Attack points not calculating right in the game - game update (not a bug)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hehe...i will just copy, because not get the all pictures there, what and why i want to be fair play to ALL players, that now isnt.

good idea

lets change it and calculate it correct
that would be:
points new = points now * defenders boost / attackers boost

because for example attacking with 60% against 60% defense has the same difficulty than 0% vs 0%

one bad thing about that
in most cases we would get less points

but that is for all players in the towers and so fighting better enemies still gives you an advantage

 

[DeletedUser103370]

What he wants is a bigger point reward for fighting someone that has a strong defense boost. Right now what matters is the units being killed and how much damage they inflict. He wants their defense boost to factor into it too.

-1

But I don't see what's the matter with that? I mean I see you guys -1 on it, but I don't get it why? I mean shouldn't you get more rewards, if you beat a harder army than a weaker one? Just wanna understand what's your issue with it?

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

But I don't see what's the matter with that? I mean I see you guys -1 on it, but I don't get it why? I mean shouldn't you get more rewards, if you beat a harder army than a weaker one? Just wanna understand what's your issue with it?

Well, for one thing it dissuades people from having a better defence boost, since they could just be handing over more points to a more powerful attacker.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Even with my 204% defense bonus, 7 rogues 1 regular can still pretty easily win. If I knew my defense bonus was going to amplify the points of tower rivals....I would most likely remove my defense entirely...hoping the fools who implemented this came to their senses soon and if they don't, my ritual flames, watchfires and probably deal castle and st basils great buildings would be getting disconnected.

 

[rjs66]

if i have a large attack boost - then i have already put a lot of effort and resources into achieving that

i shouldn't get a bonus on top of winning battles for doing this
nor should i get less points because i have put my time, effort and resources into getting that boost

i get a set amount of points for defeating a specific enemy unit, if i lose i get no points, if take damage i get fewer points

there are sectors on the continent map that require a significant attack boost to conquer (even with units of the era above)
and GE level 4 requires a big boost to fight

it is necessary to have a big attack boost to complete certain parts of the game without resorting to negotiation

the enemy is just as dead if i kill them will a 200% boosted rail gun or a teaspoon , i don't expect points for style or a punishment for picking the right tool for the job

you get the points for completing the task, not for how difficult someone else is trying to make that task or how much effort you have put in to make it easier to complete that task

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Now the system isnt fair for all players. I understand that this players not want to be fair, and stay how it is right now. Ok? I understand you all, no problem.

If i have 100% attack boost, and get the same points for wining over poor 0% deff. players and cancel the attack for the 250% deff. players OR i spend those units life, what will lose, then i not attack. The 90% players are playing like that, right now. Not me!

BUT, if i get LESS point for wining those poor deff. players, and get MORE to win over the best players, AND lose those units, then i will have advantage over the players, thats run away from strong players.

What are you, attacker or runner? Its up too you!

And its your strategy if u will have massive attack boost, and win all players easily OR, will have less attack boost, win harder, BUT get more points.
99% players will chose massive attack boost, because if u loose many units in battles then u need many barracks and time to produce them, and there is no logic.

 

[rjs66]

it is perfectly fair

everybody starts from the same point, everybody has the same chances and the same decisions to make

it is a strategy game , the decisions you make affect what resources you can generate, how you spend those resources is another decision you have to make

one strategy is to improve your military might to win battles, you could spend the forge points on other gbs that are not military related and gain different advantages such as massive coin / supply / goods boosts instead

if you think that people with a high attack boost should lose points, then perhaps people with st marks should get less base coins from their houses, or build a lighthouse and get less base supplies from their production buildings, or build an alcatraz and double the training time for troops

in a strategy game the whole point is that you make decisions that help you play the way you want

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Well, for one thing it dissuades people from having a better defence boost, since they could just be handing over more points to a more powerful attacker.

I see!
Yes that logic is flawed from both sides. If you as an attacker beat a harder army, you should have more points. On the other hand as a defender you should get points too!

I'd fiddle with both numbers to make it worth to defend too. For example if you defend with a full army, you'd get points, if not a full army, then you'd get zero. This is one way to give an incentive to raise a defense.

Another way is to penalize if someone doesn't have a full defensive army. For example the attacker would get more points. The way it's done now motivates people to use this "tactic", which is not good in my opinion. Having no defending army shouldn't be a "tool".

 

[rjs66]

the motivation for having a good defence boost and a decent defensive army is that it stops the attacker defeating your army and plundering your town

the penalty for a weak defence is you lose your goods etc.. especially if you don't bother to log on and collect on time
defensive gbs also add to the GvG defence pool helping protect your guilds sectors

the strategy is in finding a balance between defensive and offensive boosts that works for you

screwing about with the scoring systems because you made decisions that aren't working well for you is not going to encourage anyone to actually try to do anything better, it will just make it so there is little or no point in doing anything as it wont make any difference and everyone will get pretty much the same points whatever they do.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So if i understand players who not want this change is normal to you, that get the same points for easy wining or hard wining battles, right?

My opinion is, that strong players fear from this change, because the enemy will have more reason to attack you, because they get more points. Now why bother to attack strong players and lose army, when i can attack easy ones and get the same point? This is the reason, right?

Now only the poor players are suffer, but this aspect of the game can change a little bit. Ok i understand, that strong players are the profitable for FOE (like myself), and the poor ones isnt, but we can give them a little more chance to play longer and become profitable players

I not asked to play with the attack, defense bonuses or with the game system, only to repair the unfair point system a little bit. Maybe isnt the right time, maybe is, but this need to see the developers, not us 10 players in this post. This is like elections...voters witch are against go to vote, the others siting at home, most of them....

And this. The best defense is collecting your building in time. This work 100% and the enemy can attack you all the time, who cares?

 

[rjs66]

since the last update to the neighbourhood shuffle - you are now placed in neighbourhoods where the players are all in the same era at the same level of progress in the tech tree

the differences in relative strengths and weaknesses are down to the way each player has chosen to play and where thay have spent their resources

this is a strategy game - it is strategy to make better decisions than the other players to get ahead

making it so that you are given extra points for doing what is necessary or losing points for making better decisions than somebody else will remove any strategy element from what is a strategy game

 

[DeletedUser103370]

screwing about with the scoring systems because you made decisions that aren't working well for you is not going to encourage anyone to actually try to do anything better, it will just make it so there is little or no point in doing anything as it wont make any difference and everyone will get pretty much the same points whatever they do.

I don't know what you even try to say here.
Tell me something please:
Is it harder to beat an army with 300% defense boost, than a 0% defense boost? (rhetorical question)
So if it's harder then why are you not rewarded more?

Your answer guys, is because then the defender will not use defensive armies to strip you of your points...
You see, there is the problem! For as long as the system let you - hell not let you, rather encourage you! - to NOT use a defensive army, as a way to make an opponent not worth to attack you, the system is bad, simple as that.

And so it's not about changing the scoring system because I have made bad decisions (what would that bad decision be anyways, having good attack boost?), but changing the scoring system to honor your effort in a battle (stronger defense you face -> more effort -> more points, very straightforward).

And the second part is to eliminate this nonsense, that you can use "no defense" as a defense, because that's just straight stupid.
Solution? Reward the defender for the effort too! There are virtually unlimited options how to do it, I won't go into it, because that's not the question now. Point is, if the defender is rewarded for his effort, the attacker is rewarded for his effort, that's when the system will work fair and square, and that's when people will stop using no armies as a "tool".

 

[rjs66]

i never said use no defence anywhere at all

i said use a good defence with a good boost - the reward is you stop the attacker
people who put up no defence have already given up because they don't want to work at getting a good defence in place

you are given the chance to boost your attack or defence or other gbs - what you spend on one takes away from another
you have to decide what to spend where and how to do things

that is strategy - this is a strategy game

if someone puts up a 300% defence it is to stop you , so you get a 300% attack boost to beat it
it isn't about how many points either side gets for doing it, it is about looking at what needs to be done about achieving a particular goal / task and then doing what is necessary to achieve that if that's what you decide to do

i would love lots of extra points for all the attacks that have failed against me - points for nothing - yes please
i put up my defences up to stop the attackers, i boosted my defence to help with this

i would love to double my points for attacking a strong defence - i build up my attack boost to beat the enemy
having built up my attack boost to beat that defence , why should i lose points if someone doesn't match that other high defence, i didn't make the decision for them to do that

as it stands i get X points for defeating a unit of a particular type , my bonus for attacking with a high boost is that i win, my bonus for a high defence boost is that the attack against me fails

to get these boosts i have had to spend lots of forge points and sacrifice space in my city for the required buildings at the expense of other gbs and buildings

these are decisions that i have made - to get A , i need to sacrifice something on B or C or D etc...

the way the game is structured is that it forces players to chose what they want to do

changing the system to reward doing little or nothing whilst penalising those that have done something is a sure method of killing the game completely ( if people get the same reward for working hard or sitting around doing nothing much, guess what they'll choose)

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't know what you even try to say here.
Tell me something please:
Is it harder to beat an army with 300% defense boost, than a 0% defense boost? (rhetorical question)
So if it's harder then why are you not rewarded more?

Your answer guys, is because then the defender will not use defensive armies to strip you of your points...
You see, there is the problem! For as long as the system let you - hell not let you, rather encourage you! - to NOT use a defensive army, as a way to make an opponent not worth to attack you, the system is bad, simple as that.

And so it's not about changing the scoring system because I have made bad decisions (what would that bad decision be anyways, having good attack boost?), but changing the scoring system to honor your effort in a battle (stronger defense you face -> more effort -> more points, very straightforward).

And the second part is to eliminate this nonsense, that you can use "no defense" as a defense, because that's just straight stupid.
Solution? Reward the defender for the effort too! There are virtually unlimited options how to do it, I won't go into it, because that's not the question now. Point is, if the defender is rewarded for his effort, the attacker is rewarded for his effort, that's when the system will work fair and square, and that's when people will stop using no armies as a "tool".

Yes, exactly that is the point off changing!

If i put an effort and beat the strongest defense, loose some of my units, then please, reward me! And then the enemy not doing what is doing right new...attack from weakest to strongest, and when is in attack mode and see that i have strong defense simply retreat, and happens nothing! Is this a good strategy?? How many are doing this? You too? I am not, because if u attack stand up...work on boost attack GB, play a strategy. This unfair points system are killing the point to be an great attacker.

And yes, to stop exploiting that some players simply retreat from battle (run like a rabbit ), i would give some points to defender, and THEN will this stop, and stop think off random attacking the players, and play a good strategy game not like now.
Even i take 1 random unit if you retreat, but this is an another story.

The same is in the GVG. If i put a siege army, i can simply retreat from battle, and try again, until i get the desired enemy...and repeat that. To stop that, every time when u retreat, lose 1 siege army..and then the real strategy begins. But ok this is real hard then to conquer a sector and i understand that will be to hard for players to play GVG then.

i never said use no defence anywhere at all

i said use a good defence with a good boost - the reward is you stop the attacker

that is strategy - this is a strategy game

if someone puts up a 300% defence it is to stop you , so you get a 300% attack boost to beat it
it isn't about how many points either side gets for doing it, it is about looking at what needs to be done about achieving a particular goal / task and then doing what is necessary to achieve that if that's what you decide to do

changing the system to reward doing little or nothing whilst penalising those that have done something is a sure method of killing the game completely ( if people get the same reward for working hard or sitting around doing nothing much, guess what they'll choose)

I can defeat ALL players defense in my hood..the question is that, how many units will i loose. In current system i not have needs to do that, BUT if i get more points, then hell yea i will do it! This is a strategy, isnt it?

The game gives you more ways to play. U can be a trader or warrior...the GB, Friends Tavern and so on. If u play more, spend your time, then you have a edge over your opponents that simple is that. This is not a science

And yes now the system not awards you for your effort for attacking a strong players. Why? Why? Can you tell me please?

The system cannot reward those who are doing little, because if you spend more time to the game, you get more, simple like that. And if they fix the point system that will not change that that player who are not attacking get points. If attack you get points, and if attack strongest players you get more, and THIS is a real strategy, not like now....

 

[rjs66]

changing the scoring system so that you get an extra bonus for beating a stronger defence will open up massive abuse of the scoring system

see above about how this could be exploited by players adapting their defence armies (with a massive boost) to allow their neighbours to easily win with no damage and get a massive bonus too

the way the game works at the moment is that hard work and amount of time spent gets you the rewards - not getting extra on top of that

if you can beat the whole hood you get the benefit of winning the battles and the chance to plunder

changing the way the scoring works to skew the scores either adding or subtracting depending on whether a player is either stronger or weaker is NOT STRATEGY

strategy is using your resources to achieve certain goals, and adapting your game to suit what the goals are as they change

 

[DeletedUser103370]

i never said use no defence anywhere at all

i said use a good defence with a good boost - the reward is you stop the attacker
people who put up no defence have already given up because they don't want to work at getting a good defence in place

you are given the chance to boost your attack or defence or other gbs - what you spend on one takes away from another
you have to decide what to spend where and how to do things

that is strategy - this is a strategy game

You didn't say that, however that is what people do. And you're wrong, they not doing it, because they already lost...
They do it to strip off the attacker the points he could have got if they put up a defense and still get beaten. It has absolutely nothing to do what I have spent on defense/attack.
In other words, in the current system you can screw with your attacker, by not defending at all.
That make sense? I don't think so.
Is that a "strategy"? I don't think so.

if someone puts up a 300% defence it is to stop you , so you get a 300% attack boost to beat it
it isn't about how many points either side gets for doing it, it is about looking at what needs to be done about achieving a particular goal / task and then doing what is necessary to achieve that if that's what you decide to do

Again, this has nothing to do what the OP proposed. No one said that it's a problem if someone puts up 300% defense boost. Yeah, you're right, then I'll get 300% attack boost too! Still if you beat an opponent with 0% defense boost, then you should get LESS points than if you beat a 300%. Why? Because it's harder to beat a 300%.
Does that make sense?
Yes, I think so.

i would love to double my points for attacking a strong defence - i build up my attack boost to beat the enemy
having built up my attack boost to beat that defence , why should i lose points if someone doesn't match that other high defence, i didn't make the decision for them to do that

You say you LOSE points if you beat a weaker opponent, I say you GAIN points if you beat a stronger... Why? Because beating a stronger opponent should reward you more!
Does that make sense?
I think so.
Not only that, this would motivate people who fight for points to fight with their own size or stronger ones, instead of beating the crap out of someone who is 10 times weaker than you... I understand that some people enjoy that kind of gameplay, but the system shouldn't encourage it...

changing the system to reward doing little or nothing whilst penalising those that have done something is a sure method of killing the game completely ( if people get the same reward for working hard or sitting around doing nothing much, guess what they'll choose)

And again, on the contrary what you say, we said exactly the opposite...
Reward the effort... It's not penalizing if you get points according to the strength of your opponent, it's called FAIR. And no one talked about getting reward for doing little either...

 

[rjs66]

if i build up my attack boost to beat an opponent i have done it by building up my resources and spending them on my attack boost
if i cant beat a stronger opponent i need more boost so i work on that,
if an opponent can beat my defences if boost them if i can, i don't leave them weak to cost my opponent points

if my opponents decide not to build up their defences to stop me that is their decision not mine
(those that use 2 spear defence HAVE GIVEN UP - BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EVEN TRYING)

i am using a strategy to achieve a goal (ie get better attack boost), i don't expect more or less points for doing that, i do it because it is necessary , the same goes for defence

the incentive to improve your city , boosts , resources is built into the game

changing the way battle scores are calculated will either:
encourage abuse by those willing to put in the extra effort so that they get a huge bonus if they get more points
remove any incentive to increase boost if the points are reduced

remove any incentive to put up a decent defence or increase boost if they can reduce the points an attacker gets
remove defence altogether if it penalises somebody else to the maximum

stop trying to screw over everybody else and change the game mechanics just because you think everyone should get the same no matter what they do, the game is designed to be competitive, changes like this would remove the incentive to compete

the game rewards those that spend the most time on it, make the best decisions, and work for it
you say it isn't fair that those who have gained an advantage should gain from it , that is at best laughable

what part of everybody in this game started with nothing , differences are down to you not the game. is beyond your grasp ?

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

changing the scoring system so that you get an extra bonus for beating a stronger defence will open up massive abuse of the scoring system

see above about how this could be exploited by players adapting their defence armies (with a massive boost) to allow their neighbours to easily win with no damage and get a massive bonus too

the way the game works at the moment is that hard work and amount of time spent gets you the rewards - not getting extra on top of that

if you can beat the whole hood you get the benefit of winning the battles and the chance to plunder

Sorry but you real not understand or i think you not want understand and fear for the changes, that can correct this unfair situation.

Are you have a job? I work on a large company and when the bosses want a certain goal, then do all what is necessary to archive that goal. It is understandably that employees we all fear from the changes, BUT if they not even try then how know IF this will work and is the right decision OR NOT.
And exactly the same is here. Why the developers repairing bugs and things? Because they cannot create bugles games. And that all the players get the same points, what is calculating ONLY from the unit types and damage taken. Is that normal to you in game like that? And please put your ego on the side only for a moment, and give me a correct answer this time. In all company have peoples like you, to take any necessary action to stay all like is it, only for that, that you can stay in your zone of comport.

Al that things that you wrote above, can do right now in the game. I can put 8 generals, or 1 general an 7 rogue to maximize your points, BUT then i must remove them, that nobody else do the same, and here is the hood rotations and so on. So you cannot do this, ONLY if the system put you together, but this is a lottery. This part of game are working great to minimize that sort of thinking, and not allow attacking ALL players in the same World.

And again, you cannot have invincible defense. Ok, only if you activate Shield in Friends tavern, but you cannot do this all the time, because not get so many points. You see, the system are changing and this is normal. When somebody told you about Friends Tavern and you have a vote option, i know how you will be vote

If you take, and think positive your life will change, but it is only up to you.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

if i build up my attack boost to beat an opponent i have done it by building up my resources and spending them on my attack boost
if i cant beat a stronger opponent i need more boost so i work on that,
if an opponent can beat my defences if boost them if i can, i don't leave them weak to cost my opponent points

if my opponents decide not to build up their defences to stop me that is their decision not mine
(those that use 2 spear defence HAVE GIVEN UP - BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EVEN TRYING)

i am using a strategy to achieve a goal (ie get better attack boost), i don't expect more or less points for doing that, i do it because it is necessary , the same goes for defence

the incentive to improve your city , boosts , resources is built into the game

changing the way battle scores are calculated will either:
encourage abuse by those willing to put in the extra effort so that they get a huge bonus if they get more points
remove any incentive to increase boost if the points are reduced

remove any incentive to put up a decent defence or increase boost if they can reduce the points an attacker gets
remove defence altogether if it penalises somebody else to the maximum

stop trying to screw over everybody else and change the game mechanics just because you think everyone should get the same no matter what they do, the game is designed to be competitive, changes like this would remove the incentive to compete

the game rewards those that spend the most time on it, make the best decisions, and work for it
you say it isn't fair that those who have gained an advantage should gain from it , that is at best laughable

what part of everybody in this game started with nothing , differences are down to you not the game. is beyond your grasp ?

I tell you what you're afraid, with a change like this, you would have less rewards in beating a ten times weaker opponent than yourself, and you don't like that...
Easy to see why.

• If you were fighting strong opponents, this change would bring you more points, ergo more rewards.
• If you were fighting much weaker opponents, this change would bring you less points, ergo less rewards.

Clear as day that you fall into the second category. And no matter how you try to justify it, it's not the way it should work.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Sorry but you real not understand or i think you not want understand and fear for the changes, that can correct this unfair situation.

Are you have a job? I work on a large company and when the bosses want a certain goal, then do all what is necessary to archive that goal. It is understandably that employees we all fear from the changes, BUT if they not even try then how know IF this will work and is the right decision OR NOT.
And exactly the same is here. Why the developers repairing bugs and things? Because they cannot create bugles games. And that all the players get the same points, what is calculating ONLY from the unit types and damage taken. Is that normal to you in game like that? And please put your ego on the side only for a moment, and give me a correct answer this time. In all company have peoples like you, to take any necessary action to stay all like is it, only for that, that you can stay in your zone of comport.

Al that things that you wrote above, can do right now in the game. I can put 8 generals, or 1 general an 7 rogue to maximize your points, BUT then i must remove them, that nobody else do the same, and here is the hood rotations and so on. So you cannot do this, ONLY if the system put you together, but this is a lottery. This part of game are working great to minimize that sort of thinking, and not allow attacking ALL players in the same World.

And again, you cannot have invincible defense. Ok, only if you activate Shield in Friends tavern, but you cannot do this all the time, because not get so many points. You see, the system are changing and this is normal. When somebody told you about Friends Tavern and you have a vote option, i know how you will be vote

If you take, and think positive your life will change, but it is only up to you.

What a load of irrelevant and insulting twaddle!

If you want to support your idea, come up with practice numbers and scenatios that show the differences from all angles. You harm your idea by

1. Not understanding the difference between a bug and a feature you do not like
2. Being personally offensive
3. Not understanding the difference between calculated risk and gung-ho messing around
4. Not knowing the game well enough to understand there is no such thing as invincibility, Tavern boosts or not.