EntropiaPlanets presents: Forum-game: Conquest - BETA!

Discussion in 'About EntropiaPlanets' started by NotAdmin, Apr 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

  1. :rofl:


    For the next round of the game, i suggest we lower the amount of cycles needed to produce gold to 5 cycles and increase the cycles needed to recruit troops to 2, and well, double the amount of gold we get "naturally" per cycle, it's simply not interesting to attack people who are out of gold all the time :P

    Furthermore, this would give more weight to weaponry, which is atm totally underrated, because it's too hard to buy reasonable amounts - which makes it pretty predictable how strong your opponents are, as it is too much tied up to the troop count - more gold would add more of an "uncertainty factor".
     
  2. narfi

    narfi Lost

    I think there should be a way that some weapons or armor are lost during a fight as well, this will also add to the uncertainty.
     
  3. John BD

    John BD Subwoofers rock.

    at around 2000 followers if u click gather coins u get around 2500 gold, downside is 10 turns cost is heavy not leaving u to do anything else :D

    I gotta get my attack rating atleast above 4000 to attack someone who passed me by but i will not tell the name of who it is :naughty: looool
     
  4. GeorgeSkywalker

    GeorgeSkywalker Explorer


    Ramp up your defences...hide the women and protect the fur ...


    War is imminent !



    (by the way it wasn'y me before they made me do it :) )
     

  5. Lol, what a lame attempt at making me waste my cycles on gold to stock up on defense - if you'd've really bought gold from your cycles, you would know that you can't get 2500 gold from 2000 troops.

    Try again ;)
     
  6. He has a 25% income bonus
     
  7. Shhh, you spoil my provocation!! ;)

    :boxer:
     
  8. John BD

    John BD Subwoofers rock.

    :evil::boxer: feck it lets see what happens if over 4k fellas total get it on :D

    ---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------

    hahaha lots of dead fellas is the result i gues lol
    2x failure
    312 casualtys vs 169
    267 casualtys vs 162

    :rofl: dont think my mr stabbys where able to cut the woolly fur jackets:bigsmile:

    o hey oops now need to get more fellas again :whip:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Feeling suicidal? :D
     
  10. John BD

    John BD Subwoofers rock.

    ill be back :shoot:


    ..
    .
    well not that fast this was quite a:nutkick: i need bigger stabbys :D
     
  11. narfi

    narfi Lost

    :rofl:


    The best part of this game might just be John's commentary :P

    narfi
     
  12. GeorgeSkywalker

    GeorgeSkywalker Explorer


    Couldn't agree more ...funny guy :) +reps to john
     
  13. narfi

    narfi Lost

    Im not sure how much you can work with the system, but an idea to make the game more dynamic and require more strategy would be the destruction of weapons and armor which would be converted into loot for the victor rather they are on the offense or defense.

    suppose I attack Admin and loose 20 troops and he looses 30 and I win the battle stealing 124gold. each side would loose armor/weapons equiling 1/10th the number of troops lost. So I would loose 2 weapons and admin would loose 3 armors. The 5 peices would be converted to gold at 20gold per peice so 100 more gold would go to the victor. I would get 124 + 100 gold.

    Then suppose I attack Razer and take 50 casualties while only killing 20 of his men and loose the battle. I wouldn't steal any gold, and the 7 total lost weapons/armor would be converted to 140gold which would go to Razer the successful defender.

    This would allow a nation to plan an attack on a superior player in such a way that team work could take down someone that is impossible to take down now.

    examples being when 5 of us tried to take John down and took much heavier casualties than he did. Wizz is now in the position that John was and I doubt if both of your nations worked together and threw everything you had against him all in 1 hours time, that you would barely dent his defenses.

    Does this make sense?

    narfi
     
  14. NotAdmin

    NotAdmin Administrator

    Hey narfi,

    To be honest, I did not have much time to look at things. I did recently implement a cap on the amount of PMs the system will send (maximum one. So if you get attacked 5 times, but have an unread PM from the Conquest system, it will not spam you again).

    I'll soon dive deeper into the4 code, but a great deal of my time has been spent on improving our house the last week. We're trying to see if there's any interested buyers, so we're modifying stuff all the time, and it just takes a lot of time when we undertake such projects.

    I'll try and see if your suggestion can be implemented in some way or another, though I do foresee problems if you do have someone who's extremely strong. If they would just gain more money all the time, they could just as easily stock up on things again.

    Let's see if we can figure something out that would be semi-realistic and yet fair.
     
  15. narfi

    narfi Lost

    Yes.. there has to be a balance :P but the idea behind what i suggest is that if you can destroy armor, then a group of smaller players can destroy the armor of a powerhouse player to a point where they can actually do some damage against him. You shouldn't take away all rewards for building yourself up strong though, after all it is a conquest game :P

    GL with your hose preparations, I hope you get top dollar for it.
     
  16. The difference seems unfair atm, but it is not thaaat hard to get up here - to make the exponential growth a bit harder, i already suggested to increase recruiting costs to 2 cycles.
    (30 troop growth per cycle isnt that much of an advantage when you have like 25 troop growth yourself, it is just unfair when you are stuck at 2 troops per cycle, but really, everyone can stock up the max cycles and then recruit in batches - )

    I can't even attack people that are too weak, so the game kinda "splits" up at this stage, and people will have to play in "their section" - which is just fair, those joining the game just recently would be too easy victims.

    What should be changed tho is the nation ranking by troop count alone, a total sum of Offense Rate + Defense Rate over everyone in that nation would give more accurate results in terms of "dominance".
     
  17. If everyone agrees, i would, like to have a look into the game database, to find a formula that allows us to make a more fair ranking - i thought about the total of a nations Offense/Defense Rate, counting Offense rate *2.

    This will inevitably give me information about other players strenghts and weaknesses, but i can't attack anyone anymore and i will not disclose information obtained that way to others (i will still share info i gained from spy missions or info that i have from my Offense/Defense Log, as i would have obtained those info "legally").

    If you have suggestions about a different formula, or a different weighting of the Offense/Defense rate, or maybe you want the gold/troop count to be calc'ed in - any feedback is welcome.

    Oh, and we should have a final "winning condition", maybe 2/3rd of the "Dominance" calculated as described above (for 3 nations, this would mean one nation has twice the rate as both other nations, there might be better value for more than 3 nations) - this "winning condition" should be kept up for at least 24 hours (or 50 cycles or something).

    Feedback on this is appreciated, too, ofc.

    :)
     
  18. John BD

    John BD Subwoofers rock.

    well we are beta testing this in basic so im ok with it, meanwhile i made a succesfull attack :D
     

  19. If you consider troop losses of >1000 on your side and ~350 on my side and a loot of 16 gold as a result of 2 attacks sucessful, then gz, you made it ;)
     
  20. John BD

    John BD Subwoofers rock.

    well it said it was a success, and i trust its observations :dancinggirls:
    The stabby men won from fuzzy furr fursss weeeeeee. :D

    (all the extra litle fellas that kicked the bucket just didnt have stabbys or furry furs, the poor bastards):grouphug:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.