Catapulting Stats and Bonuses

Simple ideas:

• Statistics that show users/kingdoms with most population destroyed via catapults, the most population saved (if no defense, catapults would have killed 15 population, therefore 15 population was saved)
• Kingdom-wide morale bonus destroying or defending large quantities of population, attack and defense bonus.
  • Note: Not related to rankings, but recency and magnitude only. This prevents kingdoms from getting a bonus by destroying not much at al.
  • Note: In order to prevent multi-abuse, it will only take into populations of kingdoms similar or greater than the attacking/defending kingdom.
• Kingdom statistics for these also show current bonus a kingdom has so people may be warned AND might go on the offensive to offset the disadvantage they've accrued.

The goal of the idea is to increase action against people and focus on destroying each other more, instead of merely collecting and defending treasures. Create an advantage that encourages op frequency.

It also would be great for smaller kingdoms, who could take do some damage to an isolated player from a larger kingdom, to provide them a morale bonus to continue their fighting (attack and defending) against that larger kingdom and maybe catch up a bit more.

Questions:

Should the bonus be nullified for treasuries? I vote yes.

Should troops be factored into the equation as well? Destroying a village with a hammer kills a ton of troops and should be rewarded. Same for defense killed via lost village. I vote yes.

Should chiefed villages count as the population of the total village lost? I vote yes.

Thoughts?

Quote from Unknown

So in general the overall wish is to have more stats, is that right?

I failed to fully understand how the "population destroyed" statistic would work.

I as well am weary of what it would mean for smaller/newer players if suddenly accepting them to bigger kingdoms in order to destroy them would give some type of bonus/nice statistic that some players would try to achieve...

What do you think?

Display More

Population destroyed = amount of population you've destroyed via catapults. Send a catapult and destroy a level 5 wheat field, that is 1 population destroyed. More destruction.

I mean, adding a new player to the kingdom if they are in the area is the most ideal solution. Destroying them means loss of long-term troop and resource income. It would be dumb to destroy them. It is smarter to coach them instead. If you want to increase that incentive I'm all for it. But I don't think this in any way incentivizes players to lure in new players only to destroy them. At the very least they are still more profitable as farms wherever they are on the map.

But there are a million other issues for new players. This is an attempt to add more incentive to action other than 1-3 ops per game going after a treasure. Attacking someone's economy should actually matter in this game.

I also think this is a way to help curb kingdom size. Provide some incentive on the kingdom level for not being the largest. Penalize kingdoms 3x the size of any other kingdoms. Allow smaller kingdoms to catch up. They can't do that by going after treasures.

Quote from Unknown

Just wanted to let you know that the idea was liked, it was added to a design idea that is been studied, but sadly I cannot give any time frames, since things move about depending on circumstances and other things that come up and we are forced to work on.

Unknown Why would you reply to one single reply about this topic. Not the OP. What exactly is liked? @iribuya's mention of wanting more stats? So the developers like adding more stats? Or the original suggestion of specific stats regarding catapults? Tell us what the developers like so our suggestions can help.

Quote from Mitsu

Good point, Cool and Crazy#EN ! Having that in mind I will actually respond instead of ignoring Unknown and challenging his sanity

1. We can just as well destroy small players without inviting them to big kingdoms to give us "some type of nice statistic" whatever the f that means.
2. Having in mind what you said, we should actually remove "Top Attacker" statistics, because some bigger kingdoms might kills smaller player troops for "some type of nice statistic".
3. We should also remove "Robbers of the week" statistic, because some big players might attack smaller players for loot to get "Some type of nice statistic".

Did I understand your concerns correctly Unknown ?

Also, to add to the original topic, I could help you understand that there are 2 ways how to make this calculation:
1. (The hard way): Player X attacks with his army targeting buildings A (level 15) and B (Level 20). If he has enough catapults + troops to destroy them IF THERE WAS NO DEFENCE, but defenders sent some troops and reduced damage to make buildings A (become level 5) and B (Become level 15), the Defenders get: 5 (A levels saved) + 15 (B levels saved) = 20 SAVED BUILDINGS points.
Attacker gets: 10 (A levels destroyed) + 5 (B levels destroyed) = 15 DESTROYED BUILDINGS points.

Since I know this would require full day of coding, which is impossible to expect, I will give you the easy way:
2. (The easy way): Just add 2 sections in statistics, called "Siege units lost as attacker" and "Siege units defended from" where catapult = 2 points, ram = 1 point. I hope I do not need to further explain.

I believe that was the initial proposal. Correct leo#EN(19) ?

Display More

You get the general idea. My overall point is that you should get credit for destroying buildings. It would incentivize more mid-game action and not make treasuries the only target. It would incentivize destroying enemy economies. I'm up for ideas on how this can be calculated.

My thoughts were assume you target a building that is 35 population with 100 catapults. That's enough to destroy the building in theory. You are able to destroy the building to level 2 which leaves 4 population, but the catapults are killed enough by defense that the building stays at level 2.

The defense would get credit for saving 4 population. The offense would get credit for destroying 31 population.

That's just for the statistic calculation. I think that idea alone is worth considering by the team. I enjoy destroying players. I'd love to see how I compare in being the most destructive.

If there is concern that this would cause larger players to just destroy every smaller player, my first response is so? This game should be about clearing out your area. Second, a weight can be added similar to the way pop factors into battle morale bonus. Or a filter can be added. If a kingdom/player is <70% of your size, you get no credit for knocking them down in size. Personally, I think that it should be kingdom to kingdom size, not player to player size.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To take the idea one step further, if you wanted to possibly take this statistic and use it to balance the current parity, you could. And this actually seems way more possible with the recent idea of fealty being considered. What if small kingdoms who destroyed players' villages in a larger kingdom were given an attack bonus? Thus allowing them to destroy more players' village in that larger kingdom and to continue to "catch-up?" And small kingdoms who successfully defend large kingdoms from destroying one of their players were given a defense bonus?

This adds direct parity. This de-incentivizes creating kingdoms of as many people as possible. This is a second component to this idea that should be considered independent. The first idea does not require this to be implemented.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for @iribuya's comment on needing more statistics, I think we all agree with this. However, I would think that a fine community manager, such as Unknown, would agree that if we want to have a general "What statistics should we add" discussion, that it should be its own thread. I would love to contribute. As Mitsu has kindly helped me to communicate, if I'm going to contribute ideas, I'd appreciate them being addressed by the community manager, instead of completely ignored. Else, why would I continue to create idea threads? I created this thread to discuss a certain topic. A specific statistic that would be great to add for people who want action.