Reto.Hades

Captured resources formula

Recommended Posts

Reto.Hades    3,438

You have just won a war mission, and what do you see at the end of it? You have taken resources.

300 infantry, 50 light vehicles and 10 tanks. But why?

 

About a month or two ago we changed the system on how you earn resources. In this thread I wanted to share the (very simple) formula with you guys.

 

Capturing resources at the end of a battle is something that happened very often. Weapons, tanks and vehicles often swapped ownership once a battle had been won. We therefore decided it was a good idea to add this to our game.

The system works for both war and staged, but staged battles generate a lot less resources than war battles.

 

As we all know, the Germans have more players, fight more battles and therefore use up more resources. More battles, also mean more victories, meaning that the system now in place benefits the German faction the most and helps balance out the lost resources a bit more.

 

Something we see on the campaign map a lot, is 'overstacking' players sending 10k soldiers into a single battle.

With this system, we strongly discourage doing so. As every soldier you put in, is an extra supply that can be captured by the enemy faction.

 

The formula is as followed:

War= 12% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle

Staged = 4% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle.

 

So, if you send in a ton of resources to a battle, you are of course certain you have more than enough lives for that battle. But, it also gives the enemy the opportunity to capture 12% of it. Destroying that 10k stack, that is 30 more motorised infantry assault teams for your faction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Reto.Hades said:

As we all know, the Germans have more players, fight more battles and therefore use up more resources. More battles, also mean more victories, meaning that the system now in place benefits the German faction the most and helps balance out the lost resources a bit more. 

so your still babysitting the Germans giving them unfair advantages over the other factions, why dont you give something to the US and Soviets to keep up with the German Number of ATs due to larger population. Or are you just going to hold Germanys hand forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drhoops    2,319
6 hours ago, Reto.Hades said:

if you send in a ton of resources to a battle, you are of course certain you have more than enough lives for that battle. But, it also gives the enemy the opportunity to capture 30% of it. Destroying that 10k stack, that is 30 more motorised infantry assault teams for your faction!

 

Wow, didn't know that.  Thanks for the explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bartalamey1    335

emmmm... why an enemy capture resources I save to the end of battle instead of resources I lost in battle? The more winner killa the less he gets, it means?

I think capture "X% * amount of resources lost in battle" is way more fair and logical practice which allows players to influence how much resources they gain or lose. I haven's statistics, but you can look into it and compare what is better to give to the winner: 30% of resources the loser saved or 70% (for example) of resources the loser lost.

With that system you can add ribbons that let generals increase resources their ATs capture in battle ("Supply expert" for vehicles and "Master of propaganda" for infantry, for example).

 

P.S. 10k infantry in battle is signal me that players don't understand the role of AT's morale. Please think about improvement of UI in RTS to make it more intuitive without text hints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LuisCyphre    704

Hades, "discouraging" overstacking means you assume people are informed and care. Sharks and whales will, perhaps, the majority will not. Few people have taken note of my post explaining precisely that linked above more than half a year ago. Because that transfer is not a transfer, people don't see the effect, these "captured" resorces are created by the server from nowhere. 

 

So, what that mechanic really accomplishes is just a buff to US and SU stockpiles, and in an uncontrollable way on top of it. 

 

Just put a hard cap on it... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dat.duck    165
4 hours ago, bartalamey1 said:

I think capture "X% * amount of resources lost in battle" is way more fair and logical practice which allows players to influence how much resources they gain or lose.

i would disagree. If you encircle a pocket of troops the amount you capture in theory is not at all related to how many troops you kill. It would also simply lead to players farming and keeping games open longer than really necessary. What this game really doesn't need is more incentives for GE players to grind down teams in war or staged.

4 hours ago, bartalamey1 said:

P.S. 10k infantry in battle is signal me that players don't understand the role of AT's morale. Please think about improvement of UI in RTS to make it more intuitive without text hints.

 

2 hours ago, LuisCyphre said:

Hades, "discouraging" overstacking means you assume people are informed and care.

I think there is a different reason for lots of overstack and that simply is that players either a want to level up the soldier that has the assault teams deployed or that they want to try and quickly level up the AT's with minimal losses.

 

most combat if you are not in the match itself tends to be a wf loss, over stacking can minimize wf loss for infantry at least and maximize the amount of XP you can get with one deploy.

the best way to counteract this is to simply not give xp for battles where more than 5k tickets are involved. then players would distribute their troops more evenly.

 

you could also take a feature like combat width from hearts of iron 4 or similar games where for each line active you can send in 100 ats, first come first serve. this could give significance to holding lines open, but this feature would only work if it was easier for attackers to hold lines than for defenders to push out which really isn't the case atm. (map design)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bartalamey1    335
1 hour ago, dat.duck said:

i would disagree. If you encircle a pocket of troops the amount you capture in theory is not at all related to how many troops you kill. It would also simply lead to players farming and keeping games open longer than really necessary. What this game really doesn't need is more incentives for GE players to grind down teams in war or staged. 

if you encircle and kill all of them, it will it equal amout if you recive X% of killed or the same X% of not killed (in sum of all battles until you destroy the pocket).

I'm not sure farming is a big problem... it is annoying for losing team, but isn't it an only cons? today I see that winners are farming in every case they can, so my suggestion almost cannot increase farming xD on the other side, if clans will try to farm instead ignoring it to continue intensive pushing, it can help make wars not so fast. in real, I don't have any statistic so I prefere just let Retos decide it by themselves ("oh thank you dude for your allowing" - said Reto :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dat.duck    165
13 hours ago, bartalamey1 said:

if you encircle and kill all of them,

i mean that never happens though ^^ if you win a fight against an encircled town with 10k tickets i can guarantee in the match maybe 500 were lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geschlittert    1,797
21 hours ago, RussianSniper01 said:

so your still babysitting the Germans giving them unfair advantages over the other factions, why dont you give something to the US and Soviets to keep up with the German Number of ATs due to larger population. Or are you just going to hold Germanys hand forever?

erm, what?

 AwyKEel.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Hades    3,438
23 hours ago, RussianSniper01 said:

so your still babysitting the Germans giving them unfair advantages over the other factions, why dont you give something to the US and Soviets to keep up with the German Number of ATs due to larger population. Or are you just going to hold Germanys hand forever?

 

Please read what I am actually saying.

The germans fight more battles, so they have more players fighting and dying.

At the same time, because they fight more battles, they should also win more battles. Meaning they also gain more supplies.

 

If the US gets 100 supplies + 20 - 20. It's the same as the German starting with 100 supplies + 40 - 40.

Now I don't know the exact outcomes of the battles, so I cannot state if it is completely fair currently. But this is not an unfair advantage for the Germans. It's balancing their disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
senser64    13

Or maybe you apply one more appropriate solution in this situation > read German overpopulation > more historical by all means > usa AND su FACTION SHOULD BE ON THE SAME SIDE!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khadmon    564
On 2/28/2020 at 1:59 AM, Reto.Hades said:

The germans fight more battles, so they have more players fighting and dying.

At the same time, because they fight more battles, they should also win more battles. Meaning they also gain more supplies.

 

If the US gets 100 supplies + 20 - 20. It's the same as the German starting with 100 supplies + 40 - 40.

This would be tru if it was only WAR battles 

But if GE Gets to win more Resources because they play more staged the dying part doesn't realy matter does it.

On 2/27/2020 at 11:43 PM, geschlittert said:

erm, what?

 AwyKEel.png

 

At what point in the game was that taken?   Maybe at the end of the war when GE Generals who were going to lose stoped deploying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geschlittert    1,797
13 hours ago, Khadmon said:

This would be tru if it was only WAR battles 

But if GE Gets to win more Resources because they play more staged the dying part doesn't realy matter does it.

 

At what point in the game was that taken?   Maybe at the end of the war when GE Generals who were going to lose stoped deploying?

Nope, middle of the war were GE still had whole of france and balkan with 0 stockpile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khadmon    564
9 minutes ago, geschlittert said:

Nope, middle of the war were GE still had whole of france and balkan with 0 stockpile

Then the Generals need to manage their AT's better and not stack so many in Battles and leave some back to build up.

Maybe RETO needs to show the resources stats at the end of the war showing how many extra resources each Faction recived in total. 

Or even better Show a brake down 

X% from Staged

X% from War

X% from Encircled ect.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drhoops    2,319
On 2/26/2020 at 4:39 AM, Reto.Hades said:

The formula is as followed:

War= 12% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle

Staged = 4% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle.

 

What about First Encounter?  I was rather shocked that playing First Encounter against bots actually gains your faction tickets, albeit it's a very small amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LuisCyphre    704
On 2/26/2020 at 10:39 AM, Reto.Hades said:

The formula is as followed:

War= 12% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle

Staged = 4% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle.

 

Okay, in the first iteration that was set to 50.

 

Why do you not include such changes in your changelogs?

 

Do you think you don't have to inform people when writing one? I'm really curious. I mean, changeLOG. Care to answer or just shrink off like always when challenged? @Reto.Hades

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Hades    3,438

The first formula we used was completely different. The first iteration was shaped like a Parabola.

I never knew the exact formula for that.

 

Recently when we changed it up, it went to 40% for war and 15% of 40% for staged.

Now it's 30% of 40% for war, and 10% of 40% for staged.

 

We added in the changelog that we made changes, but not in detail.

Which is why I decided to make a topic to explain this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarshalHanz    0
On 2/26/2020 at 9:39 AM, Reto.Hades said:

You have just won a war mission, and what do you see at the end of it? You have taken resources.

300 infantry, 50 light vehicles and 10 tanks. But why?

 

About a month or two ago we changed the system on how you earn resources. In this thread I wanted to share the (very simple) formula with you guys.

 

Capturing resources at the end of a battle is something that happened very often. Weapons, tanks and vehicles often swapped ownership once a battle had been won. We therefore decided it was a good idea to add this to our game.

The system works for both war and staged, but staged battles generate a lot less resources than war battles.

 

As we all know, the Germans have more players, fight more battles and therefore use up more resources. More battles, also mean more victories, meaning that the system now in place benefits the German faction the most and helps balance out the lost resources a bit more.

 

Something we see on the campaign map a lot, is 'overstacking' players sending 10k soldiers into a single battle.

With this system, we strongly discourage doing so. As every soldier you put in, is an extra supply that can be captured by the enemy faction.

 

The formula is as followed:

War= 12% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle

Staged = 4% * amount of resources left at the end of the battle.

 

So, if you send in a ton of resources to a battle, you are of course certain you have more than enough lives for that battle. But, it also gives the enemy the opportunity to capture 12% of it. Destroying that 10k stack, that is 30 more motorised infantry assault teams for your faction!

True.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sqeek    729
1 hour ago, doramass said:

You OP The Axis and you guys, supported full cheaters teams on Axis side.

 

Common doramass - giving axis a tiny little chance to actually do anything in the war isn't really cheating. US and SU still have so much advantage on the RTS when it comes to resources, popping battles and getting people in. It's been like that for years, and you know it.

 

Increasing the win GE war win value from 5% to 6% by giving them a little bit more resources really isn't cheating or game breaking. Besides, this is old news....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites