Goodgame Studios forum archives
Forum: empire-en
Board: [816] News from the world of Empire
Topic: [343383] Event Teaser: Attack of the shapeshifter
[4867185] happlo (NL1) [NL1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 12:46 a.m.
you shouldnt deffend right? (or just use a small amount)

- you can just use 500-600 soldiers (depending how much you can have on wall) and have the same learning experience as with 10k soldiers  because the cy doesnt involve any skill  (and i guess the more soldiers the attacker kils the more points he gets)
 
- giving you opponents points (or whatever it is what you get)  is kinda dumb probably there is some kind of top 100 price  so if you want to win you shouldnt deffend 

- taking risks to learn can be smart but also dumb because like i said its giving points/prices away (and it learns the attacker to attack)  

- some of the top players know how to deffend so they dont need to learn  (from making mistakes in attacks you can also learn a lot)  so if you just dont deffend they dont learn either :) (and they dont get points) 

so make deffending a bit more attractive

or maybe something that noone has said.... make it real pvp  or bring back the old events ;)





[4867192] Shares (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 1:02 a.m.
happlo (NL1) said:
you shouldnt deffend right? (or just use a small amount)

Actually its more likely the reverse ..since as a defender you lose nothing you should load the best of everything. Now that I think about it this is a problem in 2 ways.

1. You wouldnt really learn to finesse a defence, more overload it.

2. Since no damage would be done there would be no compunction to learn from the experience
[4867203] David Noble (US1) [None] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 3:34 a.m.
If you can get attacked five times a day it is good to know that you can be attacked overnight by the Shapeshifters without having to worry about losing troops and your best tools and especially since players can not be supported from these types of attacks anyway according to the teaser. That is exactly what real pvp is intended for and that is the risk of losing troops and valuable tools and not to be confused with the Shapeshifter event.. This is also what you call mirrored pvp and not actual player vs. player. Same is also true for Foreignn Castles, Bloodcrow, and Kahn attacks as well which can also use up troops and defensive tools. Since this is only practice it means that you could lose a defensive battle against the Shapeshifters, but not actually lose any troops, tools, and resources in addition to not having any buildings burning.
[4867213] Defectus (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 5 a.m.
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.  
Every single attack that has ever been sent by any player on GGE is in some way computer generated. The only difference here is that we can't see who's attacking. I understand some of your points but at this point it seems like you're just trying to find reasons to be negative.

Edit: I'm not denying that there are reasons to be negative about this event, just that you're trying to twist ideology to make something more negative than it really is.
[4867249] Stumpyalaskan (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 9:14 a.m.
@BM ang1243
@BM_Friedrich

I keep hearing all kinds of information about what the attacker gets. What does the defender get? If it is nothing then attackers can look forward to full walls and empty courtyards or even no troops at all. 3 Militia anyone?
[4867253] Friedrich IV (US1) [None] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 9:26 a.m.
Stumpyalaskan (US1) said:
@BM ang1243
@BM_Friedrich

I keep hearing all kinds of information about what the attacker gets. What does the defender get? If it is nothing then attackers can look forward to full walls and empty courtyards or even no troops at all. 3 Militia anyone?
I will ask now. I honestly have no idea.
[4867305] happlo (NL1) [NL1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 12:34 p.m.
Stumpyalaskan (US1) said:
@BM ang1243
@BM_Friedrich

I keep hearing all kinds of information about what the attacker gets. What does the defender get? If it is nothing then attackers can look forward to full walls and empty courtyards or even no troops at all. 3 Militia anyone?

stealing my point lol
[4867370] kampo (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 4:01 p.m.
80 % of the server tries to avoid PVP , at least let us see the attacker , so we can hit back . You won't do that because then no one will play the event. You will never learn the correct way to defend an attack if you have no loss , and most players know the tool formula anyhow , so its always going to be limes or nails , defend one flank and use a high CY cast, sounds as boring as everything else you have going on .  Make us happy with a 6 day Berimond event , so maybe we can finish the event the way its suppose to be . You are going to update yourselves right out of business with all these unoriginal events , that you just copy and pastes a new picture on . The CY bonus for Coms have been reduced, unless you want to hit nomads or sami , all day for 5 days , BORING !!!!!!!!!  
[4867372] kampo (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 4:06 p.m.
Haskell (US1) said:
SteelSlayer (US1) said:
Honestly, starting out thought we were going to have a third FL's.... But looking at it, I like all but one aspect. The troops being the same, I don't wanna waste tails on a castle with 8k troops then realize 7k of it is offense...

Few questions...

1. How often will this come?
2. How long will it usually run for?
3. If the defender loses nothing, does the attacker get resources?
4. If the alliance can not support, can they see the horns?
5. How many people would have us as targets/do we get battle reports for defending? I would not enjoy it if I left for 8 hours came back and my inbox was filled with defensive BR's from this event.
6. Is the cooldown 24 hours, or do they just reset every day at a certain time?
EDIT: 7. Does the defender get glory in the battle?


EDIT: I also do like this because it gives the defender a chance to try new setups without losing tools/troops in the process.
@BM ang1243

Respond to his questions?

They're intriguing...
the only tools you can defend with are limes and nails , come on get real , when was the last time you had a successful defense against an attacker who knows how to attack by using muderholes and arrow slits , lmao
[4867384] SteelSlayer (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 4:51 p.m.
kampo (US1) said:
Haskell (US1) said:
SteelSlayer (US1) said:
Honestly, starting out thought we were going to have a third FL's.... But looking at it, I like all but one aspect. The troops being the same, I don't wanna waste tails on a castle with 8k troops then realize 7k of it is offense...

Few questions...

1. How often will this come?
2. How long will it usually run for?
3. If the defender loses nothing, does the attacker get resources?
4. If the alliance can not support, can they see the horns?
5. How many people would have us as targets/do we get battle reports for defending? I would not enjoy it if I left for 8 hours came back and my inbox was filled with defensive BR's from this event.
6. Is the cooldown 24 hours, or do they just reset every day at a certain time?
EDIT: 7. Does the defender get glory in the battle?


EDIT: I also do like this because it gives the defender a chance to try new setups without losing tools/troops in the process.
@BM ang1243

Respond to his questions?

They're intriguing...
the only tools you can defend with are limes and nails , come on get real , when was the last time you had a successful defense against an attacker who knows how to attack by using muderholes and arrow slits , lmao
Most of the attacks I've ever received tbh. Doesn't matter so much as the brains of the defender, as much as the ability for 10's of thousands of defense to reach you. 
[4867487] Marchemedes (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 8:04 p.m.
Peter John (US1) said:
Herveus (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
@BM ang1243

Despite multiple objection, with lengthy argument on why, on masking of the troops actual strength, GGS still going to push this through our asses?

For crying out out, if you want to mask the appearance of the troops, just superimpose it with something. Masking the actual strength literally taking out the math out the battle.

You can see the average troop strength still and how many there are so no , it makes the math easier (assuming what I have been told and read in the de forum.ia correct)
Nope, the average troop strength will ONLY works for incoming. I have responded earlier in this thread that when we are attacking (if we are attacking with mixed M&R), it's not the same.

To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported) the actual troops strength of different type matters. This because the calculation of effective defensive power DEPENDS on the attack M/R power ratio AND the defensive M&R power of each troops type.
Peter, your point is invalid. You even make mention of why in your latest post "assuming the defence is not changing or getting supported". Whilst it's beneficial to do the math, anyone who has done even a small amount of PvP knows that you need to set an attack with online mitigation. You don't send troops and tools carefully and mathematically devised against the defence setup as you spy it. You send as hard as you can, all flanks to ensure if they are online, their options to read your attack and counter it are non existent. Not to mention support. 

If you "assume the defence is not changing or getting supported" then you're either hitting part-timer/dead accounts for loot or you're getting your ass handed to you all day long. Set attacks based on the maximum mathematical possibilities.
[4867490] Philt123 (GB1) [GB1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 8:10 p.m.
so what happens to your tools / attacks / banners / boosters etc if you get tool cleaned?

ie whats to stop every single player on the server removing all but 3 troops and tool cleaning the attacker presumably robbing them of any booster tools used, plus the first wave of real tools.  And most importantly of all ensuring that their attacker get next to no points?  

whats the scoring system based on?  how many troops you kill?  multiplied by how many booster tools you use?  if it is then whats to stop every single player adopting this def and then what? you dont have an event?  Apart from anonimity whats to stop people stacking castles?  have you taken any steps to prevent this?  ie have you made it impossible to remove a strong cast from the incoming?  the game is massivly shrinking do you really think at this point the game is so large that players cannot work out who is attackign them?  re you going to hide the comm / cast /  any hol bonus / on both ttacker  / defender?  are you going to hide any gallentary bonus  /  glory bonus ?
If you are not going to hide these then how can you seriously believe that the attacks are going to be anonymous,  And if you are going to hide these things how on earth is the attacker or defender going to be able to set an attack or set a defense properly????   The answer is they cant!!!

The reality is for many players their comms / certain casts are calling cards,  if the attacks lose their anonimity then yet gain stacking is likley.  Unless you intend to revoultionise the scoring system, but if its the same old troops killed multiplied by booster levels then you are just copying the same old PVP issues that already exist.
[4867496] Peter John (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 8:14 p.m.
Marchemedes (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
Herveus (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
@BM ang1243

Despite multiple objection, with lengthy argument on why, on masking of the troops actual strength, GGS still going to push this through our asses?

For crying out out, if you want to mask the appearance of the troops, just superimpose it with something. Masking the actual strength literally taking out the math out the battle.

You can see the average troop strength still and how many there are so no , it makes the math easier (assuming what I have been told and read in the de forum.ia correct)
Nope, the average troop strength will ONLY works for incoming. I have responded earlier in this thread that when we are attacking (if we are attacking with mixed M&R), it's not the same.

To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported) the actual troops strength of different type matters. This because the calculation of effective defensive power DEPENDS on the attack M/R power ratio AND the defensive M&R power of each troops type.
Peter, your point is invalid. You even make mention of why in your latest post "assuming the defence is not changing or getting supported". Whilst it's beneficial to do the math, anyone who has done even a small amount of PvP knows that you need to set an attack with online mitigation. You don't send troops and tools carefully and mathematically devised against the defence setup as you spy it. You send as hard as you can, all flanks to ensure if they are online, their options to read your attack and counter it are non existent. Not to mention support. 

If we "assume the defence is not changing or getting supported" then it's not PvP. If you honestly setup your PvP attacks like that you're either hitting part-timer/dead accounts for loot or you're getting your ass handed to you all day long.
We don't know who are we attacking, it's possible the castle we attack is a mirror to a small alliance where they don't always support (especially if we attack in the middle of the night).

It's our CHOICE whether we send full attack or not. Do NOT take that option from us. I personally don't always attack full, I like to give my opponent a chance (especially if it's shady attack) and send optimum attack and I barely have my ass handed back to me. I also sometime downgrade my tools if in my calculation I think I can still win within a comfortable threshold

My point is, GGS take that option away. And you have no option to always attack at the fullest and uses your best tools. And to me (and may be some other who enjoy calculating the battle planning) that's ruining the fun of the game. It's boring to always send the same attack formation over and over again, you might as well become a robot.

Just because you don't attack like me doesn't make my point invalid. Do you even know how to conduct a proper argument?
[4867567] Marchemedes (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 10:17 p.m.
Peter John (US1) said:
Marchemedes (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
Herveus (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
@BM ang1243

Despite multiple objection, with lengthy argument on why, on masking of the troops actual strength, GGS still going to push this through our asses?

For crying out out, if you want to mask the appearance of the troops, just superimpose it with something. Masking the actual strength literally taking out the math out the battle.

You can see the average troop strength still and how many there are so no , it makes the math easier (assuming what I have been told and read in the de forum.ia correct)
Nope, the average troop strength will ONLY works for incoming. I have responded earlier in this thread that when we are attacking (if we are attacking with mixed M&R), it's not the same.

To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported) the actual troops strength of different type matters. This because the calculation of effective defensive power DEPENDS on the attack M/R power ratio AND the defensive M&R power of each troops type.
Peter, your point is invalid. You even make mention of why in your latest post "assuming the defence is not changing or getting supported". Whilst it's beneficial to do the math, anyone who has done even a small amount of PvP knows that you need to set an attack with online mitigation. You don't send troops and tools carefully and mathematically devised against the defence setup as you spy it. You send as hard as you can, all flanks to ensure if they are online, their options to read your attack and counter it are non existent. Not to mention support. 

If we "assume the defence is not changing or getting supported" then it's not PvP. If you honestly setup your PvP attacks like that you're either hitting part-timer/dead accounts for loot or you're getting your ass handed to you all day long.
We don't know who are we attacking, it's possible the castle we attack is a mirror to a small alliance where they don't always support (especially if we attack in the middle of the night).

It's our CHOICE whether we send full attack or not. Do NOT take that option from us. I personally don't always attack full, I like to give my opponent a chance (especially if it's shady attack) and send optimum attack and I barely have my ass handed back to me. I also sometime downgrade my tools if in my calculation I think I can still win within a comfortable threshold

My point is, GGS take that option away. And you have no option to always attack at the fullest and uses your best tools. And to me (and may be some other who enjoy calculating the battle planning) that's ruining the fun of the game. It's boring to always send the same attack formation over and over again, you might as well become a robot.

Just because you don't attack like me doesn't make my point invalid. Do you even know how to conduct a proper argument?
There's no need to get upset, Peter. I don't want to digress too far from the point of this thread here, and that is to discuss the merits of the new event.

The purpose of the event is to mimic PvP. At it's upper end, you would send an attack fully tooled, not a half-cocked shady lady mercy attack. There are many slight variations of a fully tooled attack, given the limited extent that a defender can read the incoming attack. I won't list them all here, but an example would be which waves you use which tool combinations.

That is why your point is invalid. The point of the event here is that it will mimic an actual PvP scenario, and the crux of that scenario is the probability of the defensive setup changing from the spy report setup. You've decided to dismiss that completely, and built your argument around the removal of that key piece of information.

GGE haven't taken that option away, as that is not an option when you are engaging is real PvP with active players who will be online to counter your attack setup. There's really no need to get this upset, just wait for the event, play it, if you don't like it don't play it anymore.

Happy to conduct a proper 'discussion' with you, Peter. I can read lower case as accurately as I can read UPPER CASE, so no need to shout.

I'm actually looking forward to this event. It's something new and different, and whilst I harbour some of the same concerns that others have expressed (BM Fried noted wasting tools that I may use on actual PvP, for example) I think I'll wait until Iv'e actually played it and all becomes clearer, before I spit my dummy out on this one. No doubt there will be bugs and it'll require iterations...
[4867575] Marchemedes (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 10:29 p.m.
Philt123 (GB1) said:
so what happens to your tools / attacks / banners / boosters etc if you get tool cleaned?

ie whats to stop every single player on the server removing all but 3 troops and tool cleaning the attacker presumably robbing them of any booster tools used, plus the first wave of real tools.  And most importantly of all ensuring that their attacker get next to no points?  

whats the scoring system based on?  how many troops you kill?  multiplied by how many booster tools you use?  if it is then whats to stop every single player adopting this def and then what? you dont have an event?  Apart from anonimity whats to stop people stacking castles?  have you taken any steps to prevent this?  ie have you made it impossible to remove a strong cast from the incoming?  the game is massivly shrinking do you really think at this point the game is so large that players cannot work out who is attackign them?  re you going to hide the comm / cast /  any hol bonus / on both ttacker  / defender?  are you going to hide any gallentary bonus  /  glory bonus ?
If you are not going to hide these then how can you seriously believe that the attacks are going to be anonymous,  And if you are going to hide these things how on earth is the attacker or defender going to be able to set an attack or set a defense properly????   The answer is they cant!!!

The reality is for many players their comms / certain casts are calling cards,  if the attacks lose their anonimity then yet gain stacking is likley.  Unless you intend to revoultionise the scoring system, but if its the same old troops killed multiplied by booster levels then you are just copying the same old PVP issues that already exist.
Phil - isn't the point to replicate PvP, where this can also happen? You could get tool raked, for sure. But defenders do that in PvP to ensure they lose nothing, and the attacker wins nothing. Here, the defender has nothing to lose, so might as well try something different? Especially if they are rewarded to defend. Ange has already said this is the case on this thread.

Stacking - they've already explained that the defender can't receive support, only from their owned castles.

I'm not sure all the other questions require answering pre-event launch. Most are tied to the idea that players will stack defence or other assumptions (already been said it's not glory etc). Maybe just relax, and see how it plays out once launched?
[4867592] Philt123 (GB1) [GB1] :: Nov. 18, 2017, 11:52 p.m.
the difference is you are in a competition where you can only hit 5 castles a day, if you get tool cleaned in all 5 castles a day thats you not being able to score, so you are out of the competition. the benefit to the defender is they are going to be your competition, so if they ensure you get minimal points then thats a win for them.  thats the point you assume stacking a castle can only happen with support but its easy enough to stick 25k self support into your own castle and allow them to be slaughtered, given non of them are gonna actually die it wont effect you at all. you just allow you mate to get a huge freebie.

Also the difference in pvp is that if you tool clean someone it generally costs you something in the form of fires or lost loot, or lost honour, plus there is the stigma of tool cleaning and the repacusions that can bring. in this event you have nothing to lose, by tool cleaning and removing all troops you are not losing anything and ensuring your competition in the event gain nothing. a win win.

What is the incentive for the defender to defend?  what do they gain?  if they defend do they give their opposition more chance to gain points?



[4867601] Peter John (US1) [US1] :: Nov. 19, 2017, 12:14 a.m.
Marchemedes (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
Marchemedes (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
Herveus (AU1) said:
Peter John (US1) said:
@BM ang1243

Despite multiple objection, with lengthy argument on why, on masking of the troops actual strength, GGS still going to push this through our asses?

For crying out out, if you want to mask the appearance of the troops, just superimpose it with something. Masking the actual strength literally taking out the math out the battle.

You can see the average troop strength still and how many there are so no , it makes the math easier (assuming what I have been told and read in the de forum.ia correct)
Nope, the average troop strength will ONLY works for incoming. I have responded earlier in this thread that when we are attacking (if we are attacking with mixed M&R), it's not the same.

To properly plan the attack (well assuming the def. is not changing or get supported) the actual troops strength of different type matters. This because the calculation of effective defensive power DEPENDS on the attack M/R power ratio AND the defensive M&R power of each troops type.
Peter, your point is invalid. You even make mention of why in your latest post "assuming the defence is not changing or getting supported". Whilst it's beneficial to do the math, anyone who has done even a small amount of PvP knows that you need to set an attack with online mitigation. You don't send troops and tools carefully and mathematically devised against the defence setup as you spy it. You send as hard as you can, all flanks to ensure if they are online, their options to read your attack and counter it are non existent. Not to mention support. 

If we "assume the defence is not changing or getting supported" then it's not PvP. If you honestly setup your PvP attacks like that you're either hitting part-timer/dead accounts for loot or you're getting your ass handed to you all day long.
We don't know who are we attacking, it's possible the castle we attack is a mirror to a small alliance where they don't always support (especially if we attack in the middle of the night).

It's our CHOICE whether we send full attack or not. Do NOT take that option from us. I personally don't always attack full, I like to give my opponent a chance (especially if it's shady attack) and send optimum attack and I barely have my ass handed back to me. I also sometime downgrade my tools if in my calculation I think I can still win within a comfortable threshold

My point is, GGS take that option away. And you have no option to always attack at the fullest and uses your best tools. And to me (and may be some other who enjoy calculating the battle planning) that's ruining the fun of the game. It's boring to always send the same attack formation over and over again, you might as well become a robot.

Just because you don't attack like me doesn't make my point invalid. Do you even know how to conduct a proper argument?
There's no need to get upset, Peter. I don't want to digress too far from the point of this thread here, and that is to discuss the merits of the new event.

The purpose of the event is to mimic PvP. At it's upper end, you would send an attack fully tooled, not a half-cocked shady lady mercy attack. There are many slight variations of a fully tooled attack, given the limited extent that a defender can read the incoming attack. I won't list them all here, but an example would be which waves you use which tool combinations.

That is why your point is invalid. The point of the event here is that it will mimic an actual PvP scenario, and the crux of that scenario is the probability of the defensive setup changing from the spy report setup. You've decided to dismiss that completely, and built your argument around the removal of that key piece of information.

GGE haven't taken that option away, as that is not an option when you are engaging is real PvP with active players who will be online to counter your attack setup. There's really no need to get this upset, just wait for the event, play it, if you don't like it don't play it anymore.

Happy to conduct a proper 'discussion' with you, Peter. I can read lower case as accurately as I can read UPPER CASE, so no need to shout.

I'm actually looking forward to this event. It's something new and different, and whilst I harbour some of the same concerns that others have expressed (BM Fried noted wasting tools that I may use on actual PvP, for example) I think I'll wait until Iv'e actually played it and all becomes clearer, before I spit my dummy out on this one. No doubt there will be bugs and it'll require iterations...
The proper netiquette:
THIS IS ME YELLING.
This is me NOT yelling.

Please learn the proper netiquette before accusing someone else of something he's not doing. It's a common practice (including in technical writing such as white paper even in internet standard, RFC) to use capital letter on a word for emphasis.

The event will NOT mimic an actual PvP scenario. Unlike FI/BC, our attack will immediately (as far as my understanding) forwarded to the actual target (it got masked however). So it's very plausible if you attack this castle in the middle of the night that the actual target (the same way you really attack the real player directly) may not be on. Your argument that "that is not an option when you are engaging is real PvP with active players who will be online to counter your attack setup" doesn't stand as, one, even if you are attacking a real player, no body can play 24/7; second you don't always know whether the person you are attacking is active or not, in fact you probably know a lot of players won't be on if you attack in the middle of the night.

And I NEVER dismiss that completely anyway (care to point which part of my argument that I dismiss that completely?). I SAID (over and over again), it's a choice for the attackers to take whether he want to always attack with full force, or he scale back (so he can send more attack instance, or any other reason). However in order to properly make this decision, a calculated decision is preferred. In order to make calculated decision, we need all the information, including exact strength of every defender and calculate the risk of taking a chance whether the target is online or offline.

Our ability as attackers to make such calculated decision is diminished with the fact that we no longer can perform actual calculation, so even if we are willing to take risk and betting the target is offline, we can't be sure whether less expensive tools/troop is enough or not (due to we can't properly calculate the battle) and we ended up have to use more expensive tools  as now the attack become riskier than before.

At the end, it's about risk management. Whether you are comfortable with the risk or not, that's your decision. So is whether the attackers always goes full force or he want to scale back (for whatever reason), it's up to how one want to play. For me, I'll be happy the scale back, if I assess the risk properly, and use less expensive tools or fewer troops. I enjoy calculating the battle and send optimum attack (especially if I know for sure my opponent is significantly weaker than me).
[4867602] Herveus (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 19, 2017, 12:34 a.m.
Philt123 (GB1) said:
the difference is you are in a competition where you can only hit 5 castles a day, if you get tool cleaned in all 5 castles a day thats you not being able to score, so you are out of the competition. the benefit to the defender is they are going to be your competition, so if they ensure you get minimal points then thats a win for them.  thats the point you assume stacking a castle can only happen with support but its easy enough to stick 25k self support into your own castle and allow them to be slaughtered, given non of them are gonna actually die it wont effect you at all. you just allow you mate to get a huge freebie.

Also the difference in pvp is that if you tool clean someone it generally costs you something in the form of fires or lost loot, or lost honour, plus there is the stigma of tool cleaning and the repacusions that can bring. in this event you have nothing to lose, by tool cleaning and removing all troops you are not losing anything and ensuring your competition in the event gain nothing. a win win.

What is the incentive for the defender to defend?  what do they gain?  if they defend do they give their opposition more chance to gain points?



Well if defending gives no points ,no one at the top level gonna defend , which goes against what event tries to do , so yes defendign has to be rewarded, and how are you supposed to co-ordinate stacking? It is Anonymous
[4867607] Marchemedes (AU1) [AU1] :: Nov. 19, 2017, 1:13 a.m.

The proper netiquette:
THIS IS ME YELLING.
This is me NOT yelling.

Please learn the proper netiquette before accusing someone else of something he's not doing. It's a common practice (including in technical writing such as white paper even in internet standard, RFC) to use capital letter on a word for emphasis.

The event will NOT mimic an actual PvP scenario. Unlike FI/BC, our attack will immediately (as far as my understanding) forwarded to the actual target (it got masked however). So it's very plausible if you attack this castle in the middle of the night that the actual target (the same way you really attack the real player directly) may not be on. Your argument that "that is not an option when you are engaging is real PvP with active players who will be online to counter your attack setup" doesn't stand as, one, even if you are attacking a real player, no body can play 24/7; second you don't always know whether the person you are attacking is active or not, in fact you probably know a lot of players won't be on if you attack in the middle of the night.

And I NEVER dismiss that completely anyway (care to point which part of my argument that I dismiss that completely?). I SAID (over and over again), it's a choice for the attackers to take whether he want to always attack with full force, or he scale back (so he can send more attack instance, or any other reason). However in order to properly make this decision, a calculated decision is preferred. In order to make calculated decision, we need all the information, including exact strength of every defender and calculate the risk of taking a chance whether the target is online or offline.

Our ability as attackers to make such calculated decision is diminished with the fact that we no longer can perform actual calculation, so even if we are willing to take risk and betting the target is offline, we can't be sure whether less expensive tools/troop is enough or not (due to we can't properly calculate the battle) and we ended up have to use more expensive tools  as now the attack become riskier than before.

At the end, it's about risk management. Whether you are comfortable with the risk or not, that's your decision. So is whether the attackers always goes full force or he want to scale back (for whatever reason), it's up to how one want to play. For me, I'll be happy the scale back, if I assess the risk properly, and use less expensive tools or fewer troops. I enjoy calculating the battle and send optimum attack (especially if I know for sure my opponent is significantly weaker than me).
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?



[4867631] Philt123 (GB1) [GB1] :: Nov. 19, 2017, 6:06 a.m.
thats the point  how anonymous is it?

The smaller the server the easier it will be to pick who is attacking.  On the UK server for example 17 out of the top 20 power points players are in one of only 2 alliances.  So depending on how well the matching process is done you could easily be only looking at a relativly small pool of players of who is attacking / defending.  There are loads of ways / things that could give it away, that firstly the number of troops held.  secondly the cast . thirdly the commander, fourthly the HOL setup.  the glory titles.  All sorts of clues to who it could be.  Also can you  withdraw your attack?  if you can how hard is it to message a few suspect players a message saying did someone pull a attack on you earlier after 5 mins?  you only need one to reply yes and you can co ordinate stacking.

YES I fully appreciate that stacking will be a lot harder under this system, but there are likley to be give aways  hell with the amount of multis on this server you could even get players hitting their own multi!!!!   without knowing what info is shown and what info is hidden,  its hard to know exactly how easy or hard it will be work out, also without knowing exactly how the scoring works its hard to anticipate how big an impact stacking will make,   but if it works in a similar fashion to glory ie number of troops killed multiplied by the amount of boosters you use.  then the reward for stacking is HUGE, with only 5 castles a day possible to hit, you only really need to work out one castle and it could be worth more points than someone can get by hitting 20 castles legitimatly!

I guess until the event starts and we know how the scoring works, and how anonymous players actually are we are not going to know and how if at all defending is rewarded.   we are not going to know if its an event that can have the outcome manipulated.  

I have reservations but only time will tell fingers crossed they got it right.