Attack bonus & attack points

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hello,

Now the attack bonus difficulty, not calculated to the attack points what we get when attacking/wining.

Example:
When i attack a city units with +200% defend bonus or with +50% defending bonus and the city have the same units, i get the same points if he is defeated.
I propose to fix that anomaly in the future.

Because now if i chase the first place in the "Era tower" i not have a motivation at all, to attack players with high defense bonus, because not have the impact to the points system. Because off that, the game lose some off its charm.

Now is working like that:
"When battling the attack and defence bonus are not taken in to account when battling, the points system is based on the troop itself, as each troop holds a different value."

 

[DeletedUser96901]

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

 

[DeletedUser110131]

Whether you attack or defend, having a high bonus should be an advantage. If you run when seeing a high defending bonus, that's a well deserved advantage to the defender, a result of determined effort to build a strong defense. If you have a high attack bonus, able to trounce most defenses, that's a well earned advantage, and shouldn't be nullified in the scoring. If you want the charm, then do what I do: Start at one end of the neighborhood, and fight your way as far toward the other end as you can get, never retreating while there's hope of victory. It takes a toll on the troops, and time, but is both more challenging for you, and more fair to your neighbors.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I can fight and win 95% players in my neighborhood with 1 tank and 7 rogue. Not so hard at all. Butt this isnt a fair play game, when i fight and win players with +200defence and putt effort in this, but my challengers in "Era Tower" victory runs away from those challenges to win TOP defenses players in neighborhood.

The attackers will welcome my idea, but the defenders not, because this unfair situation is good for them.

But i only want a fair play in the game, for ALL players and not only for defenders like now. The defenders can buy "City shield" in Friends tavern if needed. Take some time and visit those tavern for Tavern silver, or collect the goods on regular basics. If you not put some effort in the game then....

 

[DeletedUser108379]

Most players would say that the attacker has much more advantages than the defender. And for the fight I think that is the case.

I would not like to get less points than now, just because my attack boost is higher than that of the army I am fighting against. In most cases on the map of continents and in GvG that will be the case. And I think for most battles in GEX also. So I am against that idea.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Cardena: But exactly because that what you say, are the "older" players has a mayor advantage from player with small bonuses. This is call fair play, what some players obviously not want?

You not get less points, you get fair points what now you not get, and all players who is playing FOE. The game must progress to be a better one.

I agree what Test Ament was written, the calculation. Its fair for all, not only for ones.

 

[DeletedUser108379]

Cardena: But exactly because that what you say, are the "older" players has a mayor advantage from player with small bonuses. This is call fair play, what some players obviously not want?

You not get less points, you get fair points what now you not get, and all players who is playing FOE. The game must progress to be a better one.

I agree what Test Ament was written, the calculation. Its fair for all, not only for ones.

... Because now if i chase the first place in the "Era tower" i not have a motivation at all, to attack players with high defense bonus, because not have the impact to the points system. Because off that, the game lose some off its charm. ...

In the long run, your system give less points for the fighters, because in most fights you will end up with having a higher bonus than the defender. Hood is an exception here.

And as it is now, It is the same for everyone, so it is fair. I do not see the advantage older player have, I only see, that with your idea, leveling the LG (Zeus, CdM, Aachener) would not be always to my advantage, but in regard to points to my disadvantage. That would be a game changer that should never be introduced so late in the came, many players have made decision based on the system as it is now. Do not change this!

And for your argument in your first post, of course you have a motivation to attack even the players with high defense bonus, because if you win, you get points, if you do not attack, no points at all.

And there is also a problem, which bonus would be taken? Your attack bonus and the attack bonus of the defender? Or your devence bonus and the devence bonus of the defender? or the attack bonus of the defender and your defence bonus? Or vice versa?

Leave the system as it is now.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Sorry, but i not understand what will change?? Only the fair play point system, that gives less aggressiv and attacking players the chance, that get a little more points. Is this a problem to you?

The attack and bonus system not change. You still need the GB like Zeus, CdM, Aachener, if u want win more easly the battles (hood, GE and so on). And its up to you if u want more points and having less attack bonuses, or u want an easy fight with less point. I chose the attack, because if is easy to win battles why not? And like u said, the attackers are on advantages now, so let get a litlle bit less points

And even the point system not changing, just calculating this missing things, that i think, the game developers just not thinking about it, and now is the time.

If the point system now working like this, then this is correct: points new = points now * defenders boost / attackers boost

 

[DeletedUser108379]

Sorry, but i not understand what will change?? Only the fair play point system, that gives less aggressiv and attacking players the chance, that get a little more points. Is this a problem to you?

The attack and bonus system not change. You still need the GB like Zeus, CdM, Aachener, if u want win more easly the battles (hood, GE and so on). And its up to you if u want more points and having less attack bonuses, or u want an easy fight with less point. I chose the attack, because if is easy to win battles why not? And like u said, the attackers are on advantages now, so let get a litlle bit less points

And even the point system not changing, just calculating this missing things, that i think, the game developers just not thinking about it, and now is the time.

If the point system now working like this, then this is correct: points new = points now * defenders boost / attackers boost

First there is not one figure = defenders boost and one figure = attackers boost there are two different ones. Which should be used? I would say, the attacker boost in both cases the in your hood, with the 200 % defence boost the defence will probably have much less attack boost than you have, so the points would be reduced.

If I want the fights to be easy - no matter of points - than yes, not much change in regard to whether to level Zeus and so or not. But when one want to maximaze points the decision after such a change might be different.

Less agressive and attacking players would not get more points with your system because the do NOT attack, so they get zero points from combat no matter how the system is. You only give active players who fight less points than now. Do not look at one single combat, look at all combats possible.

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Cardena: One more time. What will change? Nothing. Right? But if you not want fair play because u like this unfair system now, then this is only your opinion vs. fair play.

points new = points now * defenders boost / attackers boost <--- defender player defenders boost vs attacker players attackers boost, this how the system works right now only the point system isnt calculating right the player bonuses, and that isnt right at all, and need upgrade

If you get less points in the new system, then all your enemys in your range get less point, only the weaker player who play less than you, get a litle more points, where is the problem?

Maybe the game developers cann tell us, why is not calculating the boosts?

 

[rjs66]

so those who play less get rewarded for playing less ?

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

One players are playing more, and one less, and those who not playing all the days, have the opportunity to be a little bit fair as it is now. Those who playing more have always the advantage. And those who playing less dont care for attack points like other gamers, what this post is all about.

I have a feeling, that only the most committed players write on this forum who has an advantage (i have to but i admit) that this unfair system nor change

For me, this is only one thing that developers forget calculated in the game and i want ask them why is that, but seems like i cant.

But if a strong players want playing this unfair game, be my guest, be happy and not change, i dont care anymore.

 

[DeletedUser]

Whether you attack or defend, having a high bonus should be an advantage. If you run when seeing a high defending bonus, that's a well deserved advantage to the defender, a result of determined effort to build a strong defense. If you have a high attack bonus, able to trounce most defenses, that's a well earned advantage, and shouldn't be nullified in the scoring. If you want the charm, then do what I do: Start at one end of the neighborhood, and fight your way as far toward the other end as you can get, never retreating while there's hope of victory. It takes a toll on the troops, and time, but is both more challenging for you, and more fair to your neighbors.

Fair to your neighnors you say? LOL It's fair to hit the weakest players in your hood? Well done! You are a true fighter indeed! LOL
And very capable I may add LOL

 

[rjs66]

if you're at the top of your neighbourhood then can you explain who you are supposed to attack ?

 

[DeletedUser110195]

You're not allowed to attack anyone, just sit there and have people attempt to pick away at you, you're #1! You've already got more than everyone else! Let newbies who just research, and never do anything have a chance to....continue doing nothing while you do nothing so everyone does nothing because the only people who might do something are on top because they did something!! Geez where's your sense of fair play?!

 

[DeletedUser653]

Fair to your neighnors you say? LOL It's fair to hit the weakest players in your hood? Well done! You are a true fighter indeed! LOL
And very capable I may add LOL

Nothing wrong in attacking any player in your hood, this is part of the game. I used to run a speadsheet listing all players and the times i had plundered them, after only a month you know exactly when to hit them and get a good plunder. I saw no difference in hitting a higher player or a lower one as i used to do all 80 daily, never had a goods building but had to run about 8 military ones to make sure I could plunder enough each day.

Stop taking the piss out of players who play the game as its meant to be played and hence plunder players.

 

[DeletedUser110131]

Fair to your neighnors you say? LOL It's fair to hit the weakest players in your hood? Well done! You are a true fighter indeed! LOL And very capable I may add LOL

Here's the thing: If I singled out the 20 weakest neighbors, and did my very best to drive them out of the game, that wouldn't be very nice of me, but the game allows for it, meaning that it would be fair enough. It wouldn't be much of a challenge, though. On the other end of the spectrum, I could make a list of those neighbors who put up the fiercest resistance, and attack only them. That would be more challenging, but not more fair. I'd be spending troops and time, and foregoing plunder in a deliberate effort toward removing their well earned benefits of good play, in order to spare those who play poorly. Of course, the game allows for it, so it would be fair enough.

My favored approach is to attack everyone, or very nearly so. After the neighborhood reshuffle, I start at the bottom of the list, attacking with age-before-the-previous-age troops. I change to more recent troops only when it becomes strictly necessary. When I take a break, I make a note of where I was, and pick it up from there when I start up again. Occasionally, I'll decide to leave a neighbor alone, based on his/her guild, previous history between us, a concrete agreement, or that he/she is simply to much trouble to start a feud with. This simply makes sense; it's a case of the game actually managing to mirror the imperialistic politics that it seeks to emulate.

For me, this approach is entertaining and fairly profitable. For my neighbors, nobody is singled out in a negative way, and nobody is plundered beyond what their city should be able to handle. It's certainly fair enough, and may be even fairer than that. Certainly, if my brand of plundering is the worst that whiners like you have encountered, then you guys are even bigger wusses than I thought.

Of course, lately, I've been too busy to bother the neighbors overly much. I believe there have been cases where the next reshuffle has come before I found time to attack anyone. Perhaps you've managed to inspire me to make an extra effort in my current neighborhood? If so, I'll make sure to let all the local whiners know who to thank for my newfound energy...

 

[DeletedUser108047]

what is fair is an entirely subjective thing, heavily influenced, consciously or subconciously, by one's own personal interest. So calling a player's conduct, which is within the rules, unfair is pointless...

Further - this is a game which consists of many elements. Not every element is or needs to be the same. In fact there are many different elements to allow different ways of playing the game etc. If you are asking for a change to the way the game works - you need to think about the whole of the game... not just specific elements.

Changing the way points are calculated on fights only would affect your personal score - would it lead to better game play for you or for everyone? I doubt it unless the AI defence and fight engine was significantly overhauled.

If you don't like the rules... either...

• don't play or...
• find a strategy that maximises your game play within the existing rules; or
• put forward a cogent balanced and carefully thought through idea with credible reasons for the change that are objective and relate to ensuring the sustainability of the game and the enjoyment of the game by the players (as a whole)

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

On the other end of the spectrum, I could make a list of those neighbors who put up the fiercest resistance, and attack only them. That would be more challenging, but not more fair. I'd be spending troops and time, and foregoing plunder in a deliberate effort toward removing their well earned benefits of good play, in order to spare those who play poorly. Of course, the game allows for it, so it would be fair enough.

Of course, lately, I've been too busy to bother the neighbors overly much. I believe there have been cases where the next reshuffle has come before I found time to attack anyone. Perhaps you've managed to inspire me to make an extra effort in my current neighborhood? If so, I'll make sure to let all the local whiners know who to thank for my newfound energy...

And if the point system change (from unfair now, to fair) that u get more point for attacking the higher players to get more points, and get less to attack poor ones, the u spend some more extra troops and time to do so, or not??

 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

what is fair is an entirely subjective thing, heavily influenced, consciously or subconciously, by one's own personal interest. So calling a player's conduct, which is within the rules, unfair is pointless...

Further - this is a game which consists of many elements. Not every element is or needs to be the same. In fact there are many different elements to allow different ways of playing the game etc. If you are asking for a change to the way the game works - you need to think about the whole of the game... not just specific elements.

Changing the way points are calculated on fights only would affect your personal score - would it lead to better game play for you or for everyone? I doubt it unless the AI defence and fight engine was significantly overhauled.

If you don't like the rules... either...

• don't play or...
• find a strategy that maximises your game play within the existing rules; or
• put forward a cogent balanced and carefully thought through idea with credible reasons for the change that are objective and relate to ensuring the sustainability of the game and the enjoyment of the game by the players (as a whole)

What will change? I will get less points if attacking poor playing players and get more points if attack stronger players. Is this not more fair to poor players and challenges the stronger players to attack stronger?

This will not affect the AI attack system and nothing, just correcting the point system.

If i am wrong, then correct me, please.

And yes i will get less point if i play like now, but if i attack stronger players get more and thats is the challenge and fair for poor players who playing "sim city".