Reforming Playing Conditions

[purekilla2k]

ok ill explain the current settings
max hits is 20 (21 not sure) then once hit 20 times you can't be hit unless declared war upon
every hour rescent attacks goes down by 1 so you can be hit again and everytime you attack rescent attacks goes down by 2 so if your being over attacked its because your in a clan or someone used the declare war feature

[ryndell]

My point is this say you hit ted once , and you take 200 land, he has sue, bob, joe mary , fred. You are an independent. He gets them to mass you by declaring war on you with unlimited attack, and they bury you in an hour . This is one thing i dont like about it , you have 6 people destory your kingdom , because you hit one of them once for 200 land .

[purekilla2k]

thankfully here that dont happen *laughs* because when people kill we kill them (anyone involved) also it helped if you dont create a clan if your alone *laughs* unless you want unlimited attacks. but if you are a clan they get the same benefit *laughs*

[Veranor]

Here is my brainstorming, not sure if any would be positive or effective but just throwing them out for other people to think on.


1. Adjust the max hits rule slightly. Increase to 25 hits but allow any one empire to hit only 3-7 times (lowering by one each hour) unless they're both in a clan with war declared.

2. Adjust "declare war" or remove it. I'm thinking just double the cap for an independent empire (so 3-7 hits becomes 6-14). Make a stricter version of the networth rule apply to declaring war (so the empire in question must be quite near your net for you to declare war on them), perhaps allow a player to declare war on an emprie at any net higher than themselves but not one lower. The issue here is if a player greatly alters their networth right before declaring war (aids someone) then reverts it after (gets the aid sent back).

3. The op/dp max/min thing ryndell proposed will be abused. Currently such a max/min exists for networth which works to a degree. If it were imposed on op/dp then players could be extremely aggresive and place themselves in the top then suddenly drop all their troops making them untouchable for retal (because they would now have a low op/dp).

4. Create an actual place for storing troops instead of the market. Call it "reserves". Reserved troops cost a smaller amount of upkeep (have to be ready to go to action) but do not actually fight. They are ready to be recalled as normal troops after X turns and/or X hours. This can be seen through espionage.

5. Stored troops still take upkeep, perhaps only a percentage.

6. Stored troops count for networth (a percentage, perhaps the inverse of the percentage of their upkeep) for all the penalties of net but none of the bonuses. Thus, a player does not move up ranks with many troops stored on net, but the penalties for high net (not being allowed to hit certain players/being hit by certain players, penalties on hawks, etc.) would still be in effect. A user's "hidden net" (net in reserves) would be displayed on their profile or through espionage.

7. In conjunction with 3-6 (which I see as changing the use of the market completely), never allow public market troops to be recalled or make the removal fee something awful like 50%. Allow prices to be changed so that sellers can update to reflect the current market conditions.

[Nohc]

I like Veranor's ideas a lot. The market is way overpowered but people still need a place to keep troops. Realistically, empires don't fall in 24 hours. It would take a long time for them to lose almost all of their land, even if several empires attacked them. Maybe limiting an empire to 5 attacks total per hour, or making it so that each troop can only attack once per hour. But that would be much too slow, this is BFR after all.

Removing the ability to have a personal war makes it much harder to kill and over attack. The same goes for limiting the max attacks you can make one a player per hour to about 10. It's a good thing that you can't just attack one or two people and suddenly have all the land in the game, and it makes thought out, full turn runs more effective.

If there are no attack limits for clans, the above changes also encourage clan tactics. So, to prevent clans declaring war on everyone and attacking away I think that a clan should only be able to be at war with one clan at a time (other than being at war with clans that declare war on you). This makes you think before setting someone to war.

Limits also need to be put in, such as a time you have to be in a clan before you leave or delete it, time you must play before you can delete, and time you must be at war with someone.

[ryndell]

My main goal is make it fairer for the new independents who dont have anyone watching there back. Count them into ,and make it harder for a clan to wipe them out . Is all i am saying.

[Floppy_Drive]

If you want someone watching your back join a clan.

[ryndell]

what if no clan wants them , it happens.

[Floppy_Drive]

Then just make one and send invites to everyone that's not in a clan. That's what I did.

[ryndell]

also here is another idea that might possibly work out fair . for food, it gives you 4 to 5 cash, instead of seven . make it a little harder to mass so many troops in a shot .

[purekilla2k]

or kill the agrigarian all togther with very strict limits on food selling

[Ruddertail]

No. Making certain strats better or worse is not an issue, since all strats are avalible to all players. In addition, a food selling strat is even easier for new players to fun then the complexity of troop selling. I would strongly advise not changing strats.

I also believe that taking away industry settings would be an awful idea. If everybody is forced to run the same %'s of troops, it takes away a major strategy aspect of the game. Most strategies (other then hawk and agrarian) depend on being able to adjust troop precentages. Limits on deleting and dropping land are much better. I'd advise using a turn limit, rather then a troop limit, to prevent people sitting in protection until enough time has passed, then jumping out and doing what they would have done without the limit. They couldn't do it as often, which would limit the effectiveness, but it'd still be a major pain...

Veranor, I like those ideas. It still wouldn't become much easier for a warband to hog land, but it would force people to spread land around more, and scrape for their land. Clan wars, on the other hand, could still be fought much as normal. I think one person clans should not have the option of declaring war or having war declared on them, to prevent abuse of clan attacks.

I also like Nohc's idea of only allowing a clan to declare war on one clan, in addition to automatically declaring war on those they are at war with. And, forcing them to stay at war for a set amount of time. (48 hours?)

Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry if I didn't really come up with any new ideas, but all the things I can think of that I would change have already been proposed.

[Ruddertail]

Sorry for the double post, but I would also suggest that game speed be restored to standard 5/10. We have had the game speed at 5/10 for months, and only recently have the problems begun to devolop. It seems clear to me that game speed has nothing to do with it. I like a faster server, for one thing, most people do. For another, at this current speed, it is only .5 turns faster then the turn rate on CoG, that is 1.25 of CoG's game speed. The old BFR was 2.5 times CoG's game speed, a marked difference. People who mainly play at the faster game speed will not be as inclined to stick around.

[purekilla2k]

I'll second that because i only play bfr because its fast if yall change bfr i may quit and try cog but ill probably just quit

[gondor]

Sorry for the double post, but I would also suggest that game speed be restored to standard 5/10. We have had the game speed at 5/10 for months, and only recently have the problems begun to devolop. It seems clear to me that game speed has nothing to do with it. I like a faster server, for one thing, most people do. For another, at this current speed, it is only .5 turns faster then the turn rate on CoG, that is 1.25 of CoG's game speed. The old BFR was 2.5 times CoG's game speed, a marked difference. People who mainly play at the faster game speed will not be as inclined to stick around.

are you trying to say the dev turn rate stinks but in a more scientific way? *laughs* . If you are I totally agree.