v2.6 tweak ideas

[Aeropagitica]

There's a difference between making a kill by attacking a kingdom multiple times until it's dead, and making a single 'last hit' to tag a kingdom that's clearly going to restore, and claim bounties as if you'd done some work.

Sounds like an issue of strategy. Noone said life (or the game) was fair!

[Kaz]

Strategic or otherwise, I won't be doing it that way.

If restores get tied to bounties (and I say if because the systems that would need to interact are totally unrelated), the bounty will be awarded to the player who actually forced the restore, not based on the last player to tag the kingdom (after the main event has taken place). It would also be logged as a `restore` bounty rather than a `kill` bounty.

Yes, that means that if you kill a kingdom AND they restore from death (and you did enough to get the restore bounty) you might get 2 bounties, one for the kill, one for forcing the restore. Alternatively, you might just get one for the kill, and someone else gets a bounty for the restore.

[Darnivan]

I think they are more interested in the hall of fame credit anyway.

[Dauthi]

If you do a restore bounty, you could have land as one of the bounty options?

The reason: You are only going to restore if you were warred down to a point that you feel you need to restore and you don't want to give the land away to your attacker. This gives the person who took the effort to beat you down an award worth having after forcing someone to restore. Maybe not 100% of land but like 25% or something. So if they were beaten down to 1k acres, and restore. The bounty you can claim is 250 acres of land.

[Kaz]

Dauthi, I'm confused as to what you're getting at.

It's not the case that "You are only going to restore if you were warred down to a point that you feel you need to restore and you don't want to give the land away to your attacker".

When I restore (after being taken for land), giving 'more' land away to the attacker is not on my mind at all. If I'm restoring, I couldn't care less if they keep on taking land while I wait for enough turns to restore. I just want to revert back to a bigger kingdom. Also, I may not even have lost an acre when I restore, I might be restoring because a sorcerer has flattened all my buildings and I don't want to be a parking lot. If the choice is 100k complete parking lot vs 50k acres 45k built, then I'd quite happily take a huge loss in land to get buildings and a manageable economy back.

But either way, whatever the reason for restoring, Land is 'already' one of the bounty options. So assuming I create restore bounties, it would likely be one of the options for that too, and would be based on the same settings. i.e. if land bounties are turned on for kills, they'd be on for restores.

[Jokingjoe]

I'm with Dauthi on this one. THough--if the restore grants a kill, then it would make sense that the land bounty available would be the land at the time of the restore, so that should answer Dauthi's question.

Dauthi--have you ever considered the blood bath game? It's very cut-throat and a place where you can be "all about the kills" and enjoy the bounty of your success to the fullest.

[Dauthi]

Kaz,

to the best of my knowledge the land bounty has never been turned on in the guilds game. I think that if you are going to add a bounty of some sort to the restore kill, make it land, but a fraction of the land.

Also, I"ve never consider using the restore after being parking lot, I've not seen it done then, but then again I've never been parking lotted or parking lotted anyone. lol I've always seen it for the, I'm at 20k land, I get beat down to 5k, so I hit restore and I'm back up to 15k-17k land(guessing here not really sure).


Joe,

Something about guilds game....

[Kaz]

Dauthi,

The land bounty IS turned on for the guilds game, and should have been since the beginning. I specifically recoded the system so that all 4 bounty options were configurable separately, so that I could turn off turns and leave the rest on. If it's not available then something is wrong.

Also, the land bounty (when it's working) already only awards a percentage of the land. You get 33% of the acres, and of those acres 20% are automatically pre-built with either barracks (1 in 5 chance), temples (1 in 5 chance) or quarries (3 in 5 chance).

I've had a look at the script and I can't see any reason at all why the land bounty would not be an option in guilds. Next time you kill someone, double-check and let me know if something is bugged.

As for which version of the kingdom would be used by the bounty, if I implemented this, it would be the version that's being restored `from`, not the version being restored to.

[Jokingjoe]

It's working--I used all mine in the last week of the game.

[Dauthi]

Kaz,

I just realize I wasn't thinking. Turns not land is what I was wanting for bounty. lol More turns to kill people with.

[Kaz]

It's time for me to start considering implimentation. This is a quick summary of v2.6 ideas that I like the most.

- RPP has two periods Enforced RPP (e.g. 48 hours), and Optional RPP (e.g 24 hours). Each game can have the settings configured differently. When enforced RPP ends, the player can end protection at any time during the optional period. If the end of the optional period is reached, RPP ends automatically.

- Troop cap based on built acres, not total acres. I can see this being a testing change initially.

- Forcing a player to restore to count as a death with regards to the deaths, averages and ratio scores.

- Scribe sent to players when they get a bounty, explaining what they've been awarded and how to claim it. Just in case they don't realise

- Bounty awarded for forcing a player to restore. Bounty is awarded based on damage caused rather than last to tag the kingdom.

[Dauthi]

Hey Kaz,

any chance of adding a static bounty for turns to the bounty list? IE, for each kill you get you can claim 24 turns or something.

With guilds game not having turns as a option, everyone stops midway to death so they can refort, but if there was a possibility of getting a few turns to refort with if you go all the way it might encourage more actual killing. Maybe not make it count for restore kills but only for actual kills.

Just an idea/suggestion. This age there already seems to be more actual kills, even if there is less wars going on.

[Kaz]

Turn bounty was removed from guilds, because that's what the majority wanted at the start, when we were planning the game.

At this point - as far as I know - you're the only voice asking for turns to be added in as a bounty. You're also the person who's most likely to benefit from such a scenario. Although, having said that, more would theoretically benefit if restore bounties were implemented.

I'd be more than happy to enable turns as a bounty, if that's what the majority of players want. I turned them off based on majority request, I'll turn them on based on the same thing. Feel free to create a poll thread asking if people want the turn bounty on in guilds, for kills and restores.

[Jokingjoe]

Well..Dauthi and myself would benefit. Apart from achievements, there's not much real benefit for securing a kill, considering the investment in turns.

[Dauthi]

Kaz,

Question/suggestion. How hard would it be to set it up so that if you kill a NPC, instead of the NPC restarting, it stays dead and a new NPC is setup in the faith of the killer.

Example. I(angie) kill a Barny NPC. The barny NPC stays dead, and now there is a new angie NPC.


The purpose of this would be to force guilds to stop feeding off of NPC's and actually go to war with other guilds or all the NPCS's will end up in one faith. It also make it so that if all th eNPCS do end up in one faith, that faith can't keep growing out of control till other faiths take out some NPC's helping them grow in size.

[Kaz]

I'd have to rewrite the entire NPC system which is currently based around the idea of equal NPC's per faith. Each NPC kingdom/leadername is also faith based. It's an interesting idea, but as it currently stands the same NPC system is used by all games so I'm not looking at messing around with it.

Also, NPC's get killed a lot, we'd end up with scrolls full of dead NPC's that have swapped faith. Getting around that would mean a way of re-using numbers if the kingdom gets moved back to the original faith again etc.

It is an interesting idea, but due to how much effect it would have, it's the sort of thing I'd probably not look into until I finally get around to fully recoding `everything` from scratch.

[Dauthi]

Yeah I wasn't sure if it would be ease or not with the current setup, I didn't notice the leader names/kingdom names where faith based lol show how much I pay attention to who I kill.

Though having a bunch of dead kingdoms at the bottom doesn't negatively affect anything(at least not that I know of) and having the kingdom count go higher then 50 or so per faith only makes the game -look- bigger to new players. IE. you go to the scroll and see there are 100 kingdoms... vrs going to the scrolls and seeing 200 kingdoms ranked. A game that looks bigger, means it looks popular and with the way popularity works, if it is perceived popular then it must be. *shrugs* not sure if it would honestly convince new sign ups to come back for a 2nd or 3rd day or not but perception goes along way.

[Kaz]

The idea eventually is to actually reduce the possible number of NPC names, so that each NPC can actually have a character bio etc. Hence why each NPC name and kingdom is faith based.

I reckon if I looked at the scrolls for a game and saw 30 living kingdoms and 300 dead kingdoms I'd not necessarily be positive lol. I'd probably assume that the players were assholes who killed off new players as soon as they start playing, or that the game is so crap that people die and don't rebuild.

[Dauthi]

Really? A bio for each NPC would be interesting, I'm assuming you wan NPC's to do more then just sit around build up? Maybe do random attacks? or random scouts for the faith they represent? or things like that?


True true. If you join a game and there are 100 kingdoms and 50 of them are dead that could make the game seem dead.

[Kaz]

It's more for a roleplay side of things than for in-game activity. I'm pretty sure complaints would go into overdrive the second someone got attacked by an NPC while they were unforted.