Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Battle points from support

  1. #1
    Hekatontarch
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    303

    Default Battle points from support

    It has been announced that in the newest update for Grepolis, people who support others will now also get battle points from it:

    "If support troops are involved in a battle their owner will now also receive battle points"

    The change noted is ambigously worded. Therefore, I would like to have it cleared up what exactly these changes entail. Which leaves the following questions:

    1) Can the number of battle points awarded to the defender and the suppoters ever exceed the amount of attacking units killed off?

    2) How exactly is the distribution of battle points among defender/supporters handled? Will the amount of battle points you get depend on how large a portion of your defense your support makes up (in population), how many of your units were killed or will there be seperate calculations for how many attacking units each supporting army killed?

    I like this change, but I just want to make sure it isn't broken. If it means less battle points for the defender and more battle points for the supporters, I think it's a good idea.

    For instance, when big alliances fight each other, it's often a few people who make the most conquest attempts against the other alliances, and in conquest worlds these people get a ton of battle points from having everyone in the alliances defend their siege while everyone in the other alliance tries to break it. A more even distribution of those battle points would be healthy for the alliances, so there members can grow more easily. At the same time, this change might also lead to a lot of abuse, espcially due to the broken morale system. Say that there's a small partly inactive player next to me, who I know is being farmed regularly. He attacker will have 40% morale against the target, so I send a large defensive army to the city. Since 40% morale basically means your units fight terribly, the attacker loses a ton of units while you only lose few defensive units, getting a lot of battle points in the process.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Asjo View Post
    At the same time, this change might also lead to a lot of abuse, espcially due to the broken morale system. Say that there's a small partly inactive player next to me, who I know is being farmed regularly. He attacker will have 40% morale against the target, so I send a large defensive army to the city. Since 40% morale basically means your units fight terribly, the attacker loses a ton of units while you only lose few defensive units, getting a lot of battle points in the process.
    This problem can be avoided if you only get BP when defending an allied city.
    ...I can't see any big downside to such a restriction

  3. #3
    Hekatontarch
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    303

    Default

    That'd be really trick. Something which normally has no effect on battle suddenly does. Not necessarily logical, and I'd say it'd be dangerous to have such an inconsistent system. And the same thing still might happen if you're allied with a low point player

  4. #4
    Strategos Pythagorus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    your harbour
    Posts
    3,434

    Default

    /me hopes this leads to morale being nerf'd

    /me wakes up from dreamland...

    i think jp's idea would work pretty well. people could of course ally with small players, but then that is really accomplishing a double whammy for the morale system, which is meant to help small players. if it can (in a roundabout way) lead to bigger players allying with them that that is a bigger help than a whole lot of morale in their favour!
    (╯°□°)╯︵ :


    sig by dogukankurt

  5. #5
    Hipparchus Thrillology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The Shire, Middle Earth
    Posts
    922

    Default

    I am excited for the new updates though!
    This is one of the things I look forward to, and another being able to invite players to your island who are friends.
    "What's 'taters', precious, what's 'taters', eh?"
    Spoiler:


    "Potatoes! Boil 'em mash 'em stick 'em in a stew."
    -Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers: Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit, Samwise Gamgee

  6. #6
    Hekatontarch
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    272

    Default

    asjo has repeated what i've posted in a couple other threads already. The morale system needs fixing if this update is going to work. The problem with making the distribution only apply when defending members of your alliance is of course that you should be able to defend anyone in the game and have the mechanics work the same. What about alliances you are pacted with? What about defending strategically important polises in your territory covertly to prevent enemies conquering them before you do? etc. etc.

    I'm all for the update, so don't get me wrong. This is something I think most players have wanted for quite a long time. But I really don't relish the spiking wars that will arise if this thing goes ahead in morale based worlds without doing something to fix the problem.

  7. #7
    Strategos Tyrion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pandora
    Posts
    3,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Asjo View Post
    It has been announced that in the newest update for Grepolis, people who support others will now also get battle points from it:

    "If support troops are involved in a battle their owner will now also receive battle points"

    The change noted is ambigously worded. Therefore, I would like to have it cleared up what exactly these changes entail. Which leaves the following questions:

    1) Can the number of battle points awarded to the defender and the suppoters ever exceed the amount of attacking units killed off?

    2) How exactly is the distribution of battle points among defender/supporters handled? Will the amount of battle points you get depend on how large a portion of your defense your support makes up (in population), how many of your units were killed or will there be seperate calculations for how many attacking units each supporting army killed?

    I like this change, but I just want to make sure it isn't broken. If it means less battle points for the defender and more battle points for the supporters, I think it's a good idea.

    For instance, when big alliances fight each other, it's often a few people who make the most conquest attempts against the other alliances, and in conquest worlds these people get a ton of battle points from having everyone in the alliances defend their siege while everyone in the other alliance tries to break it. A more even distribution of those battle points would be healthy for the alliances, so there members can grow more easily. At the same time, this change might also lead to a lot of abuse, espcially due to the broken morale system. Say that there's a small partly inactive player next to me, who I know is being farmed regularly. He attacker will have 40% morale against the target, so I send a large defensive army to the city. Since 40% morale basically means your units fight terribly, the attacker loses a ton of units while you only lose few defensive units, getting a lot of battle points in the process.
    I'm trying to find this out right now actually. As Gadzooks pointed out, he made a similar post about a possible issue with the distribution. I'm trying to get some more information about what the formula or formulae will be regarding the BP distribution.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gadzooks View Post
    The problem with making the distribution only apply when defending members of your alliance is of course that you should be able to defend anyone in the game and have the mechanics work the same.
    I don't really have a problem with there being a bonus(BP) for defending players in your own alliance.
    It could also gives a more us(the alliance) against them(the world) feeling and thus more aggressive play
    Quote Originally Posted by gadzooks View Post
    What about alliances you are pacted with?
    1* Do you send biremes to other pact-members now? You don't get any BP for it so the changes with the rule is very small. Again I don't think an incentive for defending you allies is a bad thing. Also it would not stop you from sending biremes to players outside your alliance if tactical reasons makes it necessary.

    2* Or you could implement getting BP from defending pact-members also, but I think that would be a bad idea. All MRA's (new players) would then make a billion pacts because they don't understand the game mechanics...

    ----unless you made a new rule!--------------
    Within the Alliances: allways "50%" BP when defending members of your own alliance

    Number of pacts
    -> 1-3 pacts : "30%" BP when defending pact-members
    -> 4-9:pacts : "20%" BP when defending pact-members
    -> 10-20 pacts : "15%" BP when defending pact-members
    -> 21- infinite pacts : "5%" BP when defending pact-members

    That would have been awesome
    (effect on actual game-play would be minimal, but make new players keep the number of pacts down)
    Quote Originally Posted by gadzooks View Post
    What about defending strategically important polises in your territory covertly to prevent enemies conquering them before you do?
    *The rule would not stop you from doing this.

  9. #9
    Hekatontarch
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    303

    Default

    All suggetions of making it necessary to be in the same alliance to get battle points are flawed. Once people get used to getting battle points for supporting others, they will come to expect it, and maybe will not support others when they know they are not going to get battle points. It should not be necessary to calculations to know whether it's "worthwhile" supporting someone (as in the pact suggestion). As it has been mentioned, you have to be able to trust game mechanics to be somewhat transparent, and having a system that only earn you battle points for supporting allies goes against that.

    I have done some testing in regards to the distribution of battle points:

    Test 1 (small ground attack)

    Objective: Attack empty city of alliance-member. City has level 25 city wall as well as tower.
    Attacking units: 80 hoplites
    Supporting units: 46 archers, 30 hoplites
    Result: Defender gets 80 battle points, supporter gets none.

    Test 2 (naval attack)

    Objective: Attack empty city of alliance-member. City has tower.
    Attacking units: 200 light ships
    Supporting units: 309 biremes
    Result: Defender gets 620 battle points, supporter gets 1380 battle points.

    Test 3 (large ground attack)

    Objective: Attack empty city of alliance-member. City has level 25 city wall as well as tower.
    Attacking units: 896 slingers
    Supporting units: 1001 swordsmen, 738 hoplites, 220 archers
    Result: Defender gets 278 battle points, supporter gets 618 battle points.

    Test 4 (naval attack against joint defense)

    Objective: Attack empty city with no tower. The defender leaves 150 biremes for defense, equal the the amount of the supporter.
    Attacking units: 200 light ships
    Supporting units: 150 biremes
    Result: Defender gets 1310 battle points, supporter gets 690 battle points
    Last edited by Asjo; 21.10.11 at 01:26.

  10. #10
    Banned Hipparchus
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ⓂⒸⒹⓄⓃⒶⓁⒹⓈ
    Posts
    587

    Default

    results dont look half-bad

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •