Farming "Fake" kuwal

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:just what exactly are you proposing admin? your saying you are going to raise damages to those who have spent trillions of kuwal into their techs compared to those who have spent only a few 100bil?

I have no clue what kind of situation you're trying to explain with that so I'll play safe and say no.
Are you really trying to make me write a 2 page explanation of how your question is very vague and apparently intentional of causing panic and/or misleading people?

I mean what I said. If you now want to think of weird suggestions that there is no point of discussing them other than scaring some people who like to cry about everything then that's your time you can spend it on.

I'm saying that it wont help the game if you can walk around attacking people who are tiny in size, forcing them to invest so much in defense that they have no chance whatsoever of growing. It wasn't so much of a deal when people with 150% attacked someone with 100%. It is a big deal if someone with 280% will attack someone with 120%.

Something like first 40% above the enemy, the improvement is unaffected. After that you get half the benefit for the next 60% and if you're more than 100% above the enemy you dont get any further benefit.
Obviously there would be no such thing for attacking someone with better techs. So you would always want to improve your attack and defense techs. Since lower techs always means getting killed by the enemy and being unable to attack them efficiently.

Would such a change "raise damages to those who have spent trillions of kuwal into their techs compared to those who have spent only a few 100bil"?
Not the tiniest bit. Someone with trilions of kuwal into their techs would suffer LESS damages than someone who spent only a few 100 bil attacking someone who spent trilions of kuwal into their techs.

If at the same time we introduce something that will promote farming of active accounts then I have no trouble with that. Such as a second batch of kuwal being produced by an account that can only get stolen, not used. Meaning that even if you bank 100% of the time. Someone can eventually make a profit by attacking you. (TBH an idea I am very much in favor of and would be willing to test out)
(Imagine it like the government keeping their gold at fort nox, which location is a secret, but eventually the civilians themselves also get richer since no one attacks them. Then one day an army comes and even if they can't get into nox since they have no clue where it is, they know where the civilians live and rob them)

I hate all of you - for jumping at me for making suggestions then turning around and making extremely similar ones yourselves.

Mystake wrote:I hate all of you - for jumping at me for making suggestions then turning around and making extremely similar ones yourselves.

Maybe it has to do something with how the arguments are presented? IDK

admin wrote:
A new player with 1-2 mil army and 130-140% techs has no way of defending against someone with 240%+ unless they put 20% of their army into defense, which is just ridiculous.

sorry i misread about the other part and was just trying to get the point across if people who spent time raising their techs were going to suffer from this potential update or not, which apparently to some extent are.

admin wrote:Something like first 40% above the enemy, the improvement is unaffected. After that you get half the benefit for the next 60% and if you're more than 100% above the enemy you dont get any further benefit.

i assume pbp will be implemented into this. if i attacked someone with 200% defense tech (i have 315% total strike tech) i would essentially be only gaining a 77% increase instead of 115%. just sayin but that is a 3.5 TRILLION kuwal investment i lose from just those 38% tech increases.

anyways off to the next part.
so it would be something to the effect of a non bankable income that would continuously grow to the point anyone could farm. I'm not against it. Do you think people would just raise their defenses even more then though? would it be similar to RA?

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:I have rank 2 strike with 20,478,966,105 strike action.
I think 200 times higher strike is feasible, since this means that I can farm and raid people with no losses if their defense is only 102 million.

Let's be realistic here. Anyone can go and farm 20 people, and with this money can train and arm 10.000 soldiers and his defense will become useful already even with 0 tech upgrades.

Now I dont understand what you mean by held down, because in a war, someone who has 100 mill defense will be farmed every turn anyway, and in farm missions where attacker has no losses, the defender wouldnt have losses either.

You NEVER stated the defense would suffer no losses. You might want to actually say things such as this and not just ASSUME that it is a given. Would go along way towards allowing people to understand you better.

Now with the fact you now say no losses to attack and no losses to defense that changes things. As for turn farming you are wrong tho. Every war I have every been in very FEW people actually got turned farmed. The static quo was to build a small and cheap defense because the cost to hit them was very high so it took 3 to 5 hours to be farmed for profit.

Ultimately, 200 times is big enough I do not think this can be abused and I am not against the suggestion,,, but I also can not say I am for it. I think a better idea is out there, but this is a step in the right direction.

Next time read my posts more carefully. I have not only written it in the first post, but it was also in bold. Let me copy paste and make it red for you:

Kenzu wrote:My strike was 15.000 times higher than enemy defense and still I have losses.
Sure the losses aren't high, but I suggest the following:

When farming or raiding someone and attacker has 200 or 1000 times higher force, than enemy defense, then enemy should simply "flee in panic" and there should be no losses on both sides.

...

Kingofshinobis1 wrote: i assume pbp will be implemented into this. if i attacked someone with 200% defense tech (i have 315% total strike tech) i would essentially be only gaining a 77% increase instead of 115%. just sayin but that is a 3.5 TRILLION kuwal investment i lose from just those 38% tech increases.

That's clearly not the case since if you attack someone with a 300% total defense tech then you have not lost a single kuwal of your investment. Same thing with having destruction missions made upon you since your attack units will always keep their full power.

Either way you'll only be affected if you're attacking someone you most likely shouldn't be attacking in the first place (i.e. techs at 130%).
There is also the option that we this only for farm/raid if I hadn't clarified that already.

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:anyways off to the next part.
so it would be something to the effect of a non bankable income that would continuously grow to the point anyone could farm. I'm not against it. Do you think people would just raise their defenses even more then though? would it be similar to RA?

There's one major difference between what I am suggesting and what RA has.
On RA that non-bankable amount DIRECTLY translates to how much you will receive in the next round. Since:
Income -> Non-bankable/stealable -> bankable/unstealable
So bigger def means you can reach your full income if your non-bankable doesn't get attacked.

My suggestion was that Income gets split into 2 equal piles (for whoever is about to cry over such petty details like their income getting cut, imagine I said the income gets doubled then split):
-> Non-bankable/stealable
-> bankable/stealable

The non-bankable would just keep piling up, in RA it gets deducted and turned into bankable. Eventually the non-bankable would be enough to give a profit even if you have no bankable kuwal out.

End result:
- Eventually EVERYONE will get farmed and it only depends on their defense how long between the hits. In wars even those who can bank 24/7 would be farmable by the other side which is something that is severly lacking.
- Actives produce much more, and for the fun of it we could set it up that whoever doesn't login for a week stops producing that extra amount so that we dont inflate inactive farms needlessly. Building a big strike would be that much more profitable
- People do not lose any of their own kuwal extra during these hits and we have the benefit that we are not inflating kuwal production for no reason
- There is no way to avoid them, so everyone will get farmed and while some people might end up hating this totally, it would make AW definitely a better game.

Admin wrote:

Kingofshinobis1 wrote: i assume pbp will be implemented into this. if i attacked someone with 200% defense tech (i have 315% total strike tech) i would essentially be only gaining a 77% increase instead of 115%. just sayin but that is a 3.5 TRILLION kuwal investment i lose from just those 38% tech increases.

That's clearly not the case since if you attack someone with a 300% total defense tech then you have not lost a single kuwal of your investment. Same thing with having destruction missions made upon you since your attack units will always keep their full power.

Either way you'll only be affected if you're attacking someone you most likely shouldn't be attacking in the first place (i.e. techs at 130%).
There is also the option that we this only for farm/raid if I hadn't clarified that already.

I think you may have gotten mixed up with what I was saying. I meant that I currently have 315% total strike so my farming could be more efficient. The average defense tech around the server is 200% + or - 10%. I have an initial 240% without penalty. I then get the next 60% cut in half so I would have 270% (240 + 60/2). The next 15% are untouched as that is over the 100% limit thing. So in total I would have 285% instead of 315%. Considering to raise my techs another 30% to counter the loss is 3,050,675,000,000 that seems like a lot to me just sayin i WOULD lose kuwal value from my strike. and a lot of it.

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:anyways off to the next part.
so it would be something to the effect of a non bankable income that would continuously grow to the point anyone could farm. I'm not against it. Do you think people would just raise their defenses even more then though? would it be similar to RA?

There's one major difference between what I am suggesting and what RA has.
On RA that non-bankable amount DIRECTLY translates to how much you will receive in the next round. Since:
Income -> Non-bankable/stealable -> bankable/unstealable
So bigger def means you can reach your full income if your non-bankable doesn't get attacked.

My suggestion was that Income gets split into 2 equal piles (for whoever is about to cry over such petty details like their income getting cut, imagine I said the income gets doubled then split):
-> Non-bankable/stealable
-> bankable/stealable

I actually kinda like this part a lot. It's an interesting idea.

The non-bankable would just keep piling up, in RA it gets deducted and turned into bankable. Eventually the non-bankable would be enough to give a profit even if you have no bankable kuwal out.

This will give people with huge strikes a major advantage but I don't really care and can't make a decision without being biased as I am strike based

End result:
- Eventually EVERYONE will get farmed and it only depends on their defense how long between the hits. In wars even those who can bank 24/7 would be farmable by the other side which is something that is severly lacking.
- Actives produce much more, and for the fun of it we could set it up that whoever doesn't login for a week stops producing that extra amount so that we dont inflate inactive farms needlessly. Building a big strike would be that much more profitable
- People do not lose any of their own kuwal extra during these hits and we have the benefit that we are not inflating kuwal production for no reason
- There is no way to avoid them, so everyone will get farmed and while some people might end up hating this totally, it would make AW definitely a better game.

I agree that this would make things far more interesting and perhaps change all of those "tank accs" from just building huge defenses. I also agree that this will make a lot of people unhappy lol. Personally I like the idea as it brings a new, fun element to the game.

Admin wrote:A different issue that will need to get adressed, and which WILL get adressed somehow, the only question is how exactly, will be that people with a big technological advantage farm people with low techs.

A new player with 1-2 mil army and 130-140% techs has no way of defending against someone with 240%+ unless they put 20% of their army into defense, which is just ridiculous.

But you forget that the player with 240% techs spent a lot of kuwal to do that.
It can't be compared with making 160-170% which is a good enough percent
to prevent you from farming when you are small.
Also, a 1-2 mill army guy can't gather over night much kuwal to make it profitable to farm.
Ex: 2m farmers => 100m/turn => 2.4b/24h, which can be easily defended with
a 2b defence. For that kind of defence you don't even need to have such a high
percent on the def techs because it's cheaper to train units.

So my point is that nothing is wrong, even 100 times higher seems too much for me.
Such a number reminds me of "This is Sparta" .

damgood wrote:But you forget that the player with 240% techs spent a lot of kuwal to do that.

And they will still have their full benefit when attacking someone who has a 200% defense.

damgood wrote:Also, a 1-2 mill army guy can't gather over night much kuwal to make it profitable to farm.
Ex: 2m farmers => 100m/turn => 2.4b/24h, which can be easily defended with
a 2b defence. For that kind of defence you don't even need to have such a high
percent on the def techs because it's cheaper to train units.

Thank you for understanding what I meant by "unless they put 20% of their army into defense, which is just ridiculous."

what about my post

I think AE does enough to hurt bigger players. Removing a large % of their military might is not needed or warrented. Smaller players are very well defended from bigger players based solely on the damage recieved by bigger players when they hit small defenses. There are strike that would suffer 4 or 5 bill in losses to take the 2.5 bill off these accounts you seek to protect.

Just run it through a beta/test first, because I can not see the need or benifit from this idea.

@ Admin

Spoiler:

I can already tell you how to exploit this idea and make it useless for the most part,,,, atleast for those in alliances,,,, most importantly power alliances. If you want I'll PM you with the details and you can decided for yourself.

Just because they would hit each other?

I'll make a random shot and say your answer includes protections.
To which I would say that this extra kuwal wont get produced when on protection.
Any further issues?

in house alliance farms would probably become warranted with this update. i like it a lot for some reason.

Admin wrote:Just because they would hit each other?

I'll make a random shot and say your answer includes protections.
To which I would say that this extra kuwal wont get produced when on protection.
Any further issues?

1st part yeah

2nd part, I do not really see how it fits into the equation in a manner not covered under 1.

AW is ruled by farming policies,, and as some alliances have previously done teams will be set up to farm this "extra" kewal from each other inner alliance. Anyone outside the alliance will suffer the same fate as now when you break a farming policy.

The idea is fine, but the execution is flawed because the code can not overcome the human factor.


But by all means run it through a test/beta. That system might work in RA but it wont work here.

Admin wrote:

damgood wrote:But you forget that the player with 240% techs spent a lot of kuwal to do that.

And they will still have their full benefit when attacking someone who has a 200% defense.

damgood wrote:Also, a 1-2 mill army guy can't gather over night much kuwal to make it profitable to farm.
Ex: 2m farmers => 100m/turn => 2.4b/24h, which can be easily defended with
a 2b defence. For that kind of defence you don't even need to have such a high
percent on the def techs because it's cheaper to train units.

Thank you for understanding what I meant by "unless they put 20% of their army into defense, which is just ridiculous."

100k soldiers out of 2.5m is not 20%...

Hating to burst Nomads bubble but Farming Policies are something that have been introduced by a group of players so that they can twist or manipulate the way the game is played to meet their own ends.

I'd say farming policies are something that players find acceptable farming, and farming for less is something they are willing to go to war for.

I actually agree with kenzu on this one (what a surprise ) I would go to war if someone repeatably farmed me for something that I do not seem fit. I have done it before and will do so again if warranted.

Nomad wrote:1st part yeah

2nd part, I do not really see how it fits into the equation in a manner not covered under 1.

AW is ruled by farming policies,, and as some alliances have previously done teams will be set up to farm this "extra" kewal from each other inner alliance. Anyone outside the alliance will suffer the same fate as now when you break a farming policy.

The idea is fine, but the execution is flawed because the code can not overcome the human factor.

But by all means run it through a test/beta. That system might work in RA but it wont work here.

The human can be deceived to a certain extent.
I fully agree that people will not be more willing to let themselves be hit. But if the system will not show how much "real" and how much "extra" kuwal someone lost, then it will cause one of two things:
- People will just live on with getting farmed, keeping their farming policies and minimal profits.
- Some people will start taking meticulous care about how much they would have had kuwal out from their income, then start complaining about how much they lost and start wars

I'm not saying that people will not try to twist it. But since everyone can theoretically farm everyone, it will only result in either more profitssss or eventual wars.
It's hardly an update like the superweapon where one group can control it to 100%.
Just like I can't stop people from joining into big alliances, I can't stop people from deciding who they let get farmed by. Either way I think it's a promising idea

Manleva wrote:Hating to burst Nomads bubble but Farming Policies are something that have been introduced by a group of players so that they can twist or manipulate the way the game is played to meet their own ends.

That was exactly what I was saying. The system hes talking about will change Nothing, except non allianced players are going to get slammed. Allianced players, ecspecially those from the power alliances will team up and find a way/level to regularly farm each other so no one else can farm them,,, and mass those who do.

So if the system he puts in place will be overcome the first day by the players themselves, then whats the point of even putting it in play? Ascended Super Weapon anyone?


@ admin

So now your saying your going to hide information about our own accounts from us? You really feel that is a viable option? All I can say is run it through a beta/test before bringing it to main, because I do not think it has as much potential as you do. If everyone wasnt hording resources waiting for the AF update you might see more wars already.

;-)

Nomad wrote:That was exactly what I was saying. The system hes talking about will change Nothing, except non allianced players are going to get slammed. Allianced players, ecspecially those from the power alliances will team up and find a way/level to regularly farm each other so no one else can farm them,,, and mass those who do.

So if the system he puts in place will be overcome the first day by the players themselves, then whats the point of even putting it in play? Ascended Super Weapon anyone?

Expect this to come some day in some form. I'd like to see if i can play cat and mouse and anything good coming out of it. Chances are it will fail as you know nomad. However I think it's not as easily abusable as the ASW.
@ admin

Nomad wrote:So now your saying your going to hide information about our own accounts from us? You really feel that is a viable option? All I can say is run it through a beta/test before bringing it to main, because I do not think it has as much potential as you do. If everyone wasnt hording resources waiting for the AF update you might see more wars already. ;-)

Nonono, you'll see exactly how much you got real and fake kuwal out at any time. You'll also see how much you lost in total on each hit.
Just what the user might not end up seeing is how much of that kuwal was fake and how much was real. Well unless you're online and can compare the 2 values with before and after.

Like you said, there's holes everywhere if it's not well thought out. But it could end up being a funny thing somewhat.

About alliances farming each other. Well they can say even now, dont farm any of us or get massed.
But if there's no way for a player to influence how much fake kuwal will get stolen, i.e. either your real OR your fake gets stolen whichever is higher, never both.
And while on protection you dont produce any fake kuwal.
I'm not seeing many loopholes. But sure I could be missing a lot as you said, people would find ways on day one. Still I dont think it could be that hard to solve some of those issues

Well I dont want to let anyone farm me at all, and many players surely are the same way. And if creating "fake kuwal" means that I will be hit even with massive defense, then all I say is "no thanks"

because the way it sounds to me is that even with big defense I will be hit for kuwal which will be producing and get higher until I get farmed. I am not ok with that. How about others?

but its not even your kuwal. you can't even spend it? also, this will promote more activity as there are more farms out there. i know currently there are 3 or 4 people farming all of the active accs and inactives. this leaves everyone else with nothing (well nothing worth hitting). I know your all against it but I think this is a step in the right direction to a certain extent. Perhaps admin could make it to where when farming this "fake kuwal" there are no losses on the defending side and add a separate place in the war exp logs for it as well.

actually fyi, something like this and it would even warrant making a "most fake kuwal stolen in a month" medal. Since it wouldn't be as abusable as the depths of some religions compared to the idea of making "most real kuwal stolen in a month"

anyways kenzu's main issue is a philosophical one, if i understood correctly from his post. It's like the nimras opinion about hating lower strike can steal kuwal. No matter how far or close the reality it might possibly be.

Could we get this tested first before we start making medals for it .