Attack limit

[Ruddertail]

Ok.

How about we cut land attacks by some amount (1/2th - 1/10th) without clan war.

War gives a significant boost to land gained for attacks. To prevent clans grabbing land and disbanding,

1: Clans may not be disbanded within 72 hours of a war setting. People may not be booted within 72 hours of a war setting. This is calculated from the last time the war setting was in effect.
2: War setting locks in for 36 - 48 hours.

The fact that buildings are very unproductive immediately when built, thus meaning you have to hold land for a significant time, would discourage quick land grabs. Not only would it be useless to you, but it'd actually hurt your target. Thus, a grab would start wars, and people wouldn't do them casually. The worry was people jumping out of/disbanding the clan, so the people they grabbed have a harder time retaling. However, the above proposal deals with that - they're locked in.

This would also make it worthwhile implementing a "Game news" thing on the main page, which could display war/alliance settings and unsettings, as well as kills.

[The Beatles]

Why are clans special; why is the war setting special?

1. It's artificial.

2. It requires all the other complicated and otherwise unhelpful (say there really is a traitor in the clan) measures you outline.

[Ruddertail]

1: It's an organized war thing, not just a bunch of people randomly attacking. Coordination is crucial in war, and clans are the in - game symbols of that coordination, as well as a common cause, rather then just fighting for one's own benefit. Thus, they get benefits for being a clan, the war setting is one of them.

2: It's not normal for wars to be declared and then just called off three days later. They should be locked in and displayed in any case.

As far as traitors, we already have/are working on individual treas access, correct? Why not individual forum/clan mail/news access privileges? And what else is there that a traitor could affect/benefit from?

[Freenhult]

Why? Lemme interject a thought.

What is probably the funnest part of Promi? Killing yes? Well... If land gains are cut to 1/4 of normal. You're going to need alot of people to kill. As things are now, 2 people can kill one clanned person. Now, cut the amount of land from those attacks by 1/4. Throw in the reserves, and possibly a city. Just to kill one person you're talking about 8 people. Thats unclanned or clanned.

Clanned or something new that we can think of, allows for a real war. Not just land grabs, but real fighting. Its a purely offensive move. Perhaps it should cause your defenses to fall slightly. Instead of having an attack modifier, (I suggested 1.1x) have your defensive capabilities be slightly lower then normal for normal land gains. This way... even if the other clan is broadsided by such an unprovoked war... They can recover and kill. Assuming they aren't dead. Also... IT allows for unclanned people to attack the clan and prevent one clan from becoming too dominant. Perhaps it won't. We all said we wanted emperors and dynasties to an extent. This will help build them.

The tricky part here, is what to do with clans. They need to be changed to fit the new style of play, or completely removed. I'm against the later, so lets work on it.

[Ruddertail]

Another comment on why clans should have benefits -

Since the game operates on two levels - RL and In Game, we need something to symbolize cooperation and a common cause IG.

That item is clans. Removing them removes any bonus to collaboration on one of the game levels.... If we want to increase incentives to work together, stripping clans of any benefit when it comes to warring is not the way to do it.

Regarding the traitors point, further, clans do really need to be careful. Especially when preparing for war. Further, planting spies/traitors is dangerous to the planter.

[The Beatles]

Good points. Clans should stay, then. Now: what do you mean, in numbers, by a significant boost? That is if you have something specific in mind already, not sure if you do yet.

[Ruddertail]

As far as boost from clan war itself, essentially you go from the reduced land grab amount that the game will normally operate on (1/4th of current) to current level for land taken per attack.

The defensive penalty, I'm not sure. That's Freen's idea.

[The Beatles]

Kind of what I had in mind, except 1/5-th as it stands at 5% now.

Another thing, large clan war advantage might just provoke everyone to be at war all the time, as there is no penalty. Kind of defeats the purpose. Some penalty, perhaps defensive, is definitely needed (concurring with Freen).

[Freenhult]

Well. Lets say that they have a -10% modifier attached to whatever civ they are. Like in the Civ-specific abilites, some races are better at defending and such. When you enter into a war, your ability gets reduced by -10% regardless of where it is at.

[Ruddertail]

If we nerf land passing properly, there won't be any bonus to being at war, because it won't be worth gaining the land only to lose it again. You'll have to declare war on a clan, pummel them, and force them to not retal against you for land... Or completely annihilate them.

With land passing properly nerfed, any sizable land grab (over, say, a couple % of land) is a definite war trigger. (Any land grab may well trigger it, as a clan can't afford to look weak.) And I mean serious war, with smushlings and kills.

[Freenhult]

Exactly. Otherwise the -10% is gonna come back to get you. It could be more. 10% seemed like alot. It might not be enough. I'd say no more than 30%.

[The Beatles]

Well, land passing is necessary, as this is a war game. New players have to be able to gain land. Nerfing land passing is not desirable. On the other hand, it should be costly enough that established people, with all their buildings in place and everything, would not want to engage in everyday land passing with their friends. It needn't necessarily be war, but also not something positively friendly.

We may not really need more measures to curb that other than upping building time. Maybe 20x or higher building time isn't necessarily far out either. Of course, the measures outlined above are cures to other problems too, such as attack limit and ease of kills. But they don't necessarily infringe on land grabbing.

A minus 10-30% on defense, by the way, is also realistic: newly held land is less likely to have established fortifications, infrastructure, supply, or command.

[Ruddertail]

Up until the point that wars break out, a new player will be able to get up to the same amount of land as an longer standing player, just by scouting. After wars break out, then, they'd have to get land the same way the longer standing players have - being on the winning side in a war.

Yes, it is a war game. But land passing isn't war, it's friendly, or at least passive, exchange of land.

[The Beatles]

I disagree; you do not need a full-blown war to get your land. From what I recall of older-style playing, it was perfectly all right to attack people for land up to the 7 limit. That's not realistic, but necessary as people sign up all the time. Scouting only works well up to maybe 10-15k. On the other hand, friends attacking each other at the beginning of their runs for the same land isn't necessary or realistic. Plus, those not "in" on the technique lose out.

[Ruddertail]

This is not a return to older style playing. This is new style playing. We tried a return to older style playing with the WoA guidelines, and it failed.

Right, Beatles. Scouting is only effective up to 10k - 15k. However, until the wars start, everyone will have 10k - 15k. So the new person isn't disadvantaged. Once the wars start, yes, he should be able to get his land the same way others get theirs - being on the winning side in war(s).