Reduced Leet Conversion Hitting INTO Prosperous

[bringtherain]

Hi people,

As I understand it, Undead hitting INTO (or out of) prosperous stance suffer a leet conversion penalty of -80% (thereabouts).

I can agree that if you're IN the prosperous stance, it is only fair to suffer some gain penalty hitting out. (-80% might be excessive)

But why should the person hitting INTO prosperous stance be penalized as well?

What is the justification for this random bit of unwritten & unannounced mechanic?

Why are devs trying to deter hits into prosperous stance by reducing gains hitting into prosperous stance?? For no other reason than to reduce the attacker's conversion gains?

[DavidC]

This mechanic was in place with Fortified (not confirming the numbers) for some time prior to our ownership. Since it was not stated as a change, it was not changed. We use our best efforts to stick to what we say with regards to changes and not to make additional changes not mentioned prior to age start mid-age.

[Tadpole]

If it didn't penalize conversions hitting into prosperous would be the go to strategy for all uds. Less land, equal conversion, higher epa gains. Would dumb the game down. The penalty should remain.

[Aha]

Hey respond to my pm you frog *caps lock broken*

[Swagger]

This mechanic was in place with Fortified (not confirming the numbers) for some time prior to our ownership. Since it was not stated as a change, it was not changed. We use our best efforts to stick to what we say with regards to changes and not to make additional changes not mentioned prior to age start mid-age.

Communicating things that don't change can be just as important as communicating things that do. You can't operate under the assumption that the entire community knew there were two separate formula impacting conversions while hitting into fort.

[MasterShake2129]

This mechanic was in place with Fortified (not confirming the numbers) for some time prior to our ownership. Since it was not stated as a change, it was not changed. We use our best efforts to stick to what we say with regards to changes and not to make additional changes not mentioned prior to age start mid-age.

Ops being full gains/damage into Prosp was also not listed as a change from Fort, but that was changed...

[MasterShake2129]

If it didn't penalize conversions hitting into prosperous would be the go to strategy for all uds. Less land, equal conversion, higher epa gains. Would dumb the game down. The penalty should remain.

The -20% gains is hitting OUT from prosp. The OP is talking about hits from Undead in a KD in normal/aggressive hitting INTO prosp which would not have the -20% land gain, so it would essentially be the same as hitting from normal to normal for gains...

[Madchess]

It is all a matter of finding the right strategy, undead players should look for targets in their own stance and simply use plunder/abduct when in prosperous, they are still a bit overpowered even without 100% elite armies.

By the way don't anonymity cut conversions also?

[Selephant]

It is all a matter of finding the right strategy, undead players should look for targets in their own stance and simply use plunder/abduct when in prosperous, they are still a bit overpowered even without 100% elite armies.

By the way don't anonymity cut conversions also?

the issue isnt the reduced conversions hitting into prosp but the complete lack of consistency in admin communications pertaining to age changes

[Crystopher]

What is the justification for this random bit of unwritten & unannounced mechanic?

the issue isnt the reduced conversions hitting into prosp but the complete lack of consistency in admin communications pertaining to age changes

- The devs said that "Prosperous" will be almost identical to "Fortified," with the difference being: no incoming gains penalty, outgoing gains penalty from -50% to -20%

- The devs have a consistent record of not including in the changes anything that wasn't actually changed.

- The community also has a consistent record of asking if something that wasn't mentioned in the changes was changed, only to be told that if it wasn't in the changes then it wasn't changed.

- Since leet conversions have always been reduced on attacks into Fort, it stands to reason that this would remain the same for Prosperous (especially since it wasn't included in the changes).

- It's OK to ask for clarification. It's not okay to throw a fit because you had to ask for clarification.

Seriously, the recent trend of nitpicking every little thing that the new devs are doing is getting ridiculous.

[Zombies are people too]

- It's OK to ask for clarification. It's not okay to throw a fit because you had to ask for clarification.

Seriously, the recent trend of nitpicking every little thing that the new devs are doing is getting ridiculous.

He shoots... He scores!!!

-DM <3

[MeIkor]

- The devs said that "Prosperous" will be almost identical to "Fortified," with the difference being: no incoming gains penalty, outgoing gains penalty from -50% to -20%

- The devs have a consistent record of not including in the changes anything that wasn't actually changed.

- The community also has a consistent record of asking if something that wasn't mentioned in the changes was changed, only to be told that if it wasn't in the changes then it wasn't changed.

- Since leet conversions have always been reduced on attacks into Fort, it stands to reason that this would remain the same for Prosperous (especially since it wasn't included in the changes).

- It's OK to ask for clarification. It's not okay to throw a fit because you had to ask for clarification.

Seriously, the recent trend of nitpicking every little thing that the new devs are doing is getting ridiculous.

Please correct me, if I am wrong:
- ops into Fort have been reduced, are not reduced into Prosp -> this change was not communicated
- gains into Fort have been reduced, are not reduced into Prosp -> this change was communicated
- Elite conversions into Fort have been reduced, are reduced into Prosp -> this change was not communicated

This is very counterintuitive, feels like a mistake, and the communication is at least questionable.
People who complain within reason are the developers friends. Because if someone is distressed about communication policy he complains, keeps silent, or just leaves.
If you work professionally, you do not want your customers to leave, because you handle communications badly.
Your reply sounds(!) like a "suck it up and shut up" appeal. If you would talk to customers of my company this way, I would not be amused.

[Crystopher]

- ops into Fort have been reduced, are not reduced into Prosp -> this change was not communicated

The penalty on ops has always been the same as the penalty on attacks. It's sensible to assume that if there's no gains penalties on attacks then there are no gains penalties on ops as well. In short, this change was communicated.

- Elite conversions into Fort have been reduced, are reduced into Prosp -> this change was not communicated

Again, this is a mechanic that was left over from Fort stance. Since it wasn't included in the changes, then that tells you it wasn't changed. It's really that simple.

People who complain within reason are the developers friends.

Agreed. This is complaining for no reason other than to complain about something that should be understood by now.

Your reply sounds(!) like a "suck it up and shut up" appeal. If you would talk to customers of my company this way, I would not be amused.

My reply is a "stop complaining just to complain about something" appeal. As for your customers, they're not always right, and I couldn't care less how you'd feel about how I talked to them. It's a terrible analogy in any case, seeing as how we're not customers (we're not paying to play).

[MeIkor]

The penalty on ops has always been the same as the penalty on attacks.

The absense of penalty on ops was not communicated. You mix an assumtion from experience with communications. How do I know that "penalty on ops has always been the same as the penalty on attacks"? I did not.
I rather assumed elite conversions were connected with the gains formula. The same mistake was made by a lot of people. Is it my fault or the fault of other players not to know deep game mechanics?
No, this mistake is a consequence of bad communications. It would have been well invested 5 minutes to write down what this new stance actually does.

And yes, of cause we are customers and developement is as dependent on players as any other company because
1. I do pay now and then
2. revenue is connected with the playerbase. Either by advertising revenue or direct payments.
3. as with every other company it is hard to gain new customers while communications policy is a very cheap and strong tool to either keep or lose customers or customers loyalty. It is a huge mistake to take this too lightly.

[Korp]

The absense of penalty on ops was not communicated. You mix an assumtion from experience with communications. How do I know that "penalty on ops has always been the same as the penalty on attacks"? I did not.
I rather assumed elite conversions were connected with the gains formula. The same mistake was made by a lot of people. Is it my fault or the fault of other players not to know deep game mechanics?
No, this mistake is a consequence of bad communications. It would have been well invested 5 minutes to write down what this new stance actually does.

And yes, of cause we are customers and developement is as dependent on players as any other company because
1. I do pay now and then
2. revenue is connected with the playerbase. Either by advertising revenue or direct payments.
3. as with every other company it is hard to gain new customers while communications policy is a very cheap and strong tool to either keep or lose customers or customers loyalty. It is a huge mistake to take this too lightly.

Of course its your fault for making an assumption rather than taking the time to learn the answer. If you dont know the answer and just assume things the fault always lies at your end.