Mage suicides

[Arthus]

I thought this was supposed to be fixed...

2.2 hours ago Sevz was ere (#24) lost a battle with your Spies! You lost
3,737,058 Spies
You managed to destroy
340,943 Spies

Or did people decide that this is a good thing? and not 100% retarded...

Depending on what the issue is with this, I might go back on vacation for a while.

[Shadow I]

I think we argued about a fix but never came to any conclusions. This feature is sort of necessary to keep mages from being completely invincible here, don't you think? Perhaps we should change it so that you can't lose more than the attacker does, but suicides should stil be possible - just at greated cost to the attacker.

[Arthus]

I don't mean to make it not allowed, just so the losses are even on both sides like normal troop attacks. Like 400k mages kills 400-500k mages. Not 300k mages kills 4mil mages.

[Freenhult]

Yar... Hard to say exactly what needs to be done.

[Arthus]

Make it not unbalanced... A few mages working together suiciding with equal losses can still take out a top mage. This stupid imbalance is just idiotic and is just an excuse for those that do not mage to be able to cripple mages that are clanned while losing nothing in the process. At the slow rate of gaining mages, it takes an entire run to get the lost mages back and they make a hell of a lot less while wasting almost all their runes.

Lets say a top mage has 60k land, if they are pure maging, they will have around 5.4mil mages.

A group of 3 mages, say on 20k land a piece, pure maging can take the top mage down by 2 of them suiciding him down, killing about 3-3.5mil mages while the other one murders him down. The suiciders will each lose pretty much all there mages in the process. They can still take down the top guy, they just have to suffer equal losses.

So, those that say it's inbalanced to stop top mages, yeah... i don't buy it.

Just a thought...

[Freenhult]

Make it not unbalanced... A few mages working together suiciding with equal losses can still take out a top mage. This stupid imbalance is just idiotic and is just an excuse for those that do not mage to be able to cripple mages that are clanned while losing nothing in the process. At the slow rate of gaining mages, it takes an entire run to get the lost mages back and they make a hell of a lot less while wasting almost all their runes.

Lets say a top mage has 60k land, if they are pure maging, they will have around 5.4mil mages.

A group of 3 mages, say on 20k land a piece, pure maging can take the top mage down by 2 of them suiciding him down, killing about 3-3.5mil mages while the other one murders him down. The suiciders will each lose pretty much all there mages in the process. They can still take down the top guy, they just have to suffer equal losses.

So, those that say it's inbalanced to stop top mages, yeah... i don't buy it.

Just a thought...

Who said that?

You say the same thing dude, but how do you -code- that.

[Shadow I]

defenderloss = random(0,attackerloss*2);

Voila, the attacker can only kill a very max of 2x what they lose, and will on average, kill mages 1 for 1.

[Arthus]

Lol, I'm no coder. But what Shadow said.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Could use a sliding scale based on attackers ratio. If attacker has a ratio of 1.0 (enough for scan) losses are different than if he had 1.75 (enough for embezzling) or if it's at .5 it is significantly less.

[Arthus]

That can work. I just don't like how an indy with 300k mages can completely destroy a pure magers mages when his ratio is horrible. Nukes idea would fix that, so I approve.

[Shadow I]

With nuke's idea you can still get massively disproportionate losses though - someone just gets hit to low land after making a few mages, and they can ruin someone.

[Arthus]

True... though they would have to be hit pretty low for their ratio to be better than a pure mager.

[Freenhult]

Could use a sliding scale based on attackers ratio. If attacker has a ratio of 1.0 (enough for scan) losses are different than if he had 1.75 (enough for embezzling) or if it's at .5 it is significantly less.

This is far better and realistic. I don't like the idea of a cap of 1:1 losses. Either high or low.

If its something like 2x, then its just as easy to plan out and such. Plus, you should really need to have a decent ratio to be able to hurt them. So I'm more in agreement with this.

[The Beatles]

What about non-ratio losses? Losses straight in proportion to the size of the two spy contingents -- sort of as in normal attacks?

[Freenhult]

That's what is currently happening. Someone with 30,000 mages lose 3,000 and someone with 3mil loses 300,000.

That's not to fair.