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

[Vesiger]

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 don't understand this reiterated claim that doing something difficult (beating a stronger army with a boost that exceeds yours) consists of "doing nothing much" whereas levelling GBs equals highly-respected 'work'- from my perspective, it takes more skill and effort to learn how to fight effectively against a boosted opponent than it does simply to pump FP into Great Buildings. In fact the latter can be done simply by buying diamonds.

 

[rjs66]

quite simply it is the amount of time that people have put into actually playing the game, the decisions they made about what to build and how their strategy has affected what they have achieved and the benefits they have gained by this

changing things to reward people who haven't put in the time and effort and picked a strategy that gives them benefits shouldn't give them extra points for for not playing

inno provided the gbs to be used ( a whole range of them providing different boosts and benefits)

the idea of giving points for not using what inno have provided is ludicrous

don't build this and get more points for deliberately making it more difficult for yourself
spend your time developing a strategy and using the tools inno have provided - get less points for your trouble

 

[Vesiger]

inno provided the gbs to be used ( a whole range of them providing different boosts and benefits)

the idea of giving points for not using what inno have provided is ludicrous

don't build this and get more points for deliberately making it more difficult for yourself
spend your time developing a strategy and using the tools inno have provided - get less points for your trouble

Don't you already score more points for defeating higher-level units? Is that ludicrous?

If the argument being presented were one of game balance over 'realism', I could understand that; what I don't get is the assertion that levelling up GBs is difficult and using strategy to defeat a stronger opponent is easy. It's basically valuing button-pushing over skill... and while increasingly large chunks of this game do consist of button-pushing (tavern, anyone?), it's not generally hailed by the players as a good thing.

 

[rjs66]

in order to fight effectively against higher boosted units and play gvg then you need to build up your attack boost

this idea is saying that by doing what is necessary to win fights in GvG GE and PvP and actually usiing the game resources you should get less and less points for doing that, whilst promoting don't do what is necessary or do what the game requires you yo do should give more and more benefits

inno have designed the game to be played, to get players online and doing something, this idea is promoting the idea that spending less time playing the game and doing as little as possible to get ahead is what should be done
perhaps you think their business model involves getting fewer players online and playing

its not about button pushing , its about strategy, building up your resources so you can be more effective is strategy
sitting on your backside expecting points for not building up your resources and complaining that anyone who does is button pushing and should be rewarded less is pure laziness

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Don't you already score more points for defeating higher-level units? Is that ludicrous?

If the argument being presented were one of game balance over 'realism', I could understand that; what I don't get is the assertion that levelling up GBs is difficult and using strategy to defeat a stronger opponent is easy. It's basically valuing button-pushing over skill... and while increasingly large chunks of this game do consist of button-pushing (tavern, anyone?), it's not generally hailed by the players as a good thing.

Yes you get the point that some player not. For example, if rjs66 pushing the attack boost GB-s for all price (strong Guild...), and he has big boost versus the other players who cannot play half day and cannot buy Expansions on the map, and has Rogues, and can easy win battles and he get the same points like one, who cannot do that, then where is a fair play in the points system right now?

And yes, the Real strategy is to defeat you opponent who has bigger boost..you must know how the other units attacking, and only then can you win. I do some this cannot win battles with success. This is the strategy and not how to put FP-s to GB-s

If inno designed this game with 100% bugs free and great, why are so many changes and Ideas on this forum? You know that this is impossible....

 

[DeletedUser111351]

Five pages of posts that seem to be arguing in circles is a bit much for me, so I didn't read through it all (just a disclaimer in case I'm repeating someone).

The main discussion here is, how should victory points be handed out during fights. Currently this thread seems to predominately be discussing PvP fights, but all fights give victory points and so it doesn't really matter if it is PvP or not. Reasonable arguments can be made in a number of different directions. Every type of points system is going to have strengths and weaknesses (exploits to maximize points).

As has been pointed out, the current system gives a flat point value for type of unit killed regardless of power and takes away some points for received damage by the victor. In this scenario, if 3 different people all attacked the same defender, the strongest attacker gets more points than his rivals because all get the same number of points for the kills, but loses less points in damage to his own team. This same attacker also is rewarded because by taking less damage his team is ready to fight again at full strength again sooner and thus he can fight more fights.

This thread seems to ask, should we get more points for killing a stronger unit. It's an interesting question, especially because the game is inconsistent on the subject already. More points are currently awarded for higher tiered units, but not for upgrades to a unit. What I mean is, killing a tier 4 unit yields more points than killing a tier 3 unit, but one could upgrade the strength of a tier 3 unit until it exactly matches the stats of a tier 4 unit. Even though the two units are identical in fighting terms, they are not identical in rewards terms. This would be the best argument I could think of to possibly agree with the original request of this thread.

All this being said though, will changing the victory points for fights change how the game is played or the standings on the victory towers in any dramatic way? I strongly doubt that it would. Even if a substantial reward were offered for killing off a strong foe, a strong attacker is still only going to manage to defeat 1-4 opponents before his troops are depleted. This same attacker can plow through endless supplies of fodder with the same troops before needing to stop to replenish his soldiers. The attacker who attacks the weaker troops is going to end up earning more points, have way more times the plunder opportunities (plus the weaker opponents are likely the players who log in less frequently and thus more likely to have buildings available to plunder).

Really it doesn't matter to me if this change does or doesn't occur. If I were a game developer though, I would likely see it as my time being better spent elsewhere.

If the attack and plunder system were to be redone though, I'd rather see it done in such a way that a plundered person's building is never attacked. Either the attacker is just awarded a set victory prize of goods/gold/supplies, what have you, or maybe better the quality of the prize is determined by the strength of the defense, or else a set number of gold and supplies is lost by the losing army and goes to the attacker. Always getting something from an attack would encourage more attacks/activity, not attacking buildings directly decreases the punishment of players who can't be on 24/7 and doesn't punish players who build a special building or two in place of 3 common place buildings. In this redoing though, it would be nice for the defenders to earn victory points too. A defender should certainly earn points when defense is successful, but should also earn some points simply for amount of damage inflicted on his foe. This way making a defense is encouraged.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Five pages of posts that seem to be arguing in circles is a bit much for me, so I didn't read through it all (just a disclaimer in case I'm repeating someone).

As has been pointed out, the current system gives a flat point value for type of unit killed regardless of power and takes away some points for received damage by the victor. In this scenario, if 3 different people all attacked the same defender, the strongest attacker gets more points than his rivals because all get the same number of points for the kills, but loses less points in damage to his own team. This same attacker also is rewarded because by taking less damage his team is ready to fight again at full strength again sooner and thus he can fight more fights.

This thread seems to ask, should we get more points for killing a stronger unit. It's an interesting question, especially because the game is inconsistent on the subject already. More points are currently awarded for higher tiered units, but not for upgrades to a unit. What I mean is, killing a tier 4 unit yields more points than killing a tier 3 unit, but one could upgrade the strength of a tier 3 unit until it exactly matches the stats of a tier 4 unit. Even though the two units are identical in fighting terms, they are not identical in rewards terms. This would be the best argument I could think of to possibly agree with the original request of this thread.

All this being said though, will changing the victory points for fights change how the game is played or the standings on the victory towers in any dramatic way? I strongly doubt that it would. Even if a substantial reward were offered for killing off a strong foe, a strong attacker is still only going to manage to defeat 1-4 opponents before his troops are depleted. This same attacker can plow through endless supplies of fodder with the same troops before needing to stop to replenish his soldiers. The attacker who attacks the weaker troops is going to end up earning more points, have way more times the plunder opportunities (plus the weaker opponents are likely the players who log in less frequently and thus more likely to have buildings available to plunder).

Aleluja, this is nice writen the main goal of this Idea, that be a little bit more fair like it is now.

The upgraded units can be few ERA more advanced/stronger like the not upgraded units, and its not logical that you get the same attack points.

Stronger players can always attack more, plunder more, and get more points, versus a weaker one, but te most important thing is, how many barracks you have. The penalty points when you take damage are more less, that what you get for dealing damage and its almost irrelevant. Its not calculating 1:1.

I only want to warn the developers when have the time and will, to check out what can do about adjusting the point system.

 

[rjs66]

so the game developers give you the means to increase your attack percentage which gives you the chance to win more

you don't want to build up your attack percentage and think you should be rewarded for that ?
what incentive is there then to build up your GBs ?

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You can find the best answer a little higher what wrote One2Rule. He explained this really nice. Not agreed and not disagreed for my Idea, so hi has Independent opinion, just to know

All my attack GB-s are on LVL10, and this is must done for all attack players, who want win more easyly, no matter how much more or less attack points you will get. This question is irrelevant when we talking to level up the GB-s or not.....just read his post.

 

[rjs66]

here is a little scenario to show you what kind of abuse this would lead to ( and it will happen )

players a & b in the same neighbourhood

both have 200% boost and 400% defence
both are in Arctic Future or Oceanic Era

both re-design their cities so that all boosts can be removed by disconnecting GBs etc
by just deleting a section of road

player a puts 8 turt-turrets or 8 plasma artillery in defence
player b (removes attack boost) uses a contemporary era helicopter or other flying unit, artillery cannot kill them

player b gets 100,000 battle points (then times by 400, or whatever calculation is used) 4,000,000 points
1% of that as ranking points 40,000
(these figures are for illustration , but are not far off the actual values)


player b replaces road - attack boost restored
player a & b swap roles

add in player c & d & e etc.. all 80 in neighbourhood maybe

high end players then get millions of points every day, casual / lower era players get completely stuffed

so the idea that skewing the score by taking away from active players to give to casual players will fail in an epic way

there is no substitute in this game for high activity and careful planning
inno have given you everything you need to advance, how you use it if at all is the whole point of the game

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

1. You not get the point.
2. I think that you write only because you want spam this thread, and that the last best post of One2Rule player cannot see.
3. What prevent to doing this your "abused" scenario right now? Is this abuse? And what if someone doing it? Who doing that right now, are spendig a much time to do that, and if they doing it then this is the reward to spend ther time and play FOE.
4. Watchfire and Ritual flame cannot disconnect, because they not use roads.
5. This imaginary calculation isnt right. Like now when you deal damage to defending units, you get a lot more points as if you take damage. And only some sort off difficulty corection is my Idea.
6. The hood are rotating every 2 weeks. I am geting 90% or more new players every time. So you have to find one new player every time to do that, and who are not playing for Tower Victory. Good luck.
7. This your scenario are working only to 1,2 or max 3 era Tower Victory, becuse, you cannot defeat Artic Future unit with more that 3 era units lower, so....
...

 

[rjs66]

you don't need to disconnect the defence gbs etc.. - it is disconnecting the attack gbs - read the post properly

the flying units will take no damage whatsoever even with 0 boost as the defenders artillery cannot hit them

i can defeat most units easily enough, i learned how to fight manually, plus having cities in AF and OE i can attack with the same age units

i have seen in the past where groups in the neighbourhood have got together to adjust defences so a few can get massive tower points

 

[DeletedUser111351]

@rjs66 I will point out that players can abuse the system by "swapping" wins whether there is a change to the scoring or not.

I will also mention that the idea in the first post of the thread is all about defensive power, completely regardless of attack power (at least that's how it reads to me). Unless it starts being discussed midway through this thread, there is no suggestion that a power ratio of attacker versus defender should influence scoring at all. If attacker A with 200% attack boost attacks player B and earns 1000 points, then if attacker A attacking with 0% attack boost attacks player B he will also earn exactly 1000 point. The discussion about roads leading to Attacking GBs being destroyed and rebuilt would have no affect. (turning on/off defensive GBs, that would have an effect)

As to whether the idea put forth in this thread would increase such abuses would certainly depend on how the scoring system was adjusted. If killing unit A currently yields 1000 points and in a new system yields 5000 points (because of unit's boost adjustment), this would lead to the abuse you say more often than if said new system were to yield 1005 points. I don't believe this thread ever mentioned specifics for scoring values.

@MasTTerror as rjs66 eludes there are several ways to look at the victory towers. Some are as follows.
1. Victory Points are like a Tally. A warrior who notches his shield for every soldier he kills. It doesn't matter if said soldier was a champion of many campaigns or a new recruit. Every kill earns 1 notch.
2. Victory Points are like Renown/Honor/Experience. If a level 25 warrior goes and kills a level 3 warrior, nothing is gained. The win is meaningless. A level 4 warrior kills a level 3, and there's a decent gain. A level 1 kills a level 3 the gain is astronomical.
3. Victory Points are like Stealing. Everyone has an amassed value (whether it is gold in their pocket, or in this case strength of arms). It doesn't matter whether the theft occurs easily or is hard. It doesn't matter how many thefts one performs. What matters is how much value was taken.

I'd say that currently this game uses closer to a Tally system. You want it to be more like the Stealing system. Neither system are inherently right or wrong. The initial post claims that the scoring system needs to be changed because it is wrong. It is not. Could there be a better system? Quite possibly.

Changing the scoring system is a massive change however (regardless of how much code is involved). For the developers to even consider changing such a core mechanic generally means either something must be very broken, the new plan must have a ton of support, or the idea must be almost revolutionary. If you really want this change to happen, I'd suggest you work on the specifics. Right now it is too vague to say if strong players would start attacking strong, or players will start abusing the scoring.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Yes you get the point that some player not. For example, if rjs66 pushing the attack boost GB-s for all price (strong Guild...), and he has big boost versus the other players who cannot play half day and cannot buy Expansions on the map, and has Rogues, and can easy win battles and he get the same points like one, who cannot do that, then where is a fair play in the points system right now?

And yes, the Real strategy is to defeat you opponent who has bigger boost..you must know how the other units attacking, and only then can you win. I do some this cannot win battles with success. This is the strategy and not how to put FP-s to GB-s .

No, that is not strategy. What you are talking of is battle tactics. Let's face it, battles on FoE are not amazingly complex. Sure, there is a learning curve but once on that field, there is no strategy involved.

The strategy is in building up your town as you want it to be, while also maintaining a suitable level of defence and an adequate offence to meet your needs. The strategy is in building up the technological capability and the right troops to assist your tactics on the battlefield. If building up the right military technology (units and boosts, mostly) was so easy, how come so many don't get it right? Why would it be necessary to reward people who do NOT do the 'easy' part of building up their troops' capabilities?

The very call for rewarding poorly-prepared players is proof that the strategy of getting troops highly capable is not as easy as is being claimed.

For those people who are unable to log on and play so much, there is a changeable neighbourhood system that helps ensure that players are only faced with people at about the same level. Players who spend all day playing FoE and advancing their cities & units will be moved away into higher level neighbourhoods, to ensure fairness.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

but once on that field, there is no strategy involved.

At least, not until you have PE units, then the map scale increases and not even artillery can hit you from your starting position, then strategy in how you fight, not just what units you choose, takes form.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

At least, not until you have PE units, then the map scale increases and not even artillery can hit you from your starting position, then strategy in how you fight, not just what units you choose, takes form.

It might be debateable, and I might be splitting hairs but that is tactics still, not strategy.
By the time an expected enemy is sighted and decisions need to be made on how to deal with them, the strategist is out of the picture and tactical command takes over.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ok, then let it stay as it is now.

Sorry for all my weaker hood players, because attacking only them, its just that the system is working like that, and why bother to attack enemy with bigger defensive bonus as my attack bonus and lost troops, time, when i get the same points and i can simply retreat with no penalties for attacking weaker ones?

In my eyes this system are unfair to get the same points to attack 2 Era lower units witch are more powerful like units in my current era but hey, thats how the game are working and i have enough weaker opponent to attack for easy points.

I like the current easy point system for strong players, and not care if it stay and scare weaker hood players to quit the game, who cares, me not, maybe inno cares

Real sorry one more time for poor weaker players who i am attacking to get the victory.

Ps.: First is the game strategy that get BP, level up your GB-s, and not advance to quickly, then is yes, the battle tactics what is very important, and you can easily see, when the auto battles fails, that is because there was no tactics like if you play manually

 

[Gondour]

Hi, Hope I'm not annoying anyone here but can't find any reference to my question. I am in Houndsmoor CA pvp Tower. There is hardly anyone to fight. I fought 3 people and won but only 2 fights show. One of my neighbours seems to be increasing the number of their fights. I would like to know how they do it if there is nobody to fight? Is it that I can only see neighbours in the tower that I did not aid? Very confused.
Anyone any idea?

 

[DeletedUser108379]

Hi, Hope I'm not annoying anyone here but can't find any reference to my question. I am in Houndsmoor CA pvp Tower. There is hardly anyone to fight. I fought 3 people and won but only 2 fights show. One of my neighbours seems to be increasing the number of their fights. I would like to know how they do it if there is nobody to fight? Is it that I can only see neighbours in the tower that I did not aid? Very confused.
Anyone any idea?

Fight on the map of Continents count, fights in GE counts, and fights in GvG (of course you have to use units of the era the tower is in, at least one, all others can also be of lower eras.)

 

[Gondour]

Fight on the map of Continents count, fights in GE counts, and fights in GvG (of course you have to use units of the era the tower is in, at least one, all others can also be of lower eras.)

Wow, thanks. Didn't realize that all those battles count in pvp. Could you confirm that if I fight a sector in Ind. Age, this would not show up in the CA tower as having had another battle, even if I win? Also, I assume if I fight a neighbour's city armee from the neighbour's bar on my iPhone, this would also not show up?
Many thanks for your patience.