Progressive Insurance

[TheMouse]

A simple idea, make the insurance from killed units progressive, according to percentage of score lost. IE: The first 0%-10% of troops you lose give no insurance, 10%-25% gives 10% insurance, 25%-50% gives 20% insurance, etc. The actual values of course would need to be tweaked and modified. This could be done with a three tick memory, so that if you lose 10% of the value of your troops per tick, you end up getting into the 30% bracket.

As an example, say you own £1000 worth of troops.
Tick 1 you lose £100 worth of troops, getting you no insurance.
Tick 2 you lose another £100 of troops, getting you £10. (10% of 10% of £1000)
Tick 3 you lose a further £100 of troops, getting you £15. (10% of 5% of £1000 + %20 of 5% of £1000)
And on the Fourth tick, it would forget about Tick 1, and everything would be calculated against the value at Tick 2 and losses since Tick 2.

In this way, getting wiped completely could get you up to say, 50% insurance. If you take minimal losses however, you may get no insurance.

And of course you could put modifiers on it for attacking at 30%-35% range or adrenaline rushes.

 

[Davs]

Sounds complicated, but I think I follow you.

My only issue is that 50% insurance seems a bit more than you should be getting (imo). Maybe lower it to a max of 25%?

Other than that it's a nice idea.

 

[Walking_Death]

Sounds complicated, but I think I follow you.

My only issue is that 50% insurance seems a bit more than you should be getting (imo). Maybe lower it to a max of 25%?

Other than that it's a nice idea.

nothing wrong with a max of 50% for solos

 

[TheMouse]

yeah, 50% was just a thought, something that would be nice to have if you get completely zeroed. It might be a tad high, but I think 25% may be a tad low, but we can leave that up to the Azzinator.

 

[timtadams]

Sounds complicated, but I think I follow you.

My only issue is that 50% insurance seems a bit more than you should be getting (imo). Maybe lower it to a max of 25%?

Other than that it's a nice idea.

nothing wrong with a max of 50% for solos

Considering solos already have AR, i dont think they need an edge over allied players. After all, this is supposed to be an allied game

On the original suggestion, i cant really see an issue with it (apart from 50% being a bit high). But i dont really see the need for it

 

[TheMouse]

The impetus would be to give a lower ranked alliance more of an ability to bounce back from a significant battle with a higher ranked alliance, while still doing damage to them.

Would encourage and assist resistances, and help those getting zeroed. There probably isn't a current "need" for it, but it seems like in the past the percentage insurance has flopped around because either the high ranked players were getting too much, or the low ranked players weren't getting enough.

 

[Walking_Death]

Sounds complicated, but I think I follow you.

My only issue is that 50% insurance seems a bit more than you should be getting (imo). Maybe lower it to a max of 25%?

Other than that it's a nice idea.

nothing wrong with a max of 50% for solos

Considering solos already have AR, i dont think they need an edge over allied players. After all, this is supposed to be an allied game

On the original suggestion, i cant really see an issue with it (apart from 50% being a bit high). But i dont really see the need for it

since when ? Ah well, thats a different topic, and true, solos have antirape, but what happens when they get wiped anyway?

 

[timtadams]

Sounds complicated, but I think I follow you.

My only issue is that 50% insurance seems a bit more than you should be getting (imo). Maybe lower it to a max of 25%?

Other than that it's a nice idea.

nothing wrong with a max of 50% for solos

Considering solos already have AR, i dont think they need an edge over allied players. After all, this is supposed to be an allied game

On the original suggestion, i cant really see an issue with it (apart from 50% being a bit high). But i dont really see the need for it

since when ? Ah well, thats a different topic, and true, solos have antirape, but what happens when they get wiped anyway?

Well, they get a nice AR mod to give them a chance to recover, and they still get 30% insurance/injuries (is it 30%?)

 

[Walking_Death]

quotes removed to prevent pyramid. And I dunno, perhaps. If Azzer wants it to be :X

 

[TheMouse]

I think the current insurance rate is 20%...

 

[timtadams]

I think the current insurance rate is 20%...

After doing calculations on units i lost and the insurance i got, it is indeed 20%

And i do think that it could be increased. I dont know about solos ahving more though...
of course all solos would be for more insurance, but i dont know about allied players. They might not be all against it, but they might feel ripped off if it ended up happening.

 

[willymchilybily]

isee the purpose not a bad idea, but i kind of like it being a constant minimum at teh lower levels of % lost. if i only lose 10% of my troops it means i did well. so would like that insurance back as a reward. at the regular 20%. and if i lose more than that. it means i got pwned and probably fought against overwhelming odds, so I'd rather have a bonus. so the system is the same as what you propose but keep the base insurance but have bonus insurance on top?

i think it has the hidden purpose of being a nice leveler, the weaker the player the quicker they can rebuild, those that are good enough to take few lossesa rebuild a bit slower from those loses( but lost less in teh first place) evens it out.

 

[Davs]

Whilst initially I agreed, I've been thinking about it and I'm not sure I'm totally behind this suggestion anymore.

Part of this game is that when you get pummelled, you have to grow back. 20% base insurance makes that growth a little easier, but doesn't take to too much of an extreme that means you can carelessly through away your troops on stupid attacks and just bounce back. Any extra insurance I think would be a little ridiculous (much like a few rounds ago when we had higher insurance and higher base bounty, in which it was almost impossible to take major losses in an attack - which was just stupid imo)

 

[TheMouse]

Well if the max insurance were more like 25%, which you'd only get if you got zeroed, Then it would be hardly a difference to those getting zeroed currently, but would hurt those who do the zeroing considerably.

 

[pinpower]

Whilst initially I agreed, I've been thinking about it and I'm not sure I'm totally behind this suggestion anymore.

Part of this game is that when you get pummelled, you have to grow back. 20% base insurance makes that growth a little easier, but doesn't take to too much of an extreme that means you can carelessly through away your troops on stupid attacks and just bounce back. Any extra insurance I think would be a little ridiculous (much like a few rounds ago when we had higher insurance and higher base bounty, in which it was almost impossible to take major losses in an attack - which was just stupid imo)

Don't want to just whack in a "QFT" again but this is exactly what i was thinking.

I dont like the idea of making people harder to kill. I don't think we need any increased insurance for anyone (certainly not giving solo's a huge boost). I think the problem is with the mentality that dying is horrifically awful and the end of your round! Back when i first started playing we largely had no insurance (it was a dev only for solo players) and people seemed far less stressed about having to rebuild. IMO thats half the fun!!

So yeah, its a nice idea but anything which significantly raises insurance again isn't a good idea IMO.

 

[Davs]

(it was a dev only for solo players)

I wouldn't mind going back to that tbh.