Versa correct me if I'm wrong but I think his idea would work something like this A - 5mill CS (GH / SOS) 400mill BFE 100mill BFA = *15mill B - 10 mill CS 200 mill BFE 20 mill BFA = *14.4mill Right now: player A is actually stronger than player B. Player A gets paid for winning against a stronger opponent because only CS is taken into account = good plunder Player B gets paid for winning against a smaller opponent = bad plunder With a Fix that takes into account True Strength: Player A would make slightly less for winning than player B do to the fact he is in reality a stronger kingdom. A system like this would still give the advantage to the smaller kingdom as 2/3 of his stats are static and his chance of success continues to increase when both kingdoms are at less than 100%, but it does address the problem of an outdated plunder reward system in the PvP. * Stats converted to cs and added together = TS (true strength)
I do agree to a large extent with you Versa. In fact, the trend of bringing low stats builds into the wars to counterbalance big LB builds on the same roster started with bringing some pure spies along with those LB accounts. What happened was that nobody could plunder off those and nobody could successfully hit the LB accounts either. If landing half a dozen hits, the stacked roster would win 300m-0m. Well, todays stacking mechanism is still similar, however it has been tuned a bit. You bring gh/sh along that you still get off no plunder, but those can now make huge plunder compared to their pure spy counterparts. And their small stats allow you to bring unhittable accounts along. Bringing the true strength into play for the plunder calculation now begins to level the field. First, those gh/sh will start to pay more and/or earn less according to their BFA/BFE. They have no BFA/BFE? Well, then they shouldn't be able to land a successful hit on someone triple their size anyway. It however will also lower the plunder earned by an LB player hitting while increasing the contrary in case of a success against them. Khaymens illustrated the basic in his example.
Wow great idea OP and kaw admin actuallyposted the thread maybe you got the ball rolling using true strength for payouts would be awesome way to counter imbalance in plunder
Right after season1 dev change the system by include the bfa into plunder pay, the result was overwhelmingly complain by everyone, over 60 pages if I remember correctly, so dev forced to take it off, now you suggest it again? They have done it, nobody likes it, so forget it.
Good points here versa and others. The changes to BFA and bfe have evolved way too fast making these issues. My thought on it was this. FOR EE WARS ONLY, plunder doesn't matter on who you hit, only your size. A big cs player makes the same hitting a sh as he does a BC player. And a sh makes same hitting another sh as he does a 20 mil cs Hansel. Is this the answer? I dunno. Just a thought. But clans wouldn't be less inclined to send out a dozen sh if every hit they received cost them 100 mil. I think this would balance lineups to make smalls only wanna war smalls and bigs war bigs. Thoughts?
Great post Versa, you put this in words better than I ever could. The other piece to this is stacked roster will still have the advantage but at least this change will make it a more even playing field. I mention this on a post a few months ago and someone mention it earlier GH with BFA and BFE are dangerous in war because 80 percent of their strength is from static bonus. They are as dangerous on low troops as they are at full strength. The same holds true for Ally LB players that is why RH style roster are so impossible to beat.
Hope devs still reading good threads like this on improving game, or versa compiling thoughts voiced here to send to devs directly once complete. Thinking on it further - would a plunder system work that's as simple as taking the max plunder of your buildings and dividing by your percentage of winning at full? Your max building plunder = 50mill If your percentage of winning is 80% 50 / 0.8 = 62.5 mill If your percentage of winning only 50% 50 / 0.5 = 100 mill The percentage does not consistently change it is set against each opponent assuming your both full troops (you do not make more hitting from pin because your troops low therefore your percentage lower) The harder it is to hit the more you will make. You keep all the same metrics in place with troop plunder and Allie plunder having one variable and one fixed. You keep the additional pots plunder in place, no need to mess with that dynamic either. The percentage of success at full against an opponent already takes into account CS, BFE, BFA - seems like something you could use that code into current plunder code - I'm not a game programmer so anyone that is can maybe tell us noobs if what were discussing is even possible.
I find balancing a meta (excuse the term, it's the first that came to mind) that's had so many drastically changing variables introduced to the simple action of an attack is fascinating. And, keep in mind, that's what stat limits are- balance. For example, if my attack takes into account my equip, and I take all of it off in order to attack a player with much less equipment (giving me a bigger gain, as mentioned in the OP) and then re-equip to untouchable levels, this creates extreme unbalance. However, you can't just not calc in equipment- then I, as a player with a massive advantage in one of the biggest factors in sheer force can hit a large range of players with minimal penalty to my gains and a higher chance of wins. It's just so difficult. The solutions are never bulletproof, but there are a lot of good, solid ones. Threads like these are great.
They've tried what you suggested, including BFA in Plunder. The leader board basically revolted...and they reversed it, cause LB made terrible plunder, cause of extreme BFA. $$$ Talks.
Valkyl What they did after season 1 was so drastic it was not practical and it did not go both ways. Meaning if you had 2x BFA and hit someone same build or smaller it cut your plunder in half. But the smaller build with BFA made better plunder hitting up. It only widened the existing problem and I think was rolled out without much testing. A system taking into account your percentage winning against an opponent and still utilizing building plunder mechanics (caps on plunder based on # of lands and type of building) would not be as drastic and would work both ways. It would reduce those kingdoms currently hiding strength in BFA BFE plunder, and it would increase the plunder of kingdoms attacking them. This would encourage a more even build to Allie growth and would not penalize Allie LB players as much (It definitely would reduce plunder for top Allie LB players but it would be more proportional to success). If I can only win 1 against a LB on a full bar unload shouldn't it be worth 3-4x as much as their 100% success rate attack on me? For those that don't know, most successful EE warriors now have over 400mill in BFE. If you had that much in BFA you would be TOP 100 Allie LB. It's not BFA that will be the major factor in plunder change with a system like this.
Exactly. The only reason BFA is mentioned is in order to keep it fair to all. If you make your build stronger in any way, it should be treated as such regardless of the advantages/disadvantages.