Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > The Lunatic Asylum

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(08-Apr-2001 at 15:30)


Next Age


The following is a copy of the main post from the Swirve thread in the <a href="http://boards.swirve.com/board.cgi?boardset=utopia&boardid=bugs&spec=407225 0" target="_blank">Bugs & Suggestions Board</a>.

The thread is <a href="http://boards.swirve.com/board.cgi?boardset=utopia&boardid=bugs&thread=94&s pec=4117058" target="_blank">Next Age Issues</a>.

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(08-Apr-2001 at 15:31)


Re: Next Age


Swirve
Apr 7th 11:53 PM
Here's are some of the changes we'll be making in the next round, as well as areas we'd like to have some input & discussions on.

* Our plans have changed a bit for the next round due to the lack of a new server. While we will still not have a reshuffle, we will probably split the servers with all kingdoms with lots of players staying on one server, and kingdoms with fewer players staying on the other. This will server to help create many of the effects of a reshuffle on the latter server. There will also likely be limits on the number of players in each server to keep the servers running at similar speeds.

* NW-based Gains are here to stay. As long as players use NW as a measure of "power", it should be included in determining the relative power of two provinces. However, instead of the current either/or system, NW and Land will both be used in determining the relative sizes of a province. (Something like 25% based on NW, 75% based on Land)

* In regards to the above, we are open to changing the Networth formulas to better measure the overall strength (not just military strength) of a province. Feel free to provide your suggestions.

* The Trade Balance system has run fairly effectively. Issues that we'd like feedback on, though, are the relative values of each item and the resulting tax rates (too low? too high?)

* The Plague will be strengthened -- what kind of effects would you like to see?

* An initial look at the races indicates we'll probably strengthen Undead, Dwarves, and Halflings, while weakening Avians, Humans, and possibly Elves. Specifics will be determined after the other changes are made.

* We will implement a solution to reduce or eliminate forum spamming. Most likely, new players will have a limit on the number of threads they can create daily.

* We'll probably relax some of the restrictions and open up the game a bit more in terms of attacks and gangbang rules.

* Honor will be easier for attackers and more difficult for thieves in the next round

* Exploring will be more difficult as compared to attacking as a growth strategy

* While we don't have any specifics, we'd like to strengthen Magic -- in particular, adding more powerful offensive spells.

* The Top Province lists will likely be replaced by race-based lists to show the top players of each race.

This is just a summary of some of the major issues that need to be dealt with -- specifics will be developed over the coming days.

Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:21)


Re: Next Age


The following are posts that were made on the Utopia Bugs & Suggestions Board that were answered by Mehul.

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:26)


Mehul, NW Based Gains, Races, Exploring.


MistressSelena SEB
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Mehul, here I'll list my concerns about the changes you are thinking about. Please read them. I do know this is your game, but if you don't play this all round, trying to grow, you really don't know the effects of the changes you want to make.

When you re-introduced NW based gains, it majorly unbalanced the races. It made Humans, Elves, and Dwarves weak attackers(Because they need to rely on Elites), made Avians strong attackers (could go all Elites), and helped Orcs out too(Could go Elite/def spec). I'm not mentioned Faeries here, because they're Thief/mages. Not mentioning Halflings either, because as you've said, they're meant to attack. Undead I didn't mention, because they are just too weak.

Now what you are saying you'll do, is keep NW based gains, partially. Because you will balance out the NW values for military units. Maybe you'll beable to do this, but I doubt you'll have it right, in a round's times, or even two round's time. So please just return to Land based gains.

You are also talking about changing the races around, because you feel they aren't balance, while they really are 'cept undead.

If you just removed NW based gains, which was a great idea when you first did it, Avians, Humans, Dwarves, and Orcs should all be well balanced. Halflings and Faeries aren't supposed to attack, so they are alright. Elves, I'm not sure about. Undead though, certainly need improvement.

Another problem this age, was that more people explored, then attacked. Now I have fairly good experience exploring this age, and trying to attack. And the reason why more people explored, is not because exploring is too cheap, but partly because of NW based gains, and it seemed like attack gains were a lot worse this age.

If you make exploring more expensive, you aren't improving the game, just making it worse. Exploring seems well balanced. What needs some fixing is attacking gains(Tweak it, so you get better gains for attacking 80-85% of your size), and the removal of NW based gains. One possible effect of increasing exploring expenses, will make less land aviable, causing defenses to increase to protect land, causing more people to explore.

So in summary. Please rethink your changes. Most of the races are fairly blanaced, if you return to land based gains. And exploring is fine. You just need to tweak attack gains.

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Contrary to popular opinion, NW-based gains have a relatively limited effect on the game as-is. Only about 10-15% of attacks (over a 1 week period that we tested in the middle of the round) were actually affected by the NW-component. Of those, the majority were Avian-related.

This means that none of the other races were substantially effected by NW-based gains. It may be a fun thing to complain about, but the reality is that outside of Avians, the actual effect on gameplay was negligible.

The reason is that people try to attack players with as much land and as little NW as possible, because those are the easiest attacks. In those cases, the NW-gains had *virtually zero* effect on gains.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

Odd Faery
Apr 8th ##:## PM
i am in total agreement with mistress selena. I just made an attack earlier today; on a dwarf of all races, and the guy was 85% of my land size (2500/3000). Now i know that land grabs should be less rewarding on smaller provinces, but i only got 140 stinkin acres. That's not even 6% of his land. Land based grabs are a must, because what many people will do will be to explore using def specs and just get big and keep a low nw so nobody will get a good grab off them.

As for the races, right now they're pretty well-balanced. I think if you eliminate NW based grabs they will be a lot more reasonable, except undead, but here's my suggestion for them:

Regular science maximum
Make science cost 50% more per point
-10% magic effectiveness
Do whatever you want with the plague
def spec: 3 points
off spec: 4 points
Elite: 5 defense, 3 offense

This will make undead a lot more even but they won't be too powerful. This will also even out the avians and make them use their elites to attack.

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
<font color="white">I just made an attack earlier today; on a dwarf of all races, and the guy was 85% of my land size (2500/3000). Now i know that land grabs should be less rewarding on smaller provinces, but i only got 140 stinkin acres. That's not even 6% of his land. </font>

This has nothing to do with NW-based gains. Since you currently get the better of the two ratios, NW-gains only earn you more land, if anything. Your complaint has to do with overall gains.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

Odd Faery
Apr 8th 2:55 PM
didn't you say mehul that gains were based solely on NW this age? Right now I have a really low NW/acre as compared to earlier this age when i was 2200 acres and 75th in nw (about a week or two ago). When i was hitting provinces that were only 75% my land, but a closer NW, i was getting about twice as much land, even though they were so easy for me to break. But this guy had a very low NW (about 400k) and was a lot harder to break, AND was closer to my land size and i get half as much land.

It just doesn't make sense to me that i hit a small guy with an easy to break defense but a high NW for a lot of land, but then i hit a larger guy with a tougher to break defense but a lower nw and get hardly anything.

by the way, i have a few questions since you're here: 1: what do you think of my undead suggestions i posted above, and 2: I've been asking you since age 6, so when are you going to make me a mod?

Swirve
Apr 8th 2:57 PM
<font color="white">didn't you say mehul that gains were based solely on NW this age?</font>

Not at all. Gains are based on whichever ratio (land or NW) benefits the attacker most. As I mentioned above, NW only plays a role in 10-15% of attacks this age, primarily dealing with Avians.

Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:29)


attackers, thief/mages, and charts


o00o
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Sorry for bringing this up for the 240th time, but it is common knowledge that with the current rules, thief/mages cannot compete with the attackers for land and NW, and attackers can't play for honor (they will lose it).

This has been the case for so long that most players think the game is designed with that particular split in mind.

If wanted to ask Mehul: IS the game intentionally designed that way? If not, what are your current thoughts and plans on how to correct the imbalances?

Let me say that I don't think a simple tweaking of thievery honor or exploration costs will correct anything.
The imbalances are much deeper than that.

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Players can focus on whatever they want to, really. Not everyone *likes* to try to be the biggest, best province -- those players are often the best suited for the "support" roles such as magic and thievery.

Ultimately, the individual rankings will be dominated by the most aggressive and largest players - that's just natural, and we have no problem with that. However, a *Top Kingdom* should (in theory) require a mix of support players and attackers to be successful. Our goal is to make the kingdoms with a good mix be the most successful -- and our focus is more on the kingdom than the individual.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

o00o
Apr 8th 2:51 PM
Have you studied the top 100 charts lately? And seen what types of provinces occupy them? The honor charts have 100 thief/mages, and the land charts have 100 attackers (maybe some pure explorers). Correct me if I am wrong.

Even if you completely refuse to look at the single province issue, the same thing is true about kingdoms. The top kingdoms in land/NW will be random land grabbers who never go to war. The top kingdoms in honor will be thief/mage kingdoms, consisting of 25 thief/mages. They will not be a 'fine blend' of thieves and attackers!

"Players can focus on whatever they want to, really."
Good, but why do we have to be a thief/mage if we want to focus on honor, or an attacker if we want to focus on land and NW?

Swirve
Apr 8th 2:54 PM
<font color="white">Good, but why do we have to be a thief/mage if we want to focus on honor, or an attacker if we want to focus on land and NW? </font>

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you want land, you have to go get it. That means you have to attack or explore. Successful attackers, because they take a risk, should ideally get more land than explorers.

Thieves can grow if they want to, but their strength is *destructive* rather than constructive. The benefits of playing as attacker is that you attack people and thus grow. I don't see a problem here.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

o00o
Apr 8th 3:01 PM
Apologies, I will try to be more specific in my questions. Since you have now officially stated that thief/mages/explorers shouldn't be able to compete with attackers for the land and NW charts, please also state the following:

Attackers should not be able to compete with thief/mages for honor.

Swirve
Apr 8th 3:05 PM
<font color="white">Since you have now officially stated that thief/mages/explorers shouldn't be able to compete with attackers for the land and NW charts </font>

This isn't true. They can compete all they want. But in most cases, the attacker is going to win out. Thieves don't focus on those charts because that's not their purpose. The sole purpose of an attacker is to gain NW and Land, so of course they will dominate those charts.

Attackers should not be able to compete with thief/mages for honor.

This isn't true either.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

The Logician
Apr 8th 3:08 PM
"The sole purpose of an attacker is to gain NW and Land, so of course they will dominate those charts."

Fair enough; however, some thieves would like to have some sort of public status or ranking that reflects one's skill as a thief. This round, Honor pretty much fulfilled that requirement, but if the Honor system is changed, then theives will have nothing. What is your opinion on this issue, Mehul?

I await your reply.

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
<font color="white">Fair enough; however, some thieves would like to have some sort of public status or ranking that reflects one's skill as a thief. This round, Honor pretty much fulfilled that requirement, but if the Honor system is changed, then theives will have nothing. </font>

Again, I still don't see a problem here. Mages don't have any "Mage Rankings" either. Lots of people play a balanced strategy -- they may be great at what they do, but that doesn't mean they are listed in some ranking. Thieves should play as thieves because they enjoy doing so. The result of a "good thief" should (ideally) show in the kingdom rankings.

The individual rankings are exactly what they are: Who's the biggest, who's the most "powerful" (NW), and who's successful took the most "risks" (Honor). They aren't "who is the best attacker" or "who is the best thief". Those are arbitrary ways of playing -- people can play however they want, but the rankings aren't designed to measure certain styles of play - just end results.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

o00o
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Thanks for answering my questions.

But Mehul, if is isn't true that only thief/mages can realistically play for honor, then why are there only thief/mages on the honor charts?

You also said "the sole purpose of the attacker is to gain NW and Land", indicating that attackers shouldn't even try to play for honor.

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
<font color="white">But Mehul, if is isn't true that only thief/mages can realistically play for honor, then why are there only thief/mages on the honor charts? </font>

Because this round the honor formulas favored thieves & mages.

You also said "the sole purpose of the attacker is to gain NW and Land", indicating that attackers shouldn't even try to play for honor.

I don't think *anyone* should play solely for honor. Honor, in my opinion, should be the by-product of taking risks and playing aggressively. As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be doing anything *just* to get honor.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

Viskot
Apr 8th ##:## PM
"As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be doing anything *just* to get honor." hmm but how will you fix the problem with people doing it?

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
<font color="white">hmm but how will you fix the problem with people doing it? </font>

You make it inefficient to focus on honor. One way to do this, for example, is splitting land gains to be based on relative land, and Honor gains based on relative NW. That way, taking risks provides no land-based benefit, but does result in higher honor.

Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:29)


mysterious Fog that unites BF and WoU


o00o
Apr 8th 10:58 AM
"January 1st, YR 7
This morning, we found that the great Fog that penetrates all of Utopia has moved once again. Some of our known roads and seaways appear to be temporarily rendered impassable. However, other areas that were hidden by the Fog are now visible and can once again be explored."

That is what a kingdom's news might look like, if what I am to suggest here is implemented. It's an idea on how to join the two servers (WoU and BF) into a single Utopia game, in a way that is practically possible for Swirve as well as acceptable to players.

I don't know if this is in fact practically possible. But I only make this one basic assumption about the servers: That it is possibe to move an entire kingdom from one server to the other, by physically transferring all the kingdom's data. If you think this can be done then read on, if not then don't waste any more time on this.


1) The Fog moves in a random fashion, the exact time intervals are to be determined by Swirve. I imagine that it could move every 7 real days or so, but in such a way that the exact time of the next move could not be predicted.

2) Whenever a new province is created in Utopia, it goes to the server who has the smallest number of kingdoms. This is done to ensure that both servers has approximately the same number of kingdoms at all times.

3) All kingdoms in Utopia are given unique names, so that there are no "duplicate" kingdom numbers on the two servers. For example, there would be only one kingdom with the kingdom number (##:##) in all of Utopia (WoU + BF combined).

4) When the Fog moves, the two severs are closed down for 10-15 minutes (or whatever it takes), and all kingdoms on both servers are placed randomly on one either BF or WoU (Before the actual downtime of the servers, put all kingdoms on a large list in random order, then designate kingdoms alternately to WoU and BF). Both servers are then put back online as if nothing happened, except that all kingdoms will see a news display like the one at the top of this post.

5) Kingdoms at war (or peace) with eachother, who are still on the same server after a Fog move, will continue to be at war. Warring kingdoms who end up on two different servers will also technically still be at war, but since they cannot attack or harm eachother in any way, the most likely outcome of this is that the war will soon be forgotten and cancelled (but kingdoms could also choose to keep the war relation for when the Fog clears!).

6) I haven't spent much time studying the math of this, but I think that with 10 Fog moves during an age (1 move per week for 10 weeks), there is a 99.9% chance that any two kingdoms will be on the same server at least once during the age. Hence, for all practical purposes BF and WoU will be one game.

Swirve
Apr 8th 2:00 PM
I think this would be an interesting idea and some variety to the game. I'm not sure it's viable the way the game is currently designed, but it's definitely something that could be implemented in a future round.

Thanks,
Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:30)


NW=Honor, Land=gains?


Bellegante
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Just thought of this.. why not make networth determine ONLY how much honor you gain in an attack (do you even gain honor now in standard attacks? =P) and land determine gains?

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
This is something we're definitely considering, as Honor is the measure more focused on the "risk" issue.

Mehul


"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:30)


Auto-attack command


Shadow Guild
Apr 8th ##:## PM
I don't know about all of you ppl, but there have been times when I have had to get up at 3 in the morning to make a grab.... that is of the utmost annoyance.

What if there was an option in the War room, or Military advisor that allowed you to direct them to send ****** forces on an attack against ****** (**:**), on a specified date... I know that I would enjoy the extra sleep.

Also, what about an auto-retal option:

If attacker is **% of your size, then send out **** forces in retaliation.

Swirve
Apr 8th 1:55 PM
The core of the game is the human interaction, so we want to stay away from "automating" things as much as possible. The rare exceptions are when there's a *substantial* benefit to it -- for example, the auto-draft helped reduce server strain quite a bit.

In the case above, I think a big part of attacking is seeing the results when they happen rather than just reading about them, so I'm not sure we want to add something along these lines.

Thanks,
Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:30)


Exploring will be more difficult as...


Greed
Apr 8th ##:## AM
Exploring will be more difficult as compared to attacking as a growth strategy

So what are you saying?

Are you going to weaken exploring? Or increase attack gains?

Swirve
Apr 8th 2:02 PM
Exploration has to remain a viable strategy -- many people don't care to attack, and exploration is an alternative. However, attackers who take chances should be more successful -- on average -- than the explorer. Of course, some of those attackers will fail and not be successful, but the top attackers should generally outpace the top explorers.

That can be done several different ways -- we have not picked a particular route yet.

Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:31)


Some changes


Elbaz
Apr 8th ##:## PM
I'm going to keep this simple and to the point.

1) New building: This is an idea which will really be aimed at helping undead, but others may find it usefull: mine fields, (or trapped land if mine fields is too futuristic) not affected by util, employs no people, makes no income,
effects: +*1% defensive strength, +*1.5% to opponents losses.


2) Add some features to historian (i.e. biggest grab, etc.)

3) Random acts of nature: If these are to be incorporated, here's my feelings on how they should work, A lot of certain amounts of buildings cause certain disasters to be more likely, also, get rid of raze costs, however, a lot of land shifting causes susceptibility to earthquakes which will destory a % of land and make it barren again.

4) New attack (not sure of the name, massacre or something along those lines): If successful army breaks through and kills off suspected thieves and wizards. Army will kill of x% of population, (the number of wizards and thieves killed will be proportional to how many per acre the defender has)

That's my best ideas i think, anything else i put up will make this post as a whole a lot weaker. Tell me what you think.

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Thanks for the suggestions:

(1) I think this is definitely something unique and that we'll consider. I hadn't planned to add any new buildings, but it makes sense that you could "waste" some land as a tradeoff for better defense. This might be something we save for a future round, though.

(2) We may do this. I'm not sure I want to make too many stats though -- each slows things down a tad, so I want to focus on core statistics.

(3) We may implement these this round -- I'm not really sure yet. If we do, the effects will be pretty minor and they would be fairly rare. To be honest, I haven't thought through the details on this yet.

(4) I do like this idea. I'm not sure if we'll implement it this round, but an attack that targets Wizards/Thieves/People would be different. Something like this would probably be accompanied by high losses to the attack (along with no gains) to limit it's use.

Thanks,
Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:31)


changes thieving, plague, etc.


hothead2
Apr 8th ##:## PM
::theives::
1) u most be w/ in 80%-140% of nw or land to get good honor or returns back

2) this would encourage the thieves to grow big if they want to hit the attackers and monarch

3) it would also allow attackers to hit them back since the thieves have to get as big as them

4)it would allow protection to new provinces from bottom feeders

:lague::
1/3 chance of getting it if u hit a undead and break him
1/2 if u hit and bounce

1/5 chance if they break u
none if they bounce

intra kingdom plague gone

30% decay rate
-20% to pop growth
-5% to military strength

im sure i lift out some(bassicly like a dragon)

::PK::
bring it back but when u die have a option if u want to stay w/ the kingdom

::TRADE::
little low on taxes not by much

and elves should not get penalized for being handed runes from the kingdom so they can cast it to help them

::PERSONALITYS::
i would really REALLY like to see these i think it would add more deversity to the strats

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
There's already a relative-size component to honor gains for thieves, but we will probably increase it as part of the balance between thievery and attacking honor.

Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:32)


Will Personalities be introduced ?


Agnanix
Apr 8th ##:## PM
Last age you had this great plan of people being able to choose personalities Mehul.
Are you still going to introduce that? It sounded like a good new notion, a fresh wind in the game!

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
I'm not sure right now. We'll consider it, but I think there more important issues to focus on right now. The Personalities will be a perk to add at some point -- it may be this round, but no decision has been made yet.

Mehul


"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:33)


Mitress Selena - Humans


Vlade
Apr 8th ##:## PM
I just wanted to argue with Selena about humans. The swirve thread is full.

You say you play a human and they are weak?!?

That is not the humans fault, but rather your own, no offense. But I played human this round, and I did a mix of exploring and attacking, and it was extremely easy for me to get into the top 50 provinces for networth. I had friends who are humans and have explored the whole round and have been top 100 land and networth.

I think at worst humans are balanced, but they are definately not too weak.

Swirve
Apr 8th 1:57 PM
Just so you know, statistically, Humans are relatively average compared to other races. However, Humans should be worse simply because new players overwhelmingly will choose humans thus pulling down their overall statistics.

Mehul

<font color="yellow">------------------------------------------------------------</font>

The New Guy
Apr 8th 1:54 PM
Vlade, compare yourself (meaning skills, experience and ICQ List) to almost any other player. If you do, it should come as no surprise that you could take nearly any race into top 50 NW.

Humans are hurt BADLY by the NW based gains. The number of times I have been whacked by avians who are larger in acres but way smaller in NW and managed to grab 20% of my land will attest to that

Though I might not go so far as to say humans are weak, they are certainly hurt by the NW gains.

Swirve
Apr 8th 2:09 PM
We look at how a race does overall to determine whether a race should be improved or made worse.

For example, if the average Elf is weaker than the average Orc, then Elves probably need to be weakened or Orcs strengthened.

You also have to account for the fact that certain races are specialized -- Halflings would probably have lower average NW since many play as Thieves -- or other cases like that.

This round, Humans are about average when compared to over races. However, Humans *should* be a bit weaker than others because of the new player factor. So from our view, they are a bit overpowered.

Hope that helps,
Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 109/424
Donated $5.52
(09-Apr-2001 at 11:33)


mages and honnor


juel
Apr 8th ##:## PM
The whole problem is that thieve ops are much more damaging than mage ops ever gonna be. And in the same time the mages get less honnor. This is a total unbalance. Even if mages were able to kill thieves instead of just exposing them it would still be unbalanced since thieves can be bought back but wgaes cant in that sence.

Swirve
Apr 8th ##:## PM
<font color="white">The whole problem is that thieve ops are much more damaging than mage ops ever gonna be. </font>

Of course they are -- they have to be. If a thievery op fails, you lose potentially hundreds of thieves. If a magic op fails, you lose some mana for a few hours. Mages have less downside potential and thus less upside potential.

Mehul

"I look around this room and I see ghosts. When I'm done with the game or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be no ghost up on a wall. I wanna be more than that."
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Digger Add Digger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old Nine
Imported Post
(10-Apr-2001 at 03:49)
known buggs/future changes


I like the idea of natural occurances, earthqakes, forrest fires, etc, but they shouldn't always be negative (almost a half and half chance of being positive or negative), for exe, earlier rains than expected help food production, or random ore mine helps raise income or make training cheaper (more ore for armor) it's just an idea.
#15  
Reply with Quote
Old Persain
Imported Post
(10-Apr-2001 at 04:12)
exploring


as a feary this round i felt that as i got bigger 400k nw it became way to hard to explore if exploring costs were raised you would really be hurting fearys because they in all thought out reallity cant be attackers. if they want to take atvantage of there races abittityes they need to be explorers and the higher prices for the round would make it nearly impossible for a feary to play the game that wants to be in the top 100 for net worth

im in the top 100 for net worth, land, and honor on my island Gia(7) and have troble being getting any bigger

#16  
Reply with Quote
Old Persain
Imported Post
(10-Apr-2001 at 04:13)
exploring


as a feary this round i felt that as i got bigger 400k nw it became way to hard to explore if exploring costs were raised you would really be hurting fearys because they in all thought out reallity cant be attackers. if they want to take atvantage of there races abittityes they need to be explorers and the higher prices for the round would make it nearly impossible for a feary to play the game that wants to be in the top 100 for net worth

im in the top 100 for net worth, land, and honor on my island Gia(7) and have troble being getting any bigger


maybe a feary could choose to be an explore and have cheaper exploring costs than everybody else
#17  
Reply with Quote
(Posted as Hashish)
Posts: 11/73
(10-Apr-2001 at 22:18)
Re: exploring


Well,...nice thinking but feary = explorer thus why have an option to choose it?

Plus as Mehul put it in the above, Halfling and Faery should only explore. Now don't ask me why he wants to make it even harder??!! That is a real pain in the $^%#% if you are either one of those races. I was attacker this age pure and alone because of the 50gc draft costs per soldier. That made it ineffective in my point of view. Though while attacking there are also costs like losses... Well that's why i picked Elf attacker.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ashish Add Ashish to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old sebbe
Imported Post
(11-Apr-2001 at 01:19)
races


what changes will be made regarding the races???
#19  
Reply with Quote
Old crownwel
Imported Post
(11-Apr-2001 at 02:52)
changes in the upcoming age


I liked this suggestion from someone else

Would it be possible for the monarch to have a page that all new provinces into the kingdom see
before they enter the main menu?? This would help inform new players of the expectation of the
kingdom and that type of thing. see
boards.swirve.com/board.c...ec=4117032
for details and more monarch suggestions.




****My own suggestions****

Have self spells cast on Kingdom mates count toward TB equal to the rune expenditure.

I would like the option of staying with the KD if I died and started another province.



I am sorry to hear that thieves will have less honor, and attackers more next age.
This age I was a human attacker, being new to the game, and starting yr 3 I think. and had a miserable time getting honor.
Next age I am going halfling t/m because my kingdom needs more t/m. I just hope I can attain more honor than this age

To bad Mehul wants to weaken humans further. They are atleast balance with most races or on the weak side already.

#20  
Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 23:50.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.