First of all, if you are a person who doesn't like reading new ideas (which 99.9% won't come into the game) , I kindly ask you to leave. I do not want anyone coming to write hate comments saying how I wasted your time, because this thread might be a long read. If you want to give your opinion, that's fine, I appreciate all the good and negative feedback, but also kindly ask that the negative feedback to be informative, which means giving reasons to why it is bad, instead of just saying "This idea sucks". Thank you.

First I want to explain how I came to this idea a little bit. Not too long ago I made a list about balancing individual specialists and shared it here. It received both positive and negative feedback, and I appreciate all of them. But it also opened my mind to a new idea: If I can't make everyone happy with individual changes, I can take a different approach. This was the first blossom.

Now, most of the community seems to agree that the problems lie in some of the core concepts, which are:

- Stacking of the specialists, especially ones whose negative parts can't stack with themselves (Kings come to mind, also there are complaints about Admirals and Tycoons)
-> To solve this problem, the most common solution which was proposed was the diminishing returns of more of the same specialist, for example second King would destroy 1/4, third would destroy 1/5 and so on.
Why I don't agree with this solution is: It would make calculations very very harder, especially if also added to Admiral and Tycoons.

- The hires are random, which leads to people frustrating about "I did not get a single Navigator whole game, gg."
-> Nothing was proposed to solve this, but I am also not sure how big of a problem this is.

- Kingmaking, which is a player staying in one base and gifting specialists to one player, which makes that player unstoppable at one point.
-> Topkilla has offered to reduce the hires of the person who has less bases (which is also parallel to what I am going to suggest below) , but was heavily argued against with the point of actual turtles having no chance to survive, I will also address my solution to that with the new system below.

So what does my system do?

Instead of getting hires every 18 hours with random 3 specialists, it will be a market of specialists from which everyone can hire what they want (yes, whichever specialist they need) at a cost. This cost will be a currency system, but I will just refer to it as "Points" here for clarity. Each non-promotion specialist will cost the same, and you can't buy a promoted specialist without having the older one first, and you should give the gold+the old specialist itself to get the promoted part. However, since this will never be implemented into the game and we don't have the opportunity to test the exact numbers, I will simplify the algorithms into simple concepts. The main concepts will be:
-Points won't affect the winning conditions in any way. They are only and only for hiring specialists, excess of it won't grant anything.
-Hiring the same specialist after the first will cost more. This means that stacking will still be an option, but it will cost you more to buy one more of it, reducing your total number of specialists in general. (Solves the stacking issue by giving it a downside without nerfing individual specs themselves, while also allowing players to continue stacking (Since there were lots of people OK keeping the stacking of specialists.)
- Point generation will be proportional to the number of outposts. Such a proportion that if you have lots of outposts, you will have a slight edge, but the less you have than average, you will get more significant losses to the points.
-> Now, before the negative comments come, I can already picture three of them coming to mind. Let me address them all.
1) What about the players sitting in one base turtling? Wouldn't this change cripple them?
2) What is the point of making a strong player even stronger by giving him more specialists?
3) Starting layouts are mostly the thing what determines the game itself. Why is the A player with 9 outposts at more of a disadvantage than his neighbor B with 11 outposts? He is already weakened enough!

1) The core change with this system is that people are able to hire specialists they need. Yes, the turtling person will have less hires in total. But, a turtling person needs only a few specialists to survive: A Martyr, an Inspector, a King, a Pirate and a Navigator is all you need. In some specific cases, also a Revered Elder.
The option to hire anything they need should negate the downside of having less specialists. Quality over Quantity. What is the point of having 4 useless hires (for turtles) when you can only hire 2 but you can hire the ones you need? This change will also cripple Kingmakers since they can send very little specialists to their protectors, even less if they want that second King because it will be more expensive to buy because of the core concept.

2) As I mentioned above, I don't intend to snowball the game even more. The algorithm will be written in such a way that if you have 16 outposts, you will receive only 3 points more from the guy who has 10. Let's say each specialist costs 10, and this means your big empire gives only 1 specialist more each 72 hours, which is very very insignificant. (I made the numbers just this moment up, I will determine some base numbers soon) Also, a strong player has a lot of territory he needs to defend as opposed to smaller players, so unless he invests heavily into global specs (which will result him in having less specialists anyway), he still is at a disadvantage. Plus, there is always diplomacy in the game to influence all of this.

3) Again, as I said above, difference between 9 and 11 will be very very minor. The exact numbers aren't here, but you guys get the idea and my intention.

What do you guys think?

I like the idea but just how it doesn't increase proportionally, it shouldn't decrease proportionally either. So turtling players have less income. But more income per outpost. Not much though.
But I like thee idea in which it will increase and decreas spec trading in the way that people won't trade spec BC they can already get it themselves but it will increase trading in that if you want to stack kings and your neighbor wants to stack admirals, each of you buy the others second spec so that it will be cheaper for both of you.

Meh, this idea sucks.




Actually it's pretty interesting. Like you said, probably not do-able for our update, but I would like to see it in action. I think it provides good general balance to prevent stacking, since it would cost more for additional specs, but I still think there's a drive to hire a select few specialists. Couple this with a couple of balance changes (Buff some of the first level specs.) and I think it would work great.

The only problem I foresee is that DA's are now instant access. It would become much harder to eliminate somebody, unless you could get an attack in at just the right time.

I think it's a fairly interesting idea, Numbers would need to be solidified like you said, but if implemented it could make spec hiring a lot more fair.

I'm sorry to be a bearer of bad news, but I can guarantee you that doing this will lead to buying points with IRL money and making this a pay to win game. The devs need the cash and they'd likely be willing to add in a way to get some more cash (or maybe not, maybe they are good people who would never consider that). But people would buy points for 1 game and get a huge advantage over others, thereby making us high schoolers who can't fork over the cash a lot less susceptible to winning then those with jobs and money.

I love the idea, hate the potential consequences.

While I don't like the idea for a variety of different reasons. I applaud you for thinking outside the box.


That said, the whole idea that "turtling players should be able to hire their way to avoiding death" is flawed.

It's a war game.

Mostly I like the idea, but I worry that this will cause a tactical stagnation with most people hiring the same things at the start of the game.
Also the instant DA hire at any time could be tricky for eliminating people. Knowing what someone's available hires are is an important strategic part of the game & that would be removed.

Can someone give me a good reason why turtles shouldn't be disadvantaged? At that point they're effectively out of the game & just looking to survive. If they didn't retreat enough of their forces to adequately defend themselves them bad luck imo.

colonelblair wrote:
Can someone give me a good reason why turtles shouldn't be disadvantaged? At that point they're effectively out of the game & just looking to survive. If they didn't retreat enough of their forces to adequately defend themselves them bad luck imo.

There isn't one.

topkilla wrote:

colonelblair wrote:
Can someone give me a good reason why turtles shouldn't be disadvantaged? At that point they're effectively out of the game & just looking to survive. If they didn't retreat enough of their forces to adequately defend themselves them bad luck imo.

There isn't one.

I don't think they should have an advantage or a disadvantage. I mean turtling is sometimes inevitable, and i would much prefer a finish without a medal than an elimination or resignation.
Disadvantaging turtles only makes them more likely to resign, which isn't good because it changes the rest of the game. Turtles should be able to have a chance to regrow, which they wouldn't be able to do if they are disadvantaged. The game isnt over till its over, and if a turtle is skilled and lucky they could make a comeback. I 100% disagree with disadvantaging turtles, I think its an unfair and completely unnecessary idea.
A turtling player in the game still has an effect on the rest of the game (i.e. buying outposts for information, or specialists, or whatever). Turtles definitely don't need a disadvantage to them, but they shouldn't get any unnecessary advantages either
The idea of disadvantaging a turtle wasn't thought out well, there is so much of an impact a turtle can have, the opportunity to grow and finish with a medal still exists, and its just too complicated and absolutely unnecessary to input that into the game. Sorry guys, I think its just not a good idea

coltspaesano wrote:Sorry guys, I think its just not a good idea

Nothing you listed is a good reason why turtles shouldn't be punished. You actually did the opposite. Listing a bunch of reasons why they should be punished.

topkilla wrote:

coltspaesano wrote:Sorry guys, I think its just not a good idea

Nothing you listed is a good reason why turtles shouldn't be punished. You actually did the opposite. Listing a bunch of reasons why they should be punished.

So you're trying to say that higher resignation and elimination amounts is better than a guy turtling? what has a turtle ever done to you exactly? If they did nothing, then great, no reason to punish them. If they have done something (like maybe attack you and succeed?) then they definitely shouldn't be disadvantaged because clearly they're still in the game and can make a comeback. You are trying to make it easier for you when you aren't the turtle, and maybe you don't give a shit about your resignation percentages and will quit as soon as the going gets tough. But you can't say a turtle is a turtle because he's shit at the game. There are a bunch of other reasons (like damn gang banging that screws them over which no one can hold off - I don't give a fuck who you are) that you obviously don't care about.
I think its really crappy to think that disadvantaging a player (who's already having a tough time) is a good idea. My opinion.
Regardless if we agree or not, the devs won't do it. Too much work. So poof, the argument is gone anyways