Thought this was a better place for it.
Quote from: Sevah on March 24, 2012, 04:14:39 AM
Hitlimit should be at 32 in these dynamics.
Race mods need to be curved and mostly within +20 and -20
Market tax is absolute rubbish and very abusable. Storage capacity and changing prices is very abusable.
Mercenaries sale price is absolute peril
Stored turns should release at 2 instead of 5
Attacking losses are too high and very abusable.
1 active landlocker will drain a server that no one else defends
clans that intelligently use the race modifiers can individually be 50x more powerful than they deserve
Clan sharing should be 25% tops.
I also think that hit limits could be made higher i dont quite know the rationale behind the 32 limit you proposed but having more hits would be great. Because as it is a lot of land gets locked up after people have grabbed a whole chunk.
Im not sure about the race mods personally but mabey someone who knows more could shed some light on the subject.
I know market tax was introduced in order to prevent people circumventing the 3x limit but i also think that it is a bit steep. When im solo indying i have to leave a substantial amount of troops on me for my next run especially in the case of someone attempting a land lock and this ends up giving me a tax amount of around 10-15%. And this limits how productive i can be. Mabey halving it pr having the cash actually go somewhere useful such as possibly going to the jackpot in the gamble section or possibly going down to the land farm. Im sure we could work out something there.
in regards to the merc prices i know that they were put that low in order to make people use the market but now that people know how good the market is could we increase the prices a little. Mabey putting it so that the highest sell prices are equal to the lowest sell prices on the market. Other wise an indy starting has to go through a horrible ordeal at the beginning of the round.
Again i would like to know the rationale behind the suggested 2 turns. I personally do not have a problem with the rate at which they come out but i would like to know your reasoning.
i agree that attacking losses are too high. i was standard attacking i believe it was doods as retribution for taking me down to 90k land but i stopped as it was not worth it. On one attack i broke and killed about 7k skiffs and 1k stoats losing around 2mil weasels in the process. he was on 32k land. I though it may have been because of his allies so i tried a surprise attack and still i lost around that many while he consistently lost a pittance.
with the 1 land locker draining a server that is more the fault of the other players in the server doing nothing. At the beginning of this round when clouds clan was attempting a takeover me and snowy succesfully beat them down on quite a few occasions. As active defenders we were able to prevent any land locks.
Again with one team clanning up to become more powerful i think it is up to the rest of the server to plan together to beat them down. However with so many benefits to clanning up mabey there should be some penalties such as a reduction of production or mabey having useful race stats reduced by 2%.
I also agree with the 25% tops clan sharing. Large clans can just become way too powerful just by sharing troops. Such as what has happened with snares current clan on turbo. Low players attacking even the lower members of snares clan can suffer pretty bad losses.
Well there is my views and ideas please post and we might just be able to get somewhere :D
Can't get to the race chart (or most of the help pages for that matter) but race modifiers have been broken for a long long time.
Not just race mods but attack units need repair aswell.
Anyway, i'd rather not deal with the problems. Too much right now, someone message me in game when Shaels back
Quote from: Neobaron on March 24, 2012, 05:16:54 AM
Can't get to the race chart (or most of the help pages for that matter) but race modifiers have been broken for a long long time.
As far as i know the race modifiers have been fixed ingame. Although it is quite hard to find them when you want the :(. Could we perhaps get the table pinned in the help section of the forums
Sevs if you dont want to discuss now after all i wrote then ill just talk with the rest of the people on the forums and if we make changes you dont agree with you want have any reason to complain...please just try to work with me on this one.
I agree attacking losses is way to high, I got attacked and I lost, he lost 120k stoats while I lost 3k, the lowest I lost was 344 stoats while he lost 110k stoats. I'm only on my phone so I can't copy/paste but I can show you a whole lot tomorrow.
Quote from: The Obliterator on March 24, 2012, 04:53:02 AM
I also think that hit limits could be made higher i dont quite know the rationale behind the 32 limit you proposed but having more hits would be great. Because as it is a lot of land gets locked up after people have grabbed a whole chunk.
Since failed attacks don't count toward maxxing I had hoped that this would solve that problem. Remember that the hope for 3.0 is a defensive game where a lot of attacking is not necessarily a good thing even for the attacker.
However, I think with the finalized system going in next round (details in a day or two) this might not be a bad idea. So let's see how the new system looks at 21, and we'll go from there. I'm open to making it higher, but I want to see what happens at this one first.
Quote
Im not sure about the race mods personally but mabey someone who knows more could shed some light on the subject.
race bonuses are mostly between -15 and 15 actually, though there are a few higher. I am rather pleased with how the balance is going so far in this area, since there is a large variety of races being played. Of course this might be because it is still early in 3.0 and people haven't definitively discovered best strategies like before, but I would like to wait to make that judgment.
Cashing is OP and indy/food is UP, but this is not the fault of the race chart (more on this later).
Quote
I know market tax was introduced in order to prevent people circumventing the 3x limit but i also think that it is a bit steep. When im solo indying i have to leave a substantial amount of troops on me for my next run especially in the case of someone attempting a land lock and this ends up giving me a tax amount of around 10-15%. And this limits how productive i can be. Mabey halving it pr having the cash actually go somewhere useful such as possibly going to the jackpot in the gamble section or possibly going down to the land farm. Im sure we could work out something there.
I would like it if Sevah explained how the tax was abusable.
With regards to your objection, the market tax has always been there (at 10% iirc). It just didn't get reported in your news feed ^_^. So a tax of 10% is not actually new, the news feed report is.
Market capacity being abusable I agree with to some extent. But I don't actually think it is even possible to completely remove the possibility of market storing. If you guys have suggestions as to how to eliminate all possible market storage strategies that are possible now that would be great. Personally I don't mind if the market is used as a minor storage since it really does behave largely as a market now.
Quote
in regards to the merc prices i know that they were put that low in order to make people use the market but now that people know how good the market is could we increase the prices a little. Mabey putting it so that the highest sell prices are equal to the lowest sell prices on the market. Other wise an indy starting has to go through a horrible ordeal at the beginning of the round.
Lowering prices to get people to use the market then raising them will just make them go back to mercs ^_^. Note that I do have plans for indy to make it more viable, but that it is going to take a little bit of time if I am going to do it right. If you could explain why you think these prices are "absolute peril" that would be nice.
Quote
Again i would like to know the rationale behind the suggested 2 turns. I personally do not have a problem with the rate at which they come out but i would like to know your reasoning.
Yea, turns are fine.
Quote
i agree that attacking losses are too high. i was standard attacking i believe it was doods as retribution for taking me down to 90k land but i stopped as it was not worth it. On one attack i broke and killed about 7k skiffs and 1k stoats losing around 2mil weasels in the process. he was on 32k land. I though it may have been because of his allies so i tried a surprise attack and still i lost around that many while he consistently lost a pittance.
I get the impression that some of you are talking about attacking losses being too high and others about defending losses being too high ^_^. There is very large variability in losses (random number generator) so you will all have times where you lose a ton and the other guy loses barely anything. This is not a fault in the system, and in fact if you average over many attacks it evens out.
Quote
with the 1 land locker draining a server that is more the fault of the other players in the server doing nothing. At the beginning of this round when clouds clan was attempting a takeover me and snowy succesfully beat them down on quite a few occasions. As active defenders we were able to prevent any land locks.
Teamwork being strong is not something I am concerned about, really. I would like it to be that you have to clan to be in a team, but one thing at a time.
Quote
I also agree with the 25% tops clan sharing. Large clans can just become way too powerful just by sharing troops. Such as what has happened with snares current clan on turbo. Low players attacking even the lower members of snares clan can suffer pretty bad losses.
I am not actually sure if sharing does anything other than report that it is doing something ^_^ But we could take that down lower, I am not particularly attached to it.
With the tax the difference was that i never used to use the market ie i sold my troops to mercs.
Also with merc prices. Im not saying to raise them back to where they were but just a bit higher. Like for instance im currently selling weasels at rock bottom price and i get about 6 bil cash for 10 mil weasels but if i sold those same weasels to mercs i get about 2 bil cash. If we could just raise the selling prices a little it would mean that if you ran out of cash in the middle of a run you could get some more at a loss but not as big of a one as you currently face.
At the beginning of the round when you have had no income from the market it makes it incredibly difficult to start up. Mabey i have been doing it wrong but last time i had to juggle between all four troop types just to get through half of my turns. And i was loosing money each time. All i was doing in fact was making food :S.
There's more problems than I can poke a stick at. Thanks for speaking up oblit and I hope we can all make some progress even though I had a bad day.
The logic behind 32 capacity hitlimit is based on the turnrate and overall dynamics. To be honest it should be 45ish with this setup but it's hard enough suggesting change to even 28. I can try explain it all but only certain people would understand and agree whilst many others would use the info for their advantage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've noticed changes based directly on hindering my performances and my abilities to perform.
The most obvious example is how I worked very hard to store up heaps of troops on the market so after many days and signs that I will obviously succeed Shadow introduced a function that will tax up to 50% of all my previous warlord management skills that got me into my position.
Not to mention how PA and Shadow had a forum trying to stop me
Take into consideration that 99% of all the troops i've put through the public market were bought from the players who were breaking me. All that money in everyones banks as a way to spark action.
Now you all can call this my complaint but do you really think it's fair that I make 1trillion dollars in the scenario he forced us all into and then sudden changes are made to reduce my current 1 trillion value to 400billion?
Why not just log onto my account and reduce my stats or sell stuff? I'd rather that than have him cheat me and act like a public good guy.
You may think sucked in but that attitude becomes out of date when people realise that stopping me from being a master of the game will effect everyone who reaches the same skill level or experience once i'm gone. You all follow emotions rather than facts and i'm here with a book of facts.
I don't blame you all for hating me, I bash you senseless in the game and on the forums which makes it understandable but an administrator is altering things that effect everyone and those permanent changes are based on 1 person playing the game the way it was intended.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll try help you guys as much as I can.
Market tax is 5% and removal costs 20% of stocks.
At what point does the tax get to 50%.
Im just wondering cause that seems like a crazy amount. And at that point it would seem as if you needed the most amount of cash to look after your army.
Not everyone is out to bash you sevz your are just normally on top and so when changes are made to balance you are normally the first to get hit. Its not cause its you its cause of what the warlord on top is doing at the time.
Sharing only works if you're in the same time period or you have raiders up.
Market prices that can be changed means someone can stockpile troops then reduce that price later in the round for a mate when needed. 2 mates goin you buy mine I buy yours will clear it out for top 2
The market tax is accumulative and literally deletes networth with no remorse.
Merc prices being so low makes everyone reliant on the market for finances. If I had of locked and NOT bought peoples troops they literally would not of been able to run turns without a stack of cash or food which is easy crushed.
Hitlimit NEEDS to be raised. 21 attacks is fine in a slow server but for that reason I ran turns in the morning and at night to make sure no one could take advantage of this.
Attack range is way to tight. Desertions hitting someone bigger or smaller is ridiculous when land and workers contribute so much to networth
Market price changing will eventually cost some money to do; I just haven't had time to code it yet (expect this for the May set).
QuoteMarket tax is 5% and removal costs 20% of stocks.
This is even worse than before, the market would just be a storehouse. No. Just no.
Quote
Hitlimit NEEDS to be raised. 21 attacks is fine in a slow server but for that reason I ran turns in the morning and at night to make sure no one could take advantage of this.
Attack range is way to tight. Desertions hitting someone bigger or smaller is ridiculous when land and workers contribute so much to networth
It was 51 last round if you recall, it was not a good thing. I could see raising it to around 30, but I want to see the new attack system at work next round first.
QuoteAt what point does the tax get to 50%.
Im just wondering cause that seems like a crazy amount. And at that point it would seem as if you needed the most amount of cash to look after your army.
It only gets there if you are more than 50 times the average networth ingame, ie, if you are an emperor with locked land. Most of the top 10 in a game with no land lock will never see more than 15%. I could reduce the baseline if necessary.
As for the rest of it: Sevah, you are literally imagining things, and your victim mentality is not doing your position nor your image here any favors. Lol secret take down sevs forum.
Obviously 5% tax and 20% removal fee is not current. Are you so foolish you forget that people cannot remove their own stuff? It gets sold directly to the mercs which are destroyed for sale prices.
Apart from that you're relying on EVERYONE successfully selling on the SAME market to survive.
Can you see the dilemma if things don't sell?
If things don't sell, prices drop, someone goes casher and cleans house for great profits and a solid defense. It's about to happen on turbo now (I give it 24 hours). Market use goes in cycles in a small player base, but it still works like any other market.
If you don't want 5% and 20% removeal fees now, then why are you talking about it?
Quote from: Shadow on March 24, 2012, 08:30:35 AM
If things don't sell, prices drop, someone goes casher and cleans house for great profits and a solid defense. It's about to happen on turbo now (I give it 24 hours). Market use goes in cycles in a small player base, but it still works like any other market.
If you don't want 5% and 20% removeal fees now, then why are you talking about it?
Don't patronize me on a forum topic the was made by someone who is encouraging me to speak. Oblit wants me to be active on this forum so get lost while we brainstorm or I'll withdraw from the convo
5% sales tax was stock
20% removal fee was stock
now emperor gets a maximum 50% sale fee. I guess saving up deserves a penalty.
The market tax was put in because people were using the market to aid an emperor cash when he was otherwise out of reach. Now, that strategy is wasteful. I agree that it is not ideal. If you have suggestions as to how to stop market aiding otherwise, please make them.
Delay the transit to 2hours minimum. Make the storage capacity about half of what it is. Let mercs serve their purpose on sales prices. Fully anonymous public market.
15% of the sale is a huge sting. (15b per 100b spent) not good for an emp reseller.
I'm tired and can't concentrate
Hmm i see the dilemma
Would it be better if we based the tax on the amount of NW a player has rather than how much he has times the average. Also how is the average calculated? Does it include people in protection?
Also with the aiding the emperor cash. Technically it is still using the market and the people buying still have to buy the troops. Could you give me scenario where it helped the emperor to sell his troops for cash.
Also i had an idea about the market that would add more diversity. If you took away the upper and lower limits of selling prices and instead limited the sell prices to within a range of the average sell price. It would mean that if the market became flooded the prices would restrict themselves until the market was bought out. It would also mean that people couldn't store troops at the highest prices and bring them down later as they would always be in a "buyable" range.
Another thought. Could we perhaps add in again the remove from market just at around 50% loss. That way it would just be used for desperate circumstances and hopefully not abused. It would also mean at the end of the round people would be able to pull half of their unsold troops from the market.
Also before i forget would it be possible for there to be a way to combine troops that are selling at the same price that way the market does not become impossible to navigate and neither does the sell page.
that doesn't work because you are removing 50% of an accumulated source. 20% is very damaging when it comes to a big transaction of skiffs. Try to remember that all rules are in place for everyone and not just the ones who are successful.
Why is there even a tax? what is tax? who is gaining from this tax? if no one is gaining why call it a tax when it's clearly a penalty? Why penalise good players?
Truth to the story for the 5% tax is because the market provides a service and the ability to set your prices above the merc sale price.
For a 5% fee the market allowed you to be a reseller of cheap troops. An investor of longevity.
The removal of 20% is because many people set unreasonable prices. For you to attempt using the public market and being unsuccessful there is a penalty.
I speak for the market. Do not defy the rules of stock rotation. After X time your troops will be removed from because it's not a storage pit.
Quote from: The Obliterator on March 24, 2012, 09:18:34 AM
Would it be better if we based the tax on the amount of NW a player has rather than how much he has times the average. Also how is the average calculated? Does it include people in protection?
Not really, because there are different game scenarios where networth will vary widely, whereas times average is a measure of power across most game scenarios. Plus it wouldn't actually change anything, the tax would still be there once you hit the arbitrary threshold net we chose. Average in the median net of all active (white on scores) players.
Quote
Also with the aiding the emperor cash. Technically it is still using the market and the people buying still have to buy the troops. Could you give me scenario where it helped the emperor to sell his troops for cash.
Guy wants to lock land but is out of reach of aid from his team. He sets his prices to max and has his team buy them, meaning that he gets a ton of cash for very little loss of troops, and uses it to buy a locking army (Sevs and co did this last round).
Quote
Also i had an idea about the market that would add more diversity. If you took away the upper and lower limits of selling prices and instead limited the sell prices to within a range of the average sell price. It would mean that if the market became flooded the prices would restrict themselves until the market was bought out. It would also mean that people couldn't store troops at the highest prices and bring them down later as they would always be in a "buyable" range.
Neat idea. There are some along this line in development which I'll give details of in about a month once things are finalized.
Quote
Another thought. Could we perhaps add in again the remove from market just at around 50% loss. That way it would just be used for desperate circumstances and hopefully not abused. It would also mean at the end of the round people would be able to pull half of their unsold troops from the market.
We tried this, even at 50%, the market was a storehouse.
Quote
Also before i forget would it be possible for there to be a way to combine troops that are selling at the same price that way the market does not become impossible to navigate and neither does the sell page.
no, because the merc sell button dumps a whole transaction, so is it better to keep them split up. It would be possible to change this but it would be a huge pain in the butt for a cosmetic change, so...
QuoteDelay the transit to 2hours minimum. Make the storage capacity about half of what it is. Let mercs serve their purpose on sales prices. Fully anonymous public market.
This doesn't solve any of the problems I mentioned.
Quote from: Shadow on March 24, 2012, 10:14:40 AM
QuoteDelay the transit to 2hours minimum. Make the storage capacity about half of what it is. Let mercs serve their purpose on sales prices. Fully anonymous public market.
This doesn't solve any of the problems I mentioned.
There ya go just saying it wont work without a second thought.
Mercs in use takes pressure off the market. Not all the pressure but a fair bit. People are currently dependant of the market for revenue which hinders a consistent strategy.
Someone stole $1,101,336,731 and 9,536,668 from your treasury!
0 hours ago Someone stole $1,351,706,520 and 12,322,746 from your treasury!
0 hours ago Someone stole $1,529,044,101 and 13,302,259 from your treasury!
0 hours ago Someone stole $1,582,661,205 and 13,929,765 from your treasury!
0 hours ago Someone stole $2,039,865,712 and 13,910,751 from your treasury!
0 hours ago Someone stole $2,237,040,231 and 15,225,381 from your treasury!
0 hours ago Someone stole $1,918,296,309 and 22,579,306 from your treasury!
0 hours ago Someone stole $2,893,538,520 and 25,909,245 from your treasury!
had 21b cash and someone stole about 15% in one steal? pretty op
It's always been that strong
maybe it should be reduced a bit if 15% of someones cash/food can be taken
some tweaks to the attack system next round will even it out
an idea for the land farm now that attack ops has gone and (i think) its possible that it can be maxed on high land making it impossible to get, to maybe make it so that it has unlimited attacks but cannot be taken under 5k land to make sure it stays alive
oh woops, I meant to clan the farm, forgot about that.
Thanks
Hey Shadow, when was the last time you won a turbo round? I don't think I ever seen it happen.
Actually I don't think i've even see you do well in the game without significant help. Never seen you make much networth or post a big finish.
I'm beginning to think that you are projecting your inadequacies onto others.
Just wondering how you got access to the code rather than given a fresh www.pageofcrapupgradestoredwall.com.
Please restore some old settings for I'm in a moment of despair towards this website. I think you are bitter and won't be satisfied until others are even more bitter than you. Slowing down the turns will not improve activity. Taxing the well ranked players will not improve activity.
QuoteHey Shadow, when was the last time you won a turbo round? I don't think I ever seen it happen.
Actually I don't think i've even see you do well in the game without significant help. Never seen you make much networth or post a big finish.
I'm beginning to think that you are projecting your inadequacies onto others.
Lol, this game. Feel free to check out the immort archive yourself.
Most people seem to be reacting positively to 3.0, though I am aware there are still problems. I agree that slower turns are not helpful, but I disagree about the high ranked player thing. In my time here, people lose interest when the game is locked down, so making that harder to do is a good thing for activity.
Stop whining.
Immorts? I haven't seen you finish strong in all my time. I think you are a fool and making it easy to dominate from above.
What's the deal with failing an attack and taking health? attacking and stealing at the same time? Your making it so every is robbed of their netgaining.
Hmm. Do you know what netgaining is?
Im just hear to apologies for being a jerk to you and 12 sevzs. :-\
Thanks and no hard feelings lil bro. If ya need a hand ingame message us :wink:
Had an idea for the market. What if people were able to put up an order on the market. Such as if someone needed food for their next run they could say they wanted 300mil food at 14$ then when a food masser was on and looked at the market they could then make 300 mil food and hit like a sell button. Then the transaction would be completed and the food masser would get their money straight away. This could also work for troops and it would give a way for indies to supply themselves throughout a run.
In order to prevent people abusing this by say sacking the person they sold it to you could make this section of the market anonymous. This might add a new dynamic to the market as the buyers could help regulate the prices instead of the prices going up and down in a cycle they would be more reliant on supply and demand.
It's an idea that has been explored, there are a few problems with it we couldn't figure out how to get around:
Does the cash for an order get subtracted immediately from the person ordering and put in limbo until it is completed?
If yes, then how do we stop people using the market as a bank to keep their cash safe?
What if an order for an army is completed while they are online and they suddenly have an army they can't support?
If no, then what if a transaction is completed while online and they suddenly lose a bunch of cash. Or what if they don't have enough cash on hand to fill an order?
Don't get me wrong I would love to have this system, but I haven't been able to work out the little details in my head.
Cash would have to stay with the person to avoid banking on the market. And or another idea is that you could only do this with money in cluny's hut.
Reguarding not having enough cash on hand a thought i had is to implement the same system of the market whereby a partial transaction could be made. So if i want 100 stoats but only have enough cash for 50 a message would come up like the buyer has run out of cash a partial transaction has been completed.
Also i thought we could have a transit time for goods from the market sent by orders. Say mabey 2 hours or so. That way you could not get swamped by troops midway during a run unless you were not careful. I would say that you would be able to see incoming transactions in the buy page of the market and or have a notification on the main page.
I think that addresses most of the issues but let me know your thoughts
Those all sound like solid ideas to me. I'll poke the market at the end of the month and see if I can figure out how to do some of this stuff.
:D sounds awsome