DeletedUser10047
Guest
Proposal:
Change the probability of Siege Camps and Watchtowers to do multiplicative stacking instead of additive stacking. In order to maintain balance, it might be necessary to also change Decoys and Traps to use multiplicative stacking.
Reason:
According to The Envoy:
I take this to mean that players should not be able to do almost unlimited encounters a day. And yet the placement of multiple Siege Camps allows provinces to be conquered while accumulating 0 attrition. While Siege Camps can counter the effect of Traps, there is nothing to counter the effect of Siege Camps. An effective Siege Camp strategy allows guild members to engage in almost unlimited encounters.
Details:
Currently, the abilities of province buildings stack additively. One Siege Camp provides a 24% chance of 0 attrition. Two Siege Camps provide a 48% chance of 0 attrition. Four Siege camps provide a 96% chance of 0 attrition. And with over 4 Siege Camps, no attrition accumulates.
With this change, one Siege Camp would still provide a 24% chance of 0 attrition. Two Siege Camps would provide a 1 - (1 - .24)^2 or 42.2% chance of 0 attrition. Four Siege Camps would provide a 1 - (1 - .24)^4 or 66.6% chance of 0 attrition.
In order to maintain balance, Traps and Decoys may also needs to undergo the same modification. The costs of the buildings may also need adjustment.
Summary:
As currently implemented, Siege Camps can be used in a way that appears to violate the intent of the game designers. This proposal is intended to restore the intent without eliminating the usefulness of the Siege Camp.
Change the probability of Siege Camps and Watchtowers to do multiplicative stacking instead of additive stacking. In order to maintain balance, it might be necessary to also change Decoys and Traps to use multiplicative stacking.
Reason:
According to The Envoy:
If it was possible for a player to play all day, it means that those players could contribute so much that all players with normal contribution amounts (let's say ~20 advances) would feel as if they are not contributing at all. Just imagine if someone who "broke" the 1750% attack penalty wall could go to 1000+ attrition. How would the small guild member who "only" contributed up to 20 attrition feel in comparison?
I take this to mean that players should not be able to do almost unlimited encounters a day. And yet the placement of multiple Siege Camps allows provinces to be conquered while accumulating 0 attrition. While Siege Camps can counter the effect of Traps, there is nothing to counter the effect of Siege Camps. An effective Siege Camp strategy allows guild members to engage in almost unlimited encounters.
Details:
Currently, the abilities of province buildings stack additively. One Siege Camp provides a 24% chance of 0 attrition. Two Siege Camps provide a 48% chance of 0 attrition. Four Siege camps provide a 96% chance of 0 attrition. And with over 4 Siege Camps, no attrition accumulates.
With this change, one Siege Camp would still provide a 24% chance of 0 attrition. Two Siege Camps would provide a 1 - (1 - .24)^2 or 42.2% chance of 0 attrition. Four Siege Camps would provide a 1 - (1 - .24)^4 or 66.6% chance of 0 attrition.
In order to maintain balance, Traps and Decoys may also needs to undergo the same modification. The costs of the buildings may also need adjustment.
Summary:
As currently implemented, Siege Camps can be used in a way that appears to violate the intent of the game designers. This proposal is intended to restore the intent without eliminating the usefulness of the Siege Camp.