Multiplayer Hub Logo  
  Powered by Noble Master Games, http://www.noblemaster.com Multiplayer Dragon
  Forums Twitter Dev. Blog ⊕  
Home > Forums

MultiplayerHub.com
» Forums|New Posts
» Twitter
» Dev. Blog
» About
» Contact Us
Showcase
» Age of Conquest
» Demise of Nations
» Retro Commander

































Multiplayer Forums


Board index » Games » Age of Conquest (AOC) » AOC: Feature Requests


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 19:13 
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 22 Oct 2017, 06:35
Posts: 8
1. I believe the happiness drop due to attacking someone already at war needs to be higher. Perhaps monetary hit as well as happiness drop? The issue of "ganging and people complaining of ganging" has gotten out of hand. This I think will help.

2. I think that if a war goes on for too long there needs to be a happiness drop associated. This will make the game not only a bit more realistic, but also help with the people who declare war on 5 others with no intention of fighting, just to dicoirage others from attacking them. This could only go into effect if no attacks have occurred in x number of turns perhaps?


The players have learned the way the system works and have evolved. The game needs to evolve as well


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 15:50 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8540
Location: Honolulu
Makes sense. The question is what exactly is proposed in numbers etc.

Also, good to move to public, so players can comment on it too for better or worse!

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 17:14 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 173
I support the first suggestion, but don't feel strongly about it either way. However, I am wholeheartedly in favor of the second suggestion.

Here's my suggested numbers:

After being at war for 10 turns, both warring nations receive a 1% happiness hit. This happiness penalty increases exponentially by a factor of 1.25 every other turn. Below is an example of how this would work. The percentages are the actual happiness penalties a player would receive for the corresponding turn they've been at war. These are rounded to the nearest whole number from the calculation totals in parenthesis.

Turn 10: -1%
Turn 12: -1% (-1.25)
Turn 14: -2% (-1.56)
Turn 16: -2% (-1.95)
Turn 18: -2% (-2.44)
Turn 20: -3% (-3.05)
Turn 22: -4% (-3.81)
Turn 24: -5% (-4.77)
Turn 26: -6% (-5.96)
Turn 28: -7% (-7.45)
Turn 30: -9% (-9.31)

For two nations that are at war with each other, but are not attacking one another, the happiness penalty begins sooner; after 5 consecutive turns of no conflict. Instead of increasing by a factor of 1.25 as in the example above, here the penalty increases exponentially by a factor of 2 every other turn, with a maximum of -32%.

Turn 5: -1%
Turn 7: -2%
Turn 9: -4%
Turn 11: -8%
Turn 13: -16%
Turn 15: -32%
(Does not continue to increase from here)

Once conflict resumes, the rate of increase returns to 1.25.
I think 32% should be the max in either example. That means for two countries actually engaging in combat, it would take about 42 turns of war to hit that point.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 19:25 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 173
I also want to note, my above suggestions apply independently to each war a player is joined in. Therefore, theoretically, a player could be in a state of war for 100+ turns and never receive a happiness penalty assuming he/she is never at war with any one player for more than 9 turns.

As such, penalties could pile up. For instance, let's say four players schemed together to each attack the other on a designated turn. This happens often. The idea being to dissuade others from attacking any of them because doing so would incur a massive happiness penalty for the aggressor. So then, by the fifth turn of the four friends being at war with each other, each would receive -3% happiness hit. That's because each one is involved in three separate wars in which no conflict has occurred. By the seventh turn of war, each would receive a -6% happiness hit, etc.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:35 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 173
If adopted, this needs to be turned off for team games.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 12:00 
Uber Moderator
Uber Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 23:22
Posts: 3396
What if declaring war permanently reduced your maximum happiness? It needs to be only on who declared war, as the defendant should not be penalized. Naturally, this would not apply to your first declaration of war, maybe not even second. But then the third could be steep, say 15% reduction, if not more.

_________________
This is the internet! Doesn't mean you are required to be an ***.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 17:31 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 173
Quote:
What if declaring war permanently reduced your maximum happiness? It needs to be only on who declared war, as the defendant should not be penalized. Naturally, this would not apply to your first declaration of war, maybe not even second. But then the third could be steep, say 15% reduction, if not more.


My main concern is eliminating 'fake wars'. These are ones friends and allies make among themselves to discourage others from attacking them. I'm not sure simply creating a happiness penalty for the person declaring war is the right answer. For starters, I think doing this would inadvertently hurt small nations. An example of this is when it becomes apparent that a very large player is preparing to attack you. Perhaps you notice troop build-up on your border, or the large nation is ignoring your diplomatic requests. In this situation, sometimes your only hope for survival is to attack the large nation first. I wouldn't want to doom this player further by creating a large happiness penalty for him.

Furthermore, I don't actually have any problem with a player declaring war too many times. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is fake wars and deadlocked ones.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 19:38 
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 22 Oct 2017, 06:35
Posts: 8
I think travis is talking about suggestion 1 and reb is talking about suggestion 2. I like both ideas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 18:33 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 173
Is it possible to move this entire thread to the public side of the forum or should we create a new one there?

As for the suggestions itself, what are Noblemaster's thoughts?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 05:26 
Uber Moderator
Uber Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 23:22
Posts: 3396
I moved it.

TexasReb wrote:
For starters, I think doing this would inadvertently hurt small nations. An example of this is when it becomes apparent that a very large player is preparing to attack you. Perhaps you notice troop build-up on your border, or the large nation is ignoring your diplomatic requests. In this situation, sometimes your only hope for survival is to attack the large nation first.

In correlation to my suggestion, if you're a small nation and thinking about declaring war on a third (and larger) nation, you're probably already doomed.

As for war with AFK players (say land locked single province so they don't check the game anymore or have simply stopped logging in) I have an idea for that. What if after X (10 or so) turns if there have been no attacks from player A to player B, there's an automatic 3 turn ceasefire then they are neutral with each other after? Are there problems with that, that I'm not thinking of? The game could even send you messages "Your war with X will end in 3 turns if you do not attack them or they do not attack you." Then 2 turn, then next turn, ceasefire.

Just brainstorming here!

_________________
This is the internet! Doesn't mean you are required to be an ***.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 07:45 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 173
TravisII wrote:
if you're a small nation and thinking about declaring war on a third (and larger) nation, you're probably already doomed.


There is always hope for salvation. If David is resourceful enough, he can take down Goliath. I have been in numerous situations where I attacked a threatening larger nation first and came out victorious. Usually, the idea is to delay. Attacking first will give you a little wiggle room to wait for allies to send you funding or join the attack. Which is another example of why I would worry about creating a large happiness penalty for the attacking nation. When you have 2 or more tiny nations banding together in an attempt to take down Goliath, you don't want to disadvantage them more than they already are.

Quote:
As for war with AFK players (say land locked single province so they don't check the game anymore or have simply stopped logging in) I have an idea for that. What if after X (10 or so) turns if there have been no attacks from player A to player B, there's an automatic 3 turn ceasefire then they are neutral with each other after? Are there problems with that, that I'm not thinking of? The game could even send you messages "Your war with X will end in 3 turns if you do not attack them or they do not attack you." Then 2 turn, then next turn, ceasefire.
Just brainstorming here!


I don't think AFK players are a problem. What I'm hoping to address is when two or more active players who are friends or allies decide to declare war on each other. The reason they do this is because current game mechanics incur a happiness penalty on someone who attacks another player already in a war. So friends will declare war on each other as a form of defense. This dissuades others from attacking either of them because of the heavy happiness penalty they face. Players will get around your above suggestion by simply sending a single unit to attack one of their friends' larger armies. This makes the game think they are in a constant state of conflict and prevents the ceasefire while maintaining the defensive happiness penalty. I thought about this in my suggested exponential happiness reductions earlier. That's why in my suggestion, while clever players might avoid the 2X happiness hit by tricking the game into thinking they are engaging in conflict, they won't avoid the 1.5X happiness hit.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 06:22 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1236
live from The Couch of Retirement... it's the One True Howard...
:gott: :sm:

i think Reb's idea is a good start, but are the numbers per turn or a happiness cap? a mix of both? here's a simpler suggestion...

max penalty should be 4% per turn at most, since a nation can only recover 4% with tax rate per turn... so a per turn penalty of 1% per declaration of war on an opponent up to 4% max - but i would say everyone gets 1 declared opponent "free" (no per turn penalty)

1 opponent - 0%
2 opponents - 1%
3 opponents - 2%
4 opponents - 3%
5 opponents - 4%
6 opponents - 4%
7 opponents - 4%

if a happiness cap is involved it should probably be around 4% per opponent (over the 1 freebie), max 16% (so max happiness 84% if fighting 5+ declared opponents)

NOTE: has to be per Declarations of War so that players don't get penalized for getting ganged up on

NOTE 2: the above suggestions are in addition to all current penalties, assuming they haven't changed since i retired... howie out! :happyx:

TexasReb wrote:
I support the first suggestion, but don't feel strongly about it either way. However, I am wholeheartedly in favor of the second suggestion.

Here's my suggested numbers:

After being at war for 10 turns, both warring nations receive a 1% happiness hit. This happiness penalty increases exponentially by a factor of 1.25 every other turn. Below is an example of how this would work. The percentages are the actual happiness penalties a player would receive for the corresponding turn they've been at war. These are rounded to the nearest whole number from the calculation totals in parenthesis.

Turn 10: -1%
Turn 12: -1% (-1.25)
Turn 14: -2% (-1.56)
Turn 16: -2% (-1.95)
Turn 18: -2% (-2.44)
Turn 20: -3% (-3.05)
Turn 22: -4% (-3.81)
Turn 24: -5% (-4.77)
Turn 26: -6% (-5.96)
Turn 28: -7% (-7.45)
Turn 30: -9% (-9.31)

For two nations that are at war with each other, but are not attacking one another, the happiness penalty begins sooner; after 5 consecutive turns of no conflict. Instead of increasing by a factor of 1.25 as in the example above, here the penalty increases exponentially by a factor of 2 every other turn, with a maximum of -32%.

Turn 5: -1%
Turn 7: -2%
Turn 9: -4%
Turn 11: -8%
Turn 13: -16%
Turn 15: -32%
(Does not continue to increase from here)

Once conflict resumes, the rate of increase returns to 1.25.
I think 32% should be the max in either example. That means for two countries actually engaging in combat, it would take about 42 turns of war to hit that point.

_________________
The One True Howard

2008 - 2018

rest in anarchy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: potential changes to the game??
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 09:43 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 173
KingHowardII wrote:
live from The Couch of Retirement... it's the One True Howard...
:gott: :sm:

i think Reb's idea is a good start, but are the numbers per turn or a happiness cap? a mix of both? here's a simpler suggestion...

max penalty should be 4% per turn at most, since a nation can only recover 4% with tax rate per turn... so a per turn penalty of 1% per declaration of war on an opponent up to 4% max - but i would say everyone gets 1 declared opponent "free" (no per turn penalty)

1 opponent - 0%
2 opponents - 1%
3 opponents - 2%
4 opponents - 3%
5 opponents - 4%
6 opponents - 4%
7 opponents - 4%

if a happiness cap is involved it should probably be around 4% per opponent (over the 1 freebie), max 16% (so max happiness 84% if fighting 5+ declared opponents)

NOTE: has to be per Declarations of War so that players don't get penalized for getting ganged up on

NOTE 2: the above suggestions are in addition to all current penalties, assuming they haven't changed since i retired... howie out! :happyx:


That is certainly a much simpler solution and is better than doing nothing. I think implementing this idea would successfully reduce ganging up on players, but I do not think it would do much to discourage fake wars.

(Welcome back! banana )

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
cron

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Green Smilies by http://www.greensmilies.com/

Home  |  Forums  |  Twitter  |  Dev. Blog  |  About  |  Contact