Broken BP Splits

DeletedUser10240

Guest
I've been seeing this issue a lot lately and I think it really needs to be changed. When BP is spread around to players with support in a city it seems to just go by population of troops in the city, which is not the only factor that needs to be considered when splitting BP.

If I put 100 biremes in a city that has 10k dlu and my biremes are all that are in the harbor and it is attacked by 50 LS that kills ~50 of my bir, I should be getting the BP for the LS that I killed. But since 100 biremes is such a tiny % of the population in a city with 10k dlu sitting in it i would only get about 50-100bp for the ~400 population worth of units i lost that killed 500 population worth of units. It makes no sense.


I think that BP spreads need to be split by naval and ground units. If someone has 80% of the ships in a city but 5% of the total troops in the city by population it makes no sense that the people that make up the other 95% of the population in the city get the majority of the BP if the naval units got all of the kills. If the naval units got all of the kills the bp split should be among the players with naval units in that city that contributed to the fight, this is where splitting based on population would work, the naval units in the city should be split by population to split bp among the players that have naval units there. This goes both ways, if a city has 5000 biremes in it but some guy put 5000 dlu in it, if the city got hit by a manti nuke that he kills with his DLU the people who make up the 5000 biremes shouldn't be getting huge chunks of the DLU holders BP for nothing but having their units in the city when the attack hit.

If a slinger nuke hits a city with 50 biremes in it and gets sunk by the biremes so the doesnt even land or attack any of the DLU in that city, the DLU holder shouldnt be getting a huge chunk of the BP.

All I am saying is BP needs to be split based on your contribution to the battle, not the amount of troops you have there. If your troops are just sitting there and don't participate in the battle or barely do, they shouldnt be taking home more of the bp than the troops that did the fighting.

Another example could be if a city has 10 biremes from one player, no other naval units, and 250 dlu from another player with a 25 wall and tower, if the biremes kill say 10 of the escorting LS but fail to stop the land troops from landing but the DLU kill say 700 of the attacking force, the DLU should be getting the 700bp from their kills and the biremes should be getting 100bp from the LS. How it would work right now is the DLU would get about 600bp from the battle and the bir would get 200 even though the bir didnt contribute to the 700 dlu kills.

Also there are many cases ive seen where tripwires ive put in a city get 60+ bp from an attack because they were the only unit in the city and technically 100% of the population even though the militia got all of the kills.
 

DeletedUser10240

Guest
e48a280ad3274b2c906f3bd067ac2575.png
 
As much as I was stoked about that BP that was honest to god BS, I was shocked I got so much for doing absolutely nothing and quite frankly shocked that ground troops could get BP for naval attack. Same goes for transports, You could have a single transport in a city and still get BP even though they don`t fight at all? You really should see if you can alter this @mods
 
Do you know that there used to be a time in this game when you wouldn't be awarded any DBP at all for your support that engaged in battle defending another player's city? The city owner would get all the DBP, regardless of how many (or few) troops defending the city actually belonged to them.

I believe the game developers changed the game mechanic because it led to perverse incentives for allies not to work together to defend under certain circumstances.

I have to imagine that they considered the change you're proposing now at the time they re-worked BP distribution mechanic for supporting players. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I suspect there's a good reason they chose a flat distribution mechanic as opposed to a tiered one like you're suggesting. Probably because a tiered mechanic would be able to be gamed/exploited more than a flat mechanic, and wouldn't reduce the perverse incentives as much as the flat mechanic. But that's only my guess. Would be interesting to hear a game developer's view on this.
 

DeletedUser10240

Guest
Do you know that there used to be a time in this game when you wouldn't be awarded any DBP at all for your support that engaged in battle defending another player's city? The city owner would get all the DBP, regardless of how many (or few) troops defending the city actually belonged to them.

I believe the game developers changed the game mechanic because it led to perverse incentives for allies not to work together to defend under certain circumstances.

I have to imagine that they considered the change you're proposing now at the time they re-worked BP distribution mechanic for supporting players. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I suspect there's a good reason they chose a flat distribution mechanic as opposed to a tiered one like you're suggesting. Probably because a tiered mechanic would be able to be gamed/exploited more than a flat mechanic, and wouldn't reduce the perverse incentives as much as the flat mechanic. But that's only my guess. Would be interesting to hear a game developer's view on this.
I don't see how people could exploit the way I mentioned, because the only way you could get bp would be is if your troops are involved in the battle. The state the game is in right now is easily exploitable, you can get bp for just having troops present regardless of if they fight anything or not.

I hope with the replies to this thread we do get some dev input though, this whole setup has pissed me off more than once with stuff like i posted above.
 
In the abstract, without knowing how it would be programmed, I can’t predict specifically how a tiered mechanic would be gamed/exploited. However, the potentially undesirable gameplay incentives are easily foreseeable.

You’re definitely right that the current system can be gamed/exploited. No disagreement there.

Another factor possibly at play is the amount of extra work Innogames would be required to do to implement a tiered mechanic. I assume it would be a more complex system. There may be legitimate technical obstacles to implementation in the existing code base. Or, even if it would be an improvement, maybe the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze from a development point of view, e.g. limited resources are dedicated to higher priority projects, not worth investing in a low-visibility feature, etc...
 
Top