Comments on The State of the Game + Player Affairs

[Squiggles]

It's very hard to stop land passing through code modifications, and doing so would mess up the game in itself. You just need some players who are tired of land passers and are willing to do something about it, i.e. wall.

Hardly, as it is now, reducing the landgrab amount wouldn't hurt the game at all. Since FaF has a decent defensive structure, that should help people build an adequate defense to break people for land. Also, this would hopefully reduce the amount of landlocks in the game.

But, if you reduce land taken, that's even more incentive to just play with no defenses, knowing you won't lose but a bit of it. I think it's intentional that you can lose 80% ish of your land in 20 hits, giving you a good reason to wall when you can.

[Freenhult]

Or as I've said to you before. People don't defend because its a bit too hard. Being able to put up a good troop wall takes time. Not losing lots of land right after a good grab run, lets you do that.

[Shadow I]

Perhaps some kind of incentive to keeping defense, like army desertions if you get broken too much or too consistently? Or perhaps make a certain percentage of the rest of your army desert if you are broken with a troop that you have 0 of? That would also make for some interesting takedown possibilities.

[Squiggles]

I say again, this isn't a problem with the game but its players. Go look at other Promisance games, such as QMT or ZA. Now our game settings are a bit different but much of the same walling logic still holds. Except here if you wall, you get lynch mobbed.

[Shadow I]

I say again, this isn't a problem with the game but its players. Go look at other Promisance games, such as QMT or ZA. Now our game settings are a bit different but much of the same walling logic still holds. Except here if you wall, you get lynch mobbed.

Hardly.

People complain about it, but the only reason wallers get hit harder here is because they are rare. If there was incentive for everyone to do it, it becomes less of a problem, since it is all relative anyway.

[Squiggles]

There /is/ incentive. You keep all your land and don't need to worry about getting it back. But there's also disincentive that if you wall you get mobbed.

[Shadow I]

There /is/ incentive. You keep all your land and don't need to worry about getting it back. But there's also disincentive that if you wall you get mobbed.

There very obviously isn't /enough/ incentive. And personally, I find walling and being mobbed a lot funner than just playing a netting game, especially on WoA. You can't affect the mobbing aspect of it, that is player preference and no amount of coding can change the way people make decisions, but you can make it more appealing to keep a defense.

Another possibility would be to make land gain proportional to the advantage the attacker has over the defender when breaking. Ex. if the attacker has only a 5% advantage Op to Dp, they only get 5% of the land gain, if they have 100% advantage they get full land. Maybe cap it off at 50% at the low end and 150% at the top end for balance purposes, but it would make keeping an army have an advantage even when it is not unbreakable, and means that if you don't have at least some army, you are going to get hit a lot harder.

This is all assuming that defense is something that players want to promote. I like defending, but I am certainly not going to complain about it if some fool decides to leave me a wide open hole to make my run that much easier.

[Freenhult]

Thats too abuseable Shadow. Two people working together can just pass land around with troops holes essentially. And just fill in the gap when they're done.

[Squiggles]

Thats too abuseable Shadow. Two people working together can just pass land around with troops holes essentially. And just fill in the gap when they're done.

...as opposed to what the game has been doing up until now...

[Shadow I]

Thats too abuseable Shadow. Two people working together can just pass land around with troops holes essentially. And just fill in the gap when they're done.

...as opposed to what the game has been doing up until now...

No, Freen is right actually. It would make intentional land passing much easier since you would get 50% more than usual. Didn't think it all the way through.

[Freenhult]

Right, the difference is Sqig that when you have the capacity to trade more land with less turns, you increase production greatly. You know this. Lowering land grab amounts should have the opposite effect. Causing the need for defense and such. The code has room for people that want to shield. It just needs a bit of a boost.

[Squiggles]

Lowering land grabs will also stagnate the game to an extent though. Once people realize the most they can lose in 21 attacks is like 50%, they'll just leave themselves defenseless again. Except now they can come back to half their land, and only work on taking back the other half if at all.

Land passing exists now because people let it. Sure you can take most of someone's land if you go unopposed. But considering health limitations etc, I think there's plenty of ability in already to stop that.

I think the risk should be that someone can take most of your land if you don't defend. Not only that, but then they can start defending, and you can't get it back. Too bad nobody's been doing that second part.

[Shadow I]

...They do do that. I do it all the time... I think you should play a few rounds before throwing judgements around, or wait `til I become active again on WoA.

[Arthus]

Seems to be hitting BFR... Murder seems to be holding land decently well. The Freen empire does well until getting broken by magers.

[Meestir amayzing]

you dont have land Arty...