Changing settlement attacking/defending.

[Sharwing]

Been a lot of posting on these forums about all the settlements are in a few hands.  Maybe this idea will make the game more dynamic.

The idea is to change the win/loss system in attacking settlements.  Instead of requiring an attacker's level be greater or equal to the defensive level of the settlement's governer, make the chance of winning the settlement randomly dependant on the levels of attacker and defender.

For example if both attacker and defender have the same levels, make the winning chance be 50%.  If the attacker has one less level than the defender, make the winning chance 10%, 2 less levels 5% and so on.  Below is a possible table of chance of winning a settlement:

Code:

Level difference (attacker - defender) Chance of winning
10 0.9998
9 0.9996
8 0.9992
7 0.9984
6 0.9968
5 0.9938
4 0.9875
3 0.9750
2 0.9500
1 0.9000
equal levels 0.5000
-1 0.1000
-2 0.0500
-3 0.0250
-4 0.0125
-5 0.0063
-6 0.0031
-7 0.0016
-8 0.0008
-9 0.0004
-10 0.0002

Maybe extend this to only to a difference of +/- 10.  This means someone with one less attacking level than the defenders defending level will win once on average every 10 attacks.  Someone with a 10 less levels will only win once every 5000 attacks.

[Jrobb]

No harm intended but this has been brought up before and widely criticised because it nullifies the benefits of high defense levels and the effort involved in obtaining such.  It also discourages putting MD back into the game as opposed to keeping it for payout.

J

[Sharwing]

I haven't seen a thread about this recently, do you have a link to one?  I also don't see the reasoning behind your argument that the idea nullifies the benefit of defense levels since the winning percentages are (or can be) weighted heavily in favour of the higher levelled player.  The percentages simply slightly increase the amount of settlements changing hands.

A 10% chance of winning for an attacker with one less stat is not a very big chance at all.  A settlement governor can also gain MD via failed attacks.

Feel free to criticize and debate the idea all you want.

[Jrobb]

No thread recently but last month or so.  I'l see if I can find it.

[Jrobb]

Here's one:

http://www.exodus3000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=342&highlight=

and the other one:

http://www.exodus3000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=156&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

and another: (dawgs63 post)
http://www.exodus3000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=156&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15


Kind of hard to find as most threads contain lots of suggestions...but it should bring you up to speed.

J

[Sharwing]

Cheers for that.

The idea of a percentage win for settlements has been proposed before.  The idea received both positive and negative views.  The admin saw it and considered it, it looks like he hasn't decided on a solution yet (or has he?)

Unfortunately the people who previously suggested the idea gave an example of a 40% chance of winning with an attack level one less then a defence level.  I agree, with a percentage like 40% is crazy and make buying upgrades less valuable.  I believe a percentage closer to 10% (or even lower!) would be much fairer for an attack/defence stat difference level of 1.

Jrobb you were one of the people posting negative views to the original idea, what is your opinion of these much lower winning percentages?  The top players could easily retain a fair amount of settlements, more than the 150 effective settlements that contribute to increased mining yields.

[Jrobb]

I guess the lower percentages could work, but  I'll stick with what I said before it would be hard to see if the new system was even working or not.  I find that with the current same level battles there are certain players I have harder times beating (even though we are the same level) and others of the same defense as my attack I can be assured a victory over.  Some days I do great in this regard, others I crap out.  

Some of the players here EXPECT that if something is possible then it MUST happen and forget the reality of random events...random events have no correlation to past successes or failures but people (myself included) don't think like that...we expect that if I lost before I MUST win NOW.  It's hard to teach that each battle has nothing to do with the previous...you don't "get on a roll".   I think it would create much more confusion primarily with the foreign players...who seem to have the most "issues".

I'm just not that receptive to too much change in the game ...in the past it had become a little outta hand with daily changes and bugs popping up.  It's been fairly stable for a number of weeks now and I think it sohould stay that way for at least another month or so to see where our average lies.  


My other issue is this completely changes the dynamic of the game...what would Mars (as it exists in the game) look like with this implemented from the start?  I don't see something as drastic as altering the main basic premise of the game as being altogether fair or detectable or justifiable for that matter.  You wouldn't expect in the middle of Monday Night football as the Seahawks are beating the pants off of the Raiders 56-3 to have the refs stop the game and say, 'You know what, the next team to score a toutchdown before the end of the game wins."   Both players entered into the game under the same rules and accepted them as such.  Just because one person is not happy with them doesn't justify a change in game structure of this type.

 Dirty little secret:  Way back in the middle of August you used to get penalized for scouting if your scout level was lower than your opponent's security.  This allowed a few key players to shoot up the leaderboards exponentially...some mentioned they didn't even have to mine because of the amount of battles they won on that behalf.  It is now been removed and security and intelligence are not as important anymore save for some minor tactical/psycological benefits. Some of those players have since left the game.  Typically the players who have issues with the "rich being rich" and the poor being poor are new players looking for payout.  And since the settlements aid in MD intake they don't like the thought that they HAVE to upgrade to play with the big dawgs.

One thing also to consider is the players on top now wer not there since the begining...infact I could name 3 of the past top 1,2,and 3 players of just over a month ago who are now below 10th place.  The winners change and once maxed out there is only so much to keep interest.  I think this game will end up being like thermal inversion in large lakes...the top layers of water submerge and push up those in the depths...just a matter of time.

J

[Sharwing]

Very well said, do you have a math or science background?

Some people may think the randomness of events may be against them, they could be right if they're very lucky.

If changes were to be made to the game preferably they would be made once a month during the payouts time.  But Exodus3000 is quite new and could still be considered to be in it's 'beta' stage.  If tweaks could improve gameplay right now, over the long term the game will benefit.

Thermal inversion also leads to stagnant atmospheres over cities causing an increase in pollution until the weather changes (ie in the game: payday).  This idea would hopefully add some convection to the mix and make the game a bit more fluid.  I hope that the correct analogy, my physics knowledge is a bit rusty.

[Jrobb]

Very well said, do you have a math or science background?

Some people may think the randomness of events may be against them, they could be right if they're very lucky.

If changes were to be made to the game preferably they would be made once a month during the payouts time.  But Exodus3000 is quite new and could still be considered to be in it's 'beta' stage.  If tweaks could improve gameplay right now, over the long term the game will benefit.

Thermal inversion also leads to stagnant atmospheres over cities causing an increase in pollution until the weather changes (ie in the game: payday).  This idea would hopefully add some convection to the mix and make the game a bit more fluid.  I hope that the correct analogy, my physics knowledge is a bit rusty.

No...but i did stay at a Holiday Inn.

[Jrobb]

Actually I grew up on Mutual of Omaha, Nature shows (way before Jeff Corwin and The Steve Irwins if today), Nova, and Discovery Channel.  It was common to hear my sister tell on me to my Dad that I was watchingn another one of those nature shows. Followed by Dad yelling to let my sister watch something.  That of course was followed by the only rational comeback..."I guess you don't want me to learn anything...do you?"

The thermal inversion reference was ansophisticated version of "what comes up must come down".

This mode you suggest  would add more players into the fray...kind of like adding a third and fourth player on Hungry Hungry Hippos.

J

[CSStriker]

Very well said, do you have a math or science background?

Some people may think the randomness of events may be against them, they could be right if they're very lucky.

If changes were to be made to the game preferably they would be made once a month during the payouts time.  But Exodus3000 is quite new and could still be considered to be in it's 'beta' stage.  If tweaks could improve gameplay right now, over the long term the game will benefit.

Thermal inversion also leads to stagnant atmospheres over cities causing an increase in pollution until the weather changes (ie in the game: payday).  This idea would hopefully add some convection to the mix and make the game a bit more fluid.  I hope that the correct analogy, my physics knowledge is a bit rusty.

No...but i did stay at a Holiday Inn.

That made me rofl

[LakeSky]

I do really like this idea.  I'm a "stronger" player and wouldn't get my panties in a wad if a weaker person took a settlement.  If anything, it would entice me to upgrade so I could know WHO took it so I could work on crushing them.  

Admin hasn't posted on any suggestion threads in awhile.

[CSStriker]

 

Admin hasn't posted on any suggestion threads in awhile.

My guess is that he is getting plenty of suggestion from all the players, hehe

after all, we are the ones that play the game..

[Jrobb]

Very well said, do you have a math or science background?

Some people may think the randomness of events may be against them, they could be right if they're very lucky.

If changes were to be made to the game preferably they would be made once a month during the payouts time.  But Exodus3000 is quite new and could still be considered to be in it's 'beta' stage.  If tweaks could improve gameplay right now, over the long term the game will benefit.

Thermal inversion also leads to stagnant atmospheres over cities causing an increase in pollution until the weather changes (ie in the game: payday).  This idea would hopefully add some convection to the mix and make the game a bit more fluid.  I hope that the correct analogy, my physics knowledge is a bit rusty.

No...but i did stay at a Holiday Inn.

That made me rofl

It was a "fast ball low and away"...I had no choice but to Babe Ruth it.

J

[scottsinct]

Although people are so upset by this idea, it may actually end up benefitting the stronger players more than the weaker ones.

For instance, let's say player A is weaker and player B is strong, but player A is risky and attacks player B because he knows he has a small chance of winning.  If their defense level is different by even 1, then 9 times out of 10, player B will earn some MD from A (and if it's a settlement, keep it)!  Sure 1 time out of 10, A will get the settlement, but the 9 MD winnings might just make up for that.  And, this is just for a 1 level defense difference.

In short, I like this idea, but I believe the strong players need to reconsider that it makes them weaker.  I'm pretty sure it will do the opposite.