Jump to content

Crown System Changes


urmommatoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Quick forum to check on ideas for how you would improve the current crown system for battles. 

Reference posts:

Topic which Goofy started a while back (http://forums.computingondemand.com/topic/36857-crown-calculations/#comment-58983)

AOE Forums post: http://forums.ageofempires.com/topic/10528-how-the-crowns-awarded-is-calculated-in-111-solved/

CROWNS WHEN ATTACKING

- If you attack someone with less crowns than you, and the amount they have is less than or equal to 50% of what you have...

  • A 100% victory will get you 3% of their crowns, times your research bonus.

- If you attack someone with less crowns than you, and the amount they have is more than 50% of what you have...

  • A 100% victory will get you 4% of their crowns, times your research bonus.

- If you attack someone with more crowns than you, and the amount they have is up to 50% more than you have...

  • A 100% victory will get you 5% of their crowns, times your research bonus.

- If you attack someone with more crowns than you, and the amount they have is over 50% more than you have...

  • A 100% victory will get you 6% of their crowns, times your research bonus.

 

The crowns for losing

Totally piggybacking on Funnykungfuman's work, I think I figured out how crown losses are determined when we lose an attack.

Not surprisingly, it is essentially the same calculation as above, except you flip the defender's and attacker's crowns in the equation and ignore any crown bonus upgrades.  Use the same lookup table.  Multiply that percentage (again, between 3 and 8 percent) by the amount of the attacker's crowns.  Then divide that number by two.

For example, if recycle ar (who is presently in first place with 24,782 crowns) attacked the guy in 200th (CrimsonRush15 of USA), who has 4571 crowns, as Crimson has less than 50 percent of recycle's crowns (18 percent to be exact), recycle stands to win 3 percent of Crimson's crowns.  (Actually, since recycle assuredly has the max crown bonus upgrade, he actually stands to win 120 percent of 3 percent of Crimson's crowns.)  All told, we are talking about 164 crowns for 3 stars, 123 for 2 stars, and 82 for 1 star.

If recycle lost, though, since he has more than 400 percent of the number of Crimson's crowns (542 percent to be exact), recycle stands to lose 4 percent of his own crowns.   That is 991 crowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I would change it :

Instead of crowns depending on  player, which lets face it you can have one of the best defended castle out there  and still have 0 crowns. I think crowns should of been based on age of keep, level of structures and percentage of structures demolished + bonus research. now I know there will be some exploits, as in keeping structures low so people don't get as many crowns, but every system will have exploits. and as power level  will still play a part in opponents available to attack then shouldn't be exploited by much 

This I believe is a fairer way of who is a good attacker rather than been lucky getting high crown players in search then 1 staring them for a load of crowns. also with this system a lower crown player  can't then take 300/400 plus crowns from a 3k player or even more from a higher crown player. actually thinking about it it's worse than that. A 1500 crown player took 223 crowns from me with 3500 crowns with a 2 star win, yet if I revenge will be offered under 100 for a 3 star win :( plus give them another opportunity to revenge back for even more crowns.  

probably not a lot will agree with me on this idea, but it's my idea and I don't care :P:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

completely agree with u there Bailey..i had a shim of age 8 attack me last night with a crown count of 804 something..nd now if i revenge the max i would get is 40 crowns that to for 100% success i suppose.. which is not fair at all..he got 36 crowns for 42% win.. now i don't attack age 6 keep anymore(i.e.also due to low crown count but also need to maintain a reputiation of sorts)ha..point here is they say power lvl decides the matchmaking..but when i saw his keep he had cannon towers nd archer towers of age 7 but troops of age 8 so it's really confusing on what basis do they actually decide a player's power level

i know crowns doesn't matter but even if u have developed everything to max..still there are skilled players who will definitely beat it so at the end it's crowns again that keep the score of where u stand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just cant get SB's post pasted here !! something funky going on

 

So the forums are being a jerk and keep eating my post instead of actually adding it to the thread about crown calculations so here's what I was trying to add.  If either of you can get it to successfully post, could you please add it to the thread?  Thanks.

"In my opinion, the way the crowns are calculated isn't the biggest issue with the crown system in the game. The biggest problem is that there's no practical use for crowns outside of driving the leaderboards which simply function as a mechanism to motivate people to spend more money on the game.

My idea to fix this is fairly simple in concept but would need a lot of tweaking the implementation and balancing. I think there should be a relationship between the amount of resources you can loot from someone and the ratio of crowns between the crowns of both players. Let's just consider a hypothetical situation in the current system where a player is attacking another player and would be offered 100k food, 100k wood, and 20k stone. If the attacking player has more crowns than the defender, they can still loot the entire amount. However, if the defender has more crowns, there's a reduction in how much the attacker can loot. Let's say for starters that we put in a 20% minimum so in this case, even a player with 0 crowns will be able to loot 20k food, 20k wood, and 4k stone. For the remaining 80% of the calculation, it's based on the ratio of the attacker and defender's crowns.  If the attacker had 50% of the defender's crown total, they can loot 60k food, 60k wood, and 12k stone. If the attacker had 75% of the defender's crown total, they could loot 80k food, 80k wood, and 16k stone.
 

(some more stuff - system discourages sniping; Makes you more vulnerable to attacks/ actually a practical reason for crowns rather than just leaderboards. 

usual disclaimer, etc and then ... What do you guys think :)

Best I could do SB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

had a brief discussion with sb earlier on his idea.

yeah crowns linked to resource protection would be a good idea. And gives crowns a purpose other than just your  name on a leader board. biggest problem i see is that there is no level playing field. 2 people can attack same players castle. one with high crowns one with low crowns, high crown player may walk away with for an example 30/40 crowns. low crown player can walk away with 200/300 crowns. from same [email protected]*#ing castle. i can see why some people really don't even try for crowns.

And yeah agree they are pointless at present. for awhile now i gave up hitting targets offering 80 crowns + unless i got  matched to a big crown player 300+  (hasn't happened yet :p) . Why, because even if I 100% them  and get 80 crowns or more. then they revenge back usually with martel + nevsky, they would be offered 300+ crowns so even a 2 star gives them over double what I got from them, pointless revenging back as you know they will revenge back again for even more crown lose. my targets are presently anything with resources over 70k apples 70k lumber 25k stone. upgrade as fast as I can. then start looking at crowns again maybe when new league system kicks in.( or after they fix all the bugs in it :D ) And see how that works. be good to see maybe an overall leader board, a weekly and monthly leader board as well for each power level. I won't hold my breath for all that though just yet :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's a thought..

as we know matchmaking of battles is done on basis of power lvl of players(still can't understand the dev's ridiculous ways of deciding pwr lvl) idea i got from reading various posts is it depends on attackers defense power which is BS!! i think it should be done on basis of attackers troops nd defender's defense system..for example..i have got age 7 maxed troops..so castles i should get to attack should have defenses which are maxed up of age 7 i.e.ballistae tower should be no more than lvl 4 or FT no more than lvl 3 whereas in current system i get age 9 keep with musket towers or age 8 keep with lvl 5 ballistae towers which is sometimes impossible to win without Martel + Nevsky in turns we end up spending more food in skipping to next battle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GAME, I had considered that as well but then you'll have the issue of people making accounts where they only focus on upgrading defenses while leaving troops at low levels to get easy wins in battles but make it hard for attackers to win.  Believe it or not, the current system is way better than it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U are right about that SB..but see,if they keep their troops at low level they won't be able to age up easily bcoz they will not get keeps with that many resources at that level easily nd even if they do nd win i assume that keeps with high resources will be low in number because most of them upgrade their defenses(atleast players who like the game)..it's not that i completely disagree with current method it's just that this point could be factored in matchmaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...