April Round Release Notes

[Peace Alliance]

I do believe Ollie switched the rate of a game for an entire server based on his own schedule.

I'll have you know that my turn usage was one of the highest in the games. I just happened to be the one who saw the correlation between rank and time-spent. This is a strategy game, success is supposed to be based on your intelligence, not your lifestyle.

[Wolf Snare]

 I spent less than 50% of turns last set and won. Perhaps there's a hole in your theory?

[Shadow]

You ha a team of more active players. Peace's theory applies well to solo play. However, this turn rate does not do what he intended with regards to his theory.

[Wolf Snare]

Wow Kyle, are you high? I thought your goal in 3.0 was to balance the game and stop pure leader strategies? I can't believe how pathetically desperate you are to stop us... Your newest innovation is the worst yet. In a matter of (failed) attacks you bring my health to 0%? What is wrong with your head?

[Shadow]

*stop pure leader productivity, eg, pure leader resource massing. Attacking, I never had any problem with except for open attack op and leader land attack.

I am nowhere near pure leaders though.

This is actually what you suggested. Last round, you said "I wouldn't be so quick to ditch the attack buffs, but the success should be based on ratio and not number" which is precisely what this is.

I intend to find out if the new setup is actually viable as an attack system.

Shields up!

[Wolf Snare]

The concept of this makes absolutely no sense. You're just screwing with things at random. Think about what you're doing.

I guess I'll just have to approach this a different way to win.

[Shadow]

Your attitude motivates me to pay attention to you. That's how that works, right?

Anyway, I agree the mechanism is not really ideal. The failed attack thing was just coded that way because it was much easier to piggy back off existing code. After this round I may have time to address things and make the system a little more consistent - this is proof of concept. If it works, I'll take the time to make it pretty.

For anyone wondering what all the whining is about: if you use a leader attack buff, but your troops fail, your leaders will still do half damage if they succeed. So if you can do leader mission, you can send a weak attack party with a leader backup to do damage. It is essentially the same as leader mission used to be except that it does less damage and takes more turns and health.

[Wolf Snare]

The ideas that fueled 3.0 were intriguing when you released the game. The fact that troops were converted from workers made a lot of sense and workers playing an important role in economy made it seem a lot more realistic to an empire. Isn't that what you were aiming for whilst balancing the game? So where the hell does this new tactic come into play? Are you sure you aren't just pulling your hair out thinking of ways to stop Sevah? I'm sure he's flattered, but at least be logical when implementing new tactics.

[Shadow]

I'm quite positive that I am not just worrying about Sevah. The idea of going to this much effort to nerf a single player when there is a ban button available is silly. This is what I originally intended as the first iteration of the attack system, but things got complicated along the way as other balances became more important.

Forget the failed attack component - that is irrelevent and cosmetic. Think of it as a half powered leader mission which costs 4 health to do. The concept is quite simple - to do full leader damage, you need to break with troops. But if troops fail, you can still do some damage.

What's wrong with that?

[Wolf Snare]

forget the failed attack component? you are the epitome of cowardice. keep creating spineless tactics, it's suiting. For the record, this round will be my 5th consecutive win, and yes I will bump this topic on the 28th.

[Shadow]

The failed attack does nothing... no troop damage, no health damage, no land damage. It is just a carrier for the leader mission. If you removed it from your news feed, you would not notice the difference. The only thing it does is clutter up your news feed, and for that I apologize, but it was easier that way.

It is not the failed attack that does the damage, Snare, it is the leader mission. The failed attack only shows up because I couldn't be bothered removing it from the news before knowing I would be keeping the mechanism. When I say forget the failed attack I am not asking a favor, I am telling you that it is literally and completely irrelevent to anything, so there is no point paying attention to it. It is just noise in your news feed.

I don't know or care what your problem is, but I would like you to actually understand what you are talking about.

Now: I agree that it is not ideal, since it is not a very intuitive system. I am thinking about that aspect of things. In the meantime, keep your pants on. Re: the takedown I just did on you. Yes, your account is pretty messed up. But it took my whole run and made me completely unproductive. I don't think that is an unbalanced trade.

[Peace Alliance]

Snare, please step back for a second and actually try to understand what Shadow is explaining. He broke you with a leader attack. The news calls it a "failed" attack because it is coupled with a troop attack. So it was a partial success: but it is irrelevant what you call it, because it is the actual game dynamics you should be discussing.

The reason you're not discussing the actual game dynamics is because you are just here to complain about getting whooped on turbo. You don't have a point to make other then how outraged you are that somebody took advantage of the fact that your shields were down and your ratio's awful.

This is the part in the debate when you have to stop and be humble. We have a whole month with these changes, so you've got plenty of time to consider this game change and help us create the most awesomest solution. We want input, not conflict.

[windhound]

Outlaw it? You seem to spend enough time watching the happenings of turbo to know when it happens. It's not been used since the first round of 3.0, simply outlaw it and people will listen in fear of being disabled. Much the same as how Wolf Bite outlawed 1 rat attack-- or don't you feel you have that kind of authority over the people?

This is pretty aweful, and you should feel bad for saying it.
Coding out holes in the game is the best way to do things. 
Relying an the admins to patrol is a) time consuming for the admins in question b) unreliable c) only invites conflict
There is no conflict or "I didn't know any better!" excuses with a coded in rule.

Personally, I think we should add in a "blue shell" nuke that'll randomly wipe out the guy in first and harm the next two or three down.  A plague or something.  Especially if they pull far away from the rest of the game net wise.
I think its fine if the market affects those with a higher rank and more net tbh.
Making the game harder for those who do best is part of balancing.

[Wolf Snare]

Ollie- I completely understand the concept, I just don't understand why the changes have been made in this order. The fact that failed attacks don't affect hitlimit is silly because now we essentially have unlimited open attack ops-- taking someone out is easier than ever. This totally supports stacking 100% huts to take any enemy down with ease, and it's going against everything that 3.0 set out to fix.

windy- this completely hurts a reseller strat, to the point where it's not even worthwhile to try to compete with the strategy. Isn't that what we're doing here...competing? It seems like every time Sevz and I find a new way to get ahead, you guys nurf it. The game should be called RWL: HPR. This is getting ridiculous, you're babyproofing the entire game.

Also, Ollie, you're pretty blind if you think I got "whooped" or anything close to it. The damage done was hardly worth mentioning... but I find the whole idea of having unlimited leader attacks against someone pretty ridiculous. Think about it, it's the stupidest innovation to date.

[Shadow]

There were unlimited leader attacks last round and it worked quite nicely. Now they do even less damage. Why complain now and not then?