Hello KaWers! How is everyone today? I hope you are all doing well and I also hope you are all here to read this informative thread. Due to the recent exploits going around, I previously made a thread outlining the real issue behind the exploits. If you haven't read it yet, go here. If you have, then please continue onward. ----------------------------------------------------------- Introduction Alright so the plunder system is a bit outdated and the issues are starting to become noticeable. So I have devised several new "tweaks" that could potentially solve this issue. These tweaks will be outlined and I will take a proper poll and once enough feedback has been given, will email the devs the outcomes. This might make their jobs a bit easier so here we go! ----------------------------------------------------------- Idea #1 To fix the current plunder system, idea #1 will consist of a few small things. First we account for all stat boosts which can be allies, equipment, pro packs, buildings, pots etc... and compute the end number. This end number will decide how strong a player "really" is. Then from there, the size will just match whatever the current plunder system says it should be. (Example) A GH has a total computed strength of nearly 12 million combined stats. That's a lot! So with the current system, this Guild hansel will payout as much as a standard 12 million combined stat player would. Make sense? The drawbacks to this will equal higher paying players, which will further inflate gold BUT it will make pvp more profitable. This could also potentially bring back OSFs seeing as the OSF can just gather spy stat allies and build it's calculated stat higher. Pros 1) Accounts will pay out what their stats actually are. 2) PVP becomes more profitable. Cons 1) OSFs come back (potentially). 2) PVP becomes more profitable (yes it's a double whammy). ----------------------------------------------------------- Idea #2 Much like Idea #1, this idea will take a total calculated stat value to judge how much an account pays. Only this time, it does it a bit differently. Instead of calculating all four groups of stats (Attack, Defense, Spy Attack, Spy Defense), it will calculate these into two separate groups (Attack and Defence/Spy Attack and Spy Defence). This way you can be a large spy and pay crap to large Attack builds if you have a small troop stat. Same thing goes for steals if the Spy has a large spy stat and steals from an Attack build that had a low spy stat. Little income on the steal. (Example) Player 1 is a large attack build with strong troops and weak spies. Player 2 is a large spy build with strong spies and weak troops. Player 1 attacks Player 2 with troops. That means Player 2 will pay Player 1 very little gold due to the ease of a troop victory. But if Player 2 attacks Player 1 with troops, the reward will be large because Player 2 has such weaker troops. The same would go for spy actions but vice-versa on the reward system. This would eliminate the possibility of OSFs and OAFs if this system was implemented and bring back the usefulness of both medium and large hansel builds who wouldn't be considered a leak anymore. This could make hansels more desirable in a war and some might say they would be a bit overpowered now but just keep in mind that they wouldn't be able to plunder well. If they do plunder well, then they can be attacked for a good amount. Pros 1) Accounts will pay based on how strong each category is instead of overall combined stats. 2) Hansels will no longer be useless in a war unless their troop stats are too high. More Build Specialty. 3) OSFs and OAFs will not be able to allow a massive amount of money in their payouts. Cons 1) Hansels may be considered overpowered if they don't pay well. 2) OSF's practically pay nothing now meaning they can tank a war with just spies and not have to worry about incoming. That means 0 leaks. ----------------------------------------------------------- Idea #3 Much like both ideas above, we will use a total calculated stat. But instead of breaking everything into two groups, we will mess with the attack side of it all. This idea may sound farfetched but here me out. Whenever someone uses attack pots, it will raise how much they pay out. Attack builds don't need to use pots on Guild Hansels but Guild Hansels sure need pots on Attack Builds. All defensive pots add 11million total gold to a potential payout and all attack pots can beat all defense pots so to counter balance it, all attack pots being used will net extra payout for the account who uses them. Let's go to the example and explain it a bit more: (Example) So the guild hansel pays 12 million to a large attack build who pays 50-60 million a hit in today's system. Now let's say we account all stats equal and the guild hansel is now calculated at 8-9 mil cs instead of 3, and the attack build is calculated at 13 mil cs instead of 9. That means guild hansels will pay a bit more but the attack build still earns less than it pays. All attack potions equal 205,000,000 in attack power. That's nearly 4.1million cs in pure attack which means the guild hansel is equal to the attack build (who doesn't use defensive pots because he isn't large enough to tank with ADT). So theoretically, the Guild Hansel should be 13.1 mil cs while the attack build is 13 mil cs. That means they should pay each other the same amount seeing as they are the same total calculated stat value. How this would work is simple, everytime the guild hansel uses an action with full pots, they are marked once by the system. When they are hit, one mark disappears and they are treated like they are 4.1 mil cs larger. Catch my drift? Use attack pots on any account, and it is marked once. Only when you are attacked a number of times equal to that mark will you not be considered 4.1 mil cs larger. Keep in mind this is an attack boost so you will still remain as easy to hit from before you potted to after. This type of system will only take place in System wars due to it's complexity. Another downside is spy attack pots will increase your overall size making you pay more unless idea #2 is also implemented. Pros 1) Accounts are treated for all bonuses, including pots used. 2) This creates a fairness among players and will really change the way things play out in wars. Especially if you have to think about potting for a scout (this would penalize scouts perfectly). Cons 1) Extremely difficult to implement. 2) This is purely a war based idea and could not work outside of system wars ----------------------------------------------------------- Idea #4 We combine all of the above and add one more thing. Yes this includes the pots adding to the value of a player when they are attacked and the total calculated stats. But the extra difference is how much a ko will pay. This is trickier than the pot idea but it looks like it could work. If a Hansel gets a ko of any sort, they can only make what is relative to their troop size. Same goes for Hybrids and Attack Builds. The reason being is Hansels can sit on attack builds with assassinations and pay very little to them in the process. To avoid hansels being overpowered, limiting how much the ko is worth will mean that attack builds will only have to get a fraction of the kos a hansel gets to keep even. This would stop spies being the best possible build and makes it to where the OSF will pay 0 and make 0. That sounds fair to me. Pros 1) OSFs are totally useless now and can't be used as an exploit. 2) Hansels will be contained but Attack Builds will not be overpowered. Cons 1) Spies can't be used for plunder but rather for KO control. ----------------------------------------------------------- Idea #5 Lastly is this idea. We put a minimum of what an account can pay and a maximum. These figures will have to be tested extensively so no outcome is unfair. This would look like the smallest GH has to pay at least 20-25 million gold and the largest Hansel has to pay no more than 55 million gold. These figures are totally hypothetical and hold no real weight over the situation but the idea is simple. You will pay between a certain margin no matter what your build is. That way smaller builds can't get away with large gains and larger builds can have more than a measly 5-10 million gold. This offers no real change to the plunder system but rather employees a floor and a ceiling for how much someone can pay. Keep in mind this doesn't mean that all guild hansels will pay the minimum and all larger builds will pay the maximum. These are just values that you can not surpass and percentages will have to take place. I can't test this in any way so for now it will remain a theory for the developers to decide on. Pros 1) Guild Hansels will pay more. 2) Larger builds will potentially pay less. Cons 1) The hardest idea to implement. 2) Doesn't fix the plunder system but emplaced restrictions on system wars and their payment ratios. ----------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion So now is the time for everyone's feedback! Tell me what you think and what should be added. These are all just ideas and are debatable so throw in a number sign and start critiquing. Remember to specify the one you are referring to Have a great day everyone and please leave relevant feedback. No trolls and keep this on topic as it affects all of us in the KaWmmunity! TL;DR -- I can't sum it up, you have to read it.
I know, I post everything during this time xD that way if it comes out wrong, I can lock it and recreate it
All very well thought out ideas. Nice to see you have out in options that pretty much cover every aspect of feedback from players. What I would love to see is a kaw_admin response as to which would be easiest to implement and the possibility of trials in the hopefully near future. Based on that full support be interesting to see how far this gets.
Thank you Op for your effort. Id vote for idea #1, devs like it simple. Lol Doesnt address overblown scout ability, but that isnt a major concern for me. Much more pressing issues.
Very well thought out and put, total support to any change. I'm not intelligent enough game wise to vote on the best, but if anything this is a step in the right direction
All your ideas seem reasonable... Let the devs decide... Personally Im boycotting ee's until something changes