David Noble (US1) said:

As sir-toke (SKN1) said:

David Noble (US1) said:

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.

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.

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?  
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?

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.

sir-toke (SKN1) said:

David Noble (US1) said:

As sir-toke (SKN1) said:

David Noble (US1) said:

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.

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.

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?  
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?

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.

Yes I agree that there should really be some rewards for defending, maybe those two different rewards are another for attacking and another for defending.
Shapeshifter charms, for attacking 
and
Shapeshifter insignias for defending
or something like that

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. I'm not seeing your point here. You refuse to hit players who do not follow the ToS... why? Would that not encourage you to hit them more to punish them for not following the ToS? I could see that... but I have no idea why you wouldn't hit them.   

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? I am in a top 5 alliance, however we encourage retails and return hits. I generally do not attack players less then 300k pp, anyone over 300k pp should be perfectly capable of defending and having a kala cast.   

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. That you claim your playstyle does not require, thus implying 'does not engage in', PvP doesn't really help your case of knowing a attempt to kill PvP when you see one.

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.  It's anonymous, players are not named - Ang was pretty clear in that regard. And it wont force stronger players into top alliance - alliances cannot support you and this is a individual event.

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. You're limited to 5 attacks and defenses a day. The 5 attacks might take a hr at the most and the 5 defenses are (probably) unlikely to happen all at once.   

 

Marchemedes (AU1) said:

What @sir-toke (SKN1) said.

For you, as the attacker, the Shapeshifter you attack is a real player, who won't receive any fire damage, loot loss, tools or troops. So, the option to fire cast, tool rake or open gate is stupid. As I explained above, the only reason for this is to not let the anonymous player attacking get points in the event, which again as I explained, is fairly pointless as you can't control the advantage you may get from doing that. It's equally as likely to happen to you.

For you, as the defender, the Shapeshifter attacking you is a real player. They will lose tools only.

Is that clearer now? I'm not sure what is confusing about this, it's well communicated in the initial post. Think of Shapeshifter as just a word that masks the name of the actual player, if that helps.

GreatLord (NL1) said:

Is it possible that your attack attacks someone from your allaince?since its anonymous and you dont know who its going to hit it could be possible.

dandelion1958 (GB1) said:

Like @Batten (GB1)  said several of us who have been playing a long time know how to attack and defend - and the key is always the visibility of the attack - you can work out if it's 4/5/6 waves and alter defences accordingly.

 if you can't see the troops or the commander stats it's not even practice as the first tennet of defence is to match the attackers commander stats if possible - then look at the attack set up (tools etc.) so you defend on the weakest attack flank - last you add the appropriate tools !

if ONLINE when this Occurs will be doing the tool cleaner thing - moving troops out taking tools down and defending on all flanks with militia - then recalling after attack - that way whatever mechanic GGs use for the calculation the attackers should score minimum points from my castles !

Stumpyalaskan (US1) said:

@BM_Friedrich

You had mentioned asking about what was in it for the defender to one of my previous posts. Any response or information that you can pass on yet?

Stumpyalaskan (US1) said:

@BM_Friedrich

Thank you for taking the time to look into it. Please feel free to forward any of my comments to them. It is quite simple, if the defender does not have comparable rewards to earn then there are more reasons NOT to defend then there are to do so.

David Noble (US1) said:

Well. Lets just say what if their could be masked defenders that are distinguished from masked attackers? Although you would not be able to predict the strength of troops accurately it would help at least if there could be a way of knowing the troops stationed inside of a castle are defenders or attackers even if they are both masked. It would be good to distinguish ranged from melee, but it would also be good to distinguish defenders from attackers as well. The reasons why? There is at least one reason. While it may not benefit defenders so much because they do not have to worry about losing tools or troops and players who are experienced at this game usually do not send defenders for attacking anyway it would benefit the attackers at least to distinguish troop strength between attackers and defenders. If a castle for example has very little or no defense it, but has lots of attackers then you could save tools as well if the castle you are attacking has very little or no defenders stationed in it and the attackers are distinguished from the defenders. You may not need to send as many tools to attack if their is very little or no defense.

I am also assuming that the strength of the castellan and defensive tools will probably be seen as well and not just between the melee and ranged troops, but I would also go a step further and say that defenders should also be distinguished from attackers as well.