PDA

View Full Version : Not stealing enough gold



L0B0
16th July 2008, 05:13 AM
I'm not sure if this is a change in Age X, but now I'm not stealing enough gold, even though I always attack bigger armies (in fact, MUCH bigger armies).

For example:

3 hours ago someguy 58,045 Gold stolen 3 0 22,543 45,227

He had +100k gold, as I did recon just a moment before (and nobody hit him in the while).


Do you know if this has changed?

LordCounter
16th July 2008, 05:55 AM
I'm not sure if this is a change in Age X, but now I'm not stealing enough gold, even though I always attack bigger armies (in fact, MUCH bigger armies).

For example:

3 hours ago someguy 58,045 Gold stolen 3 0 22,543 45,227

He had +100k gold, as I did recon just a moment before (and nobody hit him in the while).


Do you know if this has changed?

you could have had a crappy percentage, 60% minimum or so that would mean he was holding 58/60x100= 96k gold

Trekie4ever
22nd July 2008, 03:53 PM
It seems as though 60-70% is the common range with abour 64% being what I typically get. Really, I think it's ridiculous. The economy of the game is so much different now, there are less turns, and people in general are getting very fidgety about how many turns he/she gets hit for. Being able to steal 90-100% would be great and reduce the number of attacks on people.

R3venge
23rd July 2008, 02:09 AM
It's always been like this. It gets realy frustrating when your a big slayer and you need the hits to keep up with everyone, then it gives you 60mill out of 100mill or something.

NardHipples
23rd July 2008, 02:56 AM
no cuz you wait for people to have more gold knowing that you are probably only going to get 70-80%. if you give people 100% steals they will hit for less gold

Trekie4ever
23rd July 2008, 06:43 AM
no cuz you wait for people to have more gold knowing that you are probably only going to get 70-80%. if you give people 100% steals they will hit for less gold

If people hit for less, then they grow less. Translation, they people who hold gold outgrow them. I try to hit for as much as I can, but I'll hit for 5.5 mil and get 3.6??? C'mon. With 8 attacks a day, each turn should bring in as much gold as possible. If people want to waste those attacks on crap hits, let them. They'll be left behind.

The_1337
23rd July 2008, 04:21 PM
The admins are probably trying to get everyone to click so they get more ad views. Good thing their ad trick is stupid.

R3venge
23rd July 2008, 04:34 PM
The admins are probably trying to get everyone to click so they get more ad views. Good thing their ad trick is stupid.

And that is relevant to this thread because...

NardHipples
24th July 2008, 03:59 AM
If people hit for less, then they grow less. Translation, they people who hold gold outgrow them. I try to hit for as much as I can, but I'll hit for 5.5 mil and get 3.6??? C'mon. With 8 attacks a day, each turn should bring in as much gold as possible. If people want to waste those attacks on crap hits, let them. They'll be left behind.
they will hit for less and get 100% meaning they will get the same amount of gold as hitting for more and getting 80% only without the chance of getting 65% or 99%.

Trekie4ever
24th July 2008, 07:12 AM
they will hit for less and get 100% meaning they will get the same amount of gold as hitting for more and getting 80% only without the chance of getting 65% or 99%.

You sound pretty sure about this. Predicting people's actions is always a fun thing to do, but how can you be so sure? Is it what you would do?

And I'm not asking for 100% gold stolen, just an upped minimum. Hitting for 7.2 mil and only getting 4.8 mil of it?? It makes it very difficult to attack for gold and make it worth it. C'mon. The minimum simply needs to be raised to at the very least 75%.

With only 8 attacks per day, they need to be worth it.
And like I said before, people who hit for less, will run out of turns quick.

Nice SA btw, how much do you typically hit for and how much do you get? And why can't a slayer ever beat the top DA's without sacrificing other stats?

NardHipples
24th July 2008, 01:40 PM
You sound pretty sure about this. Predicting people's actions is always a fun thing to do, but how can you be so sure? Is it what you would do?
most people factor in the % they may get when choosing when to attack, why would it be any different when you steal 100%?

And I'm not asking for 100% gold stolen, just an upped minimum. Hitting for 7.2 mil and only getting 4.8 mil of it?? It makes it very difficult to attack for gold and make it worth it. C'mon. The minimum simply needs to be raised to at the very least 75%.
what game are you playing? with your SA your max repairs are what 200k? and you can hit for 7m and its "not worth it" ? lol..

With only 8 attacks per day, they need to be worth it.
And like I said before, people who hit for less, will run out of turns quick.
people who hit for less means that everyone has to hit for less.

the fuck is this "only 8 attacks per day" shit too? we use to get 3.2 or something and it was great for slayers. 8 is still too many..

Nice SA btw, how much do you typically hit for and how much do you get? And why can't a slayer ever beat the top DA's without sacrificing other stats?
because the "slayers" this age have 1/100th of the top DA's tff, why in the hell should they be able to catch them? registering an account doesn't give you the right to be able to attack anyone you want. you wanna be spoonfed 100% of someones gold and get 9 zillion attack turns which is lazy man's slaying

Trekie4ever
24th July 2008, 02:17 PM
I love the change in turns. 8 probably still is too much, but it's is infinitely better than it was before. People were going crazy with attacking. Me, I'm sitting on a comfortable 20 turns. I don't think many people take into the amount they will actually take when they attack though. I didn't until recently. *Shrugs* We'll see. Hopefully I can keep up my SA and start hitting for at least 15 mil soon

L0B0
28th July 2008, 10:25 AM
This is funny guys.... you talking about 15million hits, and me just trying to get +750k.

Maybe you can hit for zillions, but the fact is that "normal" people (I'm ranking ~400 now) hit for MUCH less gold, so, YES, every hit is worthy, and giving that poor percentage is a bad thing... "a putada" we call it in Spain... we have to lose a couple of turns (if not more) to get some decent gold...

Yeah, right, that's how it works now, but is not fair for most of the players (not for you the very-best-rankers).

The change in turns, 8 per day, is another discussion... I like it too... but I'd rather had 12 turns... it's a different point of view.

DarkL0rd
28th July 2008, 04:01 PM
Players should go back to get 1 attack turn per 1/2 hour, and it should require 15 to make a full attack. By charging players the same amount to make an attack that you do to mass someone, you decrease the effectiveness of mass attacks. By adding more attacks per day, people hit for less gold, which makes it harder to bank your gold (you have to be online more to avoid getting hit). This results in increased AB use, and increased bitching about repairs and low gold hits.

NardHipples
28th July 2008, 07:37 PM
Yeah, right, that's how it works now, but is not fair for most of the players (not for you the very-best-rankers).
its not "fair" that you're bad at slaying so they should adjust the rules to make up for how bad you are and give you more gold? :noidea:

Paradiso
28th July 2008, 11:59 PM
For me it's almost always either 60-70% or 90-99%

L0B0
29th July 2008, 01:51 AM
its not "fair" that you're bad at slaying so they should adjust the rules to make up for how bad you are and give you more gold? :noidea:
Rules are just as "fair" as they are (or as the admins decide), but applying to a population of +12k players, they are fair as long as they are fair to the most of them.

Maybe you are so good slaying and sabbing and whatever -ing you want to put that you don't mind, but I do. Please, dont' come to me to give me lessons, I was just stating my point of view.

NardHipples
29th July 2008, 03:28 AM
Rules are just as "fair" as they are (or as the admins decide), but applying to a population of +12k players, they are fair as long as they are fair to the most of them.
its not "fair" to reward people for being bad at something no matter how many of them there are.

Maybe you are so good slaying and sabbing and whatever -ing you want to put that you don't mind, but I do. Please, dont' come to me to give me lessons, I was just stating my point of view.c
just because you have a point of view doesn't mean it has value.

Trekie4ever
29th July 2008, 07:17 AM
The problem is people put minimums in their AAs. For example, I just hit someone who asks not to be hit for 9 mil. I hit for 11,260,685 Gold but got 7,776,629 Gold stolen. 69% stolen and I catch 13 sab attempts.
Now unless I get a message back telling me what he got and that's true, I'm going to sab back over a low % stolen, and that will only cause more hostilities.

NardHipples
29th July 2008, 02:12 PM
The problem is people put minimums in their AAs. For example, I just hit someone who asks not to be hit for 9 mil. I hit for 11,260,685 Gold but got 7,776,629 Gold stolen. 69% stolen and I catch 13 sab attempts.
Now unless I get a message back telling me what he got and that's true, I'm going to sab back over a low % stolen, and that will only cause more hostilities.
yep fixing the %'s will make people more "reasonable" lol

Conpmana
29th July 2008, 02:59 PM
The problem is people put minimums in their AAs. For example, I just hit someone who asks not to be hit for 9 mil. I hit for 11,260,685 Gold but got 7,776,629 Gold stolen. 69% stolen and I catch 13 sab attempts.
Now unless I get a message back telling me what he got and that's true, I'm going to sab back over a low % stolen, and that will only cause more hostilities.

9 hours ago Trekie4ever 11,493,671 Gold stolen 4 34 78,276,654 49,678,922 details
12 hours ago Trekie4ever 7,835,980 Gold stolen 3 22 71,557,322 48,766,586 details

I didn't sabb you yet did I? :crowd: the 11 mill hit was a good one, both are good:)

Paradiso
29th July 2008, 06:35 PM
Rules are just as "fair" as they are (or as the admins decide), but applying to a population of +12k players, they are fair as long as they are fair to the most of them.

As long as the rules affect everyone equally they're fair, however crappy they may be.

L0B0
30th July 2008, 10:31 AM
its not "fair" to reward people for being bad at something no matter how many of them there are.

just because you have a point of view doesn't mean it has value.
Ooooh, thanks lord we have you to illuminate us all, your valuable highness...

I wonder wtf are we doing in the same alliance...