cRPG
Strategus => Strategus Issues => Topic started by: Keshian on August 22, 2011, 03:53:47 am
-
So a relatively larger battle with a slight disparity in numbers and instead of 61 v. 61, its 36 v. 36. I think the intention was to give slight advantage to the side with numbers (like 61 v. 55), but as it works now it doesn't really make any sense as if there is a difference in numebrs you just get fewer and fewer mercs on each side with large battles. I don't think this was how it was intended to work as a 20,000 v. 1,000 man fight will have a max of like 10 guys on each side and last forever and no real advantage to the larger army, just a really boring long fight with too few people.
-
would be nice if devs actually documented how changes worked, instead of
1) leaving community in dark
2) leaving community to figure it out thru their own testing
-
Looks like it work as intended. If it makes sense is another question :)
Smaller battles allow for smaller amount of mercs, larger battles for larger mercs
It maxes out at 9000 troops (with 55 mercs per side)
troops = men of the smaller party
both sides have the same amount of mercs, no steamrolling in this game -_-
but yeah, the merc numbers are just a quick guess, we can edit the formula to something that makes more sense.
-
Could we have those largest, most epic battles have max 81 on each side (kind of similar to defense of neutral fief but for both sides) and then scale down from there?? I know a lot of people want to play in Strategus battles and often have to turn people away for larger fights. Would be nice not to make those fights even more restrictive and it would feel more realistic in large battles with the difficulty involved in coordinating such large groups of people.
-
That's probably a bad idea; even with 60 vs 60 there was almost always really bad lag, especially on siege maps.
-
That's probably a bad idea; even with 60 vs 60 there was almost always really bad lag, especially on siege maps.
Hard to tell for me on EU because of my own lag, but the new official NA servers run like a breeze with 60 on each side.
-
So it means that there will be even less seat for mercs, thus clan will choose very cerefully their mercs, meaning average/bad/clanless player will never participate in strat battles.
-
This game should not lag any half decent computer. To lower the amount of mercs per side is like no child left behind...I say if you want to play strat battles...upgrade.
-
I'm not clear on what the purpose of this is besides making battles take forever. There are already way more people who want to play in strat battles than slots, and this will only make things more exclusive. Its not uncommon for our clan, for instance, to get 150+ applicants for a battle, and before we could only hire 60. Now its more like 30-40.
-
Looks like it work as intended. If it makes sense is another question :)
Smaller battles allow for smaller amount of mercs, larger battles for larger mercs
It maxes out at 9000 troops (with 55 mercs per side)
troops = men of the smaller party
both sides have the same amount of mercs, no steamrolling in this game -_-
but yeah, the merc numbers are just a quick guess, we can edit the formula to something that makes more sense.
POST THE FORMULA so people can figure out EXACTLY how many people they can bring, not this random approxiate guessing bullshit. whats your problem with posting EXACTLY how something works?
Do you income tax where you live? You can look at a chart and know EXACTLY how much I'm going to have to pay based on what you earn? YOU KNOW THE FORMULA, so you know EXACTLY what to expect. I know its a novel concept, letting people do math on their own.
-
no one asked for it, jeez...
ceil(pow(troops, 0.56)-pow(1.15, troops/2000)+15)
-
no one asked for it, jeez...
ceil(pow(troops, 0.56)-pow(1.15, troops/2000)+15)
and the peasants rejoiced! thank you
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
whats the pow variable?
I assume ceil = ceiling or max number of players for that side in the battle?
-
ceil(pow(troops, 0.56)-pow(1.15, troops/2000)+15)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y+%3D+x^0.56+-+1.15^%28x%2F2000%29+%2B+15 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y+%3D+x^0.56+-+1.15^%28x%2F2000%29+%2B+15)
Where x is the number of troops.
whats the pow variable?
I assume ceil = ceiling or max number of players for that side in the battle?
Cursory google reveals that ceil() rounds up to the nearest integer, and pow(base, exp) raises the base to the power of exp. My interpretation is linked above.
That said, either I'm doing something wrong and am an idiot, or this function does not have the expected behavior. Namely, that it maxes out at 9000 troops with 55 mercs on each side. And that a 1609 v 2399 yields max 36 mercs on each side (seems like it should be 38 or 39).
-
And that a 1609 v 2399 yields max 36 mercs on each side (seems like it should be 38 or 39).
Right, I think I told BS. This is the formula for the battle duration in minutes. Mercs are that duration divided by 2. Also, maxed out at 9000 was silly too, 9300 is the maximum battle lenght (180 minutes)
So the above battle would be: ceil(pow(1609, 0.56)-pow(1.15, 1609/2000)+15) = 77. Mercs would be /2 = 38,5=38 or 39, can't remember.
-
So what happens if you reach the maximum amount of time (which seems likely with so few mercs allowed)?
-
Ok that makes more sense, but you stated that the maximum mercs on each side to be 55. If the max battle duration is 180, then the amount of mercs on each side can't just be the duration divided by two, or we could potentially have 90 v 90 battles. That sounds epic, but I'm guessing that's not true.
For y = 110, x = ~3483 troops in the smaller party. Is this the max? Or is there some other formula at work?
-
i havent found 60v60 battles to be so bad lag-wise on NA (I am NA)....
not sure if 80v80 would be much worse or not...
-
Ok regardless of formulas and whatnot, can someone explain to me what the new system is supposed to be adding to the game?
Is it supposed to be helping defenders with less than 60 troops because the attackers can't hire more players than them? Because thats the only time I see this system skewing the odds in any direction. In every other scenario its exactly the same as before, except with less people playing and more people sitting on the sidelines.
-
As far as I can tell, it's not about odds. It's more about variety and differentiating between huge battles and smaller battles. Previously, every battle, big or small, looked the same, it was more a matter of how long it took. With this scaling, there will be a noticeable difference in the 'feel' of different battles.
On the new official NA servers, I've played near 60 v 60 strat battles, and NA 1 fills up with over 100 players fairly regularly. In neither case do I experience much lag. The servers themselves seem like they could handle larger battles. The limiting factor I think is the player's computer. I have to tone down on the number of corpses and ragdolls, but otherwise it's all good.
I think we should try larger battles.
-
pow is chadz' god.
-
im not a fan of this change myself, for the reason listed by many. It already sucks having to cut people from your roster when you have 61 slots for 150+ applicants... it sucks that much more when you only get 30 or so :/
-
agree matey, and thats why some of us are suggesting that the whole thing be scaled up....so that the biggest battles are 80v80 instead of 60v60 and then down the line....so maybe the smallest isnt 36v36 or whatever it is, maybe its 46v46 or something
-
Neither do i find this change good - I liked the battles to be 60v60.
That said, the idea of differentiated strat battles is nice enough. How about 1000 troops means you can 60 mercenaries? All big battles will still be "big", and there would be a clear difference in the smaller ones.
-
the sWalker believes that the god-king chadz has had an amazing idea that needs the slight tweek mentioned already. Make the max number 80 v. 80 and scale down on a gentle curve from there...i.e., 500v500 gives you about 35v35, 1000v1000 gives you 50v50, 1500v1500 gives you 55v55, 2000v2000 gives you 60v60, and even more gentle slope up to 9000v9000 to give you 80v80.
-
Like Ramses said, the idea is good, but maybe some increase in numbers wouldn't hurt.
-
both sides have the same amount of mercs, no steamrolling in this game -_-
As I understand, this does not work for siege? Defenders of the castle (4500 troops) have 75 slots, attackers (10000 troops) have 55 slots
the sWalker believes that the god-king chadz has had an amazing idea that needs the slight tweek mentioned already. Make the max number 80 v. 80 and scale down on a gentle curve from there...i.e., 500v500 gives you about 35v35, 1000v1000 gives you 50v50, 1500v1500 gives you 55v55, 2000v2000 gives you 60v60, and even more gentle slope up to 9000v9000 to give you 80v80.
Totally agree with that... +1
no one asked for it, jeez...
good point... May I kindly ask you to publish the formula showing how the gold earnings depend on population in castles and towns? :D
-
Sorry for double post, but it is another issue.
I suddenly got interested in how it is calculated in siege battles :rolleyes: Namely, the number of defenders is always larger than attackers. With total castle population - by appr. 20. If there is low number of troops on either side, how much is added to defenders? chadz - please...
-
the sWalker believes that the god-king chadz has had an amazing idea that needs the slight tweek mentioned already. Make the max number 80 v. 80 and scale down on a gentle curve from there...i.e., 500v500 gives you about 35v35, 1000v1000 gives you 50v50, 1500v1500 gives you 55v55, 2000v2000 gives you 60v60, and even more gentle slope up to 9000v9000 to give you 80v80.
Now THATS a tasty suggestion..