Is there a point to having a defense at all?

by navblue Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:53 pm

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal XXX damage on the enemy!
This results in 191 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict XXX damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 1,260 casualties in their enemies ranks!

Attacker's attack has been repelled!

The invading soldiers flee in panic whilst navblue's forces are cheering and celebrating their victory.
It is reported that 1,208,921,519 Kuwal has been taken from the realm of navblue

The attackers attack failed in every way, yet they still won all of my Kuwal. Is there any point to having a defence at all? Is there a built in chance of an attacker stealing all Kuwal even if the attack failed? From what I've seen so far in this game war is almost absolutely pointless. The war system is geared strictly for farming and stealing kuwal and nothing more.

by kingkongfan1 Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:02 pm

All I can say is go back & read the part of the last update that says, any attacker; no matter how small, or in consideration of success will take a portion of your kuwal.

Did said attacker get all your kuwal in the failed attempt? that would be a different matter entirely to be taken up with the Admin... king

by seaborgium Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:04 pm

they get a % of your on hand kuwal based on the % strike to your def
So if there strike is 50% of your def they get 50% of the kuwal

by Nigatsu_Aka Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:04 pm

The attackers attack failed in every way, yet they still won all of my Kuwal.

If the attacker took all the kuwal, then it is probably a bug... the attack was defended afterall.

by kingkongfan1 Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:07 pm

seaborgium wrote:they get a % of your on hand kuwal based on the % strike to your def
So if there strike is 50% of your def they get 50% of the kuwal

Thanks seaborgium; thats what I was trying to say, you said it better... king

by navblue Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:13 pm

I wasn't there at the time of attack so I'm not sure if they took it all or not. By the looks of it from judging the time of attack and how much I had left they didn't get all of it, but as I understand the changes they shouldn't have got nearly as much kuwal as they did if any at all.

Considering I did the most damage in the attack and won the battle. The amount he got was would have been greater than 75% of my total kuwal likely more like 85% or more. It doesn't seem right and if this is intentional the numbers need to be adjusted. If this is how its intended to be it would cheaper to sell off the majority of my defence and focus 100% on Spies.

by navblue Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:35 pm

Looking at it closer it looks like the recent change allowing the losing attacker to still win kuwal is about equal to the damage done in the attack. So if the attacker loses while doing 80% of the damage the defending soldiers did they will still win roughly 80% of the Kuwal.

IMHO this is absolutely absurd. With this system the attacker is guaranteed to essentially get some money from the attack regardless of victory. With the small amount of soldiers that are typically lost in a an attack its not expensive for the attacker to lose This kind of system makes it harder for newer players to get established in the game and easier for the more established players to dominate the game.

If you attack someone and lose there should be some sort of detrimental effect to the attacker. Either they should lose Kuwal or troops to the defender or the amount of soldiers killed in a failed attack needs to be increased for the attacker.

by Nomad Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:43 am

considering the fact that the rank 1 defense is twice the rank 1 strike, this update makes sense. Otherwise anyone with a defense higher then the rank 1 strike could go days, or weeks without logging in with no fear of being hit.

As for a smaller strike stealing a % based on the difference of strike/defense it makes sense and honestly doesnt change much from the old system. Its all about profit. As long as your defense is high enought to make it unprofitable to hit you then your fine. Look at the hit on you above.

IDK weapons levels and such, so for arguements sake lets say its main battle tanks and UU cost 150K per.

Cost of the hit
Cost of UU = 150,000
Cost to train UU = 150,000
Cost to arm UU = 308,000
total cost per UU = 608,000 Multiplied by 1,260 = 766,080,000

1,208,921,519 -
766,080,000 =
442,841,519 total profit

Now some will argue the cost of AT and ST and such, so there are different ways to measure it, but still nearly 450 mill in profit is worth it.

Either increase your defense, or nerf your income with work conditions or realm alert when you can't log in.

The other option is to do 450mill in damage to the guy that hit you therefore destroying the profit made and detering him from hitting you again, but that has a possible cost as well.

by navblue Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:51 pm

I agree with the change and don't see a problem with it. The problem I have is how much more beneficial it is for the attacker when losing. You can practically attack anyone with a large amount of kuwal, lose heavily and at the very least your going to break even. All you need is a marginal offence you will likely come out ahead.

Even if I had double my current defence causing the attacker to do 40% of the damage I did defending he would have still come out ahead and I would have loss both kuwal and soldiers. There is currently very little consequence for attacking and losing.

I have no problem losing kuwal from being attacked, but the consequence for the attacker losing needs to be adjusted. The attacker can take some kuwal but the current value is too high, if it were half of the current value it would make more sense. The attacker could still turn a profit, but not as much as they can currently.

I don't see why someone who chooses to attack another person and looses should be rewarded so greatly. While for the defender there is no chance of any sort of gain, regardless of how poorly the attacker conducted their attack.

by Kenzu Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:31 pm

navblue wrote:I agree with the change and don't see a problem with it. The problem I have is how much more beneficial it is for the attacker when losing. You can practically attack anyone with a large amount of kuwal, lose heavily and at the very least your going to break even. All you need is a marginal offence you will likely come out ahead.

Even if I had double my current defence causing the attacker to do 40% of the damage I did defending he would have still come out ahead and I would have loss both kuwal and soldiers. There is currently very little consequence for attacking and losing.

I have no problem losing kuwal from being attacked, but the consequence for the attacker losing needs to be adjusted. The attacker can take some kuwal but the current value is too high, if it were half of the current value it would make more sense. The attacker could still turn a profit, but not as much as they can currently.

I don't see why someone who chooses to attack another person and looses should be rewarded so greatly. While for the defender there is no chance of any sort of gain, regardless of how poorly the attacker conducted their attack.

I think if you keep attacking a person for little or for no profit so that in the end what you steal covers your losses, but he has losses from you, it might end up that one day he will come with his friends and mass you to the ground.

Attacking without proper profit isn't a good idea.

The attacker has a lot of risks, and he has a lot of losses too.
Most aderan players keep such a high defense, that there is very little chance for a attacker to hit active players, to the point that it's questionable if there is any point in keeping a high strike at all.

The question should be:
Is there a point to have a strike bigger than 1 soldier at all?

by kingkongfan1 Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:18 pm

Kenzu wrote:
navblue wrote:I agree with the change and don't see a problem with it. The problem I have is how much more beneficial it is for the attacker when losing. You can practically attack anyone with a large amount of kuwal, lose heavily and at the very least your going to break even. All you need is a marginal offence you will likely come out ahead.

Even if I had double my current defence causing the attacker to do 40% of the damage I did defending he would have still come out ahead and I would have loss both kuwal and soldiers. There is currently very little consequence for attacking and losing.

I have no problem losing kuwal from being attacked, but the consequence for the attacker losing needs to be adjusted. The attacker can take some kuwal but the current value is too high, if it were half of the current value it would make more sense. The attacker could still turn a profit, but not as much as they can currently.

I don't see why someone who chooses to attack another person and looses should be rewarded so greatly. While for the defender there is no chance of any sort of gain, regardless of how poorly the attacker conducted their attack.

I think if you keep attacking a person for little or for no profit so that in the end what you steal covers your losses, but he has losses from you, it might end up that one day he will come with his friends and mass you to the ground.

Attacking without proper profit isn't a good idea.

The attacker has a lot of risks, and he has a lot of losses too.
Most aderan players keep such a high defense, that there is very little chance for a attacker to hit active players, to the point that it's questionable if there is any point in keeping a high strike at all.

The question should be:
Is there a point to have a strike bigger than 1 soldier at all?

I've been asking that question since I started playing... king

by navblue Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:24 pm

Kenzu wrote:
Attacking without proper profit isn't a good idea.

The attacker has a lot of risks, and he has a lot of losses too.
Most aderan players keep such a high defense, that there is very little chance for a attacker to hit active players, to the point that it's questionable if there is any point in keeping a high strike at all.

If someone is just farming the attacker actually has very little risk. I don't have the highest attack rating but doing a quick sampling of people with ~1b kuwal I can attack, lose and still turn a profit. There are a multitude of people to farm with ZERO risk, why do we need to accommodate someone who initiates an attack on someone by making it so easy to steal kuwal by those who will try to defend it.

My point is, if defense is so much greater than offense, yet someone can still steal the majority of your income and turn a profit even if they lose. In the OP my defense won by doing about 20% more damage, which means we were pretty close, yet as the loser in the battle the attacker made out a lot better than the defender. The attacker initiated the attack and knew the risks, yet he benefited from the loss anyway. Why have a defense at all?

Kenzu wrote:
The question should be:
Is there a point to have a strike bigger than 1 soldier at all?

So we can agree the war system makes little sense. Yes actually you probably could do very well farming inactives with zero defense.

by Kenzu Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:08 pm

That the reason why I want to abolish weapon upkeep

It will make farmers with big strikes more profitable

by kingkongfan1 Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:12 am

Kenzu wrote:That the reason why I want to abolish weapon upkeep

It will make farmers with big strikes more profitable

Its simple Kenzu, Have Admin put it to a vote for or against weapon upkeep... I vote keep weapons upkeep... king

p.s. sorry for spam...

by ¤ Angel Slayer Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:38 am

navblue wrote:
Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal XXX damage on the enemy!
This results in 191 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict XXX damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 1,260 casualties in their enemies ranks!

Attacker's attack has been repelled!

The invading soldiers flee in panic whilst navblue's forces are cheering and celebrating their victory.
It is reported that 1,208,921,519 Kuwal has been taken from the realm of navblue

The attackers attack failed in every way, yet they still won all of my Kuwal. Is there any point to having a defence at all? Is there a built in chance of an attacker stealing all Kuwal even if the attack failed? From what I've seen so far in this game war is almost absolutely pointless. The war system is geared strictly for farming and stealing kuwal and nothing more.

Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Hell i thought the real question was - Is there a point in playing this game still? hahaha

Yeah attackers that fail the mission shouldn't get a single kuwal, thats just insane,
but what can you do, argue the fact and get no where, so just let it be, and if you get tired of the shit don't farm/raid/war, just build and keep a low income untill someone new comes along and changes the ways.
Just my 2 cents Very Happy

by ian Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:31 pm

Guys, i really don't get what all the moaning is about.

To put things into perspective - currently to make a reasonable profit i have to wait for an defender to get 1.3billion+ kuwal out provided their defence is below my strike (1.8billion power) - i ll make 300 - 600million profit depending on their defence size.

If however say their defence is 2.8billion power, i have to wait for them to get 2.5billion kuwal out... as realistically i ll get about 1.8 - 2billion of that kuwal. I ll make about 400 - 500million kuwal profit in such an hit once you factor in losses.

So.... yes defence is very much effective still. I can profitably farm defences below 1.8billion power for 1.3billion or above kuwal. Yet a defence just 1billion power more (2.8billion power) allows a person to have about 1.2billion more kuwal out before they become a target.

You also have to remember i have one of the highest strike techs on the game - with only a handful of other's with higher strike techs, or with the attack-race as their selection. I ve got as many personal points in strike as i can have (I m huala race though - so can't have as many as the strike race). All of this means i can generally farm people for lower amounts due to less casualties due to techs - most other's would find the amounts they have to hit for would be a little higher...... - which makes defence even more effective.

So... overall - yes defences are very much worthwhile still and DO protect your income.

Finally.... if you are being farmed, there is one last "defence" you can do - and that is to kill/threaten the attacker. I find generally investing in having a proper strike (so you can mass people) coupled with a high covert capability (i ve got 5,800 covert action and a highish covert tech) means if you are being farmed by other's, you can issue them a ultimatum to stop farming you.... and if they ignore it, you can follow up on the warning effectively by annihilating them. "The best defence is a good offence" is something you might want to consider applying Smile

by navblue Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:23 pm

¤ Angel Slayer wrote:
Hell i thought the real question was - Is there a point in playing this game still? hahaha

LOL I think I'll just switch my question to this.

I used to be setup for all out offensive and quite frankly it sucked, so I understand the recent changes that were made to try to improve the offensive capability. I guess I'm just bored and thought i'd try to see how things would be defensively after the last changes (moved by personal bonuses around and changed race). Getting farmed or having kuwal stolen isn't the problem, in fact i think i've only been attacked once in the last month or two (and that was by a now current alliance mate), but I still think that if you attack and lose the battle, the gains are too high (or losses to low). If you want to initiate an attack on another active player, there should be a larger consequence for losing.

by Lord Ishurue Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:28 pm

navblue wrote:
¤ Angel Slayer wrote:
Hell i thought the real question was - Is there a point in playing this game still? hahaha

LOL I think I'll just switch my question to this.

I used to be setup for all out offensive and quite frankly it sucked, so I understand the recent changes that were made to try to improve the offensive capability. I guess I'm just bored and thought i'd try to see how things would be defensively after the last changes (moved by personal bonuses around and changed race). Getting farmed or having kuwal stolen isn't the problem, in fact i think i've only been attacked once in the last month or two (and that was by a now current alliance mate), but I still think that if you attack and lose the battle, the gains are too high (or losses to low). If you want to initiate an attack on another active player, there should be a larger consequence for losing.

On a repelled farm u lose more troops and weapons then if it was successful .
on a defeated/ my strike is bigger then the defense i lose on average of 1k - 1.5k ASs . on a repelled farm I lose on average of 1.9k + ASs .

by Lord Ishurue Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:35 pm

Kenzu wrote:
The question should be:
Is there a point to have a strike bigger than 1 soldier at all?

Yes their is . With out a strike how can you fight an enemy . You can't .

a 1bil strike with decent bonus/techs can make greater profits then someone with 1 armed ASs .

by Kenzu Sat May 29, 2010 11:56 am

I wonder other people think about this.

I keep getting more and more complaints about this.
Maybe this update is damaging the game.

Even though I think it's reasonable, if people don't want to have it, we should get rid of it.

by ian Sat May 29, 2010 11:58 am

Kenzu wrote:I wonder other people think about this.

I keep getting more and more complaints about this.
Maybe this update is damaging the game.

Even though I think it's reasonable, if people don't want to have it, we should get rid of it.

The update did damage the game yes. We went from having 50+ people logging on normally to a drop to about 30 in the space of a couple of weeks.

However AW is picking up new players who will and have "grown up" with the new update in effect. They are used to the system. I m not sure removing it would do much good now - those who don't like the update are probably already gone by now...

by lil monsters Sat May 29, 2010 2:28 pm

I think it's silly that a person with a smaller strike hitting a person with a bigger defense then his strike and actually getting any kuwal for it, lol I should only use 100 strike units with cheap weapons and go around hitting people who have billions out and see how much i can profit lol

by Nomad Sat May 29, 2010 2:39 pm

You should think about everyone and not just yourself Lil Mon.

I was hit by a n00bie, he got 62 kewal and it killed 78 of his men and weapons, so he definitely got the poo poo end of the stick.

Not to mention look at the other end of the spectrum. Look at the largest accounts and stats in the game right now. Last count the largest strike was lil over 6 bill. The largest defense was lil over 12 bill. So this update made it so anyone over that rank 1 strike is still a target. Going by the old system the rank 1 defense could log in 1 time a week, and spend all the resources upping his defense and he could and would NEVER be hit because no one can breach his defense. It promotes activity as there are NO "untouchables"

by lil monsters Sat May 29, 2010 2:44 pm

Nomad wrote:You should think about everyone and not just yourself Lil Mon.

I was hit by a n00bie, he got 62 kewal and it killed 78 of his men and weapons, so he definitely got the poo poo end of the stick.

Not to mention look at the other end of the spectrum. Look at the largest accounts and stats in the game right now. Last count the largest strike was lil over 6 bill. The largest defense was lil over 12 bill. So this update made it so anyone over that rank 1 strike is still a target. Going by the old system the rank 1 defense could log in 1 time a week, and spend all the resources upping his defense and he could and would NEVER be hit because no one can breach his defense. It promotes activity as there are NO "untouchables"

wow people actually have 6 bil strikes and 12 bil defenses, sheesh Shocked

by Nomad Sat May 29, 2010 2:49 pm

you been gone for some time Monsta tongue

by Sponsored content

Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?

Re: Is there a point to having a defense at all?