A number of mechanics suggestions

dorje - just war somebody. if you catch them with their pants down (which you cerntainly could if you didn't put a 48 hour notice clause into every NAP) you would reap tens of thousands of acres in a few days, with reduced risk of retal if you catch someone else dicing.
i think its the notice clauses that are causing much of this problem. people at the top have the opportunity to change strats before they get into a conflict (entirely due to player agreements, not mechanics) so dicing works for them while there are no threats.
if you remove that threat buffer, you remove the appeal of constantly being in a dice build. not a mechanic issue. entirely a player issue.

Rsjabba, they've been doing it for so long they don't even see its oddity anymore.
It's like the invisibility of galleys for native indians story vice versa.

I think, and I may be wrong, that the problem is that the majority of the server feel as though the Top have essentially created for themselves an environment in which Dice is OP (well probably more they begrudge an environment from which they feel excluded but hey) with the excessive amount of diplomacy / napping and notifications that they have imposed on succeeding at that level. And so complaints in relation to that are largely viewed with derision.

If, for the sake of argument (and excluding the fact that they may be lacking the necessary skill), a mid-low level KD suddenly decides to use a Dice Build they do so at great risk because as soon as they get caught in that build they’ll start to get a bunch of waves from other KDs and have limited capacity to retal and hence end up losing a bunch of their acres. A similar situation exists if such a KD decides to try and pump sci using a very focussed build, with no war buildings, reduced drafts and such like they become very easy targets for those around them.

Dice, therefore, seems only contextually OP in those situations where you are free from the risk of being caught off guard and hence only OP at the ‘Top’ where NAPs/CFs and such like mean you get at least 48hrs notice before you’re going to be hit. And hence why people don’t feel dice is broken for the majority, only for those where the external factors they impose on the game have made that the case.

I guess the question becomes, and this is aimed at representatives of the top, if you did not have the comfort of NAPs/CFs with notice periods and hence could be hit at any time would you sit in Dice builds?

If the answer is an honest yes then Dice is OP.

If the answer is no then it’s the external constructs to the game you’ve made with each other that have caused a problem.

and it clearly is no, or else they would not need to radically rebuild every time they think they are going to have a conflict.

I don't have time for a detailed reply but the answer is yes, just not as efficiently. Not having deals might prevent us using rushed/extreme science most of the age, but it would not radically alter how much we grew.

This is a major area of confusion so when I am at a computer I will explain it from my perspective.

Thank you, that would be most appreciated.

As a stupid suggestion, I'm sure it will be stupid as I haven't had chance to fully think it through, but could you not just start recording the amount of acres gained through Dice on peoples Summary pages and then limit the amount of Dice (and possibly Explore) in relation to the % of total land gained (i.e. Dice + Explore + Combat)?

I know you wouldn't want to totally stop Dice / Explore at any point to allow some contrinuing growth but presumably there'd be some level at which you could cap explore / dice per month in relation to the % of land acquired by these roots compared to combat such that it actually encouraged warring as a way to get land. And it would be a double benefit as you'd have the chance of coming out of the war with land and then also increasing the amount you could explore / dice after the war due to all the acres 'gained' in combat you'll have added from the war...

I'm sure there are hideous ramifications, like increased FW policing needed and Avian getting an inadvertant boost because reduced with -AT they can hit more often for more acres and then ambush with -AT gets slightly out of whack. But for my own education at least it would be useful to see the logic behind what is good / bad with it as a possible solution.

***Edit - oh and I guess it would have to slide in over the course of an age starting yr 2 or something (to allow for early growth period) or slide in linked to total amount of acres in the game compared to number of provs (so it kind of represented the running out of space over the course of an age)

no... changes to dice are not needed. it is not OP. it is the operators in top tier kingdoms that run strats and diplomacy purely designed for uninhibited growth that create their own problems. that is why the only people asking for this change or supporting it are the people centering their entire utopia experience on it.
as said earlier, drop your 48 hour notice clauses, grow some cojones and wave your other giant-sized fellows. the only reason you can all sit up at the top, dicing away, is because none of you attack each other unless you know you can win or won't lose much. diplomacy is the stumbling block here and that has NOTHING to do with the game mechanics.
this is my first age in the top 10 and I can honestly say, dice is not an issue for the bottom or the middle, where people aim to get to a certain size and stick to it, and there are many, many predators around just waiting to take a bite when you look juicy. there are no termed NAPs, they are just ended when convenient or when you need more room for more NAPs. there are double and even triple hostiles. there are back-door tactics of getting other kingdoms to hit a waving kingdom. there is no problem with dice being OP.

if your retort is 'then why do top kingdoms make it to the top when we all start at the same size?' ---> because you aim for a dice build from day 1. just don't do it and it won't become a problem for you later in the age. and don't make stupid year 6 + 48hr NAPs.

Other games like Utopia use binding NAP agreements enforced by game mechanics, and the result has almost universally been stagnation and a boring game where people delay aggressive actions fay beyond what is reasonable.
In utopia there are no binding agreements by the game's programming, but among the top breaking them is basically a death sentence due to mutual agreement. Rest of the server has to expect being waved at pretty much any time, and if they're lucky they don't get double-hostiled.

I think a major issue is that many kingdoms artificially stunt their growth early on, when the optimal strategy for all kingdoms early on is growth - even those that can't hold on to their acres against skds. Yet this age, I wound up in a top 25 kingdom during the first week of the age simply by virtue of having 25 provinces, even though most of my kingdom deliberately avoided growing. That says a lot about the mentality that's plaguing the game, when most of the players go against their own interest just to stay out of the range of the top.

Dice is powerful, but it doesn't matter - top kingdoms are always going to have more to lose going to war than they have to gain, and will almost always make cf terms to delay any possibility of disruption for as long as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsjabba

dorje - just war somebody. if you catch them with their pants down (which you cerntainly could if you didn't put a 48 hour notice clause into every NAP) you would reap tens of thousands of acres in a few days, with reduced risk of retal if you catch someone else dicing.
i think its the notice clauses that are causing much of this problem. people at the top have the opportunity to change strats before they get into a conflict (entirely due to player agreements, not mechanics) so dicing works for them while there are no threats.
if you remove that threat buffer, you remove the appeal of constantly being in a dice build. not a mechanic issue. entirely a player issue.

---

Just FYI - great suggestion. Sanctuary did that this age, just like they do every age. They waved multiple kingdoms, who gave them the wave for free, in return for the deals. The "Tens of Thousands" number must be exaggerated.

Notice clauses were done by top kingdoms to allow for proper pumping. It's common knowledge that you can't pump properly if you don't have your deals in place. By leaving notice on the end of deals, kingdoms can remain in pump builds and properly prepare with some security instead of being stuck forced to fight since, as we've discussed previously, fighting slows growth between prepared kingdoms, and no good kingdom gets caught unprepared at the top mid to late age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scavenger

Rsjabba, they've been doing it for so long they don't even see its oddity anymore.
It's like the invisibility of galleys for native indians story vice versa.

---

No, we've been doing it so long that we know how it all works out. You say wave people like every top kingdom hasn't waved a bunch of other kingdoms this age :) You see the CFs put in place AFTER waves and fights and recommend that kingdoms wave more? I think you missed all the fighting that leads to the CFs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlphaWaveCascade

I think, and I may be wrong, that the problem is that the majority of the server feel as though the Top have essentially created for themselves an environment in which Dice is OP (well probably more they begrudge an environment from which they feel excluded but hey) with the excessive amount of diplomacy / napping and notifications that they have imposed on succeeding at that level. And so complaints in relation to that are largely viewed with derision.

If, for the sake of argument (and excluding the fact that they may be lacking the necessary skill), a mid-low level KD suddenly decides to use a Dice Build they do so at great risk because as soon as they get caught in that build they’ll start to get a bunch of waves from other KDs and have limited capacity to retal and hence end up losing a bunch of their acres. A similar situation exists if such a KD decides to try and pump sci using a very focussed build, with no war buildings, reduced drafts and such like they become very easy targets for those around them.

Dice, therefore, seems only contextually OP in those situations where you are free from the risk of being caught off guard and hence only OP at the ‘Top’ where NAPs/CFs and such like mean you get at least 48hrs notice before you’re going to be hit. And hence why people don’t feel dice is broken for the majority, only for those where the external factors they impose on the game have made that the case.

I guess the question becomes, and this is aimed at representatives of the top, if you did not have the comfort of NAPs/CFs with notice periods and hence could be hit at any time would you sit in Dice builds?

If the answer is an honest yes then Dice is OP.

If the answer is no then it’s the external constructs to the game you’ve made with each other that have caused a problem.

---

"The Top" didn't create this environment, the developers did. The top can only be blamed for recognizing the strength of dicing as a strategy and tailoring their play to use it most effectively.

"The Top" doesn't have an exclusive license on dicing, only the value of experience. You've seen a number of kingdoms over the past few ages learn why top kingdoms do what they do when their Cows or Dicing Setups got smacked around by experienced players. Every age, new ghetto cows or cowing kingdoms lose their cows in fights, while new dicing kingdoms farm out acres to the rest of the top kingdoms.

You mention pumping sciences - top kingdoms put up the CFs BECAUSE pumping sciences is so powerful, and to do so most effectively, they need to run lower draft rates and focused builds. Part of the strategy for top kingdoms is getting the CFs needed to pump science so they can fight each other late age. Kingdoms without sciences get farmed by those that have them.

Dice is always OP now though, since the alternative for non-conflict land gaining (exploring) became more expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nooblet

Dice is powerful, but it doesn't matter - top kingdoms are always going to have more to lose going to war than they have to gain, and will almost always make cf terms to delay any possibility of disruption for as long as possible.

---

To add:

It generally doesn't even matter if you win or lose your war - you will almost always fall behind kingdoms that AREN'T warring.

Let's say you go hostile for 2 days, war for 2 days and only take half the time available in postwar, 2 days. That's 6 days of fighting. 25 provinces dice roughly 100 acres per day - 2500 per day x 6 = 15k acres. 500 pool acres per day makes our total 18k acres.

JUST TO BREAK EVEN, you'd need to gain 15k acres in war. This ignores any possible pool you might lose that would have been explored. At 150k acres, you'd need to farm 10% of another kingdom's acres to get ahead - possible but unlikely. At 90k acres, you need nearly 17% farming - that's really, really hard, and would need the other side to make serious mistakes to get to. This is a big reason why you see kingdoms delay fighting as long as they can. They recognize that the longer you wait to gamble with acres, the more that's in play. Maybe you win, maybe you don't, but fighting at 100k acres is almost a guaranteed loss, while a fight at 200k acres is possible to come out ahead.

After that, you need to look at setups and preparedness. Kingdoms stack gold. It's the most effective way to pump (if you disagree, you are wrong). If Kingdom A and Kingdom B war, Kingdom C can go ahead and fight either kingdom after their war, knowing they'll be more prepared - they had 6 days to stack gold, while Kingdoms A and B spent theirs pumping. This is especially risky when cows (which we've already established are the most efficient ways to use the explore pool) are involved - getting your cow farmed is bad. Next, consider setups. What's the most effective thing to do in war? Chain. Who do you target? Important provinces, with high offense or good TPA/WPA. If you go to war, your best provinces become your worst provinces, because they get chained down (I'm sure someone will waste their time telling me "good provinces can recover!!!". Save your time. It's impossible to grow back from 2k acres to 8k acres without using the explore pool, which your cow needs to keep up with other cows.) and you lose setup advantages. Kingdoms A and B will see their Faeries hit down, their Rogues hit down, whatever. Kingdom C has their setup intact. Another huge advantage.

This is why you don't see kingdoms trying to war or win wars. The way war is set up now gives a HUGE second mover advantage and offers almost no way for the fighting kingdoms to keep up with the kingdoms that aren't fighting.

Except now you are saying you are not using dicing effectively as it is allowing the overly powerful and abusive small provinces to abuse the larger more pumped provinces who are not ready....because they have CFs in place....so they are weaker and unready.....

nope you all created this mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsjabba

no... changes to dice are not needed. it is not OP. it is the operators in top tier kingdoms that run strats and diplomacy purely designed for uninhibited growth that create their own problems. that is why the only people asking for this change or supporting it are the people centering their entire utopia experience on it.
if your retort is 'then why do top kingdoms make it to the top when we all start at the same size?' ---> because you aim for a dice build from day 1. just don't do it and it won't become a problem for you later in the age. and don't make stupid year 6 + 48hr NAPs.

---

"Dice isn't overpowered, only the kingdoms that use it the most and try to grow think it's overpowered for growing."

...I'm not sure who you're trying to support with that one...

I only know one kingdom that ran dice build from day 1, and they've gotten tagged all age. All top kingdoms run attackers early. You aim for a dice build when it's safe and when there are no more targets to attack. That's basically how it goes - Farm out the server, fight each other, CF and dice to build separation.

you can also sci-pump with war now. 100bpa on the median province is fantastic... and if you stick at one size and just duke it out like everyone else, again, dicing isn't relevant. it becomes counterproductive to grow to the top in a WAR GAME because in this size doesn't necessarily help you get wars or war wins, and getting too big leaves you with few targets that are also gigantic and reluctant to war for risk of losing everything.
getting a land or NW crown by doing nothing but dicing and avoiding war isn't an achievement to be proud of. if you manage to get one of those crowns with say 7+ serious wars that aren't all mid to late age, so you achieved through conquest and great teamwork - thats impressive.

but if you in the top 10 genuinely want to play diplomacy games and do nothing but dice, go right ahead. just don't request changes in the mechanics that work for everyone else because you've pigeonholed yourselves into a single growth paradigm

+1 rsjabba

It looks like people are talking past eachother, so I'll try to summarize the premises of the two sides. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Shiester, rsjabba and co seem to be saying "utopia is a war game, and anyone whose goal is growth is 'doing it wrong'. The game's mechanics should making warring balanced. If growth mechanics are unbalanced, that's ok because players shouldn't be growing anyway."

therock, dorje, and mal seem to be saying "the growth mechanics--particularly war range and dicing--are unbalanced/boring and we should fix them" I didn't see them acknowledge the effect of war range on people who don't care about growth.


Is there some mechanic that satisfies both constraints? I think some form of "declare peace" would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsjabba

but if you in the top 10 genuinely want to play diplomacy games and do nothing but dice, go right ahead. just don't request changes in the mechanics that work for everyone else because you've pigeonholed yourselves into a single growth paradigm

---

The diplomacy games are a result of unbalanced growth/war mechanics, so there is no choice. If you want to win #1, you have to use the "single growth paradigm". The top doesn't want to just dice, that's the whole point you seemed to miss.

But they still CHOOSE to because they care more about #1 than they do about having fun. They are willing to compromise having fun for a meaningless internet title. Then because they are that abusive of game mechanics they need to impose their problem on the rest of the server. Well I am sorry, they can suck it up. Nowhere else is this a problem. There were three examples of the "problem" raised. Two were of dubious character as the "affected" KDs are #1 and #2. The last one picked the fight for alliance or other political reasons and got pwned as a result of that. So in short, even the best examples raised illustrated that IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. Certainly its not enough of a problem to screw with protections for the rest of the server that are in place to prevent these idiots from ruining the game for the rest of the player base.

you do not screw 95% of the player base to make 5% of the player base happy unless you really just want to kill the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsjabba

you can also sci-pump with war now. 100bpa on the median province is fantastic... and if you stick at one size and just duke it out like everyone else, again, dicing isn't relevant. it becomes counterproductive to grow to the top in a WAR GAME because in this size doesn't necessarily help you get wars or war wins, and getting too big leaves you with few targets that are also gigantic and reluctant to war for risk of losing everything.
getting a land or NW crown by doing nothing but dicing and avoiding war isn't an achievement to be proud of. if you manage to get one of those crowns with say 7+ serious wars that aren't all mid to late age, so you achieved through conquest and great teamwork - thats impressive.

but if you in the top 10 genuinely want to play diplomacy games and do nothing but dice, go right ahead. just don't request changes in the mechanics that work for everyone else because you've pigeonholed yourselves into a single growth paradigm

---

Fantastic?

Rushed science is 2 BPA per hour. If you wave for war, get declared that same hour, take the minimum 12h in postwar, you're at 60 hours. Rushed would give 120 BPA. Staying on Active science through war (unrealistic) and then winning (only one side wins) would give 142 BPA. In a BEST CASE scenario, you come out 20 BPA ahead. This assumes you can stay on Rushed right up until hostile (you can't), you get declared same hour you wave (you won't), you'll leave war 12h after it ends (you won't) and you remain on Active sciences through the whole thing (you won't). 100 BPA is very nice early age, and gives incentives for early warning. As with dicing, timeframe is relative - early age, warring is a good way to get sciences, just like randoming is a good way to get acres. Later, dicing and pumping sci become much better.

You're getting dangerously close to Sheister territory with comments like " if you in the top 10 genuinely want to play diplomacy games and do nothing but dice". We don't. Nobody does. We want to win. You're confusing wanting to win with wanting to play diplomacy games and dice. One is an end, one is a means.

As far as this working for everyone...if you think the suggestions dorje made do not materially improve gameplay for most players, I strongly disagree.

Dorje knows the game better than anyone who's posted in this thread, bar none. I see most people fixated on this War Range issue, most of whom don't even consider the consequences of it. The truth is, you WANT top kingdoms to grow out of range. Top kingdoms are relentless randomers, and do so for the entire age, as long as they are able to. The last time the big kingdoms were forced to stay small was the age dicing took half the acres from the pool. Bishop's stated numerous times that age got more complaints from players than any other age by far, because the top kingdoms just kept hitting everyone. If the current mechanics are left in place, the game will become a game of making friends to have your friends hit OOR kds and big kingdoms razing small ones away. This will be fun for exactly 0 players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ata

It looks like people are talking past eachother, so I'll try to summarize the premises of the two sides. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Shiester, rsjabba and co seem to be saying "utopia is a war game, and anyone whose goal is growth is 'doing it wrong'. The game's mechanics should making warring balanced. If growth mechanics are unbalanced, that's ok because players shouldn't be growing anyway."

therock, dorje, and mal seem to be saying "the growth mechanics--particularly war range and dicing--are unbalanced/boring and we should fix them" I didn't see them acknowledge the effect of war range on people who don't care about growth.


Is there some mechanic that satisfies both constraints? I think some form of "declare peace" would work.

---

Ata - not quite accurate.

Sheister is ignoring everything said by anyone with any real knowledge of top kingdom mechanics and is consequently being ignored by those people.

rsjabba seems to think that growing kingdoms should wave each other more and fight more, and it's their own fault for growing. His comments reflect a belief that top kingdoms don't fight much early on, that CFs are given to allow the kingdoms to "get away" and that they should "wave each other more". I am hopeful that he will read the posts made by other players and come to understand why two kingdoms fighting sets them behind all other kingdoms under the current mechanics, as the war system in place promotes this behavior, and comes to learn that top kingdoms do fight a lot early on, but put CFs up after the fighting is done.

dorje wants comprehensive changes made to the races, both for networth and offense/defense balance. He wants the declaration range limits rebalanced, with limitations in place to prevent the farm warring and bottomfeed declaring issues from before. He wants exploration fixed to allow the smaller kingdoms to use it, as they currently have no good means to do so (to wit - exploring up chained provinces in warring kingdoms is now twice as expensive as before). He wants wars among top kingdoms to become beneficial to those kingdoms, as opposed to the current mutual stalling that they are now. To date, nobody has comprehensively provided real and meaningful feedback on most of these suggestions, but most seem very opposed to some issues, even though evidence strongly refutes them. The proposed changes provide significant improvements to gameplay.

TheRock and Mal fully support dorje's proposed changes and have made limited efforts to engage with people regarding their concerns and issues by providing real examples and reasons. By and large, those have been ignored or overlooked, in favor of people repeating their positions instead of responding to the points raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheister

But they still CHOOSE to because they care more about #1 than they do about having fun. They are willing to compromise having fun for a meaningless internet title. Then because they are that abusive of game mechanics they need to impose their problem on the rest of the server. Well I am sorry, they can suck it up. Nowhere else is this a problem. There were three examples of the "problem" raised. Two were of dubious character as the "affected" KDs are #1 and #2. The last one picked the fight for alliance or other political reasons and got pwned as a result of that. So in short, even the best examples raised illustrated that IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. Certainly its not enough of a problem to screw with protections for the rest of the server that are in place to prevent these idiots from ruining the game for the rest of the player base.

you do not screw 95% of the player base to make 5% of the player base happy unless you really just want to kill the game.

---

For the competitive field, winning #1 is the fun. The road to get there is just what needs to be done.

And there is no screwing of the other 95%, because most of the things being discussed here doesn't affect them at all. Your argument is basically that mechanics should be based on the kingdoms who aren't good enough to win, and that's as fail as it gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

For the competitive field, winning #1 is the fun. The road to get there is just what needs to be done.

And there is no screwing of the other 95%, because most of the things being discussed here doesn't affect them at all. Your argument is basically that mechanics should be based on the kingdoms who aren't good enough to win, and that's as fail as it gets.

---

Protip - top kingdoms will always find the best ways to grow using the mechanics provided. Double explore costs? Time to run multiple cows! Take away dicing? Top kingdoms hit all the other kingdoms all age! Change the science system to prevent fast pumps? CF and pump for weeks!

It's amazing how many people confuse cause and effect. CFs, dicing, sci-pumping, stacking gcs, running banks...it's not like kingdoms said "WE WANT TO DO THIS SO WE ARE GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE DO IT AND COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING THAT MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THIS". The top is a jungle - you eat what you kill. All of these things are just what the Alpha Predators do to stay on top because they figured out, quite quickly, that this was the best way to do things. There are always kingdoms that try to get ahead and say "Oh, I'll never CF, I'll just topfeed all age and rob all age and be unreasonable and piss everyone off". Those kingdoms do not last.

well, whatever else is said, it is very obvious that there are two completely different play styles happening ... at the top, and then everywhere else.
i actually like a great many changes listed by dorje. i just don't like that so many people seem to think dice needs to change.
yes, you are absolutely right that warring can set you back. you are absolutely right that pumping on the highest science possible at all times will give you more science than winning a war while maintaining a decend science rate throughout.
i think the most meaningful thing i've learned in and about this game is that no matter what you do, you're taking a chance. there is NO guarantee that you'll win a war. you take a big risk - you could win comfortably, you could come out more or less the same as everyone else, you could get stuck in a pride war and end up behind everyone else... you just don't know, except when you're at the top. behaviour at the top, if i'm reading this thread right, has become too predictable.
i still maintain that this dice issue is a player issue, not a mechanics issue. i recognise that there are probably more benefits to sitting and dicing than risking one's tailfeather in certain circumstances, when multiple kingdoms focus their entire play on it.
my belief is that in utopia, if you want to get ahead without limiting your own options, you need to take a risk. that means waving more. here is a hypothetical: stop dicing. if one kingdom continues to dice, so be it. let them crown at 40mil on their own. they can be bored all age.
alternatively, let them dice, play dirty and break your CF and have your way with them when they don't expect it.

and let me give you a little anecdote.
i used to play company of heroes, lots. i loved it so much that i dissected the workings and came up with foolproof strats to get victory. i ended up being really, really good - but no fun to play against.
all my friends told me to stop doing it, but i ignored them because i wanted to win and be the best.
long story short, now none of us play company of heroes. they quit because it was no longer fun to play with uber competitive people, and i quit because dominating and knowing mechanics wasn't enough. i started making my own mods (i actually got pretty good at modding .lua files and xml arrays and whatnot). i found out that creating a rapid fire 88 and giving it to the basic infantry units is FUNNY but it ruins the game. i got bored of a game that i could change at will and win too easily, and stopped playing.
the moral of the story is... stop dissecting everything. when you know everything about a game, it loses some of its appeal. you become less fun to play with. then people quit. we don't want that, thats why plenty of ghettos are filled with people that don't know the mechanics - its why i dont know the mechanics (and don't want to know the mechanics) even though i've played for about 8 years now.
the game could use some changes, and lots of dorje's are practical. but changing dice from something that most people use for a fast land gand to get into range of better war targets to something that is useless isn't a good idea.

Ok lets explain my idea about "declare peace". Right now all big kds say 25% declare range is very bad and easy for abuse from smaller kds. They can wave out from range and bigger kds have only one effective way for strike: raze/pk. How we all know raze don't give gains for any one and its not fun :) From other Side when range for declare is 50% you can avoid this abuse from smaller kd but big kds (in middle range too) can bully smaller kd and trap him in war. Actually trap in war is most danger when KD A have multie and hit on propose KD B for arrange war. With change in agg stance its not easy to be done now, but still possible. There come my idea. Back declare range down 50% and up maybe not limited? But add new hostile stance.

New hostile option: Declare peace. Results from it:
Affect for KD A who declare peace
1. War declare is not possible for both sides! <--- this way we avoid all trap wars.
2. Kingdom can declare peace only if his metter is x2 less. <-- Goal is if KD A don't want to fight back to declare peace from begin not to stall kd B in retal war for few days and declare after it.
3. When KD A declare peace they loss all hostile ops. <--Its for avoid abuse for keep op KD B and refuse CF.
4. Reduce gains from attack with 10%

Result for KD B after peace is declared:
1. they keep all hostile ops if KD A keep retal.
2. +4h attack time
3. +10% army losses.
4. Kingdom B get option to Force in game CF for 48h. <---good way to move on for both sides.

I think with this kind of penalty no one will keep feed on KD A for long because its not effective. System look to work good for smal and big kds. Maybe its can be tuned. This is just starting point for discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

The diplomacy games are a result of unbalanced growth/war mechanics, so there is no choice. If you want to win #1, you have to use the "single growth paradigm". The top doesn't want to just dice, that's the whole point you seemed to miss.

---

You always gotta keep asking why. Why is it that you'll lose your shot at #1 if you war? The answer is: because someone else doesn't and can freely dice/pump. Why can the other freely dice/pump? Because he's unthreatened. Why is the other unthreatened? Cause he has NAPs with all other potentional threats. Why does he have NAPs with everybody? So he won't get caught of guard/vultured and can thus dice/pump freely till noticed and run low draft.

There's a big fat loop going on in this system. What would happen if you take away the NAP part?
Would the other still be able to break away? He couldn't affort to run low draft now eh, he'd be immediately threatend by other kd's not in war. He'd have less expenses as the kd at war sure, but he could only marginally benefit from it and the winning kd from the war would have a real shot at gaining more than the other could dice/pump on high draft.

If the top isn't happy with the current system, they may want to look at their own influence on it.
It can be a whole different experience without any game mechanic change. The answer is right there.

Thank you.............

They can sit here and deny it and blame everyone else as much as they want. But as TheRock said, it does not matter what mechanic is in place, the top will still be the top. Stop screwing with everything to try to make it so that you are FORCED to do what you say you want to do. Just DO what you want to do. They are forced to dice? Stop it right there. No one is holding a gun to their heads. They do it because they want to be #1. Clearly though, being #1 is not the fun they thought BECAUSE they are in here trying to make mechanics that force them to do more fun stuff instead of dice.

Why do we need to do things to change the way THEY play? Why, to change the way THEY play am I to be FORCED to change the way I CHOOSE to play? How illogical is it, as a threshold matter, that we need to change a mechanic to make it so that it is more likely that people will choose to have FUN in a GAME (and DHaran, they ADMIT already that dicing is not fun. They CHOOSE, in other words, to use the most un-fun (e.g. to not have fun) methods they can so that they can claim an empty internet title)? If mechanics are changed in some way, the top will still be the top and they will STILL CHOOSE the most efficient (and likely UN-FUN) method trying to get to #1. Because they are people who just can't enjoy a game like normal social people. WHY are only a few of us on this board the only ones who can see that?

Its stupid. One day the stupid kids at the top will grow up and stop playing this like a video game where they can get the cheat codes (no, I am not saying they cheat, I am saying it is the same mentality) so they can get the highest score EVAR and learn to just enjoy the game. Those are not necessarily the same things.

While I can understand the general principle of the arguement of stop playing that way and it isn't an issue I also fail to understand quite the level of vitriol that seems to be associated with such a stance.

The 'Top' players (or at least those posting here) seem to be saying if you want to win you have to play a certain way which is boring. There are always going to be some people who choose to do that, so if we don't as well then we have no chance of winning. It seems to me to be pretty poor game design if your choices are play to win in a boring and mechanistic fashion or play for fun with no chance of winning.

What they want is to be able to play for fun and still have some chance of winning. I don't see how you can argue with that as a principle... And it also has a very negative connotation for the rest of the server if true, because the vast majority of players will not want to play at the top and learn and improve and hence improve the level of competition simply because they don't want to play in a boring way.

It seems to me that the situation is like that faced by an addict who wants to give up but can't. You may say 'hey just stop doing it' but sometimes they need to be forced to make a change and adapt...


For a few questions, and hopefully someone will indulge / educate me:

1) Is the aim of the changes to bias gameplay such that warring is preferable to dice / eplxore? Or to simply balance the two? (I ask because it strike me that given two situations with equal possibl benefit where one involves a risk (war) and one does not (explore / dice) people would simply still choose the risk-free option and play the percentages)

2) If my assumption above is correct (which it may not be) how much bias do you need to give in favour of warring generating a better return than explore / dice for it to become a risk the top will favour?

3) If the Top always plays in a way that results in maximum benefit is there any practical difference between a mechanic change that favours warring over explore / dice in comparison to a change that actually forced people to war? (i.e. limited explore / dice acres in relation to acres taken in combat so that no more that no more than x% of total land acquired come come from explore or dice)

4) If you favour warring as a means of growth, will that not lead to less 'seperation' between KD's (early age as people will choose to war instead of explore / dice and late age because presumably even average kds will be growing more) thus leading to a situation where the top is closer to everyone else and more able to smack them about leading to them complaining about it?

5) Is it genuinely true that all top players view warring / combat as more 'fun', as that's surely a subjective concept, are there not some people who actually enjoy the explore / dice approach?

6) I don't get how making the acres come fro your own pool during war as opposed to the oppositions favours warring vs not warring?

You make several sound points. I am going to break this up to give some explanation of my perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlphaWaveCascade

While I can understand the general principle of the arguement of stop playing that way and it isn't an issue I also fail to understand quite the level of vitriol that seems to be associated with such a stance.

---

The vitriol (at least to the extent that I personally have such) stems from the idea that I am sick of being forced to change how I and the vast majority of players choose to enjoy the game for the benefit of between 5-8 kingdoms in this game. Less than 5% of the game is dictating how this game should be played and enjoyed by the other 95%. I am sick of it.

Quote:

---

The 'Top' players (or at least those posting here) seem to be saying if you want to win you have to play a certain way which is boring. There are always going to be some people who choose to do that, so if we don't as well then we have no chance of winning. It seems to me to be pretty poor game design if your choices are play to win in a boring and mechanistic fashion or play for fun with no chance of winning.

---

As they themselves note, they are at the top because they are the most experienced and claim to be the most innovative. Further they will put the time in to find the most efficient and mechanic abusing mechanisms to get ahead in this game. So no matter how much this game gets tweaked they will likely always be at the top because they have an inherent sickness in them regarding this game. You comment below about addicts is exactly on point. So, because they are addicts it does not matter what is done, they will find a way to ruin the game. Well, at present the mechanics prevent them from ruining the game for everyone else. Let’s keep it that way.

Quote:

---

What they want is to be able to play for fun and still have some chance of winning. I don't see how you can argue with that as a principle... And it also has a very negative connotation for the rest of the server if true, because the vast majority of players will not want to play at the top and learn and improve and hence improve the level of competition simply because they don't want to play in a boring way.

---

They say that, but they won’t. Time and again they admit that here. They will always seek the most efficient means to win and that will mean bug abuse, exploits, mechanics abuse, etc etc etc. I am all for altering mechanics when it involves these people abusing kingdoms that DO NOT make a habit of exploiting the game and other kingdoms. I do not support altering it so that people who abuse the game in an irrational quest to ruin their own fun for a farcical and empty internet title can then change/alter/potentially ruin everyone else’s fun.

Quote:

---

It seems to me that the situation is like that faced by an addict who wants to give up but can't. You may say 'hey just stop doing it' but sometimes they need to be forced to make a change and adapt...

---

Yes! You are precisely right that they are addicts. However, it is not the job of the rest of the server to suffer for these people. We do not need to have a mass intervention for them. We are not here to make them feel better about their obsessive compulsive disorders.

Quote:

---

For a few questions, and hopefully someone will indulge / educate me:

1) Is the aim of the changes to bias gameplay such that warring is preferable to dice / eplxore? Or to simply balance the two? (I ask because it strike me that given two situations with equal possibl benefit where one involves a risk (war) and one does not (explore / dice) people would simply still choose the risk-free option and play the percentages)

---

The only possible way is to bias the game towards warring as you already note. The game is already moving in this direction on its own naturally without the need to remove mechanics to protect smaller kingdoms from these predatory addicted people at the top.

Quote:

---

2) If my assumption above is correct (which it may not be) how much bias do you need to give in favour of warring generating a better return than explore / dice for it to become a risk the top will favour?

---

TheRock already calculated that for you. He set up how most of these people run, with sufficiently low draft that they can run rushed science (which the game is not intended to do all the time) and so on and so forth so that you gain more books and acres from war than you could outside of it. This is an illogical extreme to take this system to and really guts part of the spirit of the game (imho). But as The Rock and others point out, they are only happy warring when they get fully pumped and prepared provinces, so they will not do anything anyway until they have so abused game mechanics that they feel “ready”.

Quote:

---

3) If the Top always plays in a way that results in maximum benefit is there any practical difference between a mechanic change that favours warring over explore / dice in comparison to a change that actually forced people to war? (i.e. limited explore / dice acres in relation to acres taken in combat so that no more that no more than x% of total land acquired come come from explore or dice)

---

Theoretically yes. The argument is you need to let the predatory top get away so that they do not abuse newer players. Recall that their ego is such that they need to get to #1. Therefore they will seek out the weakest kingdoms, the newest players, the most vulnerable in the player base to strip out all their resources and land and ruin their game so that they can have an advantage over anyone who would have picked a more challenging war and thereby have slower or lesser gains. You see, they will do whatever they can to ruin this game for others in their quest to get #1. That is all they want or care about.

Quote:

---

4) If you favour warring as a means of growth, will that not lead to less 'seperation' between KD's (early age as people will choose to war instead of explore / dice and late age because presumably even average kds will be growing more) thus leading to a situation where the top is closer to everyone else and more able to smack them about leading to them complaining about it?

---

Yes this is the argument that was erected to prevent early age limitations on dice and explore and was proven valid in a few ages. Thus it is best to just let them go off into their top 10 world and disappear. They are only whining now because recently there have been kingdoms with enough experience to recognize that when they are randoming and hitting into smaller KD’s they can use game mechanics to punish them and thus discourage them hitting into smaller kingdoms. While the top likes to CLAIM that smaller kingdoms are hitting up into them for gain, every example they have erected of this has proven to be false.

Quote:

---

5) Is it genuinely true that all top players view warring / combat as more 'fun', as that's surely a subjective concept, are there not some people who actually enjoy the explore / dice approach?

---

Maybe, but the plurality acknowledge that warring is more challenging and therefore more fun.

Quote:

---

6) I don't get how making the acres come fro your own pool during war as opposed to the oppositions favours warring vs not warring?

---

Exploring comes from your own pool. If wars and exploring both exhaust your own pool keeping it perpetually low, then the only option to continue growth at a competitive level is to take land from outside your own pool.

Separation is fine, its pretty essential really. We dont have any issues with it. The problem we do have is small kds getting declared on and nailed by massively larger kds, this was quite a common problem.

I seriously doubt that the top kds will now be unable to successfully play to chart because kingdoms that are, at a minimum, 30% smaller than them can dictate their age with ease. This hasn't happened with a wider declare range and I don't see it happening now. The argument that with a 50% range you could declare on them is just quite a lot of bull****, the gains would not outweigh dicing and would result in a net loss of acres so kingdoms that wanted to win would never declare down to 30-50% smaller than them.

Anyway, lets go with the idea that there is a valid point here - the tighter declare range allows kingdoms that are 30% smaller than you to mess about with you a lot. Why are you now unable to deter them?

Because they are rather sitting on low draft and not spend the effort.
Edit: Oops I mean they have to sit on low draft.

yes, they resent that we force them to actually train some army in order to defend themselves so they can't run rushed 24/7 and instead have to settle for intensive. Life is so cruel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

Anyway, lets go with the idea that there is a valid point here - the tighter declare range allows kingdoms that are 30% smaller than you to mess about with you a lot. Why are you now unable to deter them?

---

Normally 99% from server wont have problem with kds 30% smaller, but atm there is good room for abuse it from another good kds. When you ignore people who say its can be abused they will abuse it. This people are masters on any abuse. They have number kingdoms advantage already. If they start run "friends" too will be so much.

I'm giving up on this thread because it's just being overrun by people who have no clue what they're talking about and I don't have the stomach to be nice about it. It's unfortunate because jdorje, elit, and therock have forgotten more than these people will ever know about Utopia. I hope you guys manage to get your points through this crapshoot of nubery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elitbg

Normally 99% from server wont have problem with kds 30% smaller, but atm there is good room for abuse it from another good kds. When you ignore people who say its can be abused they will abuse it. This people are masters on any abuse. They have number kingdoms advantage already. If they start run "friends" too will be so much.

---

Is hitting up with a gain advantage but much lower econ and (logically!) militairy abuse? If the bigger kd was trained up like any normal kd it would be multitapping verses singles. Seems quite fair no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

nubery.

---

Lets call this a classic argument.

because that attitude is what makes the game grow.... good show Dharan.

It is not nubery, it is not having no clue. It is the truth. Every thing they say is that they want to do only the most efficient thing in the game, so mechanics must be changed so that war is the most efficient thing and so that they can more efficiently beat on smaller KDs. Well, sorry, that is a load of bull. They try to come at the argument from the other side saying that smaller kingdoms are abusing them to such a degree that they a re handicapped in their race for #1, which is clearly bull as they are always in the fight for it anyway, so even if it is a problem (which I do not believe) it clearly is not a large problem and it is one they can easily circumvent through their most venerated tactic, diplomacy.

So, just as small KD's crying about being beat on by large ones are told "learn diplomacy, learn to play" (which they have and now the whining from the top is happening, all they did was what you told them to do.) the answer here is the same. Right back at you boys. Learn to play, learn diplomacy.

Treat smaller kingdoms with respect and not as farms and you will have fewer problems with them. You are creating your own problems and you are too blinded by your own 1337ness to see it.

The only classic argument happening here is that of the scrub, who complains about how others play to win without really understanding why it's the right way to play given a set of circumstances or mechanics.

The difference here is and always shall be this: players who only know one type of play are arguing with those who knows ALL types of play. It's laughable how sure they are of themselves that they know everything.

I'll tell you what hurts the games Sheister, people like you who don't take opportunity to learn from legends like jdorje when they actually participate in forum discussions. This is why elite players stay away, because they have to deal with people who don't understand much of what they're trying to discuss.

nevermind

Not so Dharan. The majority of players of this game do not come on here to read what dorje writes. But they do experience what his KD and the other "top" KD call efficient farming which is, hitting those who can't hit back. They experience threats in their inboxes. They experience bullying and browbeating and intimidation in a game that is supposed to just be fun. So, all those elite KD's who are more experienced in handling that kind of thing are rightly carrying the burden when us nubs can't handle it as well. Again, if the elitists can't take us nubs, I recommend that a more elite server for those 10 kd's is developed where they can all agree to dice and not war until they are all ready.

I am not complaining about how they play to win. They are free to go for it. I want them to and good for them. I object to the concept that there is a "right" way to play this or any other game that is made for people to enjoy however they please. You also presume a lot about me when you assume I only know "one way" to play. Just because I find a particular method repugnant does not mean I can't do it.