Messages

1

Beginner's Help and Guides / Re: Average upkeep costs - how to calculate?

« on: December 12, 2013, 12:43:20 am »

Yeah, I would try to mostly play at equipment costs at less than your break-even point. This goes doubly if you don't have a lot of gold stashed already. These numbers apply to the long run, while in the short term, fluctuations in your fortunes could mean that you can lose plenty of money even if you're below the break-even point.

Sorry, I don't actually know how the exp/gold works in DTV since I don't play DTV.

2

Beginner's Help and Guides / Re: Average upkeep costs - how to calculate?

« on: December 10, 2013, 10:43:48 pm »

WaltF4's post is great but a little outdated since upkeep was adjusted in 0.231. It used to be 5% repair cost and 4% break chance, but this was changed.

Repair costs are 7% of the item cost, and chance of breaking is 3% for most items. This means that every minute you will pay an average of 0.07*0.03*equipment cost=0.0021*equipment cost. If you're looking for the break-even point you need to equate that with your average earnings per minute which will be 50 gold * average multiplier. So,

Break-even equipment cost = 50 gold * average multipler / 0.0021

If you're an absolutely average player with a 50% chance to win each round and never get valour, your average multiplier converges on 1.9375 in the long run. Therefore, your break-even equipment cost is roughly 46131 gold.

You can record all your earnings to get a more personalized value, but to save you the effort, just take this figure and apply the following modifying factors to get a rough estimate of what you can carry on you without losing money.

Modifying factors:
1)I don't know the exact relationship between wpf and chance to break except that apparently at 1 wpf it's 11% and at 140 wpf it's 2.5%. So you can roughly estimate that 120-125 wpf is around 3% break chance like most other items. So, if you're using weapons with less than that wpf, then you need to adjust your break-even equipment cost down, and vice-versa if you have more than 120-125 wpf. At 1 wpf, you should adjust the break-even equipment cost calculated from the above formula down by (11% break chance-3% breakchance )*7% repair cost*weapon cost = 0.0056*weapon cost

2)If you're using arrows and bolts which are known to have a much higher break chance, then again you need to adjust your break-even equipment cost down. I don't play ranged much so I don't know the exact break chance but it seems to be ~10%/minute. Anyone actually know?

3)If you are such a bad player that you can actually bring your team down and your chance of winning each round is less than 50%, then your average multiplier goes down, and thereby so does your break-even equipment cost. If you are a great player that not only has a >50% win rate but also gets valour, your average multiplier can be much higher than 1.9375 and as a result, you can afford to carry around much more expensive equipment. Try adjusting the above formula.

Hope that helps.

3

General Discussion / Re: Leaving C-RPG and Last present

« on: November 29, 2013, 04:12:27 am »

gimme

4

General Discussion / Re: Siege - Dynamic Spawn Timer *LIVE*

« on: November 05, 2013, 02:46:06 am »

YES! Thank you so much Paul, I've been waiting for this day. It's so beautiful.

5

Game Admin Feedback / Re: [NA] Muki

« on: July 02, 2013, 10:19:18 pm »

I had just joined the server, but Miley clearly had a truce with 04 and left his poor unhorsed comrades to chase 04. The stage was set for manly single combat between two horse archers but Miley, a known communist sympathizer, instead opted to cavort around and admire the scenery. When Muki, the patron saint of justice and a very passable post-op transexual, instructed her to cease her pacifistic tomfoolery, Miley defiantly threw down her bow and clubbed her faithful God-fearing American pony. It seemed to my humble eyeballs that Miley planned to ruthfully accost the enhorsed 04 with a club, substituting genuine wholesome murderous intent with feigned patriotism and halfhearted pussyfooting, like a man who joins the National Guard to dodge the draft. Luckily, our very vigiliant vaginoplastied Muki saw through this devious neocommunist ruse and sentenced Miley to an entire hour of c-RPG rehab, after which Miley will have no doubt learned her lesson. However, were it I who had taken administrative initiative, I would have  sentenced Miley to only 59 minutes and then elected her as President of these United States of America.

For that extra minute, Muki, I name thee badmin.

6

Game Admin Feedback / Re: [NA] Aristeia

« on: June 20, 2013, 09:48:42 pm »

I used to play with heraldric mail with tunic, with 42 body armor. Now I play with palace guard armor with 38 body armor. I have 6 ath instead of 8 ath. I'm in just as light of an armor and I'm not *that* much slower. Now that I'm a more balanced build, I am a lot chubbier too so I take more hits, which is probably the main difference you've noticed.

It's weird being a balanced build and having people alternately call me an agispammer and a strength crutcher.

7

Game Admin Feedback / [NA] Aristeia

« on: June 20, 2013, 04:19:18 am »

Finally got me one of these.

We're all gentlemen here, feel free to speak your mind.

8

Suggestions Corner / [SIEGE] Autobalance defender respawn timer

« on: June 19, 2013, 11:53:12 pm »

I don't know if this is a problem in EU where the siege servers might regularly have more players, but in NA, our siege servers rarely go above 40 players. With lower player numbers especially, maps heavily favor the attacking team, regardless of the autobalances attempts to balance player prowess. This is a significant issue and is limiting the potential of NA siege since victory and multiplier has more to do with spawning on the attacking side than on actual player skill or teamwork. I believe that correcting this issue would also make siege more popular as rewards are more closely related to good play rather than a coin toss.

Now that we have our wonderful WSE, is it not possible to adjust the previously hard-coded 30 second defender respawn timer? In my mind, there are two major factors that are not taken into account in the current system:

1. Number of players: Lower numbers of players in siege generally seems to favor attackers, while larger numbers swings the balance more toward defense. The defender spawn timer should be scaled to the number of players, ie, shorter defender spawn timers with fewer players.

2. Map balance: Maps vary greatly in terms of how much they favor attackers or defenders. This could be resolved if it were possible to pair each map with an autobalancing defender spawn timer in which attacker victories reduced the map's defender spawn timer and defender victories increased the map's defender spawn time. If this could be done, then over time a map's inherent asymmetries would be factored in and siege games would become more balanced and competitive over time as the spawn timer reaches some sort of equilibrium. This has the added benefit of making mapmaking easier since currently good mapmakers must be very aware of conforming to the 30 second defender spawn timer when trying to balance their map. If they know that the defender spawn timer can be adjusted post-hoc to balance their map, mapmakers not only have an easier time, but have a lot more room for creativity in their siege maps.

A very basic defender spawn timer system could simply adjust defender spawn timer based on attacker or defender victory on the spot. With two major factors involved, this may not adequately adjust for changing numbers of players, though I still believe it would be a great improvement to the current system. For example, "Hailes Castle" would start with the typical 30 second spawn timer but whenever attackers win, this is adjusted down by x seconds and whenever defenders win, it is adjusted upward by x seconds.

A more sophisticated system might be able to separately factor player number and map balance and account for the interaction between a particular map and player numbers since different maps likely have different scaling between player number and balance. You could simply store multiple autobalanced defender spawn timers for each map based on player number. For example, whenever "Hailes Castle" has 20-30 players, you use a defender spawn timer specific to map and player number, as opposed to "Hailes Castle" when it has 30-40 players or "Jameyyed Castle" when it has 20-30 players.

The degree to which attacker wins decrease defender spawn timer and defender wins increase it determines the volatility of the spawn timer. Ideally, you'd have high volatility for newer maps, but you could lower volatility as time goes on. In this way, new maps more rapidly approach some sort of equilibrium and older maps don't oscillate wildly in spawn timers. For example, "Hailes Castle" at 20-30 players would start with the typical 30 second spawn timer but whenever attackers win, this is adjusted down by x seconds and whenever defenders win, it is adjusted upward by x seconds. At the start, x, which represents the volatility would be higher, say 5 seconds, but as time goes on and "Hailes Castle" is autobalanced more and more at 20-30 players, x would decrease until it hit 1 second.

To implement this idea you need the following capabilities:
- change defender spawn timer
- take player number and attacker or defender win as input
- store defender spawn timers and associate them with specific maps and player numbers.

With WSE, I don't see why this cannot be done. I would be happy to design the functions, I just need player number and attacker/defender win for input, and defender spawn timer as output.

tl;dr Using the number of players and whether or not attackers or defenders won, autobalance the defender spawn timer so that it takes into account both the asymmetries of a map and the number of players on the server.

9

NA (Official) / Re: UN-BAN REQUEST

« on: June 19, 2013, 11:09:38 pm »

One day ban isn't much for repeated teamwounding and griefing. I love the art though, I hope more will be coming if I ban you again.

Cheers.

10

NA (Official) / Re: Why was I banned?

« on: June 11, 2013, 06:03:48 am »

Hey, I'm the one that banned you. Regardless of connection issues, you pretty flagrantly walked up to a peasant, killed him, and then immediately disconnected. As it is, the ban stands. You'll be free in a couple of days.

Cheers.

11

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Faster 2hs when used as 1h with shield (eg. Longsword, HBS, BS, Morningstar)

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:01:41 pm »

Actually, it was recently reduced, although I'm not sure in what ways exactly. I think there's a post about it somewhere on the forums. Also, the damage penalty was(possibly still is) only a 22.5% damage reduction.

Oh that makes sense. It did seem to me like the damage wasn't as bad as a 35% malus would suggest, which is why I actually had less of an issue with the damage. It's really the speed penalty that makes these weapons difficult. I'm having trouble finding the post where that was changed though.

I forgot about the katana and goedendag! The hardest balancing act will be the morningstar because of the massive pierce damage and the goedendag because of its crazy reach. Still, I think it's worth it to try, especially now that we have WSE.

I miss you too, cow.

12

Game Balance Discussion / Faster 2hs when used as 1h with shield (eg. Longsword, HBS, BS, Morningstar)

« on: May 15, 2013, 07:35:00 am »

If you didn't read past the first two words of the subject line, I'm not suggesting we buff 2hs. I'm talking about buffing longswords, heavy bastard swords, bastard swords, and possibly morningstars when used with shields.

Currently, my understanding is that using these weapons in 1h mode gives something like a 30-35% (correct me if I'm wrong) decrease to both speed and damage. This is a HUGE penalty. Consider the heavy bastard sword:
In 2h mode, it has 100 speed and 36 cut. In 1h mode, it has closer to 65 speed and 23 cut. This gives it the damage of a peasant knife, and the speed of a turtle with palsy. For comparison, this makes it the slowest weapon out there, losing to the pike with a 68 speed and long maul with 70 speed, and far slower than the slowest 1h weapon, the military hammer, at 94 speed. It's very easy to get spammed using these weapons with a shield.

Now, these weapons generally have longer ranges than 1h weapons, but not by much. I don't want to make these op by any stretch, I'm ok with them still being mildly inferior choices as 1h weapons, but I do believe that they should at least be viable choices. Longswords and bastard swords were historically designed such that they could be used as both 1h and 2h weapons. With the current stats, there is really no reason to ever use them as a 1h weapon and I think this should change.

I'm more concerned about the speed than the damage, and I think something closer to a 10% speed penalty would be more appropriate. That would put the HBS at 90 speed, still slower than every other 1h weapon.

I believe in the past that this issue couldn't be resolved because it was hardcoded? I'm hoping now that we have the magical and awesome WSE, something can finally be done about this.

Conflict of interest: I declare a personal conflict of interest in that I love using the heavy bastard sword and it saddens me that it's laughably ineffective as a 1h weapon.

13

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Cavalry nullified in Strat 3.0 - gold nerf went too extreme

« on: October 27, 2011, 12:22:27 am »

I'm pretty sure that chadz text works in the following way... When you get ATHW:

+3 smithing skill to all items you've got equipped at the time.
-1 smithing skill to all items you don't have equipped. (I'm not sure if it's -1 exactly).

So this means that your smithing skill is biased toward items you've been using recently, not necessarily items that you've used a lot over your entire career. If you've been running infantry or another horse recently, then your champion courser smith skill will have taken a hit.

As an example, since the Deli Cap came out, I eschewed my normal equipment load-out for a joke one, with a deli cap and a dark cavalry robe. As a result, I now 9 smith skill in my joke loadout, but only 1 or 2 smith skill in the serious loadout I had been using consistently before. I'm now level 31 and I hadn't planned on retiring this generation as my build is only really complete at level 32. However, this now means that my crafting skills are complete bogus.

14

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Experience in strategus battles

« on: October 27, 2011, 12:15:04 am »

Personally, I'm a fan of the static exp gain per minute, as in, somewhere above x2 per minute.

I don't think you should try to encourage or discourage any kind of behavior in the strat battles. People should be able to use the tactics that they want. So I'm not a fan of encouraging more kills and less stalling because sometimes a holding a shieldwall or skirmishing is a perfectly justifiable tactic.

I am intrigued by Mala's suggestion of having exp gain for attackers fall as a function of time, while defender's exp gain increases as a function of time. That could be interesting.

15

Beginner's Help and Guides / Re: Upkeep tips

« on: October 20, 2011, 08:04:39 pm »

If you want to constantly rock 60k, you'll need a stash of gold, most likely from selling a loompoint.

A better strategy, that Diggles suggested, is to have two different sets of equipment, one for low multipliers like x1 and x2, and then your good stuff for x3, x4, and x5.

Why can't you go under 60k? Are you heavy cav or something? If you're a melee, then you can often take a cheaper version of the weapon without sacrificing too much.