Posts by paulc_COM


    Make the base calculation of the modifier enemy troops killed * your troops survived. So a splat gives you nothing. Enemies dodging gives you nothing (unless it's a treasury, and then you get treasures and possibly VPs depending on alliance/kingdom standing). Well timed follow homes, especially cav on clubs, returns a motza. Picking the right target and killing a reasonable amount of def for minimal losses to your hammer returns an absolute bonanza. Alternatively, make it enemy troops killed/your troop losses - similar sort of return, the more troops you kill for minimal losses, the bigger modifier boost you get. If that modifier keeps increasing with every successful attack, an alliance that doesn't have huge treasures but chooses their targets wisely and attacks heavily could still outperform the sort of meta simtastic alliances that tend to dominate servers as it stands - especially if you scale the battle calculations for relative size.


    To bring this down to a single, shortish paragraph for the tl:dr modern generation... I don't think you need to dream up new mechanics - I think the basics of TK is a massive improvement on TL. You need to tweak VPs to reward attacks, you need to fix the imbalance towards def (and I get you're after a slice of the casual gaming market, so no huge consequences, but you've overloaded def with the hero bonus and items), and you need to tweak battle calcs and reins/diplomacy to allow for other strategies than meta for a server win.


    This is excellent. Do this.

    After thinking about it some more, I think being able to take VP through population drops is stilll preferable. Having it become dependant on declaring war would mean constant managing of war declarations, time-out periods...Wouldn't it be much better if ALL pop drops caused by another alliance always influenced VP immediately?


    This may be true, but the idea of taking VP through population drops is an idea that runs on a track parallel to the idea of taking VP under conditions of a declared war. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the two ideas address two separate parts of the game that are broken.


    1) VP transfer through population drops addresses the problem that the current VP-bonus-for-treasures-stolen-from-top-10 is too weak and doesn't discourage people from gravitating to metas. The main benefit is that it introduces an important trade-off to the formation of metas. It encourages the players who are in it for the win to form smaller, tighter alliances, leaving the casual players to form their own casual alliances that exist, if not exactly to win, then just to survive.


    Maybe you could adjust this so that you only gain VP from demolishing the villages of dukes and kings. That way, if someone doesn't want people catting their villages, then they can just play as a governor.


    2) The VP transfer through wars waged addresses the issue that the whole diplomacy thing is totally meaningless right now. It also allows for transfer of huge chunks of VP at the same time in the event that one alliance successfully defeats another alliance. I think this would have to be tested in order to see how easily it is used and abused in order to accomplish the friendly transfer of victory points. Whether or not it is used for friendly VP transfer, this mechanic would certainly result in the polarization of accumulated victory points throughout the server. I'm not sure that it would be a bad thing though.




    Maybe a hybrid approach could be implemented where:


    If you declare war on someone else and they don't declare war back on you, then:
    You get the 20% attack bonus and they don't.
    You cannot directly steal VP through conquering or demolishing buildings.
    You can still steal treasures and get the regular VP bonus for stealing treasures from top-10 alliances, and so can they.


    If you declare war on someone else and they do declare war back on you, then:
    You get the 20% attack bonus and so do they.
    You can steal VP directly through conquering or demolishing buildings of dukes and kings, and so can they.
    You can steal treasures and get the regular VP bonus for treasure stealing from top-10 alliances, and so can they.
    Whoever wins the war steals a big chunk of VP from whoever loses the war.



    This might actually be an improvement... It allows alliance founders to choose whether or not the the enemy can steal their victory points by demolishing buildings. If you don't allow the enemy to steal VP through demolishing your own buildings, then you consign yourself to fighting an uphill battle, but at least you are also not risking the potential of losing a war, and with it, losing a massive amount of VP.


    Or, you can decide to risk more and fight on even footing, but under the conditions that the enemy can gain VP from catting your people's villages, and that you stand to lose a lot of accumulated VP if you lose the war.


    Modifying the idea so that its only possible to gain VP from damaging the victory points of dukes and kings might help to address the issue that KEEN had with the whole VP-for-demolishing-weak-players-villages thing.... Weak or semi-active players can play as governors (as they are already doing anyway) and notice no difference. This also might put a damper on the rampant enthusiasm for crowning oneself king.


    The attack bonus I have arbitrarily suggested as a 20% attack bonus. That could be totally OP. I have no idea what would actually be the most fitting bonus. It's possible that a 10% attack bonus would be more suitable.


    Of course, yes, it should be possible to surrender to stop the declared/accepted war. I think there should be a time period (of a week?) before you're able to cancel any war, and then the one who cancels should lose lots of VP. Unless they agree to cancel (come to terms), then neither side loses VP. I like it. But then there is a problem with when are you allowed to declare war on them again? Are they just immune from war declarations for a time or something?


    I refer back to what 50 Calibre suggested earlier on this.


    I think he suggested that the king who initiates "coming to terms" loses a small amount of VP (30% to 50%) if the other king accepts. If losing king "surrenders" then he loses more victory points (I think 50 Calibre suggested 100%).


    Functionally, most wars would probably end in "coming to terms".


    It seems like you might need some sort of game mechanic that forces people to wait for some set time duration before declaring war again on the same alliance.


    I also like the idea of linking the ability to reinforce people with your diplomatic stance towards them. Yes, there will be some times when its a hassle, but I do think it would add some depth to the gameplay.


    I'm in favor of restaing #3 so that if both parties have declared war, then both parties gain a 20% attack bonus. Although it is a fair bonus, the balance will be shifted in favor of destroying each other. Both parties will have more to gain by going on the offensive and attacking each other rather than by forting up and playing the defensive game. If it ends in a stalemate, it is only because both parties have run out of offensive troops.


    I also like 50 Calibre's idea that king who feels like he is losing can initiate either a "surrender", or a "coming to terms" that will end the war between them, at the cost of victory points to the losing king. This is an important component to this whole proposition. If neither king surrenders, they are in a perpetual state of war...


    An interesting twist could involve confederates... when my king goes to war, would it drag our confederates into the war also? If you didn't want to go this route, it might be better to just do away with confederacies altogether, honestly...

    I have a similar question along these lines that I haven't been able to test yet, but would like to know if anyone else has ever done this...


    Suppose a I have a village that I built and I want to hand it over to a friend who is in my alliance.


    If I conquer the village from myself, and then the friend send chiefs to it within a short time window after I have conquered it from myself, will my friend (who is in the same alliance as me) be able to take the village from me?


    Thanks!


    Paul


    - - - Updated - - -


    Hi donkey, in response to your question, I think that your buddies can still conquer the village as long as no residence has been built and the loyalty of the village is still at zero.


    for sure you cannot reduce the loyalty of a village that belongs to an ally, but if the loyalty is already at zero, it seems to be that you can conquer from each other. I don't know the actual rule that governs this mechanic.


    - - - Updated - - -


    I'm pretty sure that we've done this before with an interval of at least a few hours.


    But don't come with such a comment if you clearly don't know what you talking about.


    I know it's standard, and that's what I think is silly.


    In my opinion an alliance is better off when their teutons are spending their in-game time focused on more valuable objectives than microfarming.


    Compared to spending your time as a teuton (with incredibly fast, cheap troop regen) engaging enemy subjects, microfarming is a silly waste of time.


    That's what I meant.

    I'd I think it's nice if an alliance can make the strategic choice as to what's better: Being able to fight on equal footing but risk VP, or fighting an uphill battle but being able to keep VP. This adds depth to gameplay and to diplomacy.


    I like the idea of having a strategic tradeoff involved.


    Other possible variables that could be affected by a war declaration:
    1) Chiefs / Senators / Chieftains gain a boost to their effectiveness.
    2) Siege weapons gain a special boost.
    3) During a war, your own VP production from treasures is reduced, but you get a boost to the amount of VP that can result from stealing treasures from the enemy alliance.

    Got another idea for people to consider....



    I like this basic idea. Let's see if diplomacy can have some real meaning in the game.


    How about this:


    Only alliance founders can declare war on other alliances. Once war is declared, it can only end when one of the two alliance founders abdicates. During the war, offensive armies gain a 20% attack boost when attacking the enemy alliance, but defenders on both sides have the normal amount of defense. So when you are formally at war with an enemy alliance, you do more consequential damage to one another, as it should be. And it can only end when one side gives up.


    EDIT: maybe you could have another level of war called a "Feud" that exists between two kings, regardless of their alliance. The Feud would be similar to a war, but at the kingdom level, and also would only end when one of the two kings abdicates.

    Does anyone know if the brewery makes teuton scouts more effective at scouting?


    I realize it wouldn't make them more effective at defending against scouting attacks, but I would like to know if anyone has determined whether the brewery influences their ability to scout enemy targets.


    I would say that this is a good thing to do when the people who are raiding the village are your allies. Duh. Killing their troops weakens your own alliance's capabilities.


    But if the people who are raiding are your enemies, why not take advantage of the situation.


    There are two ways to use this situation:


    1) Start saving up a copy of the attack logs, and you can build up a history of data that lets you see when they are clicking "send" on their farmlists. This in turn will let you know when it is the most opportune time to launch attacks on them when they are most likely going to be offline or not paying attention.


    2) Message your allies so they stop attacking, then form a bunker and kill all the enemy raiders. Why not? It's what you're supposed to do with enemies.

    I was looking back through posts earlier, and in a different thread the following tweaks were mentioned, to which KEEN was referring:


    I think that these tweaks will definitely help the game. For one thing, it seems like on most servers, almost all players are absorbed into the top five alliances anyway, so basically you end up with a flat 10 pts per treasure stolen from anyone on the server. I think this is helpful. I think that we really need to test this idea in order to evaluate whether it is enough of a change.


    If these planned tweaks are not enough, maybe it could be further modified by making the VP bonus dynamic.
    Rather than giving a flat 10 VP bonus per treasure stolen, it could be dependent on several variables.


    Possible drivers of a dynamic VP bonus for stolen treasures:
    1) Total number of VP accumulated by the alliance
    2) Percentage of treasures stolen (i.e. an alliance possesses 10K treasures, and 1k treasures are stolen, so the percentage of treasures taken is 10%)
    3) Difference in overall fighting strength between the two alliances. (i.e. total fighting strength of alliance A is 20% stronger than fighting strength of alliance B)
    4) if you wanted to introduce other variable to modify the bonus, that would make sense too (differences in accumulated VP between the two alliances,
    individual population differences, individual fighting strength differences, etc).


    That said, I still think I would prefer to be able to see VP affected by other metrics such as buildings catapulted, etc.

    Hi KEEN,


    Victory points are something that should be earned (by protecting treasures) or taken from others.


    I think we all agree with this. I know how they can be earned: 1) protect treasures or 2) earn bonus VP for stealing treasures from a higher-ranked alliance.


    How, in the existing game, can Victory Points can be taken directly from others players?


    Is there any way that a higher ranked alliance can take victory points away from a lower ranked alliance?


    Maybe I am missing something.

    Getting victory points for catapulting other players will most likely hit the weakest players of an alliance.


    This is of course true. If time permits, in a war you go for the weak points of the enemy, choose the fights you can win, etc. Typically, the weaker players are not necessarily those who have small armies or poor resource production, but those who don't have sitters, don't communicate, don't help others with defense, etc. If a player actively participates in alliance activities, most alliances will be willing to coordinate defense because the leaders realize the value of active players who want to play as a team.


    Many alliances would kick that weak players out, to not loose more victory points. How would that be an improvement?


    Either many alliances would kick the weak or disengaged players out, or else those players would leave of their own accord to join a different alliance (or start their own) that has fewer VP accumulated in order to render themselves a less appetizing target.


    This is an improvement because it introduces trade-offs to the general strategy of forming a large meta that protects a lot of semi-active players.


    Metas will have two options when it comes to semi-active players:
    A) Keep them gain the benefit of the treasures they help accumulate through farming robbers, but run the risk of losing VP if they get attacked
    B) Kick them from the alliance. The benefit here is that the risk of losing VP is reduced, but the down side is that you lose out on potential VP production, and possibly defense as well.


    This should cause the server to polarize into several broad categories of alliances:


    Serious Contenders: small, lean alliances consisting of highly active players who have accumulated a lot of VP, and are high profile, appetizing targets. These are the players who are in the game for the teamwork, who are really putting their strategies and teamwork to the test. They're happy because its really competitive.


    Small Simmer Refuges: numerous small alliances consisting of semi-active players who have very little VP and are not really contenders for the win, but have banded together to avoid being farmed by the serious contenders. However, because they have so few victory points, there is nothing for the serious contenders to gain by dismantling their accounts. The semi-active are happy because they get to sim to their hearts content without becoming tempting targets (from the perspective of gaining victory points).


    Stealing treasures from higher ranked alliances works for me quite well. Only the strongest players of an alliance have treasures. And if they are not strong enough they still can play as a normal governor.


    This is at least something, but it's too weak and it's prone to friendly treasure sharing as a tactic for repeatedly harvesting the bonus points.


    There has got to be a way for one alliance to lose VP and the other alliance gain VP as the result of a battle. The problem with the simple bonus for stealing treasures from an alliance ranked higher than your own is that the marginal value of this mechanic diminishes as the game goes on.


    I'd like to see element where two alliances who in the running for a win could get into an all-out war and see the outcome of that war (including villages destroyed) determine the winner of the server. As it is, there's no point in risking all-out war because it has no impact on who wins or loses the server. Nobody wants to risk their troops in fighting because they need to save them to send at the WW. This is what makes the servers boring.

    On another tribe-related note: got a question about scouts.


    Does anyone know if the brewery party affects the teuton scouts' offensive scouting capablities? Has anyone ever done any experiments with this?


    If you have insights, thanks for sharing them!

    I would like to hear from the Developers: are there any mechanisms of VP transfer(edit: THROUGH WARFARE) between different alliances that you are seriously considering for future testing?


    By VP transfer I mean specifically ways that the VP from one alliance can be reduced and added to a different alliance.
    I don't mean bonus points being awarded for stealing treasures from a higher-ranked alliance, or VP that accrue daily from treasures.
    edit: I mean "transfer" in unfriendly ways only.

    What's the general consensus among the team of developers on this subject? So far we haven't heard any response from developers on this topic. Does the silence mean "We're not interested; drop the subject" or is there still hope for this concept?

    You are right. They do not yet support TK. And it has been a long time since I last saw a decent WW rammer. People don't tend to use rams like we used to, or to think in terms of rammers.


    I think one of the beauties of the Teutons is not so much their pure attack strength per time training, but the combination of the cheap troops and fast training time. With the siege mode feature, once you have 4,500 troops, you get more attack power overall if you send a siege fake and attack with your remaining 3500 troops.


    At 7,000 troops, you can afford to send 2 siege fakes and still get better attack that way. I think this potential is rarely taken into account, but it is a pretty valuable asset in a coordinated team attack to be able to have thousands of clubs to spare on siege fakes.


    It's true that the brewery party thing is at its best when you're attacking as a rammer. But on a tough, strategically important target that you know the enemy will try to defend whether you fake well or not (such as a capital hammer village)., the value of a Teuton rammer teammate to go in front and get that wall down can save a lot of troops for the rest of the team who is following. In such a situation, that extra 20% attack is looking pretty nice. But you're right... it requires specialization and teamwork to get the most out of the Teutons.



    Really, to get the most out of any single kind of account, it takes teamwork.

    Most of that I won't argue with, it's a question of personal taste. Except club/TK versus EC & imps. You're forgetting the Horse Drinking Trough. From about level 12 from memory, it lifts EC & Imps past club/TK. And that's before you look at helmets.


    Does that take into account the +20% attack possible from the Brewery parties?