Posts by Hæim#NO

    some players use hideouts to hide their troops they wouldn't approve :p

    It was never an intended feature, and it's one that makes playing as an off player very trivial because the only way you will ever reliably kill an off player while they are away is because they are either too lazy to hide their troops in the hideout or because you killed their entire village. There are still ways of hiding your army if you are going away for a longer period of time, but the robber hideout is the most reliable way of doing so, but it was never intended to be used this way to begin with, or so I would believe.


    if it scales with off and you are a def player this means the troops in hideouts would be low and thus too easy to clear.

    Then why does this entire thread exist to begin with then if they didn't want to have an easier time clearing robber hideouts? That's the whole point of this discussion :D


    Why would it be too easy? It would just be as hard for a def player to clear it as it is for an off player to clear it without the def player having to pivot into building a mini hammer just for clearing hideouts every day?


    -Hæim

    Alright, another couple of ideas:


    1: What if when you reinforce the robber hideout, the robbers automatically attacks the troops you are reinforcing with with their full strength? This could either be instant or on a 1 hour delay allowing you to stack it up before they attack (though I think instant might be more fair.) You don't get the benefit of hiding behind a wall this way, but it could be a way to speed up the killing of robber hideouts where attackers won't benefit from it very easily. They would have to make def villages and use those to tank the hideout, but at that point they could also just build a second robber hideout hammer to clear it instead. Also, attackers would still have an advantage because they can siege it.


    2: Make it so that robber hideouts scale more linearly with attacking strength and not have them be based mostly on resource production in the early game. The current robber hideout is very unforgiving for defensive players because they HAVE to build an economy to be able to build up their force since most of the time they can't rely on raiding because there is very few good defensive raiding units, and because of this, robber hideouts are a lot stronger for defensive players than what they can kill if they were to just attack it with their defensive army. Their losses will be several times larger than what a single village hammer offensive player will lose because their troops are spread out through several villages and because of this initial resource production scaling. Just either reduce the scaling or make it scale entirely off of the attacking strength of your troops to fix this issue.


    -Hæim

    I think that even with the wall bonus this would be a fine idea. A proposed change I would make to this idea would be that you could provoke them by attacking them with 1 unit, then they will immediately retaliate. When robbers attack though, they only attack with half their units, and they can attack up to 2 times, so you still have to kill 1/4 of the original hideout the same way, but it is a lot more managable this way compared to how it is right now. A good temporary fix for this, until they change hideouts that I personally use is to train haeduans in my capital just for killing these hideouts since it pretty much pays for itself and you will have some extra haeduans to use as def in a pinch. Hero levels is also a +. And the treasures help out a bit as well.

    this would bring the game more out of balance between offer and defender, like it still is
    the offer can decide to attack for the CP, the defender has to share the CP with other defender and mostly leaders decide, who has to defend which villa
    finally the defender cant choose to make CP in this kind, the offer can

    It is very true that def players have a disadvantage compared to off players that they have to use their troops reactively, but def players can stack as many players as they want in just 1 village to overpower off players, and def troops are way cheaper compared to off troops once you get into the part of the game where off players have to run greats. If you are in a position where you have to spend all your resources on building def troops, then you will most likely be able to use them several times every day anyways, so you should get a bit of a trickle of culture points to let you get new villages a bit quicker instead of just having to wait for that super slow passive culture point gain or having to spend resources on celebrations.

    That's exactly my point. Since you're playing attrition you'll never have a decent amount of troops since you are constantly hitting and rebuilding, therefore a simmer that has been fattening up will most likely be able to kill way more troops than the attrition player before he runs out of army, and he already has the eco to stack up the army again and probably can maintain parties going 24/7. I don't see an attrition player winning this fight on CP.

    What does it mean to be playing attrition? Do you just suicide your troops on the enemy every single day? Do you try to cause as much damage on the enemy with as few losses as possible? I'm guessing that it means that you spend all your resources on troops and improving your troops, but if you are on the front line you will most likely be able to farm quite a bit extra which would give you extra production compared to a simming player, but you can't spend that production on parties like they can in the beginning. If you try to play safe and build up your army while only picking off easy targets, then you will be able to eventually have enough resources to spare to build a few settlers every once in a while to settle new villages, or even chief one of the villages you have been attacking and farming. Eventually, you can start putting resources into running celebrations as well, and you will be able to catch up to the players who have been simming in cp. because you have higher income with farming and higher cp income because you are killing enemies, while you also have an army and they do not.


    Also, you can build troops then spend them and start simming after. That is also a valid strategy right? Aiming for powerspikes then recovering. If you spend all your resources on building troops to fight then lose them all in an attack on an enemy treasury then you would get some cp back for every troop you killed and would be able to settle a couple of villages to help you catch up to your simming peers. This would also help you with spending some of the extra resource production you gained after freeing up a large amount of maintenance.


    Do you think that you should get punished for playing attrition? I think that if more players played this way, it would be way more fun to play. Early fights can be just as important as fights in tha later parts of the server, but the players who sacrefice their lategame to secure an objective early are usually rewarded with no recognition on the hall of fame, so most players instead choose to aim for strategies that give the largest amount of impact and points in the lategame even though they could have and should have spent their troops way earlier. This idea is mostly just to encourage players to fight more and earlier.

    Multi abusers will love this idea.


    Besides the idea one need alot of villages in order to create a usefull account (off or deffwise) isn't necessarily true. Many different ways to play this game and be usefull. Its all a matter of playstyle, goal and how one works towards it.


    Those who don't last early game mostly won't have any effect later game either.

    I'm sure multi abusers are having a good time already with all the crazy things they can exploit. Adding 1 more thing to the table that is also super easy to track shouldn't be an issue imo.


    You don't need a lot of villages to make a useful account indeed. One of the most useful accounts is the king accounts made on day 1 used to menhir players closer to the WWs, and you don't even need to settle a second village to change the course of the server with such an account. Being the first kingdom to get to 10 out of 12 croppers near a ww will secure that ww for you and severely set back any other kingdoms aiming for that ww, pretty much ending their server on day 1 if the server is competetive enough.


    Every player on the server has some kind of impact whether they like to or not. They take up a tile on the map at the very least, and that is enough to change things. It could very well be that the winner of the server was determined by a random player who joined the server on day 1 and left within 10 minutes due to the butterfly effect.

    what if the players that were left alone and go the simming/partying route start attacking when they have the eco to back up the losses ?

    Isn't that gonna make it even more difficult for those frontliners to compete with ?

    If you did that then you would be attacking enemies who are already being attacked by someone else who has probably also been farming those same enemies for quite some time. It's not like you can't also do celebrations at the same time as doing this. It could be that if you wait too long with using your troops then the players who have been fighting will have already caught up to you in economy, and will have already surpassed you, so you would be the one catching up at that point. It kinda balances out. That's how it should be ideally though. I want to endorse more fighting, not more simming. The value of culture points fall off quite hard in the later parts of the game, so when the troops killed measure up in the millions, it will already be so late in the server that 5 extra villages will not gain you that much of a benefit.


    As it stands there is no actual tangible benefit for killing other players troops other than for hero xp unless you are trying to farm someone or if you are trying to destroy an objective or defend an objective. I just imagine culture points would be the best way to give something in return for spending large parts of your economy on military and to reward aggression.


    You should always build up your economy to some extent. You don't want to be building only military with the just the 1 level 1 cropland you are forced to build in the tutorial. But when the most effective way to play the game is to not interact with other players for the first 30 days of the server then I feel like that's not how it's supposed to be. It should be an option, but it shouldn't be the best way to play the game.

    As it stands, the only way to build your culture effectively is by building up a lot of villages and holding a lot of celebrations.


    My suggestion is simple.

    For every unit killed in offense and in defense, grant the player who is responsible for that kill 1 culture point.

    So if you attack someone and kill 2000 def troops and you lose 1500 off troops, then you gain 2000 culture points, and whoever lost their def troops will gain 1500 culture points.

    A couple of exceptions would be that you can't gain culture points from killing troops from the same kingdom and you can't get any (or reduced) culture points for killing robber hideouts or robber camps.


    Why do I think this is a good idea?

    Sometimes players end up in the middle of an earlygame war, and because of this they end up being heavily impeded in their cultural growth since they are forced to spend all their resources on building troops.

    These circumstances makes it so that these players who fought for weeks on end will end up a lot weaker than players who were left alone and were free to develop their villages as they saw fit, even though the players that were on the front line have made a much bigger impact on the server as a whole. I feel like this is the opposite way of how it should be. The player who fought from day 1 is the one who has gained all the fame and notoriety, so their culture should be way more known, widespread, and thus more developed. There is a reason why none of the largest cultures in history is one that just wanted peace with everyone, but instead it was the ones who were waging war.

    First I will say that one of the reasons we don't published the punishment guidelines is to ensure players don't "calculate" what is worth doing or not.

    So if you published them, would there be a way to calculate some form of cheating that would be worth doing?


    Shouldn't all cheating not be worth doing, or am I missing a point here?


    Also, players are going to figure this out even if you post them or not. There are already players who are testing the limits of what they can get away with and what they can't.

    1. Track the multies for at the very least a couple of days, preferrably a week to gather evidence to figure out the perpetrators behind them. Who do they trade, who do they send their def to, who do they get raided by (is it just 1 person or is it several people?) and is that player raiding them getting raided by someone else? Where do the value of the account end up? That's the guy you need to ban. The multies are replaceable, the main account is not. It might seem like this is more work than just banning them on the spot, but trust me when I say that these are the same people doing it over and over again because it works, and it works really really well.


    2. Ban the avatar, not the account on just 1 gameworld. Ban them on every gameworld and force them to either stop playing or make a new character with 0 prestige. This way we will know which players are the scum and which players actually deserve the prestige they possess.

    It would make it easier to make hammers that specialize in damaging world wonder villages. You would lose out on a bit of killing power and gain more destructive power. The benefit would be that you can maybe get that 1 extra level shaved off of the WW that could change the tide of battle in the endgame, but it could also be the reason why you weren't able to pull through a treasury attack earlier on because you wore that instead of a cavalry helmet for instance. Also, it would make ww hammers a bit cheaper to feed. As for benefits, you would have more options on where you want to take your account. More options means more strategies which means more replayability.


    - Hæim

    I would like to see a 1 million troop quest. The 100k one is finished before ww even has a chance to spawn, so any troops beyond that can only really be tracked by checking troops lost in light society SS stats, though that is not always accurate, and it only works for def players. That would be sufficient to be able to track it to some extent imo.

    I've heard rumors that heroes become cheaper and quicker to revive for every level above 100. Haven't checked it out myself yet though :)

    To start off with, this was just pure curiocity, but after spending about 30 minutes looking into this, I've realized that there are a few issues that I think needs to be resolved actually.


    1: Legionnaires, Phalanxes and Spearmen are too cheap/build too quickly.


    You can build def units in every village you make at the 1x price cost of building them in a regular barracks, and you can group them up and have them fight as a single fighting force. In the early game they are not too cheap though, but the moment off players have to build in great barracks and great stable to keep up, def players will pull ahead big time since the cost of off units are effectively doubled from that point onwards. This means that even the super cheap off unit clubmen cost 360 resources, almost the same as a praetorian, which is the only def unit I haven't included in this list because I think it's the only def unit that might actually be balanced in terms of cost. I think bringing the other infantry defensive units more in line with praetorians in terms of cost would be a good first step. Just doing something like increasing the cost of all of them by 80 resources each would be a good start. This would also put defensive infantry units more in line with defensive cavalry units, so I don't know why they were this cheap to begin with.


    Legionnaires: 305 resources each (example: 95 wood, 65 clay and 145 iron)

    Phalanxes: 315 resources each (example: 105 wood, 145 clay and 65 iron)

    Spearmen : 320 resources each (example: 170 wood, 65 clay and 85 iron)

    Praetorian: 340 resources each (unchanged)


    This issue could also possibly be fixed by making the units trained in the Great Barracks and the Great Stable cheaper. As it stands, in the endgame of speed servers, def units are running rampant, and off armies are completely unable to keep up. on 1x servers this is not so much the case though, but most of my experience is from playing 3x and 5x servers, so if someone with more 1x experience would give a few words on this idea, then that would be great :)


    2: Teuton def costs a lot of wood to build. Both spearmen and paladins cost way more wood than any other resource.


    I think that one of the reasons why teutons aren't played a lot as def is because of this fact, because it costs way more gold to run a def teuton account compared to a def gaul account, and it's not a whole lot better. A way to change this is to make the teuton paladin cost more clay than it does wood. This is not really going to change the power level of the teutons at the top level, but it will make the barrier for entry for playing def teutons a lot lower, and I think that is the reason why almost no one plays it. Gauls are just a lot more simple in comparison since phalanxes are more balanced in terms of cost, and because of how robber camps work you are almost forced to take balanced 4446 villages when you settle if you don't want to get killed by your own kingdom. This means that as a teuton def you are forced to npc regularly to make up for the excessive amount of clay and iron you have to make up for the huge lack of wood, and since the only other common playstyle that has excess wood is romans building EC and catapults, and since the def teuton also has to compete with off teutons which is way more popular, trading clay for wood on the marketplace tends to be difficult.


    Just changing the wood and clay cost around would be sufficient.

    Paladins: (170 wood, 330 clay and 200 iron)


    One issue with this is that it might seem too similar to the gaul def combo of phalanxes + druids.


    Edit: I would also like to mention that just because 1x servers are balanced, does not mean that 3x servers are balanced, because they are both running 2 completely different versions of the game. What do I mean? 1x servers end up having on average 3x as many VP since there are 3 times as many days where VP gets counted. This means that stealing VP on 3x servers is way more significant, and due to this chances of large swings are much more likely on those servers. Also, maintenance on 1x servers and 3x servers is the same. This is actually the direct cause that def is so much stronger on 3x servers compared to 1x servers. Production is 3x as high and training time is 3x as short, but because the maintenance is the same, it means that if you have 20k production after factoring in the production cost on a 1x server, and 60k on a 3x server, the time it takes for the 1x server to run out of resource production is the same as the 3x server takes to run out of production. Why does this matter? Because on 3x servers, as a def gaul player you can more or less run 15 level 20 barracks until the end of the server from day 35, but if you tried to do the same on a 1x server you would end up with too many troops to feed after 20 days of building, and then if you didn't lose a lot of them in battle, you would have to stop production in several villages, reducing the amount of def you will have in total later on. This is where off players finally get a chance to shine because off units are on average stronger than def units per crop spent on maintenance.

    Unknown


    Have you guys considered rebalancing the troops already in the game? I know that they were made a lot cheaper in kingdoms compared to legends, but the stats of the units has been the same for over a decade now. I guess I'm just curious about whether or not you have considered it, and if so which changes were considered.

    I'm pretty sure this is caused by the tribute coffer of the duke not being updated when the duke claims tributes from his governers. I experienced the same thing when I was playing as a king and had a particular duke send me many angry messages that I was not claiming his tributes. Best way to deal with this is by coordinating when your dukes are claiming their tributes since it will very quickly overflow their tributes, particularly if they have a small warehouse in their treasury village.

    1k troop limit is really good actually. You are already taking in a player that has no economy since their fields in their only village will get nuked in the process. The number of troops they have should not be a deciding factor whether you want to recruit them or not, you will recruit them based on your estimation of their future potential if you even think that far before recruiting someone. If they have more than 1k troops then you are already doing fine where you are, and if you still want to move then that means you have some kind of enemy near you that is a threat to you, or you were just lazy with getting your menhir done. People already play around menhir by not settling more than 1 village, so they sure can play around not having more than 1k troops as well. The difference is that you only need 1 village to build a hammer, but you can't build a hammer that can deal significant amounts of damage in the next 24 hours if you can't start with more than 1k troops with the exception of the first 14 days of a 1x server, but that's not something you can account for even if you removed all troops completely from the account when you are using the menhir feature.


    The thing the 1k troop restriction doesn't remove is the multi account strategy of building up fields high then menhiring over to main account and collect all the resource crates they got back after menhiring. The only real way to combat this is by making it so that you can't raid resources from a player that menhired over for the next week on 1x servers or the next 3 days on 3x servers since by that time, rebuilding fields would give more resources than holding on to the crates, but they could still just rebuild their villages and use them as farm accounts. The issue with this is that this would severely limit early game attacks since pretty much everyone uses the menhir feature in the early game, and thus farming would get hit very hard. It would make it a little bit easier for new players to transition into a new kingdom though since menhiring someone over just to attack them and take their resources would no longer give any profits, and thus you would no longer give new players that kind of experience until after the first week of gameplay, so they will have some time to grow in relative peace even after BP ends. You would still be able to catapult these players and you would still be able to steal tributes from them, including treasures, just not resources they have stored in their warehouse.

    How do you define such an item so that there would be no room for misinterpretation? Natarian horn makes sense since it has natarian in it's name, but what would you call this item that would make it impossible for the players to think that it could also be used against anything but Natarians, Robbers and nature if they decide to include that? War horn, as mentioned above would easily be interpreted as being able to be used against player as well, wouldn't it? And also, wouldn't this just make it so that every player would want to get this item? I feel like the game needs more items that are situational like the natarian horn, and not just another scale armor. But at the same time, if you add more items, you make the rest of them more rare as well, since there is a larger pool to pull from.


    On another note, I think that the unique item cap should be removed. At the moment you cannot recieve an item from adventures if you already have it in your inventory, or on your person. You have to sell the item before you can get it again. This means that items that everyone want, like club weapon, become even more sparse than other items because once you get an item, or buy an item, you can never get duplicates of said item, thus your account has no chance of supplying that item to the game anymore. If you have proof that contradicts this, then please do present it to me in the form of screenshot of reports and screenshot of inventory. Need to be 2 of the same unique item.


    -Hæim