Buildrate in Unity [Revote - Poll reset when I added to it]

[Losmar]

Well, it takes some finagling but its possible right now, it would just take a larger number of people working together to continue all war all the time and get bigger in not only land but buildings. With the larger number of buildings taken you just need to pick and choose your targets better, shop around really; I've done this before with my ug's in the past but its never lasted b/c of the farm effect ug's have. Thankfully we really never have to worry about people just warring all the time and only keeping the built land, everyone gets greedy and keeps the open land too, and then have to stop warring to build on it.

This change in Solo would be interesting for sure.

[Steven]

Hahaha, Kaz I think it's a great change to taking more built land. It fixes a lot of things in my opinion. However, in my opinion we should lower the amount of barracks gained and increase the quarries that a realm gets. That way it still forces large realms to build, however it makes their ability to build easier since their BPTs aren't crashing. It should be up to the big realms ot decide between temples or barracks.

[TheSartek]

What's the % for forts taken based on? Land taken or # of forts?

I only ask because if it's based off of # of forts, when you apply that to all buildings you could concievably get half your land in built acres, depending on the %. At 3% you'd take 300 built acres in your first hit. Now, I know the calculation is probably alot more complex then that, I was just curious is all.

[Kaz]

When you take land from a realm, each of their buildings is reduced according to a few rules. Which include building losses to deal with the missing land, and a few addtional building losses.

The Buildings / forts that get taken are based on a percentage of the building lost by the realm you attacked. So for example using your 3% figure.

Realm A takes X amount of acres and causes 100 Guildhalls to be reduced from the enemy kingdoms total, you would get 3 of those 100 Guildhalls.

Because of this you will get a percentage of buildings in the same ratio of the realm you have attacked. Eg hitting a sorc will get you more temples etc

[Losmar]

In the past, weren't temples the one building type you couldn't take? The reason of "who wants heathenous temples"? was used I believe...

[Kaz]

The code did have no temples taken now that you mention it.

I included them in LQS testing though.

Do people not want to take heathen temples then? It's quite often in real life that religious sites get taken over by the new religion.

[Steven]

If youi change the BPT, then we'll take the temples!

[Losmar]

Is it possible that it could be different for each faith? Barnabas being the empire-builders would want their people to be happy in the empire thus allowing the lands they conquer to keep their identities for the most part. Angelique seems like it'd be the "wipe the slate clean" people and would erect their own pristine temples after burning the heathens out. Leto... I guess it'd depend upon whether or not the temples were a viable asset... In the end though I don't think they should be taken whole-heartedly, peasants die when they board themselves up in churches that get burned.

Good ideas bad ideas? Should I not think of things in such a context?

[Steven]

Well Losmar, for stuff like that you would definately need to include bonuses for other faiths. Like Barnabas would then take over barracks, Angies for Temples, and Leto can have money or quarries or something. That is if you choose to make it RP based on what each faith can accrue. In my opinion however, I don't think code ins like that promote distrubution of faiths.

Edit: haha sorry losmar i just noticed you had different buildings going to different faiths. i guess that just means ur sense of RP is WRONG.

[Kaz]

That's too much change... we are talking simple value changes, that i can do in moments, here.

A simple increase to a value in the script, rather than a selection of different increases for different races / gods. Playing around with loads of differences just introduces bugs that I then need to fix.

I can see the temples for another God thing, but to be honest, there are lots of real world examples where crusaders have taken a holy place, and made it their own. Plus... nobody seems to care about roleplay reasons for things anymore anyway

[Nether]

... nobody seems to care about roleplay reasons for things anymore anyway

ain't that the truth =/

[Ghostman]

... nobody seems to care about roleplay reasons for things anymore anyway

ain't that the truth =/

Im trying to revive it. just kinda bored doing it solo

[Seska Dragonslayer]

Solo? Christ, my roleplay just doesn't seem to exist then lol

[Ghostman]

ya. i dont see any rp threads in unity, other than mine.

[Shifty]

The code did have no temples taken now that you mention it.

I included them in LQS testing though.

Do people not want to take heathen temples then? It's quite often in real life that religious sites get taken over by the new religion.

From an RP/historical standpoint it makes perfect sense that temples would be taken and converted.

[Kaz]

ya. i dont see any rp threads in unity, other than mine.

That's because the rest of them have been moved to the 'Disputed Kingdoms' roleplay forum.

[GoldWyvern]

Having a fast start sort of thing is nice, but it also allows for a bit of annoyance.

Say you're at war with, say, Ordo. You knock their kingdoms down to 1,200 acres a piece. Now, suddenly they have the build rate advantage, and pow, they are back up to YOU before you can move beyond their range. Or, vice versa, of course.

It extends battles needlessly.

I vote for an even Build Rate, but slightly 'slower' then the current one, all the way down the line. No changes at percentages.

Another thought on the mushrooming thing, what about a land cap? Say you reach X land, a message 'we cannot possibly defend any more acres' or something? That way, whoever was at X would have to build smartly - not just shove troops in.

[Mr Ed]

Actually, your post is exactly why I feel the build rates should favor the underdog.

So a guild can't just hit, beat down another guild quickly and then become untouchably out of retaliation range.

What is this big thing in the game today with wars being over during the first strike?

A good war should last several days at a minimum, with both sides able to duke it out.

If a war is completely over in the first strike then in someway the first strike was a downhit.

This is a war game not a massacre game, and it takes at least two to tango

Having a fast start sort of thing is nice, but it also allows for a bit of annoyance.

Say you're at war with, say, Ordo. You knock their kingdoms down to 1,200 acres a piece. Now, suddenly they have the build rate advantage, and pow, they are back up to YOU before you can move beyond their range. Or, vice versa, of course.

It extends battles needlessly.

[Reylan Talonspyre]

What is this big thing in the game today with wars being over during the first strike?

A good war should last several days at a minimum, with both sides able to duke it out.

I agree completely. I have tried to do that, but you need to be careful on how you approach that. Today, people want Steven-esque Wars. I call them that because he was the first GM I saw doing it when I came back to Unity. Wars that last less than 24 hours for whatever reason. He was good at offering a guild he destroyed peace almost right away and got the same treatment in return.

If a war is completely over in the first strike then in someway the first strike was a downhit.

I don't think that is an accurate statement, unless skill, turns, and activity are now being considered in the list of advantages during a first strike.

[SoulDemon]

I remember some epic wars that would take 2 weeks of the age to fight out.
Don't see much of that no more.

[Shifty]

I remember some epic wars that would take 2 weeks of the age to fight out.
Don't see much of that no more.

Yeah Demmy, there are a LOT of factors that make that the case now. I hold a unique position here to speak on it because I was not here for everything that got us up to this point.

Let me throw out a few reasons and you let me know if you want me to think about it more.

1. UB - when a guild as responsible for not only scouting it's own targets for locating them, but also to update them on a regular basis, more turns were spent with scum. More turns scouting for cash, to find missing realms in a guild, to keep tabs on enemies and more time to mantain thier own DB.

Pros: It's MUCH easier for both players and GM's, faiths work better together because of it. More turns can be spent fighting and building.

Cons: Any schmuck with a guild can use this information to their advantage. More turns can be used to build and fight, therefore making the game move a lot faster. Any jackass can run a guild and use other peoples scum info, back in the day the successful guilds were the ones with the best intel, now it's the ones who are the most aggressive.

2. Turn rate: Back in the day, correct me if I am wrong, but we got half the turns/hour we get now. The result is obvious, more turns means that guilds can attack harder and more often.

Pros: Building is much faster, there is a lot more activity and the wars are faster/more frequent. Recoering from a major invasion is also a lot faster.

Cons: First strike is devestating and before the guild can recover second strike wipes them out. Only truly inept strikes or those made when a guild happens to be online with turns fail.

3. Multiple kingdoms: Back in the day the guilds were much larger, it was dificult to get your 33 guys all online at once and ready to fight. Now, a 32 member guilds only has 16 players, much easier to get them all on at once and coordinate thier actions.

Pros: Easier for the GM. In a dwindling community it boosts numbers to make things more interesting. Allows players to have a better chance of survival in a war for at least one kingdom, gives players a chance to experiment more.

Cons: It affects the warring. If (to quote Demmy) guild A has 12 kingdoms and attacks guild B who has 14, we're really looking at a 6 on 7 war, if all 6 are active then guild B gets hammered. If 2 members of guild B are awol for just ONE DAY, they are TOAST, no questions asked, it's OVER. In rare instance that somebody is cheating, they now have double the damage by making extra kingdoms.

4. Guest races: MANY people in this game refuse to take time to learn the advantages/disadvatages of the guest races. We saw the result of that last age.

Pros: Mixes things up! Requires new strategies and defenses each age. Keeps the game fresh.

Cons: A lot of people are too friggin lazy to learn these new tactics and cry a river when the same old shit fails to work every age and they get creamed. Because of these people it makes it makes wars move a lot faster as well. Boo fucking hoo. I blame leadership for this, BTW, they should better manage thier players.

5. Cooperation: We all know there is a certain amount of assistance rendered from allies during wars. Everyone has known each other so long they know who to ask to get something done. People also know what times guilds will most likely hit and what friggin days! They can tell you what a faith is most likely to do in a certain position and how thier allies will react!

Pros: It's great that everyone knows each other so well. When assistance is truly needed, it can be found.

Cons: Most wars should not require ANY assistance. WHY FUCKING BOTHER FIGHTING if from the beginning you are getting help?? It's WEAK. If we can predict when and what time a guild is likely to attack, when they don't move we know they are not going to for the week, it makes their allies and even them sitting ducks. I blame leadership for this as well, you GM's can easily alter this and shake things up.

6. Defense seems weaker: The only way to fight off an attack in a game where you are more than likely not online while you are getting battered is to have a solid defense. It just doesn;t seem as strong as it used to be, I remember hitting quads back in the day we just COULD NOT BREAK. We would end up leaving entire quads untouched or only slightly marred after first strike. This is RARELY the case now.

Pros: It's easier for an attacking GM to run a war and easier to win a war in one night.

Cons: It's boring, every war is a land grab and danger from a damaging counter-strike is extremely low, and rarely do yoou lose actual land, just get sorc killed.

I could prolly come up with some more, but I would like to see what people have to say about this first.

discuss!

EDIT*

I left out an obvious one...

7. Bonus Turns: This is an obvious one, I presonally pefer to save these for emergencies, and defensive purposes, but I am sure other find much more abusive uses for them.

[Steven]

I've had many epic wars in my life that took a long time. For an example my battle with mum and my suicide on TNE with everyone else. The reason why wars are so quick is because I think me and a few others set the standard for wars.

I and a few smart minded people completely altered the style of game play. No longer are people hitting with everything they have and tossing up half ass forts that allow things to go back and forth. My first hits are NOT for land. They are the soul purpose of dabilitating a guild so bad they wanna stop playing for a day or two. I'm not obsessed with csing of 1 to get that juicy land. I just want to see networths drop. That's how I get my rocks off.

Back then when everything was slower and a before Kaz implemented a lot of balancing factors(which I solute since I suggested a lot of them haha) I was putting guilds below 100k average networth in an hour or two. Now I'll be lucky to get them to 150k-200k in the first hit.

Those who haven't adapted and worked with the changes have been left in the dust and makes my life of pwning so much easier. Those who have, have been able to defeat me easier and easier. Right now there are only maybe a handful of people whom I fear to go up against and I have noticed those players are the ones who are most open to changes

[Reylan Talonspyre]

But aren't most of those people in FA?

[Dauthi]

But aren't most of those people in FA?

I'm not, and I'm sure he fears me and my goblins.