lolBots -- The random account take over explained

[Durza]

the complaints come from how the loss of land coupled with resources messes up the start of a run

[Sevz]

it's actually around 0.25%, but yea. Not sure why everyone complains about it. It's no stronger than it is on reg.

I hate it in reg
Rats upkeep and production is extremely effective plus their market is great for selling so they shouldn't be paid during attacks. It makes 2 on 1 fights impossible and when players are getting cheated by someone on nothing they leave. I guess it's fine for you cos you don't give a crap if you waste other peoples hard work.

[Firetooth]

Honestly, sack really is pretty weak. You're the only casher/farmer who ever seems to complain about it. TWO of the goals of 3.0 wERE encouraging people to make more effort to defend their land, and making a mre active market. Sacking is an incentive to either try to defend your land to prevent sackings or market your resources.

[Shadow]

Even if sack maxxes out on your every time, you can only lose 10% of your resources in 21 attacks. You can still mass resources in 3.0. I've done it a few times.

[Durza]

that implys that you have no clan

[Shadow]

~20 attacks is typical for land grabs anyway, even if you are clanned.

But even 50 attacks takes only about 25% of your resources, and someone has to be pretty pissed to spend all that time.

It's a risk/reward thing. Stockpiling can pay off big, if you hang onto it, but it can also backfire if you lose out near the end. Stockpiling should not be an auto-win strategy like it is on reg.

[Gen. Volkov]

You think this doesn't bother me Volkov? How hard is it for him to ask me about it? Not at all but this is directly putting things in Firetooths head. It's what he does.

While I'm sure it does bother you, you can't really say that you have been fair to Shadow either.

I made a post
The problem was addressed
I delete my post and get called unhelpful behind my back.

Well no, the problem was briefly made known, but it wasn't addressed until later.

See how he manipulates things? Does everyone? I'm a fair person. I spent most of this round playing peacefully trying to sort out my problem with this rodent and he still constantly attacked and stole my stuff.

You two have had an adversarial relationship for awhile now, and I sincerely doubt you made an honest effort to actually sort out your problems with Shadow.

As for that win of Shadows did you know that was when Snare was helping him? Lots of people flooding him with troops and it was so long ago that Peace Alliance was aggressive.

That was just the first one I stumbled across. I'm fairly certain there have been other, more recent wins as well. But that wasn't really the point, you said he had zero wins since you've been here, and that round proves that is a false statement.

[Sevz]

~20 attacks is typical for land grabs anyway, even if you are clanned.
But even 50 attacks takes only about 25% of your resources, and someone has to be pretty pissed to spend all that time.

Are you sure on these numbers?
After 5 days the plateau effect where your next 550turns go towards the enemy in less turns that it took you to make X amount. Are you all so stupid your gonna tell me what's what?
I laughed at this Firetoothfairy said: TWO of the goals of 3.0 wERE encouraging people to make more effort to defend their land, and making a mre active market.

But what happened when I defend the land? You all cried. When I was using the market? Shadow put up to a 50% tax on it.
Imagine there were 100 players, you run every 24 hours, after you run law of averages say the next person runs 15minutes later to drop sacks. 11 hours later hitlimit is cleaned for more sacks then once again right before the run.
Solo player can't compete against teamwork on the defensive field. Realistically 200k solo can be broken by 10k because the cheapest troops are twice as strong as they should be.
I guess there's no point arguing with morons. I won the last 2 rounds, best mate won a bunch before but we all don't know what we're talking about.

[windhound]

That's a little self-centered Sevz

The market tax was put in place to stop people using it to pass troops iirc.
We've consistently made it harder to lock all the land in the game up.  Defense is to be encouraged, crippling the server by hording all the land isn't.  There are indeed some contradictions in there, but it is what it is.

If you've done both of those, congrats. 
The game has indeed been changed because of you.  But you are hardly the first person to influence features.
We have a reactionary feature set that changes with the player base.  Its part of the reason RWL is about to turn 10 years old.  There's one or two promis left with a more static code base, feel free to play them instead.

Sack isn't overpowered. 
If you're losing too much to sacks then adjust your strat.  Keeping a decent stockpile is smart.  Trying to amass a towering stack of resources has its disadvantages, as it should imho.  Poison and Murder have always been a part of the game, 3% unshielded 1% shielded.  0.25% (max?) isn't all that much.

Cheers.

[Gen. Volkov]

If you're losing too much to sacks then adjust your strat.  Keeping a decent stockpile is smart.  Trying to amass a towering stack of resources has its disadvantages, as it should imho.  Poison and Murder have always been a part of the game, 3% unshielded 1% shielded.  0.25% (max?) isn't all that much.

Sevah's basic strat for a long time was just that windy, amass a towering stack of resources and then buy out everything for a high finish at the end of the set. Which is why he used to complain about sack, but then stopped when he changed his strat a bit at the release of 3.0. As for why he is complaining this set, that's because he was trying to do his old amass huge stockpile strat as a "passive" player. Only Shadow kept taking his stuff, because as we used to explain to Ollie, just because you are passive doesn't mean you aren't still competition. The irony, of course, is that he routinely ridiculed Ollie for playing passive and that he routinely did the same thing to Ollie that Shadow did to him this round. But now sack has affected him personally once again, so it's "overpowered".

[Sevz]

stfu volkov your a jealous spiteful fool. Are you dedicated to discrediting me? who's doing better in both servers? Me. Shut up and listen to someone smarter. I was giving away stuff and i've got respect for PA our argument is that he insults me on the forums from time to time then hides behind a passive mask. I was genuinely trying to reason with shadow and kept getting a bitter response. Whether I was directly effected by sacks is of little consequence. If I was and I won then state my claim why is that questionable? I'm stating the facts about the situation so stop trying to derail the energy all the time. If I came second and complained you'd be calling me a sore loser wouldn't ya?
I know what i'm talking about whether the details are lacking or abundant depends on the seriousness of the change required.

Yes Windy, I speak for myself so it is self centred. I'm sure other people have encountered situations and have similar opinions. Sack has major ripple effects and a million reasons not to exist, half of what it is would still be painful towards the end. 

[Shadow]

Sorry, sack is 0.5% average, 0.75% max, 0.25% min.

Average:
21 sacks - 10% taken
50 sacks - 22% taken

Note that when you sack, you also get significantly less land than you normally would, so you have to weigh the lost land against the gained resources.

Sack causes you to plateau, sure. That's the point - indy player are plateau'd by land, resource massers by sack. I'm sorry if that doesn't jive well with how you played. If you can suggest a better way to balance resource massing against indy playing, by all means make a suggestion.

[Sevz]

For some reason I've laid about 50 attacks in a row that have all hit below 40 acres.
Something is wrong taking land from specific people?

[Shadow]

average land yield is 3.5%

40 acres from someone with 1000-1500 land is 2.7%-4%

Perfectly normal.

Note that you were also sacking the whole time, and when you sack, you get only 80% of the normal land. Which means the expected average land yield for someone at 1000 land would be 28, but anything from 0 to 56 is perfectly normal (and all equally likely).

Stop accusing me of cheating every time you imagine that the game is out to get you.

[Gen. Volkov]

stfu volkov your a jealous spiteful fool.

See, this is why people tend to have adversarial relationships with you. You take everything as a personal affront and are confrontational and foul-mouthed. I'm neither jealous or spiteful Sevah. Certainly not a fool. Why you haven't been gagged for your words to me and members of the staff, I have no idea.

Are you dedicated to discrediting me? who's doing better in both servers? Me. Shut up and listen to someone smarter.

No, I'm not dedicated to discrediting you, I don't have to, you discredit yourself. I just point it out. Who's doing better in a server is not germane to the point I am making, and is hardly a valuation on who is smarter. I'll shut up and listen to you when you start making good points with good reasoning. As long as you keep whining and blustering about things in a self-centered, egotistical way, I'll keep talking.

I was giving away stuff and i've got respect for PA our argument is that he insults me on the forums from time to time then hides behind a passive mask.

You were giving away stuff? Must not have been too much if shadow was able sack "hundreds of billions" of cash off you. Also, I do believe you have said, on multiple occasions that you quote "Have no respect for PA".

I was genuinely trying to reason with shadow and kept getting a bitter response.

If you say so. Gonna say, I have my doubts about the validity of this statement.

Whether I was directly effected by sacks is of little consequence. If I was and I won then state my claim why is that questionable?

Why exactly do you think being aided to a win somehow means that you are free of questions about your statements?

I'm stating the facts about the situation so stop trying to derail the energy all the time. If I came second and complained you'd be calling me a sore loser wouldn't ya?

No, I'd be saying the same thing I am now. Where you place of of little consequence to the points I am making. Also, no, you aren't stating the facts, you are stating your opinion.

I know what i'm talking about whether the details are lacking or abundant depends on the seriousness of the change required.

There are more than a few people here who also know what they are talking about. However, the difference is, when those other folks give an opinion about the strength or weakness of part of the game, they give actual reasons and details. You are basically just saying "sack is too strong because I can't make a huge towering stack of resources and hold it completely safely anymore." Which completely misses the point, that sack is in the game to help combat exactly that strategy.