Posts by Curtain

    VP from defense would be incredibly stupid idea because attacking your enemy makes them win harder (not to mention it would just devolve into everyone attacking themselves)

    Attacking isn't much better since that encourages folks to attack the weakest players with just rams over and over.


    If you want an example of fairer VP system check out my earlier post about static VP generation + VP stealing revamp though even that one has possible abuse case with wings even if it's less prominent.

    Was the data hard to collect? The graphs are so awesome I would request to add the 2017 data too if it's not too hard. I guess you do have to add it all manually which can be tedious but really nice graphs even if there were no big surprises with the conclusions. The second one especially is pretty awesome


    Edit: In hindsight the older data might best not to be mixed in since lot of things have changed in the game but still I can't help but to want to see more :D

    The reason animal finders are banned while something like a farm finder is not is because the API gives village information on request to external sites which they can then use to build farm finder for example. Meanwhile animal or oasis info isn't given by the official api so what happens is that the guys who run the animal finder run bots on the server who "click" trough the oasis and record the animals that way. It creates a massive server load and of course quite unfair gameplay when someone picks up all the animals from the server instantly.

    I'd like to chime in that


    1) the wonder itself does act as a residence (so you can build it to lvl 1 and that will also prevent chiefings)

    2) if you build the lvl 1 residence right after taking the WW, you should be at or very near 100 loyalty by the time your first great warehouse lvl 20 completes. This is the time you would want the slot from the residence so it's not too much wasted time to get the full loyalty this way. So you don't really need it to be higher than lvl 1

    That being said 100 loyalty isn't really neccessary in the wonder either since the only way it will be taken from you usually is by big coordinated attack which in turn means there is more than enough chiefs to take 1 or 100 loyalty. But there are of course times when that loyalty could save you.

    Personally I only really do it because it triggers me to see that loyalty missing in the village list :S

    sending resources with trade routes to other players would be pretty bad for the game. You would need to have several (like at least one per offense player) to stay competitive against other kingdoms who would be doing it. So while you might like helping team out if the mechanic was supported better it would become mandatory for a lot of the weaker players to just be resource cows. Lets not even talk about how it would impact the multi account scene. The games official support role is defense more or less. You can help out your team, supply wonder in the late game and you can still donate resources to players that get hit for instance manually and crops to those who ask and even feed units of other players but imo trade routes would be quite over the top.

    I think that if you look at it from the point of view of the absolute top of the organizations you are correct. When you study the effects of 200k hammers you get these results. However, on COM6 we had about 1.5 Million DEF in one Wonder, and 3 million in the other Wonder. The trail of about +25 enemy sieges by Stars and the rest of the Server of the did not hurt either of these WWs even 1 level.

    You played in phoenix right? While 5M defense total is indeed quite a lot, that one is more of a failure in stars than you guys blobbing up to be way bigger than the rest. Quoting the number of "hammers" in this case is bit disingenuous since as far as I saw they had like 1 actual hammer in there (170k from ja sam ja if I'm not wrong was the biggest). As in this case their biggest hammer was about half the actual power of what a hammer could theoretically be based on the law of hammers and rest weren't even worth mentioning and they didn't even have a rammer which is basically trivial to have. I won't bother speculating why that is since my info on the server might be bit biased (coming from Vheim). Also I don't know about the com7 situation.

    The offense limit really starts to bite when you start to go above 3M per wonder though as that's about the point where 200k hammers start to struggle. 300k is theoretically possible (and like 400k on teutons). Regarding the rammer side wall is blown away by a reasonably sized teuton rammer in one hit at 2M and top tier ones could do it at 4M while record breaking ones can still do it at 7M, so rammers are bit easier in that regard.


    But ye it is true that the offense players don't indeed grow on trees which is what I kinda mean by my comment. It's not that bigger kingdoms inherently favor defense too much but rather that each additional member is less likely to be a WW hammer player. Speaking of wonders they sorta server as soft reset on kingdom power as well as you gain more ground you would ideally take more wonders which splits your defense into more manageable chunks. One danger configuration to a server would be where a mega kingdom only has one wonder while their best competitor also has one wonder. That would be a position where the 5M defense barrier could really be reached.

    Your point about gameovering the other guy with massive blob is true I suppose but I think the realistic limit between 2 reasonably skilled and equally sized kingdoms in same conditions is still bit higher than what you guys had in last round. That being said it does make things more difficult and lower size would still be optimal of course


    For example, as the rumor has it, on the COM that is being launched in Feb, Knight + Titan + GGG and many more are merging into a huge team.

    Well I certainly hope you are wrong about that one, sounds pretty stupid. I think each of them is full sized kingdom on their own and they don't have huge overlap in players but I guess that's up to them.

    And ye I do agree about your point I'm just saying that you have to be very careful with changes to not hamper new players. Like I mentioned in the post itself the balance on where you would put the limit has tremendous impact on the effect, too tight and it makes stuff bad, too loose and it doesn't have effect. Would certainly need at least few test rounds before going to live just to see what would be good.


    As for what motivates people to do that, the VP mechanics is one. The game really needs more anti snowballing mechanics. Find my previous post on the thread if you want to read my opinion on those though. Personally I think hard kingdom member limit is quite stupid way of limiting kingdom size (though it might be easy to implement and relatively fast solution) and there exist design space for much more elegant solutions as well.

    >Should I bring rams

    Yes but it's not strictly required. You should have your teams wonder cleared out to the extent where using ram speed is sufficient. Wall will always disappear when you chief so no need to leave rams home to "save the wall" so to say.

    >Catapults

    Not necessary and quite harmfull if you accidentally hit something important (like the mainbuilding)

    >Chiefs

    You need to hit it 4 times with a chief and have each of the chiefing villages use the big party for the +5 chief power. 5 without the parties will also work but there is a tiny chance the 4th chief gets it and then the 5th would chief it from the 4th chiefer which could result in loss of buildings. The safest strategy is to simply use 4 with the big party.


    I also have a full guide on the topic, check it out if you need some basic info:

    Beginner's Guide - Wonders of the world

    Scorox


    a) point is pretty interesting and at least I didn't think of it that way. It does certainly seem like it would apply pressure for the "on the fence" guys to not join a bigger team if their position would be in a wing and instead seek a competitor. That being said the effect might not be as big as you think since lot of folks are fine in playing not to win and sticking around in 3rd party kingdoms and pseudo wings till the end.


    b) is only really half right regarding the offense/defense balance. Big kingdoms in of itself don't really tip the balance more towards defense for instance 1x200k vs 1M isn't that much worse than 2x200k vs 2M (a quick sim on the matter gives me 99->63 vs 99->88->73). The prime cause of the balance shift is that the "extra" players are usually not capable of building the required WW hammers in proportion to their numbers be it because they are recruited from defeated kingdoms or because they are usually weaker than the "core" players. This means that the first lets say 50 players unlock you 4x200k hammers and 2M defense but the next 50 players only get you 1x200k hammer and 1.5M defense as the players tend to be both smaller and less offense oriented.

    The VP point is very much right and incredibly snowbally mechanic.


    c) is pretty good point



    Regarding the point c2 (or d I suppose) is that while it's true that ideally that's exactly what would happen the reality is that in a game like this if a new player get smashed once or twice they won't come back and even more determined players won't play if their expectation is to "well just first play a round in a pseudo wing ally kingdom and then another round in a proper wing and then you have a chance of joining one of the "main" kingdoms to have a shot at really mattering". When round represents 6 months of commitment you gotta be really careful with how you make the new player experience and to ensure as many as possible have an enjoyable round. Then again the danger of such progression from ally to wing to main over several servers can be mitigated by changing the alliance size. 20 players would certainly mean there would be several rounds minimum to even enter while a 100 player limit wouldn't really limit the size much at all.

    At least personally one of the bigger selling points of kingdoms was that as a noob I could just start and instantly belong to a team where I spawn and then have a real shot at mattering without having to know the right people or belong to a specific group beforehand. Menhir does kinda solve the "you spawned in the wrong neighborhood kid" problem though which is nice.



    Also regarding the cheating while it's nasty I think Snorri had a fair point, size limit (especially strict one) does increase the potential benefit gained from cheating as perfectly loyal out of kingdom accounts become that much bigger part of your teams power budget when it's 30 vs 30(+5) instead of 60 vs 65 or something like that but I don't think any feature should be really dismissed purely on the grounds of empowering cheaters either.

    I have said this one before that I am against player limits and other such things you would call "hard" limits. They ultimately don't work, end up making the game worse and if anything they limit the small and middle sized guys more than the big metas.


    Story time: One of the big things that did draw me in to kingdoms from legends was the fact that there weren't any member limits. In games that do have hard limits on members as a member I'm always bit stressed by the fact that I could get replaced at any moment be it because i'm not good or active enough or because I hurt the kings feelings or maybe because he needs space to bring in a tactical merge member or his buddy. Meanwhile from the leader side I don't like the fact that I gotta pick the members based on merit. If I got a guy I spawned next to and helped build my kingdom (let's call him Bucky), and bucky always responds to my messages and defends where he can and sheeit but is never truly a top tier player. Then later on my kingdom fills up and now it's time to go for the win. I'm presented with the opportunity to take in a super defender from the kingdom that collapsed next to us, he did nothing wrong and wasn't the reason why his kingdom collapsed (let's say his king left) and he would clearly be a top 5 player in our team. Meanwhile our lowest performer is Bucky but hes always active in chats and been there from the start. Do I do the right thing for the lets say 58 other players in the kingdom and pick up the new good player and kick bucky or do I just stick with what I got and lower our chance of competing. That's the sort of thing I would hate to do.


    Now while that is all emotional but still quite valid reasons why member limits are bad, there's also the thing that they simply don't work. Not only will the guys who really want to play together (be it because they are scared meta wuzzies that just want to 5:1 their enemies) or simply group of friends just bit too big for what ever the limit was set. They will just create wings and effectively play together even if it's penalized a bit. If anything splitting like this could make you stronger in current kingdoms since you could funnel all the treasures to just one kingdom hence putting the defense power and treasuries of 2 groups behind just one sets of doors making it much more difficult to attack. Also when the end game comes someones gonna get cut because the best buddy of the king who was set to lead the wing aint staying without a medal so off you go linemember#55 and thanks for your service. Also stuff like the beginner problem and then elite players all pooling into one kingdom are issues that are just made worse by a hard member limit.


    Also the big bad meta players are more likely to abuse wings and such to bypass the limitations while the "honest" small guys are punished by not being able to match the big guys in numbers. That is not to even say how big a kingdom should be. 30(60) you suggested in OP is probably suitable for some but many would complain it's too small to house all their friends AND at the same time there would be mid size kingdoms and players who would rather have it be even smaller. Increase it to say 150 and it wouldn't even do much, drop it down to 20 and now all but the most elite members are getting a boot from the "serious" kingdoms. Hard balance to make even without considering premades and different sized servers like national and just quieter coms.



    I too would want to see ideally 7 medium sized kingdoms in a slugfest for a win but instead of making limitations (these will only really hurt the guys playing by the rules) you want to switch up the core systems to favor the small guys over the big ones. You want your change to be something that doesn't outright prohibit adding a new helpful player to your team but one that discourages it (especially in the case of non contributing players) and gives rewards for doing thins in a small group


    Let's take few examples.


    A mechanic that favors the big and creates snowballing is how treasures are generated:

    Governor creates treasures -> more governors is more treasures -> more treasures is more VP -> more VP is more attraction to new governors.

    No matter how you look at it it's a vicious cycle that means if you are trying to win (which most players are) it's individually the best choice for them to apply to the strongest kingdom making it stronger and for the kings it makes sense to accept every applicant because that leads to more applicants.


    A hypothetical (and actually quite bad suggestion) that would favor the small would be something like

    Treasures are generated 10 per day at kings capital village -> each kingdom has the same potential to generate VP -> only those kingdoms that fight to steal treasures from neighbors get more VP generation


    This obviously would be bad because small kingdoms would just get farmed for their VP (lets not even talk about multis) and people would still apply to the big kingdoms. On paper and in vacuum this a very neutral mechanic however compared to the current system.

    Another approach to this could be that each kingdom generates 100 VP per day directly and you need to steal it but you can only steal up to double what the other guy has meaning you can't endlessly bully the small kingdoms for their VP. This would already solve few of the issues with the previous suggestion though generating couple new ones as well.


    Another example could be a member tax (lets say at the wonder so the early game is relatively unchanged). There could be a button in the kingdom menu aimed for this and each member could contribute (let's call it decorations for the wonder). The more members you have the more it costs, let's say 50k per level of each + 5k for each governor of the kingdom. This way you could still add more members but each new member would make the decoration cost higher. It's not back breaking high so each new member would be profit so long as they contribute but at the same time it incentivizes the team to stay as small as possible. Legends had something like this in a special server I think, gave bonuses to troop production (or something like that can't remember) so a tax system like this can be literally anything and even hidden behind a buff or a bonus you have to pay for ;)



    Hopefully you see my point however. So long as massive cooperation and adding more members is the logically the easiest and most straight forward way to win then that means folks will keep on doing it.

    Introducing mechanics that systematically favor smaller teams over biggest ones instead is a way for a truly more balanced game.

    Be2-e4 Haven't tested those as defensive speed often isn't really relevant the same way boots + TS stacking is on offense but ye pretty sure they work the same way. If they do work like that you can get some serious exponential gains on your speed with cross map reinforcements with hero boots + pennant + TS :D

    The way the boots and TS stack is quite counter intuitive and results in troops moving faster than what you might expect them to when multiple bonuses are stacked.

    Here's the quick rundown on how it works though. Instead of actually changing the speed the units move mid way trough the journey (which doesn't really make much sense since the units aren't physically moving on the map) the game instead calculates a new speed for the unit and then compares that to the distance to get the full travel time. The game does this by taking the base speed of the unit and then calculating what I will now call "boost factor" for the speed based on the TS level.


    Lets use your numbers here for a distance of 25 tiles the pretorians travel 20 tiles at speed 5 and then 5 tiles at speed 7 if we combine these two for average speed over the entire journey we get a number that's roughly 5.303 speed or 1.0606 boost factor. You can find out the boost factor yourself with the following equation:

    Total distance / ( 20 [for the first 20 tiles] + ( total distance - 20)/(1+speed buff))

    Plug and chug here and we get a boost factor of

    25/(20 +(25 - 20)/(1+0.4[TS multiplier]) = 1.06060606

    1.06060606 * 5 = 5.3030303 [new speed]

    Just to prove this provides the correct solution lets count the time here

    25/5.3030303 = 4.71428572 hours -> 4h 42 minutes 51 seconds and bit which is what the game will display.




    Now that the basics is out of the way the rest is quite simple. When there are multiple sources of speed buff the game simply multiplies up all the "boost factors" and then adds that to the real speed

    In this case we need to calculate the boots boost factor so lets do that now and see if we get the right number


    25 /(20+(25-20)/)1+0.3) = 1.0483871 boost factor

    Total boost factor = 1.0483871 * 1.06060606 = 1.11192571

    New speed = 5 * 1.11192571 = 5.55962855


    Plug that to the distance and we get

    25/5.55962855 = 4.49670329h -> 4h 29minutes 48seconds which is 1 second off of what the game actually shows which I believe is just due to some rounding here and there. Game probably uses bit fewer decimal places than I did in this to arrive to a speed just hair higher than I did.


    While I personally believe the speed should work around simply multiplying the bonuses this is the way it works and essentially it has some light exponential curve you might not expect to be there on initial inspection.

    Hope it helps :thumbsup:

    Gaul is by far the easiest to play and casual/beginner friendly of the tribes.


    Trapper is amazing building to get you trough the early game without having to worry too much about the attacks. And it's not even the traps but the threat of the traps that keep the attackers at bay which makes things easy for beginners, pick gaul you get a free pass for first few weeks and by then kingdoms should have formed where your team can help protect you and you should have learned some things or learned the game isn't for you. Beginning is the hardest part of the game and trapper single handedly solves that problem.


    Phalanx is basically the best defense unit in the game being cheap and fast to train and having much better balance between the defense values compared to the only one unit that's more cost effective in defense than him (spearfighter). In addition to that swords are also pretty solid defenders which makes gaul armies (especially the beginner ones which are unlikely to sport 10k TT's as their first priority) more resilient against attackers in general. Swordsman is nearly as efficient in terms of resources as a clubswinger and nearly as efficient in terms of crops as an imperian. Other gaul units share the same common core concept, they are fast, resource effective and have high defense (with the only exception being TT). This makes them easier to use for beginners who might not be online as often and not really care about the attack per hour stats. Gauls also have the most "complete" unit tree which means they are very flexible choice if you aren't quite sure what you want to make of yourself in the game. You have both the defense cavalry option (which Romans don't have and paladins are paladins) AND a fast raider option which Teutons lack. They might not be as great minmaxed as the other two but beginners typically don't want or need minmaxing, they need versatility and fallback options and bit of passive help here and there and Gaul has that in droves.

    You can just ignore the counter, the reward will be given when you have one village with all of it's crops at 10 or higher.

    I wouldn't say that one is too "hard" per say. It's just needs a kingdom so dominant with like 3+ wonders that they can afford one of their wonder guys to make pure warehouses for lolz

    >image
    The endless forest at all edges of the map is just there to limit the play area. If more people spawn in it occasionally moves backwards revealing new lands to build on ensuring proper map size for the amount of players on the server. For example current com2 has a radius of 79 while other servers could have a map that's bigger or smaller than that.


    >move village
    If you take the option your village will move to the coordinates specified. Usually the tile is inside a kingdom which you could then ask to join. The main function is to get your village to better location if you are stuck without a kingdom or in a kingdom where the king has gone inactive. You can take the option if the location seems good but it doesn't mean you have to join the king shown.


    >Isn't Villages on that area are more powerful? can i still play or they will make farm out of my village?
    If the new location is more central then yes there might be more powerful villages there who might attack you. Then again if the kingdom it gives you is good they might be able to protect you as well. This is a teamgame and playing solo won't work so you will need to sooner or later join a kingdom.


    >in my embassy show me 3 kingdom to contact the king and join
    It just points you to nearby kings you don't have to choose any of them if you don't like how they are growing.



    I recommend looking around at the map and finding a nearby kingdom who seems active and messaging their king about possibly joining. Kings tend to be experienced players so they can usually help and talking with nearby kings will also let you know who are active and friendly and who aren't.

    I'd like to say that if you don't plan to hit WW but generally just get offense and fight people then setting yourself up for success even later is pretty good idea for casual play.
    Get 5 or 6 villages and then start prod from barracks, stable and workshop lvl 20's it takes about 25k ress per hour to do that and you can easily do it with 5-6 well built villages (possibly even earlier than that if you don't have cap as 15c).
    Not getting units is a trap but so is getting permanently stuck with weak army and weak villages as too high investment into troops you don't raid with can choke your account and end up being useless that way, which is a trap lot of beginners also fall into (though no troops is probably more common)


    For active player troops produce way more resources than fields ever could so if you can raid then you should go with that and good WW hammers obviously need to be started early as well.