- Subscribers:
- Visitors:
- Players:
Games Direct Message (to Do)
Community Feedback
We're listening. For players who wish to have a voice in the future of Evernight, this is the place to talk to management. This is the newsgroup we'll be actively monitoring on a daily basis.
Fury Farms
Submitted by Management 7/5/2012 11:13:00 AM {time} ago in Community Feedback
Let's discuss Fury Farms. Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms? I sure do. And it's not favorable. In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with. I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them. Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be. What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I have to say I'm not familiar with the term "over centralization" but I agree with the concept.
If a particular tactic/strategy/technique/etc. works so well that a significant majority of players adopt it, that's a strong signal that there may be a balance issue of some sort that needs to be addressed.
Specifically regarding T vs F in Evernight, I'm personally thinking that more choices, better choices, of things to spend T on is the direction to explore.
Make the opportunity cost of sending T into a Farm high enough that it gives a moment's pause.
Even then I wouldn't want to go so far in the direction that NOT farming is a no brainer either.
Ideally, the objective is to get the relative values close enough, so neither is the obvious choice.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
yup.. i agree. well put.
(on a side note, the ai should take over inactive players as it once did))
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Getting an AI of some kind up an running again is on the list of things to do.
There are just too many good uses for it.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: yup.. i agree. well put.
(on a side note, the ai should take over inactive players as it once did))
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: yup.. i agree. well put.
(on a side note, the ai should take over inactive players as it once did))
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
the nap tracker design can resolve this..
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
That it can.
So long as you get rid of leopard fighter. I think you'd still also need to introduce more uses for T so that fury starving isn't the first go to tactic. That's what makes people desperate to fury farm. But if you give them more reasons to keep their T and use it in other ways to fight the starvation, the game can get back to it's core of war and more strategies can populate the game. And more to the point, become more viable.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: the nap tracker design can resolve this..
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
That has always been an option...what players will do though is not use the nap tracker....
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That it can.
So long as you get rid of leopard fighter. I think you'd still also need to introduce more uses for T so that fury starving isn't the first go to tactic. That's what makes people desperate to fury farm. But if you give them more reasons to keep their T and use it in other ways to fight the starvation, the game can get back to it's core of war and more strategies can populate the game. And more to the point, become more viable.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: the nap tracker design can resolve this..
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: The problem is, that getting the F is no longer challenging with Fury Farms or a sacrifice spell that costs 1 point to cast. That needs to be fixed and balanced.
1 F sac dissolves the need to farm, but then everyone can just convert T to F, rendering T almost completely pointless, then it's just a giant race to see who can get the most forms the fastest for the win.
If we give more reasons to use T and more things to spend it on, this gives purpose back to having and using T and makes players think twice before converting it all. And pumps some importance back into the other factors of the game.
These changes are needed. I think in other competitive circles, they refer to problems like this as "over centralization". When a strategy works too well, everyone wants to use it. When everyone is using it, the game diversity is more or less killed and skill is quickly downplayed and it becomes too much about luck and speed. In Evernight's case, that would be about starting placement, absent neighbors (free expansion), native placement, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Getting the f is one of the game challenges...
We already have the option to change the sacrifice spell..
What more is needed?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, I believe at its root it's a balance issue.
Under most circumstances F is just way more valuable than T in the game.
This can be addressed somewhat with adjusting various in-game costs/stats/etc.
I lean towards believing that ultimately the solution is in direction of creating things to spend T on that are at least on par with or better than just converting to F in the most expedient manner available.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel fury farms are a bi-product of the value of Fury itself. For way too long has fury been the key resource in the game. You get F, and then you can spell sling and summon forms out the wazoo. And we all know how broken the forms have been and how broken Suckerman is.
But, if we reduce it's value or bring up the value of T, lessors, structures, and whatever other new thing we add, the reason for fury farming will quickly degrade to where it's probably undesirable.
1 F sacrificing has been a reliable patch to deal with fury farming, but it's just that. A patch. It's not a permanent fix. That said, I do feel that particular spell should be reduced to a permanent cost of 50.
We need to give players incentive to keep battling opponents and not abusing the ability to attack a friendly. (something an in-game ally system would solve on it's own)
I think the idea of granting reward bonuses in battles is how we go about that. Like the idea I posted earlier about "units" gaining extra F from battle after they've battled alongside one another for a period of time.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
no way to change it with Changeing it.. it is just how it works out with the game curency. Bext fix is to adjust the sac spell and it makes the farm moot.
(never was a fan of the farm, nore was I agianst it. I feel that the sac is more in my favor because it doesnt help my nap who in the end is someone I am compeating with inorder to gain the W.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
The issue is that Sac is also a counter to various other spells, especially Suckerman. Make Sac cheap to cast and it can throw off spell tactics and create a very frustrating dynamic where one new player Sacs his army to keep it from being trapped and neither can come to blows.
It could be rebalanced, but I think introducing another option (which could be turned on or off) would be superior if it can be implemented.
If the game's going into a new beta at some point, why not try lots of approaches and see what's working in what ways?
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: no way to change it with Changeing it.. it is just how it works out with the game curency. Bext fix is to adjust the sac spell and it makes the farm moot.
(never was a fan of the farm, nore was I agianst it. I feel that the sac is more in my favor because it doesnt help my nap who in the end is someone I am compeating with inorder to gain the W.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I propose dropping the sacrifice spell altogether for a game, and using in-game enforced relationships so that players have to fight someone or natives to generate fury.
This might actually be doable in a team game...assuming team members can't attack each other? It's been a very long time since I've played in a team game. I can't remember.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Narsham wrote: The issue is that Sac is also a counter to various other spells, especially Suckerman. Make Sac cheap to cast and it can throw off spell tactics and create a very frustrating dynamic where one new player Sacs his army to keep it from being trapped and neither can come to blows.
It could be rebalanced, but I think introducing another option (which could be turned on or off) would be superior if it can be implemented.
If the game's going into a new beta at some point, why not try lots of approaches and see what's working in what ways?
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: no way to change it with Changeing it.. it is just how it works out with the game curency. Bext fix is to adjust the sac spell and it makes the farm moot.
(never was a fan of the farm, nore was I agianst it. I feel that the sac is more in my favor because it doesnt help my nap who in the end is someone I am compeating with inorder to gain the W.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
The Fury Farm issue may also be "auto solved" when we get more players in the various games.
Minor stat tweaks here and there, more options to spend T, and more players in a game may be the way to balance resource usage and reduce the dependancy on Fury Farms to be competitive.
A fact of the game is you can get F two ways: - kill your enemies, essentially stealing their T or F - convert your own T
Right now, there are only two ways to convert your own T, and that's using a spell (spend some F), or a fury farm - need a partner.
If there were two or three other ways to generate F, then other strategies may evolve. Some ideas: - A bank. A new structure that could be used to spend T and generate F (similar to a fortress spending T and generating lessors). It takes a tick to convert, just like other strategies. It's limited to 500 (?). You run the risk of losing it to your enemy, or it getting star pierced. - Feed your forms. Modify forms so they can generate fury by sacrificing your own lessors to them. Perhaps you get diminishing returns. You get 2 F per lessor for the first 100, 1 F per lessor for the next 100, .5 F per lessor for the next 100.
Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
What if lands progrressed 1 treasure every turn in value, and if you captured someones land it would reset its value and give you the difference in fury.
Can we do this in our current game format?
G360
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
This sounds like an interesting idea.
The longer you own a region, the more valuable it becomes.
-------Original Message-------
Godzilla360 wrote: What if lands progrressed 1 treasure every turn in value, and if you captured someones land it would reset its value and give you the difference in fury.
Can we do this in our current game format?
G360
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Very interesting idea.
However, the bigger the player, the more income they'd receive.
A large player would go from collecting 300 treasure from 50 regions in a tick. To 350 T the next tick, PLUS whatever else he captured in that tick. Two ticks later, he's bringing in 400 T plus new captures. They would be almost unstoppable once they convert to fury, making the game even more broken.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
This sounds like an interesting idea.
The longer you own a region, the more valuable it becomes.
-------Original Message-------
Godzilla360 wrote: What if lands progrressed 1 treasure every turn in value, and if you captured someones land it would reset its value and give you the difference in fury.
Can we do this in our current game format?
G360
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I do believe the stronger lessors (or weaker forms) does to at least some degree create a little more incentive to use T for lessors to fight with.
Is it the answer to the whole puzzle? No. But it think it's probably one of right the pieces.
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
If you decrease F per lesser kill and sucessful form hit then you will actually earn less F. Fury farming will still be viable though.
Weakening forms will atleast allow the defender to kill the form with lessers.
-What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner?
I can see cloacking your fortresses becoming a very important tactic. You also have to take into account the snowball effect, if the loser gets nothing in that battle those battles could become too critical and end a war too soon.
As for the other suggestions, you would be changing game mechanics. I would much prefer a hidden naptracker and allow a player to be nuked into oblivion when he farms in a game where farming is not allowed.
C.
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
all the fury going to the winner in a fort is an easy work around. just for go the first round of farming to put forces next to the fort and order like amounts of lessers in the fort. next cycle send lessers into each others fort evenly. even fury to the winners. no border battle.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: If you decrease F per lesser kill and sucessful form hit then you will actually earn less F. Fury farming will still be viable though.
Weakening forms will atleast allow the defender to kill the form with lessers.
-What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner?
I can see cloacking your fortresses becoming a very important tactic. You also have to take into account the snowball effect, if the loser gets nothing in that battle those battles could become too critical and end a war too soon.
As for the other suggestions, you would be changing game mechanics. I would much prefer a hidden naptracker and allow a player to be nuked into oblivion when he farms in a game where farming is not allowed.
C.
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
It weakens the form as such makes larger lessor stacks and less for farming...
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Does either option (stronger lessers vs weaker forms) dis-incent generating fury faster? I still want to cast spells. I probably want to generate even more forms.
Another approach is to make farming less lucrative / more difficult. - What if ALL fury generated in a region containing a fortress went to the winner? - What if border battles around a region containing a fortress generated no F for either side? (I suppose you would change to farming in a region between fortresses). - What if a region between two opposing fortresses could not accept movement orders from either fortress? (you could still farm, but you would have to go the long way around)
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.
Reduce the relative fury value of killing a lessor.
Probably worthwhile to explore the implications of that idea.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
dont think that will change much. only mean less forces on the map and less spells in play.
the fix would be to change lesser and form streangths. make forms less of a need and more of a want. (i rarely use forms in game. I feel they are no better than just a lone lesser in non elim games. Spells are where its at.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.
Reduce the relative fury value of killing a lessor.
Probably worthwhile to explore the implications of that idea.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
What all the implications are, I'm not entirely sure.
But I'd expect it to have subtle effect to discourage farming. Not a lot, but a little.
You wouldn't quite be getting full value from investing your T into a farm.
But then the question is, compared to what?
Compared to using lessors to attack forms.
What if lessors killing lessors produced less than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors damaging forms produced greater than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors were made a bit stronger (vs forms) than they are now?
What if some combination of these ideas were blended together?
At some combination of values in there, the most attractive way to generate Fury could be to go hunting forms. With lessors.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: dont think that will change much. only mean less forces on the map and less spells in play.
the fix would be to change lesser and form streangths. make forms less of a need and more of a want. (i rarely use forms in game. I feel they are no better than just a lone lesser in non elim games. Spells are where its at.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.
Reduce the relative fury value of killing a lessor.
Probably worthwhile to explore the implications of that idea.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
An extension of this idea?
There is a base F amount you get for winning a battle, regardless of the number of forces involved.
This would mean lots of battles with a small number of lessers would be more F valuable than a few large battles. (I guess it may just change the style of fury farming)
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
What all the implications are, I'm not entirely sure.
But I'd expect it to have subtle effect to discourage farming. Not a lot, but a little.
You wouldn't quite be getting full value from investing your T into a farm.
But then the question is, compared to what?
Compared to using lessors to attack forms.
What if lessors killing lessors produced less than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors damaging forms produced greater than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors were made a bit stronger (vs forms) than they are now?
What if some combination of these ideas were blended together?
At some combination of values in there, the most attractive way to generate Fury could be to go hunting forms. With lessors.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: dont think that will change much. only mean less forces on the map and less spells in play.
the fix would be to change lesser and form streangths. make forms less of a need and more of a want. (i rarely use forms in game. I feel they are no better than just a lone lesser in non elim games. Spells are where its at.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.
Reduce the relative fury value of killing a lessor.
Probably worthwhile to explore the implications of that idea.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Would perhaps create a new kind of farm. Two temples, two forts. Each conjuring a form, then sending their lessors to the NAP partner's form to generate fury...at a greater ratio than before, so the value of the farm is now increased. The main difference is that it's just a bit harder to set up. And depending on how much fury they generate on attacking the form (especially at greater ratios than 1:1), conjuring the next form may not be an issue at all.
And yeah, old_ugly, the idea would greatly change the style of fury farms. People would conjur 1 lessor each, then have them go out to battle, and get X amount of F every tick. Minimal cost, max profit.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: An extension of this idea?
There is a base F amount you get for winning a battle, regardless of the number of forces involved.
This would mean lots of battles with a small number of lessers would be more F valuable than a few large battles. (I guess it may just change the style of fury farming)
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
What all the implications are, I'm not entirely sure.
But I'd expect it to have subtle effect to discourage farming. Not a lot, but a little.
You wouldn't quite be getting full value from investing your T into a farm.
But then the question is, compared to what?
Compared to using lessors to attack forms.
What if lessors killing lessors produced less than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors damaging forms produced greater than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors were made a bit stronger (vs forms) than they are now?
What if some combination of these ideas were blended together?
At some combination of values in there, the most attractive way to generate Fury could be to go hunting forms. With lessors.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: dont think that will change much. only mean less forces on the map and less spells in play.
the fix would be to change lesser and form streangths. make forms less of a need and more of a want. (i rarely use forms in game. I feel they are no better than just a lone lesser in non elim games. Spells are where its at.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.
Reduce the relative fury value of killing a lessor.
Probably worthwhile to explore the implications of that idea.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Thanks for bringing that up. It's another thing to be aware.
I do have a vague memory of cazy custom game that had crazy stats for lessors & forms that actually created situation where it was possible to "harvest" fury from forms.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Would perhaps create a new kind of farm. Two temples, two forts. Each conjuring a form, then sending their lessors to the NAP partner's form to generate fury...at a greater ratio than before, so the value of the farm is now increased. The main difference is that it's just a bit harder to set up. And depending on how much fury they generate on attacking the form (especially at greater ratios than 1:1), conjuring the next form may not be an issue at all.
And yeah, old_ugly, the idea would greatly change the style of fury farms. People would conjur 1 lessor each, then have them go out to battle, and get X amount of F every tick. Minimal cost, max profit.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: An extension of this idea?
There is a base F amount you get for winning a battle, regardless of the number of forces involved.
This would mean lots of battles with a small number of lessers would be more F valuable than a few large battles. (I guess it may just change the style of fury farming)
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
What all the implications are, I'm not entirely sure.
But I'd expect it to have subtle effect to discourage farming. Not a lot, but a little.
You wouldn't quite be getting full value from investing your T into a farm.
But then the question is, compared to what?
Compared to using lessors to attack forms.
What if lessors killing lessors produced less than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors damaging forms produced greater than 1:1 fury?
What if lessors were made a bit stronger (vs forms) than they are now?
What if some combination of these ideas were blended together?
At some combination of values in there, the most attractive way to generate Fury could be to go hunting forms. With lessors.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: dont think that will change much. only mean less forces on the map and less spells in play.
the fix would be to change lesser and form streangths. make forms less of a need and more of a want. (i rarely use forms in game. I feel they are no better than just a lone lesser in non elim games. Spells are where its at.)
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.
Reduce the relative fury value of killing a lessor.
Probably worthwhile to explore the implications of that idea.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I just had another idea to kill fury farms.
Up the cost of lessors.
You could make it so that each new level of lessor is cheaper than the last.
But even a baseline cost of 2 T per lessor (regardless of type) makes things extremely expensive and fury farms too costly to run. You're spending double T to get half the F return.
Even a 1.5 T cost per lessor would make most think twice about it. "Do I want to try to go for the F, or am I going to need another fort, temple, or forces to fight the enemy?"
This would be a simple way to reduce the farms power until we can introduce more uses for T.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Strictly within the context of a fury farm economics, I think this mathematically equivalent to the idea of generating less than 1F per lessor killed.
But I think it would magnify the lessor v form economic imbalance.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I just had another idea to kill fury farms.
Up the cost of lessors.
You could make it so that each new level of lessor is cheaper than the last.
But even a baseline cost of 2 T per lessor (regardless of type) makes things extremely expensive and fury farms too costly to run. You're spending double T to get half the F return.
Even a 1.5 T cost per lessor would make most think twice about it. "Do I want to try to go for the F, or am I going to need another fort, temple, or forces to fight the enemy?"
This would be a simple way to reduce the farms power until we can introduce more uses for T.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
We could double the land income at the same time and......
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I just had another idea to kill fury farms.
Up the cost of lessors.
You could make it so that each new level of lessor is cheaper than the last.
But even a baseline cost of 2 T per lessor (regardless of type) makes things extremely expensive and fury farms too costly to run. You're spending double T to get half the F return.
Even a 1.5 T cost per lessor would make most think twice about it. "Do I want to try to go for the F, or am I going to need another fort, temple, or forces to fight the enemy?"
This would be a simple way to reduce the farms power until we can introduce more uses for T.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Well it was easy to calc lessor stats. Lessors are the same attack and defense..
I find with forms there are three flexes and not a whole lot of change gives some of the results just fine..
And no, forms are not balanced now... Hulks are by far teworst form on a financial basis.. I was balancingtotheir current balance tough and not to a true balance.... Should it e a true balance?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I was trying to do that same thing with forms. I cant figure why a wooden should cost just 100 fury. Do you believe that a large sized form with low attack is more favorable to a player than a large sized form with a high attack?
G360
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Well it was easy to calc lessor stats. Lessors are the same attack and defense..
I find with forms there are three flexes and not a whole lot of change gives some of the results just fine..
And no, forms are not balanced now... Hulks are by far teworst form on a financial basis.. I was balancingtotheir current balance tough and not to a true balance.... Should it e a true balance?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Of course, that's why the colossa plays with lessors better than a black...
Especially if it's hard to kill
-------Original Message-------
Godzilla360 wrote: I was trying to do that same thing with forms. I cant figure why a wooden should cost just 100 fury. Do you believe that a large sized form with low attack is more favorable to a player than a large sized form with a high attack?
G360
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Well it was easy to calc lessor stats. Lessors are the same attack and defense..
I find with forms there are three flexes and not a whole lot of change gives some of the results just fine..
And no, forms are not balanced now... Hulks are by far teworst form on a financial basis.. I was balancingtotheir current balance tough and not to a true balance.... Should it e a true balance?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Attacks & size are both helpful, but in different ways.
The larger the form size, the more of the enemy attacks it will draw away from other forces.
This is especially helpful to protect accompanying lessors because they're subject to fewer attacks so the lessors are more likely to survive longer and more likely to survive the entire battle.
The higher attacks a form has, the more damage it can deal out per round.
This helps accompanying forces by way of more and faster attrition of enemy units.
Analyzing which is more beneficial would be mostly a matter of doing all the math, but even then there are be a number situational variables which create a wide area where the answer is frequently "it depends."
-------Original Message-------
Godzilla360 wrote: I was trying to do that same thing with forms. I cant figure why a wooden should cost just 100 fury. Do you believe that a large sized form with low attack is more favorable to a player than a large sized form with a high attack?
G360
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Well it was easy to calc lessor stats. Lessors are the same attack and defense..
I find with forms there are three flexes and not a whole lot of change gives some of the results just fine..
And no, forms are not balanced now... Hulks are by far teworst form on a financial basis.. I was balancingtotheir current balance tough and not to a true balance.... Should it e a true balance?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I would think a true balance is what we're really after.
What factors are you using for analysis?
I would think strict cost per unit of battle effectiveness is fairly straightforward.
But I would expect accounting for the value of the other not strictly battle factors like size, fuel cost, fuel capacity, & special ability is more difficult.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Well it was easy to calc lessor stats. Lessors are the same attack and defense..
I find with forms there are three flexes and not a whole lot of change gives some of the results just fine..
And no, forms are not balanced now... Hulks are by far teworst form on a financial basis.. I was balancingtotheir current balance tough and not to a true balance.... Should it e a true balance?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Good question. Factors..
I started with just total cost vs battle, under the "true balance" assumption that the F expense on one form should match the F expense on the other, including fuel per tick costs.
But I am now believing that there are other bonuses that have to be considered, not sure yet how to calc them in. Form size (beneficial with lessors), form maximum health (a definate benefit), and EPH of the form or form growth. I need a much more comprehensive model I think.
Size - You can argue that a size difference of a form strictly provides added F to the owner, when the form is with lessors. Assume perhaps that adding x number of lessors generates a fury difference, that fury difference perhaps subtracets from the total cost when factoring that in assuming perhaps 2-3 times the one tick benefit over the life of the form?
Longetivity - Makes it more expensive because of the cost, but the form being around longer, how would we value that? A form around 12 ticks vs 9 ticks is not 30% better. Ideas?
EPH benefit - A form with a larger EPH basically regenerates and grows faster. OK, whats that worth.. maybe a 2 EPH vs a 9EPH can be valued at.... lessee if it kills X,diminishes by Y in the process, and restores (EPH)x, then the restored value vs another form for the same amount of kills is worth the percent of increased form life? Is killing 100 lessors and getting 50 HE out of it worth 50% of a wooden? No, I don't think so.. Hm.. Ideas?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I would think a true balance is what we're really after.
What factors are you using for analysis?
I would think strict cost per unit of battle effectiveness is fairly straightforward.
But I would expect accounting for the value of the other not strictly battle factors like size, fuel cost, fuel capacity, & special ability is more difficult.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Well it was easy to calc lessor stats. Lessors are the same attack and defense..
I find with forms there are three flexes and not a whole lot of change gives some of the results just fine..
And no, forms are not balanced now... Hulks are by far teworst form on a financial basis.. I was balancingtotheir current balance tough and not to a true balance.... Should it e a true balance?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Ideas to mathematically account for some of the more subjective factors is tricky.
I'm thinking many of those factors (fuel capacity, size, EPH, etc) are highly situationally dependent.
I'd be happy with just getting a reasonable average/estimate that gets us in the ballpark as a starting point. Then let playtesting over time identify where something may be too weak or too strong.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Good question. Factors..
I started with just total cost vs battle, under the "true balance" assumption that the F expense on one form should match the F expense on the other, including fuel per tick costs.
But I am now believing that there are other bonuses that have to be considered, not sure yet how to calc them in. Form size (beneficial with lessors), form maximum health (a definate benefit), and EPH of the form or form growth. I need a much more comprehensive model I think.
Size - You can argue that a size difference of a form strictly provides added F to the owner, when the form is with lessors. Assume perhaps that adding x number of lessors generates a fury difference, that fury difference perhaps subtracets from the total cost when factoring that in assuming perhaps 2-3 times the one tick benefit over the life of the form?
Longetivity - Makes it more expensive because of the cost, but the form being around longer, how would we value that? A form around 12 ticks vs 9 ticks is not 30% better. Ideas?
EPH benefit - A form with a larger EPH basically regenerates and grows faster. OK, whats that worth.. maybe a 2 EPH vs a 9EPH can be valued at.... lessee if it kills X,diminishes by Y in the process, and restores (EPH)x, then the restored value vs another form for the same amount of kills is worth the percent of increased form life? Is killing 100 lessors and getting 50 HE out of it worth 50% of a wooden? No, I don't think so.. Hm.. Ideas?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I would think a true balance is what we're really after.
What factors are you using for analysis?
I would think strict cost per unit of battle effectiveness is fairly straightforward.
But I would expect accounting for the value of the other not strictly battle factors like size, fuel cost, fuel capacity, & special ability is more difficult.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Well it was easy to calc lessor stats. Lessors are the same attack and defense..
I find with forms there are three flexes and not a whole lot of change gives some of the results just fine..
And no, forms are not balanced now... Hulks are by far teworst form on a financial basis.. I was balancingtotheir current balance tough and not to a true balance.... Should it e a true balance?
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That would be great.
I've always felt that the form v form balance was pretty darn good.
The reason I think nudging the form stats down rather than the lessor stats up may be a preferable way to address lessor v form balance is because by pushing lessors stats so high, we box ourselves in on further potential flexibility with lessors.
While we do want to have a lot of flexibility for custom games, it's important that we achieve a good baseline balance that's considered the "standard" game.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: I will see about working out the numbers from that angle...
The way I did it, crusaders, rips, hatches are perfectly balanced. Muds are a little weaker vs expection because I run up to the 90% cap in lessors. Glows and above are less powerful than they should be..
But It couldcertainly be done the other way, I will work out some numbers for darkness falls 2...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
The Darkness Falls format is I think a step in the right direction for balancing lessors v forms.
Though I am thinking it might be better to make the adjustment from the other end. Trimming down Forms a bit.
While upping the lessors gives them better footing relative to forms, it significantly narrows range between lessor types.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I would also favor a balanced standard as is in the darkness falls game, or by correctly reducing the form stats to keep it in balance...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Yes, the forms are way too strong compared to lessers. It does make no sense 90F gets you a '325 lessers strong' magma demon. Ofcourse your opponent can counter your magma with his own magma but that would actually be his only choice (or another form).
The question is, do you keep the current statistics of forms and lessers and consider those stats the standard of EN for aslong EN is running OR do you change the statistics and make forms weaker and that becomes the standard?
I favor changing the statistics one and for all. The creators of EN were not on the right track to make forms that powerful. It reduces the game to mere converting F and summoning forms.
I also put forward the idea to earn less Fury per lesser kill and less Fury for a succesful hit on a form. I would say something in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 instead of 1.
Combine the weakening of forms and a decrease in F income EN would be a very different game.
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A second way to defeat this tactic is to have more powerful lessors. We have the darkness game where lessors are twice as strong and twice as fast, and effectively 4x more effective against forms..
Really puts forms in their place. Overall, forms are a bit too powerful for teir cost.
Equivalent of a magma demon is 325 crusaders. So one player spends 326T, the other 90F and we do not have equality..
Technically, a magma demon should cost on the order of 300F, all te way up.. Or lessors need to be 4x more effective against forms to make it an even trade..
Quad's wall of forms failed to a super rip tactic when we played in the enhanced lessor game recently.
WOuld be a better tactic to simply use a more balanced lessor statistic set, or a weaker form statistic set that balances one out vs. the other. The only advantage of a form at that point would be its ability to ignore spells, and the fact that its attacks are the same up until the moment of death, unlike lessors, which get weaker as the battle progresses...
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Im not favorable to Fury Farms aswell. The crucial mechanic behind is the dependency and worth of Fury.
Back in the early days when I was just screwing around and getting beating to pulp I noticed Quaddrex's Wall of Forms tactic. That changed my playstyle completely and it never changed.
There is only one playstyle to win a game. Convert your 80% to 100% of your T to F. Build a massive army of forms and be succesfull.
Fury reduces the complexity of the game.
Now instead of moaning about it I should come up with ideas.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I think about it, and I think now that there is no way to controll fury farming between two players that are fighting over 1 or possibly many regions. It would just take the game all apart to try to correct this.
Though it is interesting the thought of making lands produce fury or to make fury in some other way, what would evernight be than?
G360
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
I've always wanted a game where lands produced F and battles produce T.
Just to see what would happen.
I wager that it'd create "Treasure Farms" that people need to keep building their temples and forts. Native count would also need to be pumped up so the beginning of the game is a little more manageable and it garners more Treasure so you can order your next forces or structure.
That said, I'm still going to stand very strongly by the idea of just including more uses for T. New structures, items, equipment, traps, etc. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the only ways to go. Excuses of "but it changes the game" be damned.
If you did that and included the form and lessor changes, then threw in the options of in-game managed alliances, I think many of the issues we're discussing here would be fixed. And we'd have new problems to discuss instead of this old tired back and forth bullcrap we've been dealing with for years.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Godzilla360 wrote: I think about it, and I think now that there is no way to controll fury farming between two players that are fighting over 1 or possibly many regions. It would just take the game all apart to try to correct this.
Though it is interesting the thought of making lands produce fury or to make fury in some other way, what would evernight be than?
G360
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
It would be a good option
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've always wanted a game where lands produced F and battles produce T.
Just to see what would happen.
I wager that it'd create "Treasure Farms" that people need to keep building their temples and forts. Native count would also need to be pumped up so the beginning of the game is a little more manageable and it garners more Treasure so you can order your next forces or structure.
That said, I'm still going to stand very strongly by the idea of just including more uses for T. New structures, items, equipment, traps, etc. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the only ways to go. Excuses of "but it changes the game" be damned.
If you did that and included the form and lessor changes, then threw in the options of in-game managed alliances, I think many of the issues we're discussing here would be fixed. And we'd have new problems to discuss instead of this old tired back and forth bullcrap we've been dealing with for years.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Godzilla360 wrote: I think about it, and I think now that there is no way to controll fury farming between two players that are fighting over 1 or possibly many regions. It would just take the game all apart to try to correct this.
Though it is interesting the thought of making lands produce fury or to make fury in some other way, what would evernight be than?
G360
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
In Spells, you mentioned wanting some algorithm to detect fury farming. No such thing can be done, but I can think of modifications to the fury income system which might help. They'd change the game in lots of other, potentially undesirable ways. And each can be circumvented, although the more effort it requires to pull off a fury farm, the fewer players will bother. If you're going to stage a well-coordinated phony war over a period of 15-20 cycles, to gain some advantage, then fine, I guess. Just eliminate things like subbing in to play both sides, to force players to spend lots of time and effort to pull that off.
Options: A. The game tracks number of battles fought. Increase F income for players fighting more battles in a given tick. Decrease it for those fighting fewer. That encourages big players to fight multi-front wars in order to gain more F (although it also grants them a big F income advantage). You might implement A2 instead and track fights between players, so that if we fight in only one region, we earn less F than if we fought in twenty.
B. Battleground F penalties. The more combats a player fights in a given region over the course of the game, the less F earned by that player in those fights. Doesn't really stop F farming, only slows it down a bit and makes it less convenient.
C. F gains based on capture of regions owned by other players, with gains increased depending on how long the other player held the region. Trading regions back and forth rapidly would earn nothing. Region swapping would still be a big concern, though.
D. Combat regularity penalty. The more two players fight each other in a given region or border, the less F they earn for it. Relax the penalty over time, perhaps. Still doesn't address "first time" farming, which is often the most critical form.
E. If fury generation can be more easily done some other way, farming will cease. But then fury starvation ceases, too. My fury furnace idea is the closest I can come to something that offers a strategic objective... capture or destroy the foe's fury furnace and you create an opportunity to fury starve him.
Indeed, if the furnace takes time to construct in the first place, that's probably the best available control. Make it take 2-4 cycles to build, and once you destroy an enemy furnace you have a window where you may be able to fury starve him. Unfortunately, a player who keeps a backup farm has another option, but odds are if you lost your furnace you're losing the war and the opportunity cost of farming will be significantly higher.
F. Assign admins and create a "report farm" button players can click. Then an admin checks on the situation. If it's an obvious farm, some penalty applies.
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Let's discuss Fury Farms.
Does anyone have an opinion on Fury Farms?
I sure do. And it's not favorable.
In my opinion, Fury farms are, at best, a glitch in the game design/engine that slipped through early beta testing without being identified and dealt with.
I think they have a negative effect on the game play experience and that something should be done about them.
Now, having said that, I will be the first one to admit, I don't know what the solution would be.
What I am sure about is it's an area that needs discussion and idea.
Connect With Us