Shuri2060
Strategos
Proposals: (note these are separate proposals that can be implemented independently from each other)
Apply the following changes to Night Bonus (NB):
1. Players can choose what time their 8 hrs of NB starts every day. These hours should be publicly displayed (maybe in a player's profile as well as attack window). Players can change NB times, and after a change NB doesn't apply for 48 hrs.
2. (CQ only) NB doubles offensive power of units attacking sieges (instead of affecting defence). It is the NB times of the city owner that is taken into account.
Turn the NB setting on for servers aimed at more casual players (usually ones with slow speed and morale).
Explanation:
1. I think NB would be improved if players could pick when it started in their settings. NB gives players not in the server timezone (or different sleep schedule) a disadvantage. With this, that would no longer be the case. This also gives players the option to have it on during other times, eg. work, rather than when they sleep, if they want.
A few practical details:
- Imo it shouldn't default to server night time - I think it would be better if players had to select it before entering a world. NB could still be viewed as a disadvantage to players who change it if the default was server as the majority of players wouldn't bother changing it (but that doesn't necessarily mean they are in server TZ), while the players who change it obviously want it on during the times they chose for whatever reason.
- Imo the hours should be publicly displayed. If it is hidden, the enemy will constantly HC to try figuring out your exact NB hours and that is probably undesirable for both sides (a pain to do, and a pain to be on the receiving end). Since these times will eventually be public, might as well have them on display from the very beginning.
- Players should be able to change these times when they want, but like VM there needs to be some sort of delay. I think 48 hrs would be a reasonable delay for the change, and during those 48 hrs, NB does not apply at all. The player profile should also show the change made and when NB starts again. Eg. my NB is 22:00 - 06:00 and at 05:00 15th August I change it to 03:00 - 11:00. From the moment I make that change, NB no longer applies. The next NB would be 05:00 - 11:00 17th August, and from then on it would apply at my new times normally.
2. Like morale, NB was created to help the less active players by lowering the activity requirement to play at a competitive level. While both work well in Revolt, a major issue in CQ that was overlooked when they were first implemented is that Attacking and Defending switch their roles during a siege. Defending a siege is an offensive play (trying to take city), while attacking is a defensive play (trying to save city). However, morale and NB didn't reflect this, so obviously it led to them both being weaponized into an offensive tactic. While morale has been removed from sieges, the issue remains with NB (and maybe that's why it's not in EN? Not sure).
Perhaps doubling attack is too much - that can be looked into, but the aim is to discourage sieges while the player is offline, which would help less active players more.
Issues:
I've tried to solve possible issues that might come up with these proposals, but a few remain:
A. (issue with 2) NB would get in the way of friendly handoffs/internals. Changing your time just before handing off is a possible workaround... but an unintended feature, really. Perhaps NB shouldn't apply when the conquerer is in the same ally/pacted. Not sure this is the best solution.
B. (issue with 2) It becomes harder to conquer cities in general, and makes it harder for smaller alliances to fight larger ones. I think this is the main issue and probably why doubling offensive power is likely too much. Even if the buff was reduced, I don't like the idea of widening the gap between small/large alliances. The issue for smaller alliances is that even more units are needed to sufficiently stack a siege during NB, and that is probably when the majority of sieges are held (when a player is caught offline).
However, I think this a general issue with CQ anyway - imo it is too easy to break sieges of weaker alliances near their end nowadays. I think it should be harder to break sieges the longer the CS has been in, and for smaller alliances, stacking isn't enough to account for that.
Possible solutions:
- Introduce an academy research that builds the wall during the siege. Eg. with the research on, during a siege, the wall increases by one level every 30 mins. Imo this would improve CQ in general (irrespective of this NB proposal).
- Progressively reduce the NB debuff during all sieges. Eg. For all sieges, NB starts as 100%. Then every hour, it decreases by 10%.
imo both of these solutions can be implemented and would help close the power gap between smaller and larger alliances.
C. (issue with 1) Being able to pick NB times could be 'abused' (by players who are very responsive anyways) by selecting times when most enemy players are awake (ie. making it harder to be OPed/hit in general). Not sure what can be done about that... perhaps reducing the % effect of NB could help, but...
Note this issue kind of exists already with NB (players in different TZ to server with NB).
Background:
There is a spectrum on Grepo players, I'd say.
At one end you have the most active 'hardcore' players. They react to 90%+ of their alarms no matter the time and spend many hours a day here. You generally only find a handful of them in the top alliances (maybe up to 20 early game, and 5-10 or less later on) and they generally are responsible for the frontline of the alliance.
At the other end are the more casual players. Maybe they are busy IRL, or don't want to commit as much to this game. They might not respond to alarms at night/work or even have any at all, and would generally spend less hours.
Now, I believe both are important - while the most active are generally the most aggressive and carry the alliance, the less active are responsible for their supporting role - they make up the bulk of their alliance. In recent times, I'd say the casual players are becoming even more important in an ally as there are fewer 'hardcore' players than there might have been a few years ago. So although the super active players might not like it (and I think they make up a larger part of this forum's community), I think we need to accept that a majority of the playerbase is likely struggling with the activity demands of this game, and it is probably for the best we lower them - at least in more casual worlds. A lot of players can't or aren't willing to respond to alarms in the middle of the night/work to play this game, while top alliances continue to demand players to do so, and perhaps we should look into doing something about that.
Some evidence supporting this is players frequently leaving early-mid world when they can no longer handle the pressure of losing units and cities when caught offline. Also, I feel like there has been an increasing usage over the years of illegal scripts that dodge/spell/militia when you're offline. All this probably points towards what I've said.
I'd like to see less of an emphasis on responding to your alarm (some consider it skill, yes, it can be, but is heavily dependent on your situation IRL) in terms of what makes a player 'good' in this game. I would say the Alarm is overpowered atm, and this proposal could help fix that and keep more casual players in the game.
Apply the following changes to Night Bonus (NB):
1. Players can choose what time their 8 hrs of NB starts every day. These hours should be publicly displayed (maybe in a player's profile as well as attack window). Players can change NB times, and after a change NB doesn't apply for 48 hrs.
2. (CQ only) NB doubles offensive power of units attacking sieges (instead of affecting defence). It is the NB times of the city owner that is taken into account.
Turn the NB setting on for servers aimed at more casual players (usually ones with slow speed and morale).
Explanation:
1. I think NB would be improved if players could pick when it started in their settings. NB gives players not in the server timezone (or different sleep schedule) a disadvantage. With this, that would no longer be the case. This also gives players the option to have it on during other times, eg. work, rather than when they sleep, if they want.
A few practical details:
- Imo it shouldn't default to server night time - I think it would be better if players had to select it before entering a world. NB could still be viewed as a disadvantage to players who change it if the default was server as the majority of players wouldn't bother changing it (but that doesn't necessarily mean they are in server TZ), while the players who change it obviously want it on during the times they chose for whatever reason.
- Imo the hours should be publicly displayed. If it is hidden, the enemy will constantly HC to try figuring out your exact NB hours and that is probably undesirable for both sides (a pain to do, and a pain to be on the receiving end). Since these times will eventually be public, might as well have them on display from the very beginning.
- Players should be able to change these times when they want, but like VM there needs to be some sort of delay. I think 48 hrs would be a reasonable delay for the change, and during those 48 hrs, NB does not apply at all. The player profile should also show the change made and when NB starts again. Eg. my NB is 22:00 - 06:00 and at 05:00 15th August I change it to 03:00 - 11:00. From the moment I make that change, NB no longer applies. The next NB would be 05:00 - 11:00 17th August, and from then on it would apply at my new times normally.
2. Like morale, NB was created to help the less active players by lowering the activity requirement to play at a competitive level. While both work well in Revolt, a major issue in CQ that was overlooked when they were first implemented is that Attacking and Defending switch their roles during a siege. Defending a siege is an offensive play (trying to take city), while attacking is a defensive play (trying to save city). However, morale and NB didn't reflect this, so obviously it led to them both being weaponized into an offensive tactic. While morale has been removed from sieges, the issue remains with NB (and maybe that's why it's not in EN? Not sure).
Perhaps doubling attack is too much - that can be looked into, but the aim is to discourage sieges while the player is offline, which would help less active players more.
Issues:
I've tried to solve possible issues that might come up with these proposals, but a few remain:
A. (issue with 2) NB would get in the way of friendly handoffs/internals. Changing your time just before handing off is a possible workaround... but an unintended feature, really. Perhaps NB shouldn't apply when the conquerer is in the same ally/pacted. Not sure this is the best solution.
B. (issue with 2) It becomes harder to conquer cities in general, and makes it harder for smaller alliances to fight larger ones. I think this is the main issue and probably why doubling offensive power is likely too much. Even if the buff was reduced, I don't like the idea of widening the gap between small/large alliances. The issue for smaller alliances is that even more units are needed to sufficiently stack a siege during NB, and that is probably when the majority of sieges are held (when a player is caught offline).
However, I think this a general issue with CQ anyway - imo it is too easy to break sieges of weaker alliances near their end nowadays. I think it should be harder to break sieges the longer the CS has been in, and for smaller alliances, stacking isn't enough to account for that.
Possible solutions:
- Introduce an academy research that builds the wall during the siege. Eg. with the research on, during a siege, the wall increases by one level every 30 mins. Imo this would improve CQ in general (irrespective of this NB proposal).
- Progressively reduce the NB debuff during all sieges. Eg. For all sieges, NB starts as 100%. Then every hour, it decreases by 10%.
imo both of these solutions can be implemented and would help close the power gap between smaller and larger alliances.
C. (issue with 1) Being able to pick NB times could be 'abused' (by players who are very responsive anyways) by selecting times when most enemy players are awake (ie. making it harder to be OPed/hit in general). Not sure what can be done about that... perhaps reducing the % effect of NB could help, but...
Note this issue kind of exists already with NB (players in different TZ to server with NB).
Background:
There is a spectrum on Grepo players, I'd say.
At one end you have the most active 'hardcore' players. They react to 90%+ of their alarms no matter the time and spend many hours a day here. You generally only find a handful of them in the top alliances (maybe up to 20 early game, and 5-10 or less later on) and they generally are responsible for the frontline of the alliance.
At the other end are the more casual players. Maybe they are busy IRL, or don't want to commit as much to this game. They might not respond to alarms at night/work or even have any at all, and would generally spend less hours.
Now, I believe both are important - while the most active are generally the most aggressive and carry the alliance, the less active are responsible for their supporting role - they make up the bulk of their alliance. In recent times, I'd say the casual players are becoming even more important in an ally as there are fewer 'hardcore' players than there might have been a few years ago. So although the super active players might not like it (and I think they make up a larger part of this forum's community), I think we need to accept that a majority of the playerbase is likely struggling with the activity demands of this game, and it is probably for the best we lower them - at least in more casual worlds. A lot of players can't or aren't willing to respond to alarms in the middle of the night/work to play this game, while top alliances continue to demand players to do so, and perhaps we should look into doing something about that.
Some evidence supporting this is players frequently leaving early-mid world when they can no longer handle the pressure of losing units and cities when caught offline. Also, I feel like there has been an increasing usage over the years of illegal scripts that dodge/spell/militia when you're offline. All this probably points towards what I've said.
I'd like to see less of an emphasis on responding to your alarm (some consider it skill, yes, it can be, but is heavily dependent on your situation IRL) in terms of what makes a player 'good' in this game. I would say the Alarm is overpowered atm, and this proposal could help fix that and keep more casual players in the game.
Last edited: