Printable View
No it does not.Quote:
Land based gains are atrocious. I don't want to be pumping for days before sending my troops out. Nw based gains make the game more dynamic and diminish the amount of pump you have to do.
If you want to hit someone say hlf your nw and same land you also take a big risk in army taking 36 hrs to return. The use of pumping is very overrated as long as we keep the nw based attacktimes.
Nw is another measure of size. Why is it more logical for you to compare land? That's right, because you played when there were land based gains. Have you conducted interviews with new players to confirm that they think land based gains would make more sense?
Today you need to hit provinces that are within 10% of your own nw to get good percentual gains. If the target's nw happens to be big part nw from the all the land, you'll get very good gains. It prevents excessive bottomfeeding in a much better way than land based gains ever did.
Please do explain how it makes things more competitive. I really don't understand why.
The random factor is not gone. Bishop emailed OMAC and Roisin confirmed that the first general does not give a bonus, and there is still a random factor.
I still don't see how the game would be improved by going back to a system that has been discarded before
* Charge 5-10 dollars per age per account
Clean up the extensive multiing, hire an additional programmer and make this game worth playing again.
Most controversial suggestion thus far? Maybe. Drop in players? Most definately.
But once this game is clean again and additional features have been implemented, popularity will pick up. Case of getting worse before getting better.
It's not more logical for me, it's more logical for everyone.
I've played in many ghettos over and over for ages trying to teach new players the ropes, and one of the questions that keep appearing is the "why did I only get 14 acre when I attacked someone larger then myself"
For any normal person that hasn't been in utopia NW (Which is a measure of strength not size) has little or no meaning. They quickly learn that it relates to how much army you have, but why in the name of god they should not get better gains from attacking greenland then israel is beyond them. one has tons of lands and little or no army, one has tiny lands and a ton of army, surely ppl would attack greenland first. But with NW based gains they would get about a ton of snow and nothing more.
Landbased gains are easily tuned to prevent bottonfeeding as much as NWbased gains.
It makes things more competitive because ppl will look more to similar size, thus exploring gets much harder as you can be broken for decent gains by similar sized provs that's for some reason been pumped. Weeks on is not the only way a province can find itself with low nad and high army, say you get chained in war and suddenly you are oow, you have 75% draft and 500 acre, surely it will be easyer to come back then if you have to hit ppl twise your sice to get a decent gain.
The randomfacotor is to all intents and purposes gone. The tie was between a: a 2% random factor and 3% bonus from first general or b: no random factor.
So if there is no bonus for general there is no random factor.
This is not the system it has discarded, that system had static returntimes, and that's what makes bottomfeeding viable. If you can make 4 smal hits safely each 8 hrs that's a huge growth combined. Do not get your systems mixed up here!
When I tell new players that the game was once based on acres versus acres, rather than networth versus networth, they go 'uhhh? How does that make sense?'
Introduce new enhanced trad march, Trad march with added abilities for 3 hr more attack time or require 15% more offense to win.
Human: Does a minor learn as well
Elf: Steals some runes and wizards
Dwarf: Reduce BE by 1% for 3 hours
Orc: kidnaps soldiers and peasants
Gnome: Steals gold
DE: steals 3% mana.
Reality has nothing to do with it. The game isn't made to reflect reality, it's made to be fun to play. Being unable to grow because you get bottomfed on (nw wise) too much is not fun. With land based gains you have to pump all the time or you get fed on. That's not fun.
If they can be easily tuned to prevent bottomfeeding then I would really like to see that solution.
If OMAC says there is a random factor, there probably is a random factor. I base that belief on the fact that they have access to the code and they said there is one.
With land based gains, anyone with low nwpa is a prime target. You'll gladly trade an extra few hours of attack time for a big safe gain. With nw based gains, those fatties will only be good hits for people close to their nw. That's what stops bottomfeeding
I have seen some poor human suggests(and some suggestions for other races that would rape humans)
Why give Orcs 8/3 elites? You already have the highest offense, with this Humans would become useless as attackers. Same with giving Orcs +1 def spec or removing human +1. As it stands right now doing any of the above would make humans worthless to play.
I can understand if Orcs have some defensive issues(some they should have for balance) but don't destroy humans to fix orcs, there is no sense in that.
As for my suggestions for human changes I would have to say:
+1 Def Spec
6/3 Elite 800gc
+25% Income Bonus
+25% Science Effectiveness
1% Learn on TM
-------
-40% Offensive Magic Eff.
Specific Spellbook – Greater Protection, Aggression, Fog
Redo elites so that costs are in line with points. 100 gc per 1 point. 5/6 DE elite? 1100 GC. 8/2 Orc elite? 1000 GC. Exception is Gnomes, who get a race benefit of 50 gc per point, so their 5/4 elite is 450 gc.
Makes armouries viable, makes hosps valuable, hurts Gnomes because they have to spend more on elites, helps Dwarfs because their 7/4 becomes cheaper relative to everybody else.
I never said game shold in any way resemble reality, I said it should be logical, It might be a poor phracing, intuitive might be better. It's much more fun to play if you actually get it...
Landbased gains can easily be tuned to give 50% of max at 80% of land and 40% at 70% and 33% and under 50% so say you can hit someone with 50% your land and same nw you will get 33% of normal gains at 12hrs return time.
Say you hit someone 100% of your size and 50% of your nw you get 100% of normal gains and 36 hrs return time.
Offcourse the numbers are made up, not balanced towards fighting bottomfeeding, but an example.
That's just silly, now the best gains come from ppl with more land and same nw, more commonly known as low nwpa. They're the perfect target right now, so don't be silly.Quote:
With land based gains, anyone with low nwpa is a prime target.
Why add in acres to the equation at all? It's just another factor to worry about. I dont see your reasoning other than a nostalgia trip.
I just hope this is disregarded along with the "bring back Avian/Undead" crap.
The key word is "anyone", not "nwpa".
Also, I don't agree that it's more logical to base gains on land. For the sake of the game I think it's more logical to have people attacking people closer to their own strength. If everybody's just supposed to look up the weak ones the game would be much more boring. And again: I'm not convinced that new players think land gains are more logical. At least not relative land gains. Why would you need 1k acres to be able to get good gains from someone else who is 1k acres? Wouldn't it make more "sense" that you gain more from whoever is bigger than yourself? Like if you hit someone who has 20k land, you should be able to get more than from one who has 1k. That would be easy to explain to a new player, but terrible for the game
I'm not adding acres, I'm changing the decicive factor from your strength to your lands when determining how much gains you get.
It gives diversity and hurts exploring and it helps new players by being more intuitive.
My version:Quote:
Originally Posted by adjin
It makes the game LESS diverse (for example by hurting exploring and forcing people to spend a lot of time pumping) and it isn't in any way established that it is more intuitive for new players, and it also makes less sense for gameplay.
No it doesnt. Land adds NW, intuition lets you find players who NW is worthless land and who's is military.
Land based gains leads to eveveryone pumping at minimum acres and leads to stagnation, not diversity.