Home
Aderan Wars
Red Apocalypse
Testing Server
Latest images
Register
Log injuly 22 ingame questionare discussion
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
july 22 ingame questionare discussion
by Special Agent 47 Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:53 pm
- Spoiler:
- Main Server Survey:
By default in all questions both the attacker and defender use same weapons and have same technology, and use no realm alert, unless specified otherwise
Q1:Currently massing with strike works that attacker suffers 25% higher casualties than the defender when destroying the defense,
however once the defense is destroyed it is much easier to kill assassins,spies and attackers.
The ratio of how much you lose and how much you kill only depends on weapons, technology and personal bonus of the players.
If you send more units then you can destroy your target with less missions (total losses stay the same).
How should massing work in the future?
Please select an option:
A) Unchanged / Stay as it is
B) Be based on technology: If you attack an enemy who has same weapons and same technology you both lose equal number of units.
If you attack with 50% better tech than your enemy, the enemy will lose units and weapons worth 50% more kuwal value than you. Defender will always lose same number of soldiers and weapons. If attacker uses better weapons, attacker will lose less weapons than soldiers, and with weaker weapons, more weapons than soldiers, but only armed soldiers will attack! (Unarmed soldiers don't take part in war if they attack)
C) Undecided
Q2:Should there be any cap in how much you can kill (no matter what mission) compared to what you lose (Caps protect new players with weak technologies against old players). (The cap works both ways, for attacker and for defender).
Please select an option:
A) 2:1 maximum ratio. A player can never lose more than 2 times more value than the enemy (even if enemy technology is 10 times better).
B) 3:1 maximum ratio.
C) 4:1 maximum ratio
D) no maximum ratio. If the best player masses a new player, the defending player can have even 10 times more losses than the attacking player.
E) Undecided
Q3:Covert and Assassination missions might get changed to make them easier to use and to allow more players to use them, have you ever used these missions before and do you like how they work currently?
Please select an option:
A) I have NEVER sabotaged or assassinated anyone but I like how Covert and Assassination missions work.
B) I have sabotaged or assassinated players before and I like how Covert and Assassination missions work.
C) I have NEVER sabotaged or assassinated anyone and I DO NOT like how Covert and Assassination missions work.
D) I have sabotaged or assassinated players before but I DO NOT like how Covert and Assassination missions work.
E) Undecided
Q4:Currently Covert and Assassination missions work like this:
You calculate how many units you send so your power is greater than defending (covert/assassin) action (realm alert increases this defending action)
and you estimate how many more to send, so that the additional agents can kill their targets/sabotage weapons.
You lose 5%/7.5% spies/assassins on a successful mission, no matter what you kill/destroy, can kill up to 4% of enemy units/weapons.
You lose 75% on a failed mission without killing anything
If your covert/assassin power is less than enemy then you can never kill anything
Please select an option:
A) Missions should be changed to this: All spies/assassins are sent each time, no need to calculate anything.
If defenders covert/assassin action is higher than attackers action, then attacker will not sabotage weapons/kill the targeted units,
but instead attackers spies will fight against defending spies (or assassins against assassins), and the ratio of losses is determined by the difference in technology and unit skill.
the defender will always lose 5% of his units (but no more than 5% of attackers units) and the attacker will lose same strength of units based on technology difference between attacker and defender.
Example: If attacker has 200% technology power and sends 400,000 assassins against defender with 100% power and 400,000 asssassins, the attacker loses 10,000 assassins, and the defender units worth 20,000 assassins.
Smaller players can use covert and assassination missions to weaken the covert and assassin action of bigger players.
B) Missions should be changed to this: You chose how many spies/assassins to send
Sending a high action allows you to deal max damage (5% weapons/units killed) per mission but makes it very likely for enemy to know who did the mission
Sending much less power makes it unlikely to be detected but you also deal proportionally less damage
Sending many units (you want to deal some damage but your technology is weak) or doing many missions in a short time on one person will make it much more likely for that person (or if they use realm alert) to find out who did those missions, you will also know if you have been detected
Losses are always up to 5% of units sent, some (up to 2%) of these units will engage enemy spies/assassins, rest destroys weapons/kills target
Missions have a chance to fail (if sending lower action and/or using realm alert) but it wont affect spy/assassin losses or finding out attacker name, only target units and weapons will not be harmed
C) I like A) and B). I support both options.
D) I don't want missions to stay as they are. I like A) or B) better than keeping it as it is.
E) I want Covert and Assassination missions to remain as they are.
F) I don't know how they work / Undecided
Q5:Should attack soldiers be able to destroy enemy Airforce Units?
Please select an option:
A) Yes, any kind of units can be targetted.
B) Yes, but only enemy SAMs can be targeted, not Aircraft
C) Only of the attacker will lose at least 50% or 33.3% of the value of my airforce units that I lost (2:1 cap, or 3:1 cap).
D) No
E) Undecided
Q6:Do you want that there will be a sabotage mission where you send spies to destroy airforce assets, this mission would work exactly like sabotage weapons mission except that you would target the enemy airforce? (If no such mission is added, it means you MUST have an own airforce or at least SAMs (Air Defense, which you can build without research) to be able to destroy someone else's airforce)
Please select an option:
A) Yes, I want a sabotage airforce mission
B) Yes, I want a sabotage airforce mission, but only if a 2:1 cap or 3:1 cap applies.
C) No, I don't want sabotage airforce mission
D) Undecided
Q7:Should explosives be added to the game, which spies will use to destroy weapons?
When players sabotage a player, instead of losing spies for the destruction of enemy weapons, they will lose explosives instead.
Explosives allow the game to judge better how many weapons should be destroyed on both sides, because explosives have an absolute value,
while spies have a variable one (untrained unit prices change over time)
Players will build explosives in weapon factories or explosives factories.
Please select an option:
A) Explosives should be added and be built in weapon factories
B) Explosives should be added and be built in explosives factories
C) There should be no explosives.
D) Undecided
Anything else you would like to add?
You can also give suggestions and suggest anything you would like to see in the game. Share your ideas and opinions with us.
Any further comments? (optional)
Q1: Glad to see admin has finally decided to address this issue since he has remained silent as the debate has carried on in forums. I can not imagine what was so difficult about posting a response explaining the tool tip was written incorrectly or in a misleading manner, but at least now we know. As for the question I do not like A as the present system leaves a lot to be desired. I do not like B for 2 reasons. 1) it removes unarmed strikers. Why? This means you can have another strike force prebuilt to use after your present strike falls. You can do this by jacking up your weapons factories much higher then training facilities allowing you less risk of losing the investment in the construction. It also allows better use of the weapons dealer where you can buy weapons instantly. 2) Why is it strength in numbers is always being removed? Why does "winning" or "losing" a fight never play into the loses? These are things lost to this game that in my personal opinion should matter. I agree that with attack a defense that an attacking force rushing forward across open ground is hampered by strength in numbers as the defense can simply fire with little aiming and is likely to take down opponents. On the same token in hand to hand combat with spies and assassins strength in numbers would weigh heavily in favor of the attackers. Forget what the movies say, 1 man can not stand against 10, nor 100 stand against 1,000. Yes Leonidas stood with his 300 but that is different because he used the surrounding landscape to funnel the opponents killing their advantage of strength in numbers, and using his advantages of better training, and better weaponry. In the end he still feel to superior numbers. In 99% of H2H combat this tactic will not be useable as you defender does not have "perfect" landscape.
I am fine with using tech since you seem dead set on copying RA. Hopefully you will go ahead and do it soon and kill RA since you will have 2 identical games. What I do want to see is strength in numbers actually count, and winning and losing actually meaning something. Also dislike have untouchable strikers or strikers in reserve. If 2 perfectly equal accounts fight they receive equal losses right? If 1 of them has 10% better techs they receive 10% fewer losses correct? So what happens if 2 perfectly equal accounts (in techs of levels, techs, PBP, and every other aspect but size) fight but one has 10% more men and therefore 10% more power? Are the losses equal? Or does the stronger/larger force lose more due to size? Lose less due to power? Please better explain if possible.
Q2: I say there should be a limit, but it should be built into the game mechanics and not a hard limit. You give an option for 2 to 1, 3 to 1, and 4 to 1. All of them are a complete joke. 10 to 1 would be better for an absolute "hard cap" then those you made an option. No one wants to play a game where loses are 1 to 1 as there is no point in playing the game at all (At least not in my mind, others may like a game of that nature). I look at it like this, if the strongest player fights the weakest/newest player and his best hits can only do 4 to 1 damage then that means someone with 1/2 the power/levels as the strongest player will only suffer a ratio of 2 to 1. Anyone at 3/4 of the strongest player is dealing with a 1 to 1 ratio so pretty much all of the active player base will fall into a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 ratio and that is completely pointless. If that is not the case feel free to better explain your question. I would also love to see you add more options to respond instead of give so few answers so you can control the question. Your wording already proves where you want the answers to go.
Q3: I offer no discussion on this one but hope others will. I have used them but do not like how they work. I can not offer a better solution tho so I will not criticize the present system.
Q4: I do not like the present system as sending more men, and becoming more powerful means you suffer higher losses while the defender suffers the same losses. That to me is what needs to change. Sending more men should net you more kills in the opponents army. I can not offer a valid view on attacker losses because adding more men netting you fewer losses on attack is a bad game mechanic even tho it makes logical sense in reality. I also think failed attempts should not cost you 75%, or at the very least failed attempt result in the attackers blowing themselves up thereby killing opponents as well. Something needs to change, but I can offer no truly viable alternative.
Q4: Answer A : I find this option horrible. This basically boils down to 10 guys with 1/10th my power can 0 me out with identical loses (assuming we are all equal levels, techs, PBP, etc, etc) Heck even 100 guys with 1/100th of my total power can. To me that is unacceptable. Strength in numbers has got to count somehow or whats the point in even building a stat at all? This basically removes the "devastating" damage aspect of the game that stops little peon/sniper/annoying accounts from just wearing down top ranked accounts. There has to be a reason and a benefit for actually building a stat. Imagine 2 accounts fighting. 1 well built, the other with just a few trained, say 10 or less in each stat. The smaller account buy 10 attack weapons at a time from a weapon dealer and uses them at attack a 10K man arm. 1,000 attacks later the defense is 0ed. Your going to tell me that is fair in your eyes?
Q4: Answer B: The first part is basically a was to mass covert and assassin power just like strike does defense. Gut reaction is no, but I'm thinking more and more this might be OK. Unfortunately I see you following this up by cloning RA even more by instituting covert and assassin weapons as well. My biggest issue against this is smaller accounts using forces 1/10th, 1/25th, or 1/100th the size of their opponent being able to maintain equal losses.
Also you make a difference between an attacking force that over powers and one that does not. Does this mean if I actually want to sabb I have to send my full stranding force, and if I want to "mass" I have to untrain until I am less powerful so the mechanics of the attack changes as well? I would suggest you simply add 2 new attacks to the correct areas. 1 to allow spies to directly assault spies and 1 to allow assassins to assault assassins,,,well that one already exists.
I do not really like the idea of making stronger attacks easier to see, nor making multiple attacks easier to see. I can live with it if that's what you want tho. Pretty much makes covert and assassin attacks utterly useless in the sense of it being a "covert" attack. Would like to hear your ideals on how much "overpowered" an attack has to be to raise the % to be seen, and what your idea of "many missions in a short period" actually means. Would help to make better informed decisions. I mean is 10 sabbs mean instantly seen? or 100? There is a might big "grey" area there.
Q5: Undecided myself. I want to say yes because it makes logical sense. I also know its suicide as well because after a defense falls on an account it leaves their AF to be wiped out so something needs to be done as a balancing issue. I do not know what that would be tho. Logically the helicopters should help defend against ground forces since that is why the exist. Bombers would be useless in this regard as you do not want to bomb your own facilities and hangers. Fighters have no machine guns or A2G attacks apparently so they too are useless. I can also see it being stated that at first sight of attack forces the AF simply moves to protect it. Would love to see some discussion on this, and see other peoples views.
Q6: I want to say yes, but do not like how you have it set up. I think AF sabbs should be far more dangerous and extract a far higher death toll because you are destroying far stronger weapons. I agree it is a problem when those with AF attack those without, I just do not know how to overcome it other then removing the AF update all together. I personally like that idea best of all but I know you have spent better part of 2 years working on this so I doubt that is an option.
Q7: I voted no for 2 reasons. 1 I am sick of seeing main clone RA. 2 I do not want to see attacks that the attacker suffers no UU losses. We need army sizes to shrink during war. If you allow means to 0 your opponent with no UU losses to yourself I feel it would be a great loss to the game. People will push covert as far as possible, sabb opponents with a positive ratio, and never lose men doing it. I feel that would be a bad mistake and a step in the wrong direction overall for the game.
As for the optional comments box all I really have to say is I dislike this mentality of bringing all attacks down to the power of 1 man versus 1 man while ignoring strength in numbers. Yes in 1 on 1 fights the better armed, better armored, and better trained should win. But even if you take a war veteran who is a black belt in MA and give him a samurai sword, he will still fall to a group of half starved pacifist peasants.
Special Agent 47- Aderan Assassin
- ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22
Re: july 22 ingame questionare discussion
by Admin Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:05 pm
Special Agent 47 wrote:Q1: Glad to see admin has finally decided to address this issue since he has remained silent as the debate has carried on in forums. I can not imagine what was so difficult about posting a response explaining the tool tip was written incorrectly or in a misleading manner, but at least now we know. As for the question I do not like A as the present system leaves a lot to be desired. I do not like B for 2 reasons. 1) it removes unarmed strikers. Why? This means you can have another strike force prebuilt to use after your present strike falls. You can do this by jacking up your weapons factories much higher then training facilities allowing you less risk of losing the investment in the construction.
If people vote for this option then apparently they dont mind doing that
It also allows better use of the weapons dealer where you can buy weapons instantly. 2) Why is it strength in numbers is always being removed? Why does "winning" or "losing" a fight never play into the loses?
Because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that someone should have fewer losses simply because they trained more total power. As you called it, it's a double and tripple whammy against people who cannot invest tens of trillions into techs because the attacker would get better kill rates for winning all battles on top of sending few units because of their high techs.
On the other hand I might be willing to think about a system where you can get a better kill rate through techs or numbers/brute force but if both apply you dont get double bonus
...
I am fine with using tech since you seem dead set on copying RA.
I hate the RA system, please dont ever say a single word again about me being dead set on copying RA, to me that's offensive. If you say that's your observation, then your observation is wrong and reassess what you think you're seeing
Or does the stronger/larger force lose more due to size? Lose less due to power? Please better explain if possible.
I will assume you're not expecting me to copy paste the first paragraph of Q1, so just explain to me which words you dont understand from the last sentence of that paragraph
Q2: I say there should be a limit, but it should be built into the game mechanics and not a hard limit. You give an option for 2 to 1, 3 to 1, and 4 to 1. All of them are a complete joke. 10 to 1 would be better for an absolute "hard cap" then those you made an option. No one wants to play a game where loses are 1 to 1 as there is no point in playing the game at all (At least not in my mind, others may like a game of that nature). I look at it like this, if the strongest player fights the weakest/newest player and his best hits can only do 4 to 1 damage then that means someone with 1/2 the power/levels as the strongest player will only suffer a ratio of 2 to 1. Anyone at 3/4 of the strongest player is dealing with a 1 to 1 ratio so pretty much all of the active player base will fall into a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 ratio and that is completely pointless. If that is not the case feel free to better explain your question. I would also love to see you add more options to respond instead of give so few answers so you can control the question. Your wording already proves where you want the answers to go.
I personally want people to say they dont want hard limits, so you have just proven the wording does not point to where I want the answers to go. About extra options, there's the issue with ending up with useless data (yes, getting 400 different answers can, not always but often, be useless. Believe it or not, writing a good poll is actually a science, but I'm not trying to claim I'm an expert)
Q4: I do not like the present system as sending more men, and becoming more powerful means you suffer higher losses while the defender suffers the same losses.
What game are you playing? Last time I upgraded my techs, it could only reduce my losses not increase them, and if i send more spies/assassins I destroy more stuff
Q4: Answer A : I find this option horrible. This basically boils down to 10 guys with 1/10th my power can 0 me out with identical loses (assuming we are all equal levels, techs, PBP, etc, etc) Heck even 100 guys with 1/100th of my total power can. To me that is unacceptable. Strength in numbers has got to count somehow or whats the point in even building a stat at all? This basically removes the "devastating" damage aspect of the game that stops little peon/sniper/annoying accounts from just wearing down top ranked accounts. There has to be a reason and a benefit for actually building a stat. Imagine 2 accounts fighting. 1 well built, the other with just a few trained, say 10 or less in each stat. The smaller account buy 10 attack weapons at a time from a weapon dealer and uses them at attack a 10K man arm. 1,000 attacks later the defense is 0ed. Your going to tell me that is fair in your eyes?
The poll is obviously not about what's fair, it's about how/if something will get changed
Q4: Answer B: The first part is basically a was to mass covert and assassin power just like strike does defense. Gut reaction is no, but I'm thinking more and more this might be OK. Unfortunately I see you following this up by cloning RA even more by instituting covert and assassin weapons as well. My biggest issue against this is smaller accounts using forces 1/10th, 1/25th, or 1/100th the size of their opponent being able to maintain equal losses.
I noticed "covert and assassin weapons", that's where you lost me and I stopped reading so please explain, actually reread the whole suggestion and then make a new post (for example that untraining part, why untrain if you can send fewer units instead)
Also you make a difference between an attacking force that over powers and one that does not. Does this mean if I actually want to sabb I have to send my full stranding force, and if I want to "mass" I have to untrain until I am less powerful so the mechanics of the attack changes as well? I would suggest you simply add 2 new attacks to the correct areas. 1 to allow spies to directly assault spies and 1 to allow assassins to assault assassins,,,well that one already exists.
I do not really like the idea of making stronger attacks easier to see, nor making multiple attacks easier to see. I can live with it if that's what you want tho. Pretty much makes covert and assassin attacks utterly useless in the sense of it being a "covert" attack. Would like to hear your ideals on how much "overpowered" an attack has to be to raise the % to be seen, and what your idea of "many missions in a short period" actually means. Would help to make better informed decisions. I mean is 10 sabbs mean instantly seen? or 100? There is a might big "grey" area there.
Continuing from my previous comment, I will not use the poll to explain a system in detail, every tiny caveat and potential situtaion to everyone who's playing (let alone because it wouldn't take 8 lines but a page or two easily if you add required formatting for legibility). It's a rough outline and it's accurate enough to predict the rest based on other existing missions. Anyone who cares, will know or make an approximate guess then vote accordingly, anyone who doesn't, well, they dont care, nothing else to add
Q5: Undecided myself. I want to say yes because it makes logical sense. I also know its suicide as well because after a defense falls on an account it leaves their AF to be wiped out so something needs to be done as a balancing issue. I do not know what that would be tho. Logically the helicopters should help defend against ground forces since that is why the exist. Bombers would be useless in this regard as you do not want to bomb your own facilities and hangers. Fighters have no machine guns or A2G attacks apparently so they too are useless. I can also see it being stated that at first sight of attack forces the AF simply moves to protect it. Would love to see some discussion on this, and see other peoples views.
assassins hit back, enemy strike hits back, miners/workers hit back, logical conclusion is that AF will also hit back
Q6: I want to say yes, but do not like how you have it set up. I think AF sabbs should be far more dangerous and extract a far higher death toll because you are destroying far stronger weapons. I agree it is a problem when those with AF attack those without, I just do not know how to overcome it other then removing the AF update all together. I personally like that idea best of all but I know you have spent better part of 2 years working on this so I doubt that is an option.
Those without AF can defend with SAMs anyway if they dont want sabotage
Q7: I voted no for 2 reasons. 1 I am sick of seeing main clone RA. 2 I do not want to see attacks that the attacker suffers no UU losses. We need army sizes to shrink during war. If you allow means to 0 your opponent with no UU losses to yourself I feel it would be a great loss to the game. People will push covert as far as possible, sabb opponents with a positive ratio, and never lose men doing it. I feel that would be a bad mistake and a step in the wrong direction overall for the game.
Explain to me the difference between losing kuwal (explosives) and losing uu (which you buy with kuwal) to kill kuwal (weapons), I see none
Admin- Admin
- Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18 -
Similar topics» Reset Server probably starting on 1st July
» Discussion
» Posting discussion
» New poll discussion
» WANT SS for ingame resources
» Discussion
» Posting discussion
» New poll discussion
» WANT SS for ingame resources
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|