the round and a max of 22 sacks per day, they can take it pretty much every time without too much work. Teams are always going to be stronger than solo because ~turns~, but leader teams without a clan are currently top dog.

^This

Past two rounds, me+varg+sharp, unclanned coalition. Pretty good results, but wouldn't say its "better", necessarily, than a team of indies with leaders.

I haven't really used farmer/casher races yet, but it seems they could do with a boost in whatever bonuses they get/better def.

[Shadow]

Thanks for the comments - the general one seems to be "there needs to be more troops on the market" so we'll try to put that in for next round.

You're right that indy and leader can't be balanced as solo strategies while leaders work as they do, so the changes are mostly to promote interactive play at the moment.

[Kilkenne]

.......Really? Did you not read anything else he wrote? You just made yourself look like an idiot.

In my opinion the Farmer strat is essentially useless unless you give it the power to do well solo. And In order for a casher strategy to be any good, you are going to have to greatly increase the size of the bank, and fix the mercenaries back to what they were. I am against all the changes, even though they dont seem to effect my usual indy strategy much..

Might want to stop postin' there, big guy. Sharp edges on the keyboard.

[Alazar is Back]

.......Really? Did you not read anything else he wrote? You just made yourself look like an idiot.

In my opinion the Farmer strat is essentially useless unless you give it the power to do well solo. And In order for a casher strategy to be any good, you are going to have to greatly increase the size of the bank, and fix the mercenaries back to what they were. I am against all the changes, even though they dont seem to effect my usual indy strategy much..

Might want to stop postin' there, big guy. Sharp edges on the keyboard.

Do you ever post anything meaningful, or is it all just rubbish?

Shadow, in regards to the bank size, yeah it was increased, but if casher is to be a viable strategy, they need something kinda special ability to put more in their bank or something. The Leader players are so overpowered in this server its ridiculous, and they would rape a casher or farmer strategy, just like they can do to indys. I think that if run correctly the leader strats should be the most powerful and almost needed to win a round, but to be quite honest, RWL needs a big change if they want to have fairly balanced strategies.

I do not like what you have done with the market or the mercenaries, I think they need to go back like they were. This MUST be done, if you want the farmer, or even the casher to be a viable strategy. I would suggest something like a "fox cloak for the food on the market" Or making it impossible to market steal them.

I really don't think that balancing the races would be all that hard, if you took a few of my suggestions and followed them, and then reduced the production that the leader players have, then that would greatly balance out the races. An Indy, farmer, casher, or even a hybrid should be able to make 2-3 times as much networth as a leader player...

[Shadow]

The Leader players are so overpowered in this server its ridiculous

I think that if run correctly the leader strats should be the most powerful and almost needed to win a round

wut

I do not like what you have done with the market or the mercenaries, I think they need to go back like they were. This MUST be done, if you want the farmer, or even the casher to be a viable strategy.

Farmer and casher weren't viable before, to be honest. Even if we let them market store all their resources, leaders can still market theft them and they have no more chance than indy. So no, the market isn't the problem with those strategies.

I really don't think that balancing the races would be all that hard, if you took a few of my suggestions and followed them, and then reduced the production that the leader players have, then that would greatly balance out the races. An Indy, farmer, casher, or even a hybrid should be able to make 2-3 times as much networth as a leader player...

The problem with the balance between leaders and indies is not production (run for run, indy produces far more net). The problem is twofold: that leader can defend their net, and indies can't, and that leaders have no limit on how much their net can grow, whereas indies are land-limited.

[Kilkenne]

?
Shadow, in regards to the bank size, yeah it was increased, but if casher is to be a viable strategy, they need something kinda special ability to put more in their bank or something. The Leader players are so overpowered in this server its ridiculous, and they would rape a casher or farmer strategy, just like they can do to indys. I think that if run correctly the leader strats should be the most powerful and almost needed to win a round, but to be quite honest, RWL needs a big change if they want to have fairly balanced strategies.

The Leader players are so overpowered in this server its ridiculous, and they would rape a casher or farmer strategy, just like they can do to indys.

this server its ridiculous, and they would rape a casher or farmer strategy

rape

Sexual assaulting of strategy aside, I'm pretty sure that the entire point has been missed in favor of licking Snare's boots. Why should an indy or hybrid or something else ~have~ to make less than a leader player? In no uncertain terms I have posted a number of times and have been on a crusade to get the sides to parity; Feel free to read http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=13687.0 . This should address all of your concerns about net generation. It's all of your thoughts organized in a more coherent way so you don't make yourself sound so awful. Maybe you could take a step back before trying to cut Shadow off at the knees and learn a little bit about what you're posting instead of these massive knee-jerk reactions.

This territory has been covered before, and recently. Not just by me, but by multiple people. You want to overlook that, fine. Make wrong points though, and I will crucify you over it, because it's contradictory to what my own aims are (which should coincide with yours, but again, you just try to indiscriminately kiss up to Snare, and this is his fight too, right?), and hurts my position more than it helps.

[Wolf Snare]

 :D
don't be hatin' Kilk, I posted constructive criticism initially, but when shadow failed to really address any of my points with his counter post, I began pouting and retreated. The observations I made are from a trial and error perspective-- sure, in hindsight I came across pretty sour; I'm impulsive and it just seemed to me, at the time, that Shadow was making fixes irrationally-- or in his favour, so to speak. I'm all down for constructively assisting you guys in balancing the game. If you can put your personal dislike / grudge aside, stop with the condesending tone and show some professionalism, I'll stop being a hypocrite and do the same.

I do think leader players have taken a bit too much of a hit in these changes.. Especially because recent changes have already nerfed takedowns a considerable amount, and it just seems that players are more likely to win in a clan setting with indies pumping leaders full of troops-- is this our intention? I know solo leaderers were overpowered, sure, but I think we can make a healthy balance between the two without downgrading them to the point of scrapping the strategy as far as solo play goes.

As I understand the market changes are having positive effects on the game, though I think we should cap the max sell price at a reasonable amount, and allow for a withdraw option to those who wish to do so, after a week+ of being available for sale. This way people can at least get their networth back if their stuff doesn't sell.

As we all agreed earlier, mercs should still be available at a decent rate. Forcing martens to buy off indies is good to an extent, but they need a more convenient and immediate means of breaking indies, or leader players fed by indies-- this will allow a bit more landflow on a regular basis, and give the soloists a bit of a fighting chance at competing with clans. I agree that the market should be able to put 50 - 75% of troops on  as a cap, their is clearly more demand than available supply at the moment.

I think 50% of food is probably the most we should allow on the market at a time since it does not move as quickly, though sack should be capped after a certain rate.. If a marten can't spend their cash sufficiently on anything other than their nemesis, they should not also be fueling any indy that can get an attack off them; not at such high returns-- an indy can virtually sack a few targets to fuel their entire run. In ways this is basically countering unlimited aid credits to clans' fix, it allows for a bottomless pit for production.

In closing, we probably make a far better team than enemies, let's leave the warring on the battlefield and we can discuss things solely for the sake of fixing the game. Sorry for being an imbecile, can we build a mutual respect for each other for the sake of fixing the game, at least?

[Kilkenne]

It took you a while to post about my posting. Instead you let your dog do it for you. That's fine. I'm glad that you finally posted in a constructive manner once your dog was put outside. I actually had the same phase with Shadow, but was a lot more outspoken and violent with it. I'm sure if you do some forum sleuthing you can find some posts where I just got hammered and let Shadow have it.

Unfortunately, you're not going to think that I stopped what you think is a condescending tone because you have not found out that that's just how it is. It's okay, I condescend myself mostly, just try not to take it personally.

You and I should join forces for the good of indy-kind, to be honest. Together we can win this.

[Shadow]

:D
don't be hatin' Kilk, I posted constructive criticism initially, but when shadow failed to really address any of my points with his counter post, I began pouting and retreated. The observations I made are from a trial and error perspective-- sure, in hindsight I came across pretty sour; I'm impulsive and it just seemed to me, at the time, that Shadow was making fixes irrationally-- or in his favour, so to speak.

I would just like to point out that I don't really play the game anymore except to do testing or sometimes on request. I make net while I do the tests because the only way to test is to play the game the way it should be, but I won't be winning any rounds. In short, these are not for my benefit, except as far as I get benefit from the fun of development.

If people really think that I am doing this so that I can win more, I'll happily leave the testing to others.

I do think leader players have taken a bit too much of a hit in these changes.. Especially because recent changes have already nerfed takedowns a considerable amount

Takedowns aren't really as changed as everyone seems to think, and really, the changes benefitted solo leader players. The only difference is that only players with a reasonable amount of leaders can suicide. The losses are the same as they always were, and open atk op costs leaders. It's actually slightly harder to take down leader players than before, so I don't really think this represents a nerf to leaders. You'll notice that leaders players solo have not really been taken down in ages - this is actually a problem I was hoping to remedy eventually.

and it just seems that players are more likely to win in a clan setting with indies pumping leaders full of troops-- is this our intention? I know solo leaderers were overpowered, sure, but I think we can make a healthy balance between the two without downgrading them to the point of scrapping the strategy as far as solo play goes.

While this is true, I don't see it as a balance issue per se. Clans have more turns than solo players, so clans win in the long run, it's as simple as that. There is no balanced scenario in which solo players beat clans. If your point is that the clanning netfest is as peaceful as the solo netfest, I agree. There really is very little incentive to actually use those troops except as a pile of networth, same as cash or food.

We need to find a way to promote the benefits of short to midterm conflict over long-term gain, somehow. Would you agree?

That being said, it should be possible for solo players to place well. And they can. Food storing hasn't been nerfed, unless larger sack is a nerf. Note that the most recent round of changes (to sack, a few months ago) actually weakened sack from what it was before since leader players can't sack other leader players.

As I understand the market changes are having positive effects on the game, though I think we should cap the max sell price at a reasonable amount, and allow for a withdraw option to those who wish to do so, after a week+ of being available for sale. This way people can at least get their networth back if their stuff doesn't sell.

While I would love to agree, the market should never have been a storehouse. The existence of the market as a storehouse makes many other proms boring - instead of clans aiding leaders to the top, it is solo players storing on the market til they all jump at the end, with no jostling for position in between. I would like to find a balance between the two, but it's not an easy problem.

If we cap sell prices at the highest reasonable for a rat (who has the highest of them all) then nobody will really buy unless mercs are all gone. If we cap them lower, then one race takes a disadvantage on the market. Of course, since rats don't really buy from mercs it might not be a huge issue, but I always hate going the inelegant route of treating different races differently like that - makes things harder to get on the first run through as a newbie.

As we all agreed earlier, mercs should still be available at a decent rate. Forcing martens to buy off indies is good to an extent, but they need a more convenient and immediate means of breaking indies, or leader players fed by indies-- this will allow a bit more landflow on a regular basis, and give the soloists a bit of a fighting chance at competing with clans. I agree that the market should be able to put 50 - 75% of troops on  as a cap, their is clearly more demand than available supply at the moment.

As said, we are going to up the merc amount and fill rate and the amount that can go on the market when we get some time to code it. Bear in mind though that if we did have a 75% market cap and allowed pulling, we are back at the market storing extreme.

I am all for alternative suggestions if you have them, but I don't want market storing. No prom I've ever been at has been happy about market storing. Net should be out in the open to fuel conflict, otherwise it's just a quiet, non-interactive hide-the-net-fest.

I think 50% of food is probably the most we should allow on the market at a time since it does not move as quickly, though sack should be capped after a certain rate.. If a marten can't spend their cash sufficiently on anything other than their nemesis, they should not also be fueling any indy that can get an attack off them; not at such high returns-- an indy can virtually sack a few targets to fuel their entire run. In ways this is basically countering unlimited aid credits to clans' fix, it allows for a bottomless pit for production.

I find this view strange. At the level of cash at which sack overcomes production potential, the marten has a few hundred billion dollars. Without too much trouble, you could spend about 2/3 of what would normally have been sacked off you on troops to defend the sacks, and continue production. I just don't have that much sympathy for a leader player who chooses not to buy defense then complains that people attack them ^_^.

Defense is difficult though, which is something that is also on the list - perhaps you would like to contribute to that discussion as well.

In closing, we probably make a far better team than enemies, let's leave the warring on the battlefield and we can discuss things solely for the sake of fixing the game. Sorry for being an imbecile, can we build a mutual respect for each other for the sake of fixing the game, at least?

We certainly can, but please, please take time to say this stuff before coding time goes in in the future.