Adaptation to coin worlds

DeletedUser

Guest
I haven't seen a suggestion like this before, but there probably has been, so apologies now for if you have read something of this idea before.

I would like to suggest a player-nobling coin reward.

The idea is, each time you noble a village from a player, you take a specific number of his coins out of their total count.

A basic formula could be used, as follows:

Conquering a village = 10% of Targeted Player's Total Coins/(Total Village Count + 1)

For example:

Googly has 180 villages, and 37,124 coins. 10% of this is 3,712 (rounded down).
Patrick manages (with a great deal of luck, as he normally wouldn't be able to) to noble a village.
Googly is now on 179 villages.

Therefore, Patrick would get: 3712/(179+1) coins, or 20 coins.


I originally thought perhaps this could be without the 10% of the targeted player's total coins, but that would work out potentially a huge number, which may affect gameplay too much for Innogames to consider.

I would like feedback on this idea.


-----------------

Ban punishment suggestion.

Due to coin worlds being able to rebuild nobles as soon as you lose a village, I also would like to see a ban punishment in place where the cheating player loses the number of coins those villages are worth to him. It seems a bit unreasonable that a player will be able to recap all his villages with just a bit of offense lost, but has the ability to regain his position within a fortnight of being unbanned. A ban should be harsh enough to prevent people breaking rules again - if I broke a rule and lost 5 villages, but could instantly build 5 more nobles nearby to recap, and just clear/get friends to clear (rank 2 and 3 players on W39 .net did this recently to avoid losses on their part) and take the villages back, there is no real punishment for me beyond being slightly behind schedule for a few days, as opposed to a while longer for replenishing needed nobles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I Like The Idea, As It Is A Nice Incentive Not To Noble Barbs. Does This Mean The Player Nobled Looses Coins Though?
 

DeletedUser548

Guest
Looking through, I would assume that Ed.

Late game, this could be very beneficial to the growth of players. Especially during wars, where rimming players is a part of the fun :p It also gives you an incentive to chase them however far as the decide to go, just so you can get a few more coins. Using that equation, it would also leave the scales untipped, as it would merely be helpful, and not unbalanced. Unless it were a smaller player nobleing a much larger inactive player, who could potentially give more coins then the smaller player has need to increase the noble limit by 1.

Sorry if that ran together, my thoughts aren't that clear right now :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Click Here To Win said:
I Like The Idea, As It Is A Nice Incentive Not To Noble Barbs. Does This Mean The Player Nobled Looses Coins Though?
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that bit - editing it in now :)

Dahr555 said:
Using that equation, it would also leave the scales untipped, as it would merely be helpful, and not unbalanced. Unless it were a smaller player nobleing a much larger inactive player, who could potentially give more coins then the smaller player has need to increase the noble limit by 1.

Sorry if that ran together, my thoughts aren't that clear right now :p
Click to expand...

I originally didn't have the 10% bit put in, but without some sort of scale factor it seemed to be too large and would affect gameplay, as you point out :)

If a small player is able to take out a larger player, then they deserve the excess coins in my opinion, as the scales are balanced against them :p
 

DeletedUser1381

Guest
yes i like this idea lots.. Will make the noobs stay away from meh farms
 

DeletedUser548

Guest
Googly said:
I originally didn't have the 10% bit put in, but without some sort of scale factor it seemed to be too large and would affect gameplay, as you point out :)

If a small player is able to take out a larger player, then they deserve the excess coins in my opinion, as the scales are balanced against them :p
Click to expand...


ps2guy1 said:
Unless it's an inactive
Click to expand...

I did point that out in my post...

Dahr555 said:
Looking through, I would assume that Ed.

Unless it were a smaller player nobleing a much larger inactive player, who could potentially give more coins then the smaller player has need to increase the noble limit by 1.
Click to expand...

See? :rolleyes:

I guess Googly can't read :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Dahr555 said:
See? :rolleyes:

I guess Googly can't read :p
Click to expand...


Or, if you look at what I posted, you will that I was explaining in detail *WHY* I included the 10% value.

Also, it is uncommon to see small players targeting big accounts. Regardless of their activity - you never know when an inactive might return. So to me, the smaller player is still in the worse-off seat, as they have less troops to work with.

Not really any point in trolling - you only showed that you are unable to think for yourself enough to actually see the reasons for what I posted, or to use a logical thought process to make a helpful comment.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Googly said:
Or, if you look at what I posted, you will that I was explaining in detail *WHY* I included the 10% value.

Also, it is uncommon to see small players targeting big accounts. Regardless of their activity - you never know when an inactive might return. So to me, the smaller player is still in the worse-off seat, as they have less troops to work with.

Not really any point in trolling - you only showed that you are unable to think for yourself enough to actually see the reasons for what I posted, or to use a logical thought process to make a helpful comment.
Click to expand...



what about an inactive who's being internalled?
 

DeletedUser548

Guest
I was insisting internalling, not an inactive who might return. Even experienced players are a bit apprehensive about them. It could boost internalling speed greatly if you had a small account merge with a big account.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Googly, I am nt sure if you answered this, but I am also curious- would the player having a village nobled off lose those coins? If they had less coins than required for existing noblemen/villages, would they lose them?

also, a clarification: Is the 10% of the nobled players total coins, or just those made in the village being taken?
 

DeletedUser548

Guest
Mashman said:
Googly, I am nt sure if you answered this, but I am also curious- would the player having a village nobled off lose those coins? If they had less coins than required for existing noblemen/villages, would they lose them?

also, a clarification: Is the 10% of the nobled players total coins, or just those made in the village being taken?
Click to expand...



To clarify your second part of the post:

coins gained = 10% of players total coins [divided by] (Players remaining villages + 1 [for the lost village])

Also, I would like to know if they would lose those coins. It's very intriguing.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
yeah, cuz if the conquered player does lose those coins, it will make the strategy of letting the train hit, then reconquering it back, very expensive to do.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Googly said:
The idea is, each time you noble a village from a player, you take a specific number of his coins out of their total count.
Click to expand...


That is meant to mean that the player losing a village would lose the number of coins the other player gets (taking coins from the player you hit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top