Author Topic: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended  (Read 2190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Panoply

  • NA Admin
  • *****
  • Renown: 113
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Aristeia, Panoply, Pistachio
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2011, 08:30:30 PM »
0
Ok that makes more sense, but you stated that the maximum mercs on each side to be 55. If the max battle duration is 180, then the amount of mercs on each side can't just be the duration divided by two, or we could potentially have 90 v 90 battles. That sounds epic, but I'm guessing that's not true.

For y = 110, x = ~3483 troops in the smaller party. Is this the max? Or is there some other formula at work?

Offline Elindor

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1178
  • Infamy: 158
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Caelitus mihi vires
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Order of the Holy Guard
  • Game nicks: Elindor
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2011, 08:42:00 PM »
0
i havent found 60v60 battles to be so bad lag-wise on NA (I am NA)....

not sure if 80v80 would be much worse or not...
Elindor, Archon of the Holy Guard
Holy Guard Thread :HERE
Banner Shop : HERE // Map Thread : HERE

Offline SPQR

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 121
  • Infamy: 19
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: CSA
  • Game nicks: CSA_Gen_Robert_E_Leet
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2011, 08:48:55 PM »
0
Ok regardless of formulas and whatnot, can someone explain to me what the new system is supposed to be adding to the game?

Is it supposed to be helping defenders with less than 60 troops because the attackers can't hire more players than them? Because thats the only time I see this system skewing the odds in any direction. In every other scenario its exactly the same as before, except with less people playing and more people sitting on the sidelines.
"It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow to fondle it." - Robert E Leet

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Panoply

  • NA Admin
  • *****
  • Renown: 113
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Aristeia, Panoply, Pistachio
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2011, 09:03:42 PM »
0
As far as I can tell, it's not about odds. It's more about variety and differentiating between huge battles and smaller battles. Previously, every battle, big or small, looked the same, it was more a matter of how long it took. With this scaling, there will be a noticeable difference in the 'feel' of different battles.

On the new official NA servers, I've played near 60 v 60 strat battles, and NA 1 fills up with over 100 players fairly regularly. In neither case do I experience much lag. The servers themselves seem like they could handle larger battles. The limiting factor I think is the player's computer. I have to tone down on the number of corpses and ragdolls, but otherwise it's all good.

I think we should try larger battles.

Offline Paul

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Renown: 1872
  • Infamy: 442
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • ball bounce boss
    • View Profile
  • IRC nick: Urist
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2011, 09:08:23 PM »
0
pow is chadz' god.

Offline Matey

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1326
  • Infamy: 371
  • cRPG Player
  • A Pirate
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Matey_BRD
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2011, 09:53:57 PM »
0
im not a fan of this change myself, for the reason listed by many. It already sucks having to cut people from your roster when you have 61 slots for 150+ applicants... it sucks that much more when you only get 30 or so :/

Offline Elindor

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1178
  • Infamy: 158
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Caelitus mihi vires
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Order of the Holy Guard
  • Game nicks: Elindor
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2011, 09:57:16 PM »
0
agree matey, and thats why some of us are suggesting that the whole thing be scaled up....so that the biggest battles are 80v80 instead of 60v60 and then down the line....so maybe the smallest isnt 36v36 or whatever it is, maybe its 46v46 or something
Elindor, Archon of the Holy Guard
Holy Guard Thread :HERE
Banner Shop : HERE // Map Thread : HERE

Offline RamsesXXIIX

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 252
  • Infamy: 65
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Yes, I prey on the weak.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Ramses
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2011, 10:06:15 PM »
0
Neither do i find this change good - I liked the battles to be 60v60.

That said, the idea of differentiated strat battles is nice enough. How about 1000 troops means you can 60 mercenaries? All big battles will still be "big", and there would be a clear difference in the smaller ones. 

Offline sWalker

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 121
  • Infamy: 26
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2011, 12:22:09 AM »
0
the sWalker believes that the god-king chadz has had an amazing idea that needs the slight tweek mentioned already.  Make the max number 80 v. 80 and scale down on a gentle curve from there...i.e., 500v500 gives you about 35v35, 1000v1000 gives you 50v50, 1500v1500 gives you 55v55, 2000v2000 gives you 60v60, and even more gentle slope up to 9000v9000 to give you 80v80.

Offline Ujin

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1057
  • Infamy: 166
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2011, 02:41:36 AM »
0
Like Ramses said, the idea is good, but maybe some increase in numbers wouldn't hurt.

Offline Erasmas

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 483
  • Infamy: 138
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • The crows had come
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Grey Order
  • Game nicks: Erasmas_the_Grey
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2011, 06:56:06 PM »
0
both sides have the same amount of mercs, no steamrolling in this game -_-

As I understand, this does not work for siege? Defenders of the castle (4500 troops) have 75 slots, attackers (10000 troops) have 55 slots

the sWalker believes that the god-king chadz has had an amazing idea that needs the slight tweek mentioned already.  Make the max number 80 v. 80 and scale down on a gentle curve from there...i.e., 500v500 gives you about 35v35, 1000v1000 gives you 50v50, 1500v1500 gives you 55v55, 2000v2000 gives you 60v60, and even more gentle slope up to 9000v9000 to give you 80v80.

Totally agree with that... +1

no one asked for it, jeez...

good point... May I kindly ask you to publish the formula showing how the gold earnings depend on population in castles and towns? :D

« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 07:01:45 PM by Erasmas »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Erasmas

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 483
  • Infamy: 138
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • The crows had come
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Grey Order
  • Game nicks: Erasmas_the_Grey
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2011, 04:45:01 AM »
0
Sorry for double post, but it is another issue.

I suddenly got interested in how it is calculated in siege battles :rolleyes: Namely, the number of defenders is always larger than attackers. With total castle population - by appr. 20. If there is low number of troops on either side, how much is added to defenders? chadz - please... 
« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 04:47:34 AM by Erasmas »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Lordark

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 155
  • Infamy: 206
  • cRPG Player
  • Please respect all admins and thier decisions.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Solo
  • Game nicks: Lordark
Re: 1609 v. 2399 - max 36 mercs on each side?? not how it was intended
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2011, 11:02:36 AM »
0
the sWalker believes that the god-king chadz has had an amazing idea that needs the slight tweek mentioned already.  Make the max number 80 v. 80 and scale down on a gentle curve from there...i.e., 500v500 gives you about 35v35, 1000v1000 gives you 50v50, 1500v1500 gives you 55v55, 2000v2000 gives you 60v60, and even more gentle slope up to 9000v9000 to give you 80v80.

Now THATS a tasty suggestion..
Never forget the day Dragons came to Calradia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfLxHJY0lQI&feature=related
My personal theme song, We will never surrender!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg1xqAjQ5e4