Upcoming test releases

You're using a strategy schooled to you by someone else for the current system. For the new system, there are ways to kill everything and will cost a lot less, you just have to think about them cos i'm not telling, if admin doesn't help the defender so that he can fight back if he is massed while online. lol

so...
1) what nigatsu said
2) what I have said personally about 3-4 times already in this forum (and it has been said in this thread at least 1-2 times by me and others)

3) (having said this about 3 times but I dont mind repeating myself)
This update is meant to make it easier for the attacker to reduce the target's defense to a fraction of it's former strength.
Destroying the rest of the account will be that much harder and costlier in terms of turns. If you dont like the cost, then dont friggin do it.

Yes I'm promoting short term escalations of conflicts and trying to keep the really destructive wars still an option but only for the truly dedicated ones

Hi Admin, what about basing the number of casualties both on the defender's army size?
So if you have two tanks (power 1100), tp = 2200 facing 440 soldiers with knives (power 5), tp = 2200 they'd be overpowered, but if you have 4 tanks, the amount of casualties would be half of the first example etc.
That way you could accomodate Hal-Shalud's criticism, while not having them overrun a defence too easily.

Number of casualties already depends on the size of the army AND on the level of weapons used AND on the tech level used.
What else does need to get included?

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:You're using a strategy schooled to you by someone else for the current system. For the new system, there are ways to kill everything and will cost a lot less, you just have to think about them cos i'm not telling, if admin doesn't help the defender so that he can fight back if he is massed while online. lol

I know a couple ways to mass some1. First 1 i tried on the test was the basic over power the enemy approach. I figured i would post the results here. I will do another approach in a few more days.

Yes but the number of covert turns is a serious limitation. So for large scale wars itll be number of people on each side that determines the outcome.

And i like Jiro's suggestion altough i believe it needs to be thought through more clearly. Im currently doing the test so i can show you the maths of my ideas and points.

release date moved by ~1 week, in order for me to have time to add and test the following:

- add weapon upkeep
- unit storage
- weapon black market
- adjust sabotage/assassination damage, losses and turn costs
- alliance color names
Will be the ones that will have an effect the players will notice, a bunch of other things i'll be spending my time on but most of you shouldn't notice the difference

any thing you can tell us about these additions? or just wait and see as they come out?

I made an experiment and found out that the defender is in a worse position when being assaulted and is not logged in.

Before assaults were devastating to the attacker if the attack and defense were comparable,
now if I use the assault with a type of the attack which counters defenders defense type, then I loose


main server: attacker looses 200-300% of the units defender looses

test server: attacker looses 125-175% of the units defender looses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore I am against having 3 types of missions for attack and defense.
No need to make the game more complex than it already is.

New players needs have to be considered.

Kenzu wrote:now if I use the assault with a type of the attack which counters defenders defense type, then I loose

So it's the defenders fault for leaving the defense strategy on something that allows the attacker to counter it without the defender being online to change it again to counter the attacker.

Admin wrote:

Kenzu wrote:now if I use the assault with a type of the attack which counters defenders defense type, then I loose

So it's the defenders fault for leaving the defense strategy on something that allows the attacker to counter it without the defender being online to change it again to counter the attacker.

ehm, let me rephrase my sentence:

now if I use the assault with a type of the attack which counters defenders defense type, then I beat the defender even harder than if it was without it.

What I am trying to tell you is that currently, the test server brings defender at a disadvantage in assaults if he is not online (which is true for 95% of all assaults), simply because I attack once and alter my attack so that he defends weak.

Any assault scenario shouldn't be worse for the defender than the one in main server, because making defenses easier to be massed is not the purpose of this update.

instead you might consider realm alert changes to increase defenses and decrease strike at the same time, or something similiar to that.

Kenzu wrote:now if I use the assault with a type of the attack which counters defenders defense type, then I beat the defender even harder than if it was without it.

There is no type of attack that counters standard defense

Admin wrote:

Kenzu wrote:now if I use the assault with a type of the attack which counters defenders defense type, then I beat the defender even harder than if it was without it.

There is no type of attack that counters standard defense

And the only reason to use the other 2 types is when you ARE online and in a LIVE battle.

Nomad wrote:

Admin wrote:

Kenzu wrote:now if I use the assault with a type of the attack which counters defenders defense type, then I beat the defender even harder than if it was without it.

There is no type of attack that counters standard defense

And the only reason to use the other 2 types is when you ARE online and in a LIVE battle.

Which is probably why they are there in the first place...

-Alex

Amen

Kenzu im sorry for massing you again but i am testing new ways and your the 1 that arms the perfect size defense.

I got massing down to a science now. Took 7 minutes to wipe kenzu's defense to 0 despite him being nearly 10 times my strike originally and after admin fixed that 1/5th thinger

oh yeh now i remember the thing I wanted to fix

thanks for pointing this one out

Vesper wrote:Kenzu im sorry for massing you again but i am testing new ways and your the 1 that arms the perfect size defense.

I got massing down to a science now. Took 7 minutes to wipe kenzu's defense to 0 despite him being nearly 10 times my strike originally and after admin fixed that 1/5th thinger

you were able to do so without the use of assasinations and sabatoges? the 0'ed defense part?

nope, he just used the fact that a % of units gets killed but the amount of weapons destroyed is equal to the amount of units killed, to his advantage

needless to say that i'll be fixing this because although i had thought of this method being used, I hadn't done anything against it yet.

Will update this by amount of weapons destroyed not be equal to amount of units killed but to the % of units killed.
So if you have 10k units and 1k weapons and you lose 2% of units then you will lose 2% of weapons of all classes (new system) instead of 200 best weapons (old system)

hows does that equate to strike and defensive weapons?

I sabbed his defense. Then after he was like 300mil power to my 700mil took like 2 assaults and his defense was gone. Since he already had very few weapons left but had a ton of units left he lost the remaining weapons quickly. He did for some reason have more units trained then weapons he had originally anyway i think. Any other ways i find of massing i'll post here and admin can decide if he should take it out or not. This way was much better then last one.

Hmm but with this new update of losing a % of weps if you have more weps than soldiers you will lose more weps than you lose soldiers when attacked. This doesnt make sense as why would weps which werent used be destroyed.

Anyway you can limit the max number of weps destroyed to equal the number of soldiers killed?

I didnt think what i did was a problem with coding this time. I thought that is what admin meant when he said you can 0 a defense by sabbing.

I sabbed kenzu to kill off most of his defense.

He then had for this example 200k units and 15k weapons.

I did 2 assaults and killed 8k units per hit which since they were armed with the weapons killed the remaining 15k weapons.

Then i had free reign to his assassins and remaining supers.

Somewhere admin said only way to 0 a defense was by sabbing so i assumed this was what he meant by it :S

@ hai: hmm will look at something in that matter thanks for pointing that out

@ vesper
what you did wasn't a "bug" like the other thing, however it was one strategy that was not intended to be used

what nomad and me said that you can 0 a def is that if you send enough spies/assassins you can kill more stuff than just the regular few %

Well I don't think it was anything he did, but more the lope sided ratio of weapons to units that caused that perticular issue.