Light Vs Darkness (The Eternal Conflict)

I enjoy playing the game and fighting battles, but I know that our cause is likely doomed. I guess I'll keep playing for awhile because I enjoy interacting with the friends I've made in the game. I have no illusions though, Light Side will win every map if nothing changes. Eventually the people I like in the game will be driven away by the pre-ordained outcome and I'll leave, too. No one likes a stalemate, but at least with a stalemate the front-line moves in both directions and both sides can have moments of (perhaps false) hope.

Boboknack wrote:

Then why have a CP bonus in the first place? Dark faction will be quashed a lot faster= Survival of the fittest= no stalemate.

As it was stated numerous times, the CP bonus was implemented in order to reduce the effect of one Faction having more population than the other.

There is a big difference between the population difference between the Factions and how players play. It is exactly the latter which will affect the course of the war.

Owen2007 wrote:

I enjoy playing the game and fighting battles, but I know that our cause is likely doomed.  I guess I'll keep playing for awhile because I enjoy interacting with the friends I've made in the game.  I have no illusions though, Light Side will win every map if nothing changes.  Eventually the people I like in the game will be driven away by the pre-ordained outcome and I'll leave, too.  No one likes a stalemate, but at least with a stalemate the front-line moves in both directions and both sides can have moments of (perhaps false) hope.

You're right!

Is there any point in keep playing the game if you know there is a pre-ordained outcome?

Owen2007 wrote:

I enjoy playing the game and fighting battles, but I know that our cause is likely doomed.  I guess I'll keep playing for awhile because I enjoy interacting with the friends I've made in the game.  I have no illusions though, Light Side will win every map if nothing changes.  Eventually the people I like in the game will be driven away by the pre-ordained outcome and I'll leave, too.  No one likes a stalemate, but at least with a stalemate the front-line moves in both directions and both sides can have moments of (perhaps false) hope.

Of course nothing will change if the Light Side keeps winning more battles per player than the Dark Side, because that's exactly what is happening right now.

In all data comparisons, the Light Side is ALWAYS winning MORE battles per player than the Dark Side.

Why do you find it strange that the Light Side is winning the current war?

I don't find it strange if they are winning more battles per person. Are they winning more battles per fighter? But, I also don't see anything that will change the outcome from last map, to this map, to the next map. Light will keep winning. Maybe an influx of new players would shake things up, but with the current populations, nothing will change. Light will continue to play and stay motivated because they keep winning. Dark players will continue to quit because no matter how hard an individual fights, they still lose ground. Which is demoralizing. So they will go find a game that gives them a chance to win.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Boboknack wrote:

Then why have a CP bonus in the first place? Dark faction will be quashed a lot faster= Survival of the fittest= no stalemate.

As it was stated numerous times, the CP bonus was implemented in order to reduce the effect of one Faction having more population than the other.

There is a big difference between the population difference between the Factions and how players play. It is exactly the latter which will affect the course of the war.

The previous CP bonus and the player population has had an huge affect on the current CP bonus and the current population difference!

But ok, you are going to keep saying we are lazy, I see. Well how is it working for you guys are you satisfied when you see the map and the amount of activity?   

(Don't worry i'll stop commenting on this, its all wishy washy answers blowing in the wind we get anyways)

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

I enjoy playing the game and fighting battles, but I know that our cause is likely doomed.  I guess I'll keep playing for awhile because I enjoy interacting with the friends I've made in the game.  I have no illusions though, Light Side will win every map if nothing changes.  Eventually the people I like in the game will be driven away by the pre-ordained outcome and I'll leave, too.  No one likes a stalemate, but at least with a stalemate the front-line moves in both directions and both sides can have moments of (perhaps false) hope.

Of course nothing will change if the Light Side keeps winning more battles per player than the Dark Side, because that's exactly what is happening right now.

In all data comparisons, the Light Side is ALWAYS winning MORE battles per player than the Dark Side.

Why do you find it strange that the Light Side is winning the current war?

Can you at least give us a guarantee that you guys will stop implementing features that will benefit the Light side? Its just, I don't wanna spend my money on buying gems if the game gets any worse.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

I enjoy playing the game and fighting battles, but I know that our cause is likely doomed.  I guess I'll keep playing for awhile because I enjoy interacting with the friends I've made in the game.  I have no illusions though, Light Side will win every map if nothing changes.  Eventually the people I like in the game will be driven away by the pre-ordained outcome and I'll leave, too.  No one likes a stalemate, but at least with a stalemate the front-line moves in both directions and both sides can have moments of (perhaps false) hope.

Of course nothing will change if the Light Side keeps winning more battles per player than the Dark Side, because that's exactly what is happening right now.

In all data comparisons, the Light Side is ALWAYS winning MORE battles per player than the Dark Side.

Why do you find it strange that the Light Side is winning the current war?

so we come back to the same point: how does the ratio of fighter/farmers compare between the factions? winning more battles: is that becuase of effort/determination or simply number of available fighters?

klaas wrote:

so we come back to the same point: how does the ratio of fighter/farmers compare between the factions? winning more battles: is that becuase of effort/determination or simply number of available fighters?

I don't believe it really matters Klaas, because the underpopulated Faction receives a CP bonus and a registration bonus in an effort to strengthen its ranks.

Whatever the ratio is, we cannot force players to follow a specific play-style over another. However, we provide a motive by saying that the more battles per player a Faction has, the stronger its Capital Army will be. Furthermore, in the case of the underpopulated Faction, the more battles per player that Faction has, the bigger the CP bonus will be.

RuneSlayer wrote:

klaas wrote:

so we come back to the same point: how does the ratio of fighter/farmers compare between the factions? winning more battles: is that becuase of effort/determination or simply number of available fighters?

I don't believe it really matters Klaas, because the underpopulated Faction receives a CP bonus and a registration bonus in an effort to strengthen its ranks.

Whatever the ratio is, we cannot force players to follow a specific play-style over another. However, we provide a motive by saying that the more battles per player a Faction has, the stronger its Capital Army will be. Furthermore, in the case of the underpopulated Faction, the more battles per player that Faction has, the bigger the CP bonus will be.

it does matter, especially taking into account your "yeah darkies are slacking off" remarks. average victories is an empty datum, as long as farmers are taken into account for an algorithm that deals with fighting.
it is not a matter of forcing people to fight. you cannot do that, neither can we. but you can at least take them out of the equation.

owen is making an excellent point as well. losing a map demotivates. losing in succession will drive people away, especially after fighting terribly hard for months on end.

RuneSlayer wrote:

klaas wrote:

so we come back to the same point: how does the ratio of fighter/farmers compare between the factions? winning more battles: is that becuase of effort/determination or simply number of available fighters?

I don't believe it really matters Klaas, because the underpopulated Faction receives a CP bonus and a registration bonus in an effort to strengthen its ranks.

Whatever the ratio is, we cannot force players to follow a specific play-style over another. However, we provide a motive by saying that the more battles per player a Faction has, the stronger its Capital Army will be. Furthermore, in the case of the underpopulated Faction, the more battles per player that Faction has, the bigger the CP bonus will be.

If I were a farmer, why would I care about the strength of the Capital Army?  If I'm not a fighter, the CP bonus is irrelevant.  How would it encourage fighting?

It just drags out the inevitable outcome.

Bobknack wrote:

But ok, you are going to keep saying we are lazy, I see. Well how is it working for you guys are you satisfied when you see the map and the amount of activity? lol!

(Don't worry i'll stop commenting on this, its all wishy washy answers blowing in the wind we get anyways)

I never mentioned that one Faction is lazy and the other hard working. If that is what you derived by the data, then that is your own assumption. Please refrain from connecting my name to your assumptions, as this could lead to misunderstandings.

As for the activity in Battle Conquest, we haven't been satisfied for the past few months, for reasons I have personally expressed a while ago. However, we keep on maintaining the game and providing updates for the Community, which has supported us, even though we are working on our next title.

I find your recent posts a bit disturbing, as they are not constructive and are filled with mockery and irony. Should you wish to participate in this discussion, please try to be constructive for the good of the discussion otherwise refrain from posting. Thank you.

Owen2007 wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

klaas wrote:

so we come back to the same point: how does the ratio of fighter/farmers compare between the factions? winning more battles: is that becuase of effort/determination or simply number of available fighters?

I don't believe it really matters Klaas, because the underpopulated Faction receives a CP bonus and a registration bonus in an effort to strengthen its ranks.

Whatever the ratio is, we cannot force players to follow a specific play-style over another. However, we provide a motive by saying that the more battles per player a Faction has, the stronger its Capital Army will be. Furthermore, in the case of the underpopulated Faction, the more battles per player that Faction has, the bigger the CP bonus will be.

If I were a farmer, why would I care about the strength of the Capital Army?  If I'm not a fighter, the CP bonus is irrelevant.  How would it encourage fighting?

It just drags out the inevitable outcome.

Maybe so, but both Factions have farmers, so that is valid for both Factions. On the other hand, a farmer could always help with the financing of the walls, so they are important to a Faction.

Quote :

Maybe so, but both Factions have farmers, so that is valid for both Factions. On the other hand, a farmer could always help with the financing of the walls, so they are important to a Faction.

Except that the best way to earn resources is through fighting since the resource buildings are pretty weak.

Owen2007 wrote:

Quote :

Maybe so, but both Factions have farmers, so that is valid for both Factions. On the other hand, a farmer could always help with the financing of the walls, so they are important to a Faction.

Except that the best way to earn resources is through fighting since the resource buildings are pretty weak.

I couldn't agree more, so does it really pay to be a farmer?

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

Quote :

Maybe so, but both Factions have farmers, so that is valid for both Factions. On the other hand, a farmer could always help with the financing of the walls, so they are important to a Faction.

Except that the best way to earn resources is through fighting since the resource buildings are pretty weak.

I couldn't agree more, so does it really pay to be a farmer?

No. So farmers aren't really that supportive of the faction.  Why should they count in your CP Bonus/Capital Army equations?

For the record, I actually think the mechanism makes sense...and

In my mind there are two things that I do wish to have though:

1. Knowledge of who is active.
2. Cooperative battles that allow players to fight without a partner.

The first because it is difficult to encourage people without knowledge of who they are. We're in the war together, in reality we should be aware of the individuals that are in our Faction at a given point in time at the least.

The second is two-fold: The number of players is not even...therefore the chances for a player on the Dark side to get a coop partner are smaller than the Light side at any given point in time. To even that out, I believe that there should be a mechanism to fight a cooperative battle without the need for a living, breathing partner. Additionally, as Bobo has pointed out, it is a morale thing as well. When a player cannot battle...they lose interest faster, so attrition rates increase...this happens on both sides, but just guessing, it would happen more often in the Faction with less players.

Again, I actually support the way the mechanism is, it is a 'fairer' system than what existed before. It does lead to...difficult...decisions and puts a different sort of pressure on a Faction, but comparatively this system is much better than what was there before.Fyrr's suggestion for a lower weight for such individuals is a good one, as farmer's do contribute something, just not as much.

Owen2007 wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

Quote :

Maybe so, but both Factions have farmers, so that is valid for both Factions. On the other hand, a farmer could always help with the financing of the walls, so they are important to a Faction.

Except that the best way to earn resources is through fighting since the resource buildings are pretty weak.

I couldn't agree more, so does it really pay to be a farmer?

No. So farmers aren't really that supportive of the faction.  Why should they count in your CP Bonus/Capital Army equations?

Because they count to the overall performance of a Faction and most importantly walls.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Bobknack wrote:

But ok, you are going to keep saying we are lazy, I see. Well how is it working for you guys are you satisfied when you see the map and the amount of activity?  lol!

(Don't worry i'll stop commenting on this, its all wishy washy answers blowing in the wind we get anyways)

I never mentioned that one Faction is lazy and the other hard working. If that is what you derived by the data, then that is your own assumption. Please refrain from connecting my name to your assumptions, as this could lead to misunderstandings.
I'm not the only one making those assumptions. But I'm glad that has been clarified, that is an answer from you that I can finally understand. Can't say I entirely believe you, but that is a different matter of course.

As for the activity in Battle Conquest, we haven't been satisfied for the past few months, for reasons I have personally expressed a while ago. However, we keep on maintaining the game and providing updates for the Community, which has supported us, even though we are working on our next title.
Ok and thank you for the barracks upgrade, I'm sure a lot of people find it useful.

I find your recent posts a bit disturbing, as they are not constructive and are filled with mockery and irony. Should you wish to participate in this discussion, please try to be constructive for the good of the discussion otherwise refrain from posting. Thank you.

I hope this post is constructive enough for you Runeslayer? I don't know if you had the time to look at it yet, guess you are busy with KA?

http://www.battleconforum.com/t2554-kickstart-the-game-again

Although, I have to say that I think the greatest mockery is when a player is spending money on gems expecting the game to progress, at least step by step in a somewhat positive direction, yet it "seems" to go downhill instead. But that is a disturbing lesson learned on my part and its a mistake I will not repeat especially when the outcome of the game is preordained anyways. Thank you.  

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

Quote :

Maybe so, but both Factions have farmers, so that is valid for both Factions. On the other hand, a farmer could always help with the financing of the walls, so they are important to a Faction.

Except that the best way to earn resources is through fighting since the resource buildings are pretty weak.

I couldn't agree more, so does it really pay to be a farmer?

No. So farmers aren't really that supportive of the faction.  Why should they count in your CP Bonus/Capital Army equations?

Because they count to the overall performance of a Faction and most importantly walls.

in what sense do they count to the performance of a faction? they don't fight and their resource output is measly compared to fighters.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Owen2007 wrote:

Quote :

Maybe so, but both Factions have farmers, so that is valid for both Factions. On the other hand, a farmer could always help with the financing of the walls, so they are important to a Faction.

Except that the best way to earn resources is through fighting since the resource buildings are pretty weak.

I couldn't agree more, so does it really pay to be a farmer?

No. So farmers aren't really that supportive of the faction.  Why should they count in your CP Bonus/Capital Army equations?

Because they count to the overall performance of a Faction and most importantly walls.

Now we're just going in circles. Whether or not you or others agree with it, I think I've made my point. Time to go spit into the hurricane of Light advancing on us and see if it turns the tide.

klaas wrote:

in what sense do they count to the performance of a faction? they don't fight and their resource output is measly compared to fighters.

You are a member of a Faction which has less people than the enemy Faction.
You know that you get a CP bonus and that CP bonus is increased by a rate depending on the victories per player in your Faction.
You also know that your Faction's Capital Army gets stronger if the members of your Faction play more battles.

Knowing all that....do you STILL prefer not to fight? Are there any mechanics limiting their ability to fight?

And let us say that they STILL don't prefer to fight...How come the members of the enemy Faction think otherwise EVEN IF they have pushed the enemy Faction close to the Capital's gates and they STILL fight more?

Could you please explain to me that?

Yesterday's population ratio was 1.22:1, if I am not mistaken, and the Dark Faction received 1.20 CP bonus, which means that they received a 20% bonus in CP surpassing any CP caps in the game.

Does there have to be another bonus rewarding the players who actually fight in a war game..?

RuneSlayer wrote:

klaas wrote:

in what sense do they count to the performance of a faction? they don't fight and their resource output is measly compared to fighters.

You are a member of a Faction which has less people than the enemy Faction.
You know that you get a CP bonus and that CP bonus is increased by a rate depending on the victories per player in your Faction.
You also know that your Faction's Capital Army gets stronger if the members of your Faction play more battles.

Knowing all that....do you STILL prefer not to fight? Are there any mechanics limiting their ability to fight?

And let us say that they STILL don't prefer to fight...How come the members of the enemy Faction think otherwise EVEN IF they have pushed the enemy Faction close to the Capital's gates and they STILL fight more?

Could you please explain to me that?

Yesterday's population ratio was 1.22:1, if I am not mistaken, and the Dark Faction received 1.20 CP bonus, which means that they received a 20% bonus in CP surpassing any CP caps in the game.

Does there have to be another bonus rewarding the players who actually fight in a war game..?

Speaking in generalities, the players that aren't fighting are not playing for the same reasons that those that are fighting are playing for. They are categorically different. They are less likely to leave the game because things are not going their Faction's way.

Let's assume that if left untouched people would go to the Dark and Light Faction in equal proportion (1:1) and we have 100 ppl in the Dark Faction and 100 people in the Light Faction. Further, there are 20 'non-combatants' in both Factions.

Let's now say the Dark Faction loses, and 20 people leave the Faction. It could be that 16 combatants and 4 non-combatants would leave...but it is more likely that most, or in the extreme, all of the 20 are combatants.

So we have:
80 Dark (60 combatants) and 100 Light (80 combatants).

The bonus would then be 25% (100/80-1) X 1 (assuming combatants are of equal ability/determination). The 60 Dark combatants would produce the the CP of 75 people (60 X 1.25), the Light 80 (80 X 1.00).

So, the Dark Faction is still at a disadvantage...and lose again...and the process repeats...and gets worse the next time.

This is INCREDIBLY over-generalized, but serves to illustrate something like what Klaas is trying to explain. I don't exactly agree, but I understand.

If non-combatants weren't included, btw, the fighting potential would be equal (80/60-1 is 33.33...% and 60 X 1.3333... is 80).Sorry Rune, believe it or not...I don't think that you are evil...and was/am pleased about the change to the CP bonus that you made, much better than before.

Your theory is logical ysosad, but you are making a lot of assumptions.

Let us assume that we only calculate combatants in the algorithm.

Let us assume that the active players for the Factions are:

Light: 100  Dark: 80  and furthermore the combatants are Light: 60 Dark: 20

No matter what, the dark would still need to increase their efforts and do more battles than the lights in order to win the war in this hypothetical scenario.

Same applies to the current situation.

Also ...another thing...

Following your theory, we should apply the CP bonus to the Faction which has the most "farmers". Imagine a case where the true overpopulated Faction decides to "rest" for a bit...not fighting at its capacity..and receiving the CP bonus, because they "don't have enough" combatants compared to the other Faction.

No, this is wrong...

RuneSlayer wrote:

You are a member of a Faction which has less people than the enemy Faction.
You know that you get a CP bonus and that CP bonus is increased by a rate depending on the victories per player in your Faction.
You also know that your Faction's Capital Army gets stronger if the members of your Faction play more battles.

Knowing all that....do you STILL prefer not to fight? Are there any mechanics limiting their ability to fight?

And let us say that they STILL don't prefer to fight...How come the members of the enemy Faction think otherwise EVEN IF they have pushed the enemy Faction close to the Capital's gates and they STILL fight more?

Could you please explain to me that?

well,  i can't reproduce  the mindset of a farmer which was the thing we were talking about, but in answer to your question: you may have a mindset that being on the losing side fires you up to greater effort. other people however give up. or, simply put: it's easy to fight hard when you're winning. it's much harder to fight when you're losing. when you are playing a game. for your fun, enjoyment and entertainment.

people log in, look at the map, see the status: the winners are happy and motivated and put in a few fights. the losers become demotivated and leave. such behaviour actually hurts the bonus.

hence my point of not taking the non-fighters along into the equation, only count the real fighters. that would give a much fairer picture of actual effort. or to put it crudely: i'm fighting damned hard and it bugs me to see my effort diluted by a bunch of quitters