New Farming system based on % success % kuwal

We should have farming which makes it possible for smaller players to target bigger players.
Even if they have to attack multiple times with smaller strike to hit a bigger defense, they might win a battle and steal a fraction of the kuwal which is left


If your attack and have more strike than the defender, you will win and get 100% of his kuwal


If your attack is less than enemies defense, there is a chance that you succeed and steal a proportion of his kuwal.

EXAMPLE:
If attacker has 10.000.000 attack and defender 30.000.000 defense , attacker has only 33% chance of succeeding and stealing 33% of kuwal

This means that he will most likely have to attack 3 times, two hits will fail and one hit will give 33% of the defenders kuwal

In the 1:3 scenario, farming will be 9 times less profitable for attacker than if he had more attack than defenders defense, because he will steal only 1/3 of kuwal with 3 times more repair and turn costs.

attack:defense
2:1 same as before
1:1 same as before
1:2 FOUR times less profitable
1:3 NINE times less profitable
1:4 SIXTEEN times less profitable
1:5 TWENTY FIVE times less profitable



The battle report will say something like this:

The defenders have repelled the attackers.
(There was a 33% chance that the attackers will succeed at stealing 33% of defenders kuwal)

The defenders have repelled the attackers, nevertheless the attackers managed to steal 59.658.159 (33% of defenders kuwal)



EXAMPLE:
If there is one player with 1.000.000.000 defense (rank 1 defense), and the highest strike is 500.000.000, in current situation, the rank 1 player doesnt have to be scared at all to be attacked, after the update, attacker could manage to steal 50% with a chance of 50%, which means that if the defender has more kuwal than the value of 4 times the repair costs and attack turn costs of the attacker, then the attacker would most likely strike.

This would enable also small players to attack huge players if they had ridicculously much kuwal out.

EXAMPLE:
One player has 200.000.000 defense another player has 40.000.000 attack, somehow the first player was on protection and has 1.000.000.000 kuwal out. The attacker has has 20% chance of stealing 20% kuwal, that 200.000.000 million kuwal.
If the attacker attacks and fails, he will have probably 10 million repair costs and 10 million cost for turns, that's 20.000.000, multiplied with 5 attempts: 100.000.000. In this case the small player should attack until he succeeds, he might have to attack 3 times, maybe 8 times, still after success he will have less repair and turn costs than 200.000.000, thus farming a bigger one was successful AND the big player still can keep 80% of his kuwal (unless there is someone who wants to farm him more.)



Another thing to add:
There should be NO VARIABLE kuwal stolen at a determined strike:defense result.
Both strike and defense should hit with 95% to 105% of its power (but if you want, make it stable)
If the resulting strike is higher than defense, always 100% kuwal should be given to the attacker.
Not 98%, not 99%, but 100%

If the attacker was 23% of defense and luckily succeeded at stealing kuwal, 23% will be taken away from defender, NOT 22%, NOT 24%, always 23%


-------------------------------------------------------------


OR MAKE DIFFERENT FARMING WITH MORE POSSIBILITIES OF ATTACK

Standard Attack
Attacker deals 100% damage

Attack with Risk
Attacker deals 75%-125% damage

Attack with high Risk
Attacker deals 50%-150% damage

Attack with highest Risk
Attacker deals 0%-200% damage

I prefer admin's proposal over this.

I'm not keen on this proposal. With this scenario, anyone can hit anyone else and still get kuwal. That's one reason we have high defense. So we don't get hit by smaller players.

However, I do agree with the "if you have a higher strike than the defense you're hitting, you should get 100%"

That's almost a duh and should have been implemented in the first place.

The idea is that if the attacker is weaker, he will focus his attacks on different points in the frontline, attacks from different sides and tries t obreak through the defenses.

It would be beneficial for the smaller player to attack a big one, if the big one has MUCH MUCH MORE KUWAL than his defense is protecting. Afterall someone with a quarter of defense, having 30.000.000 costs from each attack would have to attack someone with 16 times more kuwal than costs to make up for the lower chance of success and lower percentage of the robbed kuwal, in other words

If his repair costs are 30.000.000 and strike only a quarter of defenders defense, he would have to attack someone who has more than 30x16 = 480.000.000 kuwal.

I have to fully disagree with this idea. way to many exploitable points, makes defenses utterly useless, and gives the attacker entirely to much power.

why not just get rid of defense altogether if it has to be 200 X stronger then the attack to be viable?

Nomad wrote:I have to fully disagree with this idea. way to many exploitable points, makes defenses utterly useless, and gives the attacker entirely to much power.

why not just get rid of defense altogether if it has to be 200 X stronger then the attack to be viable?

If currently you have 100 million and someone would have 50 million costs if he attacked you with a slightly bigger one (lost units, repairs attack turns),

then someone who would have only half strike of your defense would NOT attack you, because his attack costs would be probably 40 million and he would have to attack twice to steal half, which means he would have 80 million repair and attack turn costs, and steal only 50 million kuwal.

if you do does you have to make the loses off the attacker even bigger if he looses

souldog wrote:if you do does you have to make the loses off the attacker even bigger if he looses

obviously someone who attacks with a strike half the defense will have much more losses than someone who has stronger strike than defense.

attacking with smaller forces will result in higher repair costs.

Kenzu wrote:

souldog wrote:if you do does you have to make the loses off the attacker even bigger if he looses

obviously someone who attacks with a strike half the defense will have much more losses than someone who has stronger strike than defense.

attacking with smaller forces will result in higher repair costs.

Are you sure of that?

so your saying if a strike force is smaller its going to take more losses? because I'm not saying thats not true, but I would like it confirmed, traditionally the larger the force, the larger the losses period, but that may not be the case.

also, hows this going to effect massings? can you mass someone with this high risk attack?

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

souldog wrote:if you do does you have to make the loses off the attacker even bigger if he looses

obviously someone who attacks with a strike half the defense will have much more losses than someone who has stronger strike than defense.

attacking with smaller forces will result in higher repair costs.

Are you sure of that?

so your saying if a strike force is smaller its going to take more losses? because I'm not saying thats not true, but I would like it confirmed, traditionally the larger the force, the larger the losses period, but that may not be the case.

also, hows this going to effect massings? can you mass someone with this high risk attack?

Of course higher strike means more losses per attack

Lets say player A has 55.000.000 strike
player B has 50.000.000 defense and 100.000.000 kuwal

If A attacks, he will have to repair his weapons (30 million), retrain soldiers (10 million) and pay for attack turns (10 million)
100 million -30 million -10 million-10 million = 50 million
player A earned 50 million

If we got a player C, who has 25.000.000 strike, there is a 50% chance that he will win, this means that if he always attacks players who have defense two times higher than his strike, he will have to attack two times on average to succeed. If he succeeds, he will get only 50% of the defenders kuwal, since his strike was only 50%.

He attacks once and fails, he will have to repair weapons (15 million), retrain soldiers (5 million) and pay for attack turns (10 million)
now he attacks again. He succeeds and receives 50% kuwal, which is 50 million kuwal, he will have to repair again. (15 + 5 + 10 million)

50 million -15 million -5 million -10 million -15 million -5 million -10 million = -30 million
player C has a loss of 30 million

player C should attack only if player B has over 160 million kuwal
player A should attack only if player A has over 50 million kuwal

bigger strike costs more to repair, but will need less hits and will bring more kuwal than small strike

This update would affect only farming and raiding, NOT assaults

actually I was asking about the losses ratio between the strike and defense

who losses more men?

the defense has 50K men what are the losses against a

strike of 50K men

strike of 25K men

What are the losses to both strikes?

if the strike is 1/2 the size is it going to lose 1/2 as many men when using an attack that can potentially give it 200% increase?

Nomad wrote:actually I was asking about the losses ratio between the strike and defense

who losses more men?

the defense has 50K men what are the losses against a

strike of 50K men

strike of 25K men

What are the losses to both strikes?

if the strike is 1/2 the size is it going to lose 1/2 as many men when using an attack that can potentially give it 200% increase?

strike with 50% chance of winning, will with a chance of 50% deal double damage with double attackers losses. defenders losses will be smaller than attackers losses.

so your saying if the strike lucks up and gets the 200% damage then it takes double the losses correct?

so what if it hits 0%?

0 losses or normal losses?