Forum: empire-en
Board: [816] News from the world of Empire
Topic: [343383] Event Teaser: Attack of the shapeshifter
[4867784]
Madara. (INT1) (Banned) [INT1]
:: Nov. 19, 2017, 3:17 p.m.
hallo any one dose late comander work ? and btw how dose the poin is caculated if i may ask ?
[4867833]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 19, 2017, 5:39 p.m.
I understand it clearly. I have playing for long enough to see a deliberate attempt to kill PVP completely. I don't understand why you and others would blithely accept it. Essentially what this development says is that GGE believe PVP to be dead and they are trying to provide a vaguely viable alternative. They are basically quitting on the type of PVP I used to enjoy. This is a small step towards the end of wars and conflict other than through proxies. If the players controlled it we would have full access to all the troops, advantages we have built up. This says they cannot address the advantages they have given a few players at the expense of many which players have known for some time and this to me says they can't address the multi plague so are trying to find a way round it which at best is a cop out at worst is fraud. If you consider this PVP then you haven't really been playing the game it is a cheap substitute and removes our choices as players. I am not okay with being forced into courses of action I don't choose and if the thought is it will encourage attacks on multi accounts and players whose position has been gained through cheating it won't this is an avoidance of the issues that impact the game and is a lazy half hearted cop out. It precipates the end of the game as a war game for those of you that view that as important. If you can't see that look harder.Turtle24 (US1) said:Batten (GB1) said:The insistence that Shapeshifters is a PVP event when it very clearly isn't is astonishing. An attack by one player on another player on the same server is a player versus a player. An attack by multiple players on one alliance on multiple players from another alliance for multiple waves of attacks is a conflict which if one side declares becomes a war. A computer generated attack which a player doesn't directly control isn't PVP as there is significant computer involvement in setting the attacks or mitigating them. I'm a purist I would consider an attack to have be defended by the player attacked for it to be true PVP. A computer generated or mediated attack isn't PVP and by all means come up with a new term to describe it as it is one step removed from FI or BC or a raging Khan but it isn't something players control there are too many limitations involved. To try and convince us otherwise is insulting. Putting out an explanation after a lot of players have already dismissed as a meaningful development is too little too late if you had a decent explanation that gave a clear consistent and vaguely understandable sense of what was involved then you should have started with that. It's just more derivative content with pretty pictures which will be as easily ignored as other past failed developments.
You just don't get it do you? The attack is directly controlled by a player.
[4867869]
Plum II (GB1) [None]
:: Nov. 19, 2017, 7:07 p.m.
Are your horses dead? Are your troops' legs broken? Are your commanders unable to direct them in the right direction?ali hassan (INT1) said:Nice to see this event but 150 distance
[4867943]
Peter John (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 19, 2017, 9:30 p.m.
LOL, you need to re-read the whole announcement again.Marchemedes (AU1) said:Sigh. It's really hard to discuss this, if your points are "from my understanding", lets look at what they have so far told us, and maybe wait until we have practical experience?
- It doesn't say the attacks will appear immediately. It says they are all from 150 distance. That's all we know. We can assume that commander speed and detect will work as it would with PvP, as that is what they are trying to achieve here.
- Attacks may be in the middle of the night. Yes. Just like PvP. My point was that as an attacker, I (and many others particularly at 6 waves) setup PvP attacks with a level of mitigation, as the player might be online whenever. I'd say that applies even more so with this event, as it's anonymous and you can't research the targets activity (monitoring loot scores etc). You're even making this point yourself, which means that your preference to setting up attacks is far more risky, wouldn't you agree?
- Here is you dismissing the point of the defender being online "To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported)..." - Making that assumption, as you did, is dismissing the whole point of attack mitigation. Apologies if i've not understood your point there, but it's a huge assumption, and completely changes the mechanics of PvP, or the event they are trying to deliver us. Attack mitigation is the opposite, assume they will be online. That's more common in PvP than vice versa.
I too would like to see what troops are there. I'm not arguing that feature would be better. But, it's really not as important as you're making it out to be. You're making it a big deal, because it doesn't replicate the way you personally setup your PvP attacks. But you are taking unnecessary additional risk in your game, that most PvP players are not doing.
Maybe this event won't be for you and the way you play, or maybe you will adapt and enjoy it. Why don't you wait and play it, instead of continually berating it based on assumptions and guesses?
If the attack doesn't get sent immediately THEN you will NOT get the result after the attack land. In order for the even to work as described in the announcement (please read the whole thing), as soon as you sent attack, it need to get set immediately to the mirroring castle. From the mirroring castle, it will be seen as a masked attacked from 150 klick away. The comm speed/detect, along with the cast detect will come to play as how long the attack will arrive/land and also when it will be detected by the target..
- These castles are reflections/live copies of other players from your server. Once you attack a Shapeshifter totem, the attack will be reflected for the player who represents this totem. This can happen to you if someone attacks the Shapeshifter totem which reflects your castle too!
It's not that you misunderstood what I was trying to say in "To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported)...". You just take my statement into a very narrow perspective and improper context. I don't know how many times I've already explain it, if you don't get it, nothing I can do. I can only explain it to you, I can't make your understand. The assumption was made on the ground of a calculated risk. It's NOT the same with dismissing that possibility at all. Fist you plan the attack based on the spy, then you make a calculated decision how much risk you want to take. You may modify your original attack plan depend on this risk, i.e. hedging your risk to certain extent, etc. However the key point it, to properly assess the situation you NEED all proper information to begin with.
I get it that you don't understand about risk management. So, there is no point to keep arguing if you don't even get what risk management is. When you does, then you will know what it a "calculated risk" is.
Once again, and for the last time, it's up to the player how they want to play. Whether he want to play without taking risk (just like people that keep their all their money on the savings account) or he want to play with some risk (just like people who is willing to invest money on stock), with better reward.
Don't force other people following your mindset or dismiss other point of view, because you don't want to take risk.
[4867967]
Peter John (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 19, 2017, 10:21 p.m.
The late commander would have worked as if the target is 150 klick away. This is NOT a rocket science, please read the announcement as whole. Similarly the early detection cast will work as if you receive attack from a target that is 150 klick away.Madara. (INT1) said:hallo any one dose late comander work ? and btw how dose the poin is caculated if i may ask ?
[4867996]
Turtle24 (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 19, 2017, 11:54 p.m.
I am a active PvP player, as opposed to you who, I recall, once made a whole thread about how players should build wood/stone production buildings (apologies if I'm remembering someone else). I don't really think I can succeed in changing your mind, and as you seem to be the only one holding this mindset I won't try. This probably wont be a great event, but it does seem like something new that may be interesting and I'll give it a fair chance; what it is not is a attempt to kill PvP - as other have said it's more to help people learn it.Batten (GB1) said:I understand it clearly. I have playing for long enough to see a deliberate attempt to kill PVP completely. I don't understand why you and others would blithely accept it. Essentially what this development says is that GGE believe PVP to be dead and they are trying to provide a vaguely viable alternative. They are basically quitting on the type of PVP I used to enjoy. This is a small step towards the end of wars and conflict other than through proxies. If the players controlled it we would have full access to all the troops, advantages we have built up. This says they cannot address the advantages they have given a few players at the expense of many which players have known for some time and this to me says they can't address the multi plague so are trying to find a way round it which at best is a cop out at worst is fraud. If you consider this PVP then you haven't really been playing the game it is a cheap substitute and removes our choices as players. I am not okay with being forced into courses of action I don't choose and if the thought is it will encourage attacks on multi accounts and players whose position has been gained through cheating it won't this is an avoidance of the issues that impact the game and is a lazy half hearted cop out. It precipates the end of the game as a war game for those of you that view that as important. If you can't see that look harder.
[4868051]
Marchemedes (AU1) [AU1]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 4:36 a.m.
Peter John (US1) said:LOL, you need to re-read the whole announcement again.Marchemedes (AU1) said:Sigh. It's really hard to discuss this, if your points are "from my understanding", lets look at what they have so far told us, and maybe wait until we have practical experience?
- It doesn't say the attacks will appear immediately. It says they are all from 150 distance. That's all we know. We can assume that commander speed and detect will work as it would with PvP, as that is what they are trying to achieve here.
- Attacks may be in the middle of the night. Yes. Just like PvP. My point was that as an attacker, I (and many others particularly at 6 waves) setup PvP attacks with a level of mitigation, as the player might be online whenever. I'd say that applies even more so with this event, as it's anonymous and you can't research the targets activity (monitoring loot scores etc). You're even making this point yourself, which means that your preference to setting up attacks is far more risky, wouldn't you agree?
- Here is you dismissing the point of the defender being online "To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported)..." - Making that assumption, as you did, is dismissing the whole point of attack mitigation. Apologies if i've not understood your point there, but it's a huge assumption, and completely changes the mechanics of PvP, or the event they are trying to deliver us. Attack mitigation is the opposite, assume they will be online. That's more common in PvP than vice versa.
I too would like to see what troops are there. I'm not arguing that feature would be better. But, it's really not as important as you're making it out to be. You're making it a big deal, because it doesn't replicate the way you personally setup your PvP attacks. But you are taking unnecessary additional risk in your game, that most PvP players are not doing.
Maybe this event won't be for you and the way you play, or maybe you will adapt and enjoy it. Why don't you wait and play it, instead of continually berating it based on assumptions and guesses?If the attack doesn't get sent immediately THEN you will NOT get the result after the attack land. In order for the even to work as described in the announcement (please read the whole thing), as soon as you sent attack, it need to get set immediately to the mirroring castle. From the mirroring castle, it will be seen as a masked attacked from 150 klick away. The comm speed/detect, along with the cast detect will come to play as how long the attack will arrive/land and also when it will be detected by the target..
- These castles are reflections/live copies of other players from your server. Once you attack a Shapeshifter totem, the attack will be reflected for the player who represents this totem. This can happen to you if someone attacks the Shapeshifter totem which reflects your castle too!
It's not that you misunderstood what I was trying to say in "To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported)...". You just take my statement into a very narrow perspective and improper context. I don't know how many times I've already explain it, if you don't get it, nothing I can do. I can only explain it to you, I can't make your understand. The assumption was made on the ground of a calculated risk. It's NOT the same with dismissing that possibility at all. Fist you plan the attack based on the spy, then you make a calculated decision how much risk you want to take. You may modify your original attack plan depend on this risk, i.e. hedging your risk to certain extent, etc. However the key point it, to properly assess the situation you NEED all proper information to begin with.
I get it that you don't understand about risk management. So, there is no point to keep arguing if you don't even get what risk management is. When you does, then you will know what it a "calculated risk" is.
Once again, and for the last time, it's up to the player how they want to play. Whether he want to play without taking risk (just like people that keep their all their money on the savings account) or he want to play with some risk (just like people who is willing to invest money on stock), with better reward.
Don't force other people following your mindset or dismiss other point of view, because you don't want to take risk.
I hope there are more players out there wanting to play this event (or PvP) in the way that you describe. I'll be setting my defences specifically weak and weird whilst i'm online just in case players are reading it and setting their attacks in accordance to my defence, rather than full force (Sadly I know they don't in PvP). Anything less that full force is advantage me, if i'm online of course. I'm not dismissing your point of view, I'm offering my alternative in which the event mechanics we are discussing aren't as significant as you are getting upset about.
I'm not trying to force you to follow my mindset, that's a bit melodramatic, man. I was demonstrating why knowing the troop strength isn't necessary. It's not that I don't want to take risk; I see merit in trying to win by the highest margin, which means using the highest amount of force. I don't see the benefit in using weaker troops because you've meticulously calculated that you can get away with it, versus the spied defence setup as long as they're offline. You're just making the wall battle harder for yourself, meaning you lose more troops at the wall, putting less power in the CY and taking further unwarranted risk. As you say, your choice, and no one is forcing you to play the event (or the game, for that matter). It just doesn't seem like the optimum decision to me, and I don't understand why you'd choose to purposely weaken your attack setup. You say "better reward", what is that better reward? Because the better reward to the setup I describe is the ability to win the wall more emphatically, and put more troops/power in the CY for better results there too.
Not to mention that @BM ang1243 has already told us "As an attacker you will not lose troops in normal mode" so I really don't understand the benefit to your setup, in regards to this event (as that is what the thread is about).
I see the benefit of using weaker tools in response to the defenders tools/castallan, but the event isn't masking tools, so we can still do that.
[4868052]
Peter John (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 4:54 a.m.
First, I don't think there are a lot of player play the way I described as it required them to figure out exactly how the battle is calculated. Without this understanding you can't performed a proper risk calculation. But my complaint is, the way the troops strength is masked, it stop the player ability, who does understand exactly how the battle is calculated, to perform a proper risk calculation. That IS the point.Marchemedes (AU1) said:
I hope there are more players out there wanting to play this event (or PvP) in the way that you describe. I'll be setting my defences specifically weak and weird whilst i'm online just in case players are reading it and setting their attacks in accordance to my defence, rather than full force (Sadly I know they don't in PvP). Anything less that full force is advantage me, if i'm online of course. I'm not dismissing your point of view, I'm offering my alternative in which the event mechanics we are discussing aren't as significant as you are getting upset about.
I'm not trying to force you to follow my mindset, that's a bit melodramatic, man. I was demonstrating why knowing the troop strength isn't necessary. It's not that I don't want to take risk; I see merit in trying to win by the highest margin, which means using the highest amount of force. I don't see the benefit in using weaker troops because you've meticulously calculated that you can get away with it, versus the spied defence setup as long as they're offline. You're just making the wall battle harder for yourself, meaning you lose more troops at the wall, putting less power in the CY and taking further unwarranted risk. As you say, your choice, and no one is forcing you to play the event (or the game, for that matter). It just doesn't seem like the optimum decision to me, and I don't understand why you'd choose to purposely weaken your attack setup. You say "better reward", what is that better reward? Because the better reward to the setup I describe is the ability to win the wall more emphatically, and put more troops/power in the CY for better results there too.
Not to mention that @BM ang1243 has already told us "As an attacker you will not lose troops in normal mode" so I really don't understand the benefit to your setup, in regards to this event (as that is what the thread is about).
I see the benefit of using weaker tools in response to the defenders tools/castallan, but the event isn't masking tools, so we can still do that.
And again, obviously you DID NOT read my argument carefully. I EXPLICITLY stated in one of my responses that:
[excerpt]
...we ended up have to use more expensive tools as now the attack become riskier than before...
[/exceprt]
And we DO lose our tools when we attack.
Look man, your problem is you compartmentalize the arguments, rather than see things from big picture and/or as multiple parts that works together. For ex. you only consider the troops perspective, and failing to see that it's not just a troop. Tools play big parts in attack plan. Both troops & tools works together to create a proper attack plan.
I think this is the last time I will response, as I don't think the rest of the community care about our debate (that has gone to circle anyway).
You want to continue this in PM, I'll be open to that. The only thing I asked is, please assess things in a big picture rather than fragmented pieces.
[4868289]
Kvass (US1) [RU1]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 1:58 p.m.
if u think about it its kinda a pvp event because if u can hit a castle once a day once you hit all of them and have your towers on cool down you wont have any more shitty events left to grind and then the only thing you can do will be to attack other players
[4868290]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 1:59 p.m.
I'm an active PVP player when I need to be I don't waste time, resources or energy on battles I can't win. I won't respond to hits from alliances or players who I know or suspect to be playing outside of the terms and conditions. Given a significant number of alliances and players at my level on my server have admitted to being within those categories it limits my options. How many of the alliances or players you are hitting Turtle if you are honest are actually playing within the rules and if they aren't are you really telling me that you consider that to be PVP as it was intended. If you are accepting it and participating in PVP them you are also accepting and endorsing multi-accounting, password sharing, rented accounts etc. If the game is controlled in that way then really it isn't PVP it's an outcome controlled by a few players.Turtle24 (US1) said:I am a active PvP player, as opposed to you who, I recall, once made a whole thread about how players should build wood/stone production buildings (apologies if I'm remembering someone else). I don't really think I can succeed in changing your mind, and as you seem to be the only one holding this mindset I won't try. This probably wont be a great event, but it does seem like something new that may be interesting and I'll give it a fair chance; what it is not is a attempt to kill PvP - as other have said it's more to help people learn it.Batten (GB1) said:I understand it clearly. I have playing for long enough to see a deliberate attempt to kill PVP completely. I don't understand why you and others would blithely accept it. Essentially what this development says is that GGE believe PVP to be dead and they are trying to provide a vaguely viable alternative. They are basically quitting on the type of PVP I used to enjoy. This is a small step towards the end of wars and conflict other than through proxies. If the players controlled it we would have full access to all the troops, advantages we have built up. This says they cannot address the advantages they have given a few players at the expense of many which players have known for some time and this to me says they can't address the multi plague so are trying to find a way round it which at best is a cop out at worst is fraud. If you consider this PVP then you haven't really been playing the game it is a cheap substitute and removes our choices as players. I am not okay with being forced into courses of action I don't choose and if the thought is it will encourage attacks on multi accounts and players whose position has been gained through cheating it won't this is an avoidance of the issues that impact the game and is a lazy half hearted cop out. It precipates the end of the game as a war game for those of you that view that as important. If you can't see that look harder.
If you are in a strong alliance surrounded by other super powered players again is that really PVP hitting players you know can't respond without putting their alliance at risk or who are weaker than you. If they don't defend, can't defend or won't defend it's looting isn't it rather than PVP. There is no risk to those hits or hits at 3 am or with a player planted in an alliance to tell you when a player is on. That isn't really PVP is it?
My strategy which you refer to allowed me to climb from level 300 odd to level 800 in less than two months so I'm not sure it's that ineffective given that was what I was trying to achieve. It didn't require PVP at all.
If GGE sort out the issues that prevent PVP from being a fair fight then even at a disadvanatge I would fight but hitting known multi's or alliances that support foul play legitimises them and potentially gives them an advantage or an excuse if you lose. I hold a position of responsibility in my alliance and that means I don't unnecessarily put inexperienced players at risk. Without being clear that the Shapeshifter event really offers anonymity then the risks are still there for smaller alliances. And for stronger players in developing alliances all this will do is force more players into top alliances rather than forcing strong players to be more evenly spread across alliances which is what is needed for the game to be more even.
As Phil pointed out in an earlier post on En1 37 of the top powerpoint players are in one alliance. Thats a huge problem in terms of making any event competitive. Established players in small alliances largely hold back so don't fully show what they are capable of to protect their colleagues but in any match they will get weaker opponents in this matchmaker approach so the event will just maitain and embed the status quo rather than developing players as it claims to do. And if 37 of the best players are in one alliance then they aren't facing the best in PVP are they, they are facing weaker players they are pretty much guranteed to beat. The gaps between alliances in En1 in most events are huge, there simply isn't enough information to show how that will be addressed in this event.
As somebody said if we gain nothing from defending, learn nothing meaningful from attacking and lose time from activity that is more productive then why bother. If you are defending say eleven attacks a day or during peak times four or five attacks within a half hour period whilst trying to compete in another event are you not just going to ignore them.
[4868422]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 5:35 p.m.
Some players will firecast which may burn tools as well, change their castellan, or use open gates. You have a lot of good points too; although, what if the Shapeshifters can do the same? That is not really pvp either, but looting as you pointed out about attacking real players from other alliances if they use firecast, open gates, or have weak defenses.Batten (GB1) said:I'm an active PVP player when I need to be I don't waste time, resources or energy on battles I can't win. I won't respond to hits from alliances or players who I know or suspect to be playing outside of the terms and conditions. Given a significant number of alliances and players at my level on my server have admitted to being within those categories it limits my options. How many of the alliances or players you are hitting Turtle if you are honest are actually playing within the rules and if they aren't are you really telling me that you consider that to be PVP as it was intended. If you are accepting it and participating in PVP them you are also accepting and endorsing multi-accounting, password sharing, rented accounts etc. If the game is controlled in that way then really it isn't PVP it's an outcome controlled by a few players.Turtle24 (US1) said:I am a active PvP player, as opposed to you who, I recall, once made a whole thread about how players should build wood/stone production buildings (apologies if I'm remembering someone else). I don't really think I can succeed in changing your mind, and as you seem to be the only one holding this mindset I won't try. This probably wont be a great event, but it does seem like something new that may be interesting and I'll give it a fair chance; what it is not is a attempt to kill PvP - as other have said it's more to help people learn it.Batten (GB1) said:I understand it clearly. I have playing for long enough to see a deliberate attempt to kill PVP completely. I don't understand why you and others would blithely accept it. Essentially what this development says is that GGE believe PVP to be dead and they are trying to provide a vaguely viable alternative. They are basically quitting on the type of PVP I used to enjoy. This is a small step towards the end of wars and conflict other than through proxies. If the players controlled it we would have full access to all the troops, advantages we have built up. This says they cannot address the advantages they have given a few players at the expense of many which players have known for some time and this to me says they can't address the multi plague so are trying to find a way round it which at best is a cop out at worst is fraud. If you consider this PVP then you haven't really been playing the game it is a cheap substitute and removes our choices as players. I am not okay with being forced into courses of action I don't choose and if the thought is it will encourage attacks on multi accounts and players whose position has been gained through cheating it won't this is an avoidance of the issues that impact the game and is a lazy half hearted cop out. It precipates the end of the game as a war game for those of you that view that as important. If you can't see that look harder.
If you are in a strong alliance surrounded by other super powered players again is that really PVP hitting players you know can't respond without putting their alliance at risk or who are weaker than you. If they don't defend, can't defend or won't defend it's looting isn't it rather than PVP. There is no risk to those hits or hits at 3 am or with a player planted in an alliance to tell you when a player is on. That isn't really PVP is it?
My strategy which you refer to allowed me to climb from level 300 odd to level 800 in less than two months so I'm not sure it's that ineffective given that was what I was trying to achieve. It didn't require PVP at all.
If GGE sort out the issues that prevent PVP from being a fair fight then even at a disadvanatge I would fight but hitting known multi's or alliances that support foul play legitimises them and potentially gives them an advantage or an excuse if you lose. I hold a position of responsibility in my alliance and that means I don't unnecessarily put inexperienced players at risk. Without being clear that the Shapeshifter event really offers anonymity then the risks are still there for smaller alliances. And for stronger players in developing alliances all this will do is force more players into top alliances rather than forcing strong players to be more evenly spread across alliances which is what is needed for the game to be more even.
As Phil pointed out in an earlier post on En1 37 of the top powerpoint players are in one alliance. Thats a huge problem in terms of making any event competitive. Established players in small alliances largely hold back so don't fully show what they are capable of to protect their colleagues but in any match they will get weaker opponents in this matchmaker approach so the event will just maitain and embed the status quo rather than developing players as it claims to do. And if 37 of the best players are in one alliance then they aren't facing the best in PVP are they, they are facing weaker players they are pretty much guranteed to beat. The gaps between alliances in En1 in most events are huge, there simply isn't enough information to show how that will be addressed in this event.
As somebody said if we gain nothing from defending, learn nothing meaningful from attacking and lose time from activity that is more productive then why bother. If you are defending say eleven attacks a day or during peak times four or five attacks within a half hour period whilst trying to compete in another event are you not just going to ignore them.
However, if the Bloodcrows and Foreigners for example can open gates and Shapeshifters are capable of changing their defenses when attacked then why not also be able to open gates/firecast as well since Shapeshifters are supposed to be pvp? That means they might be able to possibly open gates as well like Bloodcrows, Foreigners, and attacking real players from other alliances and maybe even use firecast and also change their castellan and even tools when being attacked as well.
Of course, if the Shapeshifters can open gates, but not use firecast, switch their castellan, or switch their tool setup while being attacked that does not exactly represent real pvp either. In real pvp players can firecast or even switch their castellan and tools anytime they want. Although the Shapeshifters do not necessarily have to be part an alliance because of it being an event they should at least be able to change their castellan and tools when being attacked and also use firecast as well if it were going to represent real pvp. It would not surprise me if the Shapeshifters would be able to open gates, but in order for it to more accurately represent real pvp they would also need to have an option to change their castellan and tools and also use firecast as well. Bloodcrows and Foreigners for example might be able to change the number of defenders they have and how the troops are arranged on the walls because I have seen this happen many times before, but they can not change the castellan or tool setup when being attacked and they also seem to rarely have high bonuses for reduced fire damage as well. Usually the reduction of fire damage is quite small or absent from Foreigners and Bloodcrows. I never have for example ever seen a Bloodcrow or Foreign castle at the limit of 75% reduced fire damage. Not even close to that amount. Also, a smart player would also burn tools along with using a firecast, but would Shapeshifters do the same? To more accurately represent real pvp Shapeshifters should also burn tools if they were going to firecast as well.
[4868444]
Peter John (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 5:56 p.m.
What exactly the advantage of opening the gate in shapeshifter incoming (or firecast for that matter)? I'm sure you can do both, but what's the point really?
[4868450]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 6:10 p.m.
A Shapeshifter opening gates would just simply annoy another player just like what it may do when attacking a real player or attacking Bloodcrows and Foreigners. Shapeshifters can benefit from firecasting just like a real player would if the Shapeshifters were smart and would tool burn attackers and also have a high reduced looting bonus in addition to having a high reduced fire damage bonus. Changing a castellan of course in addition to how the tools are arranged and not just the defenders that is different from the espionage report could also represent real pvp when attacking a Shapeshifter as well.Peter John (US1) said:What exactly the advantage of opening the gate in shapeshifter incoming (or firecast for that matter)? I'm sure you can do both, but what's the point really?
[4868463]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 6:29 p.m.
Basically that would be a continuation of the denial of service approach designed to prevent players who have or are breaching their terms and conditions from being competitive. Given they are outside of the normal rules you open your gate on them, move your resources or attackers out, take down your tools, remove your castellan, use a fire castellan ignore them in general until they are either permanently banned or toe the line. There is no reason to give the courtesy of a real game experience when they chose to subvert it and ruin it for others.
[4868567]
champdavid (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 8:44 p.m.
Can you still hit from under the bird?
[4868583]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 9:26 p.m.
Off the subject here in a thread about Shapeshifters, but at least the Nomads and Samurais anyway could be hit possibly because of it being only NPC, but Shapeshifters will be castle lords. And so probably not. If the Shapeshifters can not hit you then you can not hit them while under the bird. I am not exactly sure why you decided to go under the bird even though you mass messaged about this earlier, but even if you were to cancel the bird by attacking a castle lord I would not worry about losing any tools or soldiers to them even if attacked by them. It was made clear earlier that you would not lose any troops or tools while defending even if you lose the battle. (Update is starting in January just as a reminder.)champdavid (US1) said:Can you still hit from under the bird?
[4868584]
Marchemedes (AU1) [AU1]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 9:28 p.m.
@David Noble (US1) - you talk about Shapeshifters and Foreigners like they're the same thing. You know that FL/BC are programmed, not actual players right? The Shapeshifter event will be actual players setting the attacks and defences. So, the probability of the defence changing is much, much higher in this event compared to FL/BC.
A lot of the feedback i'm reading is players concerned about the defender not defending (for a number of reasons). What we're discussing here is the incentive to engage in the event. We've already been told that the defender has nothing to lose (troops, tools, resources, fires), so what we're left with here is an idea that they can gain some sort of advantage, or out of spite. Let's look at those two -
Advantage - Given that we're all playing this event, the playing field is level. If X amount of players remove troops, then X amount of attacks are 'weaker' (we're all assuming that the event is calculated like glory, which we don't know yet). If all players remove troops, all attacks are equally 'weaker'. So, if players start doing this it'll spread fairly evenly over time. I don't see an advantage that can be controlled here. A player doing this is just as likely to receive this, they don't get to control this behaviour.
Spite - You just can't measure this. Given you don't know who you're screwing, I don't see the point (it doesn't mean it won't happen).
What we need to hear from @BM ang1243 to counteract these potential behaviours is that there is a reward mechanism for defending, similar to the reward for attacking.
If this is purely a sandbox mode for players to safely experience PvP, I don't see why GGE needs the attacker to lose tools. It's sandbox for the defender, not the attacker. If you'd made it so that the attacker doesn't lose tools, it would have avoided the scenario that we're all concerned about. Leave 'hard' mode for tool and troop losses, and don't allow the defender to know what mode it's in.
A lot of the feedback i'm reading is players concerned about the defender not defending (for a number of reasons). What we're discussing here is the incentive to engage in the event. We've already been told that the defender has nothing to lose (troops, tools, resources, fires), so what we're left with here is an idea that they can gain some sort of advantage, or out of spite. Let's look at those two -
Advantage - Given that we're all playing this event, the playing field is level. If X amount of players remove troops, then X amount of attacks are 'weaker' (we're all assuming that the event is calculated like glory, which we don't know yet). If all players remove troops, all attacks are equally 'weaker'. So, if players start doing this it'll spread fairly evenly over time. I don't see an advantage that can be controlled here. A player doing this is just as likely to receive this, they don't get to control this behaviour.
Spite - You just can't measure this. Given you don't know who you're screwing, I don't see the point (it doesn't mean it won't happen).
What we need to hear from @BM ang1243 to counteract these potential behaviours is that there is a reward mechanism for defending, similar to the reward for attacking.
If this is purely a sandbox mode for players to safely experience PvP, I don't see why GGE needs the attacker to lose tools. It's sandbox for the defender, not the attacker. If you'd made it so that the attacker doesn't lose tools, it would have avoided the scenario that we're all concerned about. Leave 'hard' mode for tool and troop losses, and don't allow the defender to know what mode it's in.
[4868596]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 9:49 p.m.
I already knew this about having nothing to lose as a defender, but I am making a comparison of Shapeshifters to real players. Maybe the strategy of how it is played out would be different because of the defender not losing any defenders, tools, and resources and buildings burning. But do Shapeshifters lose resources and/or get damaged buildings? That is the confusing part. Maybe they do not lose resources or get damaged buildings either, but burning tools for the attackers could still be an effective strategy possibly for the Shapeshifters even if they do not need to open gates or use fire cast, but at least under normal mode anyway their is no other risk for the attackers besides tools that are used. If you are like me and have a lot of tools then I would not worry so much about using up tools on attacking the Shapeshifters. Maybe the Shapeshifters is going to be a side event like Berimond alongside some other invasion to make it more optional, but obviously the defending part of it should perhaps be rewarding as well and not just for attacking only as you have already pointed out. At least in my opinion anyway you should at least win some gold coins for winning an offensive or defensive battle.Marchemedes (AU1) said:@David Noble (US1) - you talk about Shapeshifters and Foreigners like they're the same thing. You know that FL/BC are programmed, not actual players right? The Shapeshifter event will be actual players setting the attacks and defences. So, the probability of the defence changing is much, much higher in this event compared to FL/BC.
A lot of the feedback i'm reading is players concerned about the defender not defending (for a number of reasons). What we're discussing here is the incentive to engage in the event. We've already been told that the defender has nothing to lose (troops, tools, resources, fires), so what we're left with here is an idea that they can gain some sort of advantage, or out of spite. Let's look at those two -
Advantage - Given that we're all playing this event, the playing field is level. If X amount of players remove troops, then X amount of attacks are 'weaker' (we're all assuming that the event is calculated like glory, which we don't know yet). If all players remove troops, all attacks are equally 'weaker'. So, if players start doing this it'll spread fairly evenly over time. I don't see an advantage that can be controlled here. A player doing this is just as likely to receive this, they don't get to control this behaviour.
Spite - You just can't measure this. Given you don't know who you're screwing, I don't see the point (it doesn't mean it won't happen).
What we need to hear from @BM ang1243 to counteract these potential behaviours is that there is a reward mechanism for defending, similar to the reward for attacking.
If this is purely a sandbox mode for players to safely experience PvP, I don't see why GGE needs the attacker to lose tools. It's sandbox for the defender, not the attacker. If you'd made it so that the attacker doesn't lose tools, it would have avoided the scenario that we're all concerned about. Leave 'hard' mode for tool and troop losses, and don't allow the defender to know what mode it's in.
[4868599]
sir-toke (SKN1) [None]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 10:01 p.m.
what you mean by saying: Maybe the strategy of how it is played out would be different because of the defender not losing any defenders, tools, and resources and buildings burning. But do Shapeshifters lose resources and/or get damaged buildings?David Noble (US1) said:I already knew this about having nothing to lose as a defender, but I am making a comparison of Shapeshifters to real players. Maybe the strategy of how it is played out would be different because of the defender not losing any defenders, tools, and resources and buildings burning. But do Shapeshifters lose resources and/or get damaged buildings? That is the confusing part. Maybe they do not lose resources or get damaged buildings either, but burning tools for the attackers could still be an effective strategy possibly for the Shapeshifters even if they do not need to open gates or use fire cast, but at least under normal mode anyway their is no other risk for the attackers besides tools that are used. If you are like me and have a lot of tools then I would not worry so much about using up tools on attacking the Shapeshifters. Maybe the Shapeshifters is going to be a side event like Berimond alongside some other invasion to make it more optional, but obviously the defending part of it should perhaps be rewarding as well and not just for attacking only as you have already pointed out.Marchemedes (AU1) said:@David Noble (US1) - you talk about Shapeshifters and Foreigners like they're the same thing. You know that FL/BC are programmed, not actual players right? The Shapeshifter event will be actual players setting the attacks and defences. So, the probability of the defence changing is much, much higher in this event compared to FL/BC.
A lot of the feedback i'm reading is players concerned about the defender not defending (for a number of reasons). What we're discussing here is the incentive to engage in the event. We've already been told that the defender has nothing to lose (troops, tools, resources, fires), so what we're left with here is an idea that they can gain some sort of advantage, or out of spite. Let's look at those two -
Advantage - Given that we're all playing this event, the playing field is level. If X amount of players remove troops, then X amount of attacks are 'weaker' (we're all assuming that the event is calculated like glory, which we don't know yet). If all players remove troops, all attacks are equally 'weaker'. So, if players start doing this it'll spread fairly evenly over time. I don't see an advantage that can be controlled here. A player doing this is just as likely to receive this, they don't get to control this behaviour.
Spite - You just can't measure this. Given you don't know who you're screwing, I don't see the point (it doesn't mean it won't happen).
What we need to hear from @BM ang1243 to counteract these potential behaviours is that there is a reward mechanism for defending, similar to the reward for attacking.
If this is purely a sandbox mode for players to safely experience PvP, I don't see why GGE needs the attacker to lose tools. It's sandbox for the defender, not the attacker. If you'd made it so that the attacker doesn't lose tools, it would have avoided the scenario that we're all concerned about. Leave 'hard' mode for tool and troop losses, and don't allow the defender to know what mode it's in.
you don't lose resources or your buildings don't get damaged when you attack. defenders and shapeshifters are same thing and they are both real players.
or what do you mean?
[4868605]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 20, 2017, 10:13 p.m.
As sir-toke (SKN1) said:
As some people have already pointed out the Shapeshifters could be multiple accounts as well. So okay then they are real players then who might be multiple accounts as well who have nothing to lose either as defenders? In that case then you would only get rewarded for attacking another player while the event is taking place and also perhaps extra gold coins as well if you win an offensive battle and perhaps although it is unclear as Marchemedes pointed out earlier getting rewarded for defending as well and also getting extra gold coins if you win a defensive battle as well. That would mean no food, wood, stone, and etc. if you win an attack against a Shapeshifter. It still remains in question though if you get gold coins or not for winning and also if the defender can get rewarded or not. As for the more specific details as to what you can get as rewards will most likely appear later. (The details about the rewards you can get from an earlier post were vague.)what you mean by saying: Maybe the strategy of how it is played out would be different because of the defender not losing any defenders, tools, and resources and buildings burning. But do Shapeshifters lose resources and/or get damaged buildings?David Noble (US1) said:I already knew this about having nothing to lose as a defender, but I am making a comparison of Shapeshifters to real players. Maybe the strategy of how it is played out would be different because of the defender not losing any defenders, tools, and resources and buildings burning. But do Shapeshifters lose resources and/or get damaged buildings? That is the confusing part. Maybe they do not lose resources or get damaged buildings either, but burning tools for the attackers could still be an effective strategy possibly for the Shapeshifters even if they do not need to open gates or use fire cast, but at least under normal mode anyway their is no other risk for the attackers besides tools that are used. If you are like me and have a lot of tools then I would not worry so much about using up tools on attacking the Shapeshifters. Maybe the Shapeshifters is going to be a side event like Berimond alongside some other invasion to make it more optional, but obviously the defending part of it should perhaps be rewarding as well and not just for attacking only as you have already pointed out.Marchemedes (AU1) said:@David Noble (US1) - you talk about Shapeshifters and Foreigners like they're the same thing. You know that FL/BC are programmed, not actual players right? The Shapeshifter event will be actual players setting the attacks and defences. So, the probability of the defence changing is much, much higher in this event compared to FL/BC.
A lot of the feedback i'm reading is players concerned about the defender not defending (for a number of reasons). What we're discussing here is the incentive to engage in the event. We've already been told that the defender has nothing to lose (troops, tools, resources, fires), so what we're left with here is an idea that they can gain some sort of advantage, or out of spite. Let's look at those two -
Advantage - Given that we're all playing this event, the playing field is level. If X amount of players remove troops, then X amount of attacks are 'weaker' (we're all assuming that the event is calculated like glory, which we don't know yet). If all players remove troops, all attacks are equally 'weaker'. So, if players start doing this it'll spread fairly evenly over time. I don't see an advantage that can be controlled here. A player doing this is just as likely to receive this, they don't get to control this behaviour.
Spite - You just can't measure this. Given you don't know who you're screwing, I don't see the point (it doesn't mean it won't happen).
What we need to hear from @BM ang1243 to counteract these potential behaviours is that there is a reward mechanism for defending, similar to the reward for attacking.
If this is purely a sandbox mode for players to safely experience PvP, I don't see why GGE needs the attacker to lose tools. It's sandbox for the defender, not the attacker. If you'd made it so that the attacker doesn't lose tools, it would have avoided the scenario that we're all concerned about. Leave 'hard' mode for tool and troop losses, and don't allow the defender to know what mode it's in.
you don't lose resources or your buildings don't get damaged when you attack. defenders and shapeshifters are same thing and they are both real players.
or what do you mean?