Community Feedback

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I'm not saying take away the advantage of being larger altogether. We shouldn't punish a player for doing well.
However, I would like to see some more emphasis on the reality of larger empires being more difficult to manage and more importantly, maintain. As we get more players in games, that will probably weed itself out to some degree, but it won't be gone entirely.
At the very least, we should consider a new variant where bigger empires have different challenges or more taxing natures, but most definitely do have their own distinct rewards over smaller empires.
In fact, another way we might lean away from the idea of "get the biggest empire" is to come up with new goal ideas for games. Or maybe even new ways to keep score. I notice there are two things in the Citadel for keeping track of player ranks/leads. Region count, and point count. Where Point count usually equals the region count. Well, what if we changed it so that in some variants, the regions were worth varying amounts? Like a plains is worth 1 point (yet gives the most T), while a swamp is worth 4 points (and is almost useless, as you can't build on it and renders very little T).
And new concepts in goals would also change the desire to just simply grow big. As there might be different advantages to having a smaller, bigger, or even a weirdly shaped empire on the map. Or even better, different tactics and advantages to moving your forces around differently or in directions instead of global domination in all directions.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Carefully here. A large opponent fighting On many fronts needs all the resources and more not sure that I would handicap a larger player for doing well...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
This game variant may have identified a possible need to reevaluate the battle algorithm.
Maybe things need to be a bit more granular. Attacks meted out on some sort of ordered proportional basis.
So even if a unit has multiple attacks, if it dies early in the battle round, it may or may not have gotten off all of it's attacks. Something along those lines.
Along the lines of giving some help to smaller empires, maybe apply a factor income factor that inverse to the size of the empire?
For example, an average size empire would have a factor of 1. A below average size empire may be 1.2, an above average empire may be .8
The larger and more spread out your empire it is, more more difficult it is to collect taxes...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Aha! That's it. Thank you. That's what it was.
Anyway, the game has always favored the defending player, ala Fort upgrade bonuses.
So, making it so the defending player gets the home field advantage doesn't sound like too bad an idea. Unfortunately, this just gives bigger players another step up. So...hm. :/
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I recall reading a thread in one the newsgroups where they were discussing the results of a game variant where lessors had a very high number of attacks.
Basically the result was it created a situation where a small number of lessors could kill a much larger number of lessors. A common result was that both groups of lessors would be totally wiped out. But the player with the smaller group of lessors gained more fury and as a tie with 0 lessors surviving the region stayed with the defending player.
Creating a situation heavily favoring a defending player over an attacking player.
An interesting scenario. But I'm not sure if that would be the desired outcome or not.
100% offense is technically not a problem. 100% defense though does raise some issues. What happens if two units with 100% defense are on opposite sides in a battle?
The easy solution is disallow 100%. 99% would be the max defense any unit could have.
But then again, maybe it coded for as as a special case to be handled one way or another. For example, maybe various modifiers could be in effect at any given time... or whenever 100% defense units end up fighting each other they automatically kill each other.. or maybe something else entirely...
Fury farms are a whole new subject, as matter of fact I'll kick off a thread on Fury Farms...


-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I have done games in the past where the lessors had an insanely high number of attacks. It actually puts them at a disadvantage when it's just lessor vs. lessor. I don't remember the details, but someone ran the calculations, the lessors with more attacks were more frequently coming out on the losing end.
I wager the whole lessor system might have to be reworked. Though, I agree with Blue, they should be allowed to have 100% attack or defense (maybe not defense as that makes them invincible no?).
Other than disagreeing on movement rules in the game, I wish to focus on other ideas for lessors.
Like tracking how many battles a single lessor or perhaps a group of lessors have won. And then using this information to grant advantages to the group.
For example: a group of lessors travels together across 3 regions. The game labels them as a unit as long as they continue to stay together after that point. After winning 2 battles together as a unit (even if they lose a few in the battles), they begin to gain advantages.
Specifically, reward advantages. Like being able to garner more F from a win. A unit who has traveled together across 3 regions, and THEN won 2 battles, now gets +1% extra Fury in every battle they win from there on. After 4 battles, it's increased to +2%. After 8 battles, it's increased to +4% with a cap at say 5 or 6%.
Also, I would like to change the rewards from battle. Battles between lessors should be able to grant more than just F. I'd like to be able to switch it to battles granting Treasure instead...or perhaps even both at the same time.
Also, btw, the extra bonus F thing would be hard to pull off in fury farms since you're generating on the spot and then battling. But we're trying to break the farms anyway, as I recall with 1 F sacrifice spells. Also, for diplomatic reasons I think. Which I want to discuss diplomacy elsewhere.
There's a lot we could do with lessors. They are the backbone of any empire after all. They have been far too overshadowed by the forms for far too long, IMO.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: The stats dont allow above 90% on attack or defence, they need to allow up to 100%
Te number of attacks for a lessor is set to one. There have been games we wanted to set them to two or more.. Configurable and saveable in a template.
The darkness games have configured lessors pretty accurately with the same balance as they are currently but at double strength and double defence vs. forms. That significantly brings form value lower and results in a pretty interesting game format. The stats can not be saved into a template which means customization each game.
New lessor types can be interesting, and we already have them in the database as Dark Glows, Moon Glows, and Blood Glows. Nobody can get there because only a magma demon and a fort and five BBs can get to moon glows, and six BB's are needed to get to a Dark glow, but the game is over..
Given that lessors can be configured and names, th only thing that an additional lessor type means is having a seventh BB to get there. Not sure that we need it.
The idea of moving more than one region in a tick I would not recommend.

-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss lessors. Types, abilities, stats, etc. Anything related to lessors.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I'm not saying take away the advantage of being larger altogether. We shouldn't punish a player for doing well.
However, I would like to see some more emphasis on the reality of larger empires being more difficult to manage and more importantly, maintain. As we get more players in games, that will probably weed itself out to some degree, but it won't be gone entirely.
At the very least, we should consider a new variant where bigger empires have different challenges or more taxing natures, but most definitely do have their own distinct rewards over smaller empires.
In fact, another way we might lean away from the idea of "get the biggest empire" is to come up with new goal ideas for games. Or maybe even new ways to keep score. I notice there are two things in the Citadel for keeping track of player ranks/leads. Region count, and point count. Where Point count usually equals the region count. Well, what if we changed it so that in some variants, the regions were worth varying amounts? Like a plains is worth 1 point (yet gives the most T), while a swamp is worth 4 points (and is almost useless, as you can't build on it and renders very little T).
And new concepts in goals would also change the desire to just simply grow big. As there might be different advantages to having a smaller, bigger, or even a weirdly shaped empire on the map. Or even better, different tactics and advantages to moving your forces around differently or in directions instead of global domination in all directions.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Carefully here. A large opponent fighting On many fronts needs all the resources and more not sure that I would handicap a larger player for doing well...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
This game variant may have identified a possible need to reevaluate the battle algorithm.
Maybe things need to be a bit more granular. Attacks meted out on some sort of ordered proportional basis.
So even if a unit has multiple attacks, if it dies early in the battle round, it may or may not have gotten off all of it's attacks. Something along those lines.
Along the lines of giving some help to smaller empires, maybe apply a factor income factor that inverse to the size of the empire?
For example, an average size empire would have a factor of 1. A below average size empire may be 1.2, an above average empire may be .8
The larger and more spread out your empire it is, more more difficult it is to collect taxes...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Aha! That's it. Thank you. That's what it was.
Anyway, the game has always favored the defending player, ala Fort upgrade bonuses.
So, making it so the defending player gets the home field advantage doesn't sound like too bad an idea. Unfortunately, this just gives bigger players another step up. So...hm. :/
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I recall reading a thread in one the newsgroups where they were discussing the results of a game variant where lessors had a very high number of attacks.
Basically the result was it created a situation where a small number of lessors could kill a much larger number of lessors. A common result was that both groups of lessors would be totally wiped out. But the player with the smaller group of lessors gained more fury and as a tie with 0 lessors surviving the region stayed with the defending player.
Creating a situation heavily favoring a defending player over an attacking player.
An interesting scenario. But I'm not sure if that would be the desired outcome or not.
100% offense is technically not a problem. 100% defense though does raise some issues. What happens if two units with 100% defense are on opposite sides in a battle?
The easy solution is disallow 100%. 99% would be the max defense any unit could have.
But then again, maybe it coded for as as a special case to be handled one way or another. For example, maybe various modifiers could be in effect at any given time... or whenever 100% defense units end up fighting each other they automatically kill each other.. or maybe something else entirely...
Fury farms are a whole new subject, as matter of fact I'll kick off a thread on Fury Farms...


-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I have done games in the past where the lessors had an insanely high number of attacks. It actually puts them at a disadvantage when it's just lessor vs. lessor. I don't remember the details, but someone ran the calculations, the lessors with more attacks were more frequently coming out on the losing end.
I wager the whole lessor system might have to be reworked. Though, I agree with Blue, they should be allowed to have 100% attack or defense (maybe not defense as that makes them invincible no?).
Other than disagreeing on movement rules in the game, I wish to focus on other ideas for lessors.
Like tracking how many battles a single lessor or perhaps a group of lessors have won. And then using this information to grant advantages to the group.
For example: a group of lessors travels together across 3 regions. The game labels them as a unit as long as they continue to stay together after that point. After winning 2 battles together as a unit (even if they lose a few in the battles), they begin to gain advantages.
Specifically, reward advantages. Like being able to garner more F from a win. A unit who has traveled together across 3 regions, and THEN won 2 battles, now gets +1% extra Fury in every battle they win from there on. After 4 battles, it's increased to +2%. After 8 battles, it's increased to +4% with a cap at say 5 or 6%.
Also, I would like to change the rewards from battle. Battles between lessors should be able to grant more than just F. I'd like to be able to switch it to battles granting Treasure instead...or perhaps even both at the same time.
Also, btw, the extra bonus F thing would be hard to pull off in fury farms since you're generating on the spot and then battling. But we're trying to break the farms anyway, as I recall with 1 F sacrifice spells. Also, for diplomatic reasons I think. Which I want to discuss diplomacy elsewhere.
There's a lot we could do with lessors. They are the backbone of any empire after all. They have been far too overshadowed by the forms for far too long, IMO.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: The stats dont allow above 90% on attack or defence, they need to allow up to 100%
Te number of attacks for a lessor is set to one. There have been games we wanted to set them to two or more.. Configurable and saveable in a template.
The darkness games have configured lessors pretty accurately with the same balance as they are currently but at double strength and double defence vs. forms. That significantly brings form value lower and results in a pretty interesting game format. The stats can not be saved into a template which means customization each game.
New lessor types can be interesting, and we already have them in the database as Dark Glows, Moon Glows, and Blood Glows. Nobody can get there because only a magma demon and a fort and five BBs can get to moon glows, and six BB's are needed to get to a Dark glow, but the game is over..
Given that lessors can be configured and names, th only thing that an additional lessor type means is having a seventh BB to get there. Not sure that we need it.
The idea of moving more than one region in a tick I would not recommend.

-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss lessors. Types, abilities, stats, etc. Anything related to lessors.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: "It's not really one lessor at a time they treat in blocks...."
Really. So if I have a 50 lesser army attacking your 100 lesser army, does the engine (a) pick 50 targets out of the 100, or does it (b) pick 1 out 100 fifty times?
(The difference being, (a) yields 50 unique targets, but (b) could yield 1 only unique target, even if it's unlikely)
I think the answer is (b), which is "like" each lesser launching it's own attack. And it's understood all lessers launch their attacks at the same time.
As far as the math goes - what happens in a single round of battle certainly determined by the math. But the difference between H and D can impact how many lessers survive any give round, meaning the progress of a battle from round to round can change a lot.
I may be off track - I'm in the "show me" mode now.
What would happen with your simulator if we changed the .ini? Would it handle the increased health and transition from round to round correctly?
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: All I said is I figured the math out and we can already get there with the formulas..
As to whonattacks first they both do and after the attack for a round occurs the associated deaths occur... It's not really one lessor at a time they treat in blocks....

-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Okay, first off, I was using HP as a short hand in place of typing "health" repeatedly. Blue, back off the damn technical BS please. You knew damn well what I meant. In the event you actually didn't, my apologies, but every time I make a suggestion, you sound off with a "well, here's why that doesn't work". It honestly sounds like you're terrified of a little change in this game because you don't want to have to relearn anything. We have competent coders on board now. All suggestions should be laid out on the table and fully considered. Not immediately shot down because you think it's equivalent to something else that already exists.
Second, as I understand it, an increased health stat for the lessers would work similar to forms. A form with 100 health can withstand 100 attacks from a single lesser. Or 1 attack each from 100 lessers (technically 99 as the last lesser would kill it). Therefore, a lesser with increased HP could withstand more attacks from other lessers, and potentially more attacks from the forms.
As I understand it, this is how a battle works:
Wooden: 100 health, 80 offense, 92 defense, 40 attacks
vs.
100 Crusaders: 30 offense, 30 defense, 1 health each.
In round one, the wooden attacks first. The in-game d100 rolls itself. If it's 80 or lower, the wooden succeeds in it's attack and lands a blow on a random lesser. The game repeats this 40 times because the wooden has 40 attacks for the round. So the wooden has the max potential to kill 40 crusaders in one round, because they each have 1 hp.
Now, also as I understand it, just because the wooden hits, does not mean an instant death. The defense stat comes into play. The d100 rolls itself to determine whether or not the lesser shrugs off the blow. If it's 30 or less, no damage is taken. If they had health higher than 1, they could take more hits.
Then the lessers attack. Each one gets 1 attack against the wooden. So the d100 rolls itself 1 time for each remaining lesser in the battle. For each one, if it comes up 30 or less, they hit. But for each one that "hits", the form gets to roll it's own defense rating. If it fails that defense rating, it takes damage to health.
What I'm proposing by giving lessers a higher health stat, just helps to keep them lasting longer in battle and not necessarily rely on a luck of the draw defense rating to survive. Hell, it may actually help to balance out their strength against forms a bit as well. And it can change the dynamic of lesser vs. lesser battles too. It would require a new dynamic of maintaining your lessers health and not sending in a tired/battered group into a battle against fresh lessers.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Yes - Health is like Defense, and Attacks is like Offense. And like is not exactly the same. 100% D means you successfully block all on-target attacks. H is how many times you can unsuccessfully block on-target attacks before you die. Please correct me if that's incorrect.
The "problem" (bold assumption that it's a problem) is upgrading a lesser is upgrading O and D and getting those stats (too?) close to 100%. If you want upgrades to be "worth" more, then you might start increasing H and A.
Yes - no?
So I was looking for a discussion about - does it create too much disparity between lesser levels? (or just different) - would this make higher level lessers more effective against forms - somewhat addressing concerns raised - without making them too effective?
I don't agree with the Rip / Black Dragon analysis. You aren't considering the Black Dragon's Health. And the nuance is what I said above. 9 lives means you can get hit (or not block an attack) 9 times before you die, it doesn't mean you have 95.5% chance of blocking an accurate attack.
Also, I wouldn't suggest the scale Lunar suggested. I was thinking a little more conservatively - like every other upgrade gets a much smaller D (and O) increment, but gets an H (and A) uptick.
Anyway - just a question. -------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: What is a HP? In evernight, forms or lessors have Health (Lessor = 1, it dies if one attack succeeds), Attacks (=1), Size (=1), attack % and defence percent..
Chaning from those elements would be really significant...
Uner te guise of "HP" meaning health, then hp is the same as defence mathematically, a crusader with 30% defence and a HP of 1, when changed to a HP of 4 would effectively mean a defence 4 times better or 82..
Giving a rip 9 lives would effectively give ita better defence than a black dragon has at 95.5%..
But you can manage "health" in a lessor simply by adjusting the defence. I would like to see lessor defence potential raised from its current maximum of 90% a bit higher at option, though we don't really wantanything to go higher than 99.xx% or battles will start going thousands of rounds regularly, and tick times from a few minutes to five times that...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I have considered boosting lesser health before, but it's not something we have access to.
However, I think giving lessers more than 1 hp would be an excellent idea. Especially if it was a benefit of upgrading.
Crusader = 1 hp Amra = 4 hp Rip Lizard = 7 hp Hatchling = 9 hp Mud Wretch = 11 hp Glow = 12 hp Blood Glow = 13 hp
You'll notice, I used diminishing returns. This follows the current pattern of growth reflected in current offense/defense boosts to gaining the next lesser type.
The big question, is if whether or not the game can track each individual lesser's health after the battle and carry their health values into the next battle they participate in the same way it does for the forms.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: I haven't seen any discussion about lesser Health. By current definition, it's 1.
As you get lesser upgrades, instead of increasing O and D, you could increase H. (or number of attacks).
I know there's spells that do this to enable better performance against forms. But something a little more permanent could be interesting.
(falling into stream of thought ...) But a spell that lasted multiple cycles and stayed with the lessers instead of the region would be an interesting way to beef up a lesser army to pursue a form.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss lessors. Types, abilities, stats, etc. Anything related to lessors.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: "It's not really one lessor at a time they treat in blocks...."
Really. So if I have a 50 lesser army attacking your 100 lesser army, does the engine (a) pick 50 targets out of the 100, or does it (b) pick 1 out 100 fifty times?
(The difference being, (a) yields 50 unique targets, but (b) could yield 1 only unique target, even if it's unlikely)
I think the answer is (b), which is "like" each lesser launching it's own attack. And it's understood all lessers launch their attacks at the same time.
As far as the math goes - what happens in a single round of battle certainly determined by the math. But the difference between H and D can impact how many lessers survive any give round, meaning the progress of a battle from round to round can change a lot.
I may be off track - I'm in the "show me" mode now.
What would happen with your simulator if we changed the .ini? Would it handle the increased health and transition from round to round correctly?
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: All I said is I figured the math out and we can already get there with the formulas..
As to whonattacks first they both do and after the attack for a round occurs the associated deaths occur... It's not really one lessor at a time they treat in blocks....

-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Okay, first off, I was using HP as a short hand in place of typing "health" repeatedly. Blue, back off the damn technical BS please. You knew damn well what I meant. In the event you actually didn't, my apologies, but every time I make a suggestion, you sound off with a "well, here's why that doesn't work". It honestly sounds like you're terrified of a little change in this game because you don't want to have to relearn anything. We have competent coders on board now. All suggestions should be laid out on the table and fully considered. Not immediately shot down because you think it's equivalent to something else that already exists.
Second, as I understand it, an increased health stat for the lessers would work similar to forms. A form with 100 health can withstand 100 attacks from a single lesser. Or 1 attack each from 100 lessers (technically 99 as the last lesser would kill it). Therefore, a lesser with increased HP could withstand more attacks from other lessers, and potentially more attacks from the forms.
As I understand it, this is how a battle works:
Wooden: 100 health, 80 offense, 92 defense, 40 attacks
vs.
100 Crusaders: 30 offense, 30 defense, 1 health each.
In round one, the wooden attacks first. The in-game d100 rolls itself. If it's 80 or lower, the wooden succeeds in it's attack and lands a blow on a random lesser. The game repeats this 40 times because the wooden has 40 attacks for the round. So the wooden has the max potential to kill 40 crusaders in one round, because they each have 1 hp.
Now, also as I understand it, just because the wooden hits, does not mean an instant death. The defense stat comes into play. The d100 rolls itself to determine whether or not the lesser shrugs off the blow. If it's 30 or less, no damage is taken. If they had health higher than 1, they could take more hits.
Then the lessers attack. Each one gets 1 attack against the wooden. So the d100 rolls itself 1 time for each remaining lesser in the battle. For each one, if it comes up 30 or less, they hit. But for each one that "hits", the form gets to roll it's own defense rating. If it fails that defense rating, it takes damage to health.
What I'm proposing by giving lessers a higher health stat, just helps to keep them lasting longer in battle and not necessarily rely on a luck of the draw defense rating to survive. Hell, it may actually help to balance out their strength against forms a bit as well. And it can change the dynamic of lesser vs. lesser battles too. It would require a new dynamic of maintaining your lessers health and not sending in a tired/battered group into a battle against fresh lessers.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Yes - Health is like Defense, and Attacks is like Offense. And like is not exactly the same. 100% D means you successfully block all on-target attacks. H is how many times you can unsuccessfully block on-target attacks before you die. Please correct me if that's incorrect.
The "problem" (bold assumption that it's a problem) is upgrading a lesser is upgrading O and D and getting those stats (too?) close to 100%. If you want upgrades to be "worth" more, then you might start increasing H and A.
Yes - no?
So I was looking for a discussion about - does it create too much disparity between lesser levels? (or just different) - would this make higher level lessers more effective against forms - somewhat addressing concerns raised - without making them too effective?
I don't agree with the Rip / Black Dragon analysis. You aren't considering the Black Dragon's Health. And the nuance is what I said above. 9 lives means you can get hit (or not block an attack) 9 times before you die, it doesn't mean you have 95.5% chance of blocking an accurate attack.
Also, I wouldn't suggest the scale Lunar suggested. I was thinking a little more conservatively - like every other upgrade gets a much smaller D (and O) increment, but gets an H (and A) uptick.
Anyway - just a question. -------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: What is a HP? In evernight, forms or lessors have Health (Lessor = 1, it dies if one attack succeeds), Attacks (=1), Size (=1), attack % and defence percent..
Chaning from those elements would be really significant...
Uner te guise of "HP" meaning health, then hp is the same as defence mathematically, a crusader with 30% defence and a HP of 1, when changed to a HP of 4 would effectively mean a defence 4 times better or 82..
Giving a rip 9 lives would effectively give ita better defence than a black dragon has at 95.5%..
But you can manage "health" in a lessor simply by adjusting the defence. I would like to see lessor defence potential raised from its current maximum of 90% a bit higher at option, though we don't really wantanything to go higher than 99.xx% or battles will start going thousands of rounds regularly, and tick times from a few minutes to five times that...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I have considered boosting lesser health before, but it's not something we have access to.
However, I think giving lessers more than 1 hp would be an excellent idea. Especially if it was a benefit of upgrading.
Crusader = 1 hp Amra = 4 hp Rip Lizard = 7 hp Hatchling = 9 hp Mud Wretch = 11 hp Glow = 12 hp Blood Glow = 13 hp
You'll notice, I used diminishing returns. This follows the current pattern of growth reflected in current offense/defense boosts to gaining the next lesser type.
The big question, is if whether or not the game can track each individual lesser's health after the battle and carry their health values into the next battle they participate in the same way it does for the forms.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: I haven't seen any discussion about lesser Health. By current definition, it's 1.
As you get lesser upgrades, instead of increasing O and D, you could increase H. (or number of attacks).
I know there's spells that do this to enable better performance against forms. But something a little more permanent could be interesting.
(falling into stream of thought ...) But a spell that lasted multiple cycles and stayed with the lessers instead of the region would be an interesting way to beef up a lesser army to pursue a form.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss lessors. Types, abilities, stats, etc. Anything related to lessors.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: I think the logic exercise goes like this ...
30% chance to survive is 70% chance you will die. With two health, (and multiple attacks), the chance you will die is 0.7*0.7 = 0.49 or 49% That's a 51% chance you will survive (over multiple attacks, not a single one)
Generalized ... D(single H basis) = (1-(1-D/100)^H)*100 O(single A basis) = (1-(1-O/100)^A)*100
Which is fine. But it it "feels" like the ebb and flow of battle should be affected.
I'm gonna do some simulations against forms.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't really see how that makes sense.
A 30% chance to survive a hit does not become 60% if attacked twice.
Each time it's attacked, it rolls a 30% chance. Percentages don't work that way, Blue.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Yep. But mathematically a lessor with 2 health has twice the defense. The math model is easy enough to figure....
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Yes - Health is like Defense, and Attacks is like Offense. And like is not exactly the same. 100% D means you successfully block all on-target attacks. H is how many times you can unsuccessfully block on-target attacks before you die. Please correct me if that's incorrect.
The "problem" (bold assumption that it's a problem) is upgrading a lesser is upgrading O and D and getting those stats (too?) close to 100%. If you want upgrades to be "worth" more, then you might start increasing H and A.
Yes - no?
So I was looking for a discussion about - does it create too much disparity between lesser levels? (or just different) - would this make higher level lessers more effective against forms - somewhat addressing concerns raised - without making them too effective?
I don't agree with the Rip / Black Dragon analysis. You aren't considering the Black Dragon's Health. And the nuance is what I said above. 9 lives means you can get hit (or not block an attack) 9 times before you die, it doesn't mean you have 95.5% chance of blocking an accurate attack.
Also, I wouldn't suggest the scale Lunar suggested. I was thinking a little more conservatively - like every other upgrade gets a much smaller D (and O) increment, but gets an H (and A) uptick.
Anyway - just a question. -------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: What is a HP? In evernight, forms or lessors have Health (Lessor = 1, it dies if one attack succeeds), Attacks (=1), Size (=1), attack % and defence percent..
Chaning from those elements would be really significant...
Uner te guise of "HP" meaning health, then hp is the same as defence mathematically, a crusader with 30% defence and a HP of 1, when changed to a HP of 4 would effectively mean a defence 4 times better or 82..
Giving a rip 9 lives would effectively give ita better defence than a black dragon has at 95.5%..
But you can manage "health" in a lessor simply by adjusting the defence. I would like to see lessor defence potential raised from its current maximum of 90% a bit higher at option, though we don't really wantanything to go higher than 99.xx% or battles will start going thousands of rounds regularly, and tick times from a few minutes to five times that...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I have considered boosting lesser health before, but it's not something we have access to.
However, I think giving lessers more than 1 hp would be an excellent idea. Especially if it was a benefit of upgrading.
Crusader = 1 hp Amra = 4 hp Rip Lizard = 7 hp Hatchling = 9 hp Mud Wretch = 11 hp Glow = 12 hp Blood Glow = 13 hp
You'll notice, I used diminishing returns. This follows the current pattern of growth reflected in current offense/defense boosts to gaining the next lesser type.
The big question, is if whether or not the game can track each individual lesser's health after the battle and carry their health values into the next battle they participate in the same way it does for the forms.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: I haven't seen any discussion about lesser Health. By current definition, it's 1.
As you get lesser upgrades, instead of increasing O and D, you could increase H. (or number of attacks).
I know there's spells that do this to enable better performance against forms. But something a little more permanent could be interesting.
(falling into stream of thought ...) But a spell that lasted multiple cycles and stayed with the lessers instead of the region would be an interesting way to beef up a lesser army to pursue a form.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss lessors. Types, abilities, stats, etc. Anything related to lessors.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: We are talking about a health of 2, not an attack of 2. The lessor with a health of 2 does not get two chances of surviving in one round of battle, it only gets one. At te end of the battle it either is alive or its dead.
The simplest math is a form against a lessor. Black dragon will issue 65 hits with 100% effectiveness. Against crusader it will kill 45.5 "hit points", or 45.5 crusaders. Against a crusader group of health 2, it will kill 22.75 actual crusaders on average. If you toss in randomization, you will get a distribution that will center at the 22.75 number with enough trials.. Now at the end of the battle, you might have more crusaders alive with less health, and that may allow your forces a greater attack ratio the next tick. If you have exactly 273 crusaders to start, the black dragon would normally kill them ALL off in 6 battle rounds on average. With a "health of 2", it will kill off half in that number of rounds, or all of them in 12 rounds of battle, hence "half" the defence.
Mathematically, half the defence is not always double the Defence Rating.
In a given battle, considering the attacks and defences of any side, one side will effectively deal x points of damage vs the other side. If there are twice as much health, half as many will die off, hence the comment twice the defence..
Calculating twice the defence on a lessor of 30% would be 2 x (1-.3) + .3 or 65%, not 60%. The calcualtion would be "half" of the difference between what it is currently and 100%, much like a spiral deflector, which doubles the defence of a crusader, much like a diable spear doubles the attacks. Spiral deflectors are mathematically more effective than twice the attacks, and this result is seen in many a battle.
If you put 273 lessors of defence 65 against a black dragon they all die on average in exactly 12 ticks, and the "death" curve by tick of hit points is exactly the same. Twice the defence of a crusader is 65%.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't really see how that makes sense.
A 30% chance to survive a hit does not become 60% if attacked twice.
Each time it's attacked, it rolls a 30% chance. Percentages don't work that way, Blue.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Yep. But mathematically a lessor with 2 health has twice the defense. The math model is easy enough to figure....
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Yes - Health is like Defense, and Attacks is like Offense. And like is not exactly the same. 100% D means you successfully block all on-target attacks. H is how many times you can unsuccessfully block on-target attacks before you die. Please correct me if that's incorrect.
The "problem" (bold assumption that it's a problem) is upgrading a lesser is upgrading O and D and getting those stats (too?) close to 100%. If you want upgrades to be "worth" more, then you might start increasing H and A.
Yes - no?
So I was looking for a discussion about - does it create too much disparity between lesser levels? (or just different) - would this make higher level lessers more effective against forms - somewhat addressing concerns raised - without making them too effective?
I don't agree with the Rip / Black Dragon analysis. You aren't considering the Black Dragon's Health. And the nuance is what I said above. 9 lives means you can get hit (or not block an attack) 9 times before you die, it doesn't mean you have 95.5% chance of blocking an accurate attack.
Also, I wouldn't suggest the scale Lunar suggested. I was thinking a little more conservatively - like every other upgrade gets a much smaller D (and O) increment, but gets an H (and A) uptick.
Anyway - just a question. -------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: What is a HP? In evernight, forms or lessors have Health (Lessor = 1, it dies if one attack succeeds), Attacks (=1), Size (=1), attack % and defence percent..
Chaning from those elements would be really significant...
Uner te guise of "HP" meaning health, then hp is the same as defence mathematically, a crusader with 30% defence and a HP of 1, when changed to a HP of 4 would effectively mean a defence 4 times better or 82..
Giving a rip 9 lives would effectively give ita better defence than a black dragon has at 95.5%..
But you can manage "health" in a lessor simply by adjusting the defence. I would like to see lessor defence potential raised from its current maximum of 90% a bit higher at option, though we don't really wantanything to go higher than 99.xx% or battles will start going thousands of rounds regularly, and tick times from a few minutes to five times that...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I have considered boosting lesser health before, but it's not something we have access to.
However, I think giving lessers more than 1 hp would be an excellent idea. Especially if it was a benefit of upgrading.
Crusader = 1 hp Amra = 4 hp Rip Lizard = 7 hp Hatchling = 9 hp Mud Wretch = 11 hp Glow = 12 hp Blood Glow = 13 hp
You'll notice, I used diminishing returns. This follows the current pattern of growth reflected in current offense/defense boosts to gaining the next lesser type.
The big question, is if whether or not the game can track each individual lesser's health after the battle and carry their health values into the next battle they participate in the same way it does for the forms.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: I haven't seen any discussion about lesser Health. By current definition, it's 1.
As you get lesser upgrades, instead of increasing O and D, you could increase H. (or number of attacks).
I know there's spells that do this to enable better performance against forms. But something a little more permanent could be interesting.
(falling into stream of thought ...) But a spell that lasted multiple cycles and stayed with the lessers instead of the region would be an interesting way to beef up a lesser army to pursue a form.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss lessors. Types, abilities, stats, etc. Anything related to lessors.