Re: Change to assault missions

by vaga Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:35 pm

Well i lost my paciente with you a long time ago. U can bann me on the forum and we can be very hapy. I was asking about the sabotage not to upset but to show u that sabotage sucks and very few people are using it. Closed

Answer to my post were people have the same techs and same pbp.
So there are 3 things that make strike more shity that def when assauting

by Smog Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:27 pm

curumo wrote: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.

I agree that the defender should have some advantage. But the fact here is that the defender has all the advantages: higher bonus and lower casualties. And since admin already disapproved on chat with my idea about making the loss ratio even he could at least make the bonuses even.
And I never said it couldn't be done. But curumo, how does the loss ratio look if you part the assault casualties from the hunting and assassination casualties? When you get to the point where you need to mass only a defense the casualties are the same even if your attack technology is light-years away from the defenders. So what is the point of investing in your attack tech if it can be matched and outmatched by a defense technology built with little-to-no effort and cost?

by Keinutnai Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:44 pm

Defender has an advantage against attackers in assaults, and attacker has advantages in hunt assassins, and assassinating other units after defense has fallen.

Get rid of the advantage that attackers get when hunting assassins and assassinating other units after assassins got hunted, and then nothing stands in the way of getting rid of defenders advantage in assaults.

This allows more fairness without obstructing balance.

by Smog Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:57 pm

Why are you talking about hunting and assassinating when this is about assaulting?

by Keinutnai Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:38 pm

Smog wrote:Why are you talking about hunting and assassinating when this is about assaulting?

Because you cannot balance out assault missions without balancing out hunt assassins and assassination missions too.
Otherwise you bring the whole massing system out of balance.

by vaga Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:43 pm

Cuz kenzu has amazing skills at going completely off topic

by Smog Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:54 pm

If you consider massing as a whole (100%), assault would be about 75% of it?

by Admin Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:26 pm

Smog wrote:If you consider massing as a whole (100%), assault would be about 75% of it?

last time I checked, almost no one ever stopps a massing after the def is gone, they always continue to destroy other things. def is just the first step

that's why talking about assaults only and ignoring all other strike missions is like discussing an airplane engine while ignoring everything else on the plane

vaga 1 day ban for spamming

by curumo Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:53 pm

Smog in my experience it would be around 25 % or so, cause if you wanna mass someone properly you go after all 4 stats (possibly even income units). The thing is, if executed properly everyone can be taken down, no matter the stats difference. You just need a team.

However, I do understand your point of view - I too have been thinking about this problem and have yet to find a suitable solution. I have to give some right to admin and Kenzu here though cause they don't want another SGW type of game where you can wipe out an account just by having one strong stat.

But as one of the players with around 300 % attack total I can understand Smog and Vaga as well. We are among the main hitters of our alliances (read: those with big strikes). Our losses when massing are RIDICULOUS. I lost my 72 b strike within a matter of MINUTES (no joke fellas, after 5-6 hits it went down 20 b or more). And the one I was massing did NOT lose as much as I would have hoped he would. It didn't really seem fair to me then too ... yet I'm not sure how this could be solved. Lord knows I wished it'd cost less XD

The problem I see is that even though you take down someone's big def you still need a HUGE strike to HA as with a normal one you won't get anywhere (at least as big as the assassin value).

Overall based on this I would also suggest some kind of change. Def/atk tech difference in assaults themselves are not out of balance as you CAN get the advantage with better tech levels but then there is the problem of getting rid of the other stats.

Look at this: It took Muj 2 k at and 4 k ST and CT of 2-3 players to destroy my account in the last TIE MUJ war. Those are calculated facts from our previous war - I'm sure I could find the forum calculations I made. Now one could argue that it 4 k st isn't much but consider this - I had at least rank 5 def and rank 5 assassin. Def was 30 something bill. Assassin was over 20 b. They wasted 3-4 accounts on me with big strikes. I felt pretty good at that time after taking a look. Sure I got taken out but they lost 2-3 big strikes then which they couldn't use against other TIE members. (how wrong am I here Smog?)

So I guess what I am saying is that if an alliance has big defs, big covert and big assassination then you need a TEAM for each member - which is impossible. And I think Smog and Vaga are mostly pissed at this. I know another game like SGW is not needed, but I think making wars a bit more viable should be done.

Perhaps lower the loss % a bit on both sides with the reduction of the delay between attacks so that more attacks can be made in a faster amount of time. Perhaps making HA a bit cheaper ST wise, perhaps giving attack a slightly bigger bonus, no idea though...

EDIT: Admin - unfortunately (or fortunately) this ain't SGW and in this game you simply have to stop after assaulting and move on to the next target. Your strike is simply gone too fast. It could be beat with great preparation and stuff but no alliance at this point can maintain such a strikeforce. It would take 1,4 T just for one player (MA 1 m uu) to do it and you would have to rebuild it every time (given current stats to take out). Means 3 T per player for strikes. There ain't a soul on AW who can support that, let alone an alliance, and not risk economic repercussions...

by Admin Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:12 pm

So basically certain people do not want to pay 1T to mass a def which cost 1T to build in the first place, I get it, it's discouraging

This talk isn't anything new and I get it, some people want to mass a def for nothing so they can go mass 20 others in one night.

Unfortunately these same people will then later suggest to make weapons 3x cheaper, so that you can rebuild your strike more quickly, even though it simply means people will be running around with stats 3x larger and you'll still be able to only hurt the def of 1-2 people in one day

by curumo Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:46 pm

Agreed with the your last paragraph. As for the rest, I don't want to mass for nothing... just to make it so that I can do more in a night or a few nights than help 3 others kill 1 person ...

by Admin Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:24 pm

A potential solution would be able to build weapons and train units in advance and keep them in reserve / warehouses to mobilize on short notice

still wouldn't solve the issue that it would cost a TON of resources to build them up in the first place, meaning no one would do it anyway, so ....

right back where we started

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that what kills the game isn't losses or % kills or whatever. It's the simple fact that people CAN chose between economy and military. And then obviously people chose economy, so there's not much going into military = no wars
If these were strictly split,
that your military gets built at a steady rate,
based on up/army/training facilities/weapon factories/whatever (plus this whole reserve/warehouses story to some extent so there's a limit how much gets produced if you dont use it at all)

completely at (almost) no extra cost, except say the setup cost to build the facilities/etc., to your economy (though let's say you could offer to give up some income to increase speed of building),

then there would be a ton of wars since people would not have to worry about sacrificing growth too much (but they would still be able to give themselves an edge during battle if they are willing to pay for it)

by Manleva Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:55 am

In an ideal situation I would expect a larger force do deal more damage to a smaller force and I believe that to be a reasonable expectation.

That being said simply to implement that in AW as it stands would cause a lot of issues as currently any player can attack any other player. This means there is a realistic chance of smaller accounts being decimated by other larger accounts which is not good for the game.

I am more used to a game where farming is an essential activity for growth and where profit may not be the main consideration (eg. I need x amount for the next upgrade and you have that much out so I farm you get the amount I need and get the upgrade however I may loose more units so the attack its self is not profitable but in this situation I am making a short term loss so that I can make a longer term growth in my account)

In the above scenario bashing of smaller accounts would be expected however this was prevented by restricting who could be attacked. Alliance members could not be targeted in any way and your battle field was restricted to players 50% either side of you power.

So the question is why not equalize the losses between attacker and defender, make some adjustments for Power and Tech differences, add in a little variance so it's not always a fixed result and then limit who can be attacked thus protecting small accounts from bashing and larger accounts from harassment.

The only issue would be that without some additional mechanics the larger players would loose their 0 def inactive farms. There are however a number of different ways to address this.

by Admin Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:26 am

Manleva wrote:In an ideal situation I would expect a larger force do deal more damage to a smaller force and I believe that to be a reasonable expectation.
With a bigger strike you can already destroy a defense with fewer attacks than with a smaller strike

That being said simply to implement that in AW as it stands would cause a lot of issues as currently any player can attack any other player. This means there is a realistic chance of smaller accounts being decimated by other larger accounts which is not good for the game.

I am more used to a game where farming is an essential activity for growth and where profit may not be the main consideration (eg. I need x amount for the next upgrade and you have that much out so I farm you get the amount I need and get the upgrade however I may loose more units so the attack its self is not profitable but in this situation I am making a short term loss so that I can make a longer term growth in my account)

In the above scenario bashing of smaller accounts would be expected however this was prevented by restricting who could be attacked. Alliance members could not be targeted in any way and your battle field was restricted to players 50% either side of you power.

So the question is why not equalize the losses between attacker and defender, make some adjustments for Power and Tech differences, add in a little variance so it's not always a fixed result and then limit who can be attacked thus protecting small accounts from bashing and larger accounts from harassment.
There's a fairly significant group of people who are whining if there is any variance, on the other hand there's a significant group which does want some variance

The only issue would be that without some additional mechanics the larger players would loose their 0 def inactive farms. There are however a number of different ways to address this.
Easy, dont login for a week and you're free to hit by anyone, simple and effective enough

by Manleva Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:54 am

Admin wrote:
Manleva wrote:In an ideal situation I would expect a larger force do deal more damage to a smaller force and I believe that to be a reasonable expectation.
With a bigger strike you can already destroy a defense with fewer attacks than with a smaller strike
Thanks for pointing out the obvious however a 5% loss for a 1,000,000 Strike compared to 4% loss to a 100,000 defense is not balanced and the argument of it being harder to attack a prepared defense to justify greater losses just doesn't cut it. But that's beside the point because no response was actually required or needed to the first sentence.

That being said simply to implement that in AW as it stands would cause a lot of issues as currently any player can attack any other player. This means there is a realistic chance of smaller accounts being decimated by other larger accounts which is not good for the game.

I am more used to a game where farming is an essential activity for growth and where profit may not be the main consideration (eg. I need x amount for the next upgrade and you have that much out so I farm you get the amount I need and get the upgrade however I may loose more units so the attack its self is not profitable but in this situation I am making a short term loss so that I can make a longer term growth in my account)

In the above scenario bashing of smaller accounts would be expected however this was prevented by restricting who could be attacked. Alliance members could not be targeted in any way and your battle field was restricted to players 50% either side of you power.

So the question is why not equalize the losses between attacker and defender, make some adjustments for Power and Tech differences, add in a little variance so it's not always a fixed result and then limit who can be attacked thus protecting small accounts from bashing and larger accounts from harassment.
There's a fairly significant group of people who are whining if there is any variance, on the other hand there's a significant group which does want some variance
Well that's a rather pointless comment. I could draw many conclusions from it but I won't. What I would prefer are your own views and opinions and let the whiners speak for themselves.

The only issue would be that without some additional mechanics the larger players would loose their 0 def inactive farms. There are however a number of different ways to address this.
Easy, dont login for a week and you're free to hit by anyone, simple and effective enoughand totally lacking in very much thought or imagination. Another more simplistic and more viable idea to to simply say tough, there out of your range and you should be able to do without farming them any way and it will leave more for the smaller players so that their growth will increase

I'll make no further comments at this stage and hope that someone else will have enough interest to continue the discussion.

by Nomad Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:22 pm

Manleva wrote:
Admin wrote:
Manleva wrote:In an ideal situation I would expect a larger force do deal more damage to a smaller force and I believe that to be a reasonable expectation.
With a bigger strike you can already destroy a defense with fewer attacks than with a smaller strike
Thanks for pointing out the obvious however a 5% loss for a 1,000,000 Strike compared to 4% loss to a 100,000 defense is not balanced and the argument of it being harder to attack a prepared defense to justify greater losses just doesn't cut it. But that's beside the point because no response was actually required or needed to the first sentence.
@ Admin,, Please explain, here or PM what you said. I do not want to derail the topic, but I just realized I do not understand what you just said. The losses are SET. They do not change based on size or how many people you send(They stay 5% and 4% no matter how many are sent, not like you get a better % by sending more men). They change when you have better weapons and tech's. So I am confused by how sending more people = needing fewer attacks to achieve the same goal. (assuming identical weapons and techs)

@ Manleva,,,,
I am really torn about this entire thing, as I can see some of both side. Strike should suffer higher losses. They are covering open ground. They are moving with less cover, and less chance to hit because of being on the move. Defenses however have set perimeters, established barricades, and are firing from set positions giving them more accuracy. Now when it is a farming run where the Strike is a get in and get out ordeal the Defense should be heavily favored as neutralizing the defense is not even the point of the mission, it is a side effect. Now I do agree more with Manleva when looking at things such as assault. The purpose of that attack is to neutralize the defense. That means they will systematically attack and destroy every single person and piece of equipment they can. 100 men surrounding a camp of 10 men, especially when they have better levels, weapons, and techs, should prove to be disastrous to the defending team.

Thing is, this being a game there are certain "falsehoods" which must exist. Without them the outcome is certain, and you end up with a few "kings in the white castles" and a dead game.

I am more used to a game where farming is an essential activity for growth and where profit may not be the main consideration (eg. I need x amount for the next upgrade and you have that much out so I farm you get the amount I need and get the upgrade however I may loose more units so the attack its self is not profitable but in this situation I am making a short term loss so that I can make a longer term growth in my account)
I actually love this idea,,,,, but not for Main AW. This very definition implies a faster paced game requiring more of a time commitment then main has been designed for. In a game like this those with much screen time will prosper and those with less will never truly be able to compete. I am not saying that is a bad thing TBH, I am just saying its not how main is set up to run. I would love to see the dead server "Evolutions" be brought back using some of these ideas. It should be a faster paced server where these ideas could flourish.
In the above scenario bashing of smaller accounts would be expected however this was prevented by restricting who could be attacked. Alliance members could not be targeted in any way and your battle field was restricted to players 50% either side of you power.
Having played games like this I found they did well, but in AW I see the extremely small playbase which is shrinking lately, to be a killer of this idea. There are some who could outpace the bulk of the game and become "untouchable" using the 50% power requirement as a shield. Also, what would happen if everyone in the upper class were same alliance, or even 2 alliances but they have peace? The upper class could grow unchecked. I also had an issue once before with this system where an individual would just clear the 50% power requirement, build, mass, and then fall under the requirement. This lead to a never ending situation of being harassed for amusement. Again, I like the idea, and have many suggestion to clarify good rules for it, I just still do not think its a good idea for main, especially not a game as small a playerbase as AW
So the question is why not equalize the losses between attacker and defender, make some adjustments for Power and Tech differences, add in a little variance so it's not always a fixed result and then limit who can be attacked thus protecting small accounts from bashing and larger accounts from harassment.
There's a fairly significant group of people who are whining if there is any variance, on the other hand there's a significant group which does want some variance
Well that's a rather pointless comment. I could draw many conclusions from it but I won't. What I would prefer are your own views and opinions and let the whiners speak for themselves.
@ Admin,,,, he has a point
@ Manleva,,,, I think what he meant by saying that is, even tho everyone accuses him of not listening to the players, he does. This particular issue is as close a split from player feedback as any therefore it is difficult for him to pick a side as he can visualize a system on either side, but does not feel one is better then the other, or maybe that either will cause as much damage as good? IDK
The only issue would be that without some additional mechanics the larger players would loose their 0 def inactive farms. There are however a number of different ways to address this.
Easy, dont login for a week and you're free to hit by anyone, simple and effective enoughand totally lacking in very much thought or imagination. Another more simplistic and more viable idea to to simply say tough, there out of your range and you should be able to do without farming them any way and it will leave more for the smaller players so that their growth will increase
I really think that was a bit harsh on your part Manleva. Making it so any account which has not logged in during a 7 day period open for all accounts to hit no matter size or power is a viable option. Taking away the ability to farm and raid from the upper class accounts is most definitely not the answer. What incentive is there to play? Your only choice is to destroy a good chunk of your own account and then not be able to recover using farming and raiding? What stops a player from selling off and refusing to build power? It guarantees no one built can hit him, and gives him open range on all the 0 def farms and all the raid targets.

I'll make no further comments at this stage and hope that someone else will have enough interest to continue the discussion.

I hope you do come back, only though continual discussion will things get changed.

by Admin Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:36 pm

Seriously this losses thing has been discussed to no end over and over and the same numbers posted at least half a dozen times already.

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2335p6-losses?highlight=losses

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

Bigger Att than Def = Attacker loses LESS than 5%, Defender loses MORE than 4%
Bigger Def than Att = Attacker loses MORE than 5%, Defender loses LESS than 4%

EXAMPLE:

5 Bil strike (50k soldiers) vs 1 Bil def (10k soldiers)
assault: (5/1) ^ .5 = 2.23
supers x .05 / 2.23 = attacker loses 2.23% of units sent = 1118
supers x .04 x 2.23 = defender loses 8.94% of units sent = 894

Kill ratio = attacker/defender = 1118/894 = 5/4

More than 5 times enemy power and you will not notice a change in losses on any side.
So if someone has 100 units, losses will be the same on both sides if you send 5,000 or 50,000

Thank you very much
Link to this post for future easy copying: https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2649p30-change-to-assault-missions#33396

Manleva wrote:So the question is why not equalize the losses between attacker and defender, make some adjustments for Power and Tech differences, add in a little variance so it's not always a fixed result and then limit who can be attacked thus protecting small accounts from bashing and larger accounts from harassment.
There's a fairly significant group of people who are whining if there is any variance, on the other hand there's a significant group which does want some variance
Well that's a rather pointless comment. I could draw many conclusions from it but I won't. What I would prefer are your own views and opinions and let the whiners speak for themselves.
@ Admin,,,, he has a point
@ Manleva,,,, I think what he meant by saying that is, even tho everyone accuses him of not listening to the players, he does. This particular issue is as close a split from player feedback as any therefore it is difficult for him to pick a side as he can visualize a system on either side, but does not feel one is better then the other, or maybe that either will cause as much damage as good? IDK

I want some variance, something I added for the farm missions (normal distribution, so occassionally you will deal a lot more or a lot less damage, mostly you'll be around your usual value).
But then certain groups came up with silly rules when farming each other, rules I do not care about as they are none of my business, and whine about this variance sometimes screwing them over (like having to pay reparations because they dealt too little damage)

I want some % fail rate on a new sabotage mission if someone goes on realm alert. First thing certain people did was ignore that I set the condition for realm alert to be active and cry about how that would be unfair and the system would suck if there would be random fails, which would actually not be that random. That's the type of discussion I have to lead with certain people.

by Manleva Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:04 pm

Nomad wrote:
Manleva wrote:
I am more used to a game where farming is an essential activity for growth and where profit may not be the main consideration (eg. I need x amount for the next upgrade and you have that much out so I farm you get the amount I need and get the upgrade however I may loose more units so the attack its self is not profitable but in this situation I am making a short term loss so that I can make a longer term growth in my account)
I actually love this idea,,,,, but not for Main AW. This very definition implies a faster paced game requiring more of a time commitment then main has been designed for. In a game like this those with much screen time will prosper and those with less will never truly be able to compete. I am not saying that is a bad thing TBH, I am just saying its not how main is set up to run. I would love to see the dead server "Evolutions" be brought back using some of these ideas. It should be a faster paced server where these ideas could flourish.

I'll answer this comment now and come back to the rest later.

Short term loss for long term gain is always applicable especially for those without SS who don't have the ability to safely store resources in the market.
It's also not a matter of game pace or time commitment. Rather it's more about player attitude and is a good mechanism for allowing smaller players to grow and increase both player interest and growth of the player base. I would even go so far as to say it would quite possibly be better in AW than in a faster paced reset game as the consequences there can be far more devastating

by Keinutnai Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:39 pm

Manleva wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Manleva wrote:
I am more used to a game where farming is an essential activity for growth and where profit may not be the main consideration (eg. I need x amount for the next upgrade and you have that much out so I farm you get the amount I need and get the upgrade however I may loose more units so the attack its self is not profitable but in this situation I am making a short term loss so that I can make a longer term growth in my account)
I actually love this idea,,,,, but not for Main AW. This very definition implies a faster paced game requiring more of a time commitment then main has been designed for. In a game like this those with much screen time will prosper and those with less will never truly be able to compete. I am not saying that is a bad thing TBH, I am just saying its not how main is set up to run. I would love to see the dead server "Evolutions" be brought back using some of these ideas. It should be a faster paced server where these ideas could flourish.

I'll answer this comment now and come back to the rest later.

Short term loss for long term gain is always applicable especially for those without SS who don't have the ability to safely store resources in the market.
It's also not a matter of game pace or time commitment. Rather it's more about player attitude and is a good mechanism for allowing smaller players to grow and increase both player interest and growth of the player base. I would even go so far as to say it would quite possibly be better in AW than in a faster paced reset game as the consequences there can be far more devastating

Nomad is right, AW isnt supposed to be too time consuming, but having farm intense system on evolutions would be a nice thing to have.

by Nomad Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:11 pm

Admin wrote:
I want some % fail rate on a new sabotage mission if someone goes on realm alert. First thing certain people did was ignore that I set the condition for realm alert to be active and cry about how that would be unfair and the system would suck if there would be random fails, which would actually not be that random. That's the type of discussion I have to lead with certain people.

I think what your missing is this,

A failed assault or any other strike based attack can fail due to the variance. That failure cost you X amount of additional losses.

A failed sab due to automatic and undefendable catch due to realm alert cost you Y amount of additional losses.

Admin please fill in X and Y. I think X might be a % or 2% where why is about 70% of the force. Strike can be boosted high enough to NEVER suffer a failure, yet you can outclass covert by 1 million times and still fail losing 75% of your force. That = "Uselessness"

by Admin Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:36 pm

Nomad wrote:yet you can outclass covert by 1 million times and still fail losing 75% of your force. That = "Uselessness"

I didn't count but I am sure I posted at least twice that losses would be flat 5% always, success or fail, every single time.
Which people were repeatedly ignoring

edit: ok nevermind, that's only the chat where i've repeated myself about the 5% fail rate about half a dozen times. apparently the topic does not contain that info

by Sponsored content