Make relative repair costs

My proposal:

Instead of having weapons always damaged by the same percentage (from 800 hit points to 775 hit points)
make the repair cost be based on what the defenders repair cost is.

If defenders weapons got damaged by a total of 100.000 hit points, decrease attackers weapons hit points by a multiple of 100.000 hit points.
If a multiple of 3 is decided, attackers weapons will decrease by 300.000 hit points. if a multiple of 5 is decided, decrease them by 500.000 hit points. You can have even a multiple of 10 if you like, but PLEASE, don't let the repair costs fall by a percentage, of its base hit points. Fall of the hit points should be determined by defenders fall in hitpoints.




Explanation:
currently there is a relative unit cost in attack missions.

if your strike is much higher than enemy defense, you will loose less units than if your strike is slightly higher than enemy defense.


I recommend a similiar system for repair costs, since it makes no sense that if I attack two people with my 20.000 weapons, one of them has 10.000 weapons and one of them has only 1000 weapons, and I have the same repair costs.

If I attack someone who is much smaller than me, I should have lower repair costs than if I attack someone bigger.



PS: currently, with my high strike it is unprofitable to attack players who it was profitable to attack before.
Before I could attack low defense players for 100 million kuwal and got 50-70 million profit,

now I have 150.000.000 strike , no matter who I attack, someone with 100.000.000 defense or even someone with 1.000.000 defense, I will always have 80.000.000 kuwal repair costs no matter what. That's unfair and needs changed, otherwise it brings people with huge strike at a disadvantage to those with moderate strike.

I think that the attackers repair costs should not be more than 5 times defenders repair costs.

If a defender has 1000 weapons with 800 hit points, thats 800.000 hit points. After an attack he might loose 15.000 points
If the attacker has 1000 weapons with 800 hit points attacks him, he might loose 25.000 points. That's fair

but if an attacker has 10.000 weapons with 800 hit points thats 8.000.000 hit points and attacks defender with 800.000 hitpoints,
defender will again loose only 15.000 hit points and attacker will lose 250.000 hit points. That's completely unfair!
A bigger attacker should be able to attack more successfully than a small attacker, therefore he should loose only 25.000 points, thus each weapon wouldn't get damaged by 25 hit points, but only 3 hit points resulting in 30.000 hit points lost in total.

Imagine
a 10.000 man army fighting against 1000 defenders.
and imagine
a 100.000 man army fighting against 1000 defenders.

The amount of shots fired by attackers will be most likely similiar in both cases, since there are only 1.000 man to kill.
A ten times bigger army, will not waste ten times more bullets.

Kenzu wrote:but if an attacker has 10.000 weapons with 800 hit points thats 8.000.000 hit points and attacks defender with 800.000 hitpoints,
defender will again loose only 15.000 hit points and attacker will lose 250.000 hit points.

That's completely unfair!

nope, that's just plain wrong. weapon repairs are variable and have been since 25th august 2008

Admin wrote:

Kenzu wrote:but if an attacker has 10.000 weapons with 800 hit points thats 8.000.000 hit points and attacks defender with 800.000 hitpoints,
defender will again loose only 15.000 hit points and attacker will lose 250.000 hit points.

That's completely unfair!

nope, that's just plain wrong. weapon repairs are variable and have been since 25th august 2008

not really.

your variability is that weapons get damaged by 15-30 points depending on how much more strike you had than enemy defense.
This variability can be rounded to 0, since what I said is true and 10 times bigger attackers have 9 times higher repair costs, which is almost the same as having no variability at all!

They should have similiar repair costs to what they would have if their strike was smaller and they succeed at farming.

Read 1st post more carefully.
Seems you didnt see what I wrote there.

Kenzu wrote:10 times bigger attackers have 9 times higher repair costs

Not true, as stated in updates section.

Admin wrote:

Kenzu wrote:10 times bigger attackers have 9 times higher repair costs

Not true, as stated in updates section.

stop evading the problem. My strike is 5 times higher now and I have much more repair costs to fight someone who was small before and remained as small as before.

more is less! muahahahahahahha.

While I somewhat agree with Kenzu, and do see his point, its been like that for ever, and TBH, if you changed it I'm afraid it would have bad effects. Now you dont see run away strikes BECAUSE of the high costs, if you remove that cost you will see strikes as high as the defenses are now.

Its a balancing act. Bigger strikes require juicier targets to be viable.

My point remains the same.

If your strike is 5 times larger than enemy def, then your weapons only suffer 44% of the damage they normally would. On the other hand the enemy def weapons suffer 223% of normal damage.

Use a strike 5 times smaller than enemy def and you get the same numbers in reverse.

And what does 2.23/0.44 equal to?
YES, you're right. 5
The weapons of the 5 times larger strike will lose only one fifth of the points the defense weapons will lose. So when considering that the strike is using 5 times more weapons the result becomes obvious.

Which means whether your strike is 20% or 500% of enemy def, both sides always suffer the same amount of damage in weapon value.

In conclusio, something you're suggesting is already in effect and has been since 25th august 2008

Admin wrote:My point remains the same.

If your strike is 5 times larger than enemy def, then your weapons only suffer 44% of the damage they normally would. On the other hand the enemy def weapons suffer 223% of normal damage.

Make the 44% a 20% and I will be happy with that.

(and decrease the defense weapons costs adequately from 223% to 100%)

nope, that's just plain wrong. weapon repairs are variable and have been since 25th august 2008

Wrong ..... they are variable ONLY AFTER a MINIMUM damage.

I have a 184 mil strike with lvl 10 weapons, so 800 points.

1. I hit a 10 mil defense ..... 16 points lost
2. I hit a 20 mil defense ..... 16 points lost
3. I hit a 25 mil defense ..... 16 points lost
4. I hit a 30 mil defense ..... 16 points lost

IF that is variable then you and me speak different math.

Let's take into account the biggest strike atm .... around 600 mil. Let's assume he sees someone with 1 mil defense, but in effect it's 1.04 mil. In normal conditions he would get no weapon damage so a 40 mil hit would be good for him so he strikes. But .... he gets 10% less so 540 mil strike and the defender gets 5% extra so 1.092 mil which means he only has a strike 495 times bigger so he gets 16 point multiplied by 11.5 mil = 184 mil repair cost.

Now this was an extreme example, but I think everyone can agree that it can happen and it REALLY sucks to happen .....

The minimum damage had some sense with the lowest level weapons, but for the lvl 9 and 10 weapons (and probably soon 11) that are used now this limit has to go.

they are variable, you just only notice the difference if your strike is between 20 and 500% of the target's defense.

large players have enough of an advantage to use bigger weapons. making them any more variable would be overkill for small players getting robbed every few hours no matter what def they put up

Like I said, variable has another meaning for you.

f(x) = 2x+5 is variable

f(x) = k, for x<=0.2
= 2x + 5 for x>0.2 is NOT variable

And you are dead wrong ..... why the hell did you put STs in the game ??!? Oh yeah ..... to LIMIT the damage big players can do .... and BIG surprise ..... it works. So why have so many limitations to screw up the big and in most cases best players ??

There are players in the game under 100k army who have a defense comparable to 10-15 ranked attacks (those players have in most case over 10x his army) ..... so it's possible and I would say not complicated to do it. The biggest defense in the game is made (for quite some time now) with LEVEL 9 weapons. In under 2 weeks a new player can get a 150 mil defense with EASE.

K, could make it completely variable, how about I also introduce that for every weapon you need to pay 1-2% of its cost each day as upkeep?
Currently you pay the upkeep in the form of attacking and repairing

As long as the weapons stay in shape, i don't mind which way the kuwal gets paid

Also hence the proposed farm update to allow for a more effective farming, reducing repairs and increasing farming yield.


Why so many limitations?
Because, surprise surprise, the same limitations make it absolutely impossible for 2 identical players one big and one small, for the small player to ever catch up with the big one.
The problem is the no reset thing about the server, if it were that players, once in a while stand on even ground, no matter when they started, then it'd be way much easier.

If I attack player A who has X defense and I loose lets say 30 repair points
If I attack player B who has X/10 defense I should loose 3 repair points.
currently I would loose roughly 15 points when attacking someone with defense of 10% of player A.


Furthermore, attacking inactives is very profitable, you can steal 30.000.000 kuwal quite easily and have only 8.000.000 repair costs for the turns if you attack with 1 weapon. To give players the incentive to attack active players, we should double the amount of attack turns needed to attack (from currently 10 AT to 20 AT). I know most people will be against this, because it will influence them negatively, but it will influence everyone in the same way and improve the gameplay, which is GOOD!

Farming system needs to be reworked.

Proof:

I made an experiment

attacking people with 300.000.000 kuwal out
leads to enemy having roughly 200.000.000 defense

my weps damaged by roughly 30 points
i had 240 losses
(repair costs including turns: 240.000.000 kuwal)

attacking people with 150.000.000 kuwal out
leads to enemy having roughly 30.000.000 defense

my weps damaged by roughly 16 points
i had 35 losses
(repair costs including turns: 120.000.000 kuwal)

clearly something is wrong with this.
If I attack player B who is only 1/7 of player A defense,
I shouldn't have 1/2 repair costs, but roughly 1/8 repair costs.

I makes no sense that a huge player cannot target players who are smaller than him.

What has to be changed is following:

weapons should damage by equivalent amount of points. In this case not damage by 16 points with a defense 7 times smaller, but should damage by 30/7 => damage by 5 points in this case

The amount of spent AT should be doubled, so that tiny players are better protected, and more players start building strike and not only target inactives.

Admin wrote:K, could make it completely variable, how about I also introduce that for every weapon you need to pay 1-2% of its cost each day as upkeep?
Currently you pay the upkeep in the form of attacking and repairing

The problem is the no reset thing about the server, if it were that players, once in a while stand on even ground, no matter when they started, then it'd be way much easier.

no need to pay upkeep. weapons should yield kuwal through farming. if you pay too much to farm, people will have better economy instead. currently people already have too much focus on economy and little military.

no one said that it would be wrong if people had 20% population in attack 20% in defense 20% spy, 20% assassin and 20% civilians, but at the moment farming with 1 weapon is without risk and yields almost as much profit as farming with 20.000 weapons, where the risk of not being to farm anyone is huge.

this has nothing to do with huge players and small players. players can be same size. This is all about huge strike and small strike. many huge players have tiny strikes, because it makes no sense to have many weapons.

Anyone dare having a guess at what the direct consequence of me making strike power damage be variable completely to the maximum extent possible will be?

I'll give you a hint, it's something to do with massing.
I welcome anyone to have a shot at this and post the correct answer.

solution to this question coming soon

Admin wrote:Anyone dare having a guess at what the direct consequence of me making strike power damage be variable completely to the maximum extent possible will be?

I'll give you a hint, it's something to do with massing.
I welcome anyone to have a shot at this and post the correct answer.

solution to this question coming soon

Maybe you should read the the thread again, because this thread isnt about massing, but about FARMING.
In farming, the attacker should ALWAYS have higher repair costs than the defender.

Try to guess what will happen if attackers costs will be decreased.

CORRECT!

defenders costs will be decreased too!


If you cannot figure out the right forumula for this to work, I can give it to you.

Kenzu wrote:Maybe you should read the the thread again, because this thread isnt about massing, but about FARMING.

the function of damage equations is not up for discussion. There is only one formula for all attack types, all that's changing are the values like base unit losses and weapon damage without modifiers.

You want to make it be completely variable for attacker only for just one attack type, then it will be completely variable for attacker only for all attack types. Because you're not changing base numbers but the whole formula

No need to have 7 pages of code where only 1 page is sufficient

Admin wrote:

Kenzu wrote:Maybe you should read the the thread again, because this thread isnt about massing, but about FARMING.

the function of damage equations is not up for discussion. There is only one formula for all attack types, all that's changing are the values like base unit losses and weapon damage without modifiers.

You want to make it be completely variable for attacker only for just one attack type, then it will be completely variable for attacker only for all attack types. Because you're not changing base numbers but the whole formula

No need to have 7 pages of code where only 1 page is sufficient

in that case make it variable for all attacks, but make sure defenders have always less costs than attackers.
and someone masses someone else, the person who was massing has higher repair costs

In farm, raid, assault missions, attacker always has to have more costs than defender.

the only situations where attackers may have lower costs than defenders is when attacker is targeting civilian units, attack units, spies or assassins.




repair costs: costs of weapon repair, rebuying units, retraining units, turns.

so basically not change anything

gotcha

You two fight like brothers thats for sure.