Attack limit

[Urran Voh]

Nope..not in spam...I know I typed in the e-mail address right. Maybe it's GMail?

EDIT: Weird..got it for one account..but not the other.

[Gen. Volkov]

The only real issue I see is that many strats work on semi-precise turn usage, so many turns attacking, so many building, and the rest making cash or troops. If you decrease the amount of land per attack, you would increase the number of attacks to get the same amount of land, thus messing up the strat.

Also, if people attacked the same but got less, it would inhibit land flow in the game, and if someone wanted to be really evil, they could spend a run to lock up the land, and it would be much harder to get all that land back without the other players screwing themselves over in the process.

[maddog]

pretty much the same as people did over on ME either using clans or an ally we all know the effort put in to take down the borg and what was used to break the top players in MM

and that was with normal land usage and attacks so i think gen v might have a point there

[The Beatles]

To both objections: it cuts both ways. That should address both.

[Ruddertail]

Volkov - this would work with the other suggestions, I think, to create a climate where people didn't land grab regularly. There would be no way a person could lock land in one or two runs. Further, there would not be a hit limit, so the land could be spread out again...

[Gen. Volkov]

To both objections: it cuts both ways. That should address both.

Yes, that is a point, but the question is, do we really want to fundamentally change how land works? And the corollary, why? Is it just to differentiate ourselves, or will this actually genuinely benefit the game like eliminating market storing will? There is a point about making kills possible. Killing already destroys your run, so making them take longer doesn't really impact that. Under the current proposal, it's going to mean a lot more kills, unless you have some way to prevent unclanned players from killing each other.

[The Beatles]

Why? Some reasons are outlined in several topics. A brief rundown:

- Stability of land (realism)
- Make kills harder, wars meaningful (realism/practicality)
- Eliminate attack limit (realism/practicality)

I may have forgotten some, apologies in advance.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Volkov, they're gonna try it out regardless, just keep all the problems in mind and demonstrate them when it goes beta.

I don't know how long the discussions have been going in the staff section, but it has apparantly been a while. People don't spend that much time hashing out a plan and then not test it just because me and you tell them it won't work.

[The Beatles]

Not as far as I know.

I don't follow all the lengthy discussions in the staff section, but AFAIK this particular discussion, although long-lived, was conducted mostly right here in S&B over time.

Nevertheless there is no reason to go ahead with the current incarnation of the plan if you can make real objections -- hence please do. If someone thinks an objection isn't really a problem, we would probably go ahead and test it anyway.

[Freenhult]

Yes, that is a point, but the question is, do we really want to fundamentally change how land works? And the corollary, why? Is it just to differentiate ourselves, or will this actually genuinely benefit the game like eliminating market storing will? There is a point about making kills possible. Killing already destroys your run, so making them take longer doesn't really impact that. Under the current proposal, it's going to mean a lot more kills, unless you have some way to prevent unclanned players from killing each other.

Kills should be possible. In real life, Germany could call up some friends and whipe France out. But, We know this won't really happen.

As long as kill runs require -many- more turns. Say atleast 3 people, possibly 4, then there isn't a problem. Not to mention, with reduced landgrabs, havening say, 50k land is going to be a lot. Now add in cities and/or any new changes. Reserves, come to mind, and kills are EVEN harder. With all these protections, your talking about 5-6 people. Because someone has to std away all the net, or murder it. Assuming they don't have an insane ratio by then.

All in all, it -should- work as long as 1. Reserves are implemented. 2. Land grabbing is nerfed to a large enough degree that makes it holding worthwhile.


As for changing, why not? If its too radical... then we can change back. But this does encourage long term play alot better in my mind. Atleast to say, it will bring back diplomacy to a much larger degree, forcing players to really work together to achieve a goal.

[The Beatles]

Indeed. When we were all bad players, diplomacy played a large part because our own incompetence kept us down, and we could hardly imagine large net jumps and storing troops and whatnot. But these changes allow us to arrest the best strategies at the stage where diplomacy and team play are always more important than raw solo tactical skill.

[Ruddertail]

Freen - can you prove beyond a doubt that France isn't in a clan? Kills certainly should be possible, but I think unclanned players should have some kind of protection against them.

Now - here's a question. We want to make it so there are less attacks, correct? Do we want to make short term land grabs obsolete, limit them, or just make them more difficult. If it's the third one, I don't have much hope for it. Players will ultimately work around it. If it's either of the first two, I think it'll work.

[The Beatles]

Limit them, really. If it costs you half your run to go land shopping, not to mention more troops, and it also costs others heavily to get a little extra land off you, you'll think twice about it.

[Freenhult]

Freen - can you prove beyond a doubt that France isn't in a clan? Kills certainly should be possible, but I think unclanned players should have some kind of protection against them.

Now - here's a question. We want to make it so there are less attacks, correct? Do we want to make short term land grabs obsolete, limit them, or just make them more difficult. If it's the third one, I don't have much hope for it. Players will ultimately work around it. If it's either of the first two, I think it'll work.

They do Rudder. Lack of Team work. Think about it... If you're a new person to FAF, and you do something bad, you can't be killed unless you're in a clan. Thats fine and dandy, but facts are, even so, they can be smashed day after day by a player that is better in skill or better off in net. So they're still behind. Even if they do have the experience, and lets say, I just plain hate your guts because of last set, I'd have to get alot of people to sacrifice their runs just to get to you. Not to mention, a large part of net would be wasted over all just to reduce your army to the point of reserves, and then to have to fight that off. Lets face it... Kills shouldn't happen on a regular basis, but they -should- happen. If someone (Which they will regardless) does get kill happy, the game will turn on them anyway prolly. Whats the difference of killing clanned players randomly or killing unclanned ones? Its almost better to be unclanned now because you don't have to worry about getting own'd past the hit limit. And it would solve problems such as people failing missions against you to protect your and your goodies you left out. So this could be a good fix for alot of problems.

I'm up for testing this with the new changes. And lets see how hard it is to kill an empire using BFR turns, and say, 10 runs in. Maybe even 15. We can get the turns in a few days to simulate play a bit and then without the target knowing, (Not allowed to build GTs) try to kill them. We prolly can, but we'll need to see how many turns, people, and total net is required to do it.


And I think we want to really limit land grabs. Making them harder is silly. Just making them less productive is what we're aiming for as I see it. Depending if the time based buildings go through, then it could be obsoleted to a degree. Lets face it... countries don't go to war to hold the land for a few weeks. They want it for a while... Perhaps we could do something in which all attacks capture buildings, but some are destroyed. Also, They start at say... 1/20th of what they were at before they were captured. (In reality, I'm unclear as to how the game would differentiate between old and new land. Unless new land got captured first and old last; Vice versa... Then it could work, but it seems hard regardless.) Even with landpassing, the building efficiency time really hits that hard. Because the land won't be worth much, except 1/20th (Or whatever if thats even a good idea) of its previous production value.

Anyway, We really need to gear this back to using skills of diplomacy. Whether its the good or bad kind. We need more talking and cooperation between average players. Not a divide between the good and the bad ones. Sorta like at ME. No one really works together, because the ones that are skilled don't have interest, (perhaps its the other way) to train the newer players to that game. Not that I'm slamming ME, because I haven't sent on mail to any of the new clans on WoA. I prolly should, just to try to get them going, but even then a large percentage don't even respond back. And if they do, they don't really want much.

Okay, thats if for now. I wanna see what Nuke and Volkov have to say first. But please do comment on the ideas and such. I really wanna know what y'all think.

[The Beatles]

In complete agreement. Only thing, don't worry about implementation, let that be my domain and just work on the good ideas. It's not hard to implement the time-based land efficiency thing.