Rejected Prioritize resource loot.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hagop abroumian

Guest
Proposal: To have a button when initiating an attack to prioritize which type of resource your units will loot.


Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?
Didn't check.

Reason: All of us sometimes need for example silver and when we attack a city we get an equal amount of all. Well we have a lot of the others so we need just 1 kind. My idea will be around that.


Details: When sending an attack a new window comes out. In it you can put ratios of the resources you will get (just like the market one). The cap is the max amount of loot your units can carry. The maximum ratio is 60%.


Visual Aids:
non

Balance:
non

Abuse Prevention:
non

Summary:
It's easy and self explanatory no need for a summary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

- Horus -

Guest
Great idea Hagop, I do get sick of seeing even looting across the three resource types in an inactive city sometimes.
 

Hagop abroumian

Guest
I want to add the following:
You CAN'T let the other resources blank in ratios (you can't do 100% of one kind) 10% is the minimum for every resource and 80% is the max so no abuse happens.
 

chrss2128

Guest
A chat I had with hagop about this idea, I really don't want to retype it.

[10:01:41 PM] CHRIS: No
[10:01:47 PM] Hagop Abroumian: ? lol
[10:01:49 PM] CHRIS: Its unbalanced
[10:01:55 PM] Hagop Abroumian: why?
[10:02:02 PM] CHRIS: You can screw someone over even more by taking all of one resource
[10:02:14 PM] Hagop Abroumian: Well not actually
[10:02:25 PM | Edited 10:02:33 PM] Hagop Abroumian: You are taking the same sum of every type
[10:02:37 PM] CHRIS: With the current system yes
[10:02:53 PM] Hagop Abroumian: You have to put ratios for other resources too
[10:03:08 PM] Hagop Abroumian: they cant be left blank
[10:03:20 PM] CHRIS: Well then make a cap and a minimum on the ratios
[10:03:36 PM] Hagop Abroumian: Cap is the amount of loot your soldiers can carry
[10:03:46 PM] CHRIS: That not what I mean
[10:04:02 PM] CHRIS: You could have the same effect of taking all of one by doing something like 1:1:9999
[10:04:12 PM] Hagop Abroumian: min 10%
[10:04:15 PM] CHRIS: Cap the multiplier
[10:04:17 PM] Hagop Abroumian: max 80%
[10:04:33 PM] Hagop Abroumian: like 10% loot wood 10% stone 80% silver
[10:04:42 PM] CHRIS: Thats still a bit much imo
[10:04:55 PM] Hagop Abroumian: if this is much then no need for this idea
[10:05:07 PM] Hagop Abroumian: cause 70% will give.... like 1000 more?
[10:05:27 PM] Hagop Abroumian: 80% is good
[10:05:59 PM] CHRIS: Now you're just confusing me
[10:06:18 PM] Hagop Abroumian: ?
[10:09:09 PM] CHRIS: Ok, lets say you can carry 10,000. You have a 1:1:8 ratio (which is 10%, 10% and 80% right?)
The current way it would be 1:1:1, so you would have something like 3333,3333,333 for each.
With the new way you would get 1000,1000,8000. Removing that much silver once or twice would completely remove any chance of building anything useful
[10:09:40 PM] CHRIS: While one or two hits the normal way is balanced
[10:09:49 PM] Hagop Abroumian: he can trade the excess resources
[10:09:57 PM] Hagop Abroumian: the wood and stone for silver
[10:10:35 PM] CHRIS: Not always
[10:10:41 PM] CHRIS: The market may not allow that
[10:10:41 PM] Hagop Abroumian: How?
[10:10:49 PM] Hagop Abroumian: Why wont it?
[10:11:01 PM] CHRIS: beause of whats being offered at the time
[10:11:11 PM] Hagop Abroumian: He can exchange with alliance members?
[10:12:43 PM] CHRIS: you can't assume that
[10:13:11 PM] CHRIS: Maybe they need the silver too
[10:13:30 PM] Hagop Abroumian: No there is always people who don't need silver
[10:15:18 PM] CHRIS: Do you mind if I post this chat log to the thread and see what others think?
[10:15:29 PM] Hagop Abroumian: yeah why not
 

- Horus -

Guest
High loss of silver = build biremes, another harbor/market level, or build something else that doesn't require much silver such as slingers.

You're forgetting warehouse levels provide cover for some amount of resources to remain, and a player can still gain resources from farms when they log back in which gives an even coverage across the three types.

High loss of wood = build another wall level, can still build chariots.

High loss of stone = build land defensive units like swordsmen and archers, or you could build LS.
 

Kanga

Guest
It's quite an intelligent idea, but I feel that farms should have more of a chance to re-cooperate themselves and get themselves back in the game. If a farmer is constantly going after the same resource (whether it's to cripple the farm or not doesn't matter), the farm will never get a chance.

However in saying that, the warehouse level does provide some protection of resources... So I'm kinda impartial. I like the idea, and find it very intriguing, but I can also see the abuse side that Chris pointed out.

+rep regardless.
 

chrss2128

Guest
High loss of silver = build biremes, another harbor/market level, or build something else that doesn't require much silver such as slingers.

You're forgetting warehouse levels provide cover for some amount of resources to remain, and a player can still gain resources from farms when they log back in which gives an even coverage across the three types.

High loss of wood = build another wall level, can still build chariots.

High loss of stone = build land defensive units like swordsmen and archers, or you could build LS.

I still really disagree with the ability to basically dictate what someone is building.
 

Hagop abroumian

Guest
I still really disagree with the ability to basically dictate what someone is building.

Your not dictating. You are just taking the resources you need. The one getting attacked can trade those resources. There are many ways to trade the excess resources to the kind you need.
 

chrss2128

Guest
Your not dictating. You are just taking the resources you need. The one getting attacked can trade those resources. There are many ways to trade the excess resources to the kind you need.

No, you're dictating by taking specific resources your need. You cannot assume you will be able to trade to re-balance your resources, because for all you know, maybe there are no offers on the market for the specific trade you need. Maybe you also have an island with a bad set of farming villages and can't really trade with those.

You need to look at all possible situations when you make an idea, not just the parts that will allow you to get it passed.
 

Hagop abroumian

Guest
No, you're dictating by taking specific resources your need. You cannot assume you will be able to trade to re-balance your resources, because for all you know, maybe there are no offers on the market for the specific trade you need Maybe you also have an island with a bad set of farming villages and can't really trade with those.

Alliance members???
 

chrss2128

Guest
Alliance members???

You cannot assume that either. Maybe the whole alliance is getting farmed by another and they are all demanding the same specific resources. Maybe its a small alliance and are all at a stage where they all need silver.
 

Hagop abroumian

Guest
You cannot assume that either. Maybe the whole alliance is getting farmed by another and they are all demanding the same specific resources. Maybe its a small alliance and are all at a stage where they all need silver.

Pact members???
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Well, technically it is more relistic. You dont just send thing in RL and tell em bring back whatever you want. No. You say we want this, if you cant get it, get the next best thing.

I think the percentage should be 70% tho...minimum still 10 %
 

- Horus -

Guest
I still really disagree with the ability to basically dictate what someone is building.

Technically you're still dictating what someone is building by farming them in the first place. If I really wanted to, I could strip a player of everything except for what his warehouse safeguards, and by your logic, farming should be removed lest a player actually do this in practice.
 

chrss2128

Guest
Technically you're still dictating what someone is building by farming them in the first place. If I really wanted to, I could strip a player of everything except for what his warehouse safeguards, and by your logic, farming should be removed lest a player actually do this in practice.

That is much more balanced though. With this idea one or two farming hits and the player is pretty well limited. At least its even across the board with the current ratios, which is fine.

If you put a smaller cap on it, then maybe it will be fine. But 80% compared to the other two resources is too much
 

- Horus -

Guest
That is much more balanced though. With this idea one or two farming hits and the player is pretty well limited. At least its even across the board with the current ratios, which is fine.

If you put a smaller cap on it, then maybe it will be fine. But 80% compared to the other two resources is too much

To be honest, if I were being farmed, I would rather someone take a majority of one resource than take everything. Yes, it's annoying, but being farmed in general tends to be annoying. It is also realistic to be able to command your soldiers to take one specific resource over another. Do you think the Vikings, Mongols, or any warring group throughout history looted cities and thought to take everything in an even distribution? lol

How about 50-60% maximum for one resource then?
 

chrss2128

Guest
To be honest, if I were being farmed, I would rather someone take a majority of one resource than take everything. Yes, it's annoying, but being farmed in general tends to be annoying. It is also realistic to be able to command your soldiers to take one specific resource over another. Do you think the Vikings, Mongols, or any warring group throughout history looted cities and thought to take everything in an even distribution? lol

How about 50-60% maximum for one resource then?

Much better.

Don't use the realism argument. There are many things not realistic in grepo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top