Land lost when hit

[Persain]

Greater/ normal Arson causes you to not be able to manipulate your build, that's what you were missing - nados would similarly be affected. We do not want land taken from in progress unless its because there is nowhere else to take it from. That is the current behaviour and we don't intend on changing it. You can, ofc, argue as to why you would like it changed but be aware that its just not something we are interested in changing right now.

:( Sad, i would think greater/normal arson and nadoes would destroy built buildings. Thus they are a tool to deal economic damage, or remove say WT/GS/FARMs and whatnot when strategically needed. It then causes a person to have LESS of a control on their build by forceing them to rebuild/waste gc & time.

While there might not be an intent in looking at/changing the way land leave i find it very sad as the current system doesnt provide an intuitive or even logical way in taking land. A new player should be able to build see they have 10% farms see that they are going to be changed and up their build in GS. Then WHEN chained they shouldn't END with only GS incoming, they should end the chain with 10% of their land being farms. The current system only serves to punish new players who dont relaize the system isnt a logical one.

Since there isnt an intent to address this (and i doubt im going to single handily convince anyone who cant already see the issue) I'll leave the thread then with a closing thought and and example.

This bug existed for years it appears, but due to the criteria needed to fulfil it I guess we didn't see it occurring often enough

Logically based algorithms allow for bugs like this to be easily addressed/identified instead of existing for years without people discussing them.

Dungeons are one of the single best buildings for your military if full, however the current systems means that once you start getting hit in war, you should instantly abandon them as the low % being run along with rounding on land taken means you are going to lose them every time you lose 20-30% of your total land. Its not a matter of building more, its a matter of EVERY time u get hit your going to lose them, so it isn't good to include in your build, something that until recently i couldn't justify and a non-logical build that i'd have to teach any new player....again sad.

[Bishop]

You are talking about a completely different bug that is no longer an issue.

[Ethan]

Current method means that you will have *different* future builds at any given time - one that you will get if you are hit hard, one that you will get if you are mostly not hit. I'm fairly sure this is not helpful.

Imagine the case where you have no idea who will be chained next amongst your attackers, just that some of them will be chained and some left alone. Because the unchained matter more (conventional wisdom says so, at least) and because the odds of you being a chain target within a day are maybe 10% (2 out of 20?), you have to build your buildings mostly assuming you won't be hit (within reason).

Now, 1 of 2 things happens - either you:
1. Aren't chained, and thus get the build you expected but get no benefit from the "faster build change" that is the claimed goal of this design.
2. Are chained, and thus get a build that quite possibly looks nothing like the build you intended. So you've successfully "gained" the goal of a fast build change - to a bad build!


Under current warring tactics, this system is strictly worse that the OP's proposal. The only people that see a difference are those that get forced into a functionally halfway random build instead of the build they intended. The only time this helps at all is in a trading hits/pure max gain war, when it maybe makes the build% more slightly faster than otherwise. Even there, you end up rebuilding your starting size in 2-4 days time... which is either too long to wait for the build change (schools, for example), or is more than fast enough to cut a building you don't really want in half (banks, for example). If the banks fall to 10% from 20%, that's good enough, you don't need them to fall all the way to 0%. While if you waited *3 days* to get rid of your schools - you've got bigger problems than if there are a few left.


Imagine a slightly exaggerated example where you can only log in every 12 hours exactly (11.75 + 15 minutes to plan the hit, same dif). So you've got plenty of rax from war start while the attack time bonus was phasing in, but now you don't need that many. Great, you think, I won't build them... but wait. I learned about the bizarre "Build B" problem from the forums, and I really can't afford to miss an attack, even (especially?) if chained. So I have to make sure I have enough rax in progress that I won't lose my attack time bonus. So... I build more rax anyway.

Where, here, is the faster changing of the build? This poor prov is *forced* to keep building a building he *doesn't want* or risk having his build ruined suddenly! The only way he can ever fix his build safely is to raze existing rax just to build more of them! If he lacks the money to waste like that.... then well golly, I guess the "faster build change feature" prevents you from changing your build - sorry for that, we're *sure* it must have helps someone somehow.


Given the number of people that have their provinces seriously messed up by the "semi-random build" *feature* - can you really offer an example where it helps, on even remotely the same scale? I'd be amazed if more that a very few people (that actually understand what is going on) think the current method is the least bit useful. I, for one, reported this as a bug because something so ludicrous never even occurred to me as an intentional decision.

[Bishop]

Given the number of people that have their provinces seriously messed up by the "semi-random build" *feature*

We don't consider it an issue in any way, its been like this for years.

[Persain]

We don't consider it an issue in any way, its been like this for years.

okay so i couldn't stay away, not being an "issue" and not being the best system that can be in place are different things though bishop.

[Bishop]

That's true, its just not a priority at all. I feel its better to guide people away from areas that may not be as productive rather than let them waste too much time.

[Persain]

That's true, its just not a priority at all. I feel its better to guide people away from areas that may not be as productive rather than let them waste too much time.

so other than the broken explore formula what areas are the developers looking to address mechanics wise? WW bonus? Honor? If its a waste of time to make a good suggestion to improve the game why not sticky a thread for each topic that might actually get worked on.

[Bishop]

Post a good topic and i will consider it

[angevin]

I think this would be a good change. I've always thought it makes no sense that built acres are taken first, and it's one of those aspects that is so frustrating about this game.

If being able to manipulate your build is a concern, then it could be easily fixed by adding a checkbox option that allows the player to decide if they want to prioritise "defence" of their buildings in progress. That would not add too much overhead to the code, since it only requires the checking of a simple condition then proceeding to process one way or the other.

Even if this isn't a priority, it should at least be noted for consideration in future.

[Bishop]

Built acres aren't taken first, barren and built are.

[angevin]

yes barren and built, that's what I meant to say. Doesn't change the point though.

[angevin]

I got chained and now 78% of my acres are now buildings in progress. If I get hit much more I won't have any built acres left.

The current system is just stupid. I'm left with very little modifier bonuses or ability to generate runes.

The idea that people would lose the option to control their build is completely outweighed by the ridiculous disadvantage that the system imposes.

[csarmi]

How is not a bug when you eventually lose ALL the buildings of certain building types?

[Bishop]

Why would it be a bug?

[Persain]

Why would it be a bug?

because its not expected behavior to lose land disproportionally to how you have it built+incoming. There is no "Recommended reading" in the wiki for how buildings are lost when you are hit, and even if there was it'd be lost on most players untill their first/second massive chaining.