Printable View
They should be replaced with 1/(1+x) mechanics. EG gs should not give -0-50% gains, but 0-100% gains reduction where 100% means the gains are mulitplied by 1/(1+1) aka 50%. Similarly for draft cost reduction, rax, TDs, ritual cost reduction, and so on.
It gets frustrating having to post this trivial improvement once a year and see it ignored, year after year. There's no reason these mechanics should be imbalanced.
Why exactly?
I believe 1-x functions create lines with constant slope where 1/(1+x) functions create concave downward curves with decreasing slope.
I'm also curious why? :)
I don't see any point to this.
It's just diminishing returns. That's a prevalent mechanic with a lot history to back it up. Since this is a "balance" suggestion, it sounds as though it currently applies to some buildings but not to others. Which is odd if true.
Because 15->20% gs is more benefit than 0->5%. That's the opposite of what diminishing returns is supposed to do.
And it's just a matter of time until someone gets -105% draft cost or shielding damage.
Do some basic math before asking why.
well, its your idea, i think the onus is on you to explain your suggestion, not on us to do your math.
From what I can tell, your statement about GS is not true... I see that 5% being worth 2/3 the first 5%.
This is the purpose of DBE (thus Rattlehead's comment above), but also the language doesn't work.
'100% gains reduction' does not read as 'reduce gains by 50%' to a layperson.
It looks like this change would generally make it so fewer buildings would be required to reach a given %effect than are currently required (significantly so up to the first 25% of whatever the max effect of that buildings is, then dropping off as you approach 100% of max effect). This might not be such a bad idea, considering the variety of buildings available to us in game is increasing and not decreasing.
"Reduce gains by 50%" is pretty straight forward to me (my gains are halved).
"100% gains reduction" is not (gains are reduced by 100%... so I won't get anything?)
It would still be 50% gains. The 100% would be multiplied by 1/(1+1), which equals 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoheadbutt
This suggestion doesn't change the effectiveness of buildings, just the amount of buildings you have to build to reach that effectiveness.
Arms are another one. The bonus should be raised to 2% (from 1.5) and the mechanic changed to cost *= 1/(1+armsbonus).
I want to reiterate that anyone disagreeing with me is simply wrong. Do your math right, or if you don't know how to play then stop arguing about changes.
He says, after Zauper shoots him downQuote:
Originally Posted by jdorje
@op, can you show your work with the new equation you are proposing in an example versus the current equation? Make a spreadsheet or something so we can follow your logic easily on why you think it is better
5% GS reduces gains by 9.5%Quote:
Originally Posted by jdorje
10% GS reduces gains by 18%. 18%-9.5%=8.5% reduced in addition to what 5% had
15% GS reduces gains by 25.5%. I hope I don't need to do that simple math again.
20% GS reduces gains by 32%
Assume the baseline attack takes 1000 acres.
5% GS: attack takes 1000*.905=905 acres. This is 905/1000=.905 of original gains
10% GS: attack takes 1000*.82=820 acres. This is 820/905 = .906 of gains with 5% GS. Slightly less efficient at reduces gains as a percent of acres vs prior.
15% GS: attack takes 1000*.745=745 acres. This is 745/820=.908 of gains with 10% GS. Slightly less efficient again.
20% GS: attack takes 1000*.68=680 acres. This is 680/745=.912 of gains with 15% GS. Again less efficient than the prior 5%.
Nope, still looks like more GS is less efficient.
All of this ignores the simple fundamental problem with your proposed change:
It doesn't make sense for players.
"100% gains reduction" does not read as 50% gains reduction to anyone.
I agree 100% with this. If you get "100% agreement reduction" then I guess I only agree with half of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffT