Totally broken Conquest formula

[Primal Redemption]

Either use ambush to regain the 50% you mentioned, if he's a tact or used anon/ws well too bad for you, find somone else in his kd to retal.
If you cannot break him you should not expect CQ to make your day, it's not there to help you hit big out of range provinces.
As multiple people have stated before, it's there to help you break in range unbreakable provinces as indicated by the +-5% limit the attack normally has.

For the love of God...PEOPLE, if you dont have anything useful or intellgent to say then just don't say anything. Reading this has been the equivalent of hearing "If you want to sail around the globe, well too bad for you. As multiple people have stated before, the world is flat, indicated by the ships sinking over the horizon."

I don't care how many people have an erroneous assumption. Where is it written that "conquest is there to break in-range unbreakable provinces." Were you in the mind of the developer at that moment of conception? I wonder what year you began playing utopia? 2009 like all the other "vets"?
And what is this "its not there to hit big out of range provinces" garbage you reiterate from the masses? Why remove the range cap at all then?

Go back and read the thread from the beginning.

[Elldallan]

For the love of God...PEOPLE, if you dont have anything useful or intellgent to say then just don't say anything. Reading this has been the equivalent of hearing "If you want to sail around the globe, well too bad for you. As multiple people have stated before, the world is flat, indicated by the ships sinking over the horizon."

I don't care how many people have an erroneous assumption. Where is it written that "conquest is there to break in-range unbreakable provinces." Were you in the mind of the developer at that moment of conception? I wonder what year you began playing utopia? 2009 like all the other "vets"?
And what is this "its not there to hit big out of range provinces" garbage you reiterate from the masses? Why remove the range cap at all then?

Go back and read the thread from the beginning.

First of all your invocation of the supreme fairy tale being fails to impress and puts you squarely on the side of the silly "the world is flat" proponents.

The range cap is there for everyone but warriors, that should be evidence enough.
Yes warriors have access to CQ regardless of size difference, the changes does not say that warriors has access to a significantly improved version of CQ which means you can expect it to work like attacks usually does.
This means decreased gains the further you deviate from your own province and kingdom size.
If it was intended to work as you claim then it would have been implemented to work differently than it does but this is clearly not the case.

As far as I know it's not explicitly written anywhere but please use your brain for just one second, or does everything has to be written in 7200 point sized bright green fluorescent letters for you to understand?
The norm for the last 20 or more ages including this age(because improved CQ is only availible to ~5.5% of the current server population which is definitely a minority and hence not the norm) has been that CQ is only available within a VERY narrow range, exactly what part of that indicates to you that it's intent is to break any prov you can send 51% of their defense against and recieve good gains?

The one with the erroneous assumptions is you because for pretty much the entire time CQ has been in existence it has worked in a manner that is directly opposed to what you claim the intent is.
Additionally Bishop has weighed in on the matter stating that the intent isn't to award lots of acres for breaking targets completely out of your range and that currently it performs it's intended role "quite well". The base gains is 6.8% of the targets acres and affecte like all other attacks by relative NW etc, so in clear speech, if you could normally break the target with a TM but instead send the same off as a CQ you will gain 6.8% of the targets acres, this in addition to the normal limitations decreases(linearly?) the less off you send down to 51% after which you just plain fail instead.

Bishop being as close to a spokesperson for the devs as we're getting barring S&B actually dropping a post somewhere is means that what his comment said is as close to the minds of the devs as we're getting, a further indication that your fantasy about what the intended function of CQ is WRONG.

The range cap was removed to give warriors a minor boost(because dropping the +20% OME in war to +15% was a quite significant nerf) this means they can use CQ effectively in a slightly larger window than normally allowed, not that they can CQ anybody at any size and completely ignore the gains curve.

And FYI I did read the thread from the beginning and no I didn't start playing utopia in 2009, it was closer to 2001 than 2009

[Primal Redemption]

When did I ever say It was supposed to yield spectacular gains against provs ten times my size? All I've stated was that it shouldn't be utterly useless. You are making things up in your head.

You said it yourself, the range was removed because the warrior needed a boost, and from the beginning I have said it does not follow through with this line of intention. Another intelligent poster expressed the same issue, almost verbatim, so obviously there is validity to my argument.

No one is asking for miracle gains from conquest, get over it. It is just TOO penalized against provs beyond the previous range caps to make the unlimited range feature meaningful, hence the term "BROKEN".

[Bishop]

You'll never get CQ modified so you get good gains hitting massively up, that would be stupid.

[Primal Redemption]

You'll never get CQ modified so you get good gains hitting massively up, that would be stupid.

This is not "good gains" in question. Neither is it hitting "massively up". That would be imbalanced (not stupid). It is a matter of not getting retardly low gains by hitting decently up. The penalty needs to be reworked.

As I said, someone could bottom feed for 8% gains but a viable use of conquest would be out of the question.

Now, getting more acres from hitting someone 50% my size than a conquest against a 125% larger prov, THAT is "stupid"

[Elldallan]

This is not "good gains" in question. Neither is it hitting "massively up". That would be imbalanced (not stupid). It is a matter of not getting retardly low gains by hitting decently up. The penalty needs to be reworked.

As I said, someone could bottom feed for 8% gains but a viable use of conquest would be out of the question.

Now, getting more acres from hitting someone 50% my size than a conquest against a 125% larger prov, THAT is "stupid"

30% up is not "decently" up, it's "massively" up.
bottomfeeding somone for 8%(down from the optimal 12%) happens because that was a TM and is penalized by roughly 33% lower gains.
CQ'ing somebody with a similar penalty would be roughly 4.5%(down from the optimal 6.8%) if you're also not sending enough for a full break, according to the guid that penalty is proportional to the off sent relative to a full break which means you're getting another 20% penalty which takes your 4.5% down to 3.6%.
Conclusion, if you want 8% gains use TM.
TM'ing somone smaller yields better percentual gains because the base gain is much better than CQ, plus the penalty for not sending enough for a full break.
This all works as intended. It's not too penalized, it's just as penalized as everything else plus the reasonable penalty where if you send less than a full break, your gains decrease accordingly.

Warriors did get a small boost since they can now hit UB's in 90%, 110% or 115% range which they previously could not meaning that they have better options to open up UB's during war.
CQ was not intended to be a tool for whoring land, and when you're opening UB's up it's not gains that matters, it's losses inflicted.
So no it's not meaningless or broken, it works when using it as intended, not massively out of range.
If it was to work as you want it to work the base gain would have to be higher than that of TM which would be stupid and completely broken, so yes you are asking for miracle gains.
If you want better gains hitting someone 125% your nw compared to somone hitting somone 50% their nw then use TM and you will have those gains, yes it's unlikely you can break somone 125% your own nw but thats life.

[Persain]

30% up is not "decently" up, it's "massively" up.

+-30% nw inst that much if your an attacker hitting another attacker and both are fully pumped. These kinda size effects happen in "war" all the time. And thus why u could always conquest anyone during war. If your talking outside of war though

You'll never get CQ modified so you get good gains hitting massively up, that would be stupid.

Right now theres no reason to use conquest if your an orc/undead as any target u need to use conquest on results in next to zero gains due to nw effects.

[Elldallan]

+-30% nw inst that much if your an attacker hitting another attacker and both are fully pumped. These kinda size effects happen in "war" all the time. And thus why u could always conquest anyone during war. If your talking outside of war though


Right now theres no reason to use conquest if your an orc/undead as any target u need to use conquest on results in next to zero gains due to nw effects.

Agreed Persain, in war 30% is nothing uncommon, but he's currently out of war and his kingdom hasn't had a war yet this age so I'm working under the assumption that he means in normal relations.