What's new
By:
Loka Forums

Type /register while in-game to register for a forums account.

War formula

AKHISARLI

AKHISARLI

Active Member
Slicer
1️⃣ CURRENT SYSTEM – HOW'S IT WORKING NOW?

Alliances have a Strength ''value''

Player count, deaths, participation are irrelevant. And The community and staff team love it.

How is Conquest working:
Offensive/Defensive doesn't matter (in terms of strength)

Winning:

If the objective core is broken → attacker wins

If there's a timeout → defender wins

If attackers take all the charges → attacker wins

The only thing the server cares about is:

"Who won, who lost, and how much strength did they lose?"

In other words:

Did they get paid to place?
Was it a meme fight?
Was it a real battle?

👉 The system doesn't care about these ^.

2️⃣ WHY DOES WINTRADE HAPPEN?
Now, I'll explain it very simply:

The normal expectation:
“If the weaker alliance attacks the stronger one, they should be punished some way.”

But the current system says:
“I'll record whatever the result is.”

Therefore, this happens:

Alliance(3 towns) A: 200 strength
Alliance(12 towns) B: 500 strength

A knowingly attacks B
Knowing they will lose

But the server says:

“They are just taking a risk”
“Players like to take risks”
“If they didn't defend, it's not my problem”

And the wintrade begins.

3️⃣STRENGTH CALCULATIONS

For example:
Alliance A: 200 strength
Alliance B: 400 strength

Scenario 1)

Alliance B wins(it happens most of the time)
Winner = 400
Loser = 200
Result
(W)400 --> 405(+5)
(L)200 --> 195(-5)

❌ Problem:
Strong one won, and even received a ''prize''.

Scenario 2 — Wins 200 (underdog)
Winner = 200
Loser = 400

Alliance A wins, Result:
(W)200 --> 220(+20)
(L)400 --> 380(-20)

✅ This is good
I don't want to touch it

4️⃣ WHERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM?

The problem isn't in the strength formula.
The problem is the lack of context.

The system doesn't know(or understand):

Was this war logical at all?
What was the strength difference?
Did the winner already have an overwhelming advantage in terms of strength?

Therefore, an additional layer is needed.(as you guys can see

5️⃣ WHAT DO I WANT?

✅ Wintrade should be completely blocked
✅ Wintrade should become meaningless
✅ Those who engage in Wintrade should suffer losses in the long run
✅ Those who take ''real'' risks should be rewarded
✅ There should be less need for admin review
✅ People still should have fun fights

I hope my system will achieve this not with bans but with mathematics only

6️⃣THE HEART OF THE SOLUTION: POWER RATIO

I am adding a new concept:
PowerRatio = WinnerStrength / LoserStrength

This tells us:

How ''superior'' was the winner?

7️⃣(PoweRatioModifier)POWER RATIO CHART (VERY IMPORTANT)
a)Power Ratio Commentary Coefficient (formula: Winner/Loser)
≤ 1.35 Balanced fight 1.0
1.35 - 1.5 Slightly superior 0.7
1.5 - 1.75 Overwhelming superior 0.4
≥ 1.75 Nonsensical fight 0.2
Coefficient = How much of the win(strength) will be written

b) PRM for Balak

≤ 1.25 Balanced fight 1.0
1.25 - 1.35 Slightly superior 0.8
1.35 - 1.5 Overshelming superior 0.5
≥ 1.5 Nonsensical fight 0.2

8️⃣NEW FORMULA1765904143572.png

9️⃣Alliance A (250 strength) vs Alliance B (400 strength) — AGAIN WITH THE NEW SYSTEM

if Alliance B wins
PowerRatio = 400 / 250 = 1.6
Modifier = 0.5
0.4x7(raw value) = 2.8 strength
Result:

400 → +2.8 strength

250 → -7

Wintrade is losing its ''importance''; I will discuss this in more detail in later sections.(People would say its still win trading if they gain 2.8 strength, check1️⃣2️⃣)

if Alliance A wins
PowerRatio = 250 / 400 = 0.6 → 1.0(modifier)
18x1.0 =18

Result
250 --> +18
400 --> -18

✅''Real'' Risk-takers are rewarded

🔟LONG-TERM PLAYER BEHAVIOR
Players will learn:

“Intentionally placing on a strong alliance is more harmful to me”
“It’s not worth it if there’s no real chance of winning”
“Fake battles dont transfer strength”

Alliance leaders:

Cannot use a small alliance as bait(so more fights against the real enemy they fight against)
Intentionally weakening your small(if you are the Alliance A) alliance → irreversible strength lose

1️⃣1️⃣BONUS FOR ADMINS
Thanks to this system:

Wintrades are automatically pointless
Only extreme cases would be reported

The "It wasn't my fault" defense:
Refutes it with mathematics

1️⃣2️⃣ Minimum Gain

a) 0 strength gain if gain is below 5(can be changed)

b) for balak
0 strength gain if gain is below 2(can be changed)

1️⃣3️⃣ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY

This system doesn't ban wintrade but it makes it mathematically absurd.

🧠 POSSIBLE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE SYSTEM

Question 1️⃣:

Why does a an alliance with 400 strength only gain 2.8(0 because of 1️⃣2️⃣) strength when attacking a an alliance with 250 strength?

Answer:

Because the risk is almost zero.
The system proportionally adjusts the gain to the risk.
This war isn't a competition, so the gain is low.

Question2️⃣:

Isn't this punishing the big alliances?”

Answer:
No, it's not punishment --> it's incentive guidance.

Fight an equal opponent → more strength
Attack the weak → less strength

No one is being told "you can't do it," just It's not worh it.
Question 3️⃣:

a) “Wouldn’t this system reduce competition?”

Answer:
On the contrary. Current system:

Strong → weak farm

New system:

Strong → seeks out strong alliances
Medium → fights with medium alliances
Weak → doesn’t help anyone grow even if they lose(which is we are looking for)

This shifts vertical competition to horizontal competition.

b) “But what if the big alliance doesn’t want to fight?”

Answer:
That’s what should happen anyway.

If war doesn’t yield results, that war is harming the strength system.

This system:

Reduces pointless conquests

Encourages ''meaningful'' conquests

Question 4️⃣:

“Does this system increase the admin review/work?”

Answer:

No, quite the opposite, it reduces it.

Wintrade report ↓
Discussion ↓
Manual penalty ↓

Because: Mathematic is the decider here, not the rules.

Question 5️⃣:

“Is this system understandable to everyone?”

Answer: Yes, in one sentence:
“The stronger your opponent is, the greater your profit.” Even if they don't know the formula, they will see the result.

Question 6️⃣:

“Does this system protect new players/towns/alliances?”

Answer: Yes.

The big alliances cannot farm the new alliances and make them lose their tile.

Even if the new alliance loses, it won't feed the big one.
If it wins, they will experience a significant jump. (motivates small/new alliances)
This is a natural protective shield for small alliances.

Question 7️⃣:

“Why is this system fair?”

Answer: Because,

Risk(which is people like taking it) = reward
Advantage = lower payoff but still a payoff.

Question 8️⃣:

Does this system cause people to give up faster in a month?

Answer: No, because

No Power snowball
Single alliance domination is difficult. Because after 5 fights the big alliance will slowly get less strength which will make the months more ''come backable''
and people will have more fun, why? Cause more fights will happen.

Why will more fights happen? Alliance will stop giving up first week because after the gap reaches some points, they will lose less strength and losing less strength means = more comeback chance, more comeback chance = more fights, more fights = more fun for everyone.

Question 9️⃣: Why so many space and emojis?

People like the feeling of accomplishment, and it's easier for them to notice how far they've progressed in text with spaces. It also helps them remember where they are while reading.

I think this is all, thank you for listening me. I hope all Lokans can have a respectful conversation together.
Also check my PvE Dev Application: https://forums.lokamc.com/threads/lobsterakhi-akhisarli-content-developer-application.10788/
 
isn’t this flawed because of what happened with the carb and roly situation? they will be more thorough they aren’t just gonna go based off of who wins fights
 
Good idea but I don't think the current system is bad so I don't understand why we would change it also what Falc said.
 
Unfortunately it seems this post and the concept of the Power Ratio misunderstands how elo already works, which is that it gives more or less points based on who "should" win based on rating. This just dampens the strength change more.

How would a lower-rated town that is legitimately able to beat a higher-rated one able to succeed? This should still be possible.
 
Cryptite said:
Unfortunately it seems this post and the concept of the Power Ratio misunderstands how elo already works, which is that it gives more or less points based on who "should" win based on rating. This just dampens the strength change more.

How would a lower-rated town that is legitimately able to beat a higher-rated one able to succeed? This should still be possible.
Click to expand...
You are right about how ''elo'' already works. Yes, Elo already scales according to ''WHO should win'' based on strength. But Elo doesn't check: did they lose on purpose? did they know they were already going to lose? how many people did they warp? Did they actually try? No. It just looks and say ''yaay people fought for this strength I should reward the alliance with 600 actives for winning against alliance with 30 actives'' This is why wintrades/strength feeding happens. What I come with stops staff members from questioning ''possible'' win trader, cause this war formula already stops it.(article1️⃣2️⃣)

All loses are almost predictable(small alliances vs big alliances), and they are still taking that ''risk?''(I wouldnt call that a risk if they know they are going to lose anyways for example: you said rejection knights and stenchers were just ''having'' fun with the robinhood mutator. This helps them to have fun without rewarding the bigger alliance.) and if you check article9️⃣you can see that if PRM is winner/loser not strength difference or something like that. So winning against big alliances still is possible and rewardable for small alliances/town(an example at article 9️⃣)

So you can think that PRM is a new and better version of Kfactor. But they are working together because they are twins.
 
The existing formula works as follows:
Code: 
strengthExchanged = (kFactor * (1 - ( 1 / (1 + Math.pow(10, (loser - winner) / 400)))))
kFactorBalak = 14
kFactorContinent = (28 - (25 - Math.min(townLevel, townLevel)))

1765905842034.png

The strength outcome is already calculated from the strength difference. When stronger alliances beat weaker ones, the gain is heavily reduced. At a certain point, it reduces to nearly 0 strength when the difference is large enough. The opposite is true for small alliances beating large ones. It's worth noting that you had it posted as Difference/800; however, it's currently Difference/400. The constant in the denominator already (to some extent) accomplishes what your formula does.

Everything in E Winner is basically the "probability" that the higher strength alliance will win the battle. It's subtracted from 1, which gives us how "unexpected" the result is. Making a separate multiplier on top of this isn't exactly necessary, although it's not a bad idea in principle. Our current system is only two-dimensional; however, so is your suggestion (although this does not invalidate it; I'm just making this point because you initially led with rhetoric about the number of players warped, how well each side plays the objective, etc.).

There's no doubt that this would de-incentivize any larger alliance from attacking other alliances after a certain point. Below, I've attached a hypothetical fight where the winner has 400 strength, and the loser has 200:

1765929199845.png

The Desmos calculator I made can be found here: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kwpogarvzv. The main downside is that this makes strength calculation a bit more complex given the inequality required to perform it.

Lowering our denominator's constant would achieve a similar result (and is the middle ground). The Desmos calculator I made includes this as function j.

AKHISARLI said:
Player count, deaths, participation are irrelevant. And The community and staff team love it.
Click to expand...
To claim that "we love" the fact that other metrics don't count is just not true. Integrating these metrics would make Conquest much more statistical. However, they're already implicitly incorporated into the overall strength count for any given month because all of these metrics ultimately contribute to what alliance is winning/losing the most fights (and ultimately gaining the most strength). Your system also doesn't integrate these metrics (hence what I said earlier about it also being two-dimensional).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top