As it is now, conquesting is best used by kingdoms that are already in the lead militarily and landsize-wise, to further extend and solidify their dominance. The casualty 'cost' to conquesting from this position is justifiable because you have a stronger military than most of the player base anyhow, and the economic benefit over time quickly pays back those losses. It seems like the trend is that the largest kingdoms after OOP jostle for a while until one just slams into the lead with CQs. With things as they are it seems pointless to have a round length longer than two, two and a half weeks.

I would rather have Conquesting be a tool used by players to come from behind than the way it is now. There are a lot of viable ways to accomplish this.

1) Defensive reduction: Have conquesting 'cast' a 12 hour negative modification to Defense.
- Theory: As it stands, the risk to reward equation for conquesting heavily favors reward when in the top spot(s). Having a lowered defense to access the rewards of conquesting would make the risk element of this equation heavier.

2) Variable Conquest bonus land gains: Have Conquesting bonus acres be variable the same way regular gains are, instead of a flat 150%.
- Theory: The reward for conquesting would be greater when hitting larger instead of smaller targets, encouraging lower-acreage players to utilize it.

3) Repeal the casualty buff that Conquesting got a while back.

There are probably other creative ways to address this particular issue. Any ideas?

_________________
The empty handed painter on your street..
is drawing crazy patterns in your sheets...
The sky, too, is falling over you...
and it's all over now, Baby Blue.

I havent read through everything very well, but this makes sense for sure



Something like: vary the bonus land from 110% gains when hitting a 67% target up to 150% when hitting 100% target.

But is it the effect of the conquest that makes the largest kingdom so powerful, or is he so powerful because he's the biggest one around ? Conquesting still decimates your offense quite a bit, so even without it, a 'runaway' can get away by simply making 1 more hit. I'm not sure if nerfing conquesting will lead to get less runaways.

Secondly, since this topic seems to aim at runaways in general, how bad is a runaway actually ? A fast race only has its chances to win when he manages to runaway, if he doesn't take the lead, the slow races will overtake him. While I realize that it's more exciting to wacth a slow race overtake a fast-race player just at the end, I don't see the real problem with a top-player who plays a fast race, who can manage to win with as runaway. If you think the slow races are underpowered, then I'd say boost them a bit, rather than changing a game-mechanic that will affect the problem only a little.

Ofcourse, general changes to conquesting are always viable, but to nerf conquesting as a 'fix' for a different problem seems to me to be the wrong motive.

To throw in a couple of possible changes :

1) give conquesting a "retal" bonus. If the person you conquest has hit another kingdom in your realm (in the last 48 hours), you'll gain +10% landgain when conquesting that kingdom (bonus expires after a succeful retal has been made). If the kingdom has hit your kingdom, you'll gain +20% land (bonus expires after a succesful retal has been made).

2) Defensive losses when being conquested on, are halved.
This to 'ease' the pain of being hit.

This encourages retal suiciding and also it makes all slow race strategies with an early spec push for quick land way less usable. And it still doesn't address the problem of runaways conquesting.

Also, no one in their right mind would take 2.5x losses for 110% land gains.

Remember that conquest gains get rapidly diminished as it is if you go below 100%.

2k acres and conquest at 100% = 200 acre regular hit, 300 acre conquest, 360 acre war conquest.
2k acres and conquest at 90% = 160 acre regular hit, 240 acre conquest, 288 war conquest.
2k and conquest at 70% = 80 acre regular hit, 120 acre conquest, 144 war conquest.

Nerf the land gains when conquesting to lower sizes and no one will EVER use it.



This also encourages retal suiciding a wee bit too much, dont you think?

I really dont think there's a problem. There are times when conquesting is beneficial for all kingdoms and not just the runaways. And conquesting isnt always beneficial for runaways.

_________________
www.ceekayed.com

Agreed.

_________________
Our pack's Royal Family Message every round now:

"Please don't hit active guys with huge OP--even if they leave land DP!!!"

My argument is that conquesting is ALWAYS beneficial for runaways when they are at the point of breaking away from the rest of the lead kingdoms. Once they make those hits that push them ahead they will have a LONG time before they need to attack again, which will be fine for them, because their military will not be taking up as much space. CQ makes grabbing top economy too easy.

Thus the rationale for introducing either heavier risks or removing some reward with this particular strategic decision.

Oh, and Mbarca if you have no thoughts other than 'Agreed' please don't post.. This isn't a poll.

_________________
The empty handed painter on your street..
is drawing crazy patterns in your sheets...
The sky, too, is falling over you...
and it's all over now, Baby Blue.

I feel like I need to clarify my intent here, as there seems to be some misunderstanding...

I think that playing either a 'fast' or 'slow' style should be viable.
I think that 'running away' is the ability for a fast race to retain a viable chance at winning.
Right now, conquesting ensures a win for a runaway, simultaneously nullifying any slower playstyles ability to win. The round 'ends' weeks ahead of schedule, and this is a not-so-good thing, in my opinion, for elveron.

_________________
The empty handed painter on your street..
is drawing crazy patterns in your sheets...
The sky, too, is falling over you...
and it's all over now, Baby Blue.

Conquesting is just designed the way you explain, robes. At least in my opinion. You make a massive hit for 150% of the land, but suffer 250% casualties. So essentially its the benefit of 0.5 hits and cost of 1.5 hits. Which means its most logical to use when you know you will not or can not make another hit.

This is why I think we only see faster kingdoms use them, since their target ranges are much more limited compared to slower kingdoms.

Conquesting is a situational tactic. Just as raid. Maybe there could be an attack selection that gives you like 40% casualties and only 67% of the land?

_________________
The Age of Despair :: Round 2 :: 1 El Norte
The Age of Wisdom :: Round 4 :: 1 SmoochyWoochyPoochy
The Age of Wisdom :: Round 6 :: 1 Goblin Rings
The Age of Achievements :: Round 1 :: 1 Hufflepuff's Cup

Xper will like this attack selection !!

_________________
080 says:
he is getting out of class to go to the "washroom" lol
Immor says:
ah, ok, "stomachache"
080 says:
aha ya
Immor says:
tell Lordrahl be careful and dont drop his iphone into the toilet bowl
080 says:
lolz

hehe, I thought of that as I posted =P

_________________
The Age of Despair :: Round 2 :: 1 El Norte
The Age of Wisdom :: Round 4 :: 1 SmoochyWoochyPoochy
The Age of Wisdom :: Round 6 :: 1 Goblin Rings
The Age of Achievements :: Round 1 :: 1 Hufflepuff's Cup