This will change strategy quite a bit...now that I think about it, the change does make some sense. In chess for example, it doesn't matter how many pieces you loose along the way, so long as you're able to deliver checkmate. If you can control more of the map, even if you need to sacrifice troops to do so, you'll still win (whereas before you'd want to avoid "loosing" combat at all costs).

A player with a significant point advantage, in a close game, would often avoid all combat and deny the opposing player any chance of winning. Superficially it seems like we're discouraging combat, but if I don't have to worry about loosing points I think I may be more inclined to fight battles (in the same way the new ranking system encouraged players to play more games). For example, it may be worth loosing the battle (and a good number of troops) to push a player back into their castle so their resources can be taken...under the old system that would have cost you the game (as the number of points you'd loose would counteract any temporary resource advantage).

It's hard to judge the change without seeing it's effects in action, but I think it's a change that does have some potential. I do think combat is much more interesting as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself.

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 18:46

This is not chess! Chess is a last man standing kind of game
You could maybe compare battles with chess.
What you say about points there doesnt make sense at all, if you look at the rankings in the proving. People that just got in have almost as many points as those playing for the whole time.

Aaargh! LOD you are not listening!

The current games DO NOT COUNT!
As I said before, I had to give all players a made-up SCORE based on their CURRENT ranking. So the current rankings in the Proving Grounds is not a valid example of the new system.

If anything, it highlights how rubbish the old EXP system was.

It does address that part. I have always been one who fights to the bitter end and in many games it has driven me down due to the loss of points. while some one who just rolls over climbs higher.

Just who I am I can not give up period.

exactly. a great point Padro52. The longer you try to hold on in the old system, the worse off you were

Err...

What about the scoring in the DUEL systems?

Is it in effect? Cause suddenly My opponent is leading me by 1K point and I don't think he is holding more mines than I currently do?

Still not sure whether there is other factor to determine the score. Does kill still taken into consideration?

lons I think I got screwed a bit in the crossover as well, but oh well move on to next game and it should be better.

so far I really like the new system, there's alot more action. I would suggest a bit of a tweak in gold income however, lowering the health and cost of troops helped some but it's still a bit unbalanced. perhaps a 25% increase in the income techs will do it. the resources are fine as they are, they keep you grounded in troop selection.

castle takeovers are now tougher than they were, the defender can hang on a while longer and increase his score, a bit more incentive to finish the game out now rather than go inactive or quit.

the scoring system I'll have to give some time, I see the point of holding ground but I would like to see something for troop destruction, as it is now the experience techs are even more useless than they were.

Are gold mines supposed to not give any points under the new system? The Income page doesn't show them as giving any.

No, Goldmines only give Gold.

The idea for this new system is that Gold becomes the only resource, and the other resource buildings give Tribute.

This is a change I've been rooting for for a long time; well played, req.

Prepare to see campaigns become a lot more fun.

As for duels, I'm betting one thing will happen (based on the maps I've played), and that is this - new maps will be structured a bit differently.

With camps, a map usually has the resources positioned well for maximum fun with this new system, mainly because you have enemies on all sides.
but with duels, you've got one enemy, forward.
people will be forced to make a strategic choice at the beginning of the game, based on how they feel they will be doing by the middle of the duel.

On the one hand, score is vital, so hunting down those far-away woodmills and gemponds will be key to winning.

On the other hand, they aren't key to development any longer. gemponds specifically have been hidden in corners to frustrate would be rushing players. ignoring a gempond has been a losing strategy. Now, however, a rush strategy might be more viable, no troops to the side. straight on, and crush the enemy enough that later you'll have the leisure to go and collect those points.

Interesting choices. they do apply somewhat to camps, but it will be more strongly felt in duels, because of the one enemy, one direction thing.

I predict some new duel maps will focus more now on putting the gold in hideaway corners (which some have now, to be fair), just to make those specific maps re-underline the necessity of exploration.

Lastly, I have a suggestion. I'll post that separately, but concisely, it is this.

Make a new duel type: elimination.

^

Last Edited : Tuesday, 14 October 2008 - 00:10

As said before, I would not make gold the only resource.

It would be interesting to make a "hill" building (maybe use a flag) that would start the game as a neutral building, and have multiple ones placed on the map. Then have these be the main/only buildings that give ranking points. 'course players wouldn't be able to build them.

It would be like multi-hill in Halo (if anyone has any experience w/ that). Players need to choose whether they want to rush for the hills to start getting points, or if they want to go grab the good weapons first (synonymous w/ going for resource buildings) so that they can be better equipped to steal the hills and hold on to them.

Of course, this would require creation of a new structure (the flag/hill); would need to update the map-editor w/ the new structure; you would need one or more compitent individuals to update all the duel/campaign maps to include them. (I would suggest duel maps always have an odd number)

-Biodus-

This scoring system is going to promote enhanced fodder tactics which may or may not be considered realistic by some folks imho.
I saw a movie about WWI where a French general ordered wave after wave of infantry-men to their certain death, so it may be considered realistic, but some may have considered him a war criminal.

rex

Stalin used that same tactic too.

your army is a resource too - if you waste it, you'll just get burned later when your enemy who didn't suicide his limited troops walks all over you and gains your territory points and maybe your castle as a result.

I'd love for somebody to use enhanced fodder tactics on me. the only way it could work is if one person had a significant numbers advantage against another, and there weren't any other players around to balance it out. but this would be a valid outcome for a camp, so no harm. still, I'd be careful with my troops no matter how much a lead I had. just common sense IMO.

If a full stack of heavy cavalry approaches six full ballista stacks and gets way-laid by eight spearmen stacks,
the HC can only kill one stack of spearmen/turn while not being able to get any closer to the ballista stacks as they pepper it and kill two HCs/turn.

That's 5600 gold worth of HCs/turn not to mention the enormous resource loss weighed against 2000 gold worth of spearmen
So I'm ready with my "enhanced fodder tactics".

rex

who would do that? sending 1 HC after 6 balista with a bunch of spearmen in the way is suicide. bad gameplay.

there is less fodder play in this system than the old as a full 10pop spearman army is more expensive than 1pop spearman.

either way, i dont this has anything to do with the new scoring or rsource system. the new troop deployment, and its effects probably belongs in the other thread.

Last Edited : Tuesday, 14 October 2008 - 15:55

Biodus, we cant make all new maps. its too time consuming, and would also mean we'd have to scrap all currently running games and start again. thats something i want to avoid.

using the resource biuldings as these "flags", or as townships you need to capture makes more sense as an option, and can be used right away as maps are already designed with them strategyically placed around the map.

i also like that there are several of them making sure than taking or losing 1 of them isnt going to be a game-ending event. There are plenty to fight for so its not just about controlling 1 or 2 key spots, but many.

Requiem,
I know better than to try to argue with you when you think something is irrelevant and off-topic So I'll verse my opinion in the Shout box.

rex

As for keeping the other resources I see no point.

They do not add any difficult choices.
If you do not have enough Wood, then obviously you cant deploy ranged. No choices there.
So you explore the map looking for Wood. No real choice there.
If you come across a woodmill, you'd take. No choice there.
If you come across a different mine, you'd still take it. So no choice there.

So what about other players? Lets assume you want to starve them of wood (so they cant deploy ranged as well).
So you set out looking for their woodmills.
You come across their woodmill, and attack it. So far not much in the way of decision making.
You come across their Mine instead. You'd still attack/take it as it would also have a major impact. So no real decision there either.

I see no complex decision making as a direct result of having multiple resources. Most choices are not choices at all, and the rest are pretty obvious.

So how do they improve strategy over having just one resource(GOLD) ?

But with different resources, we have to manage what troops we buy. If you have 1000 wood, with income of 200 per turn, you know you have to wait a few turns if you want to get marksmen. Or you could put out a balista now, and some basics, and pass on the marks. Or you use the market to buy wood, and get the marks. You have to make a decision.

With all gold it's not even an option of what you need or have to give up to get what you need. It's gold. You either have it, or you don't. You can't trade for it, you can't make the choice to sacrafice your outpost to get the wood you desperately need. There's no sense of accomplishment when you get marksmen or HC. There is no decision to make.