Bold rework of farming system [VERY LONG]

I am 95% confident that the flaws you are pointing out do not actually exist but are a simple result of me having not explained really properly.

whatever, it's out on the test server and you can try it for yourself

Lower strikes wont allow you to make the same profits as larger strikes hitting big defs. However they will allow you to make some profit if said defense has so much kuwal out that if a strike that could hit it would come by, they would make a seriously amazing profit with that 1 hit.

I believe being able to farm a defense sucks. WHy build a Defense then ? Admin if you want to push people out of the game go for it. You are doing a good job at it if you put that aspect into the game

Yeah... like if all your defenses are over here and you have a large border, then i wouldn't be able to cross it with a small assault team and rob your banks over there.


Or maybe that all your borders are walls, like the Great Chinese Wall? ... and you live in a fortress?... but even so, a small assault team could use ladders and rob some of your banks.

Magnus wrote:I believe being able to farm a defense sucks. WHy build a Defense then ? Admin if you want to push people out of the game go for it. You are doing a good job at it if you put that aspect into the game

You did catch this part though, right? =>

Defense 100k men
Attacker A 100k men (losses after attack: 2k men (2%), steals max 100%, ALWAYS)
Attacker B 50k men (losses after attack: 2k men (4%), steals max 50%, SOMETIMES)

In simple non-rocket-science terms. If you have a def and can normally keep 500 mil out without having to worry about getting farmed then you would need to have around 1 bil out before anyone with half the strike would think about stealing anything, and even then you'd come home, login and see you still have 500 mil on hand right after the attack


No matter what strike, the attacker always suffers the same losses. However the lower the strike, the less kuwal gets stolen.

I really don't see where anyone will get farmed more TBH. Only people who are away very long periods of time. Anyone who is active and banks often, prolly won't notice much of a change.

I still do not agree with the attack being able to farm. Let me make a example : My thought behind it is that if you attacka someone, you hit them to be able to get the cash. That I agree with, but you where only able to attack and get the cash when you destroy most of the def the defnder has. So in such a hit and then cashing in on any amount is unreasonable in any sense. This does not add a tactical view, but just a farming view in. A different tactical view would be if you first attack a certain amount and destroy partial def and then being able to infiltrate to get at the cash.
As a example : Attacking force attacks fortress and losses attackers and starts to diminisch fortress. Defending forces loss units but have a plus since they have a fortress. This is logical and has allways showed to be proven. After a while either the attacking forces seize because the def was to strong or the attacking forces win because they overpower the def forces. What would make sense and really bring in a very serious tactical aspect is siege. Siege the def forces meaning that they get a lower income because of the siege while the attcker attacks. This would show a more tactical sense then just attacking and stealing a lower amount. Siege would bring in the whole round of warfare and make it exciting.
I seriously doubt that this would be implemented since codeing would most likely be hell, but if you want to put in a tactical sense to the game this would really be it.

Now THERE is a bold idea -

Instead of farming you invade someone - Then you get say 60% of the defenders income for the duration of your siege providing its successful. For the defender to break out of the siege they can A) Build a strike to break out with ( say it needs to be 50% of the siege to break the siege ) or B) get a friend to break the siege with their strike ( say only needs to be 40% coz they are attacking from the outside ) This would make things very different - feel free to move to suggestions section if you think its got any merit to it otherwise - it wasnt me

you do realize that that idea is pretty much borderline useless, right?
too abusable against someone who has no chance of defending themself

Here's a useful concept of a blockade that I was working on when coding AW:
Whoever starts the blockade needs to be twice the size of the target.
During the blockade, the attacker loses 50% of their income, the defender loses 75% of their income. The defender also cannot trade with anyone for the duration of the blockade.

I disagree - there will always be people willing to help you.... that is if your liked and have friends. Then you can incur some hefty costs into a siege and various losses to ensure that the attacker has to target people whose economy is worth it - therefore who can also break out of it.

But nevermind, im not a huge fan of the idea myself. What i do want to see it a way of restricting other peoples economy using military (airforce?). You got an plans to throw something out into the test server? Then we can adapt it on the run, fixing things as they come up...

wont happen in a while, that blockade thing

just a spin, using both your ideas.

Example

I put a blockaide on Admin

Hai puts a blockaide on me

then my blockaide on Admin is busted

I don't like the idea myself because I see to many exploits and abuses, but I also have to admit that the player base of AW id far different then other games, and it seems there are far more "good" alliances then "evil" ones.

Admin wrote:you do realize that that idea is pretty much borderline useless, right?
too abusable against someone who has no chance of defending themself

Here's a useful concept of a blockade that I was working on when coding AW:
Whoever starts the blockade needs to be twice the size of the target.
During the blockade, the attacker loses 50% of their income, the defender loses 75% of their income. The defender also cannot trade with anyone for the duration of the blockade.

I understand your point of it being Exploitable, but attacking a def. that is big and earning from it makes no sense at all. It is not really realistic since a def is there for defending, no matter what calculation you have. I spend kuwal on def and then you can get my cash even with loosing. Blockade also only makes sense in a war or if a person has a lot of kuwal out. Plus to be able for anyone to help you is not fair and should not be allowed. If you blockade there has to be only one Person to able to blockade any one Player. That Person Blockading has to at least have done one attack on this Person with Airstrike or something like that.

Sorry People, but I do not agree with the Attck thingy and earning anything if you have a big Def. It does not make any real sense to me. Sorry admin, but I just can not get an agreement on this

I as a US citizen can sneak into Russia and rob a few banks and make it out. So I am sure that Russia's army are bigger then my strike.

This is a game and real life concepts can only go so far with it, it will never be realistic to the extent where it can be successfully compared to real life.

Also it is a role playing game so why does it have to be realistic, or even compared to real life? Mayby it is a bunch of cake people, fought on the planet sponge, between the people from mud land and the tribes from chesseville...

Comparing a real life army to a Aderan strike or defence stat is not something that can really be done very successfully...

JMO

-Alex

Well that would not be a full assault then . That would a sneak attack . That is a acceptable Idea, but would only be a very small amount that you could get and not with a huge army size. Basically like James Bond . So we can call it special forces and would be expensive to manage.
The original Idea would be to be able to farm and that I find stupid. A James Bond mission would only be done once in a while and would have to be also realized with the covert included. The better covert the less likely you would be able to farm.
There will allways be dominating players in games as these. No matter what counter measures you implement.

Alex wrote:This is a game and real life concepts can only go so far with it, it will never be realistic to the extent where it can be successfully compared to real life.

Also it is a role playing game so why does it have to be realistic, or even compared to real life? Mayby it is a bunch of cake people, fought on the planet sponge, between the people from mud land and the tribes from chesseville...

Comparing a real life army to a Aderan strike or defence stat is not something that can really be done very successfully...

JMO

-Alex

Even if I pointed out real life, the idea has to make sense and I do not think it makes sense. Plus games like these are allways based on conceptions of real life

Magnus, Have you actually tried this out on the test server? Not being sarcastic or any of those other big words. Honest question.

In my experiance, your not going to get farmed any more if you are active. If your not so active then yes you might. It has good sides to me that outweigh the bad. No one can build a rank 1 defense 2 times the size of the rank 1 strike and then not log in for a week. Secondly, because of UU losses and replacing weapons PLUS the threat of retaliation, people are not going to farm defenses much higher then their strikes.

Yes a strike 1/2 my defense can farm me, but it takes TWICE as much kewal out in the open to make it profitable.

I was against this to begin with, tho I kept an open mind and agreed to try it. I personally like it more and more. Then again I like anything thats not "the norm" for these games. Every other game plays EXACTLY the same, with the same faults and same exploits. Uro has done well changing it up and coming up with things that work.

I understand what you are saying. I just do not like it. No I have not tried the test server. Do not want to either, but I still like my idea better. It makes it a bit more fun and the idea behind a james bond thingy is not bad either. Do you not think so ? Plus it is something out of the ordinary.

I have always wanted to be able to steal Kewal using covert and the attacked getting ?????? in the logg

but also recognize that without some good limiations, and some % of failure that its too exploitable

(Ex I farm 1/2 the server covertly using my size and no one can stop/find out who is doing it)