What is this I don't even

[cloud]

Well sacks do hurt solo leader players, but not nearly as much as clanned leader players where the mechanic is completely overpowered. It's still possible for me to make more than I'm sacked, even though I lose close to 10b cash and 300mill food each day.

Maybe instead of using the market as a storage facility there should be a mechanic to send part of your force on "Leave" or something to that matter. They can only be gone for either so many hours or so many turns and after that they're forced to return, or you can call them back early. Maybe 15-20% of max army. This would leave the market for selling and not allow massive troop hording for days, but would still allow players to run without having to rely on aiding armies back and forth as much.

I think that changing sacks to the defender's ratio would make more sense. That would still allow indies to sack the crap out of leader players, and it wouldn't make sacking completely useless for leaders, but would still protect indies from mass sacks.

[Firetooth]

Just a suggestion to solo leaders who find sacks really damaging.

Earn loyalty for the first 2/3 of the round then just spend the rest of the round producing so there is a smaller window for net to be sacked. I'm pretty sure that's how leaders/mages/whatever ran their strats at places like valhall anyway.

[Shadow]

Maybe instead of using the market as a storage facility there should be a mechanic to send part of your force on "Leave" or something to that matter. They can only be gone for either so many hours or so many turns and after that they're forced to return, or you can call them back early. Maybe 15-20% of max army. This would leave the market for selling and not allow massive troop hording for days, but would still allow players to run without having to rely on aiding armies back and forth as much.

I think that changing sacks to the defender's ratio would make more sense. That would still allow indies to sack the crap out of leader players, and it wouldn't make sacking completely useless for leaders, but would still protect indies from mass sacks.

I like these suggestions. There are a few other things in the pipeline before we can really explore the leave option, but I will keep that in mind. It would certainly go a long way toward making defenses viable. I really have nothing against short term storage for position gain, my problem is with boring long term storage. The market can't be made to distinguish between them, so if we do use something like this, it would have to be separate from the market.

What do other people think?

By the way cloud, merc amounts are based on land and camp, not net.

[Sevah]

Shadow your absolutely annoying the poo out of me. You act so smart seem so dumb.

Do you realise you said to Snare that solo players shouldn't keep up with inactive aid holders? You reward laziness and dependence then sit on your high horse asking for reasons before implementing quality changes.

Accept the facts that you don't understand the game well enough for us to waste our time explaining something that goes over your head. You know that it's pretty much cheating the game to load someone on ratio and have them sit there days in a row not able to move. If I adopt the same strategy a team would completely take over the game and you'd soon shut your mouth to start changing things.

[Durza]

Another view on the observations made about the market.

People seem to be wishing to be able to pull troops supplies off of the market.  I personally see this as not a problem.  My reasoning is you raise the amount of troops/food you lose to the market.  The storehouse probably is something to remove or in any case reduce the effectiveness of this, how, by raising the losses of it.  The anonymous market could be interesting, and change the way the market is used.

If that is not possible the leave function too could be interesting.  Regardless I am just throwing my two-sense into the mixture

[Shadow]

Sevs, I put up with a lot of pointless invective from you, and there really is no reason for it. Your post is not worth responding to, but consider this a formal warning. Post civilly or not at all. You were doing so well for a few pages there.

Shadow
Modding

@Durza: thanks for the feedback. I am not sure I understand what you mean by this, though:

My reasoning is you raise the amount of troops/food you lose to the market.

Could you elaborate? Thanks! :)

[Sevah]

The ultimate strategy is to get a bunch of leaders and lose land, don't run turns for a week while clanned indies from below send troops. It's unfair and unskilled. The competition isn't equal, why not let soloists play amongst teams?

[Shadow]

It's not that the solo player can't keep up with the person holding net, it is that the solo player cannot keep up with multiple people feeding someone net. And why should they? Why should one person be able to keep up with many? In fact, that is mathematically impossible - assuming perfect execution, many players always beats lone ones. This is literally the equation 1+1=2.

Two suggestions were just made in this thread with regards to the issue of upkeep free clan indy. Instead of whining about it, feel free to respond to those suggestions with feedback.

If someone doesn't run for a week, then kill off their leaders and take them out. I did it to Briar, it took me two runs to take her down from ~11m leaders on 20k land to someone murderable. Course, you would have to clan up, but that's the price you pay. You can have the offensive power of the clan or the defensive power of solo, but not both.

I won't be asking you again. More posts that are just complaints without feedback and suggestions without rationale are just going to be ignored. I cannot be bothered dealing with this nonsense anymore.

[Sevah]

Listen to yourself. I notice you decide to change things when it's getting used against you.
When your making changes think about something. What would Sevz do?

If i'm not solo i'm teamed up with the finest. If I abuse your stupidity it's your own fault.

BTW Windy, your a champ and i never mean any disrespect.

PS, standard attacks from 100 acres is far more suitable.

[Sharptooh]

I like these suggestions. There are a few other things in the pipeline before we can really explore the leave option, but I will keep that in mind. It would certainly go a long way toward making defenses viable. I really have nothing against short term storage for position gain, my problem is with boring long term storage. The market can't be made to distinguish between them, so if we do use something like this, it would have to be separate from the market.

What do other people think?

Sounds like a pretty decent idea to me :) it could always be tested for a round then changed / removed if it didn't work as intended.

With regards an anonymous market, I wouldn't particularly like this; I want to be able to see who I can buy from so I'm not particularly aiding my enemies in the round, changing it to an anonymous market wouldn't really help in that I'd be even more disinclined to buy because I would have no idea who the money would be going to.

Besides which the market currently has variations in the selling price due to the fact that some people are bound to want to buy for the higher price because they are in some form of alliance with the person selling at the higher price; if you change it so that the market is anonymous it would turn into a competition to see who can sell the troops for the cheapest with everyone scrambling to offer lower sell prices than the current lowest; and I don't think that would end well.

[Shadow]

Anonymous markets are almost always  more active ones, though. What would you think of a market where players could pay a nominal fee (5-10% of the value of the sale) to e anonymous, but are visible by default?

[Sharptooh]

Paying a fee to be anonymous seems like a good idea actually, hadn't thought of that!

[Durza]

What I ment was people want to be able to pull their troops off the market, but that would create a storehouse effect which is what we are trying to avoid.  My idea is that you allow it, but at a larger cost than what is currently being run in reg.  This would allow people to be more apt to use the market in what seems to be the "traditional way".  However should they choose to use it in this manner, well then the should pay a larger price(40 - 50%, open to debate).  This I believe would deter people from using it entirely as a storehouse because of the large loss.

Just an idea and a thought, nothing more nothing less.

[Shadow]

Oh ok I understand. And you would think that that would be true, but I have played at proms where the pull rate is 50% or more, and the market was still a storehouse ^_^. Reason being that even 50% hidden net is better than none, so people opted to hide the net despite the pull rate. In fact, it wasn't until I saw FaF have a 90% pull penalty that storing stopped there, but at that point, you might as well just not allow pulling and be done with it.

Incidentally, the FaF market is quite active without the pull - some of the features like the bank leak rate were modeled after stuff they did. And for all those who complain about sack being too powerful, I suggest you go play a round over there ;)

[Alazar is Back]

When you break everythin down, even after you fix the mercs up some. If a leader player runs and makes lots of cash, and then buys defense to defend it from sacks, it will still most likely not be enough to stop any good indy from breaking and sacking them. So the leader player makes little progress playing defensive. On the opposite side, unless you give the indys some way to store, they are really capped as to how much NW they can peak at.

I think the bank needs to be increased, and I would love to see RWL switch over to an anonymous market, and raise the amount of storage space on the market. To maybe like 33%? You should also be able to pull your goods from the market, with something like a 20-30% penalty. This will help the solo players, and the new farmer and casher races be a little bit more competitive.

As far as the market storing percentage, this could be severly lowered for clanned players. Forcing them to work together even more, and making more of their NW out in the open, seeing as they have the clear advantage.

I also think there needs to be more tweaking with the races, magpie should be at least twice as powerful as it currently is. I experimented with the race a little, and while the output was good, I could still make pretty close to the same amount of cash with a leaderer, and still have the leader protection. I was thinking something like a spell that a casher could have, to have maybe twice the bank size, compared to normal?

Just a few ideas to consider...