• Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Topic: Rune Springs

we have been trying hard to fight the problem of big players attacking the younger population. but the problem is, these just wont work. there is only one source for rune making, scouting. the bigger we get, the more impossible scouting becomes. but younger population can still be scouting, so the inevitable will always happen, people who cant scout will attack those who can.
the idea to compensate for this is as follows,
every castle generates one random runes every 48 hours. as we can see, scouting when we start is still necessary. with each castle upgrade, this time is reduced by 10%, so rune generation for the next 15 levels is:
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5990/timesq.jpg
scouting rules remain the same as they are. rune generation gives a random rune, but we can choose favourability. instead of having a probability of 25% each type to come, we can choose to favour a certain type, and the in-game probability for giving a rune becomes 40% for that type, 15% for others. it's still random, and the result might not be as expected, but on the longer rune, players can notice the benefit of the selection.
outposts generate one rune every 48 hours, fixed amount.
i am aware that this wont remove farming, but will certainly reduce it quite a lot, and avoids self-imploding a server too early.
that said, i think noob protection should be raised from 1500 to 3000.
rune sending should get new rules. remove the "must be smaller or 20% bigger" rule and add limits to how many runes can be sent, based on player sizes and networths. effectively, village sizes, not player sizes.
i think a good ratio would be (5*sender size/receiver size).so people of same size, can send 5 a day. if sender is double the receiver, he can send 10. as we can see, a player less than 1 fifth the receiver, cant send runes (why would he if not cheating?)
the amount of runes stolen in a 100% battle should be 

(defender_score/300)*max(1,defender_score/attacker_score)

to break it down, 10% the number of runes the defender has, if the defender is bigger than attacker. otherwise, it's 10% times the ratio defender/attacker. so an attacker double in size should take only 5% per battle.
i think the 10% should be reduced a bit, maybe 5%? and make the max loss per day be 15% instead of 25%, suggestions are welcome.

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • Ishtar
  • High Priestess of Martinis and Mayhem
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 332

Re: Rune Springs

I love it!

Friends are just enemies that haven't attacked yet - Skipper
  • Registered: 2009-11-17
  • Posts: 106

Re: Rune Springs

I like the idea.

  • Demonic
  • Winner of Speed v1
  • Offline
  • From: -452,675
  • Registered: 2009-11-17
  • Posts: 643

Re: Rune Springs

I like the idea of AI villages better, or the other one that inactive villages would lose 10% of their runes without honor loss better.
That would reward players for their activity.
This idea would make big players even bigger without having them work for it.
I got 3 villages, a very high level castle, i would still make way more runes then anyone else on the server, probably would turn me into a rune bank cause i won't have the time to spend them all.

First of all there should be something done about the honor system, i'm fine with the 5 or 10% rule, but that is based on runes in the village or the amount of runes that is actually spent?

Perhaps that issue honorable runes/spent runes could be fixed first?

Your village is 38100% bigger than the defending village. You will probably lose 90 honour by attacking this village. If someone of your clan attacked this village earlier, every clan member will lose honour.
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

runes *spent*. a castle upgrade is 200 points and count as 200/30=6 runes.
and this idea is not targetted to be applied to speed, it will ruin it in its current state. this is for a new server. it will ensure everyone can grow evenly.
if you count the number of runes spent in castles, you'll see that the generated runes are gonna take a lot of time to compensate for what was spent.
these features lessens the needs by big players to have to attack the younger, but not completely remove it (we dont want sim city). honour should be changed back to village worth instead of free runes, every player has the right to do whatever with his runes. with rune sending limits, cheating wont be a problem again.
i agree with the removing of vacation on long offline players. i suggest the search feature of premium players has the ability to search for people offline for X days.
vacation village doesnt produce runes.
offline villages DO produce runes, but only for 15 days offline (we dont want server overflowing with runes), noob protection of 3000 helps against cheaters creating several accounts to farm their generated runes.
another idea i just had, make this a part of a research, in which the player can choose between rune generation, +10% resource generation (add 10% every castle upgrade, so it's ~24% at lvl 10), or -20% troop training speed (with 10% on each castle as well, -47% on lvl 10).
the player can switch anytime between the 3 modes, everytime he switches, it costs something. he cant switch from troop training unless all troops whose training started in that period are finished.
suggestions are also welcome.

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • Registered: 2009-12-31
  • Posts: 100

Re: Rune Springs

wham i like the idea too


but you write that the player only can trade 5 or 10 runes a day ,right ??

what if someone wane update a castle and a friend /clan mate have the runes they need
they have to wait 2,3,4 day's before they can update because they can only send 5 / 10 runes a day to him

ore have i understand something wrong ??

  • From: limburg, belgium
  • Registered: 2010-01-13
  • Posts: 210

Re: Rune Springs

i like the idea too smile

Stable didn't last, goodbye Dolumar.
mods can delete this account if they want to, maybe they'll do something usefull for once.
  • From: Rode off into the sunset
  • Registered: 2009-11-25
  • Posts: 524

Re: Rune Springs

I like the opening post too.  If I read it right, battle outcomes (and therefor honor calc) are now based on score.  And you have some type of guaranteed income (rune based).  I also kinda like expanded newbie protection.  At 3K value, you have the potential to have made some halfway decent weapons (rusty daggers will only go so far), and have the start of a decent economy.  But I do think that we have to base everything on score, not runes. 

As far as sending runes, don't limit sending, limit receiving.  For instance: a village can only receive 10% of its value in buildings per 24 hour period.  So a village that has 1500 value can get 1500 / (30 x 10) = 5 runes.  A 3K village can get 10 runes sent to it every 24 hour period.  This way, you can help as many people as you want, but can be helped only every 24 hours.  Larger villages can (obviously) get larger rune shipments.  If someone just flat out cannot get runes into their village except in a relatively small number every 24 hours, then all of the incentive for having multiple accounts (or most of it anyway) vanishes.

___________________
Edit: i cant spel

Last edited by Hellikin (2010-04-15 15:47:02)

7 x 13 = 28

Economics today is a race between economists striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof economic or financial models or programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning...
  • Demonic
  • Winner of Speed v1
  • Offline
  • From: -452,675
  • Registered: 2009-11-17
  • Posts: 643

Re: Rune Springs

Hellikin wrote:

As far as sending runes, don't limit sending, limit receiving.

Not again, and then after the attacker finally breaks through the defenses of the targetted village the defender self implodes and sends all runes away to his clanmates or friends  sad
I thought that's partly why this was implemented, to prevent behaviour like this.

Rank could be based on spent runes or it could be based on total runes, i do see problems with rank being based on either one.....
Why not calculate it on a mix of both?

Rank based on spent runes would allow runebanking (especially if there is no limit on the sending of runes)
Rank based on total runes would bring the smaller players into the bigger league.

And then there's honor, how would honor be implemented?

And how about the profits then as well, honor is calculated at launch and depends on runes in the village, the earnings after the battle are calculated after the battle depending on the total of runes in the village. With an extra touch, if a small player with 100's of lose runes attacks a same sized player without extra runes he won't win much cause the runes in his village will be taken into account as well sad

Your village is 38100% bigger than the defending village. You will probably lose 90 honour by attacking this village. If someone of your clan attacked this village earlier, every clan member will lose honour.
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

thread cleaned. please stick to topic.

hellikin, the real problem is the age old trick that never dies.

"hello A, i'm B, i'm bigger than you, you can scout for cheaper. how about i send you resources, you send me back 4 fresh runes? we can repeat this forever, smart, eh?"

it never dies, hence why the 20% rules was added in first place, just for this trick, and it's the same reason why your outpost cant send runes to main. small villages are not supposed to be able to send too much to bigger, why would they want that?

and hidalgo, use your own runes for castle upgrade wink everyone should be busy building his own castle up to worry about sending to others. a bigger player can send more than 5, but smaller players cant.

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • From: Rode off into the sunset
  • Registered: 2009-11-25
  • Posts: 524

Re: Rune Springs

whamra1987 wrote:

hellikin, the real problem is the age old trick that never dies. "hello A, i'm B, i'm bigger than you, you can scout for cheaper. how about i send you resources, you send me back 4 fresh runes? we can repeat this forever, smart, eh?"

Under the setup that you've suggested, I cannot see how that is being avoided.  Let's look at 3 players: A is big, B is small, and C is also small.  Under your setup, player A can approach B and C and both can send runes in exchange for resources and both can ship runes up to their limit.  By limiting reception, A can approach both, but only one can send as we are limiting reception. 

We can negotiate the amount of runes (as a % of this village or that one) but if you have a limit, place it on the demand side, and not the supply side of the equation.

Alternatively, what if players could send an unlimited number of runes to any player, but 1/5 to 1/4 of them were pulled out of the game (even transfers between main and outposts).  The expected value of a transfer falls off pretty quick.  It would be my luck to get a shipment of 20 runes from someone (five of each type) and find out that the five deleted were the water runes.

7 x 13 = 28

Economics today is a race between economists striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof economic or financial models or programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning...
  • Registered: 2010-03-02
  • Posts: 238

Re: Rune Springs

Hellikin wrote:
whamra1987 wrote:

hellikin, the real problem is the age old trick that never dies. "hello A, i'm B, i'm bigger than you, you can scout for cheaper. how about i send you resources, you send me back 4 fresh runes? we can repeat this forever, smart, eh?"

Under the setup that you've suggested, I cannot see how that is being avoided.  Let's look at 3 players: A is big, B is small, and C is also small.  Under your setup, player A can approach B and C and both can send runes in exchange for resources and both can ship runes up to their limit.  By limiting reception, A can approach both, but only one can send as we are limiting reception. 

We can negotiate the amount of runes (as a % of this village or that one) but if you have a limit, place it on the demand side, and not the supply side of the equation.

Alternatively, what if players could send an unlimited number of runes to any player, but 1/5 to 1/4 of them were pulled out of the game (even transfers between main and outposts).  The expected value of a transfer falls off pretty quick.  It would be my luck to get a shipment of 20 runes from someone (five of each type) and find out that the five deleted were the water runes.

What if we just tax rune transferring? That way, if you feel like sending 100 runes and paying a jillion gold for it you can.

The easy part was getting the brain out! The hard part was getting the brain out
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

i think the bigger the player gets, the less runes he should receive... but i'm not sure about that.
under my suggestion, a player less than 20% of receiver size, cant send runes. so a 10K village, can receive one rune from players worth 2000~4000, and 2 runes from players worth 4000~6000. but i see your point. A sends resources to B, B sends 2 runes to A, C sends 2 runes to A. next time, A sends resources to C, C and B both send 2 runes each to A. a loophole.
we can limit both? receiving and sending? tongue

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

voldtekt, could work as well... but i can already see a loophole. big players will pay the tax to younger players, so they can send them the runes.

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • From: Rode off into the sunset
  • Registered: 2009-11-25
  • Posts: 524

Re: Rune Springs

whamra1987 wrote:

voldtekt, could work as well... but i can already see a loophole. big players will pay the tax to younger players, so they can send them the runes.

Don't mention taxes... either of you.  Today is 4/15 ... you can resume that line of discussion tomorrow.

Whamra, I don't think I can spot the loophole there.  The total amount of runes being received is a function only of the receiver's village, and not the sender's.  So, it does not matter where the runes come from, a player is simply blocked from getting more than X amount via transfer.

7 x 13 = 28

Economics today is a race between economists striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof economic or financial models or programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning...
  • Registered: 2010-03-02
  • Posts: 238

Re: Rune Springs

whamra1987 wrote:

voldtekt, could work as well... but i can already see a loophole. big players will pay the tax to younger players, so they can send them the runes.

Well we can make it so that the bigger the difference between the players the higher the (insert word that shan't be spoken on this the evilest of days).

The easy part was getting the brain out! The hard part was getting the brain out
  • Registered: 2010-03-15
  • Posts: 317

Re: Rune Springs

What if  runecosts go up everytime you search for runes and not based on the number of runes you have, maybe even add that it does go down when runes were stolen in battle. You wont have small players scouting for big players at a low cost and player will be more carefull before trading.
Players who do well in battle will be rewarded instead of punished (higher cost of scouting) for doing well.

Guess who's back big_smile
Some dog in a movie: play?
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

hellikin, the problem with receiver based transfers is that according to your formula, the bigger the player, the more he can receive. so a player ig enough to receive 10 runes aday, can live off sending resources to tiny players who will scout him and send him runes. hell, at his size, it would be way too economic to send the resources and ask for 2 of the 4 runes. 5~6 tiny players, and he's a happy abuser.

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • Registered: 2009-11-22
  • Posts: 101

Re: Rune Springs

Couldnt the option of transfering runes to other players be removed?

  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

i am sure all of us in the moderator team, and the developers will be MORE than happy if rune transfers are removed, a lot less headaches for all of us. but the fact is... this game is about collaboration. there are tons of cases of 100% legitimate rune transfers that happen. from helping my clan mate who just got nuked, to exchanging different kinds of runes, to donating the 3 missing runes my friend needs to reach castle level 10, lol. and then, there are those blatant cheaters abusing every single feature of rune transfers. what we need, is to analyse the patterns of legitimate transfers, and the bad ones. there is always a pattern, a human seeing it with his own eyes will tell if it's good or bad right way, it's just hard to describe the analysis we did in our brain to a computer tongue

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • Registered: 2010-03-15
  • Posts: 317

Re: Rune Springs

whamra1987 wrote:

hellikin, the problem with receiver based transfers is that according to your formula, the bigger the player, the more he can receive. so a player ig enough to receive 10 runes aday, can live off sending resources to tiny players who will scout him and send him runes. hell, at his size, it would be way too economic to send the resources and ask for 2 of the 4 runes. 5~6 tiny players, and he's a happy abuser.

What if  runecosts go up everytime you search for runes and not based on the number of runes you have, maybe even add that it does go down when runes were stolen in battle. You wont have small players scouting for big players at a low cost and player will be more carefull before trading.
Players who do well in battle will be rewarded instead of punished (higher cost of scouting) for doing well.

Guess who's back big_smile
Some dog in a movie: play?
  • Registered: 2010-03-02
  • Posts: 238

Re: Rune Springs

whamra1987 wrote:

hellikin, the problem with receiver based transfers is that according to your formula, the bigger the player, the more he can receive. so a player ig enough to receive 10 runes aday, can live off sending resources to tiny players who will scout him and send him runes. hell, at his size, it would be way too economic to send the resources and ask for 2 of the 4 runes. 5~6 tiny players, and he's a happy abuser.

The decision doesn't need to be made right away. We can always make certain kinds of transfers illegal in dolumar, at least until a decent system is thought up.

The easy part was getting the brain out! The hard part was getting the brain out
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

actually it does.... with castle making runes for free.... think of all the multis that can spring up, and send the runes every 10 days to someone. active multis are *guaranteed* to make a mistake, but such an inactive multi... will prove hard to catch.

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 473

Re: Rune Springs

bump, and thread cleaned

Last edited by whamra1987 (2010-05-19 11:48:32)

just that guy... remember him? didn't expect you to...
  • Registered: 2009-11-17
  • Posts: 131

Re: Rune Springs

this needs to happen on beta with the terrrrrrrribly small population