Networth Adjustments

[Turock]

I was thinking market sell should be more like 25% instead of 75%. This is one change already planned for our next reset. Stocks have been taken out, so that takes care of stock storing.

[The Beatles]

Yep, both those changes can be easily set in a config variable.

That sounds like an excellent idea though, just decreasing the percent that can be stored on the market.

[Ruddertail]

I like 25% max storage. Market storing should be used to store a few troops as a reserve, not as a viable strategy for taking the top.

[Zephyrus]

You should be able to sell as many troops as you currently own. But they can't be your private reserve of troops. They actually have to get sold. So pay upkeep on them. Then put a new place for troop storing in, in which you get to maybe double your army.

Make keeping land worthwhile again. But make planning for runs still feasible.

[Devari]

Good point. Troops being sold on the public market should be used and eat food just like regular troops.

[Turock]

If that is going to be the case then it wouldn't matter what percentage is being sold as it would still be like they were active units in the players militia. I could live with the 25% proposal as that would act as a reserve, but would not allow the massive storing that is possible now.

Do we need to reconsider the current market commisions if the perentage of troops that is sellable is lowered that much?

[Ruddertail]

That could work. I don't really like the idea of a researve, though. It just seems more complex and unecessary... But we could always give it a shot.

[Alcaline the Badger]

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Networth Adjustments</span>

We have a problem here at FAF. Namely, the way networth values are set creates emps that cannot be taken down in any way other then massive numbers of murders. You see, the only way to achieve a high net is through troops. This means we have people who market store, then pull their guys, and jump to 1.2 billion dollar networths in one day, often on low amounts of land. Because of this, the only way to drop them is to kill their troops, or kill them. Neither is something that is exactly great.

On the other hand, these emps also cannot do anything but sit there. The whole idea of emperorship is not only to hold the top spot with a massive net, but to be able to control the game by smashing anybody who opposes you. An emp that cannot even support himself for a run is not exactly capable of controlling the game. All he can do is sit there until he's murdered or passed by another guy pulling the same store, store, store, jump strat.

One possible way to combat this would be removing the capability to market store or stock store, possibly replacing them with other features that allow for much more limited storing. However, this then risks removing the possibility of anybody being able to surpass anybody else by a great margin. After all, the amount of troops you can have is now limited by the amount you can support, people cannot get too high without killing their economy. It will prevent impotent emps, but it may also prevent any emps. It's a good idea, and should be done, but it won't accomplish our goal: Emps who actually control the game, rather then sit on it.

Therefore, after much thought, I've come up with an idea I think will create strong, game controlling emps, who can also be toppled. In short, when there's an emp, it's fun to be the emp, and fun to try and take down the emp. That idea is adjusting networths.


<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Troops:</span>

First off, troops. Troop networth will be decreased, drastically. 50% – 75% reduction. As I see it, troops should be a means of gaining and protecting networth, not a source of networth itself.

Yes, I know this goes against traditional promisance wisdom, but it makes sense, both based on the game, and in respect to real life. The idea of networth is to indicate which warband is the most powerful warband. Massive numbers of troops don't really provide power; they just provide an economist's nightmare. So what if you have this many troops? If you can't even provide for them, they'll all leave soon, anyway, unless you have people, many people, feeding you resources. It's not the person with the most troops at the start of the war who wins a war, it's the person who can generate the most troops, and the most supplies, for the duration of the war, that wins the war. Both in game, and in real life.

Take WWII, for example. More specifically, the Pacific war. In the beginning the Japanese had superior troop numbers and supply numbers and scored a number of major victories. However, as they failed to deliver a knock-out blow (a kill, in FAF terms), the United States had time to bring her massive production capabilities on line, draft and train an army, and bring her massive resources to bare against the Japanese. Once this happened, the end was inevitable. The Japanese were defeated, soundly. *

It works roughly the same way in FAF. Unless the person with superior troop numbers is able to either kill the person, or take and lock away a major portion of the land, they will eventually be defeated, despite their initial advantage.

Therefore, number of troops does not equate to power, and it is silly to award such an overwhelming "power rating", which is what NW essentially is, to troops. Yes, they certainly contribute to power, and are a pivotal part of any warband, but not, by far, the most important factor in a warbands power. Troops can be easily gained by someone with resources and land. Land and resources take more work to garner.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Land:</span>

Land is the base of every warband. Without sufficient land, a warband cannot prosper. Therefore, land is the most important factor in the game. The warbands who can get land are the ones who get strong. Those who fail to gain land, however, sit around in the lower ranks.

Then, if land is the factor that contributes most directly to the power of a warband, and too it's worth, then it should have a very high value in the "power ranking", the NW.
I would recommend a 200% increase in NW, bringing the total value of an acre of land to $2,000 dollars of NW. This would mean that every 1,000 acres of land equals $2,000,000 (two million) dollars of NW.

This seems a rather drastic change, yes, but it also seems one that makes much sense. If I have not made it clear yet, he who controls the games land, and can support himself on it, controls the game. Therefore, land is of critical importance, and should be given a high value.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Food:</span>

Food is also a very important resource. Without food, your troops will soon desert your warband. Moreover, food is highly expensive and in limited supply on the bazaar. Thus, unless you can find a steady supplier who will sell you food cheaply over the public market, you must always produce your own food. Food value should thus be increased to $.01 NW. This would lead to a Billion Food having a value of $10,000,000 NW (Ten Million Dollars of Net Worth).

Now, I know there is some concern that giving food a high NW leads to a HPR game, where people are more interested in sitting and farming then they are in attacking. The high value of land would counter this, to some extent, as it would be harder to exceed with large amounts of food and little land the NW of someone who medium to large amounts of land. Sack will also help counter this, though if it is de-powered as I hope (mentioned later), it will not provide a completely effective counter. If, between sack and high land values, it is not enough to counter a trend toward HPR-ness, a possibility that could be considered is a "food cap", a cap on the amount of NW from food. It would not affect the amount of food a person could have; it would simply prevent food from counting for more then $200 Million Dollars (not a definite amount). That way, food could not be used to provide an infinite NW.

Another possibility for the cap would be to have a % cap, not allow food to be more then a certain percentage of the total NW of a warband.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Cash:</span>

Finally, we have cash. Cash is the less important of the two resources, as it is much easier to turn food into cash then it is cash into food, especially with our high sell prices for food.

Nonetheless, cash is an important resource, and thus should be given a good value. I would recommend giving it a value of $.001 Dollars of NW, so that $1 Billion Dollars of Cash equals $1 Million Dollars of NW.


That, then, is the adjustments of NW, and the most important part of this plan. However, there are several other things that need to be adjusted if this plan is to work as I intended.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Sacking:</span>

Sacking needs to be de-powered, and majorly. It's much too easy to take all of peoples resources. If we want people to be able to keep resources out to provide a NW boost, and, indeed, if we want to force people to stop the excessive storing, we also need to reduce sack power. I would recommend making sack about 10% - 25% of what it is now, maybe even less, based on what the current value is.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Stock and Market Storing:</span>

Stock and market storing needs to be done away with. The proposals for doing so will be detailed elsewhere, as some have already been proposed, and some proposals are in the process of being worked on, and adopted.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Guards:</span>

Finally, Guards need adjustment. They are quite useless currently, at 500 Def points a piece. I would recommend doubling this, to 1000 Def Points a piece. This would make them much more useful, without making them overpowered. The reason they must be made more effective is that part of gaining an emperorship is being able to hold land. That is very hard these days.

You may be concerned, thinking "But, if that happened, maybe some people would become totally unbreakable, and dominate for years". That's unlikely. You see, with this new system, 100k Land in Guards would give 100 Million Defensive Points. 100 Million Defensive points is enough to stop about 50 Million Mice, or 20 Million Hares. If a person is able to get enough land to put 100k into Guards, people should have no trouble generating the troops to break them. Indeed, maybe Guards should be strengthened even further, to 2000 Def Points, require 100 Mil Mice or 40 Mil Hares to break 100k worth of guards.

Also, I would give all buildings 100 Def Points. This would add a minimal defense to all warbands, making it slightly easier to hold land, at least against those of much lower rank.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Final Thoughts:</span>

There you have it, folks. My plan to adjust NW's and make many other changes that will greatly alter the game play. I have thought about this extensively, and talked to others about this plan as well. They have also thought about this, and found it to be a good idea.

For those of you who haven't heard this yet, please consider it WELL, and mull over it LONG, before making a decision, either up or down.

For those of you who have heard the general over view, please also read and consider carefully, before making a decision. What I have told you over messenger is by no means complete, and was spoken before the complete plan was written, so things may have changed.

Finally, no adjustment amounts are final. Do not discard this plan simply because you would like to see values adjusted more or less then I proposed. Simply mention that, and we will take that into consideration.

Thank you for taking time to read all this, and even more for taking the time to consider it.

-Ruddertail

* Though the atomic bomb ended the war, there is no question that the US would have won, even without the bomb. The bomb was simply used to spare the lives of millions of U.S. and Japanese soldiers who would have undoubtedly perished in the event of an invasion of mainland Japan.

I'm sorry but the fact that you had the time to write all of that is insanity.

[The Beatles]

Kindly confine your uncalled for remarks that illustrate your own cynicism somewhere else.

[gondor]

i say it is doing no harm the way it is

[Tarislarech]

There doesnt seem to be any consideration for magers there. I dont keep a military. I have like mercanaries I hire on at the end of my run and sell off at the beginning. If there wasn't a way to store them how could a mager run and still hold his land? 100% towers doesn't exactly pay for a military. Not upkeep anyway.

[Arthus]

How about being able to sell of your troops on the bm whenever you want? i haven't thought this over so it might be a dumb idea.

[Freenhult]

If you could do that, then everyone would sell at the max price. Like it is now.
The public market offers that option so prolly not.

[Shadow I]

In redwall warlords, troops on the market still give full net worth value. You can also see who has what on the market, and buy from the specific player you want. It has worked wonders there, perhaps it is worth trying here?

[Nuclear Raunch]

It doesn't get abused?