Forum: empire-en
Board: [816] News from the world of Empire
Topic: [343383] Event Teaser: Attack of the shapeshifter
[4873246]
Manatee (US1) [None]
:: Dec. 2, 2017, 3:55 a.m.
Some thoughts:
People may tuck troops away at night like @BM_Friedrich said, but that may cause something else: More people sending out normal pvp hits on the high honor players while they (and their alliance mates) have their defenders stashed, hoping to grab some of that honor.
Unless the rewards are absolutely phenomenal, I will not be participating in this event. People are now ANONYMOUSLY able to tool-waste the first wave of expensive tools I send on an attack. No thank you. And if I'm therefore not interested in participating in an event that will eat up my tools for little or no gain, then I am not going to have any reason/incentive to defend to prevent others from moving up the scoring ranks either.
I'd be more on board if one of the following were to happen:
1. GGE introduces a mechanic whereby people don't lose expensive tools to abysmal tool-waster defenses.
2. GGE rethinks the ridiculous prices they charge in rubies for tools.
If it wasn't for that aspect of it, I think the rest of it is a pretty neat idea. But if I'm going to use expensive tools and lose them, it's got to be on something I know is going to be a real defense. I don't play into GGE's ruby attrition game.
People may tuck troops away at night like @BM_Friedrich said, but that may cause something else: More people sending out normal pvp hits on the high honor players while they (and their alliance mates) have their defenders stashed, hoping to grab some of that honor.
Unless the rewards are absolutely phenomenal, I will not be participating in this event. People are now ANONYMOUSLY able to tool-waste the first wave of expensive tools I send on an attack. No thank you. And if I'm therefore not interested in participating in an event that will eat up my tools for little or no gain, then I am not going to have any reason/incentive to defend to prevent others from moving up the scoring ranks either.
I'd be more on board if one of the following were to happen:
1. GGE introduces a mechanic whereby people don't lose expensive tools to abysmal tool-waster defenses.
2. GGE rethinks the ridiculous prices they charge in rubies for tools.
If it wasn't for that aspect of it, I think the rest of it is a pretty neat idea. But if I'm going to use expensive tools and lose them, it's got to be on something I know is going to be a real defense. I don't play into GGE's ruby attrition game.
[4873338]
STEVIEBEANZ (GB1) [GB1]
:: Dec. 2, 2017, 11:45 a.m.
you misunderstand; its about competing with our peers, not minimising losses in defence.David Noble (US1) said:Some people may have misunderstood the event. Players will not lose any defenders. You have nothing to lose in defending against Shapeshifters that means even in defeat you will not lose any defenders from a shapeshifter attack. Even with no points gained for defending you also have no losses as a defender unlike the attackers who may use up some tools. Why waste rubies for example on opening gates if you will not lose any defenders or defensive tools against Shapeshifters? Also, no resources will be lost or buildings burned as explained earlier by our mod. Now one could argue what if the gates were already opened before an attack was launched? That could be a problem, but otherwise there is no good of a reason to open gates because of a shapeshifter attack. Also unclear as well if you can earn points anyway as an attacker from opened gates. However, even if opened gates prevents a player from making points it may not necessarily discourage people from attacking in the event which is supposed to be a fun and enjoyable event and not meant to be something for people to hide behind protection mode or open gates.The player who is attacking is also unanimous. If you do not know who is attacking you why open gates? Another reason to not open gates because of a shapeshifter attack.
Also, why waste using firecast or moving out troops with no risk for the defender? Again it is the same deal. In real pvp their is risk for the defender as well and not just for the attacker only, but this is not the case here for the Shapeshifter event.
Assuming that an attacker doesnt get many points when hitting an empty castle, why would I leave any troops there for my competitors to improve their score?
I can frustrate them with tool wiping and deny them further points from one of their 5 a day hits. That seems like a sound strategy to progress in the event.
I agree there is no point in using firecasts though.
[4873351]
Batten (GB1) [GB1]
:: Dec. 2, 2017, 12:20 p.m.
I think the point is there is no role realistically for the defender. They get nothing from defending their five attacks a day defending just to learn when that learning will not reflect the realities of war and will not be beneficial in the long run in terms of actual PVP. If the event runs at the same time as other events - which it almost certainly will - there will be little or no incentive for players who are competitive or working towards a LTPE or Queens Quest goal to switch across to defend when they will get nothing for their time or trouble. Realistically people will spend more time attacking than defending with what potentially 20 defences over 4 days, if those count for nothing then you would presumably just focus more on attacking. Given players aren't largely going to be on for defences giving the weighting of the scoring as we understand it realistically this won't improve PVP it will potentially make things worse with attacking becoming even more dominant than it already is. Essentially probably the way to reset the balance is to introduce a siege event where you castle is surrounded and you have to simply survive a wave of incoming attacks for a preset time until support arrives. Whoever is left at the end with the minimal number of troops wins. That's how you rebalance, forcing players to keep a better balance of attackers and defenders making defence relevance using FI set up just sending more attacks. Doesn't need to be a mock PVP to teach defence just need to reverse FI or Khan so there are more attacks and they trigger when a player is on. That would teach defence far more effectively than overnight attacks when players aren't logged in.
[4873440]
David Noble (US1) [None]
:: Dec. 2, 2017, 4:15 p.m.
But if you do not know who the attacker is why bother to empty the castle? Also, what if you get attacked multiple times during the day and night as well during a shapeshifter event? That is another thing to consider as well including when you may not even be online at night time. Also, I am not going to send all of my defenders to another kingdom, because of the expensive costs in gold coins and you also have to consider as well that while a player may have an outpost or two that uses defenders there are also may be a lot of attackers in outposts as well. Now you could also send defenders to another playerer's outpost, hide them in a stronghold, and/or send to someone in protection mode, but since the attacks are unanimous that means there is no specific player to identify. Top hitters like Negan for example on my server would not be identified. This event is also meant to encourage more defending because of their being no risk for the defender. I think that it is because of the fact that the defender has no risk that no points are gained as well for defending and why supporting is not allowed for this event. Attackers risk losing tools and also have "hard mode" on as an option, but that is also how they gain points in the event.STEVIEBEANZ (GB1) said:you misunderstand; its about competing with our peers, not minimising losses in defence.David Noble (US1) said:Some people may have misunderstood the event. Players will not lose any defenders. You have nothing to lose in defending against Shapeshifters that means even in defeat you will not lose any defenders from a shapeshifter attack. Even with no points gained for defending you also have no losses as a defender unlike the attackers who may use up some tools. Why waste rubies for example on opening gates if you will not lose any defenders or defensive tools against Shapeshifters? Also, no resources will be lost or buildings burned as explained earlier by our mod. Now one could argue what if the gates were already opened before an attack was launched? That could be a problem, but otherwise there is no good of a reason to open gates because of a shapeshifter attack. Also unclear as well if you can earn points anyway as an attacker from opened gates. However, even if opened gates prevents a player from making points it may not necessarily discourage people from attacking in the event which is supposed to be a fun and enjoyable event and not meant to be something for people to hide behind protection mode or open gates.The player who is attacking is also unanimous. If you do not know who is attacking you why open gates? Another reason to not open gates because of a shapeshifter attack.
Also, why waste using firecast or moving out troops with no risk for the defender? Again it is the same deal. In real pvp their is risk for the defender as well and not just for the attacker only, but this is not the case here for the Shapeshifter event.
Assuming that an attacker doesnt get many points when hitting an empty castle, why would I leave any troops there for my competitors to improve their score?
I can frustrate them with tool wiping and deny them further points from one of their 5 a day hits. That seems like a sound strategy to progress in the event.
I agree there is no point in using firecasts though.
Also, unless if you really hate the event and/or not motivated to defend there is no reason to even empty a castle because of the Shapeshifter Event.. The only downside to defending with no risk and no points gained is that it can be time consuming to work on defending and especially if their is going to be multiple attacks per day heading your way per day during the event. The Shapeshifter Event is basically what sounds like to me at least somewhat similar to the Royal Capital event because of their being no risk for the defender, their might be multiple attacks heading your way, and the attacks being unanimous as well.
[4873686]
Peter John (US1) [US1]
:: Dec. 3, 2017, 7:05 a.m.
Welp, I've been holding my breath for GGS to NOT masking the shapeshifter battle power and suddenly I woke up in the ICU.
[4873868]
ang1243 (GB1) [GB1]
:: Dec. 3, 2017, 5:41 p.m.
@Peter John (US1)Peter John (US1) said:Welp, I've been holding my breath for GGS to NOT masking the shapeshifter battle power and suddenly I woke up in the ICU.
In the last announcement of this, I thought we made it clear it would properly display the actual melee and ranged defense strength?
To give you a sort of idea on how this could be done, my belief is a plan could be to take the total melee defense power and total ranged defense power, then divide each of them by the strength of KGs, then displaying that number of KG strength Shapeshifter defenders.
e.g. 7500 Veteran demon horrors would appear as 1000 Melee Shapeshifter defenders.
[4873949]
Stumpyalaskan (US1) [US1]
:: Dec. 3, 2017, 8:31 p.m.
@BM ang1243
In all seriousness, if they really listened to the input of the moderators then they would have a lot happier customer base and a much more profitable company.
In all seriousness, if they really listened to the input of the moderators then they would have a lot happier customer base and a much more profitable company.
[4873964]
hubsan14 (SKN1) [None]
:: Dec. 3, 2017, 8:55 p.m.
@BM ang1243 i guss we have a set we can buy in the shape event, plz tell the team to make it usefull.
[4873983]
Peter John (US1) [US1]
:: Dec. 3, 2017, 9:28 p.m.
@BM ang1243BM ang1243 said:@Peter John (US1)Peter John (US1) said:Welp, I've been holding my breath for GGS to NOT masking the shapeshifter battle power and suddenly I woke up in the ICU.
In the last announcement of this, I thought we made it clear it would properly display the actual melee and ranged defense strength?
To give you a sort of idea on how this could be done, my belief is a plan could be to take the total melee defense power and total ranged defense power, then divide each of them by the strength of KGs, then displaying that number of KG strength Shapeshifter defenders.
e.g. 7500 Veteran demon horrors would appear as 1000 Melee Shapeshifter defenders.
Did you even read several of my post that giving issue when there are mixed type of troops?
The Battle Calculation (depending on how the attack is) is very specific to each troops type (how much of the effective M & R defensive power of troops is actually being used to defend). So what you give us the above only work if the original troops is actually 1 type, i.e. in your example ALL Vet. demon horros. But once there are mixed type of troops, mixing them and take the average of them and display it as single tupe of troops, it's gonna throw the planning calculation as the actual result will still be using the actual troops type power.
Have GGS run simulation, calculating the result of the battle based on the actualy troops type vs running the calculation using the displayed averaged shapeshifter power.
On the defending, I have a post explaning how we may defend differently if we know the exact composiiton of the incoming, i..e. when we see 1000 Death Horror + 500 Vet Xbowman compare when we see say 700 R Shapeshifter, as on the first scenario we have take consideration if the 1k Death Horro may be able to break the wall before 500 Vet Xbowman wave, whereas if we only see 700 R shapeshifter (that may actulaly be the result of masking 1 type of troops only), we may hold the wall in our planning calculation.
[4874111]
Diavolo (US1) [US1]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 1:51 a.m.
Yes you do if you play the game ;-pManatee (US1) said:Some thoughts:
I don't play into GGE's ruby attrition game.
[4874118]
Manatee (US1) [None]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 2:28 a.m.
Nah I play ruby accumulation !
[4874149]
firestate (AU1) [None]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 6:48 a.m.
What armour sets will we win in this event?
[4874151]
ferrari15 (INT2) [None]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 7:03 a.m.
I only know event probably introduced in january 2018 with an update.EU.Street_Dog (INT2) said:when exaclly this event will be started ? and can we attack on protaction mode?
[4874152]
ferrari15 (INT2) [None]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 7:07 a.m.
This is only for when you play in normal, you can switch to 'hard' mode where you loose troops/tools in attack and get more points.SteelSlayer (US1) said:So... No tool losses... And no troop losses....
What's stopping me from sending high courtyard coms filled with troops and no tools?
[4874179]
ang1243 (GB1) [GB1]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 8:25 a.m.
Hey there,Peter John (US1) said:@BM ang1243BM ang1243 said:@Peter John (US1)Peter John (US1) said:Welp, I've been holding my breath for GGS to NOT masking the shapeshifter battle power and suddenly I woke up in the ICU.
In the last announcement of this, I thought we made it clear it would properly display the actual melee and ranged defense strength?
To give you a sort of idea on how this could be done, my belief is a plan could be to take the total melee defense power and total ranged defense power, then divide each of them by the strength of KGs, then displaying that number of KG strength Shapeshifter defenders.
e.g. 7500 Veteran demon horrors would appear as 1000 Melee Shapeshifter defenders.
Did you even read several of my post that giving issue when there are mixed type of troops?
The Battle Calculation (depending on how the attack is) is very specific to each troops type (how much of the effective M & R defensive power of troops is actually being used to defend). So what you give us the above only work if the original troops is actually 1 type, i.e. in your example ALL Vet. demon horros. But once there are mixed type of troops, mixing them and take the average of them and display it as single tupe of troops, it's gonna throw the planning calculation as the actual result will still be using the actual troops type power.
Have GGS run simulation, calculating the result of the battle based on the actualy troops type vs running the calculation using the displayed averaged shapeshifter power.
On the defending, I have a post explaning how we may defend differently if we know the exact composiiton of the incoming, i..e. when we see 1000 Death Horror + 500 Vet Xbowman compare when we see say 700 R Shapeshifter, as on the first scenario we have take consideration if the 1k Death Horro may be able to break the wall before 500 Vet Xbowman wave, whereas if we only see 700 R shapeshifter (that may actulaly be the result of masking 1 type of troops only), we may hold the wall in our planning calculation.
Personally, I set my PvP attacks up to cater for as many different eventualities as possible - as it is likely that the defense setup will be completely different when you actually land - this isn't Foreign lords after all.
Also, incoming attacks won't be masked in any way - why would they need to be?
Angus
[4874276]
STEVIEBEANZ (GB1) [GB1]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 2:31 p.m.
David Noble (US1) said:But if you do not know who the attacker is why bother to empty the castle?
I've already told you this. You are competing with other people to get the most points. If you evacuate every incoming attack, you reduce the amount of points your competitors can win.
That's all there is to my point, but it is on the assumption that an attacker doesnt get many points for hitting an empty castle
[4874548]
Peter John (US1) [US1]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 8:47 p.m.
@BM ang1243BM ang1243 said:Hey there,Peter John (US1) said:@BM ang1243BM ang1243 said:@Peter John (US1)Peter John (US1) said:Welp, I've been holding my breath for GGS to NOT masking the shapeshifter battle power and suddenly I woke up in the ICU.
In the last announcement of this, I thought we made it clear it would properly display the actual melee and ranged defense strength?
To give you a sort of idea on how this could be done, my belief is a plan could be to take the total melee defense power and total ranged defense power, then divide each of them by the strength of KGs, then displaying that number of KG strength Shapeshifter defenders.
e.g. 7500 Veteran demon horrors would appear as 1000 Melee Shapeshifter defenders.
Did you even read several of my post that giving issue when there are mixed type of troops?
The Battle Calculation (depending on how the attack is) is very specific to each troops type (how much of the effective M & R defensive power of troops is actually being used to defend). So what you give us the above only work if the original troops is actually 1 type, i.e. in your example ALL Vet. demon horros. But once there are mixed type of troops, mixing them and take the average of them and display it as single tupe of troops, it's gonna throw the planning calculation as the actual result will still be using the actual troops type power.
Have GGS run simulation, calculating the result of the battle based on the actualy troops type vs running the calculation using the displayed averaged shapeshifter power.
On the defending, I have a post explaning how we may defend differently if we know the exact composiiton of the incoming, i..e. when we see 1000 Death Horror + 500 Vet Xbowman compare when we see say 700 R Shapeshifter, as on the first scenario we have take consideration if the 1k Death Horro may be able to break the wall before 500 Vet Xbowman wave, whereas if we only see 700 R shapeshifter (that may actulaly be the result of masking 1 type of troops only), we may hold the wall in our planning calculation.
Personally, I set my PvP attacks up to cater for as many different eventualities as possible - as it is likely that the defense setup will be completely different when you actually land - this isn't Foreign lords after all.
Also, incoming attacks won't be masked in any way - why would they need to be?
Angus
First, this is the first time you responsded that incoming attacks won't be masked. You have NEVER responded to several of my post where I laid out issue with masked incoming. So, let me asked you a stone cold clarification in here, the masked troops is ONLY for the totem (hence only when we are attacking).
Second, about how you set your PvP attack, that's your personal choice. I've also posted several comments that this is strategy games, where attacking is supposedly a calculated risk. Whether you want to attack in a way that you assume it will always be defended hence you go mofo all the time, that's your personal choice. On the other hand, a good strategy game should also reward a player that managed to figure out exactly how the battle is calculated and that player may choose to attack using optimum formation, providing the risk of the defense change formation and/or get supported is acceptable to the said player.
Bottom line is, you can't properly calculate the risk to begin with, if you don't have a actual configuration of the target. YES, it's possible to change, but that's beside the point. You NEED to plan the attack based on certain assumption, otherwise what's the point of spying? Whether one don't care of spying (which in certain case, like war, it make sense) or still hedge him/herself against possible change, that's personal choice based on how comfortable (s)he is with the risk.
My biggest problem is, player like me (who really like the math of the battle calculation), get punished and will have to resort to putting more tools/troops as the risk is now significantly higer (basically I can no longer calculate the risk properly, hence I should assume higher risk and hedge against it, or not participating actively to the event). And as a povo player, this make my participation to the event limited, hence it actually against the idea of the event.
The event is to revive PvP, I get it, and I supported it. But don't cater only to players that can only afford to send max out attack all the time. Most of player base can't afford it. Technically speaking, from coding perspective, masking the troops is still possible, just mask ScKG to ScKG shapeshirter, and so on. So the player can still properly plan an optimum attack for that kind of defense, and let him/her decided how to hedge against possible defense changes.
Let the strategy/tactic actually can be used in this so-called strategy game.
[4874567]
CBee (US1) [US1]
:: Dec. 4, 2017, 9:21 p.m.
I wouldnt get my hopes up that this "event" will be any different than the others that will require you to spend a ton of rubies to compete. Personally, It sounds like there are too many opportunities to just waste your attack tools. I dont have strong confidence in anything GGE does anymore. They are not customer focused and are about the biggest bunch of greedy folks I ever seen in a pixel game. I've never seen a company try so hard to drive its customer base away.
[4874611]
UltimateJhon (GB1) [None]
:: Dec. 5, 2017, 12:06 a.m.
I’m buying Eagle cast and putting 669 vet def on wall with full limes, nobody getting shet of me
[4874717]
ang1243 (GB1) [GB1]
:: Dec. 5, 2017, 12:45 p.m.
Hey @Peter John (US1)Peter John (US1) said:@BM ang1243BM ang1243 said:Hey there,Peter John (US1) said:@BM ang1243BM ang1243 said:@Peter John (US1)Peter John (US1) said:Welp, I've been holding my breath for GGS to NOT masking the shapeshifter battle power and suddenly I woke up in the ICU.
In the last announcement of this, I thought we made it clear it would properly display the actual melee and ranged defense strength?
To give you a sort of idea on how this could be done, my belief is a plan could be to take the total melee defense power and total ranged defense power, then divide each of them by the strength of KGs, then displaying that number of KG strength Shapeshifter defenders.
e.g. 7500 Veteran demon horrors would appear as 1000 Melee Shapeshifter defenders.
Did you even read several of my post that giving issue when there are mixed type of troops?
The Battle Calculation (depending on how the attack is) is very specific to each troops type (how much of the effective M & R defensive power of troops is actually being used to defend). So what you give us the above only work if the original troops is actually 1 type, i.e. in your example ALL Vet. demon horros. But once there are mixed type of troops, mixing them and take the average of them and display it as single tupe of troops, it's gonna throw the planning calculation as the actual result will still be using the actual troops type power.
Have GGS run simulation, calculating the result of the battle based on the actualy troops type vs running the calculation using the displayed averaged shapeshifter power.
On the defending, I have a post explaning how we may defend differently if we know the exact composiiton of the incoming, i..e. when we see 1000 Death Horror + 500 Vet Xbowman compare when we see say 700 R Shapeshifter, as on the first scenario we have take consideration if the 1k Death Horro may be able to break the wall before 500 Vet Xbowman wave, whereas if we only see 700 R shapeshifter (that may actulaly be the result of masking 1 type of troops only), we may hold the wall in our planning calculation.
Personally, I set my PvP attacks up to cater for as many different eventualities as possible - as it is likely that the defense setup will be completely different when you actually land - this isn't Foreign lords after all.
Also, incoming attacks won't be masked in any way - why would they need to be?
Angus
First, this is the first time you responsded that incoming attacks won't be masked. You have NEVER responded to several of my post where I laid out issue with masked incoming. So, let me asked you a stone cold clarification in here, the masked troops is ONLY for the totem (hence only when we are attacking).
Second, about how you set your PvP attack, that's your personal choice. I've also posted several comments that this is strategy games, where attacking is supposedly a calculated risk. Whether you want to attack in a way that you assume it will always be defended hence you go mofo all the time, that's your personal choice. On the other hand, a good strategy game should also reward a player that managed to figure out exactly how the battle is calculated and that player may choose to attack using optimum formation, providing the risk of the defense change formation and/or get supported is acceptable to the said player.
Bottom line is, you can't properly calculate the risk to begin with, if you don't have a actual configuration of the target. YES, it's possible to change, but that's beside the point. You NEED to plan the attack based on certain assumption, otherwise what's the point of spying? Whether one don't care of spying (which in certain case, like war, it make sense) or still hedge him/herself against possible change, that's personal choice based on how comfortable (s)he is with the risk.
My biggest problem is, player like me (who really like the math of the battle calculation), get punished and will have to resort to putting more tools/troops as the risk is now significantly higer (basically I can no longer calculate the risk properly, hence I should assume higher risk and hedge against it, or not participating actively to the event). And as a povo player, this make my participation to the event limited, hence it actually against the idea of the event.
The event is to revive PvP, I get it, and I supported it. But don't cater only to players that can only afford to send max out attack all the time. Most of player base can't afford it. Technically speaking, from coding perspective, masking the troops is still possible, just mask ScKG to ScKG shapeshirter, and so on. So the player can still properly plan an optimum attack for that kind of defense, and let him/her decided how to hedge against possible defense changes.
Let the strategy/tactic actually can be used in this so-called strategy game.
Forgive me - but I simply don't understand how if the melee and ranged defense statistics are displayed correctly - just with different troops - how does it make a difference?
Angus