Land Lust

[RollinHammer]

Have they secretly changed the way land lust success is calculated?

i was chained to 100 acres... had 1500 wizards and 100% science bonus for being that low...

failed 13 of 17 casts of land lusts on a person who had grown from 1,000 acres to 1900 acres after a few waves so im guessing his WPA was a LOT less than mine...

Guys in my kingdom saying the same kinda stuff ive been. Anyone else notice this? or is this just a numerical phenom thats we were unlucky with

One of the undead/mystics we had was saying the same thing after being chained where he was failing land lust left and right

[FATstrat]

Maybe the NW difference was too much?

[Che Guevara]

Have they secretly changed the way land lust success is calculated?

i was chained to 100 acres... had 1500 wizards and 100% science bonus for being that low...

failed 13 of 17 casts of land lusts on a person who had grown from 1,000 acres to 1900 acres after a few waves so im guessing his WPA was a LOT less than mine...

Guys in my kingdom saying the same kinda stuff ive been. Anyone else notice this? or is this just a numerical phenom thats we were unlucky with

One of the undead/mystics we had was saying the same thing after being chained where he was failing land lust left and right

Like the other guy said, NW difference effect the success chance, so try someone closer to your NW.

[Bishop]

so im guessing his WPA was a LOT less than mine...

Sounds like a bad guess given the results. All changes are documented, ll is unchanged for years.

[citadela01]

Also acres for wpa/tpa calculations are capped at 300 to avoid ridiculous scenarios with chained provs. So you actually only had 1500/300*2= 10 mwpa. Respectable, but typically inadequate to compensate for huge rnw difference on max difficulty spell like ll.

[Panthira]

I think it's hysterical when one of my undead tacts released all of his wizards after being chained (don't ask :( ), and yet he can now cast double length spells as me with .33 wpa raw. That is just not right. :p

[Persain]

I think it's hysterical when one of my undead tacts released all of his wizards after being chained (don't ask :( ), and yet he can now cast double length spells as me with .33 wpa raw. That is just not right. :p

spell length is a factor of guild % not wpa

[Panthira]

Still not right. I had more guilds, by a lot. ;)

ETA: I had 17% and he had 7%.

I may have just had bad luck via random factor, and he good luck. Or is spell length absolute?

[Andurilas]

I thought that rnw impacted gains but not success. So you would get 0 or 1 hits with wpa superiority at big nw disparity.

[citadela01]

Rnw impacts both succes and to some extent gains.
Duration spells are greatly impacted, % based spells are impacted less (ie fbs) or not at all (ie ll's).

[LoRD_SaMPuaN]

Rnw impacts both succes and to some extent gains.
Duration spells are greatly impacted, % based spells are impacted less (ie fbs) or not at all (ie ll's).

i believe ll gains are also affected by rnw..

[Palem]

i believe ll gains are also affected by rnw..

This.

[citadela01]

I dont have spreadsheet to throw out there, but i do know i was hitting as high as 1% ll's as chained attacker on shells with several times higher nw than mine.

If indeed it is affected its fb lvl impact, aka very minor.

[Tadpole]

I dont have spreadsheet to throw out there, but i do know i was hitting as high as 1% ll's as chained attacker on shells with several times higher nw than mine.

If indeed it is affected its fb lvl impact, aka very minor.

I'm with citadela here... I was under the assumption rnw only affected success rate. Or what citadela says, rnw is a very minor factor. Are you sure Palem?

RNW has a great impact on success (difficulty) though, making LLing upwards on shelled provinces quite tricky in many situations.

Edit: Guess it could be that part of gains/damage formula is effected by rnw and not the other (like fb). And possibly that the cap is unaffected. LL is so random that I could have missed it (never extensively studied LL gains. Nor have I LLed in ages...). Would also account for citadelas 1% gains while still making Sampuans/Palems statement true...

[Bishop]

Nothing affects LL gains.