Potential for insurnace/injuries to prevent RAGEQUIT or its use in a Safe Mode

[timtadams]

As has been said dozens of times, if you want to stop ragequitting from losing everything in a tick, then stop battles being so drastic. Don't just stop battles happening all together. That's a sure fast-trak to a completely dead game. We need *more* battles with *less* consequences.

This is from the Bushtarion Safe Mode thread and i agree 100% with this. Hence this suggestion

Suggestion Part 1

I suggest a significant increase in injuries/insurance (yes im suggesting it again ) but only for defending. This would not increase bounty hunting, especially at 5%.

eg 80-90% for both insurance + injuries. Maybe 80% insurance, but 90-95% injuries so for the new people who are not so active dont loose out on income from having too few harvesters.

I do not think losing land is the problem here so i have not mentioned anything.

This could be tied into war declarations in that when an alliance declares war, both alliances get normal insurance/injuries when defending. However, both alliances get slightly increased insurance when attacking. This would give slight support for the attacking alliance and hence would support resistance efforts.

Alliances would only be able to declare war on an alliance about >80% their value to prevent abuse.

Some other possible points:
-increase insurance/injuries when defending HQ. Allows players to park troop there for defensive advantage. Of course there is the disadvantage of having no troops to save land (unless defended by allies) so i think its a fair call. I do not believe this is a too big advantage.
-Increase insurance for attacks as well as defending. This means people will not loose so much on attacks and thus will promote attacking. Of course, this means bounty hunting will be more profitable and could increase. However, obviously with increased insurance/injuries, those who are defending will not suffer much
-What about bounty? See Suggestion Part 2

Suggestion Part 2

'Normal' (high) insurance/injuries as stated above would apply for those who are not wanted, ie those with 5% bounty, however...

Have insurance/injuries as a function of H/F. Those who are wanted receive less insurance/injuries, inversely proportional to the bounty they yield. So someone who has 60% bounty, will get a max of 40% insurance (possibly less). 40% bounty gives a max of 60% insurance, and so on.

For use as a Safe Mode

I like my above idea as being for the ENTIRE ROUND, however, if that was not to others liking, then a less drastic option could be substituted as the safe mode. So have really high insurance/injuries, but once safe mode is exited (as Enrico suggested in Bushtarion Safe Mode) then back to normal. (obviously nothing to do with war declarations here)

 

[Stegosaurus]

You have to consider it from the attackers point of view. Stealing land at high ranks is hard enough already, with contactability and all. Your suggestion would make it much harder.

Hopefully that might encourage alliances to actively war, rather than attempting to out farm each other, but I doubt it.

Whilst I agree with CFs statement, I don't think you're going the right way about solving it.

 

[timtadams]

You have to consider it from the attackers point of view. Stealing land at high ranks is hard enough already, with contactability and all. Your suggestion would make it much harder.

how does increasing injuries/insurance disadvantage the attacker? I mean, for the attacker the outcome would be exactly the same. The only difference is that the defender gets more back :s Maybe this would be a problem if the attacker suffered more than 10% loses and wanted to repeat attack more than once so had to attack when the defender got his/her insurance back to buy up, thus causing more damage than what would have otherwise been dealt on the third attack... (it does take longer than 13 ticks for insurance to come back? either way its still repeat attacking)

I also made the point that it is still possible to increase insurance for attackers, which i hypothesised would increase attacking. This would be an advantage for attackers. This could counter any negative effect on attacking (although i see none)

Ohhhh, maybe youre saying that the defenders will have more to defend with overall sortof thing. So all your targets will get more troops back and will be better suited to defend your attacks? Sorry, I see what you mean now (i think)

Well, consider:
more players getting more troops back means more people will have greater value, and as such, there will be more targets for the higher ranked people!
The person you otherwise would have attacked will have a higher value, and someone else who would have been lower will instead replace this target. I consider this an advantage since the new target with the same value (as what would have been with the current system) will be ranked lower and as such is probably in a LESS ACTIVE alliance and so it should be easier to land. (sorry if this is unclear, if so i will try to elaborate)
Also consider, that this will keep potential targets in range longer!

I see nothing but advantages for attackers.

 

[Stegosaurus]

It encourages more people to defend than would previously. The only reason you land a lot of the time on a competent alliance, is because the defender has decided the losses they would suffer saving the land, are not worth the acres lost. By providing them with large amounts of insurance/injuries, you are removing that barrier and encouraging far more players to defend.

Ideally, this would make land a more scare resource, and encourage tactical warfare between alliances - but in practice, it would just encourage hitting solos and completely destroy competition between 2 equally ranked alliances with the advantage weighted heavily in favour of the defender.

Already 90% of alliance battles are decided with a "staff recalled" out of fear of potential defense, and giving defenders more of an advantage is not going to solve that.

 

[timtadams]

It encourages more people to defend than would previously. The only reason you land a lot of the time on a competent alliance, is because the defender has decided the losses they would suffer saving the land, are not worth the acres lost. By providing them with large amounts of insurance/injuries, you are removing that barrier and encouraging far more players to defend.

Ideally, this would make land a more scare resource, and encourage tactical warfare between alliances - but in practice, it would just encourage hitting solos and completely destroy competition between 2 equally ranked alliances with the advantage weighted heavily in favour of the defender.

Already 90% of alliance battles are decided with a "staff recalled" out of fear of potential defense, and giving defenders more of an advantage is not going to solve that.

indeed...

i should have realised this...you totally burned my suggestion