scaled insurance

[willymchilybily]

Im sure its been mentioned and discussed before. but i cant remeber how the discussion went. and cant find the thread. There are two main arguments i can think for and against (staying in range and getting bashed more, but also less fear about staying to fight). but ill let others mention them and debate them fully i just wanted to see how this discussion went down before and how it goes down now.

to clarify:
idea is scaling insurance for attack range.

attacking:
>70% = target gets 0% insurance & injuries
60% = 5% insurance and injuries
50% = 15% insurance and injuries
40% = 25% insurance and injuries
30% = 35% insurance and injuries

scale is not precise, just what i figured may be appropriate. alliance wars still removes all insurance etc etc. opinions for and against welcome. even discussion on what scale is appropriate. (as i remeber a few rounds back though anything at 60% and above was painful to play with never ending wars leading to wipeout, so dont go too mad on the scales if you want to tweak it)

 

[jamesNchina]

yay a sensible solution! but the attack % should include the total of incoming.. holy crap I luv it .. retaliation could get brutal... woot bring on the BR

 

[timtadams]

Ive always liked the idea that insurance is scaled with h/f. This is similar in some regards.

But considering being attacked by multiple attackers, i would say scale it by total value of attackers as a factor of target score value.

For example,
First calculate 'score factor', F.

F = (total attacking player value)/(total defending player value)

Then 'insurance factor', I, can be calculated by the formula,

I = 0.2 + (0.2*(F^3))/(F^3 + 5)

(multiplying by 100 would give percentage)

This would provide a maximum insurance of 0.4 (40%) and a minimum insurance of 0.2 (20%) as shown:

The power (3) and constant (5) can be adjusted to modify the profile. Changing the values of 0.2 would change the min and max insurance.

Of course you could just have some linear formula. Or do it in steps.

 

[Max]

I like it, but whatever you do keep the base insurance above 0%, even for honourable attacks! Otherwise it's super hard to buy back enough harvesters and gardeners to plant k?

 

[LuckySports]

It's the amount u add to the current insurance?

 

[timtadams]

well my little formula has a base insurance of 20%, with a maximum additional insurance of 20%, bringing maximum total posible to 40%. These numbers could be easily tweaked.

 

[tobapopalos]

Dislike. Why should attack range have anything to do with insurance?

 

[Ogluk]

Agree with toby
IF anything should alter any insurance/injury rates, its h/f Low H/F shitty to no insurance, high h/f current to slightly above insurance levels
SIMPLES

 

[willymchilybily]

h/f related insurance seems a better and simpler option indeed- for coding & fairness

but i thought you meant, and i certainy meant the insurance of the defender(s) only. the attackers insurance i thought would be baseline no matter what . and dishonourable attacks net the target higher insurance. I would be worried to give the attacker more insurance because it could be abused aka some on forcing your attack to be dishonourabler by piggying. like zaheen was doing. would screw you over. though the merits of addional insurance for attackin honourably is possible on top of the base. but not the removal of the baseline all together.

but then you may think bounty hunting would become a bit too overpowered rushing the top or larger people where insurance was 40% an you had bounty and bounty multipliers etc etc. i was thinking something more simple to intergrate and understand simply for the sake of new players. i myself dont really care. i dont mind things how they are now.

 

[timtadams]

Ive always been in favor of insurance based on HF. I have mentioned this before as being an alternative to white knights and wizards which unbalance the game.