Attack/Raid changes

Scrapped previous post:

Changes done to attack mission only
ST cost went down from 3 ST to 2 ST
If your strike is more than 500 times stronger than defense then your weapons dont suffer any damage

Changes to raid and attack:
Raid and Attack missions cause 10-15% less weapon damage to both sides

you still raid the same or has that dropped too ?

has dropped?
none of this has happened yet

anyways how much you steal/raid won't change

amount of turns needed for an attack should NOT decrease.
Keep it as it is. A player can already hit 5 targets per day, and when buying turns can hit much more targets.


The problem isn't hitting more targets, the problem is that there has to be lower repair costs, so it will be more worthy to attack players with more kuwal out.

Decreasing amount of turns needed will make weak players even more vulnerable since an attacker, who is hitting only 5 weak players could hit 10 or 20 weak players per day.

Keep the turn cost the same, so that players will focus on hitting bigger players who have much more kuwal out.



It often happens that players have only 1 weapon attacking inactives, this brings 20-40 million in each mission, but if they have a lot of weapons, their repair costs are already 75 million per hit, which means that even if they hit for 125 million kuwal, their profit is almost the same AND they have more risk being massed by the active players.

Therefore we need SAME amount of TURNS needed for an attack, but less repair costs and less losses for both the ATTACKER and DEFENDER in attack and raid missions.

I recommend lowering the repair costs and losses to 50%

and see how the game evolves. If it is evolving good (meaning there isn't just one single power owning all players), we can continue lowering these costs further in 2010.

PS: So that players USE their supply turns instead of selling them, set the sale of supply turns at 1000 per package and not only 400 per package. Supply turns are currently very expensive which increases the cost of massing for the attacker.

I have to agree with Kenzu on this one, he is spot on.

I will even go so far to say that on raiding and farming attacks, lessen the damage considerably. Make it cheaper to do so. Will it make it too hard on new/smaller players? If they are going to get hit, they are going to get hit either way in my eyes.

Then it means you have 3 choices
1. accept it and change nothing
2. change your stratagy, be it military increase, or income decrease, or both
3. retaliate in a manner that will cost the attack, in other words start a war

input noted, decreasing turn cost isn't best option
So this is what we'll do:
Attack mission costs: from 10/3 to 10/2 AT/ST
Raid mission costs: stays 10/3

i'm still very sceptical about a strong repair costs decrease being good option, so we'll do small steps.

So 10% repair cost reduction and 25-30% less unit losses

i do agree with keeping the attack turns and st for attacking the same. If the repair cost got lower - albit not drasticly but in say smaller incrments liek 20 % for both repair and unit lose and see hwo goes from there. Only thignt hat holds me back from farming isnt the AT/ST but the costs in repairs makes finding targets much harder. Yes i now i could sell the striek off but at thsi point intime its not worth selling the strike.

Admin wrote:input noted, decreasing turn cost isn't best option
So this is what we'll do:
Attack mission costs: from 10/3 to 10/2 AT/ST
Raid mission costs: stays 10/3

i'm still very sceptical about a strong repair costs decrease being good option, so we'll do small steps.

So 10% repair cost reduction and 25-30% less unit losses

That's barely no change.

Halving the costs should be the minimum change.

If people are farmed too much they should make peace treaties or go to war.

As someone has said on this forum long time ago:
"This is Aderan WARS not Aderan PEACE"

PS: At the same time we should restrict how many successful Invasion missions "kill the civilian missions" should be allowed to be dealt on a player by another player per day. If there will be more wars, there will be more massings and we should prevent players to be massed into oblivion within 5 minutes so that they will quit playing. Maybe we should restrict invasion missions to 3 successful invasion missions per player per day. Someone who has 500.000 miners would lose 15.000 miners each day in an ongoing war. And thus he would agree to surrender under worse conditions. (or loose 6.000 workers each day if had 500.000 workers)

Nomad wrote:I look at the flip side myself, and agree with what Admin has done. It is a known fact, and a game mechanic that ATTACK forces ALWAYS have the upper hand. They are ALWAYS online during an attack, and can repair the entire time. Making the personal bonus points equal in value make defense a liability and useless like it is in so many other games. Defense Always losses more men in a full scale massing.

Not in this game. On Aderan Wars massings are pretty much equally costly for attacker and defender.

We HAVE to make it equal, otherwise if we take an example of 2 players both have 1000 attackers and 1000 defenders, but one has all 30 points on attack and the other one all on defense.

attacker has +30% attack
and defender has +45% defense

this makes for example:

ATTACKER:
1300 attack action
1000 defense action

DEFENDER:
1000 attack action
1450 defense action

If now, both accounts get 450 uu, and they will train them in the weaker type, attacker will train 450 defenders and defender 450 attackers.

Result:

ATTACKER:
1300 attack action
1450 defense action

DEFENDER:
1450 attack action
1450 defense action

As a result both players, which were equally successful in building their account will see that the player, who chose all defense bonus points will have higher total power than the attacker and it is possible for him to be better at one stat and at the same time not be weaker in any stat than the attacker.

In other words:
Unfair

Not the loudest argument wins here but the soundest

Kenzu wrote:We HAVE to make it equal...

So I should increase massing cost for attacker so that when you mass someone you have to lose at least as much as they lose? Instead of losing less than what they lose right now?

Kenzu wrote:
attacker has +30% attack
and defender has +45% defense

You meant +30% attack and +40.5% defense right?

Kenzu wrote:"This is Aderan WARS not Aderan PEACE"

Since when is WAR solely about killing stuff

no need to go to extremes.
of course massing should be made possible with less losses if the strategy is right and with higher losses if the strategy is bad.

40.5% is what I meant.

1.35 x 30 = 40.5

From a logical point of view, defenders should have the upper hand when it comes to bonuses.

In a mass, defenders lose everything they have. EVERYTHING: Spies, assassins, income units, income, UU. Making the bonuses the same only decreases the attacker's losses, which, if played right, are not that high in comparison.

Also, when you're farming with a high strike and you get 50 mil profit, that's a good catch. Why do you want more? You're making 4bil profit per 1k ATs. That's almost 400% at current rates.

Yes, there is the risk you'll get massed. But making bonuses equal will mean the guy you just pissed off through farming will have an easier time kicking your ass in return.

Bottom line: you'd make a slightly higher profit but you'd increase the risk you'd get massed out of revenge. Where's the win in that? I only see fail.

Sandwalker wrote:From a logical point of view, defenders should have the upper hand when it comes to bonuses.

In a mass, defenders lose everything they have. EVERYTHING: Spies, assassins, income units, income, UU. Making the bonuses the same only decreases the attacker's losses, which, if played right, are not that high in comparison.

Also, when you're farming with a high strike and you get 50 mil profit, that's a good catch. Why do you want more? You're making 4bil profit per 1k ATs. That's almost 400% at current rates.

Yes, there is the risk you'll get massed. But making bonuses equal will mean the guy you just pissed off through farming will have an easier time kicking your ass in return.

Bottom line: you'd make a slightly higher profit but you'd increase the risk you'd get massed out of revenge. Where's the win in that? I only see fail.

but if you dont have these tousands of attackers you can earn a lot of income and from attacks on inactives you can easily get 30-35 million with a single weapon

10.000 miners give you 33.600.000 kuwal per day, and you dont make any enemies. (if you have 100% admin efficiency)

Sandwalker wrote:Bottom line: you'd make a slightly higher profit but you'd increase the risk you'd get massed out of revenge. Where's the win in that? I only see fail.

right now the point is to promote more farming and indirectly more massing.

lowering farm costs => more farming
And either the farmed people build strikes to farm others or they go and mass the farmers.

Win win for server activity

Admin wrote:

Sandwalker wrote:Bottom line: you'd make a slightly higher profit but you'd increase the risk you'd get massed out of revenge. Where's the win in that? I only see fail.

right now the point is to promote more farming and indirectly more massing.

lowering farm costs => more farming
And either the farmed people build strikes to farm others or they go and mass the farmers.

Win win for server activity

I actually do agree that the farming/ raiding repair costs should be decreased - i d say 10 or 15% would be the right amount... then can be decreased further in the future if necessary.

More wars sound fun...