This topic is closed

Restore Balance to the Game

75 Replies
djmoody
12 May, 2017, 8:28 PM UTC

As a game leveller I suggested a mechanic where league strikes could be have more than 3 members.

BUT as you add more members an increasingly putative cap should apply to the league strike.

This would allow smaller leagues to strike with meaningful hammers while not allowing the uber hammers to get any bigger. I quite like this balance method. Leveling the playing field by letting more people have a chance at launching a major attack. Effectively closing the gap between the biggest and normal sized hammers.

I posted a lot more about the idea in a thread to a CM but it got totally ignored because its a cracking and amazing idea.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
brunsonthomas
Moderator
12 May, 2017, 8:31 PM UTC
djmoody said:

As a game leveller I suggested a mechanic where league strikes could be have more than 3 members.

BUT as you add more members an increasingly putative cap should apply to the league strike.

This would allow smaller leagues to strike with meaningful hammers while not allowing the uber hammers to get any bigger. I quite like this balance method. Leveling the playing field by letting more people have a chance at launching a major attack. Effectively closing the gap between the biggest and normal sized hammers.

I posted a lot more about the idea in a thread to a CM but it got totally ignored because its a cracking and amazing idea.

Did you send it as a Suggestion so it could be sent to the developers? If not please submit as a Suggestion this might be a good thing.
UTC +5:00
BiohazarD
Moderator
13 May, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

djmoody said:


As a game leveller I suggested a mechanic where league strikes could be have more than 3 members.

BUT as you add more members an increasingly putative cap should apply to the league strike.

This would allow smaller leagues to strike with meaningful hammers while not allowing the uber hammers to get any bigger. I quite like this balance method. Leveling the playing field by letting more people have a chance at launching a major attack. Effectively closing the gap between the biggest and normal sized hammers.

I posted a lot more about the idea in a thread to a CM but it got totally ignored because its a cracking and amazing idea.

A cap?   Noooooooo.  Then I'll never achieve my dream of sending a 10 million pikeman raid :O

But seriously, this does sound like a good idea (it just needs some refining). 
UTC +0:00
cat in the hat
14 May, 2017, 8:51 AM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


It has already been discussed on forum. We will not reverse the update which happened 2 years ago :) It's a step forward for our game, and we want to see more epic battles.

I think Plarium wants to see epic wallets. Events dont gve troops back for losses taken. They give occult troops only out for reward. The horrible heat events and some xp events give a few bestiary troops but pointless.

Event are misleading that your getting rewarded to participate but thats the scandel to convince you, you need to spend. As they spam you with spending money everytime you login to game. Its just a self promotion to developers.


All the epic wallets they seen already makes them want to make more updates. The "influence "  in game could be the scam its self but what do I know. I dont work for this company.

UTC +6:00
DrFondles
Moderator
14 May, 2017, 9:16 AM UTC
djmoody said:

As a game leveller I suggested a mechanic where league strikes could be have more than 3 members.

BUT as you add more members an increasingly putative cap should apply to the league strike.

This would allow smaller leagues to strike with meaningful hammers while not allowing the uber hammers to get any bigger. I quite like this balance method. Leveling the playing field by letting more people have a chance at launching a major attack. Effectively closing the gap between the biggest and normal sized hammers.

I posted a lot more about the idea in a thread to a CM but it got totally ignored because its a cracking and amazing idea.

Gives a good way for everyone to still enjoy hitting beacons :) Even if takes 10 people in a single attack. I like where this idea could go in the future
Josh/Synergy S3
UTC +0:00
Snowgoon
14 May, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

djmoody said:


As a game leveller I suggested a mechanic where league strikes could be have more than 3 members.

Leveling the playing field by letting more people have a chance at launching a major attack.

If losses had been maintained at 1:1 then none of this would be necessary - This entire thread would be unnecessary


If two equal armies fight then we should expect both to lose 50%

If 1 million defense is attacked by 9 million offense then both players should lose 900k

If 1 million defense is attacked by 99 million offense then each player should lose 990k

etc

B / (A+B) - http://prnt.sc/bgrn44


The problem is that armies can be 'overwhelmed' and that attacking army size is not capped for stormfall beacons (but are capped in other games - http://prnt.sc/f77qnb    )

Ask yourself why

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way - Pink Floyd - http://prnt.sc/dv923b
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
15 May, 2017, 4:38 AM UTC

Snowgoon said:


djmoody said:


As a game leveller I suggested a mechanic where league strikes could be have more than 3 members.

Leveling the playing field by letting more people have a chance at launching a major attack.

If losses had been maintained at 1:1 then none of this would be necessary - This entire thread would be unnecessary


If two equal armies fight then we should expect both to lose 50%

If 1 million defense is attacked by 9 million offense then both players should lose 900k

If 1 million defense is attacked by 99 million offense then each player should lose 990k

etc

B / (A+B) - http://prnt.sc/bgrn44


The problem is that armies can be 'overwhelmed' and that attacking army size is not capped for stormfall beacons (but are capped in other games - http://prnt.sc/f77qnb    )

Ask yourself why

Oh that is easy; Its all about the sapphires/money. 


UTC +2:00
Jezebel
15 May, 2017, 5:21 AM UTC
djmoody said:

As a game leveller I suggested a mechanic where league strikes could be have more than 3 members.

BUT as you add more members an increasingly putative cap should apply to the league strike.

This would allow smaller leagues to strike with meaningful hammers while not allowing the uber hammers to get any bigger. I quite like this balance method. Leveling the playing field by letting more people have a chance at launching a major attack. Effectively closing the gap between the biggest and normal sized hammers.

I posted a lot more about the idea in a thread to a CM but it got totally ignored because its a cracking and amazing idea.

why not just institute force limits on beacon strikes then? or institute a limit to the size of army a person can actually have - seriously how big of an army would someone actually NEED if some limits were set across the board the game would be an even playing field for everyone - two years ago 50 million was big for an offensive army now an army that size is more common - do we NEED to have armies that have over 100 million of force?  Also add more balance for defense armies.
UTC +0:00
djmoody
15 May, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

Well the problem with force limits is it can make some targets invulnerable.

To run with an example lets say the force cap on beacon strikes in 50m.

We all know how the siege mechanics work. A 150m beacon would for all intents and purposes become completely invulnerable. The losses needed to take it down would be WAY in excess of 150m, to the point where all but the biggest coiners would simply resign themselves to leaving it alone.

Up the cap because of that and you soon get back to the point where smaller leagues can be wiped out by bigger forces. Back to square one.

The problem with the game isn't dreaming up mechanics that will make it work. It's the ridiculous imbalance that Plarium how allowed through instant troop coining which means pretty much however you structure the mechanics you can't make a workable, enjoyable meaningful game.

I liken this game to chess. It should be a strategy game where you pit your whits against your opponent, considering their possible plays/moves and planning your counter strategies.

Under Plarium my opponent starts with 16 queens and the game is rendered pointless.

When I find the time I will find and post the >3 league strike idea. It for sure won't "fix" the game as that is impossible without removing the dumb coined armies. But it would make the game a little bit better. 

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
15 May, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC
djmoody said:

Well the problem with force limits is it can make some targets invulnerable.

To run with an example lets say the force cap on beacon strikes in 50m.

We all know how the siege mechanics work. A 150m beacon would for all intents and purposes become completely invulnerable. The losses needed to take it down would be WAY in excess of 150m, to the point where all but the biggest coiners would simply resign themselves to leaving it alone.

Up the cap because of that and you soon get back to the point where smaller leagues can be wiped out by bigger forces. Back to square one.

The problem with the game isn't dreaming up mechanics that will make it work. It's the ridiculous imbalance that Plarium how allowed through instant troop coining which means pretty much however you structure the mechanics you can't make a workable, enjoyable meaningful game.

I liken this game to chess. It should be a strategy game where you pit your whits against your opponent, considering their possible plays/moves and planning your counter strategies.

Under Plarium my opponent starts with 16 queens and the game is rendered pointless.

When I find the time I will find and post the >3 league strike idea. It for sure won't "fix" the game as that is impossible without removing the dumb coined armies. But it would make the game a little bit better. 

Well, then the problem is 2 fold, the limit of attack, and limit of defence. DEF should have an adventage in form of being entrenched, and attacking should be costly, but not too costly. BUT! The use of spies to find out what units is at the beacon with the correct troops adds tactics. I know it could take an awfull lot of spies to get that info, but imho taking becons and degrade fortress's shouldn't be a easy undertaking. 
UTC +2:00
djmoody
15 May, 2017, 10:13 PM UTC

Well in theory defence has a massive advantage at beacons and fortresses. An entire league of 160 people can defend and only 3 people can attack.

It's just that due to uncontrolled coining, for a limited few that 3 can be billions and bigger than even the biggest leagues defence.

Spying is completely unnecessary. If you understand the mechanics you can read beacon defence from even very small test hits. That is skill and tactics. Building an enormous spy bomb on an alt isn't something to get excited about in my books (not saying you do that, but many do).

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
15 May, 2017, 11:15 PM UTC

djmoody said:


Well in theory defence has a massive advantage at beacons and fortresses. An entire league of 160 people can defend and only 3 people can attack.

It's just that due to uncontrolled coining, for a limited few that 3 can be billions and bigger than even the biggest leagues defence.

Spying is completely unnecessary. If you understand the mechanics you can read beacon defence from even very small test hits. That is skill and tactics. Building an enormous spy bomb on an alt isn't something to get excited about in my books (not saying you do that, but many do).

Imho, if you look at it sort of realistic. A fortified position got only room for so much troops, before you can't add more. And as an attacker you can only field so much the field of battle give room for, or else you will trample down your own troops, or press the frontline to hard. 


The whole mechanic should have been changed. 


In EVE, Corps/alliances can have starbases and structures. Other players can attack these, but they will have timers. So you can't just walk over them with a massive force. Initial attack put them into a reinforced state. In Stormfall this could be a "lay siege". The reinforced stage last for x time and give the defenders time to figure out a response, or call it a lost cause. Stormfall lack a lot of tactics and gameplay for beacons and fortress's.

A game where overwhelming force is the end of all, is just terrible. If you played any TW games. And in particular siege battles. Few can stand against the many with proper tactics and right units, but there is a limit to what you can deal with. At same time, attacking yourself with the right units and you can make an siege rather painless yet dull affair.

The game is what it is, we suffer from how terrible the game become. I say become, because I assume from the early days, what we see these days was not possible back then. So In a way Plarium screwed the game by chase the sapphires without adjust the game mechanics at same time. Ignoring consequence of changes. Now we probably reached a critical mass that is so flawed it would take a massive undertaking by Plarium to fix, and at this age and time and flash being what it is. I don't see them do that. The more "p2w" features and coining options being added to this game will just speed up the demise of the game. 

There is those that will just shrug this off as doom and gloom, well so be it. We ride a train that is reaching the end of the line. But oh wait we got the Stormfall App now.... right. You cram flash into a stand alone client, because browsers stop support the use of flash due to security reasons and the discontinued support of. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make the kitty any less dead.


Imho it would been better if Plarium took the experience they got from Stormfall, both good and bad. If not re-make it, so make something similar in a new engine and start over from scratch and actually have players beta test it before go live. The base concept is still sound. The current execution is not.


UTC +2:00
djmoody
16 May, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

I agree about the timer mechanic. It's a great way to go.

I recently played Grepolis for about half a year. It's constant hardcore PvP and people can take everyone you have and literally wipe you off the map. But at the same time it has a 2 attack timer mechanic which means you don't have to be online 24/7, if someone makes a play for your stuff you know roughly when the second attack will be and both attacker and defender can therefore be online for the fight that decides whether a city is taken or not.

It's still a very hardcore game though.

Eve is a hardcore game too. If you are an alliance with assets out at risk you need to be active to defend them.

The plus side of Stormfall is that you can play very casually and at times of your choosing. While you are away you can catacomb all your stuff and be away as long as you like. It's a different style of gaming but actually suites me right now as I am not gaming much per day atm.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
16 May, 2017, 11:29 PM UTC

djmoody said:


I agree about the timer mechanic. It's a great way to go.

I recently played Grepolis for about half a year. It's constant hardcore PvP and people can take everyone you have and literally wipe you off the map. But at the same time it has a 2 attack timer mechanic which means you don't have to be online 24/7, if someone makes a play for your stuff you know roughly when the second attack will be and both attacker and defender can therefore be online for the fight that decides whether a city is taken or not.

It's still a very hardcore game though.

Eve is a hardcore game too. If you are an alliance with assets out at risk you need to be active to defend them.

The plus side of Stormfall is that you can play very casually and at times of your choosing. While you are away you can catacomb all your stuff and be away as long as you like. It's a different style of gaming but actually suites me right now as I am not gaming much per day atm.

Yeah EVE is hardcore, but with the new citadels they introduced in the game. Peoples stuff inside is safe, anywhere unless in wormhole space. If the structure get destroyed, your assets get moved to closest NPC station (that decision did create a lot of heath on the devs btw, but they had to wage the desire for players to "get stuff from others" vs the desire to have players populate space. . Which probably could be a huge pain too if its in hostile space. But its not a total loss, also EVE work quite different as you would be silly to put all your assets in one location.

I agree that Stormfall can be casual and you can pick it up again after be away for a while, but so you can with most mmo's out there. When you return to Stormfall the chance is you return to a lot more stuff to spend cash on. When you return to most other mmo's for a extended leave, you actually return to a lot more added (actual) content.

My biggest gripe with Stormfall is that every action I do outside simple raiding or bash someone, is a "loss venture". Invested time and effort no way reflect the possible gain in so called rewards.   
UTC +2:00
BiohazarD
Moderator
17 May, 2017, 12:05 AM UTC
Gadheras said:

djmoody said:


I agree about the timer mechanic. It's a great way to go.

I recently played Grepolis for about half a year. It's constant hardcore PvP and people can take everyone you have and literally wipe you off the map. But at the same time it has a 2 attack timer mechanic which means you don't have to be online 24/7, if someone makes a play for your stuff you know roughly when the second attack will be and both attacker and defender can therefore be online for the fight that decides whether a city is taken or not.

It's still a very hardcore game though.

Eve is a hardcore game too. If you are an alliance with assets out at risk you need to be active to defend them.

The plus side of Stormfall is that you can play very casually and at times of your choosing. While you are away you can catacomb all your stuff and be away as long as you like. It's a different style of gaming but actually suites me right now as I am not gaming much per day atm.

Yeah EVE is hardcore, but with the new citadels they introduced in the game. Peoples stuff inside is safe, anywhere unless in wormhole space. If the structure get destroyed, your assets get moved to closest NPC station (that decision did create a lot of heath on the devs btw, but they had to wage the desire for players to "get stuff from others" vs the desire to have players populate space. . Which probably could be a huge pain too if its in hostile space. But its not a total loss, also EVE work quite different as you would be silly to put all your assets in one location.

I agree that Stormfall can be casual and you can pick it up again after be away for a while, but so you can with most mmo's out there. When you return to Stormfall the chance is you return to a lot more stuff to spend cash on. When you return to most other mmo's for a extended leave, you actually return to a lot more added (actual) content.

My biggest gripe with Stormfall is that every action I do outside simple raiding or bash someone, is a "loss venture". Invested time and effort no way reflect the possible gain in so called rewards.   
Pvp can be profitable, you just have to be careful about it. 
UTC +0:00
BiohazarD
Moderator
17 May, 2017, 12:17 AM UTC
djmoody said:

Well in theory defence has a massive advantage at beacons and fortresses. An entire league of 160 people can defend and only 3 people can attack.

It's just that due to uncontrolled coining, for a limited few that 3 can be billions and bigger than even the biggest leagues defence.

Spying is completely unnecessary. If you understand the mechanics you can read beacon defence from even very small test hits. That is skill and tactics. Building an enormous spy bomb on an alt isn't something to get excited about in my books (not saying you do that, but many do).

Agreed, trying to spy beacons/fortresses is just a waste of resources.  30k pikemen will tell you almost as much as a huge spy bomb and only takes a few weeks for 3 people to build.  
UTC +0:00
1667429 users registered; 34020 topics; 253931 post; our newest member:valeeva.oksana