Re: losses

by damgood Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:18 pm

Nomad wrote:
damgood wrote:Try to look at the bigger picture both of you .

Then again I ask you and Mystake both to explain a system you think is fair that does not blow the other end of the spectrum out. I mean Mystake wants it so if a strike is 10 times your def, it can mass you with 0 losses. Is this also what you see as fair and legitamate? I mean not liking the system is fine, but if no one can create a better system then it must not be too bad. Any new system has got to cover all players from the 1 day old, to the returning player, the the beginner, to the intermediate, the the experianced, the the biggest and most powerful. You can't just make a change based on 1 class.

As for small def versus Raiding. 0 def raiding is free(no losses). If they built a def, and a defenses pourpose is to defend, then why should anyone be able to bypass it to raid? Use 1 or 2 assaults to end it, use some spys and assassins to end it, then raid for free.

If it would be that easy ( 1 - 2 assault missions ) I wouldn't argue anymore. To get a defence to 0 is just too expensive.
First you need to kill the assasins, then kill the spies, then sab the weapons.

Edit: I think that a 10x times bigger strike should take near 0 damage, since atm as far as I know if you have
a strike less then 20% of the defence you get devastating damage. Why shouldn't that work the other way around?

by Mystake Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:01 pm

seaborgium wrote:waits for that update and then takes out the top 5 allainces in 123 hits.
hmm
saves 800 ATs and 800 STs.

No thats not inactive, when I know 4 people who can't play on the weekends.

I'm just going to ignore this post.

Like, I think you actually completely sidestepped EVERYTHING. I said 1b defense, 180k uu out. On a 30k up, thats 5-6 days of it building up.

Considering most inactives are around 10-15k UP, that's actually close to 10-14 days of it building up.

I dont know where you got this weekend stuff from, but can you tell me who that is so I can farm them on sunday night?

Look, I just want an efficient way to raid inactives (they don't hafta have zero defense to be inactive!!! if someone comes in here and tells me the opposite i *WILL* assault you in game!! get it through your thick freaking skulls that normal farming and normal raiding does not reduce someone's defense by any noticeable amount! if I abandonned my account and let ppl raid it, my defense would take eons to disappear, and honestly for some of the raids out there it is NOT WORTH IT or EFFICIENT to assault them unless because of the incredibly large amount of costs that you have to incur just to get to raid 100k off a 200k target)

if they have 1b defense adn they don't log in, there should be an EASY and EFFICIENT way to wipe it out, or make it so I can get past it the same way a defender can repell a weaker strike.

by Admin Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:05 pm

so why not wait a week longer for there to be more uu's?

by damgood Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:27 pm

Admin wrote:so why not wait a week longer for there to be more uu's?

And then what ? Wait another month ?

Give a decent explanation on why NOT adopting his suggestion rather than
discarding it... Mad

@Mystake

Just give up. No matter how good your arguments are you'll be punched in the face.
I've been in your situation a long time ago when I though something would change.
The reality is that AW is for players who log in 2 MAX 3 times a day and that's all, no challenges.
It's no wonder that people get bored of it. And sadly it's just gonna stay this way.

by seaborgium Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:48 pm

tbh if ya don't like it people have offered a way out. Since ya don't like that then I guess your SOL.

by Admin Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 am

damgood wrote:And then what ? Wait another month ?

I'm still waiting to hear from him why he can't just make one oversab to clear the def which he wants to do and then raid whatever he wants

damgood wrote:Give a decent explanation on why NOT adopting his suggestion rather than
discarding it...

Everyone has already told you. A raid mission raids units, doesn't destroy defenses.
Your guys shoot just long enough to occupy the defenders but dont bother storming their defenses because then you'd lose twice as many units. Your soldiers dont want to die. If you want to clear the def, order an assault. If you want to steal units, dont be surprised if they dont put effort into getting themselves killed just to get a few more defenders

damgood wrote:Just give up. No matter how good your arguments are you'll be punched in the face.

The simple issue is that he has NO arguments atm, and hasn't presented any yet. If he does I'll gladly hear them out.
All he said "if i have a big strike i SHOULD destroy the def"
or "if i win i SHOULD kill more than i lose"

Do you really want me to go and copy paste you the definition of an "ARGUMENT"?

by seaborgium Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:49 am

I like how he side stepped my post based on the 2nd part but didn't say anything about the first part.

by Nomad Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:06 am

Nomad wrote:
damgood wrote:Try to look at the bigger picture both of you .

Then again I ask you and Mystake both to explain a system you think is fair that does not blow the other end of the spectrum out. I mean Mystake wants it so if a strike is 10 times your def, it can mass you with 0 losses. Is this also what you see as fair and legitamate? I mean not liking the system is fine, but if no one can create a better system then it must not be too bad. Any new system has got to cover all players from the 1 day old, to the returning player, the the beginner, to the intermediate, the the experianced, the the biggest and most powerful. You can't just make a change based on 1 class.

As for small def versus Raiding. 0 def raiding is free(no losses). If they built a def, and a defenses pourpose is to defend, then why should anyone be able to bypass it to raid? Use 1 or 2 assaults to end it, use some spys and assassins to end it, then raid for free.

As we have all said, it aint perfect, but no one can bring anything better. Both of you have completely refused to address the other end of the spectrum on these changes your asking for,,, and sorry but a massive strike accepting no losses is suicide for a game and if someone is to blind to understand that,,,,,,,,,,,,,

by damgood Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:35 am

@Admin
I said decent explanation not shitty as you always do. I'll repeat myself. "If you want to clear
the def, order an assault." How many times do I have to repeat myself and tell you that with
assault you're not zeroing the defence? Read what I have posted above:

damgood wrote:
If it would be that easy ( 1 - 2 assault missions ) I wouldn't argue anymore. To get a defence to 0 is just too expensive.
First you need to kill the assasins, then kill the spies, then sab the weapons.

By the way I find this funny: "If you want to steal units, dont be surprised if they dont put effort into getting themselves killed just to get a few more defenders". Right so if they are 10 times more then the defending forces they are stupid enough to "no put effort" in shooting with their weapons and get killed. Laughing

Thus, your 1st argument falls.

Admin wrote:
damgood wrote:And then what ? Wait another month ?
I'm still waiting to hear from him why he can't just make one oversab to clear the def which he wants to do and then raid whatever he wants

I have already explained above why this is nonsense. I'll write again, maybe you'll actually read it:

damgood wrote:
If it would be that easy ( 1 - 2 assault missions ) I wouldn't argue anymore. To get a defence to 0 is just too expensive.
First you need to kill the assasins, then kill the spies, then sab the weapons.

Admin wrote:
Do you really want me to go and copy paste you the definition of an "ARGUMENT"?

No, I would like you to read it again.
To continue in the same fashion I'll repeat the main argument myself again:
1m soldiers attacks 10k soldiers and sustains more deaths.
Isn't it clear ?

by damgood Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:38 am

Nomad wrote:
As we have all said, it aint perfect, but no one can bring anything better. Both of you have completely refused to address the other end of the spectrum on these changes your asking for,,, and sorry but a massive strike accepting no losses is suicide for a game and if someone is to blind to understand that,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I agree with this, but how many have admitted that the system is flawed? And how many have
at least tried to make a suggestion for a change?
Mystake made one pretty simple suggestion. If the strike is x times bigger than the defence, then
the losses should be 0. All we'd need to do is discuss the value of x. Also, on the same line, don't
you find this odd? :

damgood wrote:
Edit: I think that a 10x times bigger strike should take near 0 damage, since atm as far as I know if you have
a strike less then 20% of the defence you get devastating damage. Why shouldn't that work the other way around?

by damgood Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:41 am

@seaborgium

Your posts are full of sarcasm without a reason, rather then *** kissing admin.

by Manleva Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:55 am

So far all I have seen is a suggestion that if your strike is 10 times greater than the defense then you should have no losses.

This is because there are some inactive players that have a small defense and it is to costly for them to be raided profitably.

I have yet to see either Mystake of Damgood comment on the effects that this will have with active players.

I have to ask what you think this is going to do with both farming and raiding between active players considering all of the issues that this raises.

If you can come up with a decent balanced formula then I will consider discussing it with you. But remember your formula has to be balanced and cover all players and not be open to exploitation. The whole picture needs to be considered not just one small insignificant part.

by ghyogod Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:03 am

one idea:
if atack> 5*def
atack loses 4%
def loses 0.5%
else
atack loses a*(5d/a)*4%= 5def*4% = def* 20%
def loses d*(a/5d)*0.5% = a*0.1%

as admin will observe the losses function is continuous for both sides.
this increases the defence losses. if that does not satisfy just keep the old setting for the defence side losses.

by seaborgium Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:06 am

@damgood
you of all people should know that I am no fan of admin.

@manleva
you mean like if I build a 400b strike, last checked the largest def was 40b and just massing people. While I take 0 losses yet screw them over. Or since I would take 0 losses I could just farm them for almost any amount of kuwal and be within almost any farm policy.

by Nomad Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:51 am

seaborgium wrote:@damgood
you of all people should know that I am no fan of admin.

@manleva
you mean like if I build a 400b strike, last checked the largest def was 40b and just massing people. While I take 0 losses yet screw them over. Or since I would take 0 losses I could just farm them for almost any amount of kuwal and be within almost any farm policy.

Not to mention those with 30+ mill army sizes who could put 100% into strike, never suffer losses, and farm every account in the game. Those who say anything just get massed for no losses. Its ludacrist.

Some just want to be able to bypass a standing def for free instead of having to pay for it.

613 mill def. I 0'ed it in 4 assaults and 3 sabbs. Then took all the UU for free.

You feel that is entirely to much? 7 actions to remove 613 mill def?

damgood wrote:
Nomad wrote:
As we have all said, it aint perfect, but no one can bring anything better. Both of you have completely refused to address the other end of the spectrum on these changes your asking for,,, and sorry but a massive strike accepting no losses is suicide for a game and if someone is to blind to understand that,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I agree with this, but how many have admitted that the system is flawed? And how many have
at least tried to make a suggestion for a change?
Mystake made one pretty simple suggestion. If the strike is x times bigger than the defence, then
the losses should be 0. All we'd need to do is discuss the value of x.
First you need to look at everyone, all accounts. You have yet to address the other end of the spectrum. What you going to do with an account who arms 30 mill strikers? By your suggestion they are impervious to all attacks as they will suffer no losses from attacking nor being atacked. anyone who begins to build to catch him can be massed for 0 losses. And yet again no one can explain why it is a new or smaller playerd defensive soilders should not offer the same protection as everyone elses. Just because your a few days old, or a few weeks old, or you just got massed/had a war your def soilders should be crap and useless?

Also, on the same line, don't
you find this odd? :
damgood wrote:
Edit: I think that a 10x times bigger strike should take near 0 damage, since atm as far as I know if you have
a strike less then 20% of the defence you get devastating damage. Why shouldn't that work the other way around?
No, not a bit. It stops a 1 man strike team from massing a 30 mill army size. Its an old system put in place years ago to over come a game flaw. Think about it and it makes sense.

by damgood Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:26 pm

@Nomad
You have a point with small players, so the formula wouldn't work in this form,
it needs tweaking.
On the other hand building a huge strike would take time and your enemies wouldn't
just sit around and let you build it. It would be just a form to screw your account and
make the enemy laugh at you.

by Admin Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:09 pm

Nomad wrote:
damgood wrote:
Edit: I think that a 10x times bigger strike should take near 0 damage, since atm as far as I know if you have
a strike less then 20% of the defence you get devastating damage. Why shouldn't that work the other way around?
No, not a bit. It stops a 1 man strike team from massing a 30 mill army size. Its an old system put in place years ago to over come a game flaw. Think about it and it makes sense.

Actually tbh the old game flaw only existed because everyone used the crappy weapons systems where weapon damages totally ignored the power differences. In here it really wouldn't work, but I've kept it in the game just because everyone got used to it and I really could never be bothered to have another fight with everyone how removing the devastating damage bit would not adversely affect them even the tiniest bit.

Anyways crappy "old"/other game system:
Let's say for each weapon you needed to pay 100 naq per attack to repair it back.
If you had 1 mil weapons and attacked a 0 def person, you still had to pay 100 mil to repair them all (hint hint: 1 attacker inactive farming/raiding anyone?)
The same applied to defenses. A crappy strike attacked you. The issue wasn't that you lost 3k units and they only lost 1.
You lost also just one unit, but your weapons still got damaged by 100 mil naq, while the attacker only needed to pay 100 naq.

End result? you got hit 40 times, then suddenly your weapons are friggin gone, your 999,960 defensive soldiers are unarmed and then the enemy keeps attacking with 1 armed unit. With the next attack you will lose over 50k defenders.

by Nomad Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:37 pm

I don't know about you, but losing 3K men per hit to a 1 man strike force still isnt acceptable. Remove devistating damage and I personally think you will have made a monumental mistake,,,, but you know the system better then I so I won't argue it.

by Admin Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:51 pm

Nomad wrote:I don't know about you, but losing 3K men per hit to a 1 man strike force still isnt acceptable. Remove devistating damage and I personally think you will have made a monumental mistake,,,, but you know the system better then I so I won't argue it.

I think you read it incorrectly. I said that the issue wasn't that you would lose 3k units because you would have lost only 1 while the attacker also loses just 1 (unit losses were modified by power ratio, so if say you normally lost 2%, then in this case you would lose one millionth of the 2% [which would round up to 1])

Either way, on AW both sides would lose 1 unit and 1 weapon each. A theoretical issue would arise is that someone sends 1 unit armed with a knife vs your 1 million using MA and both of you would lose 1 unit and weapon with each attack.
Though it's just a theoretical issue since I can't imagine anyone being able to run hundreds of thousands of attacks to clean a defense.

by kingkongfan1 Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:38 pm

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:
damgood wrote:
Edit: I think that a 10x times bigger strike should take near 0 damage, since atm as far as I know if you have
a strike less then 20% of the defence you get devastating damage. Why shouldn't that work the other way around?
No, not a bit. It stops a 1 man strike team from massing a 30 mill army size. Its an old system put in place years ago to over come a game flaw. Think about it and it makes sense.
Actually tbh the old game flaw only existed because everyone used the crappy weapons systems where weapon damages totally ignored the power differences. In here it really wouldn't work, but I've kept it in the game just because everyone got used to it and I really could never be bothered to have another fight with everyone how removing the devastating damage bit would not adversely affect them even the tiniest bit.
not interested in fighting with you, but I would like you to explain the above statement (in bold) in detail... thank you... Also the system below IS crap! I hated it then, & am glad it is gone...

Anyways crappy "old"/other game system:
Let's say for each weapon you needed to pay 100 naq per attack to repair it back.
If you had 1 mil weapons and attacked a 0 def person, you still had to pay 100 mil to repair them all (hint hint: 1 attacker inactive farming/raiding anyone?)
The same applied to defenses. A crappy strike attacked you. The issue wasn't that you lost 3k units and they only lost 1.
You lost also just one unit, but your weapons still got damaged by 100 mil naq, while the attacker only needed to pay 100 naq.

End result? you got hit 40 times, then suddenly your weapons are friggin gone, your 999,960 defensive soldiers are unarmed and then the enemy keeps attacking with 1 armed unit. With the next attack you will lose over 50k defenders.

by Admin Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:27 am

kingkongfan1 wrote: not interested in fighting with you, but I would like you to explain the above statement (in bold) in detail... thank you... Also the system below IS crap! I hated it then, & am glad it is gone...

A bunch of times when I made updates, of those after all was said and done people actually ended up liking, I had to fight tooth and nail to persuade people of how what I want to do will not break whatever was before that.

Maybe I'm just overreacting, but my main point was:
Devastating damage has little justification to exist currently but I see no particular reason to remove it, on the other hand there might end up being a few cryers. Since the issue is petty and has virtually no effect on active people, there's no reason to fiddle in it.

by seaborgium Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:29 am

honestly I think that if your not with in 20x the def or strike you should see what its value. I know people that use cheap tricks to find out what peoples def/strikes are.

by Nomad Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:29 am

maybe it was slow, or lack of explination that often befuddles people. Most of the time the explinations and reasoning has to be drawn out of you over days or weeks. A good explination "prior" to an update can change much.

Just as what you are saying may be true, but in actual attacks ingame that can not be seen as a strike much smaller can not only steal kewal with a fraction of the defense, but also get repelled on every strike and still kill more then is lost. Therefore it is a rational though process to assume it goes all the way down to even 1 man.

As sea suggested, 1 man attacks are easy way to see a persons def and strike. So even if devistating damage is removed, I hope the actual showing of the stat is withheld at some point.

by Kenzu Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:50 pm

seaborgium wrote:honestly I think that if your not with in 20x the def or strike you should see what its value. I know people that use cheap tricks to find out what peoples def/strikes are.

the only "cheap trick" I can think of is a 1 AT attack

the normal possibility would be to make a single assault.

by Mystake Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:45 pm

Admin wrote:
damgood wrote:And then what ? Wait another month ?
I'm still waiting to hear from him why he can't just make one oversab to clear the def which he wants to do and then raid whatever he wants

damgood wrote:Give a decent explanation on why NOT adopting his suggestion rather than
discarding it...
Everyone has already told you. A raid mission raids units, doesn't destroy defenses.
Your guys shoot just long enough to occupy the defenders but dont bother storming their defenses because then you'd lose twice as many units. Your soldiers dont want to die. If you want to clear the def, order an assault. If you want to steal units, dont be surprised if they dont put effort into getting themselves killed just to get a few more defenders

damgood wrote:Just give up. No matter how good your arguments are you'll be punched in the face.
The simple issue is that he has NO arguments atm, and hasn't presented any yet. If he does I'll gladly hear them out.
All he said "if i have a big strike i SHOULD destroy the def"
or "if i win i SHOULD kill more than i lose"

Do you really want me to go and copy paste you the definition of an "ARGUMENT"?

I tried to oversab someone. my spies were caught, I lost a whole bunch.

so now, how do I take out their covert so that I can oversab them?

seriously martin, you're your own game over. I keep seeing nail, after nail in the coffin. This isn't the game you wanted. You wanted an SGW, but the original SGW.

Instead, you're trying to create a cash cow

Guess what, 5$ from 1000 people is way more than 20$ from 250 Smile

edit: if raiding is just long enuff to steal units, and elsewise u'd take 2x the damage
why did I take two times the damage?

clearly raiding is a quick BLAST attack so there should be little damage to the assailant.

martin

I bet you, with this exact same game, I could make way more money than you.

by Sponsored content