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)


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 11 May 2017, 20:38 
Freeman
Freeman

Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 08:15
Posts: 136
Location: Russia, Ekaterinburg
The problem exists and it should be solved. My colleague cadliker1 in the game Random/Peace/Coins/OnlyHuman were simultaneously attacked by 4 players!!! Alone players (no clan) it is difficult to play the game. I propose a solution.
Now the fines for starting a war with a player of -4%,-12%,-20% and so on. If attacked at the same time 4 players, everyone gets the minimum penalty possible. We must change that. With such a gung-up attack, the penalty should be all the attacker to be on the top level.
Exceptions. 1. Not counting the computer players. 2. Not be charged for assaulting a player, who has long been missing (4 turns).
1 case.
During an attack on a computer (no matter how many players attacked) is valid for the current system.
In the attack on the human simultaneously with the computer - operates the current system.

P.S. There are random gung-up attack. This problem forwards. Everyone should understand that there can be such not very pleasant consequences.

This innovation will severely restrict gung-up attack.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 11 May 2017, 23:10 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8030
Location: Honolulu
Randomly given a penalty feels a little bit unfair though. Sometimes I attack because other nation's happiness is low, so if I suddenly get a -20% penalty (instead of e.g. -4%) it seems unfair.

I can see your point though. Rather than penalizing the attackers, how about rewarding the defender? If you get attacked multiple times, you get a monetary bonus from your population or so? Or get extra happiness? That way, although someone is attacked multiple times, that player has some sort of bonus?

Another idea is to give a player an e.g. +100% attack/defense bonus for e.g. 5 turns to make up for it?

Another option is to have something else taken from the attacking nations to make it more balanced?

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 12 May 2017, 07:51 
Uber Moderator
Uber Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 23:22
Posts: 3312
I like the idea to boost the defender in some way, rather than punish the attackers (who may not even have been working together).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 12 May 2017, 09:44 
Freeman
Freeman

Joined: 12 Feb 2017, 11:56
Posts: 92
Quote:
I can see your point though. Rather than penalizing the attackers, how about rewarding the defender? If you get attacked multiple times, you get a monetary bonus from your population or so? Or get extra happiness? That way, although someone is attacked multiple times, that player has some sort of bonus?


People already using multi-wars declaring on AI's so nobody would attack them with the cost of 50% happiness. In last TOP100 game one player declared war to 6/7 AI's so imagine how huge penatly for anyone who would attack him would be. So it would be even more unfair and cheaty


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 12 May 2017, 18:17 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8030
Location: Honolulu
Quote:
People already using multi-wars declaring on AI's so nobody would attack them with the cost of 50% happiness. In last TOP100 game one player declared war to 6/7 AI's so imagine how huge penatly for anyone who would attack him would be. So it would be even more unfair and cheaty

Unless I am reading it wrong (?), that's not what we are talking about. What you describe does not really concern the problem at hand.

I had another idea: how about the population providing defenses automatically for all the border provinces? E.g. +50 troops or so for each border province to help defend the nation? That would only happen if let's say 3+ nations attack on the same turn. For each additional nation, the border defenses could be increased by yet another +50 for each province or so?

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 13 May 2017, 02:03 
Freeman
Freeman

Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 08:15
Posts: 136
Location: Russia, Ekaterinburg
The attack of two against one is okay?! Why we are talking about 3 or more players? It is necessary to consider all cases of gung-up attack. I insist on the fact that the penalty for the attack must go for the maximum. The coincidence of the simultaneous attack will only add zest to the game.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 13 May 2017, 06:00 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 12:56
Posts: 16
I feel like boosting the defender can be easily easily abused. For example I can tell my friend to declare war on me so I will get a boost against my other enemies. Then my friend won't attack me and I will gain a boost against my enemies making it easier to beat them. Really not liking this idea it seems to risky. I think increasing the attack penalty for an enemy with 4+ wars will do just fine


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 13 May 2017, 06:02 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 12:56
Posts: 16
I would also like to post another similar suggestion. I think multiple clan members should not be allowed to attack the same player at all. So if 3 clan members were at war with a player I think it shouldnt be allowed at all for a fourth clan members to join in on the war. That would stop ganging up in a way from clan members a bit I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 13 May 2017, 12:46 
Freeman
Freeman

Joined: 12 Feb 2017, 11:56
Posts: 92
razortooth wrote:
I would also like to post another similar suggestion. I think multiple clan members should not be allowed to attack the same player at all. So if 3 clan members were at war with a player I think it shouldnt be allowed at all for a fourth clan members to join in on the war. That would stop ganging up in a way from clan members a bit I think.



For that issue you have lone wolf games and clan members limit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 13 May 2017, 17:13 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8030
Location: Honolulu
I agree, for non-clan games, we have the "Lone Wolf" realm. I believe this is currently working good enough (besides people joining the clan-realm by mistake/etc.), unless I am mistaken?

Quote:
For example I can tell my friend to declare war on me so I will get a boost against my other enemies.

That's a good point. Although, you would need 2+ friends attacking you on purpose on the same time. If your friend doesn't attack at the same time as the other player(s), it would have no effect as the happiness penalty also is in effect then.

Quote:
The attack of two against one is okay?! Why we are talking about 3 or more players?
2 players attacking at the same time can happen by accident in my opinion, that's why I just mentioned 3+. However, it can be applied to 2+ as well. I am just putting out suggestions/ideas. 2+ is fine too.

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 15 May 2017, 06:22 
Freeman
Freeman
User avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2007, 12:02
Posts: 111
Location: Valhalla (Midgard on weekends)
I would also like to point out the irony in a Shadows clan member complaining about other people ganging up on them...

:headbash:

Topsy, turvy world

_________________
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 15 May 2017, 17:32 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 01:07
Posts: 37
Location: Medan, Indonesia
I have an idea, if the number of warring belligerents is 3+, then defense of the area is increased by 50%, and every province battle lost wouldn't cost 1% happiness penalty.

_________________
An attack should be deeply penetrating and cost least.
Massive attack is best to stop anything.
Never trust your allies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 15 May 2017, 18:46 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8030
Location: Honolulu
Removing the -1% happiness penalty is not a problem. I could also update and give a +50% defense bonus or so if a player faces 3+ attackers. The problem is that the math become rather unpredictable for the players. Never know how much you need etc. Although, I like the idea.

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 16 May 2017, 08:43 
Freeman
Freeman

Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 08:15
Posts: 136
Location: Russia, Ekaterinburg
Wodan wrote:
I would also like to point out the irony in a Shadows clan member complaining about other people ganging up on them...

:headbash:

Topsy, turvy world


Wodan, your clan is doing it, in particular. And your clan was doing gung-up attack including against me. I imagine this in relation to you, for example, is not allowed. Only one on one. But this offer applies to all players.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And again about gung-up
PostPosted: 19 May 2017, 07:12 
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 09 Mar 2017, 05:11
Posts: 35
The Vikings do occasionally fight players on terms other than 1v1. However, we do our best to accommodate fairness in these circumstances.

For example - Vikings may engage in a 2v1 against a player when that player's economy and population are easily the equal of both Vikings. This is not an unfair match.

On the contrary, the Shadows are well known for 2v1 or even 3v1 ganking on players much less suited to fighting back.

So... your argument is invalid. :irre: :irre: :irre:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:

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

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