WoA Reset

[Arthus]

Uh, I believe the bank spilling out came after the huge market penalties. So instead of hoarding massive armies, people put them cheap and stocked up their banks. I say this because that is what I did so it had to exist.

And yeah, hoarding resources is a bad idea, so lets have one guy hoard his resources by landlocking all the land. I do that set after set because I feel like a big finish and its the only way. I was doing it this set until I decided to let it go and did it for 2 months prior.

So yeah... the status quo is not working unless you want landlock after landlock.

[Shadow I]

It basically comes down to a choice between people hording resources and people hording land. I would prefer the former, because then you can steal it. BUT, we should make it so that a full round of sacks takes only maybe 30% of your resources instead of all of it, so that there is not incentive to spend it all. Another good way to do things is to make resource stealing attacks also take land

ei:
attack for land takes 100% of the usual land
attack for cash takes 50% of the usual land and 1% of their cash
attack for food takes 50% of the usual land and 1% of their food

[Krueler]

More like, are they related to us.

And the answer is yes. The credits on the bottom give it away.

Frost And Flame - by Beatles, Veranor, Devari, Nevadacow
Full Credits · License · Source

Oh cool, well does anyone here play that game?

[Devari]

My input:

1. I have no issue with the hit limit idea. I'd like to see that discussed more.
2. I'm not sure what the current sack amounts are like, but I know that reduction of the gain was proposed. Furthermore, there's a proposal around for shields to reduce the amount that is sacked. I don't like the idea of removing sack, because I do think that it's an important part of what differentiates FAF from other games. I do, however, think that it should be weakened/shielded - no argument there.
3. I don't really see the problem with bank spilling, to be honest. On original promi code, that money from market sales goes straight to your account; our method of shunting it off to the bank was actually to kill the whole "buy it up, steal it back" strategy. The intent was never for the cash in the bank to go OVER the limit - otherwise, what's the point of having a limit?
4. Towers are worth 600 DP. I'm willing to lower that (at least temporarily) if that's what's desired. It's a bit high, given our relatively equal OP/DP values. 300-400 might be more appropriate.

Freen, the introduction of Triremes really made no difference - they're basically the old Otters * 100, with 1/100th the production rate. There's not much in the way of a net difference.
5. I don't mind seeing Heroes back in the game, they were a pretty neat little perk, especially in a long-term game like WoA. They could, perhaps, use a bit of adjustment. Anyone got suggestions with respect to that?

Mm... Looking at the old thread, the following changes should have been implemented:
1. Sacking will be considerably less powerful. Without any kind of additional modifiers (due to heroes (or racial abilities, if those are added)), sack will now only take 2-3% of the opponent's resources on hand.
2. Sacking will be, like offensive hawk missions, affected by shielding. However, shields will only reduce the loss by 1/3rd, instead of 2/3rds like for hawk missions.

[Devari]

Actually, when I think about it, I might have already implemented those two suggestions... On a test server.

Basically, I could implement reduced+shielded sacking at any moment...

[Slasher]

3. People were NOT marketing troops before the bank change so they could sell guys. We marketed troops so we could have huge ass armies at our beck and call for no upkeep. With the troop pull rate being so high, that fixed that problem.

They were actually, once the pull penalties were introduced. Like Arty said

Uh, I believe the bank spilling out came after the huge market penalties. So instead of hoarding massive armies, people put them cheap and stocked up their banks. I say this because that is what I did so it had to exist.

[Freenhult]

Freen, you always shoot down ideas without contributing any of your own. Your status quo does not work, look where the game is now. Try some of the suggetions, it certainly couldnt make things worse. The fact, whether you see it nor not, is that poor landflow has ruinined the game activity. Now we are suggesting reasonable ways to do this.

Getting rid of sack allows people to hold more food and cash. This is a GOOD thing. It means there is land flow happening. Making troops more offense oritented is a no brainer, and all it takes is changing a few numbers in the code, it doesn't even mean writing new code. This is an easy fix that can be done within the next 5 minutes by someoe with access to the code.

I propose that you just do it. If it doesnt work, you can alwyas go back to the code now. It;s not lik you re gong to lose activity over a bad change, because you have no activity to lose. Just do it. Barring that, come up with your own suggestion instead of trashing the ideas of other people, because I have made plenty of good suggestions in the past that you shot down, and look where you ended up.

Blah blah blah. I suck. I get it. If I'm shooting them down, its because there is a flaw. Since when did someone who had an objection have to provide a counter solution?

And I suggested that your reasonable ideas have flaws. Maybe instead of criticizing me, you should look to what I said and to fix your idea. They're not mine, so why should I fix them. I already suggested about 10,000 things and have done so much for this game. I'm still waiting for the stuff I GOT approved to implement to be implemented. You guys should search for topics because low and behold. I'm sure this is all been suggested and analyzed before. Its not like I'm pulling out of my ass.

Getting rid of sack is a horrible idea. Land flow should be representative of the economy. People making considerable funds with large amounts of land, should NOT be coughing up land. That just makes sense.

Also, changing attack numbers is not just a quick fix. There is a lot of things that need to be altered instead, and in a lot of places. Its not like the numbers are just referenced in some random array. At least I don't think they are. Even if so, I don't think they're just numbers.

And sure, We made changes and lost Slasher for a good while. Simple changes like this are enough to alienate people that are playing. Fact is, only YOU and Arthus are suggesting things. I'm not against change. I want to see good well thought out analysis of ideas with a full thought out pros and cons. So far, I haven't seen that.
And uh. This isn't about me dummy. It never was. You just keep making it about me.

[Freenhult]

My input:

1. I have no issue with the hit limit idea. I'd like to see that discussed more.
2. I'm not sure what the current sack amounts are like, but I know that reduction of the gain was proposed. Furthermore, there's a proposal around for shields to reduce the amount that is sacked. I don't like the idea of removing sack, because I do think that it's an important part of what differentiates FAF from other games. I do, however, think that it should be weakened/shielded - no argument there.
3. I don't really see the problem with bank spilling, to be honest. On original promi code, that money from market sales goes straight to your account; our method of shunting it off to the bank was actually to kill the whole "buy it up, steal it back" strategy. The intent was never for the cash in the bank to go OVER the limit - otherwise, what's the point of having a limit?
4. Towers are worth 600 DP. I'm willing to lower that (at least temporarily) if that's what's desired. It's a bit high, given our relatively equal OP/DP values. 300-400 might be more appropriate.

Freen, the introduction of Triremes really made no difference - they're basically the old Otters * 100, with 1/100th the production rate. There's not much in the way of a net difference.
5. I don't mind seeing Heroes back in the game, they were a pretty neat little perk, especially in a long-term game like WoA. They could, perhaps, use a bit of adjustment. Anyone got suggestions with respect to that?

Mm... Looking at the old thread, the following changes should have been implemented:
1. Sacking will be considerably less powerful. Without any kind of additional modifiers (due to heroes (or racial abilities, if those are added)), sack will now only take 2-3% of the opponent's resources on hand.
2. Sacking will be, like offensive hawk missions, affected by shielding. However, shields will only reduce the loss by 1/3rd, instead of 2/3rds like for hawk missions.

Like I said, I didn't realize there was another page in one day. We've already discussed this. Over and over again. The topics are just rotting in Suggestions and Bugs. People made suggestions, and I offered my opinion. Why everything thinks I'm God, Judge, and Executioner is beyond me.

About the Triremes. Honestly, I think they're buggering up something. Even though we kept the proportions the same, when we upped the price for Otters, we made every other troop type easier to buy. Why buy one boat, when you can buy 300 mice. Sure, its the same essentially. But it doesn't. Fewer people, compared to say FWF, Myself and others used to Stack in Otters quite often. Generating them early game is very hard and often unprofitable. As it is easier to quickly stack mice and squirrels for an early game wall as Zeph mentioned. That was always in the code, even before this change, its not we've essentially reduced out effective army from 5 to 4 units. (Spies included).

So walling is that much easier. We might as well do better to introduce another unit into the game. Something with an offensive bite, that completely suffers from lack of defense. Since archers are cheap anyway, they could defend like usual. Also, I would suggest getting rid of just single troop attacks. Why should only my hares fight hares. Thats stupid. I think we need to get into just a standard attack system, where you send what you want and it fights everything. Specialized attacks are a neat thing, but everyone has them. Lets get real armies and lets make them engage. Otherwise, whats the point of even having guys.

You break a guy land locking with one troop type. Next run, he takes the rest of his army, recovers the land, and fills the hole. Instead now, everyone's using whatever they want.


*Shrug* Just look at the current junk first. There are so many things in there, before we go off on random ideas first. There is plenty of overlap.

[Kutolah]

Was there a huge difference between FAF and ME? Because ME's playerbase had like 30 times more than FAF's.

[Krueler]

What the hell is ME?

[Slasher]

What the hell is ME?

medievalempires.org, most of the changes made in ME's code were implemented here too.

I agree with Freen on the "Don't get rid of sacking" thingy, for all of the reasons Freen stated, so I'm not even going to bother writing up why I agree lol...

[Shadow I]

Since when did someone who had an objection have to provide a counter solution?

When you can count the active players on both hands and you want to change that before you can count them on one?

Getting rid of sack is a horrible idea. Land flow should be representative of the economy. People making considerable funds with large amounts of land, should NOT be coughing up land. That just makes sense.

I am actually suggesting that we reduce sack so that massing resources isn't completely blocked off as an option. You perhaps missed my second post?

attack for land takes 100% of the usual land
attack for cash takes 50% of the usual land and 1% of their cash
attack for food takes 50% of the usual land and 1% of their food

It works well at other proms...

Lowering the defensive value of towers is necessary - I have used basically nothing but mice and towers to lock down the game before. And even when they can break, towers make the losses so ridiculously high that it doesn't last long. If yo uwant to stop walling, you need to do this.

Changing the troop attack and defense values. Fine, maybe it's not as easy as all that. But it certainly isn't hard, and if they aren't reference in an array somewhere, someone made a really big mess of hard-coded numbers that is going to be a huge pain in the ass and should be fixed anyway, for the sanity of future coders.

Making only standard attacks work would make walling easier - why do you think kills are so much harder during the last 500 land? Now that is an awful idea.

[Freenhult]

Was there a huge difference between FAF and ME? Because ME's playerbase had like 30 times more than FAF's.

Shadow:

Sacking takes very few resources. Or it should. Only 2-3% of the total. If it is not, then that is a bug and needs to be fixed. 2-3% is not a lot. Also, why would sacking take land...

Walling is defensive strategy. I don't see anything wrong with it at all really. Its just come to a point on this game that only a few people play that have come to understand how the game actually works and know its ins and outs. Hence doing anything is easy. Lowering the defense of towers, I guess. But I don't think that's all we need.

As for the values, I'll look around.

Attacking wise:
The reason it is so hard to kill is because you leave them with $200 mil net on 500 acres. If you were smashing their army from the git go you wouldn't have a problem. Plus considering the added difficulty from attacking now, you wouldn't be grabbing as much land, except from defensively weak players. The average army could now defense exceptionally well and the game would become more of an arms race. Which I think is what we all want.

ME used FaF's code from quite a while ago. Turock modified it to a different theme and added quite a few features. He did well in advertising. People like seeing millions of troops. That was its charm.

[Shadow I]

3% is a lot. Over 31 attacks, 3% becomes over 60%. If we reduce the possibility of taking that much, people will be less inclined to keep defenses and land will flow bettter. Making sack takes land improves land flow overall, because you aren't faced witha choice between land and resources.

[Krueler]

OMG........something just went wrong on here:

http://www.promisanse.com/?main&auth=Nj ... diCjAKMTE=

Every account except 5 just got randomly destroyed!!! Does anyone know what the HELL happened? I was doing really good there!