Black Knight / Black Wizards

[Zaheen]

I know we have had these before, but this is not the same suggestion as before.

These units do not add anything to your units except a decrease in morale. The more you have, the less damage you do in battle up to say 25%.

So all your units only fire at 75% efficiency. This is a reverse of the multiplier you use to get before (which it has been so long ago I can't even remember what it was called).

I know it involves coding which will probably never take place, however - I think it's a good idea, and will reduce bashing slightly and will help balance out the round and potentially make them last longer giving more honourable players an advantage in firepower.

I don't know, opinions and suggestions.

 

[Iamsmart]

stfu zaheen

 

[willymchilybily]

I know we have had these before, but this is not the same suggestion as before.

These units do not add anything to your units except a decrease in morale. The more you have, the less damage you do in battle up to say 25%.

So all your units only fire at 75% efficiency. This is a reverse of the multiplier you use to get before (which it has been so long ago I can't even remember what it was called).

I know it involves coding which will probably never take place, however - I think it's a good idea, and will reduce bashing slightly and will help balance out the round and potentially make them last longer giving more honourable players an advantage in firepower.

I don't know, opinions and suggestions.

i think its too similar to exp.[losing units gains remaining units exp= better stats] (even though its the opposite concept based on h/f) it penalises the top to heavily in a game with such a small player base. and its to unpredictable. 25% is over kill. by far. and too unpredictable(maybe less so because you can see someones h/f couldnt see exp.)

and the same reason given for why attacking range of 40% or 50% shouldnt be enforced. it will just make it harder to fight alliances, and more stagnent. and success will hinge on vastly oversending .....8 people on one tick vs one guy at 50% instead of 3-5 on one tick vs 30-40%...losing firepower is as good as the same thing. its equivalent to you having less units. or the target being stronger.

people will just be more bashy once they are at there maximum penalisation of blackknights. aka rank 1 will be more bashy

an actual unit for being cruel though might be nice. and the unit is like a hamster of hell when tis killed its worth money. base on a white wizards in terms of stats. but worth alot more. it gives score to the player which would suck for them (discourage them) and it would net additional bounty equivalent to its worth....but is hard to kill so rushing wouldnt work. it would need to be killed by killing the dishonourable player fully.

it can only defend to stop mutual gain aka cheating....issue may come from people trying to farm them. but if they spawn in the same way its hard for a multi to stop others killing his multi's black knights so hard to abuse

make
black knight worth 40k (max amount = (score*50)/value of a black knight) aka 10% of score in value
blak wizard wirth 80k (max amount = (score*25)/value of a black knight) aka 5% of score in value

equivalent to an extra 15% bounty (excluding land and seed score) but really only achievable if you zero the guy because the black units are so strong they wont die easily especially if flaked and attack range doesnt have an effect, what mob is sent doesnt have an effect. purely the amount you have counts

 

[Chris_]

I'm not being funny, but why bother posting a suggestion you know isn't going to be implemented?

Just sayin'.

 

[Dimitar]

The Black Knights who say Ni?

 

[Iamsmart]

I'm not being funny

We noticed!

 

[timtadams]

One issue with this is complicating battles and increasing unpredictability. You could however, on Hax display the "Effective Firepower" as a percentage.

And the percentage would be exactly that of the number of troops that would battle. Ie, if player has 1m CW, and his EF is 80% only 800k CW will battle. The only way to not complicate things further, would be that the other 200k CW do not participate in BR at all. Ie, if there are 1m CW in mob, this becomes 800k in BR.
However, then the issue arises, does the person get all the 200k back that did not participate, or is the mob simply 're-expanded' so that if they lost 400k CW in the mob of 800k (50% of those that participated) then actual loss is 500k (50% of total sent).

IE you cannot make this work without significantly complicating things (which is not good)

 

[Dimitar]

I'm not being funny

We noticed!

win

 

[Twigley]

I'm not being funny

We noticed!

+1

 

[Steve_God]

Free units for those playing a discouraged play style or have ended up as Rank 1... that's just what they need, free regenerating lethal flak...

There's a reason why they were removed...

 

[Zaheen]

Who said anything about them being LETs? :roll:

 

[Zaheen]

One issue with this is complicating battles and increasing unpredictability. You could however, on Hax display the "Effective Firepower" as a percentage.

And the percentage would be exactly that of the number of troops that would battle. Ie, if player has 1m CW, and his EF is 80% only 800k CW will battle. The only way to not complicate things further, would be that the other 200k CW do not participate in BR at all. Ie, if there are 1m CW in mob, this becomes 800k in BR.
However, then the issue arises, does the person get all the 200k back that did not participate, or is the mob simply 're-expanded' so that if they lost 400k CW in the mob of 800k (50% of those that participated) then actual loss is 500k (50% of total sent).

IE you cannot make this work without significantly complicating things (which is not good)

Basically, each player gets some sort of multiplier based on their H/F, maximum is 1 (what it currently is).

This decreases to a minimum of 0.75, it wouldn't mean 80% of the units fire, it means all the units fire at 80% the firepower (which is the same thing), the units aren't invincible like experience, nothing like that.

Chris, I like suggesting things that will never be implemented out of boredom...

Problem?

_____

Change is fun, tweaking minor things in games to spice things up is fun.

Playing the same thing, the same way for years on end = boring.

 

[Davs]

Worth mentioning that it could make big solos even harder to kill than they already are as the guys at the top will inevitably have red titles, so will have to send even more troops than normal to get the job done.

But my main issue is with the whole "penalising the top" thing. As is usually said in threads of this nature, the top players always end up with red titles because they always get sufficiently big that they can no longer attack honourably (whether they want to or not).

 

[Dimitar]

All the large solos are actually green-titled

 

[Zaheen]

Worth mentioning that it could make big solos even harder to kill than they already are as the guys at the top will inevitably have red titles, so will have to send even more troops than normal to get the job done.

But my main issue is with the whole "penalising the top" thing. As is usually said in threads of this nature, the top players always end up with red titles because they always get sufficiently big that they can no longer attack honourably (whether they want to or not).

Then why not declare war on alliances and do it properly?

Would make the round more fun that way.

 

[Dimitar]

Can't declare war on an alliance below 80% of your score.

 

[Zaheen]

Can't declare war on an alliance below 80% of your score.

That doesn't really have anything to do with the suggestion, nor does it have any relevance to what I said prior.

 

[Dimitar]

Yeah it does. Davs was talking about people who're already big so they can't attack anyone honourably. If they can declare war on someone that would mean they have an alliance within 80% of themselves, which would mean they aren't actually forced to attack dishonourably.

 

[Zaheen]

Then what they are doing is bashing a lower alliance, and should thereforce recieve this as punishment.

I have never really liked the bounty idea much, as most of the top alliance would just run or be defended anyway, if they run then they can play with 10,000% bounty, nobody would profit.

I think I overlooked Davs comment, so np. Nobody forces them to attack the lower targets, and they can always suicide some troops to lower score, or give up some land (as I have done an endless amount of times).

Anyway, it was just a suggestion - if it was somebody other than myself suggesting it, would you be giving the same answer?

 

[LuckySports]

Then what they are doing is bashing a lower alliance, and should thereforce recieve this as punishment.

I have never really liked the bounty idea much, as most of the top alliance would just run or be defended anyway, if they run then they can play with 10,000% bounty, nobody would profit.

I think I overlooked Davs comment, so np. Nobody forces them to attack the lower targets, and they can always suicide some troops to lower score, or give up some land (as I have done an endless amount of times).

Anyway, it was just a suggestion - if it was somebody other than myself suggesting it, would you be giving the same answer?

which if your playing to win, those aren't viable options.. When you punish the folk who actually play competitively (as in, to win) you end up pushing them to quit, and ultimately HURT the game. There are already plenty of reasons to attack honorable over dishonorably, if you keep piling it on, eventually there will only be the bots and a handful of inactive folks.