Aspire FTW

Time Target Result Enemy Losses Your Losses Enemy Damage Your Damage Report
[05 Sep] 11:14 T1_T2 0 2296 1,338,713,129 232,122,119 details
[05 Sep] 11:13 T1_T2 2323 2502 1,339,646,160 271,743,510 details
[05 Sep] 11:13 T1_T2 2583 2506 1,246,578,564 299,017,725 details
[05 Sep] 11:13 T1_T2 2640 2730 1,358,719,024 325,645,360 details
[05 Sep] 11:12 T1_T2 2838 2819 1,405,247,108 371,350,961 details
[05 Sep] 11:11 T1_T2 2974 2982 1,395,270,822 386,178,991 details
[05 Sep] 11:11 T1_T2 2959 3329 1,488,284,317 389,062,839 details
[05 Sep] 11:11 T1_T2 3212 3394 1,433,034,110 420,121,350 details
[05 Sep] 11:10 T1_T2 3583 3352 1,503,671,541 520,155,276 details
[05 Sep] 11:10 T1_T2 3616 3665 1,608,866,374 537,567,557 details
[05 Sep] 11:10 T1_T2 3538 4140 1,716,502,118 522,226,623 details
[05 Sep] 11:10 T1_T2 3931 4105 1,712,478,920 609,010,346 details
[05 Sep] 11:09 T1_T2 4185 4241 1,726,201,230 657,812,971 details
[05 Sep] 11:07 T1_T2 4253 4592 1,929,190,898 718,081,617 details
[05 Sep] 11:06 T1_T2 4571 4694 1,778,077,419 721,165,837 details
[05 Sep] 11:05 T1_T2 4955 4747 1,852,849,632 830,915,194 details
[05 Sep] 11:04 T1_T2 5277 4883 1,811,690,314 865,025,147 details
[05 Sep] 11:01 T1_T2 5301 8256 2,075,886,285 940,405,281 details


Time Enemy Type Result Spies Details
[05 Sep] 11:09 T1_T2 Sabotage Mission Failed 93,100 details
[05 Sep] 11:09 T1_T2 Sabotage Destroyed: 338;615;571;93;99 98,000 details
[05 Sep] 11:07 T1_T2 Sabotage Destroyed: 378;688;639;104;110 100,000 details


Have to leave for atleast the remainder of this Reset round, so gave T1_T2 a parting gift. He earned this by being the first person to ever hit me in Reset, and then by sending me an annoying mail after he did. I hope enough damage was done so that Aspire can go ahead and keep the lead till reset round is over.

Oh Peace by the Sword is also trying to push a farming policy onto reset, which pisses me off, so another reason I hope they dont get the win.

a farming policy on reset? HAHAHAHA

A typical loser who doesn't even acknowledge that he also tried to assassinate me 4 or 5 times but failed every time. Instead, he shows how pathetic the coding is that allows a player with half the attack strength to manage to kill equal numbers of units.

I mean seriously Mr. Author, I know that you have an Obama-like sense of fairness, but when you base your code for military actions on account %s instead of any semblance of reality, you have some serious gaming problems.

Do you think that it's also fair that 1 person works one day, earns $1 and then gives 50% of it for taxes. Another person works real hard for a month earning $100 (smarter and harder job) and also pays 50% for taxes.
Then your idea, like Obama, would be that they both get the same benefits for those 50% taxes.

See how bad that idea is? This will be my last wave if that's what I can expect from the coding. Oh and Zar, you are meaningless. There are losers like you in every game who don't bother to do the hard work that it takes to contend, but expect to somehow get notice or congratulations for effectively doing nothing. I blame our current education system where everyone is treated like a winner no matter how little they accomplish or how STUPID they are. Just get out of school Zar or are you STILL a winner? LOL

T1_T2 wrote:A typical loser who doesn't even acknowledge that he also tried to assassinate me 4 or 5 times but failed every time. Instead, he shows how pathetic the coding is that allows a player with half the attack strength to manage to kill equal numbers of units.

I mean seriously Mr. Author, I know that you have an Obama-like sense of fairness, but when you base your code for military actions on account %s instead of any semblance of reality, you have some serious gaming problems.

Do you think that it's also fair that 1 person works one day, earns $1 and then gives 50% of it for taxes. Another person works real hard for a month earning $100 (smarter and harder job) and also pays 50% for taxes.
Then your idea, like Obama, would be that they both get the same benefits for those 50% taxes.

See how bad that idea is? This will be my last wave if that's what I can expect from the coding. Oh and Zar, you are meaningless. There are losers like you in every game who don't bother to do the hard work that it takes to contend, but expect to somehow get notice or congratulations for effectively doing nothing. I blame our current education system where everyone is treated like a winner no matter how little they accomplish or how STUPID they are. Just get out of school Zar or are you STILL a winner? LOL

Good to see you on the forum t1_t2. Anyways, there are 4 things that factor in as to how much you lose when our assault/get assaulted.

1) Techs: The higher the tech, the less troops he needs for the appropriate power

2) Amount of Troops Used: Less troops = less losses period. (maybe you did not have them all armed??? this causes more damage to your troops as well but less damage to your weapons)

3) Weapon Power: Depending on the weapon level and tech, this could push the outcome of an assault mission in the attackers/defenders favor.

4) Attacking Strategy: This is what changes the tide. The right strategy can hel you significantly when assaulting someone.

I hope this explains what happened loss wise.

I had higher tech level weapons, more defenders, and NO unarmed defenders.

Coding sucks. It is set up to make it easier for smaller players to remain competitive. It's the same reason
you can sabotage 2 weapons with 1 million agents and only destroy 1 of the 2. Oh yeah, and lose 50,000 agents in the process!!!!! What a joke.
The fact is, real life battles CAN BE ROUTS. When your position gets overrun by the enemy,
you don't magically only lose one-quarter of your guys and also get to the enemy line up to kill half of theirs.
YOU GET WIPED OUT. Does Viet Nam ring any bells for anyone? Forward fire bases were lost all the time despite having better training, supplies, weapons and air support.

This isn't just sour grapes. This is a clarion call to get it fixed. Basing losses as a percentage of one's army,
or the losses suffered by covert agents or assassins assigned to a mission is INCREDIBLY lazy. The idea that
you will automatically lose 5% of your agents in a mission where you are going against a tiny fraction of your
force is ludicrous. Sure, it's easy as hell to program, but it just doesn't make any sense at all.

If me and 3 friends armed with pistols open up a door, but lo and behold there are 50 guys with machine guns
on the other side, if you think that we should somehow have killed 30 of them and only lost one of my friends, you need to switch over to fantasy games instead of war/battle simulation games.

Justify the coding any way you want. It is just bad.
Simple % loss calculations don't work unless you implement a non-linear compensation scaling factor.

T1_T2 wrote:I had higher tech level weapons, more defenders, and NO unarmed defenders.

Coding sucks. It is set up to make it easier for smaller players to remain competitive. It's the same reason
you can sabotage 2 weapons with 1 million agents and only destroy 1 of the 2. Oh yeah, and lose 50,000 agents in the process!!!!! What a joke.
The fact is, real life battles CAN BE ROUTS. When your position gets overrun by the enemy,
you don't magically only lose one-quarter of your guys and also get to the enemy line up to kill half of theirs.
YOU GET WIPED OUT. Does Viet Nam ring any bells for anyone? Forward fire bases were lost all the time despite having better training, supplies, weapons and air support.

This isn't just sour grapes. This is a clarion call to get it fixed. Basing losses as a percentage of one's army,
or the losses suffered by covert agents or assassins assigned to a mission is INCREDIBLY lazy. The idea that
you will automatically lose 5% of your agents in a mission where you are going against a tiny fraction of your
force is ludicrous. Sure, it's easy as hell to program, but it just doesn't make any sense at all.

If me and 3 friends armed with pistols open up a door, but lo and behold there are 50 guys with machine guns
on the other side, if you think that we should somehow have killed 30 of them and only lost one of my friends, you need to switch over to fantasy games instead of war/battle simulation games.

Justify the coding any way you want. It is just bad.
Simple % loss calculations don't work unless you implement a non-linear compensation scaling factor.

If this were the case, then the big players could just rape anyone they please because they sent a boatload more soldiers/spies/assassins.

Im not sure why he had = damages though. That doesn't seem right. Anyways, if you are that upset, then take out his offense.

T1_T2 wrote:The idea that you will automatically lose 5% of your agents in a mission where you are going against a tiny fraction of your
force is ludicrous. Sure, it's easy as hell to program, but it just doesn't make any sense at all.

You send more agents, there's a bigger chance one of them will get spotted, makes perfect sense to everyone

T1_T2 wrote:If me and 3 friends armed with pistols open up a door, but lo and behold there are 50 guys with machine guns
on the other side, if you think that we should somehow have killed 30 of them and only lost one of my friends, you need to switch over to fantasy games instead of war/battle simulation games.

Yh a game with such coding would really suck.
In aw you can do a test, the defender would lose 0 units and you'd lose 1 or 2 before your guys manage to run away

I agree T1 T2 that the coding is unrealistic. Even the reasoning behind it is as well, BUT I have played a game that did as you said and it didn't last 3 months before dieing. The top ten players banded together and literally wiped out the rest of the server because no one had the man power to kill more then 1 guy at a time where the top ten killed 100's or 1000's per hit. In that style of coding once the gap opens up, there is no recovery.

Its a lot like the update where a smaller strike can steal kuwel from a bigger defense. Even when the strike is soooo small it receives devastating damage and the defense doesn't lose a man, the strike still steals a % of kuwel. I mean I personally agree that a smaller strike can hit a entire defense of the planet as it is scattered around. I mean there must be a bank with no guard or only 1 guard so its an easy hit,,,, but when you hit a planet with a wall of guards around the entire bank, every one, well you shouldn't get anything, but you do.

Spoiler:

I agree with T1_T2 here,
the coding is not realistic as Nomas said, and battles cost way too much kuwal. Thats why everyone avoids to fight and prefer to keep working on stats. I think the cost of attacking should be lowered or missions changed so there will be more action on the server, alliances would become more important(you could get massed faster) and officer/commander relation as well.
I love to fight and recover but not when you almost lose more than you gain, and then recover for a month or more to have everything back on schedule.

buhcoreTheGreat wrote:

I agree with T1_T2 here,
the coding is not realistic as Nomas said, and battles cost way too much kuwal. Thats why everyone avoids to fight and prefer to keep working on stats. I think the cost of attacking should be lowered or missions changed so there will be more action on the server, alliances would become more important(you could get massed faster) and officer/commander relation as well.
I love to fight and recover but not when you almost lose more than you gain, and then recover for a month or more to have everything back on schedule.

I agree with long recovery times being a action killer, I mean you only have 3 months after all. a 1 week vaction is a round killer, so 1 month of recovery most definitely is.

I disagree on making alliances more important tho, TBH I'd rather see them limited strictly or removed from the game altogether, simplely because of the limited player base. I mean look at it now, basicly 2 alliances and 90% of the power players in 1 alliance. There is no challenge if all the power players are in the same alliance and no one fights them is there?

this is the reset guys, propose some reasonable suggestions and we may be able to work something out to get more fights.

However: having a system where you mass a defense for half the cost it takes to build it is not a sensible suggestion since all it will result in is people walking around with a token defense.
Yes you will be able to mass a defense cheaply, but you will not get to mass anything at all because no one will bother building it.

One might say that AW is slow paced but I'd like to point out that the TIE/TOC war had defenses still standing after the war ended and people were actively rebuilding defenses to very high values even during the war. Leaving always plenty of targets to mass.
Unlike in some other games where you had all defenses wiped in the first half a day unless you could hide out on protection for long enough.

Admin wrote:this is the reset guys, propose some reasonable suggestions and we may be able to work something out to get more fights.

I'll go open a new thread as to not spam this one up with suggestion.


https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/reset-game-suggestions-f36/next-rd-suggestions-per-admin-request-t1879.htm#22598

As I said, this wasn't sour grapes, so I will certainly make suggestions. I would also agree with Aspire's comment that a game that doesn't allow small players any hope of catching up or even being competitive WILL die, (ie. SGW Origins). HOWEVER, THIS IS RESET. Everyone starts on an even playing ground and has an equal chance of getting out front. And if you fall behind, don't worry, it will all start over in a couple of months. Heck, perhaps make it a 2 month game?

BUT NO, I don't agree that you have to make it so easy for a weak player to topple a huge player, because the huge player earned that on an equal footing. It just means that you really have to advertise the hell out of the starting dates so that people don't start out with a big disadvantage. But even then . . . (SUGGESTION coming) - You could start them out with a graduated amount of starting kuwal AND make their accounts protected (even if they farm) until they spend ALL of that initial amount of kuwal. Give them warning prior to losing protection, as is done now, but based on amount spent. Kuwal could go from 50M (day 1) to 250M or so (day 14), then everyone is still pretty much getting in with an even shot. Or re-scale those values to what makes it more even.

You understand that initial values should not be pilferable or else players will cheat (shocked gasp!) and sign up feeder accounts later just to allow their primary account to grow faster.

And why doesn't a player have a choice to select a different nick/ID# than Main. Again, I know it's easier coding, but it makes for cross-server problems which we saw early on. It's not like having those initial 80 pages of inactive space-holders adds to Reset's excitement.

By the way, look at the battle results more closely, those 3 guys with pistols would do some damage. Well maybe not 3, but 5 guys with pistols would have equal kills with 10 guys with machine guns. It's not just me, so stop being defensive and fix it.

T1_T2 wrote:And why doesn't a player have a choice to select a different nick/ID# than Main. Again, I know it's easier coding, but it makes for cross-server problems which we saw early on. It's not like having those initial 80 pages of inactive space-holders adds to Reset's excitement.

Having a system where you can change the ID is very complicated as I cannot simply give the next highest ID that is available.
And if you read my posts from before you will know that it was a plan to allow such option to exist. I have now solved the underlying problem so that option will be available starting next round.

T1_T2 wrote:By the way, look at the battle results more closely, those 3 guys with pistols would do some damage. Well maybe not 3, but 5 guys with pistols would have equal kills with 10 guys with machine guns. It's not just me, so stop being defensive and fix it.

I have a strong feeling that you have little clue as to how the formula works right now
If you wish to discuss how the losses work make a thread in another section, bugs or general discussion or suggestions.
Either way I'm telling you that you're completely off with how the losses work

Spoiler:

I was actually targeting main server so nvm for that, my bad. I always use "View posts since last visit" and i forgot to check topic name
sorry for the spam

[quote="T1_T2"]As I said, this wasn't sour grapes, so I will certainly make suggestions. I would also agree with Aspire's comment that a game that doesn't allow small players any hope of catching up or even being competitive WILL die, (ie. SGW Origins).


I just want to clairify, that wasnt me, im aspire... and also want to say i dont endorse this thread or the actions taken on my behalf.

Why are you on vacation in main?

got bored of it, too much drama with the war that went on

Peace by the Sword farming policy is reasonable. Only 10% profit is required.

Kuwal stolen > losses + 10%

T1_T2 wrote:I had higher tech level weapons, more defenders, and NO unarmed defenders.

Coding sucks. It is set up to make it easier for smaller players to remain competitive. It's the same reason
you can sabotage 2 weapons with 1 million agents and only destroy 1 of the 2. Oh yeah, and lose 50,000 agents in the process!!!!! What a joke.
The fact is, real life battles CAN BE ROUTS. When your position gets overrun by the enemy,
you don't magically only lose one-quarter of your guys and also get to the enemy line up to kill half of theirs.
YOU GET WIPED OUT. Does Viet Nam ring any bells for anyone? Forward fire bases were lost all the time despite having better training, supplies, weapons and air support.

This isn't just sour grapes. This is a clarion call to get it fixed. Basing losses as a percentage of one's army,
or the losses suffered by covert agents or assassins assigned to a mission is INCREDIBLY lazy. The idea that
you will automatically lose 5% of your agents in a mission where you are going against a tiny fraction of your
force is ludicrous. Sure, it's easy as hell to program, but it just doesn't make any sense at all.

If me and 3 friends armed with pistols open up a door, but lo and behold there are 50 guys with machine guns
on the other side, if you think that we should somehow have killed 30 of them and only lost one of my friends, you need to switch over to fantasy games instead of war/battle simulation games.

Justify the coding any way you want. It is just bad.
Simple % loss calculations don't work unless you implement a non-linear compensation scaling factor.

1) Oversab has been removed in reset.
2) Also, small players loose less troops in assaults, BECAUSE of "Motivation", big players troops have aparently BAD motivation at fighting technologically weak enemies.

I am against both these features on reset server.

Kenzu wrote:
1) Oversab has been removed in reset.
2) Also, small players loose less troops in assaults, BECAUSE of "Motivation", big players troops have aparently BAD motivation at fighting technologically weak enemies.
I am against both these features on reset server.

Since the smaller person was the one doing the assaults, motivation had no effect at anyone's losses

Kenzu wrote:2) Also, small players loose less troops in assaults, BECAUSE of "Motivation", big players troops have aparently BAD motivation at fighting technologically weak enemies.

I am against both these features on reset server.

Lol I forgot about this >:] Thanks for reminding me.

Admin wrote:

Kenzu wrote:
1) Oversab has been removed in reset.
2) Also, small players loose less troops in assaults, BECAUSE of "Motivation", big players troops have aparently BAD motivation at fighting technologically weak enemies.
I am against both these features on reset server.

Since the smaller person was the one doing the assaults, motivation had no effect at anyone's losses

First off, when was oversabb removed and where was it announced?


Secondly, I am against a one sided bonus or advantage as well. Nothing but punishment for playing hard or playing well.

What is oversab?

sabbing someone and destroying more than 4% of weapons with one mission. However at a cost of requiring to send FAR more spies than required, hence also increasing your losses dramatically.

it got removed because there was an issue with it and i was not yet able to fix, however it's not removed per se.

nobel wrote:What is oversab?

Oversab is especially used when someone has say 5.000 armed units, but if you assault them, you kill always only a couple %, so you would never bring someones defense to 0, but if you make an oversab, you can kill all 5.000 troops at once, of course it might require you to send even 200.000 spies, your losses are much higher than damage you do, but at least you get the job done.

You might need to send 11,000 spies, 10.000 to fight enemy spies and 1.000 to destroy 5% weapons, but if you send 110.000 spies, you will manage to destroy all weapons.