Posts by Curtain

    Ye it's not neccessary so if your treasury works better if you place it bit further out just go for it. Usually you want to have couple treasuries next to the wonder to cover all the villages that go there so it tends to be quite easy to make sure the wonder tile itself is also covered.

    If the holder isn't a king you can also sell treasure there though it's not going to hold off the starvation for long :D

    2h in 2h out would just combine the bad portions of both night truce and non night truce.


    The point of night truce is to allow people to play accounts by themselves without sacrificing sleep and what not by ensuring you can't be attacked during the night. Making it so you can get attacked during the night but only at certain points would entirely defeat that purpose (since if I'm night player I don't have a problem attacking you 2h later or what ever) but at the same time making the system needlessly complex for everyone. The 6h truce at least makes bit more sense as that could be managed by dual account but even then I just don't see the point. At least the original night truce has a clear purpose and a strong point everyone can agree to even if some might not like or play those rounds.


    The original point of having an american time zone or asian time zone night truce round is pretty fine in my books though.

    No normal attacks don't act like raids, the raid phase is entirely simulated and only used to determine the wall level for the actual fight.

    It's what allows rams and catapults to do damage even though they all die during the attack.


    Normal raid doesn't allow rams or catapults to do damage at all.

    Yes if offense is somewhere in the same ballpark then wall should have an impact even if it goes down to 0 in the end. That being said the later wall levels are lot tougher so if you can only get it to 15 or 10 then that reduces the amount threshold where offense is so big the wall doesn't matter.

    Also it's not about "enough to defeat the defense" rather it's about "how many rams survive the simulated raid". This is why ram count is very important because in big defenses the raid might only let a very small percentage of your rams to actually hit the wall.


    You can play around in the simulator with different force levels and different amount of rams and different wall types and see how it all stacks up. So long as the enemy isn't overwhelming the wall should boost your defenders power up so it's quite good building for every location you seriously intend to defend.

    It's a bit complicated, short answer is that you can use the battle simulator to figure out how much you will lose (which is really the important number)


    The actual ramming mechanic is that first there is a simulated raid played out and then based on the raids results the remaining rams do their damage first time and this wall level is used to then determine the actual results of the battle.

    Basically what this means that even if the wall goes down to 0 it can still have some impact vs not having the wall there at all but at the same time if the force difference is sufficiently large even lvl 20 wall could be reduced to 0 in that simulated raid phase which means the actual battle is fought at wall lvl 0.


    Few examples will help



    Here the wall goes to 0 but it's non 0 for the actual fight


    924d90798d.png



    Compare above to below where the wall is removed, in both cases the end result is lvl 0 wall but the difference in casualties is big so the wall is clearly doing something.


    b9582f73ca.png



    If on the other hand the attack is much larger than the defense like this


    bf60b20a19.png



    7d88861656.png



    Here we can see how the wall changes nothing. This is because the attacking force is so large it takes the wall down to 0 in the simulated raid phase

    It compares your account population to his account population, the formula is bit complex but you can easily test the effect with the in game battle simulator, and it's not actually a defense boost but rather it makes the attacked weaker.

    If you are serious about attacking then yes you should keep yourself somewhat on the smaller side. Being smaller than the person you are attacking offers no bonus though so ideal size would be about the same as the type of person you are targeting. That being said if more villages increase your army size then you want more villages. Just try to not build anything too unnecessary and you will be fine.


    Morale bonus doesn't effect wonder attacks so if you are making a WW hammer or plan to own a wonder you don't have to worry about your account size.

    Brainstormed few solutions to the defense problem here with guys


    1) Weapon that gives NPC attack

    When defending the stage 2 attacks you could be rewarded with a weapon for your tribes basic defense unit that buffs their attack by say 50 or 100 meaning you could use your Praetorian or spears to attack the NPC in the final phase. For obvious reasons this attack power boost would only work against the NPC. Could technically be a adventure reward too but probably underwhelming to get one from there so better as a defense reward.


    2) Defense gives "Proof of Victory" consumables

    You would earn a consumable called Proof of Victory every X units (lets say 100) of the NPCs you kill on defense. These would only be given out on stage 2 attacks if necessary and not stage 1 raids. Each consumable would give your hero a temporary attack boost of say 10k (equivalent of 150 swords) that again works only against NPCs. You can use these to help you clear the NPC along with your robber clearer force. It makes thematic sense too as you win battles they will start to respect you more and eventually surrender.


    Both of these options could work independently or together and would help defense players clear the NPC's but not make them stronger at it than offense players.


    3) Natarian horn could also effect NPCs

    Not really a defense thing but would help regardless.


    Just some ideas not sure how good these are or even if they are possible to implement :D

    I would like to chip regarding the whole "only clays, crops and forests" thing. I would just enable them all purely because it's better balance otherwise the capital meta will just be to settle a 3 iron field site for maximum gains. Regarding realism (which isn't very good argument against pure gameplay like balance to begin with), most medieval areas weren't fully cultivated or utilized like they are today. In fact you can see it in the greater map around your village when zoomed to the field level. There are couple lakes and bigger mountains and lots of forests around. You could pretty easily make the argument that the field limits aren't really about the natural resources but rather a question of labor utilization and from that perspective it's easy to see why you should also be able to switch to and from iron fields. Let's say that the normal layout represents the "natural" resources most easily utilized by the village but with this "surveyor/farmer/terraformer" building built you can stop working that iron mine near the village and turn more of the outlaying lands into farms and send workers there (for a small or not so small price of course)


    Noob trapping is a bit of problem but I don't think denying the ability to switch your irons out would save the noob either when he starts pushing the clays-be-gone button. It's somewhat of an inherent problem with this idea but sometimes you just need to let players make bad choices so long as your design isn't intentionally leading them to stupid positions.


    Limiting the building to a capital CITY would be a good help as that prevents first day uses of it. Another would be to keep the levels of the field when you use it (as that enables for a quick back switch) though that might be bit OP. Another would be that you just set the max number of crops (or any field type if you want to enable 1-15-1-1 villages I suppose) to 6 at lvl 2 and then go up by 1 every 2 levels finish up at 15 fields at lvl 20. Each type shouldn't be able to be reduced below 1 either. You could also make it so that it's cheaper to convert from something with a lot to something that has less so if you make a mistake you could undo that bit easier.


    Also I don't think the field revert is needed if the capital changes (be it because of attack or because of you switching it). You can pretty trivially price out the "I will make 2 croppers" option from players (you could tune the building to work even tighter granting max 5 of same type at lvl 10 and then going up by 1 per level if it's too cheap) and with everyone having access to a cropper the multi abuse or players attacking others to gain their croppers wouldn't be such a big deal. Afterall you could simply chief a natar if you wanted another 15c as there's way less competition.

    This is just a suggestion right or is this a feature that will come with maybe minor tweaks?

    Regarding the proposals I need to think about them more carefully but here are some initial thoughts on each part semi separately.


    >15cs behind NPC cities


    I do think 15c's are something that needs looking at and at least I personally hate the 24h settle strategies even though I do use them. The main problem is that it separates the "good" players who use these strategies from the "bad" players who don't or perhaps don't know about them because they are new to the game which creates a big power gap between these two groups. I think the problems have been getting worse too considering 3 rounds ago it was a curiosity and on the latest rounds whole teams are doing it. I have not played on the Menhir worlds which should solve at least part of the issues as the newer players can be invited into the kingdom with them if the core decides to abandon their spawn area in search of croppers.


    Locking all 15c's and 9c's behind NPC's i'm not 100% sure off though. I can see that it could help in some regard but hurt in others. For a thought experiment let's pretend they would just be current natars in every way. In this scenario me as experienced player would start from a level playing field with the new player in getting a 15c cap but it would give me clear advantage in actually acquiring one. In fact an experienced player could probably chief several of them before the average player is ready to take the first one (assuming no team play shenanigans I don't even want to think about quit yet). So I'm on the fence about what the result would be from that direction. ´


    Some things I'm not on the fence about is that it would clearly be a nerf to offense (namely the WW offense) unless the NPC's were trivial and came with like lvl 12 fields. For comparison in my latest game I had my fields at lvl 13 in my normally settled cap when the decent players started getting their natarian villages together and that's when natars cost only 1 culture slot. If the NPC's were trivial then I guess the situation would be relatively the same since you could compensate on the late start with the greats you might be able to more easily afford in a wholly or almost wholly prebuilt city. Systems tuning would also be considered carefully. Tune it more towards the average player and the experts chief all of them before you get to sneeze. Tune it for the expert as more challenging natar essentially and you nerf the offense greatly and potentially make it impossible task entirely for the small players. Another thing is that while it does nerf offense more than defense it also means defense players can't actually get a 15c at all without the help of their team which is something worth considering as well, if you don't have a premade that trusts your abilities how are you supposed to convince them to give you a 15c?


    It would also shift balance naturally to favor more Teutons (though this is imo a good thing they are bit on the weaker side as it is)

    Depending on the tuning it might force people to build non capital hammers lot more than they do now which i'm on the fence with. It leads to more target rich environment but is that good either? And I bet most people would choose to bypass the risk anyways just by waiting with their main offense stack until they get one of the NPC cities so just leading to smaller WW hammers.


    Lastly while new players might get the shaft on the current rush for 15c's 12h after start they still have a chance to either get one later when map expands or take one of the less desirable 9c's for instance. And even a relatively inexperienced player could follow a basic guide and get a good 15c if they get bit lucky and are willing to be active for the first day. The new system raises this bar from "follow these steps we post to everyone" to "stay good and on top of the game for at least 2 weeks" which could lead to no croppers for anyone but the best.


    Personally I think there could be other options that could be explored to limit the 15c rush (like say some ideas from earlier threads like cultivating/terraforming your own fields or capital auto turning into the type you want or something). One thing I do like about this suggestion is that it keeps the current importance of the map layout which is nice.




    Best case scenario seems to me seems to to be

    - Bit more active starting phase with NPC capture instead of the starting sim

    - More fair towards new players at least on day 1

    - Less speed settling


    Worst case scenario

    - Active players with duals and what not take ALL the croppers instead of just some

    - Wrong tuning turns the game into a cropper fiesta or starvation hellscape

    - Defense players get no croppers and playing good defense without premade is impossible


    Questions:

    What tribe would the NPCs be? New one or like a mix of the existing 3

    Do they build units or start with a bunch of them or mix of both?

    How strong would the city be in terms of unit count? (stronger than natars? weaker? about the same?)



    >More active NPCs (the second part of the post)


    I do think this is a pvp game and the core of the game should always be in that. That being said little pve doesn't hurt so long as it's implemented well.

    Now this particular suggestion I'm not at all convinced this change would be a good one in relation to the 15c -> NPC city change, not at least until some more details are open like NPC powers and detailed behavior and so on. That being said I think this sort of system would be perfect for the Natars that already exist in the game (mini grey zone anyone?) and Natars could be bit more active on the round using this system. I would be totally for implementing this for the Natars at least if not the NPC cities as well.


    I don't actually have a strong opinion yet as I fail to understand some key elements of the proposal so here are some questions and worries instead.


    Worries:

    - The reward system seems like it could be exploited by pinging the NPC''s with 1 unit attacks to trigger retaliations and farm the rewards

    - Balance has to be set right for the attacks

    - The NPC attacks have to be well communicated to players


    Questions:

    - Are the rules on city per city basis or do they apply to all of the NPCs. What I mean by this is that does the 75% and 60% breakpoints count for that one NPC or for the entire game world as a whole? The third bit seems to imply the NPCs retaliate as a group but does that apply to stages 1 and 2 too or just for the 3rd?

    - Since the break points seem to be quite close to each other that would imply the NPCs has lot of units and attacks with small portions of it's army each time instead of it's entire force?

    - Is the intended gameplay to first chip down the NPC units on the defense, then goad them to attack more (killing more of their units in their small attacks) and then finish them off in one chunk? Or are the NPCs structured more like a robber camp that you can't finish off with one siege?

    - Do they build units (I know same question as above but relevant still) or perhaps get reinforcements from other NPCs




    Answers to the specific questions:

    1) Resource piles are probably better option since chests are limited to one per day, unless the chest is a different kind or like a diamond tier or something like that.

    2) Yes they should have siege. Otherwise what threat do they pose? Random raids would only realistically hurt the weaker players and better players can either dodge actively or continuously send away units and rely on chickens for night dodge. They could use a mix of raids, attacks with rams and attacks with catapults though (such as only raiding with normal units in phase 1)

    3) I can see some good ideas here but I'm honestly pretty confused what is the design goal here?

    The active NPC part I can understand, goal is to have more things to do and more filler on the round and more things for defense players to do stress free but the 15c change doesn't seem to really match what I think the goal of the change is. I guess the goal is to remove the 12h settle race (a good goal imo) but I'm not convinced this is the way to go about that.


    I'm not going to lay down judgement on the ideas tho just yet, need clarification on certain points, more numbers and and explanations on the mechanics and more time for me to think about it. Interested to see what others want to say as well!

    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.