Land Catching proposal

Post by **The Beatles** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:51 am

Land farms (and all forms of land-retention) are generally supported by the FAF community. However, they've never yet been implemented.

Please view this topic for a twist on the idea, then vote.
http://frostnflame.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=2089&st=45&#entry53083

If it receives a reasonable amount of interest and is carried by a reasonable majority, I promise to implement it.

~Beatles

Post by **windhound** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:19 am

Aye.
possibly on a weighted scale that gives more to lower ranked players and less to higher
what that weight should be is debatable

Turock · Post by **Turock** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:37 am

I agree with Windhound. Redistribution based on a weighted scale would be ideal.

Post by **The Beatles** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:38 pm

What scale though?

* Linear inverse
* Exponential inverse
* Only to warbands with below-average land, exponential inverse
* ... etc.?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:15 pm

bobby head meat monkey

i vote no.

Post by **windhound** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:15 pm

none of the above?

as nev suggusted in the other thread, link it to scouting. prehaps not in the way intended though
thoes that can get 60 odd acers per scouting would get more land than somone who can get 5 acers.
Hell, just directly link it in that manner. if you can get 60 acers scouting, you would get a proportional 60 acers from the land dropped. same with the 5.
add up the total amount of land that can be scouted for in one turn by each player, then divide out for the appropriate percent
lets say we have four players, each can get the following acrage per turn: 55, 30, 12, 5... so a total of 102 acers.
if 1234 acers were dropped, 55 would recieve 665 acers, 30 - 363, 12 - 145, 5 - 60 for a total of 1233 acers divided.. rounding errors.. I'm not sure how the game already handles them

just an idea, and I'm not sure how easy it would be to ask the game to calculate the total number of acers that can be scouted for..

edit: this would exclude the warband who dropped the original 1234 acers, and would also exclude thoes in protection and vacation

Post by **Ruddertail** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:29 pm

I vote "Aye". However, I'd also like to see an option to skip out of gaining land from this. Your portion would just be redistributed.

The reason for this is if I have a perfect mage ratio and am emping, then someone dumbs a bunch of land on me, and somebody murders me because they got on and fixed their ratio first, I'm not going to be happy. So, it can be anoying for anyone using hawks.

Don't see any other reason why people'd opt out of land, but it's nice to have the option.

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:51 pm

agreed with the above

Post by **The Beatles** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:14 pm

Very sound idea. I'll make that an option on the 'build' page: a checkbox saying: Opt out of receiving land when warbands drop land.

I still disagree with scouting, for the reasons detailed in the other thread. If someone drops land, then the land is not immediately recycled but has to be reclaimed with scouting, a proactive measure.

Still, what scale should it be redistributed by?

Post by **windhound** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:48 pm

did you not read my proposal on distrobution beatles? that /is/ immediate
and distributes land the way the game already thinks is fair, by the same forumula that scouting gives it out...

Post by **The Beatles** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:50 pm

Ohh! I didn't understand you. Thanks, that seems fair. That's basically an inverse linear distribution.

OK. I'm basically hoping to get 10 favorable votes on the topic, but I can implement it even with the current number of votes. I'll give it a day or two more.

Post by **windhound** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:50 am

my fault then
I'm not great at describing stuffs

catching dropped land is a nessisity, esp. the way the game is now.. low player count and all.. if somone goes on a dropping spree they can (and have) killed the game... hard to rebuild when there isnt land

wots the reason against Kraken?

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:49 pm

I vote nay, because if the land is redistributed, and you aren't on right then, you get no use out of it, it's just empty land, so by the time you log on, it's probably already gone, and it would help out anyone trying to concentrate land in one large chunk. I'd rather have a land farm.

Post by **windhound** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:01 pm

I donno about you, but just about everytime I got to the landfarm in rwl turbo it was maxxed

'got lucky once and caught it with 24k acers.. so I maxxed it :*laughs*:

if you dont let a landfarm be maxxed somone will inedverdantly kill it

landredistrobution gives just a little bit to everyone, and keeps the land from leaving the game
true, its probably not enough to make a difference
in a 10 player game, if 1000 acers is dropped each player would get roughly 100 odd acers, not counting the guy who dropped it to begin with, not counting the hawkers who opted out, and not accounting for scaling
you cant do much with 100 acers, but if over the course of a bad week 10k acers might be dropped, thats roughly 1k acers. a fairly substancial amount.

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:06 pm

Well, let it be maxxed at a certain land amount instead of a certain number of attacks. Like 500 acres.

Frost And Flame Forums

Land Catching proposal

Members connected in real time