Hey all,
Another round of beta come and gone, and another round of changes to start off the next one! I'll give a TL;DR version here and some more detail below. windhounds has also been working on a few very exciting projects of his own, but I'll let him give you the details himself :)
There will be a theme this round but you'll have to discover it on your own. A standard round, but with a stick in the spokes, as windy puts it.
Attack System
- Leader attacks moved back to attack buff status (added on to troop attacks) but success is determined the same way it is now (ie, leader ratio)
- A failed troop attack can still have a successful leader buff component, but it will only do half damage, ie, you need to break with troops to do fully effective leader mission, but you can still do weakened ones without it
- Murder power increased - you will lose more health the higher your health is, but it will still take about as long as now to reach 0
- New spell: rob granaries. Does the same thing as steal but for food instead
- Steal only takes cash again
Economics
- Cash and food settings now affect only worker output, not passive output from foragers and markets. This means that you can switch between economic settings without lessening the effectiveness of your markets and foragers. People using 100% settings on way or the other will not notice a change. Indies especially will notice that your economies are much more flexible without having to rebuild all of your buildings each time you swap settings, and going 50-50 eco settings is no longer a wasteful thing to do (depending on race stats, of course).
Market
- merc sell button appears after 6 hours instead of 48
Cosmetic
- More informative news reports for leader attacks and leader success messages
- Warning displayed when your health is capped by taxes on turn use
General
- No longer allowed to scout for 60 minutes since you last dropped land
People originally like the basic idea of the troop buff attack system, but the old formulas for it were too biased in favor of lockers. The new system takes the suggestions of cloud and snare and makes current leader attacks into troop attack buffs, so that they succeed independently of troops but are more powerful if you do break with troops. This should give more options to customize your attacks while taking land, while making leaders less of a pure force in the game as originally intended.
Note that because of the way I coded leader attacks, when you use a buffed attack, it will actually count as two offenses (one troop, one leader) and will show up that way in your news feed. This makes no physical difference, since the combo of things will only cost 2 turns and as much health as an attack usually does, but just be aware of the difference in reporting.
Outstanding balance issues:
Indy is weak compared to cashing, and the way I have the equations set up it is difficult to tweak because increasing troop output also increases worker death, so the overall effect is difficult to predict (well it isn't, but the formula is ugly as sin and not worth working with). The solution is conceptually simple but will require re-balancing of the numbers, so I am going to put if off for a round while I do some data mining ingame. I will tell you the details of this little project at the end of the round since I don't want to bias results in the meantime, but just be aware that these issues are being looked at in detail.
Farming is also weak, but the solution is trickier here because making it stronger might make keeping food green as an indy too easy. I also think that cashing output is too high. Expect changes in this area around May.
For this round, I am going to be doing some balance stuff behind the scenes, collecting info that will help me redesign a few game aspects to be more in line with how people actually use the game. Nothing personal of course, just aggregate game trends, the details of which I will release at the end of the round.
For now, thanks for your patience, and I hope you are enjoying things!
PS: these things are still in the works, you won't notice them on turbo for another couple of hours probably.
ya sound like a n00b
WOOT WOOT
in brief, his margins are way out but pinpoint the issue and he'll nurf it.
Where's windy?
Do you still get a free revolt if you're in protection? Because I accidently signed up as a painted one instead of a fox. :(
I'm pretty sure revolt is free in protection, though it might be only if no turns used.
Try it and see. Worse case scenario it just says you don't have enough leaders.
Ugh! The suspense of this "secret theme" is killing me!
:D
Should be a good time once people catch on.
I tired revolting. Not enough leaders so I built huts. I revolted, and lost stuff, including 100 turns. :(
I got a notice about healing when my tax is high, also noticed that production thing ya mentioned but missed this candy you speak of.
Revolting is free before you use a turn so sign up as a wildcat to sell troops then choose a race
Yet another lil exploit sevs never thought to report - albeit relatively minor.
dude. that's been around since the first code of promisance released on the internet.
also, there's some bug going on. Shadow just deliberately failed attacks on the top guy now he's maxed with less health? what's all that about? This is blatant cheating and Shadow needs to be disabled. Also they were 100% fails but says some were successful leaving 53% defence rating. This is also cheating since a failed attack should never discredit the name of the successful defender. I'm appalled. I demand a recount. I demand some justice.
What I did was use a 1 rat leader mission. Failed attacks do not count toward maxxing (the top guy is not maxxed, why would you think he is? My guess is that you are Chaotic Energy)
The leader component of the attack succeeds, but only does half damage. Leader buffed attacks count as two attacks. The troop component fails but leader succeed, hence a 50% defense rating. This is all explained in the release notes...
Rarara Shadow is a cheater. Get a new line already.
I don't have leaders prepared but he does so I can get an espy. Jus says no raiders when I click his name and 100 defences in the last few hours if I click the ? mark.
Looks like you wasted 200+ turns reducing his health by 50%?
if it counts as 2 attacks in 2 turns plus the healing requirements you essentially did no literal damage but made twice as many attacks as you should be eligible for.
Making failed attacks unlimited is obviously a stupid idea but eh, you'll see soon enough cheaty mccheat cheat
Stop pretending Chaotic Energy isn't you, it's pretty obvious ^_^
Offenses: 137 (61%)
That's 50 fails out of apx68 attacks and your bs bonus 50. You should be ashamed of yourself but I guess your only new so we'll let it slide
Why are you so hung up on these numbers? They are literally irrelevant to the actual game. It's like that because it was easier to code like that.
Because being the ultimate warlord involves finishing with the best attack and defence rating along with the highest networth and leftover resources.
Myself and Ryu usually battle it out for most offences and try to get +95% success along with repelling the weak or sloppy.
Looks like you've only been here a few weeks.
I guess you'll need a leader defense too then?
What a novel idea.
I'll be abusing this feature much like you do. Not only that but i'll encourage others.
Who wants to gang up on Shadow?
Sharing all my resources with everyone who does significant damage >:D
PS, I found a bug
95%? That's hardly anything to brag about Sevz dear.
Most of the time when you fail, you only fail once before moving on. When you attack, you go +10. So this means that you can end up with a 90+% offense rate while failing every other target choice.
Its not a very useful percent to look at, but whatever helps your ego.
If you have leftover resources you're not being very efficient.
I think that shows sloppy play more than anything else, as resources don't count for anything now. A buffer amount is great, but if you have a ton of leftover resources at the end of the round, you have a ton of potential networth that was never made use of.
Perhaps you should re-think what makes an "ultimate warlord"
Failed attacks do not take land, but can cost the attacker a fair amount to do. Losses are calculated based on amount sent.
Removing failed attacks from the maxing calculation should be interesting. It should reduce the amount of land locking... which, well. I guess you would dislike that.
/shrug
Also, please post bugs in the Bugs forum or PM them to an admin.
I shouldn't need to remind you that abusing a glitch will get you banned.
Plus --> + +95% making allowances for failed steals here and there attacks with low health.
Also I said have the best defence rating and the most networth with spare resources on top of that. All rounded victory with a few tricks still up the sleeve
shadow is the bug. squish.
1 rat attacks are outlawed.... wat?
1 rat attacks were outlawed when intentional maxxing was outlawed. Since there is no more intentional maxxing possible, there is no rule against 1 rat attacks.
Well, if that wasn't the dumbest thing I ever heard...
You guys obviously don't get the idea of leader attack buffs this round.
They are an added component to troop attacks, which can succeed independent of the troop part, but they only do half damage if your troops fail. Which means that a 1 rat attack with an attack buff is essentially just a half-power leader mission. Since they don't add to maxxing count, there is no harm.
does the attacker need to have a leader ratio that trumps the defender at least? otherwise this is just ridiculous.
also, 4 turns sucks, ollie!
Quote from: Wolf Snare on March 30, 2012, 05:06:28 PM
does the attacker need to have a leader ratio that trumps the defender at least? otherwise this is just ridiculous.
of course...
Leader missions are completely identical to what they have always been except that now you need troops to do full damage. This is all stated explicitly in the release notes...
And yes, 4 turns sucks.
I learn my playing by feel.
So the mission ratios are the same?
Quote from: Wolf Snare on March 30, 2012, 05:06:28 PM
does the attacker need to have a leader ratio that trumps the defender at least? otherwise this is just ridiculous.
also, 4 turns sucks, ollie!
Nerfs suck, get over it
(i bet that's in a GIF somewhere on the internet)
[edit] went looking for the GIF and all I found was this... Thank you internet.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/wow.joystiq.com/media/2011/12/wi-oprahbuffs.jpg)
Just finished probably the worst run in my rwl career including when i didn't know how to play.
Couldn't break the top people. There wasn't enough troops on the market and even if there i was i didn't have any cash to buy them with. So i basicly ran with about 10k land for the run and made next to nothing.
Is it gonna be like this untill someone breaks the top two indyers.
I can give ya a hand bro, what empire are you?
So I finally realized why scouting was so silly in southsward: it had an 80% scouting bonus. So I tweaked it a little bit, it should be more even now.
Southward:
Loyalty -5%
Troops -5%
Workers +10%
Scouting +10%
Mossflower:
Loyalty +10%
Troops -10%
Scouting/Workers +0%
Northlands:
Loyalty -10%
Troops +10%
Scouting/Workers +0%
Gotta say peace, I am not a fan of the 4 turn thing either. My run schedule is a lot less flexible, and I imagine that will hurt you as well.
You only just realised southsward was best for scouting? Shouldn't of changed it so dramatically.
Turn rate is better for the hitlimit but increase the hitlimit with turnrate and it'll be fine at 32. If not change the name from turbo to medium-ish
Stored turns should release at 2 instead of 5, it's similar to the current 8 rarara but pops 7
Yeah im not a fan of it either. It means if i miss a run and run late i have to wait till that same time the next night to have my next run :(
I've been speaking in laymans terms, 5 per 10 minutes plus 2 stored turns.
It takes around 23-24 hours to fill turns (700) compared to the current 576 per day. Of leave it how it was
That might be closer to what Peace was trying to achieve. I think 4 is too slow and inflexible and will have the opposite effect of what was intended - as Oblit said, people will be forced to miss full runs to reset a schedule instead of missing a few hundred turns.
Not true Oblit, with stored turns you have a 5 hour buffer. If you're 5 hours late on your run you can run 5 hours earlier the next day. So it evens out.
You get 1.3 hours of flexibility naturally every day, because it doesn't take a full 24 hours toget on full turns.
So you have a 6.3 hour window to run. That's not super rigid. I think that we're all just adjusting so far, and that there are 2 things you should keep in mind:
1. You may be feeling anxiety between runs because it seems longer. But keep in mind it's slower for everyone. If you're waiting for turns, so are they.
2. I think we should also get used to doing half-runs and almost-full runs. A half run will switch your run schedule from PM to AM. This can be handy if your personal schedule is changing, or if you're trying to get a jump on someone. Even just a land grab without production can be worthwhile if you stop half way and then run again in 12 hours with full turns. Turbo has 550 turns (that is a BUFF I did 't hear anyone complaining about when I changed it so we'd be closer to 24 hour runs) which is much more then average. I know when I was playing actively that I didnt always end on 0 turns.
Ignore PA and ignore everyone else.
5 turns per 10minutes. Stored turns release at 2 per 10minutes
Attacks still release at 2per hour @ 32 max. 3 fails takes 1 away leaving 31
Market sales tax should range from 5% to 20% and removal fee @ 25%
This will fix many problems and put things in the best perspective
Bring back 5 turns, this is nonsense.
Market tax is totally ridiculous. Shadow keeps coming up with ways to harm the best players.
Well I will always beat the system. You're just turning things into a game of chess.... I happen to be very good at chess.
Market tax prevents misuse, while maintaining fair strategic use of the market. It's a win-win solution in game design. You are not as fargone as Sevs, snare, and I know you're smart enough not to complain about every game change that appears to be a nerf. Some balances are a buffs, some are nerfs. Like you said; you'll survive either way. So lets be a little more level headed when we challenge game changes.
This in no way balances the game. Something that was intended to fix market abuse is actually detrimental to anyone in the top 3 with marketed goods. I don't expect you to understand, being passive, but let me inform you:
When you reach the top 3, the market tax kicks in and any troops you sell are taxed up to 50%. HALF of you money disappears. completely illogical. I always thought in this game we were supposed to strive for the win, but the game is being designed backwards to spite the talented. If you made it to the top by reselling as a passive (which isn't really much of a stretch considering the effectiveness of your strategy) how would you react to this hefty tax?
If you can suggest a better way to block the market abuse as a tool to aid, then I would be happy to code it. Until then, the tax is the best we've got.
Reiterating my support for 5 turns per 10 mins. 576 turns per 24 hours doesn't leave much room for error.
Outlaw it? You seem to spend enough time watching the happenings of turbo to know when it happens. It's not been used since the first round of 3.0, simply outlaw it and people will listen in fear of being disabled. Much the same as how Wolf Bite outlawed 1 rat attack-- or don't you feel you have that kind of authority over the people?
I like 5 turns every 10 minutes. 4 is too slow. 'm not very patient... Lol
I do believe Ollie switched the rate of a game for an entire server based on his own schedule.
Quote from: Wolf Snare on March 31, 2012, 12:31:01 PM
Outlaw it? You seem to spend enough time watching the happenings of turbo to know when it happens. It's not been used since the first round of 3.0, simply outlaw it and people will listen in fear of being disabled. Much the same as how Wolf Bite outlawed 1 rat attack-- or don't you feel you have that kind of authority over the people?
I don't have time to police it, and there is always the gray area of judging intention. So no. It needs to be a code solution.
Quote from: Wolf Snare on March 31, 2012, 12:33:02 PM
I do believe Ollie switched the rate of a game for an entire server based on his own schedule.
I'll have you know that my turn usage was one of the highest in the games. I just happened to be the one who saw the correlation between rank and time-spent. This is a strategy game, success is supposed to be based on your intelligence, not your lifestyle.
I spent less than 50% of turns last set and won. Perhaps there's a hole in your theory?
You ha a team of more active players. Peace's theory applies well to solo play. However, this turn rate does not do what he intended with regards to his theory.
Wow Kyle, are you high? I thought your goal in 3.0 was to balance the game and stop pure leader strategies? I can't believe how pathetically desperate you are to stop us... Your newest innovation is the worst yet. In a matter of (failed) attacks you bring my health to 0%? What is wrong with your head?
*stop pure leader productivity, eg, pure leader resource massing. Attacking, I never had any problem with except for open attack op and leader land attack.
I am nowhere near pure leaders though.
This is actually what you suggested. Last round, you said "I wouldn't be so quick to ditch the attack buffs, but the success should be based on ratio and not number" which is precisely what this is.
I intend to find out if the new setup is actually viable as an attack system.
Shields up!
The concept of this makes absolutely no sense. You're just screwing with things at random. Think about what you're doing.
I guess I'll just have to approach this a different way to win.
Your attitude motivates me to pay attention to you. That's how that works, right?
Anyway, I agree the mechanism is not really ideal. The failed attack thing was just coded that way because it was much easier to piggy back off existing code. After this round I may have time to address things and make the system a little more consistent - this is proof of concept. If it works, I'll take the time to make it pretty.
For anyone wondering what all the whining is about: if you use a leader attack buff, but your troops fail, your leaders will still do half damage if they succeed. So if you can do leader mission, you can send a weak attack party with a leader backup to do damage. It is essentially the same as leader mission used to be except that it does less damage and takes more turns and health.
The ideas that fueled 3.0 were intriguing when you released the game. The fact that troops were converted from workers made a lot of sense and workers playing an important role in economy made it seem a lot more realistic to an empire. Isn't that what you were aiming for whilst balancing the game? So where the hell does this new tactic come into play? Are you sure you aren't just pulling your hair out thinking of ways to stop Sevah? I'm sure he's flattered, but at least be logical when implementing new tactics.
I'm quite positive that I am not just worrying about Sevah. The idea of going to this much effort to nerf a single player when there is a ban button available is silly. This is what I originally intended as the first iteration of the attack system, but things got complicated along the way as other balances became more important.
Forget the failed attack component - that is irrelevent and cosmetic. Think of it as a half powered leader mission which costs 4 health to do. The concept is quite simple - to do full leader damage, you need to break with troops. But if troops fail, you can still do some damage.
What's wrong with that?
forget the failed attack component? you are the epitome of cowardice. keep creating spineless tactics, it's suiting. For the record, this round will be my 5th consecutive win, and yes I will bump this topic on the 28th.
The failed attack does nothing... no troop damage, no health damage, no land damage. It is just a carrier for the leader mission. If you removed it from your news feed, you would not notice the difference. The only thing it does is clutter up your news feed, and for that I apologize, but it was easier that way.
It is not the failed attack that does the damage, Snare, it is the leader mission. The failed attack only shows up because I couldn't be bothered removing it from the news before knowing I would be keeping the mechanism. When I say forget the failed attack I am not asking a favor, I am telling you that it is literally and completely irrelevent to anything, so there is no point paying attention to it. It is just noise in your news feed.
I don't know or care what your problem is, but I would like you to actually understand what you are talking about.
Now: I agree that it is not ideal, since it is not a very intuitive system. I am thinking about that aspect of things. In the meantime, keep your pants on. Re: the takedown I just did on you. Yes, your account is pretty messed up. But it took my whole run and made me completely unproductive. I don't think that is an unbalanced trade.
Snare, please step back for a second and actually try to understand what Shadow is explaining. He broke you with a leader attack. The news calls it a "failed" attack because it is coupled with a troop attack. So it was a partial success: but it is irrelevant what you call it, because it is the actual game dynamics you should be discussing.
The reason you're not discussing the actual game dynamics is because you are just here to complain about getting whooped on turbo. You don't have a point to make other then how outraged you are that somebody took advantage of the fact that your shields were down and your ratio's awful.
This is the part in the debate when you have to stop and be humble. We have a whole month with these changes, so you've got plenty of time to consider this game change and help us create the most awesomest solution. We want input, not conflict.
Quote from: Wolf Snare on March 31, 2012, 12:31:01 PM
Outlaw it? You seem to spend enough time watching the happenings of turbo to know when it happens. It's not been used since the first round of 3.0, simply outlaw it and people will listen in fear of being disabled. Much the same as how Wolf Bite outlawed 1 rat attack-- or don't you feel you have that kind of authority over the people?
This is pretty aweful, and you should feel bad for saying it.
Coding out holes in the game is the best way to do things.
Relying an the admins to patrol is a) time consuming for the admins in question b) unreliable c) only invites conflict
There is no conflict or "I didn't know any better!" excuses with a coded in rule.
Personally, I think we should add in a "blue shell" nuke that'll randomly wipe out the guy in first and harm the next two or three down. A plague or something. Especially if they pull far away from the rest of the game net wise.
I think its fine if the market affects those with a higher rank and more net tbh.
Making the game harder for those who do best is part of balancing.
Ollie- I completely understand the concept, I just don't understand why the changes have been made in this order. The fact that failed attacks don't affect hitlimit is silly because now we essentially have unlimited open attack ops-- taking someone out is easier than ever. This totally supports stacking 100% huts to take any enemy down with ease, and it's going against everything that 3.0 set out to fix.
windy- this completely hurts a reseller strat, to the point where it's not even worthwhile to try to compete with the strategy. Isn't that what we're doing here...competing? It seems like every time Sevz and I find a new way to get ahead, you guys nurf it. The game should be called RWL: HPR. This is getting ridiculous, you're babyproofing the entire game.
Also, Ollie, you're pretty blind if you think I got "whooped" or anything close to it. The damage done was hardly worth mentioning... but I find the whole idea of having unlimited leader attacks against someone pretty ridiculous. Think about it, it's the stupidest innovation to date.
There were unlimited leader attacks last round and it worked quite nicely. Now they do even less damage. Why complain now and not then?
What is the aim of the game? Why be an administrator if you don't respect the more intelligent players? Why make changes that are only designed to hurt the entire playerbase?
Take out the top guy? who wants to be a skilled player in a game that automatically destroys them when they use their skills?
Why not just disable the good players and take it back to compliant n00bs who believe everything you say?
And yet it seems as though you have no lack of incentive to be on top.
negative, I'm midranked
And I can't count how many times i've either won or helped a mate win so yeah I'll be bashing bots as a public scraper. Also bot attacks shouldn't count towards hitlimits. Don't want them in the way of the people too much
I like the attack buffs but the failed attack/buff success mechanic is not ideal.
Next round I will leave attack buffs in, but they will only succeed if the attack does, and I will put back a few of the leader missions as pure leader mission, however they will be reduced in power compared to the attack buff version. This attack system is hard to get right.
Of course you concede your previous emphasis when your own tactics are used against you. Pity it always has to work this way for an admin to come around. Wait, aren't you supposed to be impartial?
I am not saying the mechanic is bad, just that there should be less mess on the news feed. Again, I am not suggesting any functional change whatsoever. My last post could literally be translated as "next round I will make the attack system look prettier".
~reading comprehension~
Shadow originally asked for your helpful critique, snare. Are you seriously going to pretend like he was defending the new attack system? The problem here is that instead of helping, you're just complaining and accusing.
peace how about you help with the attack system instead of going off topic to defend a fool. results are results and it's a lunacy dirty way for shadow to win nothing, take out the opposition with failed attacks cos he's too weak to play with skills. Now he's trying to hide the steals.
I don't care much for the new game or the way things are gonna turn out.
Dude, seriously. It's not a "failed" attack; that is a read out error. It is a half-powered leader attack. he broke you with leaders. Get over it. Incompetency is not well hidden behind accusations.
I help shadow when I can, but I'm not necessarily the best person for input on the attack system. I can read though. And what I'm reading from you makes no sense, so I respond. My purpose here is to bring a little bit of reality into the world of Sevah. I've noticed how much you hate that...
Quote from: Peace Alliance on April 04, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
My purpose here is to bring a little bit of reality into the world of Sevah. I've noticed how much you hate that...
Should be siggied...
That would make a very nice siggie
PA, you're an actual retard. Jus shut your mouth and think about it. Last round I dominated all month and gave my mate the win. The round before I dominated and gave my mate the win. For as long as I've played redwall I've been one of/the best.
After all this time now that i'm not first spot you think my opinion has changed? I was shouting IDIOT last 3 months ya fruitloop fairy. THERE IS NO DOUBT SHADOW IS CHEATING THE SERVER. Failed attacks don't count to hitlimit so he abused that function by failing +50attacks with 1rat then succeeding a few against an easy target with 22 hits left. If I did this to others you'd all be saying I'm a piece of trash. There is literally nothing anyone can do to prevent it. Leaders can be full but like we know it's sometimes impossible to block a simple murderer.
I'm tired of this button pushing theme you've got going on PA. You are a really negative person. A person with issues and obvious depression. I don't like pointing it out but you need to shut up. Might be funny for you but it's not funny for me that yous don't take your admin position seriously.
When I'm winning i'm the stupid bad guy, when i'm not winning i'm jus stupid. When I suggest a change it's either a complaint or another trick for me to win easier. Is there ever a time when you think I might just like competition? and play redwall for the competitive pvp aspect? I like to teach people tricks and boost the confidence of new players. They get better but i'm still best.
Told you all that the game is rigged. I Demonstrated how bad the balance is and still no response. We won all 3.0 rounds and things have slid downhill. I've given the most simple changes that get ignored cos the obvious agenda is to make a server that Shadow might actually win.
When everyone quits you'll regret it all
Keep the personal attacks out of your post or you will be gagged.
Shadow
Modding
Additionally: why can you people not get it through your heads that the failed attacks are just noise in the news feed? What I did was succeed in a leader mission, and the game put up failed attack news because I didn't get around to telling it not to. It doesn't mean the failed attacks do anything at all. They are just noise. Ignore them. You know your complaint in invalid when you could change only the news output and have it go away. I don't know how to make this any clearer, so I am just going to ignore any of your posts about failed attacks from now on. The horse has been kicked enough.
I don't care to win. Really. The fun I get out of RWL is in coding for it. I play to make sure that the code I do works and that it does what I intend it to do. If people preferred I coded and didn't play I would be happy to do that, though I am better able to address game issues when I can actually play with them actively.
If you don't like where something is going, give me a reasoned explanation as to why. The reason I am ignoring your objections to this attack system is because your banging on about "failed attacks" indicates to me that you haven't bothered to actually understand what is really happening there.
Offensive Actions: (?) 2427 (93%)
Defenses: (?) 1940 (23%)
Because offensive and defensive actions define a warlord. The essence is not if you win or lose but how you play the game. I never online someone unless I have a reason not strategy related.
"Additionally: why can you people not get it through your heads that the failed attacks are just noise in the news feed? What I did was succeed in a leader mission, and the game put up failed attack news because I didn't get around to telling it not to. It doesn't mean the failed attacks do anything at all. They are just noise. Ignore them"
Murdering health is rude but i'm fine with the option if you had a cap on it. Failing attacks so their ratio doesn't change is code abuse. Your in charge of the code being fair for everyone but this round it seems you've been working to help a new emperor lock the land from the game under all the rules you've set
Murder has never, ever, in the history of promisance, affected the opponents ratio.
Actually it has, because it lowers it by killing murders. Current murder is actually better for the target from the perspective of ratio than previously. In short, you are just complaining because it is me making the changes.
I'm not complaining, I don't really care much for the place. Murder no longer is what you peace remembers it as. Now it's setup directly to attack opponents health. It takes peoples health all the way to 0% by sending 1 troop that fails to break countless times and upon them reaching low health send a medium sized 50m army to wipe out someone on 500m networth of troops
All you need to do is get a better ratio. Not bothered about dealing with ignorant twits. Get people using the markets. Now they're using the markets wreck it for them with tax. I hope Shael resets redwall and takes both your titles away.