Feedback Province Buildings (Battlegrounds)

[DeletedUser10047]

What is the effect of having multiple Traps buildings? Do they stack (with two Traps, there is a 90% chance of doubling attrition; what about 3 Traps)? Or are they independent (with two Traps, there is a possibility that neither Traps fires - 1 attrition, only one Traps fires - 2 attrition, both Traps fire - 3 attrition)?

 

[Dan 77]

@beelzebob666 Yeah, that's why I wrote:

Yes, so the Observatory can provide some higher attrition level from the beginning - or some defensive bonus on top of the attrition (two sides of the same coin, right?). Or some another bonus to Observatory should be added (the Support Pool for GvG, another for GBG), for example and best as Watchtower and Siege Camp have...

 

[DeletedUser10047]

What is the effect of having multiple Traps buildings? Do they stack (with two Traps, there is a 90% chance of doubling attrition; what about 3 Traps)? Or are they independent (with two Traps, there is a possibility that neither Traps fires - 1 attrition, only one Traps fires - 2 attrition, both Traps fire - 3 attrition)?

Any response to this, please?

 

[LastWarrior]

all 3 work from one sector bot not sure if you have sieges either side

 

[mbk28]

Hi,

it will be nice if we can have a countdown to know when it' will be finish, thanks

 

[CrashBoom]

Hi,

it will be nice if we can have a countdown to know when it' will be finish, thanks

there is already a countdown

 

[LastWarrior]

all siege camps in sectors next to the one being attacked count

 

[Dudettas]

What is the effect of having multiple Traps buildings? Do they stack (with two Traps, there is a 90% chance of doubling attrition; what about 3 Traps)? Or are they independent (with two Traps, there is a possibility that neither Traps fires - 1 attrition, only one Traps fires - 2 attrition, both Traps fire - 3 attrition)?

The attrition remains the same so if they provide a chance of doubling the attrition that is unchanged, but the % chance does stack. Apologies for the delay in responding to you.

 

[DeletedUser8858]

Silly question maybe but for clarity, how do siege camps vs traps behave? If one has say 5 siege camps adjacent @ 120% chance no attrition vs 2 traps @ 90% chance double attrition?

Seems many guilds are just building siege camps everywhere.

 

[beelzebob666]

Silly question maybe but for clarity, how do siege camps vs traps behave? If one has say 5 siege camps adjacent @ 120% chance no attrition vs 2 traps @ 90% chance double attrition?

Seems many guilds are just building siege camps everywhere.

As the siege camps set your attrition increase to zero it does not matter in which order they activate...

(1x2)x0=0 (traps first)
(1x0)x2=0 (siege camps first)

 

[Matteozzzo]

There is a specific guild role to build province buildings. It would be useful to have a specific role to put a siege on a province, too.

 

[beelzebob666]

There is a specific guild role to build province buildings. It would be useful to have a specific role to put a siege on a province, too.

No would it not because it would limit the players actions if the guild lead is too inactive.

Another suggestion I have read does comply with the concept better:
Have an option to disallow sieges for specific provinces. Maybe even limit that option to provinces that are currently neighbors to the ones the guild holds.

 

[Emberguard]

As the siege camps set your attrition increase to zero it does not matter in which order they activate...

(1x2)x0=0 (traps first)
(1x0)x2=0 (siege camps first)

It matters because it’s dependant on assumptions of how it’s programmed. There’s so many ways it could have been programmed.

Those assumptions would determine whether one concludes that traps going first results in a 2, 1 or 0. You’re assuming the siege is a multiple of 0 and not a +0, attrition = 0 or skipping over anything that hasn’t gone yet. And that's just half of the equation

It’s a pretty logical assumption. But still an assumption unless you’ve had it confirmed

 

[qaccy]

@Emberguard The wording on siege camps and watchtowers explicitly says attrition does not increase when their effect activates. Additionally, the wording on traps and decoys uses the word 'double', which implies some sort of multiplication and as we know, any multiplication involving zero results in a product of zero.

The above is how it should work, at least. If it can be observed that attrition is gained in a sector with adjacent watchtowers/siege camps adding up to at least 100%, that's a bug based on the wording Inno went with when describing the effects of the buildings.

 

[Emberguard]

It very likely does work that way and makes logical sense. Just if that conclusion is based on an assumption of how it's worked out and not either an official statement or testing then there's always the chance of error.

 

[beelzebob666]

It very likely does work that way and makes logical sense. Just if that conclusion is based on an assumption of how it's worked out and not either an official statement or testing then there's always the chance of error.

I have read an explanation for a similar question by a moderator of the German FoE forums...

 

[Emberguard]

I have read an explanation for a similar question by a moderator of the German FoE forums...

Good enough then.

 

[DeletedUser8858]

Well that explains why dominant guilds are just building siege camps everywhere. Giant I win button to negate attrition as many tiles can easily be adjacent to 4+ siege camps.

Seems poorly thought out imo, cost seems weak compared to the power.

 

[beelzebob666]

Seems poorly thought out imo, cost seems weak compared to the power.

You miss the point that siege cams take quite some time to get build. If the province gets taken by thf opponent in that time the build costs are just wasted.
Also they are not as cheap as you say. They cost a third of what a lvl80 arc produces over the course of a single battleground... Guilds that have been hoarding goods (AF+) for quite some time now might have a buffer that allow more generous spending, but in the long run...

 

[Dan 77]

You miss the point that siege cams take quite some time to get build. If the province gets taken by thf opponent in that time the build costs are just wasted.
Also they are not as cheap as you say. They cost a third of what a lvl80 arc produces over the course of a single battleground... Guilds that have been hoarding goods (AF+) for quite some time now might have a buffer that allow more generous spending, but in the long run...

They are quickly built in comparison to the rest of buildings... 1-2 hours only... which is shorter time than new province's protection, unlike the most of buildings (Inno wants us to spend diamonds).
For our guild, even 20 Siege Camps per day (one costs 3 000) are cheap, without taking anything from stocks in treasury. Our income is 60 000 goods per day to the guild treasury.
I agree with @Forgery