Phase 7 Changes

Dahgaba · Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:10 pm Post subject:

even if it is a risk on the mercs part, there should not be that big of a risk. i mean what is the point of being hired and losing more than they earned. and it dosent matter whether or not they win or lose, they still deserve a payment that dosnet have them losing more solders than they can replace.
_________________

"Join us at the best Final Fantasy Forum around!" www.ffplatform.com

Aurelien · Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:22 pm Post subject:

I'm actually confused with all this merc talk to protect them from losing soldiers. Losing soldiers is now a part of the game, this should apply to both mercs and non-mercs. Protecting mercs alone is unfair to the employer.

Lucent · Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:27 pm Post subject:

If a mercenary loses they failed to do their job adequately. That either stemmed from one of two things:

A: The mercenary isn't strong enough and shouldn't be hiring himself out without expecting losses.

B: Their employer used them recklessly, and they should consider that the next time that employer wishes to purchase their services.

Mercenaries who fail their employers should be lucky they get paid at all, in a realistic sense.
_________________

Username · Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject:

Also Mercs. could charge depending on units lost. Not the full cost but a cost that's reasonable. say 75 potch per unit lost. Not that all Mercs. would want to do that considering if they did there job prefect they would recive no Potch. It's all up to how the mercs. set there contracts with the employer. This is the price mercs. must pay. It just makes there job more fun. The harder it is the more sastasfactation* they get from battle. They will just have to play smarter for now.
_________________

The pursuit of symmetry... Death The Kid, Patty and Liz.

SSBB Friend Code: Ace / 4339-2163-7352

Vextor · Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:45 pm Post subject:

The old payment minimum was set based on the idea that soldiers are "immortal." Now the life is a bit more precious, inflation is natural.

The argument that the cost should remain the same is illogical. An analoy would be like arguing that oil price should remain the same even if we find a way to create petroleum from roadkill (in a very short amount of time, of course).

I'll probably increase the minimum and as for the rest, mercs can add stuff to their contract.

Vextor · Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject:

Okay, modifiers for regiment tactics have been changed.
The following would be the new modifiers:

Back Against Open Water: x3.0 attack and x.0.5 defense
A Crane Opens its Wings x0.75 attack and x1.25 defense
Hiding Within the Shell x0.5 attack and x1.5 defense
A Dragon Coils Around a Pearl x1.0 attack and x1.0 defense
The Fast Arrow Pierces x2.0 attack and x0.75 defense

The only changes are Back Against Open Water and The Fast Arrow Pierces. Both of these have been given a boost with their attack modifiers. The calculators have been adjusted accordingly.

iscalio · Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:22 pm Post subject:

The emergence of regiment attack values of 6000-8500 scares me.

Aurelien · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:05 am Post subject:

Question about the death rule. What happens with the bonus soldiers from fortification? Say A started with 10,000 soldiers, and finished the battle with 11,000 soldiers. Would A still lose soldiers permanently (considering that we can assume that those who died are not the original 10,000)?
_________________

~City-States of Jowston and Tinto Republic~
06.06.2004 - 20.01.2008

Vextor · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:13 am Post subject:

Nope.

Aurelien · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:22 am Post subject:

Thanks, that clears things up.
_________________

~City-States of Jowston and Tinto Republic~
06.06.2004 - 20.01.2008

Earthquake923 · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:23 am Post subject:

I have a question, since we don't need to actually move soldiers around any more, and just give numbers what would happen if say I have 10 soldiers. Shrew says he will give me 10,000 soldiers. I lose. Do I go into negative soldiers? Do you take it from the nation leader? Or the nation as a whole?
_________________
If anybody asks about the avatar, I did it for Jess.

Timbo · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:13 am Post subject:

Vextor · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:20 am Post subject:

Killed soldiers will be removed from the relevant regiment. It won't matter of soldiers were actually reallocated or not. This means people can end up having negative soldiercounts, which would have to be amended by the nation leader or someone else.

As for the reasoning behind the tactics change, this is because previously the tactic "hiding within the shell" proved to other tactics, reducing the reason for anyone to use the other tactical options. The adjustment balances things out a bit more. I really don't like to talk about the reasoning behind changes though, so any future changes probably won't have any explanations other than, "in order to balance things out." However, I didn't want to give people the impression that I'm brushing them off either.

Axiose · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject:

Just say "Wizards Did It" and that should answer pretty much anything.
_________________

[Axiose] [Fliktor]

kuwaizair · Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject:

for the love that is all good and pixalated...man this makes things more hard. so they die and they are twice as expensive? could we hire villagers to fight or would they be lowsy and only good with farming tools in battle.
hey good idea for a new regement.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27

	Forum Index -> Budehuc Castle	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5