Change to assault missions

It seems to me that currently these is the advantage "balance" between defender and attacker:
Defender has: - better loss ratio regardless the tactic used by attacker
- better percentage from personal bonus points
Attacker has: - the choice of attack
These are the losses for strike and defense with the same tech (200%), 300 000 soldiers each 8.7 billion action:
Normal strategy: attacker losses are 15 000 and defender losses are 12 000
Hit&Run strategy: attacker losses are 15 000 and defender losses are 12 000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I we give each of them 10 bonus points, this is how it's gonna look:
DA is 9290000000, SA is 9140000000
Normal strategy: attacker losses are 15 130 and defender losses are 11 934
Hit&Run strategy: attacker losses are 10 591 and defender losses are 8950
Does it seem right to you? Cause my feeling is that the defender is overpowered in assault missions.
As for suggestion, i suggest making the losses even for even values.

Normal strategy: attacker losses are 15 000 and defender losses are 12 000
Hit&Run strategy: attacker losses are 15 000 and defender losses are 12 000

I assume you forgot to change the numbers in the h&r attack

Now about the balance, here's some interesting stats based on assault missions in the last 10 days
- 2304 missions in total
- 1582 missions where attacker had higher attack boost (tech + pbp) than defender
- average advantage was 66% in favor of ATTACKER
- 720 missions where attacker had less attack boost than defender
- average advantage was 30% in favor of DEFENDER

global average over 2304 missions was 30% in favor of attacker
hit and run vs normal defense equals to 3.5% losses for attacker and 3% losses for defender
difference of 16-20% versus a statistical 30% attacker tech advantage

This isn't my feeling because it's a FACT that the attacker is usually more powerful technologically than the defender
And this is DESPITE defense pbp giving 1.35% and attack giving only 1%

So yes I think the assault missions are balanced.
Even if completely ignoring the fact that after the defense is gone you can destroy all other stats with a high kill rate even without any significant tech advantage (attack gets 30% penalty, assassins can get hunted, etc.)

You're including all four stats, but assault is only about the defense and attack. And it seems you're merging cost for destroying all stats in assault. This means it's a loss for the attacker to mass just the defense resource-wise and an even higher loss if you mass all the stats ST-wise.
WHAT if someone wants to mass the defense, mission which assault is supposed to carry. By your logic if I do that, I would be able to wipe out the remaining. In reality, it costs a ton of ST.

Smog wrote:You're including all four stats, but assault is only about the defense and attack.

I just proved to you that people have a tech advantage in strike over defense already. what "four stats" are you talking about?

Plus the kill ratio can only get better after the def is down, since destroying strike, assassins or income units the attacker kills much more units than he loses.
If the kill ratio is only getting better, how can attacker suffer an "even higher loss"?

Admin wrote:

Normal strategy: attacker losses are 15 000 and defender losses are 12 000
Hit&Run strategy: attacker losses are 15 000 and defender losses are 12 000

I assume you forgot to change the numbers in the h&r attack

Now about the balance, here's some interesting stats based on assault missions in the last 10 days
- 2304 missions in total
- 1582 missions where attacker had higher attack boost (tech + pbp) than defender
- average advantage was 66% in favor of ATTACKER
- 720 missions where attacker had less attack boost than defender
- average advantage was 30% in favor of DEFENDER

global average over 2304 missions was 30% in favor of attacker
hit and run vs normal defense equals to 3.5% losses for attacker and 3% losses for defender
difference of 16-20% versus a statistical 30% attacker tech advantage

This isn't my feeling because it's a FACT that the attacker is usually more powerful technologically than the defender
And this is DESPITE defense pbp giving 1.35% and attack giving only 1%

So yes I think the assault missions are balanced.
Even if completely ignoring the fact that after the defense is gone you can destroy all other stats with a high kill rate even without any significant tech advantage (attack gets 30% penalty, assassins can get hunted, etc.)

I personally think that if other misssions such as hunt assassins, sabotage, assassinations become more balanced and not that overpowered, and a cap is made on how effective missions can be. For example 2:1 ratio maximum effectiveness, it would make sense to adjust assault missions so that at equal tech both attacker and defender lose the same.

Smog wrote:You're including all four stats, but assault is only about the defense and attack. And it seems you're merging cost for destroying all stats in assault. This means it's a loss for the attacker to mass just the defense resource-wise and an even higher loss if you mass all the stats ST-wise.
WHAT if someone wants to mass the defense, mission which assault is supposed to carry. By your logic if I do that, I would be able to wipe out the remaining. In reality, it costs a ton of ST.

Assaulting doesn't cost much ST. 3 players can easily crush the defenses of the whole alliance and will still have some ST remaining.
It's hunt assassin missions, destruction, invasion, sabotage and assassination missions that cost a lot of ST.

DO you even count ST cost??

Or the fact that you are not able to get more, you have to wait for them to be made.

30 attacks = 150 ST's = 1-1.5 days worth of ST's = Def reduced to 29%
10 attacks = 50 ST's = 0.4-0.5 days worth of ST's = Def reduced to 66%

Since smog is ONLY talking about assault, we can wipe out a third of someone's def every half a day. For those weak at math that's over a dozen targets every week hit by one single person

Admin wrote:30 attacks = 150 ST's = 1-1.5 days worth of ST's = Def reduced to 29%
10 attacks = 50 ST's = 0.4-0.5 days worth of ST's = Def reduced to 66%

Since smog is ONLY talking about assault, we can wipe out a third of someone's def every half a day. For those weak at math that's ONLY over a dozen targets every week hit by one single person

This means all you can do in a week is mass "a dozen" and bank. And since you like numbers, it means you need 5 seconds X 7 per week for banking and 12 X 30 X 15 = 5435 seconds to play per WEEK. That means that after 12 minutes and 15 seconds per week you can rest, you've "played' the game.

you did not notice the sarcasm in that "only" right?

Also, well if you're able to find all targets train units and build weapons in 0 seconds, ok, that's your choice
You and vaga have amazing skills at going completely off topic, you started with unit losses offering your opinion, that I pretty much disproved through raw facts, so now while i'm still waiting for a reply you've decided to move topic towards ST's

Admin wrote:you did not notice the sarcasm in that "only" right?

I hope you notice the sarcasm in that only, since it's been put there by me.

Admin wrote:Now about the balance, here's some interesting stats based on assault missions in the last 10 days
- 2304 missions in total
- 1582 missions where attacker had higher attack boost (tech + pbp) than defender
- average advantage was 66% in favor of ATTACKER
- 720 missions where attacker had less attack boost than defender
- average advantage was 30% in favor of DEFENDER

So you're giving Def advantage because people have low def techs right?

Admin wrote:(...)you've decided to move topic towards ST's

You supported your opinion with

Admin wrote:Even if completely ignoring the fact that after the defense is gone you can destroy all other stats with a high kill rate even without any significant tech advantage (attack gets 30% penalty, assassins can get hunted, etc.)

And to prove that you are wrong, I'm asking you to calculate how many of the missions you can perform with 98 + 6 ST.

Yes we are amazing

I dont know why smog even bothers anymore. Really i dont Only kenzu can make changes .And maybe seaborgium if something is not good for them

Smog wrote:

Admin wrote:Now about the balance, here's some interesting stats based on assault missions in the last 10 days
- 2304 missions in total
- 1582 missions where attacker had higher attack boost (tech + pbp) than defender
- average advantage was 66% in favor of ATTACKER
- 720 missions where attacker had less attack boost than defender
- average advantage was 30% in favor of DEFENDER

So you're giving Def advantage because people have low def techs right?

I'm giving def advantage because people who go mass have higher attack techs anyway, it's called balancing to balance things, in this case losses.

Smog wrote:

Admin wrote:(...)you've decided to move topic towards ST's

You supported your opinion with

Admin wrote:Even if completely ignoring the fact that after the defense is gone you can destroy all other stats with a high kill rate even without any significant tech advantage (attack gets 30% penalty, assassins can get hunted, etc.)

And to prove that you are wrong, I'm asking you to calculate how many of the missions you can perform with 98 + 6 ST.

You can't prove me wrong since you've just proven with those quotes you started with ST's.
Show me a single time i've talked about ST's before you did?

You on the other hand started talking about losses and were completely wrong about secondary attacks like hunt assassins.
I corrected your misconception about actually assault losses AND about secondary attacks

also vaga if you dont plan on saying anything dont post, consider this a warning not to spam

Ohh but i did. I gave smog an advice not to bother. Is that so bad??

vaga wrote:I dont know why smog even bothers anymore. Really i dont Only kenzu can make changes .And maybe seaborgium if something is not good for them

Since when can I get changes made?
I have asked for simple ones and none have come aout. I figure they will come with updates.

vaga wrote:Ohh but i did. I gave smog an advice not to bother. Is that so bad??

I will assume you simply failed to realize that i'm being serious

well... let's step up this philosophical ladder.
you are actually ..both right.

admin is right that the def advantage stands for protecting the players. *(note that the players are human and they prefer takeing action rather than defending)
smog is right that it is unfair for the defender to always lose 1% less then attacker*(in an equal tech situation).

admin seeks balance.
smog seeks fairness.
i humanly observe that these are two strangely different things now.

so it seems a fair argument from both of them.

my only point is this.
the battle of Călugăreni. (what role did techs or numerical advantage have there?! the home field always ment a huge advantage.)
sun tzu said : "noone could ever defeat me for i have never tried to win."

the historians havent had any clue whatsoever that sun tzu had many bonus points in defence.

also add the battles from:
Codrii Cosminului, Possada, valea albă and so on.

and in 2002(?):
real madrid - manchester 3-1
manchester - real madrid 4-3.

smog are u in search of a world without a home advantage?

I wasn't being philosophic, I wish I were, then I could really make assault 1:1

smog had a feeling

Smog wrote:Does it seem right to you? Cause my feeling is that the defender is overpowered in assault missions.

so I corrected that feeling by showing the actual numbers

Now smog could come up with a better solution to the fact that attackers have usually much higher tech advantage than defenders

Admin wrote:

vaga wrote:Ohh but i did. I gave smog an advice not to bother. Is that so bad??

I will assume you simply failed to realize that i'm being serious

And do you think i am not? I never saw u makes any change on ours request. Just the ones you consider right and u dont ask for our oppinion about them. Oversab and example:D is one.

So...what smog sais is true. U alway talk that people have good attack techs right? But what do you do when bouth have 200% with the same pbp? Def pbq in def and strike in atac? Defender has advantage. 2nd advantage when assaulting 5% strike and 4% def. And the 3rd advantage is that strike dropes lower that the ded. I hat 19 bil strike that droped to almost 15 bil once.

Admin wrote:
Now smog could come up with a better solution to the fact that attackers have usually much higher tech advantage than defenders

So now you're giving advantage to defenders because attackers have higher techs?? Can you please add a button to undo my techs?

Erm guys calm down please - ghy said it well. Defense ALWAYS has an edge - as it is DEFENDING your home. You can blame it on more vigor, more resolve, anything you want ... but in ANY war, if you wanna defeat the defender - you have to bring in more firepower or a technological superiority or good teamplay. Even WITH great techs in defense AND the bonus any account can be torn to shreds - but it requires enough resources and teamplay. You guys demonstrated that on my rank 2 account. 1 mill defenders gone, 2 mill spies and 1.5 mill assassins within what, 2 hours? And I had a pretty decent def tech and assassin - yet you guys tore it down with FAR less losses than I had. Not that I am complaining, please don't take it like that (I even congratulated you to your achievement as it was really well done), but it CAN be done.

What I would suggest, instead of changing the % difference, rather just reduce the downtime between attacks to like 10 s or 5 s so it can be done faster or something like that - something that makes for a more active warring.

Now about the balance, here's some interesting stats based on assault missions in the last 10 days
- 2304 missions in total
- 1582 missions where attacker had higher attack boost (tech + pbp) than defender
- average advantage was 66% in favor of ATTACKER
- 720 missions where attacker had less attack boost than defender
- average advantage was 30% in favor of DEFENDER

Can u please tell me how many sabotage missions were in the last 10 days please??

curumo wrote:What I would suggest, instead of changing the % difference, rather just reduce the downtime between attacks to like 10 s or 5 s so it can be done faster or something like that - something that makes for a more active warring.

Yeh that has been brought up a few times, will reduce it to 10 secs

Vaga, sabotage mission discussion is on another topic, right next to this one, this is assault, also my patience with you is really running low
also stop lying about me not asking about opinions