• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Rejected Change to Siege Camp/Watchtower values

  • Thread starter DeletedUser10047
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

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:
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.
 
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.

DeletedUser10315

Guest
A siege camp can only be used for adjacant provinces so one can't do unlimited advances and as far as I know you can only build 3 buildings for each province. But I'm down to the idea of making more balance, maybe by raising it's cost.
 

DeletedUser10047

Guest
A siege camp can only be used for adjacant provinces so one can't do unlimited advances and as far as I know you can only build 3 buildings for each province. But I'm down to the idea of making more balance, maybe by raising it's cost.
While at most 3 buildings can be built in any one province, the province being attacked could have 2, 3, or more adjacent provinces owned by the attacking guild. It is the total number of Siege Camps in all those adjacent provinces that determine the effect.
 

DeletedUser10265

Guest
Something must be done about Siege Camps and Traps.
Changing stacking to multiplicative is one way.
Setting a cap to (let's say at 75%) is another. The cap doesn't need to be the same for both types of buildings.
 
the multiplicative stacking idea you proposed sounds like the most logical solution. DO NOT RAISE THE COSTS please; province buildings are expensive enough as they are right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top