Create a "Stop Attack" feature in Battle Resolution

[DeletedUser]

General Question about BP: Is BP based on casualties you INFLICT? Or based on how many casualties you experience yourself?

As to Balance: If the attacker suffers a penalty if he wins (less loot), and the defender suffers fewer casualties if the attacker loses, I wonder how much this proposal benefits the attacker.

Technically speaking, a "tipping point" is --by definition-- achieved by increasing the penalty to the attacker or increasing the bonus to the defender (or both). If better balance is needed, this can be accomplished.

The more important issue, I think, is the complexity of coding. It would be very informative to know more about how much extra coding would be required.

Warm Regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

I wouldn't have the slightest idea how much coding would be needed, but any big idea would logically require extensive coding. All I know is that the battle system is already firmly entrenched. Adding a withdraw feature that changes how ground combat plays out would seem like a pretty big change to me.

As for balancing issues, think of a penalty for attackers. No point in increasing two different things, which would off-set the benefits. Always increase one and decrease another.

 

[DeletedUser]

Eclipse:

I mention BOTH methods because both things work against the attacker; perhaps you misunderstood the wording?

[A] Increasing penalties to the attacker obviously makes things tougher on the attacker.

But increasing benefits to the defender ALSO makes things tougher on the attacker.... because its harder to inflict the same number of casualties on the defender.


So, we can increase one, or the other, or BOTH to make things tougher on the attacker. It is EASY to make things tougher on the attacker.

The proposed feature simply uses iterations of mathematical calculations to work - - it wouldn't change screen sequences or how buttons work or how displays work. So I am anticipating relatively moderate code changes that are not overwhelming.

So I'm hoping for the proposal to be voted on based on the concept and on the appropriate weighing of the bonuses and penalties.

If it turns out the code requirements are not practical, then obviously this proposal would fall into the bucket of "Nice Idea but Can't Be Done".

It would be great to first find out if the proposal passes the vote of whether or not it is a "Nice Idea".

Thanks for your quick reply!

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

Alright, well pick some method of balancing. I would go with giving some penalties for the attacker. Put it into the first post. Recommend this idea for development discussion in the proper thread, and we'll go from there.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Sandman, I would continue arguing against your last post against me, but we are going in a full circle and we could both argue simply by posting appropriate quotes from the past of this thread. If this is ever voted on, supposing it gets to development discussions ever, I believe that the vote will not be affected by those arguments, the only two arguments that still should be considered as affecting much beyond this point are the coding and the fact that it is a change, and we should all know what happens when too big a change happens. Look at 10k votes against morale

 

[DeletedUser]

JKP:

Thanks for the final thoughts. I too am concerned as to whether or not the code changes will be too demanding.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser2795]

when I said change I meant the change in the game mechanics, as well as the coding

 

[DeletedUser]

Moved to development discussions. This idea has 1 week for refining and then will be put to a vote.

 

[DeletedUser]

Fellow Greeks:

Since I am not currently in a position to know how complicated the coding requirements might be, the pertinent question I think is whether or not the existing penalties against the attacker and the bonus in favor of the defender are significant enough to achieve BALANCE.

I would not want the proposal killed just because there isn't a strong enough balance. Balance is easy to achieve with this particular proposal.

Any thoughts on the current proposal? This proposal has been heavily discussed already. It may be as far along as discussion allows - and won't be discussed much until the day of the vote.

See the first post for a description of the penalties and bonuses.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Currently there is (in most situations) a heavy weight in favor of the defender, but in my opinion a problem should not be fixed by adding something else, but should be fixed by removing the problem.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe there has been a vague feeling that the "Stop Loss" (or "Stop Attack") factor favored the attacker. So maybe that's a good change of pace.

Even with the current penalties against the attacker, I don't feel the current proposal gives too much benefit to the attacker. It's always been my feeling that being able to choose to have battles where there are partial losses on both sides is good for BOTH the attacker and the defender.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser2795]

I believe I said that a problem should not be fixed by adding something new, if you like using real life as an example, would you try to stop a war with a war of your own?

 

[DeletedUser]

JKP:

At the risk of repeating myself, the concept behind this proposal is rather straight forward. It is NOT to give the Attacker an advantage. It is NOT to give the Defender an advantage.

It is to eliminate the oddity of not being able to withdraw one's force in the face of high casualties. To be able to do this creates a level of realism not found in ANY of the internet games of this type, like Grepolis or like Kingdoms of Camelot.

In the process of achieving this goal (if it can be achieved), other benefits are derived - - such as being able to engage in a higher level of attack activity due to lack of intelligence, and yet still avoiding toxic levels of fatalities on both attacker and defender.

This also leads to spending less time between battles just trying to "grow" more baby soldiers.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

I like INVOKER's idea of having only 3 settings: 50%, 75% and 100% - with 100% being the current default setting of the system. I am editing the original proposal accordingly.

Thanks, INVOKER!

Lord Sandman

anytime

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Sandman, in your first paragraph, you say that it gives neither side an advantage or disadvantage, although I still disagree with this and can provide proof, you can believe what you want, and because you seem set in your belief of this I will not bother you. In your second paragraph you say that this type of realis is not found in any internet browser game. If that is the case, then I wonder why that is the case just maybe it is because it is not a good idea to include too much realism? Third paragraph you say that you want to be able to take action without intelligence, throughout history, if you wish to stick to realism, it is been considered idiotic to act without knowing the enemy's abilities, and if you have attacked without knowledge then it is chance whether or not you come out of the battle. This means that if you want to stick to realism and say that this makes attacks safer in that type of situation ten you are contradicting yourself, and badly. Paragraph four, please read my previous replies more thoroughly if you have not seen my argument against this.

Sorry for being forced into a long reply again, and it is a waste of my time, but I can not seem to avoid doing it.

 

[DeletedUser]

sometimes an attack WAS a form of intelligence. the army would attack with small numbers and retreat, they would judge the enemies force ,reaction time , and defense tactics before planning a full scale attack

 

[DeletedUser]

Poll has been added and will be open for 2 weeks.

 

[DeletedUser441]

I don't get this idea at all!!!
If you don't want all your troops to die than why send that much?

 

[DeletedUser2795]

lol, I guess we are back at the beginning arguments, I see it is currently a vote of 3-0 against

 

[DeletedUser]

No.... just. no.

I have so many thoughts on how this would totally ruin the game...I frankly do not have enough time to write them all down at this very moment.