|
|
Post by Sun Quan on Oct 23, 2009 14:02:57 GMT
Have any lingering questions about the game? Please feel free to ask them here, and someone from the staff shall answer you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zhao Yun on Oct 25, 2009 20:05:24 GMT
I had a question about the battle losses formule. (Well actually, I'm just going to b*tch about it)
It sees quite nice and useful, don't get me wrong, but I believe it might be somewhat flawed.
As I said earlier, using percentages kind of puts the larger force at a disadvantage. Say two armies are equal in everything except that they both lack a good formation. According to the formula, they both lose a certain percentage, but a force twice as large loses twice as much men.
The thing I'm missing is some factor that takes that into account. Or an adaption to the formula so that if a larger force attacks a smaller one, the amount of troops on which the percentage is applied are only the troops that are actually fighting. (which brings to mind another problem, what if 1000 bowmen attack 1000 swordsmen? In the first turn, there should only be casualties for the swordsmen, no? Untill they actually reach the archers?)
Anyway, most of this could probably just be solved by good judgement from the admins/battle moderators. And then you can probably ignore everything I just posted...
Or you could just give me fewer casualties and I'll never complain about the formula again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sun Quan on Oct 25, 2009 20:17:36 GMT
Excerpt from Section 2 rules: The battle formula has worked before, Steve used it in the last site he made, however he did not allow for speculation from the admins. The original bot3k troop losses were done by the admins coming together and deciding on the losses for the troops. Both sites worked very well with each of their systems; we have combined both so as to cover all the bases. If the formula gives us screw numbers jorg that don't make sense, we'll decide on our own.  And from what I understand, the more troops you have, the more damage you do- so the system 'balances' itself out. When Cao Cao/Steve gets on he may have more knowledge to express about his formula, and possibly some tweaks that he could add. |
|
|
|
Post by Zhao Yun on Oct 25, 2009 20:24:46 GMT
Ah, I just didn't see any factor to represent 'damage' in some form. Only factors that increase the amount of troops you loose based on the state of your own army (except for ambush).
Thanks for your answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cao Cao on Oct 25, 2009 23:03:37 GMT
The formula is calculated twice per encounter. So 1000 bowmen attacking 1000 swordsmen only gives damage to the swordsmen, since the counter formula is void. The formula works in 1 simple way, it calculates the strategy, formation and other values of the attacking and defending parties and then gives a base figure. As you said, percentages are somewhat unfair with numbers, which is why every loss also goes through a general 'correction' phase. Every system will have a flaw, it's just how it works, but from what we experianced last game we never had that much of an issue with the actual loss sizes. Run the formula for the attacker - that will provide their attacking score (at no point does this have an impact on how large the armies are) Run the formula for the defender - again, the same. The values only work in a way where if you mess up with a larger army, you lose more troops. if you made the same mistake with a smaller army you would naturally suffer less casualities, so I don't quite follow your main complains. The formula gets run twice per round. The attacking score always does so much damage, if it comes out as 750, then it'll deal that much damage regardless if there are even that many defending soldiers available. 10000 bowmen attack 10000 spearmen and deal 5000 damage 10000 bowmen could attack next turn and attack a 4,500 swordsmen unit, but if the damage ratio is still 5000 the unit is completely destroyed. In short the formula is brutal, it can sometimes give really harsh losses, but they're also a little realistic. When people do it on their own they pity the losing side and 'reduce' the casualities to make it look better, but it's also a little stupid. If we have problems with this problem i'll look into a way to fix it, but it didnt cause any issues on betrayals.  Regards cao cao |
|
|
|
Post by Zhao Yun on Oct 25, 2009 23:40:08 GMT
I guess it would indeed be better to just watch how things go and see if I have any complaints then...
Thanks for elaborating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zhang Fei on Oct 26, 2009 16:05:08 GMT
I have a question about the tags in the tasks.
Are we to put the tag in the title, like " [Titel] Contruction "?
Or are we to put it in the post itself?
And is it true you have to wait for someone with authority to MAKE a task for you so you can carry that out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sun Quan on Oct 26, 2009 16:09:27 GMT
The tag needs to be in the title of the thread, but there should also be a name. So something like:
Zhang Fei builds a Bridge [Construction]
And anyone can make a task- if you're in a kingdom.. so you can make one for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lao Xun on Nov 2, 2009 21:26:07 GMT
In the dueling section of the rules I'm a little puzzle by exactly what's meant by the hidden weapons part of it. I mean, one of my character's weapons is something you could reasonable expect to be able to conceal (although it wouldn't be the most convenient in a fight, it's true).
Anyway, what I'm getting at is this: does that part of the rule mean that there's no way he can ever, ever hide his knife on his person in a duel? I'm not sure I'm not understanding the thing properly.
It's almost moot anyway, given that I don't really like duelling, the character would like it less, and trying to get a concealed weapon out in a fight would be impratical. I'm just curious, should it ever crop up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sun Quan on Nov 2, 2009 21:32:00 GMT
A concealed weapon would be like a gun up your sleeve, per say. A knife in one's pocket or out in the open, it's fine. A knife in someone's say, shirt or something to that effect, it would also be fine. Just stray away from the weapon being hidden in a cheap way that is only meant so you can get a jump on your opponent. It's a tricky rule often, but it's needed because people used to conceal weapons and pretty much cheat with duels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lao Xun on Nov 2, 2009 21:38:53 GMT
Aha, I see. Cheers, that makes a lot more sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gongsun Chao on Nov 5, 2009 0:46:05 GMT
Quick question: With the battle formula written that way, if taken too strictly...how can weaker unit hurt stronger units?
Say you have 10000 Peasants attacking 1000 Swordsman. By the formula itself (with no mods), the swordsman wouldn't lose anyone...0.3-0.3=0.0 *10,000 = 0 losses... Where am I going wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cao Cao on Nov 5, 2009 1:00:37 GMT
Quick question: With the battle formula written that way, if taken too strictly...how can weaker unit hurt stronger units? Say you have 10000 Peasants attacking 1000 Swordsman. By the formula itself (with no mods), the swordsman wouldn't lose anyone...0.3-0.3=0.0 *10,000 = 0 losses... Where am I going wrong? You haven't gone wrong. When we edited the formula we brought in a simple varient of how damage is dealt. Like the idiot I am I forgot to change the base attack value to 1.0 and above, so if you look at how it's done now since i've just edited them all you'll see how it works properly. This way people are estimated to kill 1 person per strike, and the defense lowers these estimates by a smaller amount (making it more realistic) that created phase 1, phase 2 is all rp considerate which will alter 50% of your losses in total. So don't depend too highly on the stats alone, they only give you an initial sum, what you post and how you act in response determiens another 50% of those losses. |
|
