## Can We Get the "Real Numbers" Please?

5 Replies
Test
24 August, 2017, 1:59 PM UTC

I'm pretty sure it's not a bug report (since I think this is intended). But it is a technical matter so I put it in this forum.

Currently, to be blunt, the "-hero stamina depletion%" are a straight up hoax (inaccurate, sham, plain wrong, scam, lie - take your pick).

And it's true for every place they appear - the attack reports, the bonus, and the skill/gear/study descriptions.

I'm not asking for the stamina cost to be reduced further, as much as I'm just asking to know the real number.

The following examples are just 2 specific ones out of many that I have had with Assailants from several types and all levels. Any player can reproduce or run his own test and come to the same results.

For Example:

During the first day of the recent OvO you had the bonus. The day before (no bonus) an attack on an Alpha cost me 1091 (or 1093, maybe 1097 I don't recall the specific but it was 1090-something and definitely below 1100).

With the bonus (-10%) and I also had a hero level-up (or 2?Don't remember) that added 1% more Reduction through the hero's skill. With the bonus, the cost was 998 and a mouse-over showed the following (1125 - 10%).

Do note that 1097*0.9 is 987.3, and the fact that if the bonus is applied as 10% of the total cost (as opposed to the cost you have after reduction) it should reduce even more than it does from 1097 (or any other number of an already-reduced cost).

That's regarding the bonus. (it's not 10%, it's less)

Regarding the attack reports:

They simply combine all your -% bonuses and show the sum as your reduction. That does not hold true.

(I bet the same goes with the Assailant Defense reduction, but as we don't yet know the concrete battle formula

in the game and how it combines Atk Def and Health I can't go into numbers)

For me that number sits somewhere between -60 and -65%. But let's go with the lower number and say I have -60%.

On the second OvO day (no bonus, and the last day of Nomads) I was conducting a small-scale Nomad genocide for Lumber my hyper-farming set and somewhere along the road my hero hit lvl 54. Prior to that, hitting a (5) Nomad cost 601.

After putting that point in a skill that promises (an extra) 1% depletion reduction (9.75-->10.75%) it went down to 597. That's less than a 1% decrease (more like 0.67%, less if there's rounded values involved).

And that would be IF 601 was my 100% cost. But it isn't.

Assuming the battle log reports aren't lying and it's only 40% of normal cost (it's a bit less in my case but let's go with that) and it should now go down to 39% the effective cost should have been 601*39/40, or just a bit under 586 => a reduction of 15 stamina per hit (instead I got a measly 4, which reflects a change of around 0.28% and not the promised 1%).

In short - can you fix the reports display and/or the skill description to mirror their actual, intended effect?

If what is written is the intended effect, then it's bugged and all stamina values players pay to attack assailants are significantly higher than what they should be.

UTC +2:00
Test
4 September, 2017, 8:20 PM UTC

I think that on such a core issue it's reasonable to expect a comment from the official staff within 10days.

Killing Assailants is currently:

1. The main focus of roughly 23% of total study (time&rss spent-wise).
2. A third of your hero's utility (economy, fights, assailants), with it's own unique skill tree.
3. The safest highest point-generation method in all worldwide tournament events.

And in such a core issue there's a huge, obvious deviation between the numbers and effects the game "sells" us and the ones actually happening.

It's done in all ways and forms, and the above post proves it in a very detailed manner.

With assailants being such a big tipping point in the game's balance I don't understand why there is 0 attention from the official staff on the topic with so many views (over 60 on a no-comments non-sticky topic is not "few" in this forum) in over 10 days.

Meanwhile official staff has posted over 20 posts dealing with things affected by the subject of this topic, including "Assailant of the Week", Worldwide tournament schedules, new biweekly assailants and the new Alpha assailants.

UTC +2:00
John the Fearless
5 September, 2017, 7:35 AM UTC

Dear Lord,

When it comes to designing a strategy game, developers are faced with many issues. One such issue is working out the balance of the game. Various methods are developed to make the player's progress smooth, to compensate for the gap between players of different Influence and to make the process of upgrading your Town appealing and interesting. A mathematical formula is used in game for this purpose in order to avoid any mistakes in calculations. A unique formula was designed for Throne: Kingdom at War to calculate the result of any given action by each player. The formula contains a multitude of mathematical operations. We would like to point out that the functionality of each calculation is repeatedly and painstakingly checked before the release of a new update to prevent errors in the game.

Best regards,

UTC +7:00
Test
5 September, 2017, 9:28 AM UTC

John the Fearless said:

Dear Lord,

When it comes to designing a strategy game, developers are faced with many issues. One such issue is working out the balance of the game. Various methods are developed to make the player's progress smooth, to compensate for the gap between players of different Influence and to make the process of upgrading your Town appealing and interesting. A mathematical formula is used in game for this purpose in order to avoid any mistakes in calculations. A unique formula was designed for Throne: Kingdom at War to calculate the result of any given action by each player. The formula contains a multitude of mathematical operations. We would like to point out that the functionality of each calculation is repeatedly and painstakingly checked before the release of a new update to prevent errors in the game.

Best regards,

That said, I feel I must stress a point:

That would be a great reply if I were asking you to reveal the formula, or change it.

I do not want to skew the game's balance. I just want the numbers to be real.

• If it reduces the depletion by x% then I expect it to say reduce by x%, and not y%.
• If it allows you x% more attacks (reduces depletion by 1/(1+x%) ) then I expect the item to say something like "allows you to preform x% more attacks for the same cost".
• If several reductions stack in a multiplicative manner (i.e. a -60% & -40% are -(1-(0.4*0.6))=-76%), I would expect the battle report not to claim I have a 100% reduction.

I don't want things to be cheaper. I want the numbers reported by the game to be the real deal I'm making when choosing my skills, gear or studies.

Just like the +boosts bonus does exactly what it says.

UTC +2:00
Jake
6 September, 2017, 1:24 PM UTC
I think they won't give these numbers cause it's part of balance imho
UTC +3:00
Test
6 September, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

Jake said:

I think they won't give these numbers cause it's part of balance imho

I don't see what balance has to do with it...

Simply put:

• The +10% boosts bonus does exactly what is says it does, and it isn't imbalanced that we know what it does.
Same with the other bonuses.
• Having +10% offense/health/defense on your hero's gear does exactly what it says it does, and nobody sees telling us the exact effect of that as "breaking the balance".
• When your hero's skill says it reduces 20% of your Upkeep that's exactly what it does. Still balanced....

I will repeat - I'm not asking for it to reduce more, I'm asking them to list the true number.

Here's what I'm asking: "If it reduces 5% so write 5%. If it instead reduces 1.234567% so write that instead."

UTC +2:00
1699586 users registered; 39525 topics; 264733 posts; our newest member:mustafaozysl