losses

by Mystake Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:37 pm

this is starting to annoy me a bit, first of all you can't ZERO a defense in this game. It's nearly impossible.

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 819,983,700 damage on the enemy!
This results in 50 casualties amongst the defending troops!
The defending forces return fire and inflict 171,162,385 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 288 casualties in their enemies ranks!

but THAT?!? 4x the damage and 6x the casualties?!

That's garbage. Totally unrealistic and the numbers are just terrible, again.

What's the actual math? Because seriously, I am CREAMING that defense and taking relatively HUGE losses for it too.

by seaborgium Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:04 pm

you lose a % of what you send
you kill a % of what they have.

by Kenzu Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:00 pm

Mystake wrote:this is starting to annoy me a bit, first of all you can't ZERO a defense in this game. It's nearly impossible.

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 819,983,700 damage on the enemy!
This results in 50 casualties amongst the defending troops!
The defending forces return fire and inflict 171,162,385 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 288 casualties in their enemies ranks!

but THAT?!? 4x the damage and 6x the casualties?!

That's garbage. Totally unrealistic and the numbers are just terrible, again.

What's the actual math? Because seriously, I am CREAMING that defense and taking relatively HUGE losses for it too.

What kind of mission is this?
Is it a farm attack?
Because they aren't intended for lowering someone's defenses.

I think the math is that you lose 2% in farm attack
and defender around 0.2%
and there are some other modifiers, so that someone who has 10 times higher strike will not lose 10 times more units when farming someone than if he had same strike..

by Mystake Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:13 pm

it was a raid mission.

the modifiers clearly need to be reworked. 30 000 units do NOT lose THAT badly against a fraction of that.

by seaborgium Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:47 pm

many of us agree but we haven't been able to figure out anything better.

by Mystake Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:02 pm

SGW had it figured out.

If attacker lsoes 2% but defender loses 0.2%... wtf?

If you beat their defense, you should ALWAYS take less damage.

If you beat their defense by 1.2x then you should take even less damage.

Can't be that hard to figure out.

Attacker has 100 000 units
Defender has 10 000.

What are fair losses? Attacker should lose virtually 0%. Not even 0.02%. 0.002%

If attacker has 50k units vs 10k, they shouldn't lose more than a couple hundred. How much is that in %? Theres your numbers.

by Kingofshinobis1 Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:14 pm

there is already a topic that explains everything if i am not mistaken.

assault: (att/def) ^ .5 = adjustment
supers x .05 / adjustment = losses on your side
supers x .04 x adjustment = losses on his side

thats the basic assalut formula.

farming is base 2% losses, and goes up/down depending on how badly you lose/win in the attack

same goes for all strike missions

by Mystake Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:02 pm

yeah, 2% is ridiculous.

like, if I go raiding with 100k supers, I lose 2000 each hit because the guy has 10k units in defense?

That's LUDICROUS.

by Mystake Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:06 pm

[19 Mar] xxx XXX xxx Units Abducted 48 267 171,798,576 832,592,320 details

Does no one else see what's wrong with this picture? Why bother raiding at this point then?? I lose weapons and supers, that there at market uu prices is 267m in damages, 300m worth of turns to steal 2000 uu which is 550m worth.

Honestly, I thought the whole PTR and SS thing were bad but this is another nail in the coffin of why this game has been going downhill and is making no sign of ANY recovery. We all know it too. I'm doing my part by being active but this is just discouraging.

by Kingofshinobis1 Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:20 pm

i dont understand why you are not raiding 0 defense inactives with 125k uu out >.> there are plenty. why raid actives/inactives with defenses? its pointless as you said.

by Admin Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:24 am

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:there is already a topic that explains everything if i am not mistaken.

assault: (att/def) ^ .5 = adjustment
supers x .05 / adjustment = losses on your side
supers x .04 x adjustment = losses on his side

thats the basic assault formula.

farming is base 2% losses, and goes up/down depending on how badly you lose/win in the attack

same goes for all strike missions

actually I've edited that formula slightly since then to address the "my 50,000 soldiers attacked someone elses 50 and I lost 80 while only killing 3"

More than 5 times enemy power and you will not notice a change in losses on your side anymore.
So if someone has 100 units, you will not lose any less units if you have 5,000 or 50,000

Also I'm not quite so sure about sgw having it figured out:

Spoiler:

One thing that could be discussed would be to add something that had been around to fix the annoying "farming almost 0 def inactives" that you seem to have an issue with.
Back then I simply added into the code that if an attacker is 500 times more powerful then there are no losses.
This would only apply to farm/raid missions.

Although as I see it in this particular case I'd figure you wanted to raid someone who'd been accumulating untrained for a while but has gone inactive or something. Maybe you should just wait longer for there to be more uu's?

That and the fact that if someone has 500 soldiers, you can zero that stat with spies or assassins.

If you beat their defense, you should ALWAYS take less damage.

I dont see the logic in that

Neither can I imagine people wanting to have an instant bonus to attacker losses just because they won the battle (since it would mean whichever side can train more soldiers will end up with even better advantages), however I'll add that into the next poll I'll do.

But if you have good and most importantly non game breaking arguments as to what one could change then please let me know, short or long text doesn't matter

by Kingofshinobis1 Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:55 am

Admin wrote:
One thing that could be discussed would be to add something that had been around to fix the annoying "farming almost 0 def inactives" that you seem to have an issue with.
Back then I simply added into the code that if an attacker is 500 times more powerful then there are no losses.
This would only apply to farm/raid missions.

Although as I see it in this particular case I'd figure you wanted to raid someone who'd been accumulating untrained for a while but has gone inactive or something. Maybe you should just wait longer for there to be more uu's?

That and the fact that if someone has 500 soldiers, you can zero that stat with spies or assassins.

mystake wrote:If you beat their defense, you should ALWAYS take less damage.
I don't see the logic in that

Neither can I imagine people wanting to have an instant bonus to attacker losses just because they won the battle (since it would mean whichever side can train more soldiers will end up with even better advantages), however I'll add that into the next poll I'll do.

But if you have good and most importantly non game breaking arguments as to what one could change then please let me know, short or long text doesn't matter

1). So if someone has a 10mil defense then i can farm/raid them with a 5bil strike?. Hmm. I kinda like it. Good for those pesky defense inactives Razz

Perhaps cap the defense thing at 500mil to avoid those who are 1tril strike (completely exaggerated but could happen in the future) from just running over top of people.

2) That second part is just ridiculous. I don't like it at all. just because i have a 50bil strike with 3mil men armed i should not do more damage than someone who has a 40bil defense with 1mil men armed. what good would techs be if that was the case?

by Admin Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:35 am

king we weren't talking about 2 users having different techs.

when mystake said 100k vs 10k I would assume he meant identical techs.
obviously techs would end up being factored into the final losses but what should the losses be when you have

100k vs 100k
100k vs 50k
100k vs 10k

by Nomad Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:10 am

So my question now is

your wanting the biggest and best players to be able to mass you for less losses daily? always winning a war due to fewer losses, and having more income? Because thats pretty mush what your saying.

As has been said before, over and over. If you send 1 mill men running across an open field against 100,000 defensive soilders hunkered down in bunkers with good cover,,,,, the strike force has to try to aim at a few targets while running, and all the def has to due is pull the trigger and point in a general direction.

Strike loses more. Period. If its not that way, then the largest accounts have already won the game, as they can bann together and simply mass the rest of the server into oblivion.

by Admin Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:04 pm

Nomad wrote:your wanting the biggest and best players to be able to mass you for less losses daily? always winning a war due to fewer losses, and having more income? Because thats pretty mush what your saying.

which is the very definition of GAME BREAKER

by Mystake Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:01 pm

so being stronger and having better techs should mean greater losses?

how is that a game breaker?

You want more activity on the game? Fine, don't make it impossible to play.

Defenses can't be zeroed. That's why in wars people constantly go down to a few bill and stop. Make it possible to efficiently zero a defense and people could just do that instead.

As it stands, it's pretty much not possible to actually wipe a player out. Therefore, any inactive with a 500m defense will, pretty much forever have that defense.

Is that what you wanted?

by Kingofshinobis1 Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:04 pm

thats what they made over sabs for Razz

by Admin Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:45 pm

Mystake wrote:so being stronger and having better techs should mean greater losses?

I think you're having a flaw in your logic.

Nomad said you shouldn't have benefits in increased efficiency simply because you can train more soldiers.
You are concluding that nomad is ok with the opposite, which applies neither to his image of what the game should look like nor to the actual setup of the game. (Sending more units will not make you suffer a worse kill/death ratio)

And techs by definition increase efficiency of kill/death so there's nothing to argue about there

by Mystake Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:05 pm

Explain to me how I am supposed to raid targets that have a 200m defense, which we all know is virtually nothing.

And don't tell me to use assault missions or whatever because you can't do more than a bunch of those without running out of ST.

But uh, all I gather from this thread is that anyone with a 200m defense is basically untouchable in terms of raiding. Is that what you intended? Because that is what is happening.

whether you keep everything else the same or not, raiding itself is broken.

You can't raid a 200m defense without suffering 250-300 in losses, I showed the math above actually. It's just not profitable to raid.

by Admin Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:13 pm

you can oversab and overassassinate. One mission and the target is zeroed

by Nomad Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:29 pm

Mystake wrote:so being stronger and having better techs should mean greater losses?
How do you figure that? Have you even tryed it? Make your strike 1 man more then any defense and if your techs are superior how and why do you think you lose more? Your losing more because your sending a force multiple times larger. More men = more dead. Take that system out and the game dies because the largest accounts can simply by more UU with their incomes, and then mass the rest of the server suffering fewer losses and ensureing they always rule.
how is that a game breaker?
so you think that just because someone is bigger then you, that they should suffer fewer losses?You really think that system will work? What stops accounts from making strikes of 10, 20, or 30 mill men since they will always kill far more then they loses?
You want more activity on the game? Fine, don't make it impossible to play.
Its not.
Defenses can't be zeroed. That's why in wars people constantly go down to a few bill and stop. Make it possible to efficiently zero a defense and people could just do that instead.
Defenses can be zero'ed if your willing to pay the cost,,, and as stated by multiple people, use sabb and assassinate to finish off a defense. I mean if you want no challenge or stratagy then why not just ask for a "instant kill" button, 1 strike and your done?
As it stands, it's pretty much not possible to actually wipe a player out. Therefore, any inactive with a 500m defense will, pretty much forever have that defense.
It is possible, and it is easy, and its done on a daily basis. No inactive keeps a def long.
Is that what you wanted?

by Admin Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:10 pm

mystake I understand some of your points in terms of "there's action missing"
however trying to argue that those few (few being a relative term) accounts that are on the verge of having no def yet still having one are hard to reach and it's a dire problem that needs to be adressed is not really accurate.

If someone would come up with a decent idea what we could have people fight over, rare resources giving bonuses to whoever is holding them, something ...
It will be a step towards "strong being stronger" or "1 group rules all" but at this point I think the risk is worth trying it, especially if the end result could be more activity for all
And no one is saying it has to be something of a one hit killer for the owner.

by Nomad Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:18 pm

or maybe people need to dig their heads out their own butts and go pick a fight without being scared to death someone else will gain a few men on them

Rolling Eyes

by Mystake Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:06 pm

Martin, fact is, stronger IS stronger. It's just the way things are. Realistically anyway.

What is oversabbing and overassassinating? I didn't see those in the tutorial, only how to get SS *jab* (yeah yeah I know Razz

)

And Nomad,

if I have 30m men trained and armed, then hell fucking yeah they should wipe the floor of someone who's only got 3m men trained. No. Doubt. About. It.

Martin, go investigate SGW's rates. Get a buddy and go hit each other's accounts and do the math. SGW had balanced math when it came to massing.

Yes, it's a differently style due to weapon damages (which is what makes zeroing a defense possible) but if you 'win' against an opponent then you should either take less losses, or they take more.

I mean, think about it. You say 30m v 3m, 3m has more targets to spray and pray, correct?

but, if the 30m men defeat the 3m men, to go in and steal their kuwal or their units, then clearly they've shown they are stronger and honestly, let's get real. 30m men vs. 3m men, the 3m are gunna take WAY more casualties because there's 10 bullets to each 1 man, versus 1 bullet to each 3.

Higher probabilities of hitting someone. That there is simple, basic logic and math.

As for Nomad, find me in game if you want to see how I feel about a 1 strike kill switch. And I just want to point out the 30m men strike thing again, dude. Vast majority of accounts aren't even that big. I haven't seen a strike that has had more than 400k supers in it yet even. I doubt people regularly even break the 1.5m supers mark if its even been done more than a handful of times at this point.

I know it was mentioned above a bit what the actual number is, but if its 100x stronger nad u zero losses, what about at 99x? Like, really?

Martin, I think what you need is a dynamic equation that takes into account total strength vs. defenders strength, and as the gap gets bigger, the % goes down. I think that's a very good way of doing it.

Attacker, when winning, should not take more damages than the defender. However, if the defender wins I think the attacker should get crushed Smile

by Nomad Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:26 pm

in your equation, and in reality

all 3 mill men die, but more, much more then 3 million of the 30 million die.

The 3 million do not even have to aim, just point the gun around the corner and pull the trigger. the attacker have to aim on the move to hit a target with 1/4 or less exposed, where the defense are stationary, proped up and shooting from cover. (generally speaking.)

by Sponsored content

losses

losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses

Re: losses