I can't take credit for this idea. The first I heard mention it was my clan co-owner but I'm not sure if it was his idea or someone elses'. This solution is also not something that would be available for s3, it's already started and set. This could be tested in the next set of chaos wars though and if successful could be implemented long term. Obviously forums are full of threads about s3 wars, EE wars, dissatisfaction, etc. Most of them are centered around the GH/SH roster stacking issues and the problems that causes with matchups. The proposed solutions for this are wide ranging: do not allow GH/SH in wars, tighten hit ranges so they can't hit, change the plunder system so all pay the same, etc. The curse with most all of the proposed solutions is that they require some fundamental alteration of the basic working system of KaW and so are not particularly feasible as the solution would not just change EE but would effect everything else (PvP, OSW, etc) So, if you can't change the hit ranges of individual builds to make EE work like folks would like....what about a simple way to change the hit ranges of rosters in general for EE? No changes to KaW would be necessary, no alterations of builds, etc. Just require that to sign up for war, your smallest warring member must be able to hit your largest warring member. Not hit them successfully, but be able to hit them without getting a "You are too weak for this opponent" message. No changes to KaW as a whole would be needed. GH/SH would still be able to war, bigs and LB would still be able to war, no one would be excluded or kept out. However, you'd never see another GH/SH and LB roster stack. You would never see another statless alt created to fill a roster, lower total clan CS, or take advantage of the war system. You may still see GH/SH builds in rosters with big folks....just not LB. My SH alt that I use for war is pretty beefy (but certainly not the biggest in KaW). He has a LOT of allies compared to most as well as some HF spy trees to increase hit range. With him, I can hit up to around 20m CS folks for a top of my hit range. If you had strong GH/SH like that they could still war with larger builds on their roster, but not with leaderboard accounts and likely not even with build complete accounts. You would see war rosters that almost broke into tiers. The really big folks would be warring with other big folks. The really small folks would be warring with other really small folks. The "not to tiny" and "not so huge" could make good rosters without exploits on the extreme ends of build size. The "mids" would actually have some relevance in war again as you simply couldn't fill a roster with small GH/SH and then stack the top with monsters. Any thoughts from folks (or from KaW_Admin) on points or effects I've missed or haven't thought of? Can the developers make a requirement like this a part of their signup/matchup process? Seems like they should be able to but only they know the programming of how they do it.
Thanks for your support Mr. Co-Owner. To be honest when i wrote up the original post I was surprised with the lack of attention it got and responses were mixed. For the copious amounts of complaints about EE wars I dont see how this doesnt fix everything. Granted, it very much so hurts the professional EE stacking teams that have it to a science. They may be upset because they have to war with a chance of losing... But isn't that half the fun of warring? Id prefer a match that runs down to the wire over a slaughter, or a match where the best opening strategy wins over one that's less prepared. Lets support this kaw and get kaw_community on board for season 4. The solution seems completely and utterly simple for the devs to implement and it fixes nearly every complaint about EE wars. SUPPORT THIS EVERYONE! Here is my original link on the topic: http://forum.kingdomsatwar.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=156294
And this is what happened last time I brought up the issue... apparently no one feels its a good solution, or everyone likes roster stacking unless its used against them better than their roster stacking :lol:
Only issue with this is it does nothing to adjust stacked clans. The stack would be smaller but still there and g/Sh pay wouldn't be affected. It may be a small step in the right direction but certainly not conclusive by itself
Big support ! Theoretically this solution seems to cover the bases and may actually bring the fun back to EE .
I like the sound of this. I dont think its a complete solution but i think it could balance out the extremes
Or make dtw/dts based off building cs only and require one attack building to participate in ee. Just sayin. 20+ posts meow. I am becoming a forumer thanks to this topic. :O
Yeah, by no means would this solve everything. It would simply be a more feasible solution to resolve the extremes without having to re-create all of KaW's algorithms for plunder, hit range, etc.
I still am liking my suggestion which I believe will go a long way toward fixing the problem, by leaving hit ranges as they are, or even expanding them, but narrowing the impact that stat differences have on plunder, and fixing the matching system, all of which I've described in forums in post you can find by looking at page 10 and 11 of devs thread about Abuse of war system. None of those changes have to be universal to all areas of kaw. In my opinion they don't need to be-- the changes I propose for the way plunder calc works are proposed for EE system wars and not for anything else, though they might work well outside war too. I wouldn't claim that they would, because I never really considered my suggestions as anything but fixes for the EE war system, nothing outside of that.
The problem with most of the "change plunder" ideas though tmh is that the system used to determine plunder for actions in EE is the same system used for all of KaW. In other threads KaW has confirmed this and made clear that they cannot change plunder for just EE. Any alterations of that type would have to be KaW wide and they are simply not willing to do that as the effects would be HUGE and would have lots and lots of unforseen consequences.
As a professional application developer, I can tell you that is not the case at all. A subroutine CalculatePlunder and a separate one called CalculatePlunderEE, for example, or just a single subroutine that has one additional parameter passed when called, I would go with an enum that right now just has the two options (one being the default, the current one, and the second being the new EE algorithm) which makes for easy expansion in the future to try out other alternative calculation methods. To put it plainly, I can't imagine the app having been coded with such a messed up layout that it's impossible to switch between two different plunder algorithms. I have done the exact same sort of thing before. A lot. It's easy.
Sorry, I should have phrased that differently perhaps. You may be quite right and I do not have any experience to say otherwise. My point was that the folks with KaW have generally indicated that they are not willing to do it, whether it's possible or not. So, now we have to come up with another solution/suggestion that might work or be easier to implement.
Well the plunder system I proposed might work great for normal pvp too. The core premises of it are 1. larger builds (more buildings, higher tiers) should make the most gold and smaller builds the least. Aside from this being realistic (the Holy Roman Empire walking into your town is gonna take more $ with them than two dudes with a dagger riding a donkey would) 2. Static bonus from bfa and bfe must be included in the plunder calculations comparison of the attacker and defender for it to be reasonable 3. The power comparison should be atk vs def only, ignoring the attacker's defense stat and spy stats (from all sources) and the defender's attack stat and spy stats This all seems very reasonable to me, contradicting any of these three seems unreasonable to me. The thresholds for "in your range" vs "weaker than you" vs "stronger than you" would need to be tweaked to get them dialed in, but if you look at the numbers in the post where I detail it, there is still a reward for attacking someone larger than you and a penalty for attacking someone smaller. But what constitutes "larger" and "smaller" is based just on your attack and their defense, an accurate comparison of how likely or unlikely you are to win an attack. I hope people are giving those threads the time of day, reading through them a couple times to really get to think about the specifics of what I laid out, to be able to appreciate if it's right on, or offer really solid explanation of why it isn't.
I remember one idea I heard that made sense which is why not make HL like HF no guilds or SOS in HL just like no vol in HF. When the game was smaller there was prob a use for small buildings in HL, where that's just not the case now, HLBC is fairly easy with today's inflation. The hit range def needs to be addressed as well if I've got more static then they do CS, shouldn't even be able to try let alone succeed on occasion. Essentially this would solve lots of probs no more silly builds,more participants as everyone w be able to participate in their tier level. With more participants your gonna get better matchups.