Risk vs reward /challenged

[Seraphim53]

So I've noticed that the new rewards system when you win a challange seems backwards to me?

Since there is now quite a bit of information about who you are challenging, it seems that the challenged bears the bulk of the risk in the fight.

However you seem to win more money on a successful challenge win than you do when you win while defending a challenge.

Since the challenged warrior has no say on the fight, and is at a disadvantage in that the challenger knows most of your basic information before the challange is issued it seems like the defender should get the bigger pay day on a successful defense.

If you win a challange and get twice the reward than a defender would if he/she won (you pay out half for a loss that you would have gotten if you had won..).

This also takes into account the fact that you can put all your money in the bank before you start challenging, where as the defender can not do so.

It just seems to work in the opposite of a normal risk/reward situation.

[sevenseas]

(scratches his chin)

[Seraphim53]

(scratches his chin)

Disagree?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the current way it's done. It just seems reversed in my head.

[Dainoji]

I think everything you say is correct if looking at it through that perspective. But from where I sit I don't think the spoils of war was designed that way because the goal was to encourage challenges and reward players for being more active and involved. If it were implemented how you suggested a player could just go on auto pilot and collect a lot of gold and that's just not right to reward a player for essentially doing nothing. I think a secondary effect of the spoils of war is to raise your blood when some gladiator snatches 5K gold from you prompting you to challenge back and back and forth and back and forth creating a rivalry.

[Alba Kebab]

It's just to encourage fighting, that's it. :)

[Kreegan]

With the current large number of balance flaws though, the challengers tend to pick their opponents according to the attacked gladiator's build, i.e. if you know that you're very likely to win against someone because his/her build is vulnerable to yours, you'll attack him/her to gain easy money. That was expected anyway, all games designed around some kind of character vs. character fighting are based on exploiting balance flaws and attacking the weaker enemy where possible (most people do that at least). Since the introduction of these changes I have my Wars challenged by Rages with armour-piercing weapons, my Rages by Theatrics and my Theatrics by Wars - who would imagine? :rolleyes: The idea itself is good but needs further fine-tuning.
Given the above, I agree that the challenged gladiator is not compensated enough for being attacked when he/she manages to win. There should be a bigger risk involved for the challenger so he doesn't just pick the weakest build compared to his own gladiator's all the time and pillaging the beaten manager's treasury.