Re: Farming "Fake" kuwal

by Admin Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:29 pm

yeye lol, it's not even certain it'll come

by Nomad Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:07 am

Kenzu wrote: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?

If I didnt make it, and I can't spend it, then I don't care if its stolen,,,,,What I do care about is the damaged I have to pay for because of something I have no control over. I'm with Kenzu on this.

What I do not understand about your stance is that AW2/RA has this basicly identical system inplace so why are you against it so? What do you see as the differences in the proposed system for main, and the present system you have inplace in AW2/RA?

by Admin Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:15 am

Nomad wrote:What I do not understand about your stance is that AW2/RA has this basicly identical system inplace so why are you against it so? What do you see as the differences in the proposed system for main, and the present system you have inplace in AW2/RA?

In RA if someone steals your unbankable kuwal it will reduce how much real kuwal you receive in the turns to follow.
If someone would steal only the fake kuwal here it wouldn't affect at all how much real kuwal you have left

by Kingofshinobis1 Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:19 am

Nomad wrote:If I didnt make it, and I can't spend it, then I don't care if its stolen,,,,,What I do care about is the damaged I have to pay for because of something I have no control over. I'm with Kenzu on this.

kingofshinobis wrote: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.

does this look like somethin you would be opposed to nomad?

by Nomad Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:31 am

tbh i dont see the point if that was put in place. No losses to the defense, and then people will just farm barely over the cost of the AT and it really make no difference.

I would tell those around me how often or when to strike, and since i suffer no loses i wouldnt care as long as its staying inside the alliance, anyone else gets massed.

I think this game is eat slap up with far to many useless rankings and awards so that part is reaaaaallllllllllyy not appealing at all.

by Kenzu Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:40 am

Having thought about it I am currently undecided if this should be changed at all. Sure if we place a 200x or 500x multiplier at which no losses at farming occur, this will have to be modified in one year when biggest players will have much higher strikes than smaller players.

Also, even though its upsetting to see that there are such high losses when farming someone much smaller, in some way this is a very good system, because it actually helps to protect smaller players (players with much smaller defense)

Nomad wrote:
Kenzu wrote: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?

If I didnt make it, and I can't spend it, then I don't care if its stolen,,,,,What I do care about is the damaged I have to pay for because of something I have no control over. I'm with Kenzu on this.

What I do not understand about your stance is that AW2/RA has this basicly identical system inplace so why are you against it so? What do you see as the differences in the proposed system for main, and the present system you have inplace in AW2/RA?

The main difference is that in RA the losses fully depend on the defense of a player. Namely if someone has 200 smaller defense than me, then I will have 200 smaller losses.

Look at the example I posted at the start of the thread. I lost 14 units while killing only 2, my strike was 15.000 times higher than enemy def.
I lost: 14 armed units = roughly 14.000.000 kuwal
defender lost: 1 armed MLRS + 1 unarmed unit = 1.500.000

If this was a hit in RA with same strike and def, then
defender would lose: 1 units (no wounded if only 1 casualty) and 1 MLRS = 1.500.000
I would lose: 2 units (1 will be wounded) + 2 weapons = 2.000.000

If my strike is 15.000 bigger than someone elses defense, then I will lose 15.000 less than if I hit a similar def like my strike. Of course I will always loose at least 2 units and 2 weapons

by Nomad Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:48 am

Kenzu wrote:

1.Also, even though its upsetting to see that there are such high losses when farming someone much smaller, in some way this is a very good system, because it actually helps to protect smaller players (players with much smaller defense)

2.The main difference is that in RA the losses fully depend on the defense of a player. Namely if someone has 200 smaller defense than me, then I will have 200 smaller losses.

Look at the example I posted at the start of the thread. I lost 14 units while killing only 2, my strike was 15.000 times higher than enemy def.
I lost: 14 armed units = roughly 14.000.000 kuwal
defender lost: 1 armed MLRS + 1 unarmed unit = 1.500.000

If this was a hit in RA with same strike and def, then
defender would lose: 1 units (no wounded if only 1 casualty) and 1 MLRS = 1.500.000
I would lose: 2 units (1 will be wounded) + 2 weapons = 2.000.000

If my strike is 15.000 bigger than someone elses defense, then I will lose 15.000 less than if I hit a similar def like my strike. Of course I will always loose at least 2 units and 2 weapons

1. agreed

2. The only difference I see is RA has losses capped at 2 times as much, or 1/2 as much. Other then the losses the system is still the same. Both systems create income you can not bank, hide, or control in any way in hopes of making someone else want to hit you. Now I admitt I do not know the ins and outs of both systems, but thats how they both appear to me.

by Admin Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:18 am

Nomad wrote:1. agreed

2. The only difference I see is RA has losses capped at 2 times as much, or 1/2 as much. Other then the losses the system is still the same. Both systems create income you can not bank, hide, or control in any way in hopes of making someone else want to hit you. Now I admitt I do not know the ins and outs of both systems, but thats how they both appear to me.

I think you misunderstood how RA income works

You have your turn income. Every turn, that amount goes out into the open as unbankable. While right after that, 1/48th amount of your unbankable goes into your realm as bankable. So if you have 0 unbankable, it keeps piling up until it's worth exactly 48 turns of production. After that, every turn your income goes straight into bankable kuwal.

So as long as your def is enough to protect those 48 turns of income, then you are safe and will get 100% of your income.
If you get hit then part of your income production goes to increasing unbankable to 48 turns worth of income and the rest goes into bankable.

In my suggestion the unbankable just keeps increasing forever until someone steals some/all of it. Unlike in RA it is completely independent of the kuwal you receive to spend

by Kingofshinobis1 Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:23 pm

Nomad wrote:tbh i dont see the point if that was put in place. No losses to the defense, and then people will just farm barely over the cost of the AT and it really make no difference.
please tell me just how exactly that would happen? I don't get your reasoning. 10bil defense. 12bil strike. someone farms the 10bil defense for 2bil kuwal and takes 8k in losses. wtf?

I would tell those around me how often or when to strike, and since i suffer no loses i wouldnt care as long as its staying inside the alliance, anyone else gets massed.
there is really no way to stop this but i assure you people will be getting farmed anyways regardless of what is said. people still have to get through the defenses. not like someones gonna build a 35-45bil strike just to farm some people who don't want to get hit out of alliance. . i believe one of the points in this game was to mass people? More massing=Good imo. Besides, would you really mass someone who has done nothing to your actual acc?

I think this game is eat slap up with far to many useless rankings and awards so that part is reaaaaallllllllllyy not appealing at all.
I agree

As for the losses and stuff. I could really care less. You lose so few when attacking them that it really does not even matter to me.

by Admin Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:29 pm

I think the suggestion tried to mutate from "attacking fake kuwal" to "attacking fake kuwal while defender takes no losses" to "attacking fake kuwal while no one takes any losses"

by Kingofshinobis1 Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:37 pm

Admin wrote:I think the suggestion tried to mutate from "attacking fake kuwal"this is a good idea to "attacking fake kuwal while defender takes no losses" this is a better one to "attacking fake kuwal while no one takes any losses" i dont get this at all. go attack some inactive or something

by Admin Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:52 pm

yeh but how can you justify no losses on defender side while having losses on attacker side.

by Kingofshinobis1 Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:37 pm

because the defender can not help that they are going to get attacked. this is just kuwal sitting out there that they can not use and really has nothing to do with their acc other than it is a second income. making the defender lose soldiers despite having been able to protect their kuwal this whole time, is just going to piss people off to put it bluntly. if the defender takes no damages then there is no harm done really. the attacker should lose the same amount as he would a regular farm because he actually has something to gain from the attack.

by Admin Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:41 pm

By justify I didn't mean explain how people would react. Since I fully agree with everything you said.

I meant as in how do you explain as to why those things are happening. Defender losing nothing, attacker losing as if a normal attack.

by Kingofshinobis1 Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:12 pm

Admin wrote:By justify I didn't mean explain how people would react. Since I fully agree with everything you said.

I meant as in how do you explain as to why those things are happening. Defender losing nothing, attacker losing as if a normal attack.

I would have to say in order to best explain this, an example is in order

I attack someone with 30bil out in "fake kuwal" They normally never leave this much out but since this is something they can not help, then I think there must be some sort of way to counter this. (via no losses when attacked) I just don't think it is right nor fair for me to be able to hurt my opponent because of something he can not help. He will obviously know he has been farmed and who he has been farmed by. So if he doesn't want the said attacker to steal from him, then they will fight regardless. I just don't want people who care if they are farmed (I.E. they take pride in never being farmed or something) to take annoying losses because they can't help it.

by Admin Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:16 pm

You're just repeating the previous post.

I have a good suggestion though.
Farming attack happens as usual..... losses on both sides.... BUT
Defender gets 5-15% of stolen amount back (basically attacker would have stolen 100 mil based on at's used and def/att ratio, so attacker gets 85-95 mil and defender 5-15 mil).

Justification:
Let's make the analogy I already made that "fake" kuwal is like population wealth that they like to show off and is easily stealable (even the houses they live in is considered wealth but you won't be stealing the houses, just the contents like paintings and jewelry)
So you get attacked. The enemy hordes steal and pillage but your civilians are smart enough to grab some of the more precious valuables with them and deposit them to your account as a thank you sign/payment/whatever works for you for sending out your troops to defend them.

So we solve the problem of this unrealistic idea of attacker having no losses, as well as defender suffering losses.
Even with moderate techs, 10% of stolen amount should cover the defender losses.
Let's keep in mind the main focus. Making building a bigger strike more attractive to increase farming of active accounts and making it more worthwhile to spend your ST's for bigger and juicier targets. So if this somehow works we might not even need anything to protect lower accounts from farming since farming big accounts will be the way to go (well unless you want them to get into trouble with alliances but that's another story)

by Mystake Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:50 pm

maybe i shouldn't jump into this by only reading your post;

but you want to give the defender some of their kuwal back? isn't the point of this to make it less costly for the attacker if the defender can't defend?

if you're gunna cream the defense... then they don't have enough time to grab their things and run.

by Admin Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:05 pm

Mystake wrote:maybe i shouldn't jump into this by only reading your post;

but you want to give the defender some of their kuwal back? isn't the point of this to make it less costly for the attacker if the defender can't defend?

if you're gunna cream the defense... then they don't have enough time to grab their things and run.

no, the point of this is that we create more attack targets while:
- addressing the issue of "defender shouldn't have any extra costs because of this"
- NOT inflating kuwal production whatsoever
- mostly these targets will only be active players, so building higher strikes IS worth it
- more farming opportunities even at people who can bank 24/7

Point 2 is a no brainer, while points 3 and 4 are my primary objectives (esp point 4 i've been playing with various ideas to work against banking/spending kuwal every turn)

and civilians usually have enough time to grab the most important stuff and run. That's what evacuation is about, some valuables usually get through.

by Kingofshinobis1 Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:32 pm

After reading over all of your post, I've gotta say I like it even more now Razz

Seems more realistic than my way (and actually makes some sense xD).

my question is would it be a set % going back to the defender or a variable of 5%-15%?

Admin wrote:no, the point of this is that we create more attack targets while:
- addressing the issue of "defender shouldn't have any extra costs because of this" didn't really care about this either way but I figured I'd go with the crowd on this. This would help. Maybe even give free kuwal in some cases
- NOT inflating kuwal production whatsoever
- mostly these targets will only be active players, so building higher strikes IS worth it
- more farming opportunities even at people who can bank 24/7 this is the main reason I like this idea.

Point 2 is a no brainer, while points 3 and 4 are my primary objectives (esp point 4 i've been playing with various ideas to work against banking/spending kuwal every turn)

and civilians usually have enough time to grab the most important stuff and run. That's what evacuation is about, some valuables usually get through.

Admin wrote:So we solve the problem of this unrealistic idea of attacker having no losses, as well as defender suffering losses.
Even with moderate techs, 10% of stolen amount should cover the defender losses.
Let's keep in mind the main focus. Making building a bigger strike more attractive to increase farming of active accounts and making it more worthwhile to spend your ST's for bigger and juicier targets. So if this somehow works we might not even need anything to protect lower accounts from farming since farming big accounts will be the way to go (well unless you want them to get into trouble with alliances but that's another story awesome )

by Admin Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:51 pm

No I am "with the crowd" on the issue of defender shouldn't get screwed just because they produce extra kuwal they can't do anything with.

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:After reading over all of your post, I've gotta say I like it even more now Seems more realistic than my way (and actually makes some sense xD).

my question is would it be a set % going back to the defender or a variable of 5%-15%?

I'm split on that:
Solution 1=>
I figured a base value, 5-15% and a multiplier 0-100%.
base value would be random, to make it interesting, so you might get hit and make a profit or make a loss.
Multiplier is ratio of defense to attack. If your def is equal or bigger, you're at 100%. Afterall if you have no defense, the citizens will not pay you anything since you didn't protect them at all.
Problem 1:
On the other hand I would be afraid that this would turn into a double whammy for weaker accounts since big strike vs small def (since that's all they can afford) means farming them and dealing more damage than a similar strike AND less cover for losses
Problem 2:
variable base value means some people will eventually put up signs i.e. If you farm me for my fake kuwal and I end up earning less kuwal than your attack cost me, then I will mass you. (while this may happen anyway, I would be forced to make a change to avoid alliance farming because one alliance is strong and no one dares farming them)

Solution 2=>
Almost flat value 10-15%, always

I would like to avoid the whole "you can't hit your alliance mates for the fake/real kuwal", and "you can't change alliance more than once a week or something". And while people may argue this is something they would do and should be allowed to do, I would argue that an alliance means you dont farm each other and hope that your mate comes online instead.
Keeping in mind that this wouldn't be in any way an attempt to stop that from happening. Merely at making it slightly more difficult

by Kingofshinobis1 Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:24 pm

Admin wrote:No I am "with the crowd" on the issue of defender shouldn't get screwed just because they produce extra kuwal they can't do anything with.

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:After reading over all of your post, I've gotta say I like it even more now Seems more realistic than my way (and actually makes some sense xD).

my question is would it be a set % going back to the defender or a variable of 5%-15%?
I'm split on that:
Solution 1=>
I figured a base value, 5-15% and a multiplier 0-100%.
base value would be random, to make it interesting, so you might get hit and make a profit or make a loss.
Multiplier is ratio of defense to attack. If your def is equal or bigger, you're at 100%. Afterall if you have no defense, the citizens will not pay you anything since you didn't protect them at all.
what would your % be if your defense is 80% of the strike? i assume you would have a 80% mulitplier and whatever that base value is gets multiplied by that?
I.E. 10% base (at random) x 80% = 8% back? im slightly confused on this.
Problem 1:
On the other hand I would be afraid that this would turn into a double whammy for weaker accounts since big strike vs small def (since that's all they can afford) means farming them and dealing more damage than a similar strike AND less cover for losses
I'm going to assume I was right and if I have a 99% higher strike than the defender then they would be screwed regardless.
Problem 2:
variable base value means some people will eventually put up signs i.e. If you farm me for my fake kuwal and I end up earning less kuwal than your attack cost me, then I will mass you. (while this may happen anyway, I would be forced to make a change to avoid alliance farming because one alliance is strong and no one dares farming them)
i seriously doubt this would happen over a few million kuwal. big whoop.
Solution 2=>
Almost flat value 10-15%, always
Can you make it just 1 flat rate instead of a slight variable. (hell id even be happy with 12.5%) There is already enough calculations that you need to do when farming. No need to add even more variables.

I would like to avoid the whole "you can't hit your alliance mates for the fake/real kuwal", and "you can't change alliance more than once a week or something". And while people may argue this is something they would do and should be allowed to do, I would argue that an alliance means you dont farm each other and hope that your mate comes online instead. if this were to happen repeatedly I would hope limits would be set in place. No need to give an alliance an overly unfair advantage over everyone else.
Keeping in mind that this wouldn't be in any way an attempt to stop that from happening. Merely at making it slightly more difficult

by Nomad Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:49 pm

So we are alliance bashing now?

I'd just drop members down to 1, and then tagg all alliance members so they can farm inner alliance wise, and come together for wars.

Hope your not wasting your creative time and efforts on this new ideas while slowing coming updates.

Any idea when evolutions is coming out? Kenzu stated AF was coming to RA After it hit main, and you said it would be tested in Evolutions or beta before release in main, so I'm just wondering when we will get something rolling to begin the testing.

by Kingofshinobis1 Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:49 am

Nomad wrote:So we are alliance bashing now?

I'd just drop members down to 1, and then tagg all alliance members so they can farm inner alliance wise, and come together for wars.

Well aren't you a party pooper Razz

Why do you think someone would go to all of this trouble? I doubt you would

by Nomad Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:22 am

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:
Nomad wrote:So we are alliance bashing now?

I'd just drop members down to 1, and then tagg all alliance members so they can farm inner alliance wise, and come together for wars.

Well aren't you a party pooper Why do you think someone would go to all of this trouble? I doubt you would

Don't be naive.

If I had an alliance with the largest size, largest member count, and the most to lose along as the most damage being recieved,,,,, Your darn tootin its exactly what I would do. If he makes it so you cant farm allance mates, why would you accept losing 1/4 or more of the server as farms?

I mean lets be honest. If an alliance has 100 men, that 99 farms you just lost. Why would anyone NOT want to be alone so they can farm every other account in the game? You dont have to warry about a war from farming an alliance mate, but you do from everyone else.

Think about it.

by Kingofshinobis1 Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:30 am

Nomad wrote:
Kingofshinobis1 wrote:
Nomad wrote:So we are alliance bashing now?

I'd just drop members down to 1, and then tagg all alliance members so they can farm inner alliance wise, and come together for wars.

Well aren't you a party pooper Why do you think someone would go to all of this trouble? I doubt you would

Don't be naive.

If I had an alliance with the largest size, largest member count, and the most to lose along as the most damage being recieved,,,,, Your darn tootin its exactly what I would do. If he makes it so you cant farm alliance mates, why would you accept losing 1/4 or more of the server as farms?

I mean lets be honest. If an alliance has 100 men, that 99 farms you just lost. Why would anyone NOT want to be alone so they can farm every other account in the game? You dont have to warry about a war from farming an alliance mate, but you do from everyone else.

Think about it.

I think you are being naive and over thinking about the bad while not thinking about how much good this update could bring. I don't care about inner alliance farming. Other people WILL be farming you as well. No matter how often you are hit. If I were an alliance leader and you were abusing your alliance power you better be prepared to war as I would consider you a threat to the game itself. Also why are you so worried about hits against you when they more than likely GIVE you MORE kuwal than you already started with. It does no harm. It adds activity and is only abusable if you choose to be an asshole and do such a thing. Who would want to ruin a game because the admin tried to add something that would add more activity and fun. Possibly even bringing in more players. You won't even give it a chance. Stop being so damn negative

by Sponsored content