• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Don't forget to check out the current contests here.

Inno's Modelling of city defences / attacks / plundering

eeyore

Corporal
This morning, as usual, my city was attacked successfully by a player with a huge amount of points. Whilst it is clear that these players do nothing but attacking to get to these huge points, there is something very wrong with Inno's artificial intelligence that is programmed in.

-Without a doubt, the "defending" troops I put up in my city ALWAYS shoot on the ROGUES first - they, in turn, of course, spawn into replicating the most difficult troop of the invader. So, with two or three rogues doing just that, I have already lost the battle due to inno's manipulation of the software.
-A real player, I would get rid the normal troops (and most difficult ones) FIRST, and avoid the rogues as long as possible.

This is happening all the time and results in inequality.
rogue hit first.jpg
rogues attacked first.png
rogue hit first.jpg rogues attacked first.png
rogues attacked first.png
 

eeyore

Corporal
Surely, if this is not a new flaw, then why has this not been fixed?? INNO !!! Please take NOTE!
 

DeletedUser113901

The rogues targeted first are a good thing IMO (GE) but I agree transphormation of the rogues should be random and not always hardest ennemy.
 

thelegend88

Captain
In my opinion rogues should be transformed randomly, no need to debate that, but I also think city defenders need to go after rogues first , as it is. Otherwise what purpose would rogues serve? We can scrap them and remove them from the game otherwise...
 

DeletedUser112049

They clearly can change it, because in the campaign, the enemy never go for my rogue starting with around industrial era. This make the campaign way more harder lol. And the rogue are not useless they still save a hit, you just need to send them first in. Also, because of the "hack" with Alcatraz, I produce only rogue so they are kind of expandable, so I don't care that the enemy hit one rogue and then kill it with the other units when my rogue go first.
 

DeletedUser99588

The AI for attacking is just as dumb so fair match. If someone attacks manually, which takes time and extra effort then they deserve to have an edge. What does it matter if they beat your defence anyway. It's not like they get free choice of your goodies unless your the sort of player that doesn't put any effort into collecting on time. Then the failing is yours and either improve your game play or accept the potential consequences.
 

Galladhorn

Monarch
The Algorithm for PvP play has been like that since I can recall back to 2013. That said it does not make it any better.

The AI algorithm vary depending on the play chosen: PvP, GvG, GbG, GE, Continent Map and Quests. some are almost the same and other not. PvP play mainly suffers from this algorithm and makes defense buildings nearly usesless in that regard or rather they might scare someone below your level from attacking, but anybody above your level will visit with an Army of Rogues 1/7 or 2/6 and thats about it. It is not a really cool fighting play and never was. (IMO)

– But the main problem is the Balance of the Hoods. On all levels there is imbalances. On low level because of Camping. On high level because of the range of players not being enough to create changing Hoods that has players in close point proximity of eachother. On Arvahall it is not uncommon to see a hood with players above 100 or 200 million while the next in range is about 70 Mill and then it goes downwards from that point – That is an immmesnly huge Point span.

I would not expect any changes to this algorithm before coming with a major change to that part of the game.

If Inno is going to solve PvP (making it better) then they need to get really creative and come up with some more semi-active defense options, that honours tactics more than stats and Rogue play only. But that is easy to say and difficult to do. I can only recall PvP battles that was fun due to being up against players of about same level and where your Defense set up actually did a difference - and these were so few that I stopped doing much PvP a long time ago.
But just imagine if players could choose between e.g 3 Defense alogrithms – that would surely change at least a part of the PvP game, but it still wold not matter much in regard to player point spans in the hoods.

At least GbG has a cut off option that opens for a bit of tactical manoeuvres, though at this early stage in GbG the imbalances are obvious as well.
Hope it settles in a few seasons from now, but that is a topic for the GbG Forum.

And the countermeasures are mainly soft counters:
– Collect on time (The hard Click Work ethics, Stating that you are a sloppy player and therfore gets it due to your lack of commitment, enjoy your workstay).
– Set up a defense (Mostly useless due to the algorithm and mainly serves to hopefully not get plundered by players looking for points).
– Set up no defence to give no points to the attacker (A double Negative).
– Use the Tavern City Wall (Easier for long time players, Difficult for new players and may result in Diamond spending due to a Quest, and also it is not really a defense, but a complete exclusion, that also can be used offensievely with the Counter Attack option*).
– Use Defense boosts (Really? – with the Algorithm it is close to useless)
– *Attack Back (Actaully not a Defense, but in case of a successful counter attack it sometimes do the trick, which really says a lot more about why PvP is not really fun or working that well, unelss you are the top player in the imballanced hood).
– Raise Your Stats (Fairly useless since the one attacking is proplerly already ahead and nothing will change that if both players keeps playing).

Overall I agree the PvP algorithm sucks if looking at it from competitive battelplay viewpoint – it is a one way road with no real options to actively engage or tactically counter the attack by being smarter than the one attacking. And how some players can continue get a kick out of PvP it is beyond me - but we are not all wired the same way, so everybone to their own fun.
 

DeletedUser118860

I read the suggestion that the answer is to collect on time and of course that is good advice. The problem occurs when there are time differences and while one is fast asleep, the attacker (who is in a different time zone) makes his move. When you wake up and go online again it's a bit late to collect! I am fastinated by the suggestion to have a small defence to give very few points to the attacker. But then I also like the idea of having a strong defence to make them lose units. Decisions, decisions! :rolleyes:
 

klods hans

Monarch
I read the suggestion that the answer is to collect on time and of course that is good advice. The problem occurs when there are time differences and while one is fast asleep, the attacker (who is in a different time zone) makes his move. When you wake up and go online again it's a bit late to collect! I am fastinated by the suggestion to have a small defence to give very few points to the attacker. But then I also like the idea of having a strong defence to make them lose units. Decisions, decisions! :rolleyes:
Different time zones don't affect the option to collect on time to prevent plundering.
 

DeletedUser118860

Different time zones don't affect the option to collect on time to prevent plundering.
Klods hans are you sure about your answer? I have different buildings from which I collect (just like everyone else) and the time for collection varies. For instance I have Town houses from which I collect every 8 hours. In order to do so I wake up in the middle of the night and collect from them and anything else that has produced. If I didn't do that, the produce would be available for plundering (at least I think so). If that is not the case, you can let me know and perhaps I can get more sleep in future. If I wnated to I could check when my neighbours are asleep and plunder them to my heart's content (but I don't!).:rolleyes: Am I missing something or have I got it wrong?
 

DeletedUser653

......................
– But the main problem is the Balance of the Hoods. On all levels there is imbalances. On low level because of Camping. On high level because of the range of players not being enough to create changing Hoods that has players in close point proximity of eachother. On Arvahall it is not uncommon to see a hood with players above 100 or 200 million while the next in range is about 70 Mill and then it goes downwards from that point – That is an immmesnly huge Point span.
........................
i am in EN1 and my hood ranges from 378 million to 17 million so your right but difference is larger than you imagined
 

klods hans

Monarch
Klods hans are you sure about your answer? I have different buildings from which I collect (just like everyone else) and the time for collection varies. For instance I have Town houses from which I collect every 8 hours. In order to do so I wake up in the middle of the night and collect from them and anything else that has produced. If I didn't do that, the produce would be available for plundering (at least I think so). If that is not the case, you can let me know and perhaps I can get more sleep in future. If I wnated to I could check when my neighbours are asleep and plunder them to my heart's content (but I don't!).:rolleyes: Am I missing something or have I got it wrong?
Who would want to plunder a town house or any other residential buildings? Plunderers go for fps or goods.
But true, from some buildings you have to collect every 8th hour, which is not always possible, of course.