Upcoming test releases

Admin wrote:trust me, you're not the only .... (insert appropriate word here) who put 4.5+ mil units into training income

and theres people who train something else than farmers

even though it's the test server, it's in my blood to play the strategy i play in any game, and i couldn't stand to see others raiding me, even on the test server, so instead of having allot of uu in the open i prefer to train them
i would do so even if the test server would reset in a few days

so, yeah, i'm one of the ....

you do realize those updates, if released in that state, would mean a significant change in massing tactics

better put those resources to better long term use

Thank you for putting the priority training option in.

There is a minor bug with it though. I can not prioritize attack supers. I set it to "attack soldiers" and when the mid-way point on the turn tick comes around it ignores it and goes back to training spies again. Also it changes the option in the bar back to spies after the mid-way point of the turn comes around.

units get trained at 15 minute mark.

are you positive that the game didn't just train the supers and afterwars you had none left to train?

it works now, last night i was doing it and i had 9k supers left to train for like 2 hours. I kept putting them as priority but each time i logged back in no supers trained and priority was on spies. When i woke up their morning the supers were trained though so i guess it all worked out

The game has just became more interesting However i believe that hunt assasins supply turns cost should be decreased so we can kill spies easier. So far when we massed an account in main the spies were left intact all the times even if that user had lots of them ( rank 1 covert ).

you want to kill more things, pay the price

otherwise just limit yourself to "decreasing" the def

anyways, added 1 ST cost to kuwal hits
IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU DO 1 or 10 ATTACKS, you always pay 1 st for each mission

Admin wrote:you want to kill more things, pay the price

otherwise just limit yourself to "decreasing" the def

anyways, added 1 ST cost to kuwal hits
IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU DO 1 or 10 ATTACKS, you always pay 1 st for each mission

Please keep it 2 ST per farm attack

I think it's fine if people farm more. The whole farming system encourages you to farm active accounts (on the test server at least) and the limiting factor is going to be the capacity of your training facilities and weapons factories anyway.

Jiro wrote:I think it's fine if people farm more. The whole farming system encourages you to farm active accounts (on the test server at least) and the limiting factor is going to be the capacity of your training facilities and weapons factories anyway.

Indeed . Keep it 1ST/attack or none.

I would say 1 over none, myself.

Special Agent 47 wrote:I would say 1 over none, myself.

Is there an option where you would say something over 1?

dunno like i.e.:
1-3 Attacks = 1 ST
4-10 Attacks = 2 ST


I'm always open to suggestions, just sometimes it really happens I'm left alone to figure out the numbers

Make it more even like
1-5 = 1 ST
6-10 = 2 ST

or better yet
1-6 = 1 ST
7-10 = 2 ST

reason I stopped at 3 is cos that gives you 30% of the normal losses and 42% of kuwal stolen. (higher % of amount stolen will be pure profit)
Basically leaving you the option, do you want to farm efficiently or do you want to farm quickly.

If we do 2 ST at 7 or even 6 then no one will be using these attacks to steal kuwal regularly, everyone will only stick with doing 1 ST attacks, except in those rare cases when someone forgets about their protection.

Admin wrote:reason I stopped at 3 is cos that gives you 30% of the normal losses and 42% of kuwal stolen. (higher % of amount stolen will be pure profit)
Basically leaving you the option, do you want to farm efficiently or do you want to farm quickly.

If we do 2 ST at 7 or even 6 then no one will be using these attacks to steal kuwal regularly, everyone will only stick with doing 1 ST attacks, except in those rare cases when someone forgets about their protection.

Point taken.

added an eta, 22-23 January.

would like to receive feedback about things that are implemented in a bad way and are unsuitable for release (along with either suggested fixes or the demand for total scrapping of the idea)

Fine tuning can be done anytime since that requires long term observation anyway

Sidenote: Released following updates
- Character counter when writing a personal message, when past 2.5k it will turn bold red, however no consequences yet (added today or tomorrow)
- Usernames now accept colors (vip users only, no namechange cost)
- username max length for EVERYONE is 25 characters, (255 characters limit including all color and style edits)

(- For the slow minded people, you can use the personal message area to type up your username and to see how many characters you're using and got left)

When you login, you have to type only the name, or the name with the styles?

Hi Admin,

I like the farming with a lower strike than the defence.
I never bother to use the partial 1-10 attack. It gives me too much of a headache to estimate the cost of the extra losses versus the extra amount of Kuwal I'd get. Maybe experience and calculating it through a couple of times would make it easy enough to use, but for the moment I don't use it.
I hate the way losses are calculated. If I have 100,000 attack supers with mobile artillery facing one man with a knife, it sucks if there is a 30% chance that the man with the kinfe will die versus a 100% certainty that 30 of my men will die. It actually prevents people being massed to a zero defence by using assault. You actually need to assault, hunt assassins, assassinate their covert and sabotage their weapons to get there. At a great expense of AT, ST and CT. The latter being a reason for it to take multiple days for a single person and maybe a group as well.
I think it would be good to put a limit to the amount of losses a unit can cause to the opponents or make the lives of the soldiers depend on the amount of hitpoints of the weapons they are wearing + a base amount that differs between supers and normal soldiers (like 100 hitpoints for a soldier and 200 for a super) Then kill a number of soldiers according to the amount of damage done (* 10 for defenders). I'll work on some examples if you want.
I like the way you can raid with a reasonable strike. You no longer need to completely zero a defence and then raid it with a minimal strike to avoid heinous repair costs. It makes that an individual player has more options.
And I like the way soldier die with their weapons. It puts greater emphasis on the supply chain of building weapons and units.
I don't know if you implemented the idea of weapons upkeep, increasing progressively by weapon level. If you are planning on upkeep, please make it a fixed ratio of weapon value, as that will already increase steadily with weapon level, but still will incentivise players to upgrade their weapons tech because they become (slightly) more cost-efficient.
My 2 cents for the moment. Hope it helps.

Jiro wrote:If I have 100,000 attack supers with mobile artillery facing one man with a knife, it sucks if there is a 30% chance that the man with the kinfe will die versus a 100% certainty that 30 of my men will die. It actually prevents people being massed to a zero defence by using assault.

I really misunderstand 2 things so i'm asking for clarification
1) how did you get to the 30% chance
2) why is it so important to get someone to 0 defense?

Jiro wrote:I don't know if you implemented the idea of weapons upkeep, increasing progressively by weapon level. If you are planning on upkeep, please make it a fixed ratio of weapon value, as that will already increase steadily with weapon level, but still will incentivise players to upgrade their weapons tech because they become (slightly) more cost-efficient.

Suggestion noted however for practical reasons I am almost 100% set on making it a linear progression in % increase of weapon value.
(Even if a weapon is 1.7 times more expensive and gives only 30% more power, if you include unit cost and training you'll end up with the new weapon still being like 1.5 times better than the previous)

it would be important to get soem1 to zero defense since repair costs are already insane and if some1 needs to hunt assassins or invade it will be even more expensive

Vesper wrote:it would be important to get soem1 to zero defense since repair costs are already insane and if some1 needs to hunt assassins or invade it will be even more expensive

Sorry, but you do realize that repair costs are gone and removed, right?

Admin wrote:I really misunderstand 2 things so i'm asking for clarification
1) how did you get to the 30% chance

I don't know the exact numbers and limits, but I thought that the basic 4% and 5% losses for Assault were modified by the power ration, so if your strike is 10x defence, you'd suffer less than 5% losses and the defender would suffer more than 4% losses. In a very skewed situation you'd end up with a situation like I described, but I don't know the exact limits. The percentages are just an illustration of a general point I am trying to make.
As far as I know, there is no way the formula would return 100% losses for the defender, but I'll try and find a defender with 10 soldiers and try.

Admin wrote:2) why is it so important to get someone to 0 defense?

Because at zero defence your losses in attack and raid missions are much lower or non-existent. At least in attack missions they used to be zero. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what the costs are for those missions and need to try multiple targets.

Admin wrote:Suggestion noted however for practical reasons I am almost 100% set on making it a linear progression in % increase of weapon value.

Weapons become more expensive with each level, with a decreasing increase in power / Kuwal ratio.
You will come to a point where the increased upkeep makes a weapon more expensive / power gained to keep than the previous level, even though the cost to purchase that power may be lower than the previous level.
On the other hand, maybe the problem isn't that big: just use them quickly to avoid upkeep. Call them nukes .
It will bring a limit to weapons research though. I'll research the raiding / farming losses.

Edit: one other thing, I saw you write somewhere (Attack losses thread) that losses are the same (in numbers) for big and small strikes. How can that be if they are percentages? Or do I need to consider percentage of what?

If you have 1 soldier and you get attacked then you lose that 1 soldier.

Jiro wrote:Because at zero defence your losses in attack and raid missions are much lower or non-existent. At least in attack missions they used to be zero. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what the costs are for those missions and need to try multiple targets.

Ok, so you would be ok with wiping out a def to 0 with only some assault missions, and then the attacker being able to kill all your assassins and income units for anywhere between 0 and 0 kuwal as costs to replace lost units and weapons. ignoring turn costs.
Let me know if I understood correctly.

Jiro wrote:Edit: one other thing, I saw you write somewhere (Attack losses thread) that losses are the same (in numbers) for big and small strikes. How can that be if they are percentages? Or do I need to consider percentage of what?

Losses get modified by ratio of attack vs defense. More soldiers = more power = better ratio = less % losses = (nearly) same numerical losses

Admin wrote:Ok, so you would be ok with wiping out a def to 0 with only some assault missions, and then the attacker being able to kill all your assassins and income units for anywhere between 0 and 0 kuwal as costs to replace lost units and weapons. ignoring turn costs.
Let me know if I understood correctly.

Ah, so that is the catch. I hadn't realised that there would be vitually no cost to wiping out the assassins, miners etc. Thanks for clarifying.
Also regarding, ratio offence / defence, I didn't know and it didn't look like the effect would be so great. Maybe I am just too used to weapons being damaged an insane amount for a virtually non-existent opposition.
Also, I ran some tests on very small players to see what it would really look like, because apparently I had been focussing on performing these missions on someone who I had just massed from a 250M defence to 40M.
The problems I saw were not so big in reality as I imagined them, I am undecided on the massing part though:

Attack

Code:

Time     Target        Result              Enemy Losses     Your Losses     Enemy Damage     Your Damage     Report
[12 Jan] 12:57     keyonastring     241,933,950 Kuwal Stolen     14            83            3,258,684         936,955,302     details
[12 Jan] 12:52    kultach       11,142,846 Kuwal Stolen    2          2          1,315          689,623,065    details
[12 Jan] 12:38    Yoda          33,769,537 Kuwal Stolen    1          0          0             832,242,757    details

Raid

Code:

Time     Target        Result           Enemy Losses     Your Losses     Enemy Damage     Your Damage     Report
[12 Jan] 12:57     keyonastring     785 Units abducted     14            108            5,180,533         880,257,441     details
[12 Jan] 12:52    kultach       212 Units abducted    2          8          22,404          827,511,921    details
[12 Jan] 12:40    Yoda          59 Units abducted    1          0          0             894,884,685    details

Assault

Code:

 Time     Target        Result     Enemy Losses     Your Losses     Enemy Damage     Your Damage     Report
[12 Jan] 12:57     keyonastring     Victory     213            272            5,257,847         869,049,944     details
[12 Jan] 12:53    kultach       Victory    3          17          21,068          900,912,794    details
[12 Jan] 12:41    Yoda          Victory    1          0          0             903,833,531    details

Hunt assassins

Code:

Time     Target        Result           Enemy Losses     Your Losses     Enemy Damage     Your Damage     Report
[12 Jan] 12:57     keyonastring     4 Assassins Killed     54            80            4,931,659         854,822,966     details
[12 Jan] 12:53    kultach       0 Assassins Killed    2          5          18,412          827,064,958    details
[12 Jan] 12:41    Yoda          0 Assassins Killed    1          0          0             885,935,838    details

Invasion

Code:

 Time     Target        Result     Enemy Losses     Your Losses     Enemy Damage     Your Damage     Report
[12 Jan] 12:57    keyonastring    Victory    53          76          4,422,693          835,173,180    details
[12 Jan] 12:54    kultach       Victory    2          5          14,403          955,616,209    details
[12 Jan] 12:42    Yoda          Victory    1          0          0             885,935,838    details

Destruction

Code:

Time     Target        Result     Enemy Losses     Your Losses     Enemy Damage     Your Damage     Report
[12 Jan] 12:58    keyonastring    Victory    51          103          4,638,225          815,658,475    details
[12 Jan] 12:55    kultach      Victory    2          9          12,428          826,886,173    details
[12 Jan] 12:42    Yoda          Victory    1          1          0             939,628,919    details

since its near impossible to drop a defense to 0 is there a new way to launch a strong destruction on some1s strike?

I launched a destruction on some1 that still had a bit of defense and took massive loses.

Basically if you match some1s defense you take somewhat equal loses. If you have a larger strike you lose more units simply because you have more armed. So by the time you fully mass a defense your strike will most likely be shot. Then you need to go through the remaining defense and the enemies strike to kill the strike off? It just seems like it will be nearly impossible for a single person to mass 1 other person. It will take like 3 or 4 people to mass a single person if things stay as they are from what i can tell.

I will mess around on test server a bit more but so far things seem sketchy