Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

by Kenzu Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:57 am

In farming missions the damage dealt was previously 90-105% for both attacker and defender of the normal value.

It has been changed to something along the lines of 75-125%. This is an unreasonably high disparity.

If we assume that both attacker and defender had similiar attack and defense equalling 100, then damage deal could be anything between 105 vs 90 and 90 vs 105. This means that the attacker would steal somewhere between 85.7%-100% kuwal

Now attacker and defender will deal damage anywhere between 125 vs 75 and 75 vs 125 and thus will steal anywhere between 60%-100% kuwal.

Such a big disparity is not necessary.

It's ok when the value varies a little bit, but if the ammount stolen pretty much depends on a random event not related to a players skill, just like now, then it gets annoying!

Although I dont think it's a bad idea when attacks vary a little bit with a random modifier, I don't want the modifier to have such a huge impact on our missions. It makes farming much less predictable, which might be the intention of increasing the modifier disparity, but I am not happy with this update at all.

Therefore I suggest we change it back to 90-105% for all strike missions.

Who is with me?

by Steveanaya Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:39 am

I gotta agree with you here.

by Nomad Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:43 am

When was it changed?

by seaborgium Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:07 am

01 June 2010:

NEW FEATURES:
# Alliance squads are now officially finished. Leaders can now add and remove members from specific squads and can see detailed economic and military data about each squad individually
# How many turns someone used in a kuwal stealing attack is now displayed in the attack logs
# Armory page now has a tooltip explaining the different assault strategies for attack and defense
# Attack and Defense units currently in training now get displayed in the armory page in order to show the correct value of how many units you will need to arm.
# Added the achievement 'Order of Support'

BALANCING:
# Normal Soldiers now die as fast as super soldiers but still give only half the power when armed
# The Strike power in battle during a regular kuwal stealing attack can have a spread from 75-120% of your real value (from the previous 90-105%)
# Idle units now no longer produce any income whatsoever

by Capt_Blood Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:38 am

Well I for one can see no reason for it to be changed.

I can understand Kenzu's concern that it will impact attacking for Kuwal especially in light of the so called farming policies of TIE & TOC.

It will make it much harder for those who wish to have these so called farming policies to calculate if their attacks will fit within the complex criteria that they have come up with.

I think that the greater variation will introduce a greater amount of risk for the attacker which in the long term will be better for the game. It will also make those who seem to like these Farming Policies reassess their own account builds so that they become responsible for protecting their own income rather than trying to force restrictions on others.

by seaborgium Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:07 am

Well if you know the formula you can estimate what the losses will be Wink

by Capt_Blood Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:25 am

seaborgium wrote:Well if you know the formula you can estimate what the losses will be

An interesting comment and quite true however I have noticed quite a few asking for different features that essentially would add a little more realism at times. Since all actions are essentially going to be based on mathematical formulas realistically the only way to add this sort of realism is with the use of random factors in the equations or to make the game extremely complex.

I think that for far to long many have been using the current formulas in a way that is starting to make the game stagnate and increasing the random factors will mean that at times you will fail and have to suffer the consequences, How the individual and their alliance will handle these occurrences will become important factors and add a lot more variety and different opportunities.

by seaborgium Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:28 am

while we only can get part of the formula, you just have to add a 'buffer' in your estimate and no matter what randomness admin puts in you can still come out on top

by Admin Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:27 pm

Capt_Blood wrote:Since all actions are essentially going to be based on mathematical formulas realistically the only way to add this sort of realism is with the use of random factors in the equations or to make the game extremely complex.

Thank you

by kingkongfan1 Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:13 pm

ok, how is this going to affect those of us who only "farm" 0 defense inactive accounts... king

by seaborgium Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:05 pm

it won't

by Lord Ishurue Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:23 am

what about a poll ?

the current one can assume if your troops are sick , tired , full over energy or demoralized .

Lets look at athletic Competition upsets..

Like with Wrestling. lets say the night b4 a match your 15 Lbs over weight. So u take a prescribed water pill ( to help u urinate ) , laxatives , run with extra layers on , stay in sauna at the gym with sweatshirts on, then u don't eat or drink till weigh in , run the next day b4 weigh in, chew gum to generate saliva and spit in a bottle vs you taking on a guy who did none of that and is at his natural weight .

you may be a better wrestler then him but at that condition your gonna be very drained . which is the current situation.

what if all the troops got food poisoning then went on a mission vs the defenders were at peak condition etc.

Im for the current damage system . I would actually prefer a food upkeep which effects the damage ratio .

Below is Random numbers.
Low Grade Food - your troops fight at worst 60% or at best 100% . cost 100 per unit per day
Food Grade AA - your troops fight at worst 75% or at best 110% - cost 300 per unit per day
Food Grade S class -your troops fight at worst 90% or at best 120% - cost 500 per unit per day

by Nomad Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:59 am

Admin wrote:
Capt_Blood wrote:Since all actions are essentially going to be based on mathematical formulas realistically the only way to add this sort of realism is with the use of random factors in the equations or to make the game extremely complex.
Thank you

seaborgium wrote:while we only can get part of the formula, you just have to add a 'buffer' in your estimate and no matter what randomness admin puts in you can still come out on top

Sorry guys but it changes nothing as Seaborgium just stated, JMO

by Capt_Blood Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:19 am

Nomad wrote:
Admin wrote:
Capt_Blood wrote:Since all actions are essentially going to be based on mathematical formulas realistically the only way to add this sort of realism is with the use of random factors in the equations or to make the game extremely complex.
Thank you

seaborgium wrote:while we only can get part of the formula, you just have to add a 'buffer' in your estimate and no matter what randomness admin puts in you can still come out on top

Sorry guys but it changes nothing as Seaborgium just stated, JMO

I'm well aware of what Seaborgium is saying but there also comes a time when adding the buffer becomes an issue.
The bigger the the random factor is then the bigger the buffer has to be which is fine. But when the calculation with the buffer is just under the profit people will start to take risks. Lets say you allow in your buffer for 75% and find that it's just beyond being profitable but if you allow for 80% then it becomes profitable. For many if the profit is right then they will start taking the risk.

by Admin Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:59 am

Nomad wrote:Sorry guys but it changes nothing as Seaborgium just stated, JMO

As capt_blood showed, it actually does change something.

Easy numbers: Imagine your real strike is equal to the targets real defense and let's pretend the defense always deals 100% power
When your attack is over 100% you'll still steal only 100% of the kuwal, so each time you go over 100% with your power you're not making any extra profit. On the other hand each time you go below 100% your profit is reduced by the same amount.

If the spread is 90-105% then on average you will steal 96.5% kuwal
If the spread is 75-120% then on average you will steal 92.9% kuwal

by kingkongfan1 Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:50 pm

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:Sorry guys but it changes nothing as Seaborgium just stated, JMO
As capt_blood showed, it actually does change something.

Easy numbers: Imagine your real strike is equal to the targets real defense and let's pretend the defense always deals 100% power
When your attack is over 100% you'll still steal only 100% of the kuwal, so each time you go over 100% with your power you're not making any extra profit. On the other hand each time you go below 100% your profit is reduced by the same amount.

If the spread is 90-105% then on average you will steal 96.5% kuwal
If the spread is 75-120% then on average you will steal 92.9% kuwal

So are you saying that Kenzu is fussing about a 3.6% difference? I am not a math head, & what is being talked about here is very confusing... is 3.6% a lot or a little IDK? is it even worth fussing over?

by Admin Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:02 pm

kingkongfan1 wrote: So are you saying that Kenzu is fussing about a 3.6% difference? I am not a math head, & what is being talked about here is very confusing... is 3.6% a lot or a little IDK? is it even worth fussing over?

kenzu isn't fussing over the 3.6% difference that can be noticed over 50 attacks.
He's fussing about the odd single hits that can reduce your profit in some cases by 20-20% as well as increase your profit in other cases by 20%

on a global scale, 3.6% isn't much. on a minor scale, there can be big differences.

by kingkongfan1 Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:09 pm

ok, thanks for the explaination,

by Nomad Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:32 am

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:Sorry guys but it changes nothing as Seaborgium just stated, JMO
As capt_blood showed, it actually does change something.

Easy numbers: Imagine your real strike is equal to the targets real defense and let's pretend the defense always deals 100% power
When your attack is over 100% you'll still steal only 100% of the kuwal, so each time you go over 100% with your power you're not making any extra profit. On the other hand each time you go below 100% your profit is reduced by the same amount.

If the spread is 90-105% then on average you will steal 96.5% kuwal
If the spread is 75-120% then on average you will steal 92.9% kuwal

Ill yield to a yes and no.

If you never use the below 100% and always make your buffer big enough to remove it from the equation then its a NO. If you dont, then its a yes.

Sadly the largest part of the server, your brother included, are for the most part removing attacks that might fall into the high risk catagory with the Farming policy/Peace treaty that will cover the bulk of the server.

So say what you want, we are both right in our own way, even if you don't want to admit it.

by Vesper Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:39 am

Honestly I didn't even notice a difference.

by Lord Ishurue Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:02 am

Low Grade Food - your troops fight at worst 60% or at best 100% . cost 100 per unit per day
Food Grade AA - your troops fight at worst 75% or at best 110% - cost 300 per unit per day
Food Grade S class -your troops fight at worst 90% or at best 120% - cost 500 per unit per day

by Nomad Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:11 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:

Low Grade Food - your troops fight at worst 60% or at best 100% . cost 100 per unit per day
Food Grade AA - your troops fight at worst 75% or at best 110% - cost 300 per unit per day
Food Grade S class -your troops fight at worst 90% or at best 120% - cost 500 per unit per day

Problem I see is its another way to decrease your income in war situations. It just gives more advantages to people who keep their incomes low so they are not farmed, but actively farm others for income.

by Lord Ishurue Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:28 pm

Nomad wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:

Low Grade Food - your troops fight at worst 60% or at best 100% . cost 100 per unit per day
Food Grade AA - your troops fight at worst 75% or at best 110% - cost 300 per unit per day
Food Grade S class -your troops fight at worst 90% or at best 120% - cost 500 per unit per day

Problem I see is its another way to decrease your income in war situations. It just gives more advantages to people who keep their incomes low so they are not farmed, but actively farm others for income.

Wasn't my intention . i guess it would help players who base their economy on UP & Nerf their income .

I always wanted some sort of Empire/ Realm Upkeep to add some realism . like 1% of your income to cover .
troops upkeep , Building upkeep, Technology upkeep , misc. Realm expenses .

by Nomad Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:28 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:

Low Grade Food - your troops fight at worst 60% or at best 100% . cost 100 per unit per day
Food Grade AA - your troops fight at worst 75% or at best 110% - cost 300 per unit per day
Food Grade S class -your troops fight at worst 90% or at best 120% - cost 500 per unit per day

Problem I see is its another way to decrease your income in war situations. It just gives more advantages to people who keep their incomes low so they are not farmed, but actively farm others for income.

Wasn't my intention . i guess it would help players who base their economy on UP & Nerf their income .

I always wanted some sort of Empire/ Realm Upkeep to add some realism . like 1% of your income to cover .
troops upkeep , Building upkeep, Technology upkeep , misc. Realm expenses .

Not against the idea, just saying what your suggesting gives MORE power to those who tend to keep no stats so no fear of retaliation, and no income so no fear of being farmed.

by Kenzu Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:03 pm

seaborgium wrote:Well if you know the formula you can estimate what the losses will be

Not really, you cant estimate the losses, but you can estimate the spread of the losses.

In any case while you needed to have a strike of 1.05/0.9= 117%

now you need a strike of 1.25/0.75=167% of defense to make sure you steal 100% kuwal

What we are talking about is that you need 50% more strike than before to make a safe hit.

Nomad wrote:
If you never use the below 100% and always make your buffer big enough to remove it from the equation then its a NO. If you dont, then its a yes.

This buffer being +50% of enemy defense is too much to bare.

If a defense is say 3 billion, I must have 5 billion strike to make a safe hit stealing 100% kuwal.

Before the change I needed only 3.5 billion strike

In exact terms everyone must have +42.9% higher strike than before, and this obviously means that there are much bigger losses too.

I want farming on Aderan Wars to be based on strategy, not on CASINO RULES

by Sponsored content

Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%

Re: Return Damage Modifier to previous value, namely 90-105%