Re: Change to Sabotage and Assassination Missions

by Admin Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:23 pm

Nomad wrote:
Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:If your going to negate all the time, planning, kewal, AT, ST, CT, UU, and everything else to get them to this situation of 0 def, 0 spies, and 0 assassins,,,,,, then this entire discussion is pointless if you ask me.
No it isn't because I'm pointing out a serious flaw, well it is a flaw in my opinion, of cost-free destroying. And for some weird reason I am not sure everyone realizes it completely. (Though I have to admit I haven't yet simulmassed an account so I dont have the exact numbers how much it would really cost, only my estimates)

Please help me understand how having to remove all defense, all assassins, and all spies = COST FREE?

- We are discussing a CHANGE to sabotage and assassination
- this CHANGE would include an option for the affected missions to commit "cost-free" destroying because when someone has low/no cov/ass you can sab/ass them with no (by "no" I mean nothing or so little compared to the destroyed amount that it can be considered nothing) cost. Hence the definition of cost-free destroying

Nomad wrote:If there is NO defense, farming is free. Whats the difference?

People dont have hundreds of bills worth of weapons or units outside in the open to be farmed

Now for example ghyogod's idea to retain parts of the current code with in-built limits, such as 1 assassin can only kill at most 1 other unit even with 0 enemy assassin action, is a sensible improvement to the suggestion, and would remove the issue of "cost-free" destroying

@ vaga, no to msn. I consider the past 3-4 discussions we already had on this topic to have been enough. They all have been identical anyway

by vaga Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:11 pm

Damm.

by Steveanaya Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:54 pm

Kenzu, to me it soumds like youre trying to make main just like ra.

Step 1 to improving any massing mission is halving the st or ct cost

by Admin Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:23 pm

Steveanaya wrote:Step 1 to improving any massing mission is halving the st or ct cost

worst concept ever

also dont go too much offtopic, this is damage model to sabotage and assassination system
ct/st cost is part of it but not relevant to the particular discussion

by Steveanaya Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:47 am

I know the only reason I don't sab is cuz of the cost of the mission.

And admin it's best not to completely reject ideas, especially not in the SUGGESTION SECTION.

Personally, I think your total cOvert/assassin power should always have some effect on the effectiveness of the mission.

by Keinutnai Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:27 am

seaborgium wrote:well first thing, there was a HIGH cost in getting rid of the covert units.
2nd if there no spies whats protecting the weapons?

Tech should decide how efficient your spies will be at destroying weapons and action should decide if you manage to get to the weapons with your spies or not. If not then spies would fight each other instead.

This means that if you have a good tech and too few spies, or even in extreme case no spies at all, then you cannot stop enemy spies from sabotaging your weapons, but their sabotage will be less efficient.

So if you want to prevent getting weapons sabbed, have more action (but you will lose spies when someone sabotages you)
And if you want to lose less than the enemy, then have better covert tech.

RL explanation:
If you want it explained, then here is the explanation. If you have not enough spies, then enemy spies will get to the weapons, but because of your covert technology (for example surveillance cameras and counter spy system) they are unable to destroy all the weapons they wanted and some of their attacks are repelled by other units.

Nomad wrote:
Admin wrote:only if you were actually removing them, for all I care maybe def is already gone, assassins/spies got hunted (assuming i'd add hunt spies mission)/ spies got assassinated anyway and now you're sabbing

so that high cost part is very relative

I am just not seeing it that like in the others you send 20 spies and they wipe out 300k weapons.

If your going to negate all the time, planning, kewal, AT, ST, CT, UU, and everything else to get them to this situation of 0 def, 0 spies, and 0 assassins,,,,,, then this entire discussion is pointless if you ask me.

You make it sounds like you are ok with a system where 20 spies can kill 300k weapons.
Because if you really think that, then you are playing the wrong game.

As we have it now, if defender has no spies, and attacker has say 7700 covert tech and 250% covert, thats 19250 power. One spy can destroy 4 times more points of power. Thats 77.000 power per spy, and you have to send 20 spies to lose one. That's 1.540.000 points = 1.062 Mobile artilleries.

This means that now the system allows theoretically to lose 420.000 kuwal to destroy 554.364.000.

On the other hand, if you send less spies than needed, you will lose 75% and destroy nothing.

Both extremes are too bad. You should neither loose infinitely more than the enemy in any mission, nor should you be able to destroy 1000 time more than the enemy.

Creating a system where you allow the extreme to be used in reality (the oversab that was mentioned) is like going backwards in development.
Someone mentioned that it already costs a lot to destroy an enemies def, ass and spies to even get to sabotage with oversab. However these costs are relatively balanced and allow the attacker in most cases to destroy considerably more than losing (50%-200% times more). Just because it costs you two weeks of your production to mass a big player, it is no argument in favor of allowing a mission that will destroy enemies practically for free.

Smog wrote:Upon analyzing the first 120 players, which are, IMO, the most active, i came to this average stats:
6 bil Strike action
11 bil Defensive action
9 bil Covert action
4 bil Assassin action
Also, considering MA for def and stike, you'd need about 580k weapons.
In order to reduce someone's defense to 0 from these stats you need to:
1st choice: Assassinate assassins. Not hunt, because you need to take out the def first, including weapons, and the purpose is to sab. So assassinate assassins. Lots of ST and CT required. Not a job for one man, not enough CT.
2nd choice: Assassinate spies. Lots of assassins, ST and CT required. Again, not a job for one man, not enough CT.
So, how dumb or unlucky has that player to be in order for you to sab him?

Then you should suggest that sabbing a player should cost less ST or CT, or that players have more CT, but not that you can sab almost for free.
Right now you basically need all of your CT to sab one player. That's not good. A player should be able to sab at least 2 players with his CT, and when sabbing smaller ones, he should be able to sab even 4 or 5.

I believe that sabbing a player who is similar to you in size should cost around 100 ST and 50% of CT capacity.

Nomad wrote:
Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:If your going to negate all the time, planning, kewal, AT, ST, CT, UU, and everything else to get them to this situation of 0 def, 0 spies, and 0 assassins,,,,,, then this entire discussion is pointless if you ask me.
No it isn't because I'm pointing out a serious flaw, well it is a flaw in my opinion, of cost-free destroying. And for some weird reason I am not sure everyone realizes it completely. (Though I have to admit I haven't yet simulmassed an account so I dont have the exact numbers how much it would really cost, only my estimates)

Please help me understand how having to remove all defense, all assassins, and all spies = COST FREE?

If there is NO defense, farming is free. Whats the difference?

He was not saying that massing is cost free. He said that the sabbing that you guys suggest allows almost cost free sabbing.

ghyogod wrote:
Admin wrote:only if you were actually removing them, for all I care maybe def is already gone, assassins/spies got hunted (assuming i'd add hunt spies mission)/ spies got assassinated anyway and now you're sabbing

so that high cost part is very relative

Steveanaya wrote:Kenzu, to me it soumds like youre trying to make main just like ra.

Step 1 to improving any massing mission is halving the st or ct cost

I try to make a system that works. The one in RA works excellent.
It is no secret that the sabbing on main isn't that good. Obviously I want the system that works excellent.
Why trying to reinvent the wheel, if it's next door?

Halving the ct cost is not a bad idea, but I believe that deciding how much a mission costs should be done after the system was chosen.

Steveanaya wrote:I know the only reason I don't sab is cuz of the cost of the mission.

And admin it's best not to completely reject ideas, especially not in the SUGGESTION SECTION.

Personally, I think your total cOvert/assassin power should always have some effect on the effectiveness of the mission.

Why? Just because other games have it?

Steveanaya wrote:I am just not seeing it that like in the others you send 20 spies and they wipe out 300k weapons.

Steveanaya wrote:how about this:
use smog and sea's calculus method
and
each spy desroys no more than ONE weapon.
?

But you have to send 20 spies to lose one. So you will lose 420.000 kuwal and destroy 20 weapons
And 20 mobile artilleries cost 10.440.000 kuwal

You really think that the cap 10.440.000 : 420.000
(25:1) is reasonable?

The cap should be 2:1 or 3:1

by Admin Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:23 pm

The cap of 20-40:1 IS reasonable if you're attacking someone who has no spies anymore, or not assassins
Because let's say you mass someone to the ground, then you add up everything you lost, and see what you killed. Then a ratio of 20:1 when wiping out one final stat will help you get profitable masses.

But a ratio of 200k:1 (which you'd get with cost free massing) would tilt it HEAVILY

Steveanaya wrote:And admin it's best not to completely reject ideas, especially not in the SUGGESTION SECTION.

It is natural to give just as many arguments as you provided (0) to say what I think of it

Steveanaya wrote:Step 1 to improving any massing mission is halving the st or ct cost

You make a unsupported claim, you do not put any argument forward as to why it's good and what effects it would/could have.

by Smog Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:24 pm

Steveanaya wrote:

Step 1 to improving any massing mission is halving the st or ct cost

I think I can share the opinions of a few friends who quit the game.
Most common reason for quitting was the attack system which costs tons of ST.
Second most popular was the SS limitation. No way to get AT means no reason to play.
So Steve's idea about the ST cost is not that far from truth, although not every mission needs ST cost cut.

by Admin Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:45 pm

Smog wrote:
Steveanaya wrote:

Step 1 to improving any massing mission is halving the st or ct cost

I think I can share the opinions of a few friends who quit the game.
Most common reason for quitting was the attack system which costs tons of ST.
Second most popular was the SS limitation. No way to get AT means no reason to play.
So Steve's idea about the ST cost is not that far from truth, although not every mission needs ST cost cut.

Still there's a difference in what you wrote compared to what he wrote

on the other hand, for some reason, and i'm not saying there aren't people who would fight more if there would be more ST's, I think some people had ST troubles because they still lived in this sgw fairytale where they just keep attacking while they kill only minimal amounts of units instead of picking their targets more wisely (this is sort of a hyperbole I agree, but overall the main point remains, instead of attacking 3 people 30 times each every 2 weeks, you could attack 5 people 10 times every week)

by Keinutnai Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:33 pm

Admin wrote:The cap of 20-40:1 IS reasonable if you're attacking someone who has no spies anymore, or not assassins
Because let's say you mass someone to the ground, then you add up everything you lost, and see what you killed. Then a ratio of 20:1 when wiping out one final stat will help you get profitable masses.

But a ratio of 200k:1 (which you'd get with cost free massing) would tilt it HEAVILY

Steveanaya wrote:And admin it's best not to completely reject ideas, especially not in the SUGGESTION SECTION.
It is natural to give just as many arguments as you provided (0) to say what I think of it

Steveanaya wrote:Step 1 to improving any massing mission is halving the st or ct cost
You make a unsupported claim, you do not put any argument forward as to why it's good and what effects it would/could have.

If I got 1% more attack tech than enemy has defense tech, then I should be already killing 1% more units than the enemy. If assault missions work the way that even with better techs I lose more than the enemy, then they have to be fixed!

If you have better techs than someone, you should be killing more than losing straight from the beginning.

Right now, although the game is 100 times better than most games, the missions are still unbalanced. Here is why:
If two equally strong teams with equally strong techs go to war, then this is what will happen:

In assaults, attacker loses more than defender, due to the kill 4% and lose 5% ratio.
Assaults are therefore too innefficient. (They are done because they are a necessary evil to continue massing)

Hunt assassins missions are too easy for the attacker, losses are too low for the attacker
and the ST cost is too high.

The players get their spies assassinated in assassination missions. Losses are too low for the defender
and the CT cost is too high, and the risk involved with a potential cost of a failed mission is too high as well.

At the same time, losses in sabs and assassinations are too high for the attacker, even if he has a better tech, if the defender hasn't been massed yet.

Therefore there has to be an improvement for all missions. They should not be too costly, and they should be equally efficient and the efficiency should be based on the tech ratio between attacker and defender.

So that I dont need always to assault, hunt assassins and then assassinate. I want to have the freedom to start with any mission I want. The freedom to chose any strength I want and use it to mass others.

by Smog Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:05 am

As attacker you already lost something before seeing the result, as you spend AT and ST. And if you can always buy more AT, ST are priceless. For the assault i partially agree with kenzu (believe it or not Razz

). I think the current formula is the best we could have for assaulting a defense higher than the strike. Hunting is somewhat balanced between low casualties and high ST cost for attacker...
@admin: since you don't like hearing only the problem, I came with this solution for assaulting with a higher strike action than the defense. I kept it simple, and it's mainly the same thing as for the sab formula, but with lower numbers and precise cap. There it is:
x= defensive action
y= strike action
z= number of soldiers in defense
defender losses=4% +y/x*0.01
[numbers in red are adjustable]
For more balance in the game, as we could often see a 40 bil strike, and a 20 mil def, we could add a 10% cap for casualties. Meaning that the best way to assault someone fast would be if you attacked him with a 6x higher strike, anything higher than that being just a waste.
It wouldn't be unbalanced because:
(1) the numbers can be adjusted, and
(2) the attacker loss % would be still 5, and a 6x higher strike means 6x more soldiers.
It would be a faster way to kill, and reduce the ST problem to a resource-cost one.
Also, I think that having almost the same formula for all missions would make the missions easier to calculate and estimate the result.

by Manleva Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:54 am

While I have been keeping an eye on this discussion I will be the first to admit that there are things being discussed that I may not fully understand.

That being said I think that you are discussing only one very small part of a greater issue somewhat in isolation and I think that before you can come to a final conclusion the bigger picture needs to be looked at and defined.

There are four types of units that need to be fully considered, Strike, Defense, Spys and Assassins and what their usage is and their relationship to each other.

Comparing some data (a little out of date but good enough for the purpose) on the top 100 ranked action for each shows that Defense Action is the highest, followed by Covert Action, then Assassin action and lastly Strike action.

While not the full picture it is reasonable to conclude that in the vast majority of players they have far higher numbers of Spys and Assassins than they have of Strike and Defense Units.

This leads to the following questions
1. Is this a War game where generally battle is carried out between Strike and Defense with Spies and Assassins carrying out a secondary role.
2 What is the primary role of Spies and Assassins and do we need the vast quantities that we have.

I find it interesting that Someone can send 1,000,000 Spies on a sabotage mission to destroy weapons against someone with 17,000,000 farmers and none of the farmers will see anything. I would suggest that it is not realistic for any action that kills a reasonable amount of attacking spies for the attacker to be identified.

If you look at the costs of training the units then I would draw the conclusion that Spies and Assassins are not as well trained as Strike and Defense units so they should be less effective against them.

Maybe the primary roles of Spies should be the collection of information and sabotage of weapons and weapons factories while the primary role of Assassins should be to assassinate enemy spies and their training cost be increased to at least the same as Strike and Defense Units at a minimum. Also when sabotaging another player who has Strike and or Defense weapons there is a much greater risk of being identified.

Just a few thoughts but I think I would rather see 10 Assassins Kill 30 Spies without being identified than someone assassinating a large defense without being identified.

by ghyogod Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:23 am

Manleva wrote:While I have been keeping an eye on this discussion I will be the first to admit that there are things being discussed that I may not fully understand.

That being said I think that you are discussing only one very small part of a greater issue somewhat in isolation and I think that before you can come to a final conclusion the bigger picture needs to be looked at and defined.

There are four types of units that need to be fully considered, Strike, Defense, Spys and Assassins and what their usage is and their relationship to each other.

Comparing some data (a little out of date but good enough for the purpose) on the top 100 ranked action for each shows that Defense Action is the highest, followed by Covert Action, then Assassin action and lastly Strike action.

While not the full picture it is reasonable to conclude that in the vast majority of players they have far higher numbers of Spys and Assassins than they have of Strike and Defense Units.

This leads to the following questions
1. Is this a War game where generally battle is carried out between Strike and Defense with Spies and Assassins carrying out a secondary role.
2 What is the primary role of Spies and Assassins and do we need the vast quantities that we have.

I find it interesting that Someone can send 1,000,000 Spies on a sabotage mission to destroy weapons against someone with 17,000,000 farmers and none of the farmers will see anything. I would suggest that it is not realistic for any action that kills a reasonable amount of attacking spies for the attacker to be identified.

If you look at the costs of training the units then I would draw the conclusion that Spies and Assassins are not as well trained as Strike and Defense units so they should be less effective against them.

Maybe the primary roles of Spies should be the collection of information and sabotage of weapons and weapons factories while the primary role of Assassins should be to assassinate enemy spies and their training cost be increased to at least the same as Strike and Defense Units at a minimum. Also when sabotaging another player who has Strike and or Defense weapons there is a much greater risk of being identified.

Just a few thoughts but I think I would rather see 10 Assassins Kill 30 Spies without being identified than someone assassinating a large defense without being identified.

i seem to be missing the point here. to my recollection the convo about the training cost took place a looong time ago. also assasins kill any tipe of unit includein spyes. soldiers need weapons so their cost is somewhat ..higher then spies/assasins. so that was kinda offtopic.

by Smog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:05 am

As attacker you already lost something before seeing the result, as you spend AT and ST. And if you can always buy more AT, ST are priceless. For the assault i partially agree with kenzu (believe it or not ). I think the current formula is the best we could have for assaulting a defense higher than the strike. Hunting is somewhat balanced between low casualties and high ST cost for attacker...
@admin: since you don't like hearing only the problem, I came with this solution for assaulting with a higher strike action than the defense. I kept it simple, and it's mainly the same thing as for the sab formula, but with lower numbers and precise cap. There it is:
x= defensive action
y= strike action
z= number of soldiers in defense
defender losses=4% +y/x*0.01
[numbers in red are adjustable]
For more balance in the game, as we could often see a 40 bil strike, and a 20 mil def, we could add a 10% cap for casualties. Meaning that the best way to assault someone fast would be if you attacked him with a 6x higher strike, anything higher than that being just a waste.
It wouldn't be unbalanced because:
(1) the numbers can be adjusted, and
(2) the attacker loss % would be still 5, and a 6x higher strike means 6x more soldiers.
It would be a faster way to kill, and reduce the ST problem to a resource-cost one.
Also, I think that having almost the same formula for all missions would make the missions easier to calculate and estimate the result.

i seem to like smog's proposal.
defender losses= (0.04+y/x*0.01)z
how about i add this idea:
attacker losses = (0.05 - y/x*0.01)*attack soldiers with a minimum limit of 2%.(or 3% your call)
?

by Admin Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:15 pm

ok, let's not go too much off topic, if you want to discuss assault make a new thread.

I'll still point out that assault has a % kill rate but this goes up and down whether or not your strike is larger or smaller (the kill ratio will stay the same though).
https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2335p6-losses?highlight=losses

bigger strike = less attacks needed
less strike = more attacks needed

by Keinutnai Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:32 am

Smog wrote:As attacker you already lost something before seeing the result, as you spend AT and ST. And if you can always buy more AT, ST are priceless. For the assault i partially agree with kenzu (believe it or not ). I think the current formula is the best we could have for assaulting a defense higher than the strike. Hunting is somewhat balanced between low casualties and high ST cost for attacker...
@admin: since you don't like hearing only the problem, I came with this solution for assaulting with a higher strike action than the defense. I kept it simple, and it's mainly the same thing as for the sab formula, but with lower numbers and precise cap. There it is:
x= defensive action
y= strike action
z= number of soldiers in defense
defender losses=4% +y/x*0.01
[numbers in red are adjustable]
For more balance in the game, as we could often see a 40 bil strike, and a 20 mil def, we could add a 10% cap for casualties. Meaning that the best way to assault someone fast would be if you attacked him with a 6x higher strike, anything higher than that being just a waste.
It wouldn't be unbalanced because:
(1) the numbers can be adjusted, and
(2) the attacker loss % would be still 5, and a 6x higher strike means 6x more soldiers.
It would be a faster way to kill, and reduce the ST problem to a resource-cost one.
Also, I think that having almost the same formula for all missions would make the missions easier to calculate and estimate the result.

Can you make a couple examples and tell us how many units would be lost on each side?

by Sponsored content