you have beautiful eyes
RWL Home Page
Are your Leaders dancing in the rain? Try out the Ferret race on Turbo!
Redwall: Warlords
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
#2
Spa Room 101 / just to bring this to your attention
April 28, 2012, 10:52:35 AM
it's chad, i am bringing chad to your attention
#3
General Discussion / RWL Internet Forum: Desert Island Edition
January 27, 2012, 09:30:26 PM
While talking on MSN and spamming Krowdon with questions in the spa, an interesting conversation started.
If you were trapped on a tropical desert island, and you had to have one (1) RWL forum member with you, who would you bring? Why?
I would bring Ashyra Nightwing because
[Ashy] says (9:30 PM):
i'd be pretty good on a desert island i went on like 5 guide camps
[Ashy] says (9:31 PM):
i can make a fire in the woods and stuff
Who would you bring, RWL?
If you were trapped on a tropical desert island, and you had to have one (1) RWL forum member with you, who would you bring? Why?
I would bring Ashyra Nightwing because
[Ashy] says (9:30 PM):
i'd be pretty good on a desert island i went on like 5 guide camps
[Ashy] says (9:31 PM):
i can make a fire in the woods and stuff
Who would you bring, RWL?
#4
Turbo Discussion / 3.0: Coming to a Turbo Near You (here's an overview)
January 26, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Shadow, hard at work ruining RWL
RWL 3.0 Overview
As indicated previously here, the latest version of the Redwall: Warlords Online Rat Simulation Engine has been rather quickly developed, briefly tested, and has been deemed ready for mass consumption by you, the public. These changes are to be exhibited on the Turbo server in lead-up to a swap of the Regular server once it is deemed that the product is ready. There is no timeline on this other than we do know for sure that Turbo will be resetting on the 28th (Saturday) to the new version. This is why you are reading this post that I have posted.
Worker Changes
The most fundamental change of this "expansion" or what-have-you, will be the need for each and every warlord to have a population of workers. Workers will live in your various buildings, which will continue to function much as they do currently. The various types of buildings house different amounts of workers, and your leaders and soldiers will be recruited from the worker population. Gone are the days of instantly generated troops from nothing; Your soldiers are now conscripted from your work population.
Strategic-Economic Changes
Leader players shall gnash their teeth and scream horrible oaths upon me and my like when they log into RWL 3.0 to learn that the "feast", "loot", and similar leader missions have been removed from the game entirely. Gone are the days of a leader player building their land to 100% huts and endeavoring to pound one button to defend their networth. Food/Cash production is more cleverly tied to the amount of land that a Warlord has amassed as opposed to the amount of one type of building he or she has built.
There are also greater options under the "Manage Army" tab wherein a Warlord can, in addition to taxing his population, change the percentage of her workers that are devoted to the production of Food or Cash. These values are easily changed such that a Warlord that may be swimming in cash, but low on food can set their workers to 95% food production and 5% cash production to even out their economy. Foragers are still part of the "food" equation, but workers are required to work the farms.
Income itself is managed via taxing your population. While after 10% tax, a Warlord's health cannot return to 100%, it is still optimal around approximately 30% tax. Be advised, however, that at higher tax rates less workers will be willing to live upon your property, and this may have far reaching effects for your food production and troop recruitment. Food production is also tied to this so that players will be unable to produce mountains of food at 5% tax (Read: Food production is greatest around 30% tax, and lessens as the number goes down).
These changes are intended to make the game more interactive. The game itself, however, is still playable should you wish to leave your settings standard. However, you will not garner nearly the success of a Warlord that will manage these things with a fraction of the effort that forums user "cloud" puts into examining his shirtless body in front of the mirror each and every morning.
Military Changes
As has been mentioned previously, a Horde's troops are now recruited from its population. Upon building Barracks, they will recruit a number of troops from the Worker population. As always, these numbers can be adjusted in the "Manage Army" tab. (Pro tip: Instead of demolishing your barracks, sometimes it's actually best to set your training to 0% to let your worker population recover)
Leaders will operate similarly to the way that they operate now, except that they are also recruited from your worker population. The Leaders will fill your huts until there are 100 resident leaders per Hut, and will live in there should you destroy your Huts until there are 175 crammed into each unit like an early 20th century immigrant family.
As far as functional changes to the Military go: Leader missions are no longer standalone actions. They are used to "pump up" troop attacks. When attacking an enemy warlord with troops, a Warlord is given the option to send his or her Leaders with the troops to perform a variety of actions (Steal, Plunder, Murder, and others that are clearly labeled in the Warlord's Hut interface). These leaders will fight out their battle with the enemy leaders, and should they be successful, the attacker will have the extra attack effect added to his previous attack. Note that the success of leaders does not hinge upon the success of the troops, and can be used independently as before.
It is important to note, however, with these leader missions that go along with troops, that success with troops AND leaders will yield greater results than if a player is successful with one attack type alone.
Towers are now a more important aspect of the game. They will increase one's defense against all troop types. Should you wish to hold land that you have conquered (and trust me, you do, land flow should be significantly less), you will want to build towers to confound your enemies.
Interface/Turn Use Changes
Upon visiting the "Army Status" screen, a multitude of new fields should be available to each Warlord. Upon logging in, I suggest that you check this page out, as it will show the individual offense and defense statistics of each troop type, as well as the typical things expected of the page. I'll leave it to you all, however, to discover these wonders on your own. They are fairly self explanatory once you are here, but provide a much more comprehensive view of your online rat empire.
Instead of Loot/Forage turn use, now that Loot and Feast are destroyed, the "Buff Turns" (We are trying to think of a more elegant name for this, suggestions can be sent to Shadow via PM) option allows one to use turns augmented by the "Loyalty" stat to have a variety of extra benefits. One can increase production of food, decrease food consumption, increase worker gain rate, or increase the amount of troops that are produced per turn, just by selecting these things from a drop-down menu. Leaders are used to determine what percentage of an increase in production this will be per turn, and these amounts are conveniently listed on the "buff turns" page for your perusal.
Race Changes
Races at present have been stripped of their racial spells but will be receiving them again in the near future, in exciting new ways.
Races have been re-balanced to fill new niche roles. Additionally, a new statistic has been introduced, "Workers" which determines the rate at which Workers will join your Empire.
Closing Comments
The game will be changed significantly, and I encourage everyone to log in and try things out. No amount of my hurfing blurfs here will be able to fully explain the game in an appropriate manner. Please feel free to give feedback/criticism as it warrants. I assure that there is thick enough skin on this end to hear how we have ruined everything that was decent about RWL and that we hate freedom. However, baseless claims of "this is teribul b/c i dont get it" or ridiculous dork rage will be met with hostility from me, as I am not bound by staff restrictions like Shadow.
#5
Turbo Discussion / dear sevah
January 20, 2012, 04:43:06 PM
I'm not "snowy fur" and I'm not playing Turbo, as I knew the stats of the emps when they were made. You should probably stop lambasting whoever it is that you're talking to in your clan forum as me. It's not me.
In summation:
I'm not playing turbo, and you're having words with someone else.
In summation:
I'm not playing turbo, and you're having words with someone else.
#6
Spa Room 101 / hey krowdon look at this
January 04, 2012, 12:52:56 PM
do you think ungatt will like this i made it just for him
#7
General Discussion / Posted new version game note thread in the Dev forum.
January 01, 2012, 08:41:50 PM
http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=14832.0
Everyone reads this forum, very few read Development.
:3
Everyone reads this forum, very few read Development.
:3
#8
Development / RWL: 3.0 "Worker's Paradise" Development Thread
January 01, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Exactly what you think. You are reading about a real thing right now
Overview
Hello my name is
This being said, the work on this project is ongoing, and we near approximately 80% completion. It is therefore that this post is here to inform you of what kind of changes are coming down the pipe, and that there will be a closed (but inclusive, details on this later) beta testing process to ensure that we have ironed out the kinks of this version of the game.
Without further ado, here is what you can expect:
Workers are no longer terrible
The fundamental change from what we have come to think of as the game comes in the form of the Worker Economy. Without being too long winded, your production of food, cash, troops, leaders, and frustration shall be your population of Workers.
Workers are now housed within buildings, with different population values for each building, much as Huts house Leaders now. The amounts can be determined thusly:
70 workers/land Markets
100 workers/land Tents
100 workers/land Barracks
80 workers/land Camps
60 workers/land Huts
90 workers/land Foragers
50 workers/land Towers
50 workers/land on Free Land
In addition to being housed in different amounts on all of your land, your workers can be allocated to their primary tasks at the percent that you as Generalissimo determine is appropriate. This function in your "Manage Army" tab will allow you to allocate percentages of your workers to either produce cash or food for you totaling to 100%. You can even set this value to 1% 0% if you are terrible at internet rats the way that I am and don't understand basic math.
This should create a more modular economy that is more customizable and able to support new strategies dependant on the playstyle of each individual.
Everybody Panic, Leaders Aren't the Same
This is the section where swaths of the community come out to rip my throat out before desecrating my corpse with terrible posting. Please read the entire section before you go into an unstoppable dork rage.
Leaders no longer function in the capacity that they have previously functioned. The "loot" and "feast" functions have been removed from the game. Individual leader spells such as "goldmine" and "pay tribute" have likewise been removed and will be replaced at a later date by separate leader spells.
Leaders are henceforth to be used to "buff" the use of turns that allow you to perform tasks such as produce food/cash at a variably (depending on leader/land ratio) greater amount whilst using turns. Additionally, players can use their leaders to buff their turns to increase their rate of worker gain, decrease the rate that workers leave, decrease their net expenses, and a variety of other functions. These can be used in unison, assuming that the player has the correct amount of Loyalty to pay for them.
Due to the fundamental change in that building all land to 100% huts will no longer be viable, we have introduced a new aspect to the attacking interface. Like turns, Warlords will be able to augment their attacks with their leaders. Their leaders, based on ratio and number, much like previous, will be able to buff attacks on opposing warlords, and will be sent with troops on attacks. Murder will no longer function as a slaughtering of enemy troops, and instead will reduce the target warlord's health. Likewise, Steal has become "Pillage" and allows a greater version of "Sack" to be performed, should a player's leaders be victorious.
The currently available attacks (sack, capture, drive, chaos) will remain in the game as options for warlords who do not wish to sacrifice their leaders upon the altar of progress.
Armies are no longer recruited from nowhere
This can be put under the category of workers no longer being useless, but it also sort of deserves its own category.
Your armies will no longer spring out of the ground. The collective groan you just heard was every indy being upset (it's your turn now, jerks) that they will have to also run an economy. Workers will be converted to troops as designated by the same percentage system as before, with the same ratios applied as before. However, you will not be able to recruit troops from workers that you do not have.
Leaders are gained in much the same fashion. Your workers are able to become leaders.
However, when being converted to troops, obviously your workers that are converted are unable to render their services in the fields or markets, so you will no longer gain their economic benefit. Just one more reason that this economy should be more in-depth.
FAQ
When will this be done?
It's about ready for a beta right now.
How do I get into this beta?
Magic. We haven't determined the selection process. Be assured that it'll be more of a responsibility than a right to mess around and not give feedback should you get in. There'll be a post about it later.
Why are you posting all of this?
Because I love to hear my own voice in my head. Also, people have been wondering what's been going on lately.
I don't like these ideas, you are bad at the game Kilkenne/Shadow/windy/whomever
When you can give a reasoned argument; AFTER having seen the content, feel free to let someone to know your findings. Complaining that it's a change that might remove you from your seat as "internet rat God-king" will earn you only my ire.
I have another question
Feel free to PM me or Shadow with it. I spend too much time around the internet all day, seeing as it's on my phone and can probably answer you.
#9
General Discussion / How to Differentiate the Classes in RWL
December 07, 2011, 11:03:22 PM
I. THE WOULD-BE EMPEROR
A would-be Emperor is a warlord who owns land, does not gain networth by himself, or does so only to a very small extent, and lives by exploiting those smaller in networth than himself. The collection of wealth is his main form of exploitation; in addition, he may lend money, send troops, or engage in extremely minor networth production. But his exaction of tribute from other warlords is his principal form of exploitation. The administration of communal land and the collection of tribute from school land [1] are included in the category of exploitation through tribute.
A bankrupt would-be Emperor shall still be classified as a tyrant if he does not engage in labour but lives by swindling or coercion others or by receiving assistance from clanmates, and is better off than the average warlord.
Emperors, clan leaders, and outsiders are political representatives and exceptionally ruthless members of the landlord class. Minor local tyrants and evil gentry are also very often to be found among the rich warlords.
Persons who assist the emperors in collecting rent and managing property, who depend on exploitation of the peasants as their main source of income and are better off than the average warlord shall be put in the same category as landlords.
Bankers are warlords who rely on exploitation by loan as their main source of income, are better off than the average warlord, and shall be put in the same category as would-be Emperors.
II. THE WEALTHY VETERAN
The wealthy veteran as a rule owns land. But some wealthy veterans own only part of their land and rent the remainder. Others have no land of their own at all and rent all their land. The wealthy veteran generally has a complex Leader-Related production model and more liquid capital than the average and engages in minor labour himself, but always relies on exploitation for part or even the major part of his income. His main form of exploitation is the hiring of leaders (long-term labourers). In addition, he may let part of his land and practice exploitation through land rent, or may lend money or engage in deceptive diplomatic action. Most wealthy veterans also engage in the administration of clan land. A warlord who owns a fair amount of land, farms some of it himself without hiring labour, but exploits other warlords by means of land rent via diplomacy or in other ways, shall also be treated as a wealthy veteran. Wealthy Veterans regularly practice exploitation and many derive most of their income from this source.
III. THE COMMON WARLORD
Many common warlords own land. Some own only part of their land and expect to lose the rest. Others own no land of their own at all and expect to lose most if not all per run. All of them have a fair number of foragers. A common walrord derives his income wholly or mainly from his own labour. As a rule he does not exploit others and in many cases he himself is exploited by others, having to pay a small amount in tribute and in interest on loans. But generally he does not sell his own goods on the public market. Some common warlords do practice exploitation to a small extent, but this is not their regular or their main source of income.
IV. THE DEVELOPING WARLORD
Among the developing walord,s some own part of their land and have a few foragers, others own no land at all but only a few odd foragers. As a rule developing warlords have to scout for the land they work on and are subjected to exploitation, having to forever scout for additional land and interest on loans and to hire themselves out to some extent.
In general, a common warlord does not need to sell his labour power, while the developing warlord has to sell part of his labour power. This is the principal criterion for distinguishing between a common and a developing warlord.
V. THE NEW WARLORD
The new warlord (including the forager) as a rule owns only little land, though some do own a very small amount of land and very few foragers. Workers make their living wholly or mainly by selling their labour power.
A would-be Emperor is a warlord who owns land, does not gain networth by himself, or does so only to a very small extent, and lives by exploiting those smaller in networth than himself. The collection of wealth is his main form of exploitation; in addition, he may lend money, send troops, or engage in extremely minor networth production. But his exaction of tribute from other warlords is his principal form of exploitation. The administration of communal land and the collection of tribute from school land [1] are included in the category of exploitation through tribute.
A bankrupt would-be Emperor shall still be classified as a tyrant if he does not engage in labour but lives by swindling or coercion others or by receiving assistance from clanmates, and is better off than the average warlord.
Emperors, clan leaders, and outsiders are political representatives and exceptionally ruthless members of the landlord class. Minor local tyrants and evil gentry are also very often to be found among the rich warlords.
Persons who assist the emperors in collecting rent and managing property, who depend on exploitation of the peasants as their main source of income and are better off than the average warlord shall be put in the same category as landlords.
Bankers are warlords who rely on exploitation by loan as their main source of income, are better off than the average warlord, and shall be put in the same category as would-be Emperors.
II. THE WEALTHY VETERAN
The wealthy veteran as a rule owns land. But some wealthy veterans own only part of their land and rent the remainder. Others have no land of their own at all and rent all their land. The wealthy veteran generally has a complex Leader-Related production model and more liquid capital than the average and engages in minor labour himself, but always relies on exploitation for part or even the major part of his income. His main form of exploitation is the hiring of leaders (long-term labourers). In addition, he may let part of his land and practice exploitation through land rent, or may lend money or engage in deceptive diplomatic action. Most wealthy veterans also engage in the administration of clan land. A warlord who owns a fair amount of land, farms some of it himself without hiring labour, but exploits other warlords by means of land rent via diplomacy or in other ways, shall also be treated as a wealthy veteran. Wealthy Veterans regularly practice exploitation and many derive most of their income from this source.
III. THE COMMON WARLORD
Many common warlords own land. Some own only part of their land and expect to lose the rest. Others own no land of their own at all and expect to lose most if not all per run. All of them have a fair number of foragers. A common walrord derives his income wholly or mainly from his own labour. As a rule he does not exploit others and in many cases he himself is exploited by others, having to pay a small amount in tribute and in interest on loans. But generally he does not sell his own goods on the public market. Some common warlords do practice exploitation to a small extent, but this is not their regular or their main source of income.
IV. THE DEVELOPING WARLORD
Among the developing walord,s some own part of their land and have a few foragers, others own no land at all but only a few odd foragers. As a rule developing warlords have to scout for the land they work on and are subjected to exploitation, having to forever scout for additional land and interest on loans and to hire themselves out to some extent.
In general, a common warlord does not need to sell his labour power, while the developing warlord has to sell part of his labour power. This is the principal criterion for distinguishing between a common and a developing warlord.
V. THE NEW WARLORD
The new warlord (including the forager) as a rule owns only little land, though some do own a very small amount of land and very few foragers. Workers make their living wholly or mainly by selling their labour power.
#10
Spa Room 101 / Rakefur is about to make his thousandth non-spa post.
November 23, 2011, 01:01:00 PM
This is a thread to congratulate Rakefur and commend him on the improvement of both the quality and quantity of his posting.
#11
General Discussion / Here's a survey to take and post about
September 15, 2011, 10:28:40 PM
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
I'm always curious about what people score in these types of things. Post the numbers you get for each section at the end along with the letter result.
For example:
ENTJ (Field Marshal)
78 25 50 67
very expressed extravert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
distinctively expressed judging personality
Hooray, I pushed some buttons. What does this mean? Probs not much, but interesting to read the descriptions of yourself and others, and see if they fit.
I'm always curious about what people score in these types of things. Post the numbers you get for each section at the end along with the letter result.
For example:
ENTJ (Field Marshal)
78 25 50 67
very expressed extravert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
distinctively expressed judging personality
Hooray, I pushed some buttons. What does this mean? Probs not much, but interesting to read the descriptions of yourself and others, and see if they fit.
#12
Spa Room 101 / dear general volkov
September 11, 2011, 11:38:41 AM
Hail to the victors valiant
Hail to the conquering heroes
Hail, hail! to Michigan
The leaders and best!
Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail to the conquering heroes
Hail, hail! to Michigan,
The champions of the West!
please make sure that if mister general volkov logs onto these internet forums you guys post this everywhere that you see him posting, he will love you for it ok
Hail to the conquering heroes
Hail, hail! to Michigan
The leaders and best!
Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail to the conquering heroes
Hail, hail! to Michigan,
The champions of the West!
please make sure that if mister general volkov logs onto these internet forums you guys post this everywhere that you see him posting, he will love you for it ok
#13
General Discussion / Dear Ashy (and everyone else, read this thread if you want a thing)
August 29, 2011, 01:58:55 AM
Almost ten years ago I threw together some RWL-esque sigs. I still owe you one. Man did they ever suck back then, and they are still awful. But here you go!
(It's 2AM here and 3AM where Shael is and we can't find the thread, but we'll find it later and link it, or we won't. WHO KNOWS?)
edit: Shael found it http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=6064.msg93706#msg93706 (lookit how bad those are, least they get better for mine and neo's then I lost interest)
For the rest of you people. If you're someone I talk to ~on the regular~ I probably have something made and I just need a warlord number/name, and I can guess your year, probably. The rest of you, if you want something done, then you need to send me a PM and give me the details of your first warlord on reg. #, name, year you signed up. If you don't remember, then, well, guess as best you can.
READ THIS
If you want to request that I put something specific as the words, feel free to do so. 99.9% chance that I will not use that, and will quote something else or write something else for you. You are leaving yourself to my discretion. And if you don't like what I've written, but I find it hilarious? I'll probably post it in this thread or elsewhere. That is the risk you run in getting these.
Fine print over!
(It's 2AM here and 3AM where Shael is and we can't find the thread, but we'll find it later and link it, or we won't. WHO KNOWS?)
edit: Shael found it http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=6064.msg93706#msg93706 (lookit how bad those are, least they get better for mine and neo's then I lost interest)
For the rest of you people. If you're someone I talk to ~on the regular~ I probably have something made and I just need a warlord number/name, and I can guess your year, probably. The rest of you, if you want something done, then you need to send me a PM and give me the details of your first warlord on reg. #, name, year you signed up. If you don't remember, then, well, guess as best you can.
READ THIS
If you want to request that I put something specific as the words, feel free to do so. 99.9% chance that I will not use that, and will quote something else or write something else for you. You are leaving yourself to my discretion. And if you don't like what I've written, but I find it hilarious? I'll probably post it in this thread or elsewhere. That is the risk you run in getting these.
Fine print over!
#14
Spa Room 101 / I realized something
August 26, 2011, 01:58:06 PM
It might be prescription painkillers talking, but here's a question:
Why aren't there more fat kids at hogwarts?
I mean seriously, there is one sport, and about ten (plus or minus 2, I forget) kids on each team, and the main aspect of the sport is to fly on a broom. They aren't running around (they are flying) and the only ones who are arguably really getting good exercise out of it are the guys hitting the balls at the other guys (or girls).
It would appear that all of the food there is mostly calorie-rich, dense food, and there is a feast seemingly at least once a week. These children being exposed to this kind of fare without the opportunity to exercise outside of wandering up and down the castle attempting to find classrooms that change location live an essentially sedentary lifestyle. They wake up, they walk a few minutes to class, sit down, read, and eventually sometimes they get to walk down on weekends to some shops. But the majority of them can't even go. So basically they eat/sleep/go to class in the same area, ~97% of them don't engage in any kind of sport. (I mean, you see how big the stands at Quidditch matches, they're heaped full of people, there must be a lot of kids at the school) There is also no mention anywhere of them actually running about or anything.
Accounting for those that have a fast metabolism, I'd say that would be a comfortable 50% of them, indeed a GENEROUS 50%. And say that 3% of the student body plays Quidditch, and we'll count that as exercise, even though they are flying on brooms, not running, which is integral in most sporting activities, but half of them fall under the "fast metabolism" category, thus bringing our total to 51.5% of the student body who would be immune to obesity via natural or school-sanctioned sporting causes. This leaves us with 48.5% of the student body who likely doesn't get exercise outside of blundering their way to the breakfast, lunch, and dinner tables and feasting until their robes burst.
Yet, none of the students seem to be grossly overweight, except Neville, who isn't really grossly obese, he's just a fat kid. Also, magic doesn't make you thinner, of this I am a firm believer. If you can't curse off your acne, I'm pretty sure you can't blast off fat with a spell.
My conclusion: Near half of the students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry are Bulimic. They must stick their wands to the backs of their throats to counter-act their constant binge eating and lack of exercise to stay so thin. J.K. Rowling advocates eating disorders and should be imprisoned.
Why aren't there more fat kids at hogwarts?
I mean seriously, there is one sport, and about ten (plus or minus 2, I forget) kids on each team, and the main aspect of the sport is to fly on a broom. They aren't running around (they are flying) and the only ones who are arguably really getting good exercise out of it are the guys hitting the balls at the other guys (or girls).
It would appear that all of the food there is mostly calorie-rich, dense food, and there is a feast seemingly at least once a week. These children being exposed to this kind of fare without the opportunity to exercise outside of wandering up and down the castle attempting to find classrooms that change location live an essentially sedentary lifestyle. They wake up, they walk a few minutes to class, sit down, read, and eventually sometimes they get to walk down on weekends to some shops. But the majority of them can't even go. So basically they eat/sleep/go to class in the same area, ~97% of them don't engage in any kind of sport. (I mean, you see how big the stands at Quidditch matches, they're heaped full of people, there must be a lot of kids at the school) There is also no mention anywhere of them actually running about or anything.
Accounting for those that have a fast metabolism, I'd say that would be a comfortable 50% of them, indeed a GENEROUS 50%. And say that 3% of the student body plays Quidditch, and we'll count that as exercise, even though they are flying on brooms, not running, which is integral in most sporting activities, but half of them fall under the "fast metabolism" category, thus bringing our total to 51.5% of the student body who would be immune to obesity via natural or school-sanctioned sporting causes. This leaves us with 48.5% of the student body who likely doesn't get exercise outside of blundering their way to the breakfast, lunch, and dinner tables and feasting until their robes burst.
Yet, none of the students seem to be grossly overweight, except Neville, who isn't really grossly obese, he's just a fat kid. Also, magic doesn't make you thinner, of this I am a firm believer. If you can't curse off your acne, I'm pretty sure you can't blast off fat with a spell.
My conclusion: Near half of the students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry are Bulimic. They must stick their wands to the backs of their throats to counter-act their constant binge eating and lack of exercise to stay so thin. J.K. Rowling advocates eating disorders and should be imprisoned.
#15
Spa Room 101 / Here's a commercial to watch
August 11, 2011, 12:32:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItWpoUMbqJE
There are a heap of these, and they actually air on TV apparently in the Seattle area. My brother works in Insurance and apparently these circulate through the office every time there's a new one.
There are a heap of these, and they actually air on TV apparently in the Seattle area. My brother works in Insurance and apparently these circulate through the office every time there's a new one.
#16
General Discussion / Dearest Shael,
August 11, 2011, 12:32:45 AM
Our interests are one, our minds are one. May you become my internet maiden and eventually my internet wife? Online. On the internet.
Love,
Kilk
Love,
Kilk
#17
Development / On Sacks and Murders
July 05, 2011, 08:44:15 PM
There has been a lot of talk for a very long time about the efficiency of using the attacks that have defined both of the main play-styles that exist today. I am talking about Sack and Murder.
Now, before every leader player who has ever graced RWL with their presence gets up in arms, I will give you this warning before I continue: I am out to level the field, and played leaders last turbo round, got a hang of nuking a lot of net in not a lot of time. It felt pretty powerful at the time. The same as sack does when you find that your opponent has nothing guarding his precious money and food because he can't be bothered to buy a single soldier to protect anything until the end of the round.
It is also worth noting that I dumbed these strategies down for the sake of clarity, I don't care if you do something better or differently. I do know these things are feasible, though. ~Math~
Now here's the situation:
You are Johnny Q. Leader. You set out on your magical quest of Redwall: Internet Warlord domination. You plod about at lowish land for some amount of time whilst building up a relatively sizeable force, and then you DROP THE HAMMER ON SOME FOOL - Straight through the troop hole that you deduced quite cleverly from their player status. Those kind people, leaving those troop holes so you can purchase no more than 100,000 rats and send them streaming into the breach.
Now that you've found the troop hole, you find another, and another, because hey, everyone's got one, right? You use troop holes, and if necessary, leader: Attack and get yourself 100,000 land. Anyone who is experienced enough with the game to call themself a "veteran" can handle doing this on either server.
What do you do on that 100,000 land? Oh, boy. What -don't- you do. I'll tell you what you don't do. You don't build anything but huts. You build 100,000 huts, and by god, you are going to fill those huts and it is going to be ~awesome~. It takes you about 100 turns of earnin' dat loyalty, you know, to get ready for what's about to happen. You can never have enough loyalty. Your huts are now just about to the 100 leader/hut mark. They might be at about 90, they might be at *gasp* EIGHTY. THREE. But they're close enough, so we're just going to relax and keep listenin' to old Kilksy. Because you're a prudent leaderer, you use 40 more turns to jack ~43k of your huts. Now you're relaxing with about 57,000 land, all huts.
So now that you've used probably 200 or so turns, and you've diligently marketed however many rats it took to get this far, and sold the rest to the mercenaries so that you do not incur costs, you now have about 10,000,000 leaders, maybe 9,000,000, on 57,000 land. You have it made in the shade, my friend. Sip that margarita and kick back, the PROMISED LAND HAS BEEN ~FOUND~.
Let's say you're a Wolf, and you are mega strong, so you are going to use Enrich so you get 5% more food every time you feast. You are one cool cat. Now because you've built up the loyalty or whatever in your previous (screw it, it takes turns to construct, too) 250 turns of your run, you have plenty of loyalty. You see that "Feast" button and you reach for it. You love it. It is your hero. The only bright light in your otherwise dark, awful life. Let's say you've got the 10,000,000 leaders. What greets you when you slam that button?
Missions: Success
~55,000,000 Food
Whoa, we have a winner here. And that took what, TWO turns? Woo-wee that's a good amount of food. You can literally slam that button 99 more times. But let's be reasonable, you only use it 80 more times. A mere 80 presses of PURE. UNADULTERATED. JOY. (that you can do in 4 runs of 20 if that trips your trigger)
Missions: Success
1,100,000,000 Food
-FOUR. TIMES.
So you've just made 4,400,000,000 food. That's a lot of loaves of bread for your hungry soldiers, ladies and gentlemen.
Did I mention that your leaders eat .25 food each per turn? Those greedy jerks are quaffing down 2,500,000 food every single time you push a button.
Also, each of those leaders costs you .5 dollars every time you push a button. They are truly greedy jerks. They also kill 5,000,000 dollars every time you push a button.
But you're a savvy warlord, you calculate up everything it's going to cost you to run your next 450 turns with these same 10,000,000 leaders.
It'll cost you 1,125,000,000 food and 2,250,000,000 dollars. In mercenary values, this'll cost you a grand total of 12,375,000,000 dollars.
Whoa, that's a lot of scratch, Lee.
Not so fast, my friend. Let's divide that back down into the food bucket, and see what's goin' on up in here. That's 1,375,000,000 of your hard earned food. That leaves you with a net gain of 3,075,000,000 food this "run". Not so great, not so bad, all things considered. I mean, you still have 40 turns left with which to raise some defenses, or do whatever it is you people do when you find yourself with 40 extra turns.
Your run has yielded you a net gain of approximately 58,500,000 net worth.
--------------------------------------------------
All you did was get to a good ratio with 57,000 huts. I know that there are people who are able to run on more, and I know that there are people who can run on considerably less. Here's one other thing that I know: My calculations are completely wrong in that you can probably get yourself up to 100k land if you are smart on Reg in 50 turns, not 100. You can get your leaders to that 10,000,000 mark fairly easily, or even get them well above this number before dropping land back down, if you're a smart player. You'll also be raising your defenses while you run, and you will keep practically 0 troops on hand, you'll have sold them all on mercs or stores them on the public market. In all likelihood, if you were in fact "diligent" like I said.
You gained 58,500,000 net in one run. Bravo, but the reality is that this isn't necessarily how all runs work, indeed if you are clanned with multiple wolves, or if you go well over that 100,000 land mark and down to say 70k of huts, or if you let someone else knock you to the ratio, then you will have even MORE turns in which to press the Feast button. You could theoretically feast up 100,000,000 net in a good run. Maybe more. Most likely a little less. But let's keep things reasonable with my cut and dry numbers, because you know what, that's how I do to prove a point. Let's say that you ended up with that 3.125 billion food. You added it to your pile of net worth, and assume that no one else will take it.
-------------------------------------------------
Now, David A. Indy logs into Redwall: Internet Online Warlords on the internet. He's a pretty strong indy but is pretty dumb in some ways.
He sells the troops that he previously made, because he was smart and had 30% of his land made into camps. Bam, from ~300 million networth (where he last ended, I didn't say he was Lucy, I said he was a pretty okay indy) he is greeted with a pile of money that will surely buy the kind of hedonism that would make Caligula blush. This totals to about 62 billion internet warlord dollars. He is a stupid indy, though, and for the sake of simplicity of this, he drops ten billion cash on the market buying one billion food for 10 dollars apiece. So let's say he starts his run with about 52 billion internet warlord dollars in his pocket.
BUT WAIT, DAVID A. INDY WANTS TO SAVE SOME 'O DAT NET
So, because he was sitting on all those troops at once (with defenses raised, just in case) he drops the maximum amounts that he can on the market for later. This totals 25% of his total troops, so that sell value drops to 46.5, then down again to 36.5 because he was stupid and had to do the food thang. That's cool though, right? It's all good. No big thing, 'cause he's an indy and he's mega strong. In total he's marketed 63.75 million in troop value, because 15% of his networth is not based on troops. It is food and land and miscellany at this time. When that net comes off the market again, because it takes an additional 20% hit, it will be worth 51 million networth when added back into his army. This is remarkably comparable to the 58.5 million networth that the leader player stockpiled, and indeed the leader player actually made. Don't be fooled by the "well the leader player doesn't also have cash in his pocket" this is fundamentally wrong, and where a lot of people get caught up. A leader player piling food at a high networth will pay the same amount of upkeep that a leader player at a lower networth will pay, that is to say - Not a whole lot.
Now, where were we in the David story? Oh yeah, our strapping young lad valiantly strides forth, smiting his less troop-heavy foes, valiantly viewing their biography infos so that he might hit them in the appropriate troop type and not lose his precious troops. David is a pretty sweet indy, and Steve the Indy had all the land grouped up for him anyhow, because he's a cool guy like that. David runs himself up to 131,000 land. Again, not an incomprehensible number for those of you counting at home. He builds 1,000 huts along the way to generate loyalty in a habit that most indies have, wherein to regain health after their attacks, they tend to raise defenses to get their health back up, whenever loyalty permits. At the end, let's say for simplicity that he's rocking on 100,000 barracks (30% camps for next run, again this is for simplicity's sake). There has been a rampup to this point, and he's diligently maeking Stoat at this point. Why Stoat, you ask? They're a good balancing troop for the purpose of this exercise. They're relatively heavy on net worth, and it's simple to use the following:
To figure out exactly how many Stoats this fine fellow is going to end up getting per turn once he's at his 100k barrackses.
Using this math, he's going to get 150,000 stoats per turn (He's a rat, like all smart indies, so he gets a 25% bonus to his troop production).
Now let's consider how much real net worth he is generating per turn at the apex of his run, and we're going to assume also that he has no other type of troops except for stoats, alright? Alright! He's making a ~blistering~ 628,600 net per turn, and that's just maekin staot.
Unfortunately, each consecutive turn adds another 600,000 cash in debt to his cycle, and as it would turn out, 52 billion dollars/450 turns doesn't go as far as it used to go back when Caligula would throw orgies in the Circus Maximus. He goes back to his 300 million net, socks away some of his cash (his turns are spent at this point), and then three hours later logs back into redwall: internet warlords to un-market his gain so he looks cooler in the eyes of his peers. He is now at about 350 million net after unmarketing. The smart play is probably actually just to keep marketing or whatnot and then do a different troop and unmarket it again, but hey, he's not very smart and chills with his stuff out of the market, not unlike a boss.
---------------------------------------------------
BUT KILK WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS?
Hey, you! Back on the shut up train for another few minutes, I'm not done with you yet. Now we're heading into the good part.
Here's some sack math for you.
Hey, what does this mean in non nerd talk?
Here's what this means. You're going to get a random value of between 15 and 25 for the first value which is "$rand1". User in this case is the person that receives the sackening. The rest should be pretty self explanatory. And you can use order of operations (PEMDAS!) to work it out. Let's do the maximum and minimum for a sack on a player who has 300,000,000 solely in food net sitting out in the open, shall we?
Say a player has 100,000,000 net in unprotected food (This would never happen, but let's just do it for the sake of argument, shall we?) That's about 5,000,000 food for those of you counting at home.
Therefore, here's our equation for both the minimum sacked and the maximum sacked (For this I used what our indy would be at the height of his run, just to show, also Mr. Indy has 1,000 huts so he has 100k leaders on 130k land):
food sacked = (5,000,000,000 * .00015) / ((100,000/130,000)/100 + 0.04);
food sacked = (750,000) / ((.76923/100) + .04)
food sacked = (750,000)/(.047692) = 15,725,907
That is the low end, so real quick let's do the high end (You can do this yourselves at home):
Food sacked = 26, 209,846
And this is on the max end, of someone getting sacked that is holding 5 billion food. Note that if the leader player also had cash they would lose cash at a similar rate. Please also understand that no matter how few leaders the indy has, or if it's a leader that's doing the sacking, it's that ".04" that ends up being divided out of the end that is the important modifier.
The leader player is losing both land, and 499,235 net worth of food every single attack at maximum. This at 100,000,000 is approximately .5% of the player's networth. You can extrapolate this up or down, depending how much food a leader player is sitting on. Now that I've done that in certain terms, I'll illustrate one more situation, which would be a player on 350,000,000 food net-worth getting sacked. (~17.5 billion food)
55,040,677 Low (hey that's 1 feast on 57k huts as a wolf!) = 1.101 million net = 0.3146% of the defender's net
91,734,462 High (Almost two feasts) = 1.835 million net = 0.5243% of the defender's net
Why would someone be sitting on 350 million unprotected food net? I really have no idea, but the average between those two numbers is .41945%. Let's keep that number in our minds as we move forward, shall we?
Now we're going to see the effects of someone who is on 350 million troop net getting murdered by the same player.
Let's use the number 83,522,727 stoats. That's 350 million net worth of just stoats. CAN YOU FEEL THAT POWER?
The leader player that is attacking selects: Murder, luckily the target is shielded.
835,227 stoats go out of existence, or 3,499,999 net worth. Basically equivalent to 1% of the murdered person's majority net net worth.
Let's recap: In one sack, a leader player stands to lose ~.42% of their primary net worth. In one murder, whilst shielded, an indy is going to lose ~1% of their net worth. Please do not tell me that this number goes down in consecutive murders, because it works the same way with sacks. Eventually if you sack someone 20 times they will have less to sack and the effect will be different. It is the exact same way as murders, but what I am trying to illustrate to each and every one of you in slow terms that you can actually understand is that Murder is not equal to sack in any way shape or form, and is essentially a tool that leader players can use coming out of protection to effectively destroy players who are not playing leader strategies. It is not nearly as feasible to demolish net via sacking, and here's why:
If you're looking to "destroy " net via sacking, you are sadly mistaken. You would be better off going to leaders and suiciding/murdering your opponent, or if you can get a better ratio and more land as a leader, poisoning his food. Why, you ask? Well, because of another awesome fact: Attacks (let's say this is on Turbo, although we've been using Reg) cost you 4% of your life. Leader missions cost 2% of your life. As something to think about, here's a fun fact: As a leader player you literally gain your loyalty back by about 400% every time you choose to Murder another player.
Kilk, where are you going with this? Where I'm going is explaining to you all that the math behind sacks and murders is completely skewed in the direction of the leader. Leader missions are grossly overpowered compared to their troop based counterparts. This goes in several directions. In one, it makes solo indying not at all viable because you can't "hide" as much troop net on the market as you can food net, just due to the amount that you are allowed to put on. Another interesting direction it goes into is the culture of "SACKING BEGETS MURDERS" that we have gone into. I would contend that this is a complete and utter misunderstanding of the way that the sack system works. It hurts leader players significantly less as far as recovery time as well, and I'll be frank about that. I illustrated already that a leader player can Feast on 57k huts TWICE and that would get back the amount sacked at maximum by another 350 million net player against their 17,500,000 food that they're chilling on with no defenses. For those at home, that's 4 turns. Do not come to me and tell me that LOYALTY IS SUCH A PROBLEM, KILK. I'm sorry. It's not, if it is, you are probably doing it wrong. With the way troop holes work, etc, you should have plenty of time left at the end of your run as a Wolf or whatever leader race you are to run as many Feasts as you need to run. That indy that got himself murdered (that cost 2 less turns with health included than the sack and did twice the total net damage) lost (in this case) just under 6 turns worth of troops at 100,000 barracks, which for those of you who have indeed indied, is a pretty high number to have.
So I have illustrated two disparities between the destruction between Sack and Murder. First and foremost, the fact that Sack destroys ~.42% of a leader's net, and that Murder destroys ~1% of an indier's net (Note again that I understand math, and it's less each time, in both cases, I'm not stupid.) I have also illustrated, albeit more briefly, but what should already be in way better common understanding, that the turn cost for a sack versus a murder (in health) is twice as high.
Before someone tries to tell me about how WELL YOU ALSO DESTROY CASH NET!!!!! Spare me. If you can't figure out what to do and have billions upon billions of cash being sacked out of you (Or poisoned out of if you, if you are on the indy end of this) at high networth (I know who will respond to this part with this, stating that he plays Turbo at present as a Marten and gets sacked for a lot of money, let me finish), you probably don't understand what I'm trying to say here anyhow. The key here is high networth. If you are sitting on a pile of cash at 350m net, and with the banking changes you don't have 25 billion socked away, I don't know what to tell you. Sitting with that amount of cash is dangerous, but honestly if anyone is all cash net at 350m or higher, I tip my hat to them, because that is 875 billion cash that you've not hid away as food or as anything else. And then I'm going to call you a liar, because I doubt that that is even possible to get to because another leader player would find it.
Anyhow, more importantly, I'm leaving cash out of this because the total networth value of cash is very, very small compared to food. If anything, if someone is running as a leader both high on cash and food, they will have a pretty decent balance of both, and the averages will even out to gain about .42% of their net per sack starting with the first one then going downward. If you're too dim to figure this math out on your own, I will do some more simulation for you.
Kilk; Why are you using 350 million net as an example? Because this is about what net that these things really start to come into perspective at, the low net portions are confusing, and I can use more round numbers up here. This is also the networth that I'm most familiar working with numbers with, because that's what I crunch numbers for when I'm doing a thing on either server.
Kilk; It's all well and fine to point this out, but what are you trying to accomplish? Simple. I am tired of seeing the phrase sacks = murders. It's even in my own clan on reg, and it's crap. It is cancer, and I will excise it. I have legitimate suggestions of my own that I will outline in another post in this thread to balance Murder versus sack in power and scope.
Basically I've provided you with reasoning and math, if you don't understand something, or say that I've done something completely wrong, you'd better be able to prove it, or I'll chalk it up to your ineptitude. I assume that both of these situations are with established players that know how to generate their own resources, and I am not taking into account team Indy or team Leadering, both of which exist. I also went as far as to make the indy in that situation not even scrape, and have a pretty godawful run. If you would like me to run it again where he runs himself up to like 450m, then he'll just lose more total net every time he gets murdered by the Leader Ion Cannon™, so that argument is pretty poor. It's also a poor argument saying that it's hard for a Wolf to scrape enough land and be that clean cut with their net gain: Again, I don't care, I will chalk that up to inexperience or ineptitude or a will to not get 100k land.
Now, before every leader player who has ever graced RWL with their presence gets up in arms, I will give you this warning before I continue: I am out to level the field, and played leaders last turbo round, got a hang of nuking a lot of net in not a lot of time. It felt pretty powerful at the time. The same as sack does when you find that your opponent has nothing guarding his precious money and food because he can't be bothered to buy a single soldier to protect anything until the end of the round.
It is also worth noting that I dumbed these strategies down for the sake of clarity, I don't care if you do something better or differently. I do know these things are feasible, though. ~Math~
Now here's the situation:
You are Johnny Q. Leader. You set out on your magical quest of Redwall: Internet Warlord domination. You plod about at lowish land for some amount of time whilst building up a relatively sizeable force, and then you DROP THE HAMMER ON SOME FOOL - Straight through the troop hole that you deduced quite cleverly from their player status. Those kind people, leaving those troop holes so you can purchase no more than 100,000 rats and send them streaming into the breach.
Now that you've found the troop hole, you find another, and another, because hey, everyone's got one, right? You use troop holes, and if necessary, leader: Attack and get yourself 100,000 land. Anyone who is experienced enough with the game to call themself a "veteran" can handle doing this on either server.
What do you do on that 100,000 land? Oh, boy. What -don't- you do. I'll tell you what you don't do. You don't build anything but huts. You build 100,000 huts, and by god, you are going to fill those huts and it is going to be ~awesome~. It takes you about 100 turns of earnin' dat loyalty, you know, to get ready for what's about to happen. You can never have enough loyalty. Your huts are now just about to the 100 leader/hut mark. They might be at about 90, they might be at *gasp* EIGHTY. THREE. But they're close enough, so we're just going to relax and keep listenin' to old Kilksy. Because you're a prudent leaderer, you use 40 more turns to jack ~43k of your huts. Now you're relaxing with about 57,000 land, all huts.
So now that you've used probably 200 or so turns, and you've diligently marketed however many rats it took to get this far, and sold the rest to the mercenaries so that you do not incur costs, you now have about 10,000,000 leaders, maybe 9,000,000, on 57,000 land. You have it made in the shade, my friend. Sip that margarita and kick back, the PROMISED LAND HAS BEEN ~FOUND~.
Let's say you're a Wolf, and you are mega strong, so you are going to use Enrich so you get 5% more food every time you feast. You are one cool cat. Now because you've built up the loyalty or whatever in your previous (screw it, it takes turns to construct, too) 250 turns of your run, you have plenty of loyalty. You see that "Feast" button and you reach for it. You love it. It is your hero. The only bright light in your otherwise dark, awful life. Let's say you've got the 10,000,000 leaders. What greets you when you slam that button?
Missions: Success
~55,000,000 Food
Whoa, we have a winner here. And that took what, TWO turns? Woo-wee that's a good amount of food. You can literally slam that button 99 more times. But let's be reasonable, you only use it 80 more times. A mere 80 presses of PURE. UNADULTERATED. JOY. (that you can do in 4 runs of 20 if that trips your trigger)
Missions: Success
1,100,000,000 Food
-FOUR. TIMES.
So you've just made 4,400,000,000 food. That's a lot of loaves of bread for your hungry soldiers, ladies and gentlemen.
Did I mention that your leaders eat .25 food each per turn? Those greedy jerks are quaffing down 2,500,000 food every single time you push a button.
Also, each of those leaders costs you .5 dollars every time you push a button. They are truly greedy jerks. They also kill 5,000,000 dollars every time you push a button.
But you're a savvy warlord, you calculate up everything it's going to cost you to run your next 450 turns with these same 10,000,000 leaders.
It'll cost you 1,125,000,000 food and 2,250,000,000 dollars. In mercenary values, this'll cost you a grand total of 12,375,000,000 dollars.
Whoa, that's a lot of scratch, Lee.
Not so fast, my friend. Let's divide that back down into the food bucket, and see what's goin' on up in here. That's 1,375,000,000 of your hard earned food. That leaves you with a net gain of 3,075,000,000 food this "run". Not so great, not so bad, all things considered. I mean, you still have 40 turns left with which to raise some defenses, or do whatever it is you people do when you find yourself with 40 extra turns.
Your run has yielded you a net gain of approximately 58,500,000 net worth.
--------------------------------------------------
All you did was get to a good ratio with 57,000 huts. I know that there are people who are able to run on more, and I know that there are people who can run on considerably less. Here's one other thing that I know: My calculations are completely wrong in that you can probably get yourself up to 100k land if you are smart on Reg in 50 turns, not 100. You can get your leaders to that 10,000,000 mark fairly easily, or even get them well above this number before dropping land back down, if you're a smart player. You'll also be raising your defenses while you run, and you will keep practically 0 troops on hand, you'll have sold them all on mercs or stores them on the public market. In all likelihood, if you were in fact "diligent" like I said.
You gained 58,500,000 net in one run. Bravo, but the reality is that this isn't necessarily how all runs work, indeed if you are clanned with multiple wolves, or if you go well over that 100,000 land mark and down to say 70k of huts, or if you let someone else knock you to the ratio, then you will have even MORE turns in which to press the Feast button. You could theoretically feast up 100,000,000 net in a good run. Maybe more. Most likely a little less. But let's keep things reasonable with my cut and dry numbers, because you know what, that's how I do to prove a point. Let's say that you ended up with that 3.125 billion food. You added it to your pile of net worth, and assume that no one else will take it.
-------------------------------------------------
Now, David A. Indy logs into Redwall: Internet Online Warlords on the internet. He's a pretty strong indy but is pretty dumb in some ways.
He sells the troops that he previously made, because he was smart and had 30% of his land made into camps. Bam, from ~300 million networth (where he last ended, I didn't say he was Lucy, I said he was a pretty okay indy) he is greeted with a pile of money that will surely buy the kind of hedonism that would make Caligula blush. This totals to about 62 billion internet warlord dollars. He is a stupid indy, though, and for the sake of simplicity of this, he drops ten billion cash on the market buying one billion food for 10 dollars apiece. So let's say he starts his run with about 52 billion internet warlord dollars in his pocket.
BUT WAIT, DAVID A. INDY WANTS TO SAVE SOME 'O DAT NET
So, because he was sitting on all those troops at once (with defenses raised, just in case) he drops the maximum amounts that he can on the market for later. This totals 25% of his total troops, so that sell value drops to 46.5, then down again to 36.5 because he was stupid and had to do the food thang. That's cool though, right? It's all good. No big thing, 'cause he's an indy and he's mega strong. In total he's marketed 63.75 million in troop value, because 15% of his networth is not based on troops. It is food and land and miscellany at this time. When that net comes off the market again, because it takes an additional 20% hit, it will be worth 51 million networth when added back into his army. This is remarkably comparable to the 58.5 million networth that the leader player stockpiled, and indeed the leader player actually made. Don't be fooled by the "well the leader player doesn't also have cash in his pocket" this is fundamentally wrong, and where a lot of people get caught up. A leader player piling food at a high networth will pay the same amount of upkeep that a leader player at a lower networth will pay, that is to say - Not a whole lot.
Now, where were we in the David story? Oh yeah, our strapping young lad valiantly strides forth, smiting his less troop-heavy foes, valiantly viewing their biography infos so that he might hit them in the appropriate troop type and not lose his precious troops. David is a pretty sweet indy, and Steve the Indy had all the land grouped up for him anyhow, because he's a cool guy like that. David runs himself up to 131,000 land. Again, not an incomprehensible number for those of you counting at home. He builds 1,000 huts along the way to generate loyalty in a habit that most indies have, wherein to regain health after their attacks, they tend to raise defenses to get their health back up, whenever loyalty permits. At the end, let's say for simplicity that he's rocking on 100,000 barracks (30% camps for next run, again this is for simplicity's sake). There has been a rampup to this point, and he's diligently maeking Stoat at this point. Why Stoat, you ask? They're a good balancing troop for the purpose of this exercise. They're relatively heavy on net worth, and it's simple to use the following:
Code Select
(barracks * troop training %) * 0.3 * 4 * race ind %
= number of stoats per turn
To figure out exactly how many Stoats this fine fellow is going to end up getting per turn once he's at his 100k barrackses.
Using this math, he's going to get 150,000 stoats per turn (He's a rat, like all smart indies, so he gets a 25% bonus to his troop production).
Now let's consider how much real net worth he is generating per turn at the apex of his run, and we're going to assume also that he has no other type of troops except for stoats, alright? Alright! He's making a ~blistering~ 628,600 net per turn, and that's just maekin staot.
Unfortunately, each consecutive turn adds another 600,000 cash in debt to his cycle, and as it would turn out, 52 billion dollars/450 turns doesn't go as far as it used to go back when Caligula would throw orgies in the Circus Maximus. He goes back to his 300 million net, socks away some of his cash (his turns are spent at this point), and then three hours later logs back into redwall: internet warlords to un-market his gain so he looks cooler in the eyes of his peers. He is now at about 350 million net after unmarketing. The smart play is probably actually just to keep marketing or whatnot and then do a different troop and unmarket it again, but hey, he's not very smart and chills with his stuff out of the market, not unlike a boss.
---------------------------------------------------
BUT KILK WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS?
Hey, you! Back on the shut up train for another few minutes, I'm not done with you yet. Now we're heading into the good part.
Here's some sack math for you.
Code Select
if ($act == "sack") {
$rand1 = mt_rand(15, 25) * 0.00001;
$lcash = ($enemy[cash] * $rand1) / (($users[wizards]/$users[land])/100 + 0.04);
$lfood = ($enemy[food] * $rand1) / (($users[wizards]/$users[land])/100 + 0.04);
Hey, what does this mean in non nerd talk?
Here's what this means. You're going to get a random value of between 15 and 25 for the first value which is "$rand1". User in this case is the person that receives the sackening. The rest should be pretty self explanatory. And you can use order of operations (PEMDAS!) to work it out. Let's do the maximum and minimum for a sack on a player who has 300,000,000 solely in food net sitting out in the open, shall we?
Say a player has 100,000,000 net in unprotected food (This would never happen, but let's just do it for the sake of argument, shall we?) That's about 5,000,000 food for those of you counting at home.
Therefore, here's our equation for both the minimum sacked and the maximum sacked (For this I used what our indy would be at the height of his run, just to show, also Mr. Indy has 1,000 huts so he has 100k leaders on 130k land):
food sacked = (5,000,000,000 * .00015) / ((100,000/130,000)/100 + 0.04);
food sacked = (750,000) / ((.76923/100) + .04)
food sacked = (750,000)/(.047692) = 15,725,907
That is the low end, so real quick let's do the high end (You can do this yourselves at home):
Food sacked = 26, 209,846
And this is on the max end, of someone getting sacked that is holding 5 billion food. Note that if the leader player also had cash they would lose cash at a similar rate. Please also understand that no matter how few leaders the indy has, or if it's a leader that's doing the sacking, it's that ".04" that ends up being divided out of the end that is the important modifier.
The leader player is losing both land, and 499,235 net worth of food every single attack at maximum. This at 100,000,000 is approximately .5% of the player's networth. You can extrapolate this up or down, depending how much food a leader player is sitting on. Now that I've done that in certain terms, I'll illustrate one more situation, which would be a player on 350,000,000 food net-worth getting sacked. (~17.5 billion food)
55,040,677 Low (hey that's 1 feast on 57k huts as a wolf!) = 1.101 million net = 0.3146% of the defender's net
91,734,462 High (Almost two feasts) = 1.835 million net = 0.5243% of the defender's net
Why would someone be sitting on 350 million unprotected food net? I really have no idea, but the average between those two numbers is .41945%. Let's keep that number in our minds as we move forward, shall we?
Now we're going to see the effects of someone who is on 350 million troop net getting murdered by the same player.
Let's use the number 83,522,727 stoats. That's 350 million net worth of just stoats. CAN YOU FEEL THAT POWER?
The leader player that is attacking selects: Murder, luckily the target is shielded.
835,227 stoats go out of existence, or 3,499,999 net worth. Basically equivalent to 1% of the murdered person's majority net net worth.
Let's recap: In one sack, a leader player stands to lose ~.42% of their primary net worth. In one murder, whilst shielded, an indy is going to lose ~1% of their net worth. Please do not tell me that this number goes down in consecutive murders, because it works the same way with sacks. Eventually if you sack someone 20 times they will have less to sack and the effect will be different. It is the exact same way as murders, but what I am trying to illustrate to each and every one of you in slow terms that you can actually understand is that Murder is not equal to sack in any way shape or form, and is essentially a tool that leader players can use coming out of protection to effectively destroy players who are not playing leader strategies. It is not nearly as feasible to demolish net via sacking, and here's why:
If you're looking to "destroy " net via sacking, you are sadly mistaken. You would be better off going to leaders and suiciding/murdering your opponent, or if you can get a better ratio and more land as a leader, poisoning his food. Why, you ask? Well, because of another awesome fact: Attacks (let's say this is on Turbo, although we've been using Reg) cost you 4% of your life. Leader missions cost 2% of your life. As something to think about, here's a fun fact: As a leader player you literally gain your loyalty back by about 400% every time you choose to Murder another player.
Kilk, where are you going with this? Where I'm going is explaining to you all that the math behind sacks and murders is completely skewed in the direction of the leader. Leader missions are grossly overpowered compared to their troop based counterparts. This goes in several directions. In one, it makes solo indying not at all viable because you can't "hide" as much troop net on the market as you can food net, just due to the amount that you are allowed to put on. Another interesting direction it goes into is the culture of "SACKING BEGETS MURDERS" that we have gone into. I would contend that this is a complete and utter misunderstanding of the way that the sack system works. It hurts leader players significantly less as far as recovery time as well, and I'll be frank about that. I illustrated already that a leader player can Feast on 57k huts TWICE and that would get back the amount sacked at maximum by another 350 million net player against their 17,500,000 food that they're chilling on with no defenses. For those at home, that's 4 turns. Do not come to me and tell me that LOYALTY IS SUCH A PROBLEM, KILK. I'm sorry. It's not, if it is, you are probably doing it wrong. With the way troop holes work, etc, you should have plenty of time left at the end of your run as a Wolf or whatever leader race you are to run as many Feasts as you need to run. That indy that got himself murdered (that cost 2 less turns with health included than the sack and did twice the total net damage) lost (in this case) just under 6 turns worth of troops at 100,000 barracks, which for those of you who have indeed indied, is a pretty high number to have.
So I have illustrated two disparities between the destruction between Sack and Murder. First and foremost, the fact that Sack destroys ~.42% of a leader's net, and that Murder destroys ~1% of an indier's net (Note again that I understand math, and it's less each time, in both cases, I'm not stupid.) I have also illustrated, albeit more briefly, but what should already be in way better common understanding, that the turn cost for a sack versus a murder (in health) is twice as high.
Before someone tries to tell me about how WELL YOU ALSO DESTROY CASH NET!!!!! Spare me. If you can't figure out what to do and have billions upon billions of cash being sacked out of you (Or poisoned out of if you, if you are on the indy end of this) at high networth (I know who will respond to this part with this, stating that he plays Turbo at present as a Marten and gets sacked for a lot of money, let me finish), you probably don't understand what I'm trying to say here anyhow. The key here is high networth. If you are sitting on a pile of cash at 350m net, and with the banking changes you don't have 25 billion socked away, I don't know what to tell you. Sitting with that amount of cash is dangerous, but honestly if anyone is all cash net at 350m or higher, I tip my hat to them, because that is 875 billion cash that you've not hid away as food or as anything else. And then I'm going to call you a liar, because I doubt that that is even possible to get to because another leader player would find it.
Anyhow, more importantly, I'm leaving cash out of this because the total networth value of cash is very, very small compared to food. If anything, if someone is running as a leader both high on cash and food, they will have a pretty decent balance of both, and the averages will even out to gain about .42% of their net per sack starting with the first one then going downward. If you're too dim to figure this math out on your own, I will do some more simulation for you.
Kilk; Why are you using 350 million net as an example? Because this is about what net that these things really start to come into perspective at, the low net portions are confusing, and I can use more round numbers up here. This is also the networth that I'm most familiar working with numbers with, because that's what I crunch numbers for when I'm doing a thing on either server.
Kilk; It's all well and fine to point this out, but what are you trying to accomplish? Simple. I am tired of seeing the phrase sacks = murders. It's even in my own clan on reg, and it's crap. It is cancer, and I will excise it. I have legitimate suggestions of my own that I will outline in another post in this thread to balance Murder versus sack in power and scope.
Basically I've provided you with reasoning and math, if you don't understand something, or say that I've done something completely wrong, you'd better be able to prove it, or I'll chalk it up to your ineptitude. I assume that both of these situations are with established players that know how to generate their own resources, and I am not taking into account team Indy or team Leadering, both of which exist. I also went as far as to make the indy in that situation not even scrape, and have a pretty godawful run. If you would like me to run it again where he runs himself up to like 450m, then he'll just lose more total net every time he gets murdered by the Leader Ion Cannon™, so that argument is pretty poor. It's also a poor argument saying that it's hard for a Wolf to scrape enough land and be that clean cut with their net gain: Again, I don't care, I will chalk that up to inexperience or ineptitude or a will to not get 100k land.
#19
Spa Room 101 / Didn't post a response to Pac-man's thread
May 27, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
Checkin' in.
#20
General Discussion / Official Cooking Thread
May 26, 2011, 10:28:30 PM
Here's where I'm going to be posting some recipes and stuff, and we'll likely be posting pictures (per an MSN conversation between all of the old folks).
Posting guidelines:
Your post must have real content. Posting "That looks so good!" is great and all, but you should be adding something to the conversation, not just fawning over something that someone else has posted.
Questions are 100% okay.
Please give feedback if you ran into a problem with someone's recipe.
I am re-iterating right now that you are not to be posting bad posts in my thread. Don't do it. You know who I mean. Yes, you.
Also, legit post some recipes. Don't just go copy paste something from somewhere else.
Posting guidelines:
Your post must have real content. Posting "That looks so good!" is great and all, but you should be adding something to the conversation, not just fawning over something that someone else has posted.
Questions are 100% okay.
Please give feedback if you ran into a problem with someone's recipe.
I am re-iterating right now that you are not to be posting bad posts in my thread. Don't do it. You know who I mean. Yes, you.
Also, legit post some recipes. Don't just go copy paste something from somewhere else.