Forum: empire-en

Board: [816] News from the world of Empire

Topic: [343383] Event Teaser: Attack of the shapeshifter

[4869185] Kage (ASIA1) [ASIA1] :: Nov. 22, 2017, 1:20 p.m.

I like the new event.
New players will gain more experience on attacking and defending.
For sure there will be castles with 600/700 macemans. As one of my alliance member already said "When i  go offline i put my castle full with macemans" so i don't know what to say about this.
Toll's in game anyway.

Sad that you can't loot any res from the enemy. Even if you don't get from the enemy, sistem should'a generate a number of resouces. Like in samurai/nomads. A fixed cap, 20 to 30k wood/stone.

[4869224] JYT (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 22, 2017, 3:52 p.m.

Peter John (US1) said:

First of all, from game perspective (battle calc / coding) they don't distinguish between attackers vs defenders. Each troops (whether it's what we call attackers or defenders) has their def. M & R power and this value simply goes to the calculation. What we call "attackers" simply troops that has high attack value and in this game will have low defense power, and vice versa. So when the defending castles has attackers only, that simply means their defense power calculation will yield a low numbers.

I'd like to point out that

and
.
When setting up an attack or stationing troops there is a clear distinction between attackers and defenders.

While it may be true that when setting up an attack the game allows you to put whatever troops and run the calculations, it's not only the players that differentiate between troops with high offense & low defense and ones with high defense & low offense...
----
Overall half of this update is absolute trash and the other half is okayish.

[4869253] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Nov. 22, 2017, 5:24 p.m.

There could be numbers shown perhaps and still be masked. Take for example that all defenders perhaps would appear to have 1 attack and 2 defense,  militia, peasants, and versatile troops would appear to have 1 attack and 1 defense, and all attackers would appear to have 2 attack and 1 defense even though this would not represent their actual strength in numbers. Or, Masked defenders would look different than masked attackers, also be specifically labeled as masked defenders or masked attackers, and have no number stats shown. If you want my honest opinion though it be more practical for troops to be specifically labeled as offense or defense than to show their differences in numbers for defense and offense if the troops are going to masked, because it would be less confusing that way. 

And then course a castle may have militia or peasants and/or versatile troops as well. The problem with this though is how you would distinguish them from attackers and defenders if they are masked. While the versatile troops could be labeled as "versatile" and still be masked it could be argued that at least the militia and peasants anyway do not need to be masked if the masked offense could be distinguished from the masked defense and masked versatile to be distinguished from masked offense and masked defense, but if all troops are going to be masked this is highly unlikely to happen. 

Another alternative to consider is have the militia and peasants not have a label like those that are distinguished as offense, versatile, or defense and remain unanimous or maybe even be invisible by not appearing in an espionage report, because of the fact their are some castles that still have peasants and some castles that currently have militia. If a castle only had peasants or militia for example then a castle may appear to be empty even if the castle actually has peasants or militia stationed inside if they were going to be invisible while unanimous would mean they would appear in the report and be distinguished from attackers, versatile troops, and defenders by their different masked appearance, but be unlabeled. (Militia or peasants looking different and being the only ones that have no label as defense, versatile, or offense would be an indicator they are either peasants or militia.) Now one could argue that all militia and peasants could be labeled as "masked peasants" since they are neither offense or defense, but that title is also misleading as well since some castles have militia instead of peasants.

[4869309] Peter John (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 22, 2017, 7:52 p.m.

JYT (US1) said:

Peter John (US1) said:

First of all, from game perspective (battle calc / coding) they don't distinguish between attackers vs defenders. Each troops (whether it's what we call attackers or defenders) has their def. M & R power and this value simply goes to the calculation. What we call "attackers" simply troops that has high attack value and in this game will have low defense power, and vice versa. So when the defending castles has attackers only, that simply means their defense power calculation will yield a low numbers.

I'd like to point out that

and
.
When setting up an attack or stationing troops there is a clear distinction between attackers and defenders.

While it may be true that when setting up an attack the game allows you to put whatever troops and run the calculations, it's not only the players that differentiate between troops with high offense & low defense and ones with high defense & low offense...
----
Overall half of this update is absolute trash and the other half is okayish.

Dude, that's VERY easy to do. Below pseudo-code can do the job, easily:
| if ((M(Att) > M(Def)) or ((R(Att) > R(Def)) then putOnAttTab

Also that's beside my point. This is the problem when ppl only read other comment applying a narrow perspective and/or compartmentalize it. You don't EVEN read the statment in whole.
[Excerpt]
from game perspective (battle calc / coding) .....
[/Excerpt]

I was clearly referring to battle calculation. It doesn't matter whether the defender is what we call "attackers" or defenders, it went through the same exact formula. What matters are their respective M def & R def value. Those number goes to the formula, instead of if "attackers" defend it uses different formula then if 'defenders" defend. Who cares whether it's on the attacker tab or defender tab (from calculating the battle)? It doesn't change the formula, it's all just numbers. The tab just to make it easier for user to mobilize troops, so one doesn't accidentally send the so-called defender when attacking and the other way around when sending for support. This is NOT my point at all (you like off by 5 Miles from my point, lol). I was only referring to battle calculation as that's what pertain to my response to David.

The battle calculation is all about math, that's it.

[4869313] Peter John (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 22, 2017, 8:05 p.m.

David Noble (US1) said:

There could be numbers shown perhaps and still be masked. Take for example that all defenders perhaps would appear to have 1 attack and 2 defense,  militia, peasants, and versatile troops would appear to have 1 attack and 1 defense, and all attackers would appear to have 2 attack and 1 defense even though this would not represent their actual strength in numbers. Or, Masked defenders would look different than masked attackers, also be specifically labeled as masked defenders or masked attackers, and have no number stats shown. If you want my honest opinion though it be more practical for troops to be specifically labeled as offense or defense than to show their differences in numbers for defense and offense if the troops are going to masked, because it would be less confusing that way. 

And then course a castle may have militia or peasants and/or versatile troops as well. The problem with this though is how you would distinguish them from attackers and defenders if they are masked. While the versatile troops could be labeled as "versatile" and still be masked it could be argued that at least the militia and peasants anyway do not need to be masked if the masked offense could be distinguished from the masked defense and masked versatile to be distinguished from masked offense and masked defense, but if all troops are going to be masked this is highly unlikely to happen. 

Another alternative to consider is have the militia and peasants not have a label like those that are distinguished as offense, versatile, or defense and remain unanimous or maybe even be invisible by not appearing in an espionage report, because of the fact their are some castles that still have peasants and some castles that currently have militia. If a castle only had peasants or militia for example then a castle may appear to be empty even if the castle actually has peasants or militia stationed inside if they were going to be invisible while unanimous would mean they would appear in the report and be distinguished from attackers, versatile troops, and defenders by their different masked appearance, but be unlabeled. (Militia or peasants looking different and being the only ones that have no label as defense, versatile, or offense would be an indicator they are either peasants or militia.) Now one could argue that all militia and peasants could be labeled as "masked peasants" since they are neither offense or defense, but that title is also misleading as well since some castles have militia instead of peasants.

I'm not sure where are you going with this.

If the formula is A+B, then it will apply to ALL troops type. What different the so-called attacker and the peasant/milita will contribute small value to A&B while the so-called defenders contribute high value to A&B.

The only way to get the proper calculation is to have their actual no. So masking it and just show us the average no. will throw off the calculation.

Troop type A: M def: 50; R def: 100
Troop type B: M def 60; R def: 90

Depending on the attackers composition (well I'm not going to dwell more specific on this, figure it out yourself, sorry) troops type A does not contribute the same amount compare to troops type B when we calculate the final effective M/R def power.

The problem is when the troops power is masked, we may see:
Masked troops: M def: 55; R def: 95

And we don't know whether it's from half troops type A and the other half troops type B, or there are other troops type (C,D and so on) that it may give the same average value (please refer to one of my previous post where I gave example 2 different troops composition may ended up the same average value). So it WILL throw our calculation off.

P.S. Even militia/peasant does contribute to the final total defensive power. Of course peasant will barely help, but 2k (it's just an example, you have 2k militia on your castle, you are not playing this right) militia may win the battle for you if not too much attackers goes to CY. My point is don't disregards peasant/militia. While they can't be used as offense, but surely they help in defense (not much, at least scratching the actual defender's back when it's itchy).

[4869342] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Nov. 22, 2017, 9:45 p.m.

Peter John (US1) said:

David Noble (US1) said:

There could be numbers shown perhaps and still be masked. Take for example that all defenders perhaps would appear to have 1 attack and 2 defense,  militia, peasants, and versatile troops would appear to have 1 attack and 1 defense, and all attackers would appear to have 2 attack and 1 defense even though this would not represent their actual strength in numbers. Or, Masked defenders would look different than masked attackers, also be specifically labeled as masked defenders or masked attackers, and have no number stats shown. If you want my honest opinion though it be more practical for troops to be specifically labeled as offense or defense than to show their differences in numbers for defense and offense if the troops are going to masked, because it would be less confusing that way. 

And then course a castle may have militia or peasants and/or versatile troops as well. The problem with this though is how you would distinguish them from attackers and defenders if they are masked. While the versatile troops could be labeled as "versatile" and still be masked it could be argued that at least the militia and peasants anyway do not need to be masked if the masked offense could be distinguished from the masked defense and masked versatile to be distinguished from masked offense and masked defense, but if all troops are going to be masked this is highly unlikely to happen. 

Another alternative to consider is have the militia and peasants not have a label like those that are distinguished as offense, versatile, or defense and remain unanimous or maybe even be invisible by not appearing in an espionage report, because of the fact their are some castles that still have peasants and some castles that currently have militia. If a castle only had peasants or militia for example then a castle may appear to be empty even if the castle actually has peasants or militia stationed inside if they were going to be invisible while unanimous would mean they would appear in the report and be distinguished from attackers, versatile troops, and defenders by their different masked appearance, but be unlabeled. (Militia or peasants looking different and being the only ones that have no label as defense, versatile, or offense would be an indicator they are either peasants or militia.) Now one could argue that all militia and peasants could be labeled as "masked peasants" since they are neither offense or defense, but that title is also misleading as well since some castles have militia instead of peasants.

I'm not sure where are you going with this.

If the formula is A+B, then it will apply to ALL troops type. What different the so-called attacker and the peasant/milita will contribute small value to A&B while the so-called defenders contribute high value to A&B.

The only way to get the proper calculation is to have their actual no. So masking it and just show us the average no. will throw off the calculation.

Troop type A: M def: 50; R def: 100
Troop type B: M def 60; R def: 90

Depending on the attackers composition (well I'm not going to dwell more specific on this, figure it out yourself, sorry) troops type A does not contribute the same amount compare to troops type B when we calculate the final effective M/R def power.

The problem is when the troops power is masked, we may see:
Masked troops: M def: 55; R def: 95

And we don't know whether it's from half troops type A and the other half troops type B, or there are other troops type (C,D and so on) that it may give the same average value (please refer to one of my previous post where I gave example 2 different troops composition may ended up the same average value). So it WILL throw our calculation off.

P.S. Even militia/peasant does contribute to the final total defensive power. Of course peasant will barely help, but 2k (it's just an example, you have 2k militia on your castle, you are not playing this right) militia may win the battle for you if not too much attackers goes to CY. My point is don't disregards peasant/militia. While they can't be used as offense, but surely they help in defense (not much, at least scratching the actual defender's back when it's itchy).

What if their is no formula to calculate for the troops because their melee and ranged attack and defense do not show? That is where I am going with this instead of averaging it out as you already pointed out or as I already pointed out showing random numbers such 1 attack and 2 defense for all defenders , 2 attack and 1 defense for all attackers and so on instead of showing both the ranged and melee defense only just showing defense in general (even though it would not represent their actual strength in numbers). If their were no formula to calculate because the melee and ranged defense were not going to show in addition to attack then the troops may need to be more specifically "labeled" to be distinguished as the different "types" of melee or ranged troops instead of using a formula.

The masked melee category would be attack, defense, and versatile and masked ranged category would also be attack, defense, and versatile. Not all troops are only attackers or defenders and especially those that are versatile such veteran swordsmen, archers (even though they are practically worthless for higher level players), and units you can only get with kingdom resources in the outer realms such as Everwinter Glacier, Burning Sands, and Fire Peaks. And then their is of course the militia and peasants as well which is the part of this problem that I am pointing out. I suppose they could count as masked melee defense even though you can not recruit them from the barracks like other defenders and they are weaker than your average defenders, because they also do melee instead of ranged damage.

[4869365] Peter John (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 22, 2017, 10:52 p.m.

David Noble (US1) said:

What if their is no formula to calculate for the troops because their melee and ranged attack and defense do not show? That is where I am going with this instead of averaging it out as you already pointed out or as I already pointed out showing random numbers such 1 attack and 2 defense for all defenders , 2 attack and 1 defense for all attackers and so on instead of showing both the ranged and melee defense only just showing defense in general (even though it would not represent their actual strength in numbers). If their were no formula to calculate because the melee and ranged defense were not going to show in addition to attack then the troops may need to be more specifically "labeled" to be distinguished as the different "types" of melee or ranged troops instead of using a formula.

The masked melee category would be attack, defense, and versatile and masked ranged category would also be attack, defense, and versatile. Not all troops are only attackers or defenders and especially those that are versatile such veteran swordsmen, archers (even though they are practically worthless for higher level players), and units you can only get with kingdom resources in the outer realms such as Everwinter Glacier, Burning Sands, and Fire Peaks. And then their is of course the militia and peasants as well which is the part of this problem that I am pointing out. I suppose they could count as masked melee defense even though you can not recruit them from the barracks like other defenders and they are weaker than your average defenders, because they also do melee instead of ranged damage.

The announcement said all spy report will show troops are masked into 2 category, Shapeshifter sharpshooter (range) or legionnaire (melee) units. Also some stated (again most likely from what they see in test server) it seems their power is the averaged power (which I concur based on the announcement wording that what I would expect). I don't think it will be random no.

Label is NOT important. What important is the M/R defense power value (for defender) and M/R attack power value (for attacker). That is why exactly GGS should have NOT MASKED the individual specific unit. The player NEED to get the correct information for a proper planning. Grouping them to more group not gonna help much. May be if you just ballpark your attack, yeah it may help a bit. It's a half baked suggestion, IMHO.

The idea of masking is to make the attack anonymous. But masking each individual troops power has nothing to do with it. My best guest is GGS developer simply doesn't want to double their troops type database. They seems fond of keeping multiple copies of the same thing. It's amazing that their developer doesn't understand the concept of pointer, if they do it's a trivia to create such data structure of a troops type and have alternate name (i.e. shapeshifter event) and graphics without doubling the data storage footprint. Had they are competent coders, there is no technical reason not to be able reveal the actual strength of each troops type while still changing the appearance to be in sync with shapeshifter event.

[4869389] JYT (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 23, 2017, 3:09 a.m.

Peter John (US1) said:

JYT (US1) said:

Peter John (US1) said:

First of all, from game perspective (battle calc / coding) they don't distinguish between attackers vs defenders. Each troops (whether it's what we call attackers or defenders) has their def. M & R power and this value simply goes into the calculation. What we call "attackers" simply are troops that hasve high attack value and in this game will have low defense power, and vice versa. So when the defending castles has attackers only; that simply means their defense power calculation will yield a low numbers.

I'd like to point out that

and
.
When setting up an attack or stationing troops there is a clear distinction between attackers and defenders.

While it may be true that when setting up an attack the game allows you to put whatever troops and run the calculations, it's not only the players that differentiate between troops with high offense & low defense and ones with high defense & low offense...
----
Overall half of this update is absolute trash and the other half is okayish.

Dude, that's VERY easy to do. Below pseudo-code can do the job, easily:
| if ((M(Att) > M(Def)) or ((R(Att) > R(Def)) then putOnAttTab

Also that's beside my point. This is the problem when ppl only read other comment applying a narrow perspective and/or compartmentalize it. You don't even READ the statement in whole.
[Excerpt]
from game perspective (battle calc / coding) .....
[/Excerpt]

I was clearly referring to battle calculation. It doesn't matter whether the defender is what we call "attackers" or defenders, it went through the same exact formula. What matters is their respective M def & R def value. Those number goes to the formula, instead of if "attackers" defend it uses different formula thean if  "defenders" defend. Who cares whether it's on the attacker tab or defender tab (from calculating the battle)? It doesn't change the formula, it's all just numbers. The tab just to make it easier for user to mobilize troops, so one doesn't accidentally send the so-called defender when attacking and the other way around when sending for support. This is NOT my point at all (you like off by 5 Miles from my point, lol). I was only referring to battle calculation as that's what pertain to my response to David.

The battle calculation is all about math, that's it.

Ahahah!

Buddy.

...That's why I said that "I'd like to point out"
And "While it may be true that when setting up an attack the game allows you to put whatever troops and run the calculations"

I wasn't trying to say that your point was invalid or wrong, I was simply clearing up a small issue that bothered me. 

[4869569] LegendaryLia7 (INT1) [INT1] :: Nov. 23, 2017, 4:12 p.m.

And if someone has a full attack hall and attacks you?

Or full defense hall, what then?
F2P players will crumble against P2P players here...

[4869574] SteelSlayer (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 23, 2017, 4:20 p.m.

LegendaryLia7 (INT1) said:

And if someone has a full attack hall and attacks you?

Or full defense hall, what then?
F2P players will crumble against P2P players here...

Then you defend, cause YOU LOSE NOTHING

[4869772] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Nov. 23, 2017, 10:53 p.m.

Except time, self respect, confidence.  Given that it won't reflect the actual technicalities what you are learning will be of limited value.  As the guys have said unless you can see the effect of tools, troop types, varying equipment, gems, hall settings, attack times, You could try a set up works on a shapeshifter then adopt it believing it would work on a real attack only to find that that's an expensive mistake.  Unless they are sending double triple or more attacks it doesn't reflect a real situation.  It's really a different type of event.  If it's described in that way fair enough but it's a bit unfair to give newer players that perform well in that event would help them in a war.  The very real concern is newer players and alliances make huge mistakes due to over confidence and get themselves wiped out and pushed out of the game.  Big alliances are not gentle with pretenders who overstpe their marks.  

[4869786] Defectus (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 24, 2017, 12:23 a.m.

Batten (GB1) said:

Except time, self respect, confidence.  Given that it won't reflect the actual technicalities what you are learning will be of limited value.  As the guys have said unless you can see the effect of tools, troop types, varying equipment, gems, hall settings, attack times, You could try a set up works on a shapeshifter then adopt it believing it would work on a real attack only to find that that's an expensive mistake.  Unless they are sending double triple or more attacks it doesn't reflect a real situation.  It's really a different type of event.  If it's described in that way fair enough but it's a bit unfair to give newer players that perform well in that event would help them in a war.  The very real concern is newer players and alliances make huge mistakes due to over confidence and get themselves wiped out and pushed out of the game.  Big alliances are not gentle with pretenders who overstpe their marks.  

I'm sure that's what they want though; expensive mistakes are what GGE likes. More profit for them.

[4869896] Someone56 (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 24, 2017, 1:49 p.m.

if my castle is defeated by a shapeshifter will i get burned my defenders killed and resourses lost?

[4869897] Herveus (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 24, 2017, 1:52 p.m.

Someone56 (AU1) said:

if my castle is defeated by a shapeshifter will i get burned my defenders killed and resourses lost?

Jack shit will happen to you, nothing nada niente 0 , no matter how the battle goes defenders does not loose a thing.

[4869909] Philt123 (GB1) [GB1] :: Nov. 24, 2017, 2:51 p.m.

I guess only time will tell, details are still very sketchy doesnt actually sound like the event is even finished yet, so its pretty hard to judge how sucessful it will be.

I hope it does address some of the current issues, I do hope it is scored differently and is not just a banner up and click attack event.  and I hope it isnt blighted by the same issues PVP events were ie stacking and tool cleaning / removing troops.  If they have addressed these issues, properly and non of these  can be done (and not just made more difficult to do!)

As long as there is enough information available to properly plan attacks and properly defend, then why not.  I will give it a chance.

If the old issues still exist then its gonna be pointless again.

[4870039] Stumpyalaskan (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 24, 2017, 8:31 p.m.

I believe the success or failure will revolve in a large (but not totally) around whether there is anything OF SUBSTANCE in it for the defender. The vast majority of this game is geared to reward the attacker with only the NEW khan event giving anything to a defender. Even glory from defense had to be vastly increased in the last 6 months or so. I guess GGE is finally getting the fact that there are two parts (attack AND defense) to this game.

[4870256] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Nov. 25, 2017, 2:34 p.m.

I think it's more basic than that to be honest.  Without having significant reassurance that the protective mechanic actually provides protection it simply isn't safe to risk hitting certain players and certain alliances who are and have been playing outside of the rules for a long time.  Them getting a half day suspension isn't really much compensation for them stripping all your RV's, outposts you've spent years building up and wiping out the rest of your alliance when the mood takes them or harassing you to the point you can barely play with multiple accounts that pop up around your castle.  Given they are in your alliance with plants and can see who attacks it's a question of survival.  Don't hit them you get to play hit them place your account, your alliance and any unfortunate bystander at risk.  Without the terms and conditions being in force and properly upheld Shapeshifters is simply unplayable for vast majority of players. First time one of top alliances blows somebody away game over really isn't it.  Smaller players and alliances who've survived this long aren't going to risk it there simply is no benefit with the mechanic as described.  

[4870263] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Nov. 25, 2017, 2:39 p.m.

The point I'm making is that GGE have proven incapable of protecting players from those breaking the rules and seem unwilling to address the problems that limit our enjoyment of the game, it's a huge stretch to ask players given what we experience consistently within the game in real time to believe a protective mechanic is going to be effective when the most basic player protection in the game is not.  I personally have no faith that participating in this event will not place me or my alliance at risk.  Risk management is a basic tenet of game survival and really that's where we are at not development or growth survival. 

[4870822] twilightdragon (US1) [None] :: Nov. 26, 2017, 6:59 p.m.

things should be adjusted so attacks can only be at those online. cant learn or get experince at defending if im not here lol.but im only lv26 a non coiner.

[4870881] little dragon (US1) (Banned) [None] :: Nov. 26, 2017, 9:20 p.m.

will be interesting if i get hit when here which might help me understand defense or when om offline and then just die lol. seems this is going to be like when someone sabed. wont know who the bullies are.