CDV12: Clan Battle changes, part 1

[Tim]

Clan Battle changes, part 1:
With all the focus on clan battles last round, it really pointed out that some changes were needed. The first thing is that I'm re-tweaking the points calculations. I thought about it and took a stab at it, but will probably need to play around with these on the test site to do some fine tuning. The same calculations will be used for duels as NPCs, though there is much more potential for points vs players. Especially players in the clan battle on the other side.

Clan battle points calculations (points for attacker only, no points for defender):

• -5 to +5 points from health diffenence:
  = ((attacker % health remaining)- (defender % health remaining))/20
• -5 to +5 points from strength difference:
  = ((attacker strength)- (defender stength))/20
• -5 to +5 points from level difference (max of +/- 5):
  = ((attacker level) - (defender level))/2
• -4 to +4 points from battle outcome:
  = +4 for win; -4 for loss (half if in wilderness)
• -4 to +4 points if a duel:
  = +4 for win; -4 for loss
• -2 to +2 points if defender is member of other side:
  = +2 for win; -2 for loss (half if supporting)
• -2 to +2 points if defender is leader of other side (main clan only, not supporter):
  = +2 for win; -2 for loss (half if subleader)

Points earned by supporting clan members are divided by 2. All points added together and rounded to the nearest point.

So in theory, you could earn 23 points from one battle. However, to do so you'd have to beat the leader of the main opposing clan, who is at least 10 levels above you, with at them being at full strength and you being near 0 strength, in the main city of the battle, and you'd have to drop their health to 0 while you remain full. Good luck pulling that off. I'm thinking more often than not you'll be getting around 8-12 points for wins in duels.

Note that your opponent no longer will earn/lose points when you attack them. It was causing too large a points gain from duels. If you beat your opponent, odds are they'll be losing points from their loss to that should be reward enough for defending. We'll try that and see how the numbers work out. In a perfect world for me, duels would average about double the points vs NPCs, so I may make some special tweaks for NPCs to get it that way.

This isn't the only change to clan battles (note the part 1 in the title), so don't worry. More changes are coming.

EDIT: Tweaked the formula after testing updates in RED.

[Shylah.Sedai]

I agree on the points. Should make it a bit more even, I think.

[Felic]

funny how these things are addressed only when they hurt the lights performance in the last battle. years of being abused by silver legion and nothing was said.

[Tim]

I'd take exception to that, Felic. Clan Battles were introduced in V8 and this is probably the 3rd or 4th time since then I've redone the formula for points calculations or made other tweaks to the system. It's been far from perfect for a long time but until this last version we only had a handful of battles an Age so I hadn't devoted a lot of time to it. Considering how much focus was given to battles this last version (and how much arguing was done about the tactics used by both sides), it drove me to make some changes. Not which side was affected.

Mainly, if clans are going to be using clan battles more, than I need to give more attention to making them work well.

[King Richard]

Felic obviously doesn't remember when NPCs used to give 60+ points for a level 80 character one hitting them, while duels used to give double that, and drop another -20 on the loser. Or the fact that pretty much all of SL's wins in previous ages came from NPCs since there is usually nobody to duel in towns during battles. Sure, we dueled who was actually there, but the NPC score was generally the backbone of most wins.

[Felic]

fair enough tim.

felic does remember being forced to not fight you back when a battle was declared. because dahl, kev and a certain hobden would appear and one hit me everytime i went into the battle zone. and no matter how many npcs we ran we couldn't compete with that. if i remember rightly i was not calling for a rule changes. we just knuckled down and did our best to adapt.

i suppose its comes down to what side of the fence you fall on. from here it looks like every unexpected tactic we used to win has been negated. certain things i can see need to be changed others...not so much.

[Tim]

This is just part 1 of the clan battle changes Felic. Your tactics aren't the only ones that will be 'negated' here.

[Felic]

well that will teach me for speaking to soon.

i do hope there is something new coming up with how the hordes/armies work

[Tim]

RAFO.

[sevane]

Curious... during clan battles specific towns are targeted, would the leader of the city also garner more points when defeated. or is this solely based on the leader of the clan?

[King Richard]

LOL OK. Yeah, No one has EVER complained about SL before, and no changes were EVER made to stop us from ruling the world either...

*end of sarcasm*

Now you know how we've felt pretty much every version since version 6. When a version died out/ended, people always called for changes to make it harder for one clan to rule multiple towns. There was even a thread called the "Silver Legion Issue" about it after version 8, which someone dug out a few weeks ago. Up till last version, it was always in the top 5 'fix it' discussions each round.

Off the top of my head, here's some things that WERE (or at least it felt like they were) changed/added to "negate" OUR tactics in the past:

Alt limit dropped from 5(10) to 3(6).
Alt limits in one clan added.
Degrading clan ji in towns added.
Ally support switched from permanent (while on) 100% to removable 50%.

Also, Clan battles to some extent were added so small clans could challenge bigger ones and to make it harder for "one clan" to keep their towns. We can't take all the credit for that though, as I think Tim had plans for it anyway to make it so being enemies with another clan actually meant something.

So, I guess my point is, you should get used to it if you're going to win a round, Felic. Because whether you personally complained about things or not in the past, you can't say complaints like this have never happened before and it's "funny" that they are now. They're nothing new, you're just on the other side of the fence this time, as you said.

[Tim]

I'll just say again that I make changes based on the needs that arise for balance, regardless of which side it 'helps' or 'hurts'.

With that, let's try to get this topic back to the actual Countdown post above, guys...

[Felic]

"LOL OK. Yeah, No one has EVER complained about SL before, and no changes were EVER made to stop us from ruling the world either...

*end of sarcasm* "

no need for sarcasm, i never said there were no complaints. (hey! i remember complaining about it in the past(hence the collectives existence )but i didn't go around demanding rule changes. i changed how i worked in game.) just that certain things felt unfair to me. remember all our realities are subjective.

"Now you know how we've felt pretty much every version since version 6. When a version died out/ended, people always called for changes to make it harder for one clan to rule multiple towns. There was even a thread called the "Silver Legion Issue" about it after version 8, which someone dug out a few weeks ago. Up till last version, it was always in the top 5 'fix it' discussions each round. "

and yet nothing has been done that actually "fixes" it.

"Off the top of my head, here's some things that WERE (or at least it felt like they were) changed/added to "negate" OUR tactics in the past:

Alt limit dropped from 5(10) to 3(6).
Alt limits in one clan added.
Degrading clan ji in towns added.
Ally support switched from permanent (while on) 100% to removable 50%."

well actually the alt limits make it harder for people to fight against you. in my opinion. i personally felt hamstrung by the reduced alt limit.

degrading ji is negligible. i have never seen it as more than a small annoyance

i dont remember support being 100% so i shouldn't comment.

you left one out that just came to my mind. the damage stat was nerfed a few ages back wasn't it? the main reason being certain people killing others in one hit. and speed reduced to three hits in a row max. when that happened i remember feeling like it gave us a better shot against you. i was wrong by the way, you just adapted slightly ( which is sort of what my point is, certain things that i don't see as problems are being changed. when really its just that people should adapt their strategies to compensate)

"Also, Clan battles to some extent were added so small clans could challenge bigger ones and to make it harder for "one clan" to keep their towns. We can't take all the credit for that though, as I think Tim had plans for it anyway to make it so being enemies with another clan actually meant something."

HAHA look how that worked out clan battles are/were completely weighted in your favour. you have made an art out of them. when silver legion declares a war we have to accept the loss and move on. but never have i said "CHANGE THE BATTLE MECHANIC OR I WILL HAVE A dogFIT". what i did was try and improve my build and improve the collectives teamwork.


(sorry for dragging this out tim but i couldnt not reply to the sarcasm )

(KR, this is as close to an old fashioned Felic freak out as you are going to get i know you have missed them )

[Seitaarin]

-5 to +5 points from health diffenence:
= ((attacker % health remaining)- (defender % health remaining))/20

Gotta put in my 2c I suppose ... I am somewhat opposed to this one ... it rewards and encourages someone for focussing their build on damage, and penalises people who may prefer a more defensive strategy to their build ... don't get me wrong, defensive builds still need a degree of damage, BUT the points for a win will make such a build far less attractive in the grand scheme ... end result will be a nett shift away from any sort of defensive builds, as this is more or less what has always applied to NPC battles as well, right? Defensive stats should be as viable to produce results as offensive, otherwise why are they there? Just a thought.

[Tim]

I'd argue that someone that goes full damage would be likely to have little of their own health remaining, so they wouldn't earn full points here unless they pull off a 1 hit KO, which if they can pull off it probably means their opponent isn't using much defense either. My hope is that this actually encourages a more balanced approach between damage and defense, as most people tend to use one extreme or the other.

If that doesn't make you feel better, this is part of the current V11 points calculation:

+1 point for each 10% of your opponent's health lost
-1 point for each 20% of your own health lost

So at least you can say this is better than what we have now.