PDA

View Full Version : Raids vs Attacks



Rocco
21st December 2009, 12:31 PM
We're tweaking costs and benefits of raids vs. all-out attacks. Both cause the same amount of weapon damage and casualties, however raids currently cost 20 turns as opposed to 180 for attacks, and steal about 10% of the gold of an all-out attack. (The ratios are not the same because raids tend to be used more for causing damage than for stealing gold.)

We've reduced raid cost from 30 to 20. What are your thoughts?

capkop
21st December 2009, 01:38 PM
I think its a good improvement to lower raids' turn cost but imo they're still not really that usefull unless against an account that has loads of untraineds stacked up, and those are rare/noobs. I'd like to see them cause more casualties on coverts (normal I think is avarage of 0,1%, make raids like 0,25% or something).

LoseR
21st December 2009, 01:42 PM
It seems silly that one's spy rating can destroy someone else's spy, sentry, strike action and defensive action. IMO make raids destroy spy and sentry tools, and revert sabotage so that it only destroys strike action and defensive action. It would balanced all of the stats against each other, as spy rating would destroy SA and DA, and SA would destroy spy and sentry.

Screwdriver_LaCN
21st December 2009, 11:41 PM
I like raids to be used for massing but the problem is that people are using raids to gain experience or just to Probe you!!!I hate probing especially when this probing damages my weapons as normal attack and kills some of my soldiers and on top of the it doesnt steal almost anything!

I think the whole exp stuff has to be changed because now people sab/attack just for the exp and uses it for an excuse.If Raids gives exp then I dont want it I will be glad with only Normal Attacking, but if Raids stops giving exp then I am cool with it :)

cowboy_from_hell
22nd December 2009, 04:38 AM
Screwdriver, what you said is exactly the reason why I like it ;) It brings more chaos to the game. If more people sab and attack, probe, you'll get to sab them, they can sab you back and you both have fun sabbing.

Raids are exactly there for probing and massing. If you don't like it, bad luck for you imo. If you spent turns, you get expierence, so yeah raiding should give you exp aswell.

Like Slasher said however, maybe it would balance things a bit more if raids could kill more coverts than normal attacks.

Sh4nnon
22nd December 2009, 06:14 AM
seems raid give 30 exp still - is that intentional ... (might be changed while im posting this though :P0

ShadowMajestic
22nd December 2009, 08:42 AM
why not go back to the 1-15 turn setup it once where?

you can chose yourself the ammount of turns/force you want to use, instead of fixed settings.

It used to be the other way around, attacking was flexible and sabbing quite limited (always 1 spy, max ~25-30 BPM/IS etc(yesyes, more is possible, but due to failrate, 25-30 was best))
Where now, you can barely chose how to attack, but knock yourself out on the sabotaging.

I think both should be flexible, its been about restricting one thing and powering another to long, every age.. there is something unbalanced...

Attacking has to be made ALLOT more important again, as it once where.

3 types of players:
DAWhores - ranking, sitting on gold, supporting slayers/sabbers.
Slayers - ranking and collecting gold, actually oposite of DAwhores.
Sabbers - not caring about rank, just for destruction.

Nowadays however its all:
Ranking Sabbers
Slaying Sabbers
Rogues

everybody sabs, it used to be a relativly small group, now everyone is a sabber.

Im glad ennough you have gamepoints, so slayers will sab less, with conquest, DA whores will sab a bit less aswell.

But the max ammount you can lose per day, is .. kinda gay, shouldnt be there, or up the limit, or change the limits.

And with conquest, with the decrease of exp after X ammount of times, kinda ruins the whole conquest for most players, or change the way their power goes up each level?noone goes from 1mill SA to 1bill SA to do those conquests

powdered_donuts
22nd December 2009, 09:37 AM
I like it personally, 20 to 180, if you want to go for the damage meter using a 1x10 you use up 200 turns as apposed going for the complete gold steal using 180 turns

it's only a 20 turn or 20 minute difference, and that's what 1x5'n or 1x10'n has always been about, causing damage to those with lots of untrained or a huge mass wave of people doing it to a huge defense

oh yea, and probing, heh, i didnt like it when a war came around, and i used all my recons to figure out what they were holding hours earlier so I could sab, and now I have to use a full attack turn to probe them, thank you rocco for bringing probing back :D

the way it was before in order to 1x10 someone costed you 300 turns, I like the change :)

I have a question though, why are people talking about sabs in a slayer thread? Can't you bring up sabbing in a sabbing thread? :/

Adrenalinejunky
22nd December 2009, 07:36 PM
I think its a good improvement to lower raids' turn cost but imo they're still not really that usefull unless against an account that has loads of untraineds stacked up, and those are rare/noobs. I'd like to see them cause more casualties on coverts (normal I think is avarage of 0,1%, make raids like 0,25% or something).

your joking right?

massing deals HUGE damage to large accounts....

Bloo
23rd December 2009, 10:38 AM
Losses on attacks are too great.
In a normal age where tbg counts you can't go losing silly amounts of soldiers if you want to attack - they should be reduced for the attacker.

Santa87
23rd December 2009, 03:02 PM
well, thats where mercs come into the picture ;).... If youre concerned about loosing your tbg soldiers, go buy mercs before an attack.

About the exp gained from raids: It should be proportional to attacks. If you spend 180 turns attacking someone and get 50 xp, you should only get 8-9 xp from a 30 turn raid. Actually I think all the actions(attack, recon, raid, sab) should give the same exp pr. turn, as I don't think that it should pay off to do one over the other. That way people can choose whatever way they like, without having amount of xp gained, affect their decission.

Also, regarding the xp gained from conquests: I think its alright that it gives a bit more xp to do quests, than to attack, though I think it gives way too much compared to attack. maybe decrease it a bit... And about the gold gained from quests, I think its waaaay too much... Conquests should be a way of getting exp for People, who don't attack/sab, not an alternative to getting gold from attacking. I think that the gold received from conquests, should be only a bit more than what the repair cost will be. Especially since you don't loose soldiers from conquests, so if it pays off to do them(goldwise), people will just skip the whole attacking concept, and just do the conquests instead.

Bloo
23rd December 2009, 06:40 PM
well, thats where mercs come into the picture ;).... If youre concerned about loosing your tbg soldiers, go buy mercs before an attack.

About the exp gained from raids: It should be proportional to attacks. If you spend 180 turns attacking someone and get 50 xp, you should only get 8-9 xp from a 30 turn raid. Actually I think all the actions(attack, recon, raid, sab) should give the same exp pr. turn, as I don't think that it should pay off to do one over the other. That way people can choose whatever way they like, without having amount of xp gained, affect their decission.

Also, regarding the xp gained from conquests: I think its alright that it gives a bit more xp to do quests, than to attack, though I think it gives way too much compared to attack. maybe decrease it a bit... And about the gold gained from quests, I think its waaaay too much... Conquests should be a way of getting exp for People, who don't attack/sab, not an alternative to getting gold from attacking. I think that the gold received from conquests, should be only a bit more than what the repair cost will be. Especially since you don't loose soldiers from conquests, so if it pays off to do them(goldwise), people will just skip the whole attacking concept, and just do the conquests instead.

Mercs cost. I have mercs, lots of them. Fatalities are too high.

Rocco
23rd December 2009, 09:13 PM
Thanks for the feedback so far. We have reduced the experience gained from raids to 20 to bring it back in line with attacks. So attacking, reconning, and raiding all gain 1 experience per turn, and sabotage gains 2 experience per turn used. We have also decreased the amount of gold gained from conquests.

ofom_dezarc
23rd December 2009, 09:17 PM
You stole 14,687 gold from the Goblins!



Repair all weapons for 539,440.02 Gold


.... lower? :p

Goblins are the highest conquest to do... and so little gold... so many repairs :p

ThomasA
23rd December 2009, 09:18 PM
Recon is still costing one turn atm.

Rocco
23rd December 2009, 10:01 PM
Since turns used to attack are also used for other things...

- Attacks now cost 150 turns (down from 180). Experience gained from attacks has been reduced from 180 to 150 as well
- Raids now cost 15 turns (down from 30). Experience gained from raids has been reduced from 30 to 15. Raids steal less gold than attacks, but damages and casualties remain the same.

Shane-
23rd December 2009, 10:28 PM
We have also decreased the amount of gold gained from conquests.


Gold should be some what in par with what you would steal from an attack.


Shane

Screwdriver_LaCN
24th December 2009, 01:02 AM
I like the changes except the conquests...now you have to keep low SA but high enough to beat goblins if you want to get less repairs :/ so Bye Bye to conquest for the Slayers or top Rankers :D

LoseR
27th December 2009, 03:40 PM
Gold should be some what in par with what you would steal from an attack.


Shane

except that they cost way less game turns then attacking another player does, so it makes sense that they give less gold, as well. Although they do give way less gold then they should for the amount of turns spent. I.E. (the gold earned minus the repair cost) divided by (the number of game turns spent) ratio should be similar for both attacks and conquests.