A way to encourage players to stay on attacks/defence

[Polo]

Currently, most players are massive scorequeens (particularly those "ftw" players). If an attack won't be won whilst suffering nearly no losses, attackers recall. If a defence won't be won whilst suffering nearly no losses, defenders recall (and the person under attack sends out).

The game has mechanics that attempt to address that. Previously, there was experience, now there's injuries and insurance as well as bounty for attackers. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be enough.

I suggest that defenders gain 25-75% (based on the formula discussed later) insurance on what they lose whilst attackers gained 10-50% (again, formula, later) bounty on what they kill (this is on all troops killed, not just their target's).

Rather than using any of the current H/F/Eff calculation as they seem to be quite inaccurate, the formula for calculating the values will be as follows:

DefScore = Target's score + score of defending units
AttScore = Score of attacking units

DefScore uses the target's full score rather than just units so that players who sit on large amounts of acres with very few troops don't benefit from this system
Using unit scores has 2 advantages: players can't send along 1 troop to screw the calculations and it allows for splitting/faking mobs

DefRatio = minimum(AttScore/DefScore , 2)
AttRatio = minimum(DefScore/AttScore , 2)

This means the ratios max out at 2

DefInsurance% = 25 + 25 * DefRatio
AttBounty% = 25 * AttRatio

Effectively, this means:
Attacker 2x > Defender => 75% insurance and 12.5% bounty
Attacker = Defender => 50% insurance and 25% bounty
Attacker 2x < Defender => 37.5% insurance and 50% bounty

These formulas can, of course, be tweaked depending on what people think is fair.

Anyway, these insurance/bounty values should encourage people to stay and fight more than they currently do as well as encourage people to have "fairer" fights. Hopefully making the game more enjoyable for everyone.

 

[Iamsmart]

The thought behind it is quite nice.

75% insurance 12.5% bounty, does that mean the attackers get 75% insurance as well? Or 0%?

And if they're even? Both 50%, or what?

 

[Polo]

I was thinking it could be insurance for defenders only and bounty for attackers only. Of course, attackers could get insurance too but the values would need to be altered. It's also possible defenders could get bounty although that doesn't make much sense.

 

[Iamsmart]

and poms?

 

[Dimitar]

Units that don't kill could just gain insurance and/or eff instead of bounty, still based on the formulae. I like this idea but the insurance ammounts seem a bit crazy. What's the point in attacking someone at your own score, nevermind the defence, when he'll just gain back half of what he losses.

If a defence won't be won whilst suffering nearly no losses, defenders recall (and the person under attack sends out).

I also disagree with this statement. Defenders don't seem to care that much about having no losses, they generally think that doing more damage than taking is good, because the damage they take is split between a few players. That's why I think The 75 and 50% insurance is a bit too much, but as a whole I like the idea

 

[Polo]

and poms?

Poms are always a problem. As Shadowbane said, they could receive insurance instead.

Units that don't kill could just gain insurance and/or eff instead of bounty, still based on the formulae. I like this idea but the insurance ammounts seem a bit crazy. What's the point in attacking someone at your own score, nevermind the defence, when he'll just gain back half of what he losses.

If a defence won't be won whilst suffering nearly no losses, defenders recall (and the person under attack sends out).

I also disagree with this statement. Defenders don't seem to care that much about having no losses, they generally think that doing more damage than taking is good, because the damage they take is split between a few players. That's why I think The 75 and 50% insurance is a bit too much, but as a whole I like the idea

Well the formulas can easily be balanced to give more reasonable values.

 

[Dax]

Generally speaking, I'll put a fair weight of trust in any suggestion you make Polo - I think at this stage, any idea that is feasible and not totally stupid should be considered and tested, just to see what the outcome would be. Shove the idea in a free and open private world, and find the holes in the equations, I guess.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that every high ranked player is a scorequeen by any level - I've taken plenty of losses just to get BR's this round, and I've been hovering the top 20-30 for alot of the time. I think an issue is people haven't really experienced those huge old skool alliance battle reports where literally billions of units of all routes fire, and you get some obscene score damage on both sides. That is Bushtarion at it's best, and obviously the social groups add to that. Get more of those two things, and maybe we are halfway to a solution.

 

[CLem]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that every high ranked player is a scorequeen by any level

Read the first sentence of Polo's thread again please.

I really like this idea and I think most players will agree that it will put more motivation in staying against the odds. I will go a bit further and modify the level of honour and effective gain/loss based on this as well.

 

[Alcibiades]

I like the idea in general. My only concern is that increased insurance will leave those victims still in range after they get bashed. Or at least have them pop back into range once the money returns.

Perhaps this would be balanced out by having AR if solo and delayed value returns for allied players until they login or something. I don't know. But I feel like it is an issue to be addressed or at least considered.

 

[Zaheen]

^^

 

[Iamsmart]

Dunno, I like the idea's principle, but for some reason I just don't think it won't work, and I'm not sure exactly how to say why meh. Would be inbalanced for solo's in terms of AR for sure though.

 

[CFalcon]

http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3090 <- similar ideas.

Totally agree, game needs more incentives to stay for a fight. Game has reached a point where the majority know beforehand roughly how a battle will go, so hardly anyone stays on an attack if they aren't going to win easily.

As to the idea that "giving people more insurance/injuries will only keep them in range longer". WTF? That's basically saying the game should go and delete people's units and acres so they don't have the burden of staying in range so long. I for one would rather have a nice pile of insurance to log onto after a wiping, rather than the cheap and pointless satisfaction of being out of range. If I want to get out of range I'm quite capable of doing that myself.

 

[Davs]

I was thinking it could be insurance for defenders only and bounty for attackers only. Of course, attackers could get insurance too but the values would need to be altered. It's also possible defenders could get bounty although that doesn't make much sense.

If we keep the standard "base insurance" we already have (maybe reduce it or whatever) that could go to the attackers, so attackers will only ever get base insurance, no matter what the result of the formulae is. As for defenders getting bounty, I'm against this. As you say, it makes no sense .

I like the idea in general. My only concern is that increased insurance will leave those victims still in range after they get bashed. Or at least have them pop back into range once the money returns.

Perhaps this would be balanced out by having AR if solo and delayed value returns for allied players until they login or something. I don't know. But I feel like it is an issue to be addressed or at least considered.

I'm with Shadowbane on this one. Give slightly less insurance, so the score returned by insurance won't be quite so ridiculous, and therefore you're less likely to pop back into range. As Polo said, the values used in the formula are easy to change, so this can be sorted by a sort of trial and error approach in a public PW.

As to the idea that "giving people more insurance/injuries will only keep them in range longer". WTF? That's basically saying the game should go and delete people's units and acres so they don't have the burden of staying in range so long. I for one would rather have a nice pile of insurance to log onto after a wiping, rather than the cheap and pointless satisfaction of being out of range. If I want to get out of range I'm quite capable of doing that myself.

I see your point, but I have to disagree with you a bit. If I got a ton of insurance while I was still offline, yes I'd be able to buy back more troops - but it would make it easy to lose nearly all of my land. I am capable of stealing land, but it's bad enough to get online to see that you've lost all of your troops, it's another thing to see that you've lost all but 500 acres as well.

The other issue I see with getting too much insurance is that, from the attacker's point of view, if you attack someone in a rival alliance - you want them to be much smaller afterwards. If they get too much insurance back, you won't really be crushing the alliance as much as you want. 50% insurance for a defender being hit by someone their own size seems a bit much to me - but again, Polo's already said that this value can easily be changed if it proves to be too much.

 

[CFalcon]

As to the idea that "giving people more insurance/injuries will only keep them in range longer". WTF? That's basically saying the game should go and delete people's units and acres so they don't have the burden of staying in range so long. I for one would rather have a nice pile of insurance to log onto after a wiping, rather than the cheap and pointless satisfaction of being out of range. If I want to get out of range I'm quite capable of doing that myself.

I see your point, but I have to disagree with you a bit. If I got a ton of insurance while I was still offline, yes I'd be able to buy back more troops - but it would make it easy to lose nearly all of my land. I am capable of stealing land, but it's bad enough to get online to see that you've lost all of your troops, it's another thing to see that you've lost all but 500 acres as well.

The other issue I see with getting too much insurance is that, from the attacker's point of view, if you attack someone in a rival alliance - you want them to be much smaller afterwards. If they get too much insurance back, you won't really be crushing the alliance as much as you want. 50% insurance for a defender being hit by someone their own size seems a bit much to me - but again, Polo's already said that this value can easily be changed if it proves to be too much.

First point: just because you aren't in range of the original attacker does NOT mean that you won't lose all your land after a wiping. There will always be people who can attack you if you have no troops left. Again, I fail to see the logic behind out of range = no land loss = better.

Second point: Declare War. No insurance. Done.

 

[willymchilybily]

Second point: Declare War. No insurance. Done.

this is one aspect i do like. making declaring war more likely is a fun idea. if you're really out to kill a rival.

as mentioned amounts may be overkill. i remeber how much people complained when base insurance came out first time round and was 60% (that was iirc for any incoming not just fair fights). the idea was to encourage war. but no one did declare war.

one final point. i'd be concerned how bounties would stack up with rushes of high ranks giving more bounty. and then this increadsed base bounty. (i think you mentioned removing H/F in bounty/insurance calculations) but it may encourage still more people to bash if H/f is removed alltogether.

as 12.5% bounty from 0 losses is still better than 75% but wiping your self on some Defence that you dont know is real or fake.

I think penalizing bashing in some form of H/F should try to remain. getting increased base bounty on your head, for bashing, is always good. but suggesting soloutions for the complexity of intergratign two systems is beyond my level of effort for today. let alone making it possible to understand for new players, or anyone for that matter

 

[Dax]

Invisible H/F calcs should be made alot more obvious, especially concerning those that affect possible bounty earnings.
Bounty is there for a reason, you have played unfairly, therefore you should gain no protection from mass bashing {by lowering the bounty value of your staff}. In short, make bounty simple, what you see is what you get - Regardless of how many or who is attacking you.

 

[Zaheen]

Invisible H/F calcs should be made alot more obvious, especially concerning those that affect possible bounty earnings.
Bounty is there for a reason, you have played unfairly, therefore you should gain no protection from mass bashing {by lowering the bounty value of your staff}. In short, make bounty simple, what you see is what you get - Regardless of how many or who is attacking you.

Easy for you to say, and anybody else who runs their troops 24/7.

 

[Alcibiades]

I think the only currently invisible flag now for bounty earnings that should be made visible is the "Repeat Attack" counter. Anything else is irrelevant. Bounty should be considered a bonus to a proper attack; not the goal of an attack in and of itself. Killing for killing's sake is a part of what ruins this game for new and old players alike imo.

It's pretty obvious to more experienced players what will, and what will not constitute a "bounty rich" attack. The only problem remains, as always, with new players who will have trouble understanding the nuances of bounty hunting; which honestly doesn't faze me that much.

 

[Dimitar]

Killing for the sake of killing is probably the only thing that's been keeping me in the game. I found it fun to kill people without actually stealing land/seeds/whatever from the very first days I played bushtarion. Killing is the only actual "action" the game provides imo

 

[CFalcon]

Killing for the sake of killing is probably the only thing that's been keeping me in the game. I found it fun to kill people without actually stealing land/seeds/whatever from the very first days I played bushtarion. Killing is the only actual "action" the game provides imo

Agreed. Battles for the sake of battles should be encouraged, not discouraged.