Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Honor

  1. #1
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    126

    Honor

    Last age honor wasn't really a huge thing for the kingdoms and the Halflings wasn't even on the board.
    Bishop changed so HA's got some love at last and at last some more love is coming to my little thieves.

    But it's kinda fun to see that the leaders of utopia only grow and grow and grow the attackers offense and never think of the TMs the last 10+ ages.
    Almost end of the age and still no Prince/ Princess is in the top leaderboard, i think we will have 1 there this age.

    What do others think of this?

  2. #2
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    What's your suggestion?

  3. #3
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    T/M, not attackers, consistently both win and and sit at the top of the honor charts. Aside from Emeriti, all of the top100 honor provs are faery elf or halfling - mostly faery.

    I don't see how t/m have been nerfed for honor.

  4. #4
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    185
    Well hes right. There is an honor bleed issue but its not that TMs are suddenly getting less honor. Theres just less honor to be had. But the age changes will hopefully fix that by making anon not destroy honor in war.

  5. #5
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    What's your suggestion?
    Wanted to see what others where thinking first before i suggested.

    Honor has always been top winner just as Humans or Dwarfs mostly win the top Acres chart. While orc and UD attackers are often the best in war for. (I said often, not always)

    Attackers have to place the RWPA and RTPA that TMs have in to offense or defense.
    While the TMs place as much Def to be "safe" without putting to much acres in to Forts.

    I would suggest that instead of always giving attackers more offense every age that has been going on, since TMs within an KD become less and less.
    + The heretic's are needed for NM duty right now, also something that means most KDs use 7-12 TMs.

    Before you had like 7 TMs in an 25 man KD since you could NM with the pure tms.

  6. #6
    I like to post
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    3,932
    The age is simply shorter... most princes are made past yr13.

  7. #7
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathlyric View Post
    I would suggest that instead of always giving attackers more offense every age that has been going on, since TMs within an KD become less and less.
    + The heretic's are needed for NM duty right now, also something that means most KDs use 7-12 TMs.

    Before you had like 7 TMs in an 25 man KD since you could NM with the pure tms.
    I'm guessing there's a logical clause missing from your suggestion. However, if you read the sticky you'll see that we are not currently interested in making t/m unbreakable as compared to same size attackers, and actually believe that them being breakable -- nearly double tappable -- is better for the game and makes wars more dynamic. We find the strategy of running ~15 t/ms and a smaller number of pure attackers to be unattractive, and that is largely driven by the defense heavy mentality.

    If you feel like you are running too many T/Ms, then I would suggest you run fewer.

    If your suggestion relates to making op success easier at lower relative TWPA, I'd be curious to see data about the successrates you see, and why you feel the success rates need to be higher.
    Last edited by JeffT; 09-03-2017 at 23:24.

  8. #8
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffT View Post
    I'm guessing there's a logical clause missing from your suggestion. However, if you read the sticky you'll see that we are not currently interested in making t/m unbreakable as compared to same size attackers, and actually believe that them being breakable -- nearly double tappable -- is better for the game and makes wars more dynamic. We find the strategy of running ~15 t/ms and a smaller number of pure attackers to be unattractive, and that is largely driven by the defense heavy mentality.

    If you feel like you are running too many T/Ms, then I would suggest you run fewer.

    If your suggestion relates to making op success easier at lower relative TWPA, I'd be curious to see data about the successrates you see, and why you feel the success rates need to be higher.
    I have a suggestion that Rogue ops (AW, GA and Propaganda) and NS have their honour increased by 1 per op. It is quite annoying that a difficult op like AW gets you say 4-5 honour against a count, and they can just Expose thieves (quite an easy spell) you back (at Count) for like 10-11 honour.

    The honour gains difference between thief ops and magic ops has been really lopsided for a very long time. Would be nice to start evening it out a bit.

    Not to mention that you actually get more honour doing rob the towers than you do with Propaganda.. Like.. what is up with that?

  9. #9
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by jmiedema View Post
    I have a suggestion that Rogue ops (AW, GA and Propaganda) and NS have their honour increased by 1 per op. It is quite annoying that a difficult op like AW gets you say 4-5 honour against a count, and they can just Expose thieves (quite an easy spell) you back (at Count) for like 10-11 honour.

    The honour gains difference between thief ops and magic ops has been really lopsided for a very long time. Would be nice to start evening it out a bit.

    Not to mention that you actually get more honour doing rob the towers than you do with Propaganda.. Like.. what is up with that?
    I suspect honor per op, broadly, needs to be looked at and rebalanced. One could argue that perhaps mage ops deserve higher honor gains on average because they are anecdotally harder to succeed with.

    It seems odd for fireball to be the best honor/successrate op. (note -- this is anecdotal, not based on any evidence)

  10. #10
    Forum Addict Bo To's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffT View Post
    actually believe that them being breakable -- nearly double tappable -- is better for the game

    If the strongest attackers can double tap similar size t/m and probably quad tap every attacker there is something wrong don't you think?

    Last age there weren't any princes for 2 reasons:
    1) Too much wpa around. T/ms didn't have good success rate with spells. However h/r had great success with ops(can't say about mystics).

    2) Short age. The age was only 12 weeks long.

    I agree that fb is kinda too powerful - it does instant dmg and it gives a lot honor. Nerfing the honor gain is ok. Buffing honor gain for aw/prop is not advised because they are strong ops doing instant dmg. MS and chastity on the other hand are spells designed for pressure over time.
    Last edited by Bo To; 10-03-2017 at 12:10.

  11. #11
    Enthusiast Minty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    444
    I think honor gains are fine on Spells and ops mostly (apart from Rogue specific ones). Last age problem was anon destroying honor in war, this age see will see plenty of princes. I ended om 6.4k honor and I dont feel it would have been a stretch to end on +8k if my orc KD mates hadnt destroyed +10k honor every war.

    WPA and short age was not a problem at all imo. Attackers being all Knight/Peasants didnt help. At best I think I opped a Baron attacker last age. This age we'll see avians who are Count or higher

    For everyone says thief ops arent gaining enough honor I lost 20-30 honor per riot at the end of age. With no CS Mages are set up to get honor-raped by rogues.
    Last edited by Minty; 10-03-2017 at 12:20.

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Bo To View Post
    If the strongest attackers can double tap similar size t/m and probably quad tap every attacker there is something wrong don't you think?
    Not particularly. At the end of the day, the vast majority of wars today are won by defense, not offense. Perhaps you could argue it causes wars to run longer, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing because it becomes more about sustaining and creating economy in a situation where it doesn't start out safe. Being able to only barely hit a t/m means that you can't make side hits and wind up sacrificing your attacker, in war, in order to make a single hit on a t/m. If you can nearly doubletap a t/m, you can probably 1x a t/m and make 3 side hits -- enough that hitting a t/m doesn't mean you get deepchained and your kingdom loses an attacker because you don't have enough incoming land to protect your military. (of course, we do intend to look at overpop and deep chaining, but that's a different conversation).

    So if you enter a war, as in the current system, with your t/ms only being able to be broken by 6-7 attackers, they are functionally safe because no one can sacrifice the military to hit them, and even if they did they wouldn't last long -- and if they don't hit your t/m immediately they won't be able to for long since you'll chain down those few attackers who could, or op them such that they no longer can.

    It is impractical to assume that t/ms should be able to enter conflict safe from attacks, and able to op opponents with high success. If you wanted a t/m that had a sub 30% success rate on any op vs an attacker before watchtowers and similar, that could probably be possible. The issue is that everyone wants it all, and that's a situation that makes t/ms far too powerful in comparison to attackers.

  13. #13
    Forum Addict Bo To's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,222
    This is offtopick and I won't continue the conversation.

    The reason why t/ms are nearly UB at the start of a conflict is because they are among the biggest provs in the KD. I don't know your plans but if you try to make the difference between t/m's dpa and attacker's opa too big KDs will either skip the tms/hybrids and play with only attackers or have them much bigger than the rest of the KD to match UB.

    EDIT: if you want KDs to play with less t/ms and stop aiming for 10+ pure t/ms(you aren't against hybrids right?) don't nerf their def. Nerf their strength which is the mana and stealth. Reduce the base mana/stealth regeneration to 2/tick and increase it on specific roles(heretic +1 mana/stealth, mystic +2 mana in war, rogue +3 stealth in war).
    Last edited by Bo To; 10-03-2017 at 14:42.

  14. #14
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alaska USA
    Posts
    210
    I am going to throw this out there, and know that it will recieve flack... But I think that UD def is going to win wars this age... I think they are going to have the most def per net per acre. I think that avians and elfves are a close second in that department. They are the one that will take the hardest hits early war and how they rebound will play a big part in determining the outcomes of wars.

    Maintaining def per net over off per acre and defending the acres that you have assumably retaken after waves... If they dont maintain the def they will be out the rest of the war as residual hits...

    Those three races can "restock thier def" faster than any other race (Not including rogues that Prop)

  15. #15
    Forum Addict Bo To's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,222
    I would like to see honor gains oow removed and anonymity honor destruction increased to 15-20%(there is RKNW protection), min. 3%(I think this is the current value).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •