Random Thoughts

[White Fang]

Some random thoughts that came out of an aim conversation with peace.


1) Certain buildings should be worth net, since they represent your basic infrastructure and/or ability to produce. (Really, everything but towers could fall under this category).

2) Cities ought to be hugely worthwhile, but also hugely expensive. Think about it: these warbands are highly unstable, so anything that would add that much stability (and therefore power) is going to be BIG.

3) Unused land should take a cut in the networth depo. After all, it looks good, but it's really not worth much.

4) The basic economy should be worth quite a bit.

[Alazar is Back]

i dont know about the rest of it, but the cities definetly makes sense!

[White Fang]

Oh, yeah, here's another thought: Higher net shouldn't lower your mission production, nor should a larger army.

[Peace Alliance]

i agree with that thought

[White Fang]

I know that I already said something along these lines, but--at the very least--cities should be reworked so that they don't lower your networth (which is what happens now) and that they don't cost more if you have more. (To build a city in Turbo right now, it's going to cost me several billion food and cash).

[Peace Alliance]

i agree with the NW thing... not sure about the cost thing...

maybe the cost could be just as high, but the more they cost the most powerful they are?

sounds hard to code though, but it would a good way to make cities worth while... and one of those things where over time you could build some really good cities that give you a long lasting benefit...

[Alazar is Back]

Oh, yeah, here's another thought: Higher net shouldn't lower your mission production, nor should a larger army.

That would be freaking sweet!!! :-P

[Peace Alliance]

i went to remove that... but couldn't find where it is.

i bet shael knows..

[Alazar is Back]

*drags shael here*

[The Lady Shael]

*is dragged* Hey...geez.

I looked through the code several times, and there's no obvious section of code that translates to, "If you have a large networth, lower mission production." More details? What missions does it affect?

[White Fang]

At 10,000 net and 100,000 net, "Loot" and "Feast" produce less. These same missions also produce less the more troops you have.

[eLeMeNtuL]

hmm, I'm not sure that this change was ever implemented, but it isn't imagination:  Assuming your code isn't far removed -- which I understand it isn't -- from the current FAF code (or nearly any other Promisance game, for that matter), it would be due to the 'cashandfood' function in spells.php and, ultimately, the 'calcSizeBonus' function it calls from funcs.php.

Hopefully this has already been done, assuming it correlates with the wishes of the playerbase.  If not, as I understand that our lives are busying, I figure that my post should expedite the process.

[taekwondokid42]

1. Where did you come from?
2. I don't mean that in a bad way, you probably just saved us a ton of time.
3. I'm pretty sure that there is a line of the code that says "the bigger your networth, the more loyalty stuff costs", obvoisly in different words. If that's what we're trying to remove, I would have to say that we should keep it where it is.

It makes it increasingly difficult to get very large, and like indy has a per land cap, It would put cap on food massing too (the difference, indy's cap is lower, but it takes less time to get too, where food massing is higher, but it takes all round to get to).


4. And to the different buildings should be worth more/less, I agree towers should be worth the least, but barrax and huts should also be worth less than other buildings. And camps should be down by towers. (or maybe a little higher)

5. On to the cities. I only think that the cash part of the expence should be lowered (and not even that much), because there are creative ways of getting around the expences. example: if you have a ton of food, put it on the market, this will lower the food cost intensively. If you are indying, build your city right after you sell your troops (this will also lower the cost of the $). Or send all of your rescources to a friend.
I do like the more bang for you buck idea though. It would give people a reason to spend their hard earned rescources on cities. Ideas here: what if food networth was more powerful than troop networth? why? because if you lose 20% of your army, or even 40% of your army, how hard is it going to be to get that back? 1 run? 2? But if in turbo right now, if I was to lose 20% of my food (160 mil net), It would take at least 5 runs to pick that much back up. And, if I hadn't built the city, I would be at 960 mil net, not back up to 800. I don't know what the exact percentage should be, but food should be worth more when building a city.

6. Next, the unused land get a 100 networth bonus... I don't think that that has any purpose whatsoever, because all of the top ranked players just build over it as soon as they get it.

7. Finally, my own idea. Food/50=networth, right? I think it should actually be food/100, or at the most food/125.

All top four players have at least 200 mil net of food each. and the 5th doesn't even have 200 mil net. Isn't this saying how powerful food strats are? I think food should be worth less.

[taekwondokid42]

Sorry for the double post, but this one deserved a post of its own.

Cities: the more you put into them the more you got back.
This here is really radical, and I think some of it should be kept, but some of this was just "what if."
All of these numbers are up for debate

There would be 1 solid base price, doing that would get you 500 camps and 1.5k tents

Now, for every 10 turns you put into a city, it would take 2 turns to attempt to take that city (this is one of those "what ifs")
example: if you decided to take 450 turns to build 1 city, every time someone attempted to take it from you, it would take away 90 turns.

For every $1 mil you put into a city (above the base price) the city would get an income of $50 per turn (therefore you would get your money back over a period of 10,000 turns). If you spent $15 bil, your city would not cost a penny of upkeep because it would make back the 750,000 per turn that it cost you.

for every 10 land you added to the cities base price you would get 8 tents extra, and 4 camps extra.

For every 1mil loyalty you spent (on top of the base price) you would get 100 huts added to your city.

For every 2mil food you spent (on top of the base price) you would get 1 camp and 1 tent added to your city.

For every 10% health you spent your enemy would lose 3% health more when they attacked you

For every 10 leaders you spent on the city it would take your enemy 2 more leaders to take your city (on top of the ratio already needed)

And finally, for every troop you spent (on top of the base price) you would get back 1/6th of their defence points permanently added to the city. These troops would not cost anything over time, but they would only become useful if your city got attacked

[eLeMeNtuL]

I see no one has replied to your postings, perhaps given that this topic is not a vogue of the current game.? Nevertheless, even given perceived insipidness of this thread, I'll capitulate my thoughts on a few of the points, in the hopes of provoking some interest:

1+2.
Well, I would have introduced myself, but I'm one of those borish types.? Hence, I typically avoid reminisces, as I prefer to keep my writing lucid and my audience wakeful, as well as to keep subjects in their rightful place.? I suppose that I'm just a man, with companions worthy of such chivalrous praise so that this nor any man could ask for better.? A worn warrior who has long since given into wise reason, the steady pendulum by which we measure passage as we plot our course amongst the stars.? On hurricane gales I have sailed through torrent and tempest, but now I have settled, with hopes of finding some resting place among the names writ on ancient stone, long mossed-over with slow neglect until ages hence.

Or, perhaps I simply frequent various Promisance-type games and boards to relish their full variety.? Maybe both.? ?:wink:

Irregardless, considering the current decadence of the Promisance genre/platform, I prefer to visit the development threads -- particularly those of games, such as this one, which already display innovation and myriad ideas.? I figure that these are the games in which the occasional idea develops reality.? Of course, current alterations take time to learn, and thus I don't consider myself particularly qualified to offer opinion on the game's more distinctive changes quite yet.


Regarding your first post:
3.?
The calcSizeBonus function would be precisely that which you're referencing:? during selectively incremental values of networth, it simply applies an increasingly large multiplier.? This is typically divided into subsequent functions, thereby becoming detrimental to larger values -- and thus larger nations/warlords.

This considered, I think that stagnating the growth of larger warlords -- indirectly, as is the current situation -- is an effective method of balancing gameplay and allowing for greater competitiveness.? Likewise, from my (inexperienced) perspective, I agree that it shouldn't be removed.? However, if its effects are currently greater than what would be preferable, alteration could and should be considered.

4.
Varying the worth of buildings, were they to become instilled with networth, has certain sense.? However, I would counter that the most logical value for the worth of buildings would be that equivalent to their cost; that is, their networth value should be equivalent to the networth value of the money spent on them.? Given the current structure, this would give all buildings equivalent networth.? Irregardless of this detail, however, I would concede that -- in this light -- buildings should have at least some networth, be it arbitrary or not.

6.
Agreed.? Logically, all land should have the same value, unused and used alike -- especially if buildings were given networth.