Every attack to cost players coins and resources

[DeletedUser4089]

Reason:
Armies always need feeding, it also costs to move them (wagons carrying armour, weapons, stretchers to carry home wounded). Currently attacking is free, I think each attack should cost coins and resources.


Details:
Each attack should cost the player a sum of coins + resources.
This should be paid after you select your army and click to attack.
There should not be any refund if you retreat.
Costs could be considered in 3 ways

• A: Simply by Town Age. Each attack should costs 10,000 coins + 10,000 supplies. Plus an extra 10,000 per Age.
  (So a BA attack would costs 10,000 of each, EMA attack would cost 30,000 of each, CA would cost 60,000 of each)
• B: By the age of the highest unit in the army. Costs are the same as A.
  (8 BA would cost 10,000 of each, 7 BA and one EMA would cost 30,000 of each.)
• C: By each Unit's Age. A BA unit would cost 1,000 of each, EMA would cost 3,000 of each, CA would cost 6,000 of each.
  The cost of each unit would be totalled up. (so 4 BA and 4 CA would cost 20,000)

Visual Aids:
None, possibility of a pop-up to confirm after army selection, or a running total which s deemed accepted when clicking attack.


Balance:
Numbers need to be looked at and possibly modified to make them appropriate for each age.


Abuse Prevention:
No possibility for abuse.


Summary:
Each attack should cost money. The cost can be determined by town age or individual unit age.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ya know i already thought this was actually coming so +1

We want more incentives for Non combat players, who agrees +1 this idea now !

Though 10.000 per battle seems a bit too much, make it 1000 and + 1000 per age imho

 

[DeletedUser]

+1 from me - its only realistic that it should cost you to fight your battles! no army has ever fought on an empty stomach and lived to tell the tale!

 

[DeletedUser9168]

+1 from me for this idea too

 

[DeletedUser]

I think non-premium users would be penalized too much in terms of battles points they could gather. The production capacity will be a game changer here and the premium users not only would they generate more points with collects, but they would also be able to do more battles.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think non-premium users would be penalized too much in terms of battles points they could gather. The production capacity will be a game changer here and the premium users not only would they generate more points with collects, but they would also be able to do more battles.

Isn't it actually starting to mimic the real world then? Where you need money to take care of your army.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hello Master! *bows* :p

I believe there was a very similar proposal from PorfirioDiaz ages ago. The idea was to have these costs partially go towards the defending army if the attack failed. Nevertheless, I'm not really in favour of either idea, at least not yet. (Due to what MrDuke wrote above.)

So here's my suggestion: Instead of paying a fee for each battle, how about paying a fee for every time one swaps/selects different/new troops?

Regards,
Bloodwyn

 

[DeletedUser]

Isn't it actually starting to mimic the real world then? Where you need money to take care of your army.

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about whether the game should mimic the real world or not, but about game balance

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it will actually balance things out since players that want to battle will have to get skilled in building their cities with maximum output.


Actually, i think battles could be financed by the guild bank if such would exist... if you want to know how it could work there's an old thread i created about guild banks which pretty much covers all game aspects.

So it could go like, farming players could be gathering resources for fighting players and they would support each other through the guild bank.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it will actually balance things out since players that want to battle will have to get skilled in building their cities with maximum output.

That's where I fear diamond players might get to much of an advantage when it comes to tournaments, but that's a different subject... (There is no skill required where cash flows like a water fall)

Cheers,
Bloodwyn

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it will actually balance things out since players that want to battle will have to get skilled in building their cities with maximum output.


Actually, i think battles could be financed by the guild bank if such would exist. .. if you want to know how it could work there's an old thread i created about guild banks which pretty much covers all game aspects.

I'm not against it by default. Maybe your idea could introduce some interesting new game dynamics, but the numbers should be much less than those you proposed. A non premium users with efficient towns should be able to sustain the costs of cleaning up the whole hood on daily basis with non premium production buildings. Otherwise there is too much imbalance and it wont be fun either for premium nor non-premium users after a while.

 

[DeletedUser4089]

My numbers are too high just now, I'm looking at a different price structure now to make it more appropriate for each age.

 

[DeletedUser]

My numbers are too high just now

Far, far, far too high...

• A Fruit Farm produces 130 supplies per hour - at 10,000 supplies per attack this means a BA player (with 4 fruit farms) can attack once every 19 hours if they spend all their resources.
• An IndA attack costs 70,000 coins & supplies - I produce about 650k coins and 500k supplies per day (with all 3 resource boost GBs at high levels) so could make 7 attacks if I spent ALL my resources.
• Without GB boosts I could make 200K coins 110k supplies - so 3 attacks in 2 days.

This is an absolutely impractical idea as the players who can afford it are those players who have GBs or are highly active. If you set the limit so that players without GBs can afford to develop their towns and get 20 attacks per day then those who have GBs will find that it is not a barrier and will still do full runs through the neighbourhood.

I still prefer the idea that you can have unlimited attacks but only the highest scoring X (say 50 for arguments sake) battles per age per week give you points and count towards the PvP tower rankings (any lower scoring attacks beyond this arbitrary limit gives you a chance to plunder but no points or ranking and if you want to have more than the X battles give you points then you have to fight in multiple towers).

 

[DeletedUser4906]

I think it will actually balance things out since players that want to battle will have to get skilled in building their cities with maximum output.


Actually, i think battles could be financed by the guild bank if such would exist... if you want to know how it could work there's an old thread i created about guild banks which pretty much covers all game aspects.

So it could go like, farming players could be gathering resources for fighting players and they would support each other through the guild bank.

Guild Bank?? Why not just have a New World Order..

What SKILL do you need to build a city, it's basic mathematics, it isn't Rocket Science, no TALENT needed just a little bit needed between the ear's.

It costs plenty to build barracks etc, there's much more pressing things to be sorted before skinning the proper players anymore.

In My Own Humble Opinion.:eek:

 

[DeletedUser6461]

+1 for the main concept that each Attack should cost the attacker.
But I am sorry to say that the current cost is way too affordable. (Nice to know that you have already acknowledge the same)
Consider a player is in Ind Age and he has 80 neighbors and if each attack cost him 70,000 coins&supplies he needs to pay a total of 5.6 M coins for a single day battle. In my opinion total 80 battles should not cost more than 100,000 coins&supplies for a Ind Age player i.e, appx. 1,250 coins&supplies. I am sure you will make necessary arrangements to balance the O.P.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Imo, there's a reason for recruitment costs, scouting costs, and just costs to build military buildings. (If you say there's no scouting in neighborhoods,) Why is it called a neighborhood​? It's close enough where you shouldn't spend too much to attack.

 

[DeletedUser4906]

+1 for the main concept that each Attack should cost the attacker.
But I am sorry to say that the current cost is way too affordable. (Nice to know that you have already acknowledge the same)
Consider a player is in Ind Age and he has 80 neighbors and if each attack cost him 70,000 coins&supplies he needs to pay a total of 5.6 M coins for a single day battle. In my opinion total 80 battles should not cost more than 100,000 coins&supplies for a Ind Age player i.e, appx. 1,250 coins&supplies. I am sure you will make necessary arrangements to balance the O.P.

What do you do when your neighbourhood has only 42 players with 10 inactive, 10 in your guild, 5 Diamond Player's on a totally different planet leaving 17 to battle with a modest chance of defeating after taking heavy casualties against each??

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm sorry, but I'll need to give this a -1.

Regarding the costs of running an army, we already have a lot of "hidden" costs to represent this:

• Baracks. These buildings are absolutely not free. Costs to build them, costs to unlock the slots, and costs to train units.
• Units. Each unit already costs coins, supplies or a combination of both. This represents the costs of training and equipment for the unit.
• Population. Each military building requires a huge amount of population (a ranger encampment which holds at most 5 units requires 829 population... shouldn't that equal to 829 units?) However, all residential buildings represents a given amount of population, and these houses also represent their home and place from where they get feed etc.

I understand your concept but I think that the costs to run an army is already implemented by all costs and the population factor. Apart from that, all those costs to attack a player, together with costs for losses, and plundering that is not always profitable, will just make players stop attacking each other. It will simply not be worth attacking other players.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why i think that costs of managing an army should be greater is because those who decide to fight can spam attacks all day with very few costs yet those that defend still have to cover all building costs as the attacker to be able to just defend without any profit.

+ Those that choose to not attack but negotiate for a sector face really enormous costs in terms of both time, coins & supplies.
Correct me if this is wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Apart from that, all those costs to attack a player, together with costs for losses, and plundering that is not always profitable, will just make players stop attacking each other. It will simply not be worth attacking other players.

I wouldn't mind that, LOL. Keeps things a little more peaceful.
No, seriously, I understand falcon93's point and have another suggestion regarding the costs:

Why not have a one-time fee per day (= every 24 hours) arise according to one's own era for your General to rally the troops? This could also have the option of being free of charge if it's for the campaign map or attacking neighbours without plundering them.

Since goods can't be bought for resources, it would still be profitable for PvPers that rely on plundering these instead of trading or producing (assuming the fee is not to costly).

Regards,
Bloodwyn