Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: what would make honor good?

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default what would make honor good?

    I really think Honor is not good. thats a contradiction of words but its so true. i think they really should reward players for game play. so what would be a good reward for reaching high honor? Troops that fight longer should kill more bad guys i think.

  2. #2

    Default

    Your reward is getting to heal your enemies troops at a super high rate when you take their city

  3. #3

    Default

    I've heard rumors that higher honor does in fact increase your troops' effective life but, like I said, so far they're only rumors. I've got absolutely no information to substantiate this.

    It's something I've wanted to test for a while, but *shrug* just haven't had the time to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by cushseth View Post
    I hope with all my heart you are not stupid enough to believe the nonsense your spewing with your fingertips via keyboard.
    Quote Originally Posted by cushseth View Post
    I tell people they do well when they do well. It's not my fault people are stupid.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MiraLicious View Post
    I've heard rumors that higher honor does in fact increase your troops' effective life but, like I said, so far they're only rumors. I've got absolutely no information to substantiate this.

    It's something I've wanted to test for a while, but *shrug* just haven't had the time to do so.
    No it does not. Lower honor than your opponent = better heal rate.

  5. #5

    Default

    Honor has a very important purpose in both siege tactics and overarching strategy. It's effects should not be changed. If anything is wrong about it, it's the name. But what other name would be better?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Redlands, CA
    Posts
    2,964

    Default

    The word 'handicap' would be better, similar to golf. The better your attacks, the more honor you collect, and the greater your handicap against other players to give them a fighting chance. So handicap seems appropriate.


  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DCJerboa View Post
    The word 'handicap' would be better, similar to golf. The better your attacks, the more honor you collect, and the greater your handicap against other players to give them a fighting chance. So handicap seems appropriate.

    Hmm, handicap is better, but I wouldn't say it's dead-on. As a hardcore player who is a member of a hardcore alliance who regularly "cracks" players' cities that have half a million or more archers and another half a million infantry, we play the honor game hard. I mean, we send in suicide scout or horse stacks for massive "honor dumps" on our target before we start in with the real assaults. We make it a point to keep our honor low and our enemies' honor high.

    If it were a handicap then we'd be sandbagging, which is (interestingly enough) a dishonorable thing to do.

    As you siege a tough target, inevitably the target gains honor, because the defense has such a huge combat advantage. Almost any wave you send will lose honor -- one time I killed 2 million enemy defenders (mostly warriors) with ONE mech wave, and that wave STILL lost honor, because the mech that died were so much more expensive than the infantry they killed. As a siege continues, the target continues to gain honor and the attackers continue to lose it. This is the one thing that overcomes the defender's advantage, the fact that if you keep up a heavy assault then the attackers can eventually win a war of attrition because the attackers heal back much and the defender heals back little.

    Handicap is a better word for it than honor, but I'm still damned if I can figure out a still better one.

  8. #8

    Default

    I agree "handicap" appears to be what "honor" was intended for. But as we know, seasoned players typically keep their honor close to zero in order to heal more casualties. If the intent of honor is to handicap the higher prestige players against the lower prestige players, then I suggest a honor floor be established. The honor floor would increase as prestige increases, (honor can increase well above the floor, but not decrease below). The resultant affect would be higher prestige players wouldnt get a healing advantage over lower prestige players and thus the intended "handicap" would be in play. Just a thought....

  9. #9

    Default

    Actually, once you are using big enough attack heroes and are using the proper formation for each situation, you should almost never lose honor in an attack (except if you're attacking some baby city suitable for scout bombs). Whenever I check a report and see that I lost honor, I know something went horribly wrong.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kanosig View Post
    Actually, once you are using big enough attack heroes and are using the proper formation for each situation, you should almost never lose honor in an attack (except if you're attacking some baby city suitable for scout bombs). Whenever I check a report and see that I lost honor, I know something went horribly wrong.
    Right. To attack someone and lose honor means ... you did not attack properly as in lost too many troops or lost the battle. However many of us practice the "honor dump" regularly. If you do not do this then you are giving troops and resources away by having a low heal rate.
    AgeI Forever!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •