unit deaths on attack

But not bugs.
User avatar
Forum
Site Admin
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:52 pm

Honours and Awards

unit deaths on attack

LuBu wrote:A few things I want to comment on. First of all is that the attack/defence loss is way over exaggerated. Having 10x the strike buit losing 5x the units doesn't seem fair to me. It's always like attack 1-2k units loss and defence 200-, even when the strike is MASSIVELY bigger.

Has anyone else noticed a majority of the lower ranks (out of top ten) build huge defences (200mil+), and little strike (less than 50 mil). We don't want a defensive server, how boring is that! Hope admin fixes it and the market turns soon! ](*,)
Don't make me use this!!!
User avatar
Adapt
Forum Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:50 am
ID: 0

Re: unit deaths on attack

Forum wrote:
LuBu wrote:A few things I want to comment on. First of all is that the attack/defence loss is way over exaggerated. Having 10x the strike buit losing 5x the units doesn't seem fair to me. It's always like attack 1-2k units loss and defence 200-, even when the strike is MASSIVELY bigger.

Has anyone else noticed a majority of the lower ranks (out of top ten) build huge defences (200mil+), and little strike (less than 50 mil). We don't want a defensive server, how boring is that! Hope admin fixes it and the market turns soon! ](*,)



The attack to defence ratio is a little off, but it seems to get better the higher attack you get, but even when attacking a defence of 1,400,000,000, with 4,500,000,000 attack, defence loses 1000, attack loses 3,304, so you have 4x the defence you lose 300% more units than the defence.

Thats the equivalent with equal stats of the attack losing 9x the units, the majority of the accounts in beta from what i can see are defensive, with many having 10x the defence then attack.

There's one other issue id like to raise is the amount of motherships you lose when attacking, if the other user as similar mothership stats, you lose almost all of your motherships and they usually dont lose any, or little....
Last edited by Adapt on Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
LuBu
Fledgling Forumer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 am
Alliance: N/A
ID: 0
Alternate name(s): Gilgamesh Enkidu (Old Main name)
Lubu (Current Main name)
Location: United Kingdom

Re: unit deaths on attack

Adapt wrote:
Forum wrote:
LuBu wrote:A few things I want to comment on. First of all is that the attack/defence loss is way over exaggerated. Having 10x the strike buit losing 5x the units doesn't seem fair to me. It's always like attack 1-2k units loss and defence 200-, even when the strike is MASSIVELY bigger.

Has anyone else noticed a majority of the lower ranks (out of top ten) build huge defences (200mil+), and little strike (less than 50 mil). We don't want a defensive server, how boring is that! Hope admin fixes it and the market turns soon! ](*,)



The attack to defence ratio is a little off, but it seems to get better the higher attack you get, but even when attacking a defence of 1,400,000,000, with 4,500,000,000 attack, defence loses 1000, attack loses 3,304, so you lose 2,304 more units than the defence.

There's one other issue id like to raise is the amount of motherships you lose when attacking, if the other user as similar mothership stats, you lose almost all of your motherships and they usually dont lose any, or little....


From this it seems the loss of attack to defence units, with the attack having somewhat three times bigger stat, is 330% more loss to attack. That's the equivalent at equalish stats of the attack losing over 9 times (900%) the units if it scales linear (which it probably doesn't, but it is probably is still around 4-5 times).

A majority of the accounts in Beta from what I can see are defensive, with many having ten times the defence/attack, and many playing a turtle like game. It's not hard to see why with more aggressive account losing over four times the units per day.

Surely the attack loss should be decreased by ATLEAST 50%.
Borek
Forum Addict
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:45 pm

Re: unit deaths on attack

On paper that seems to be true, that it should be adapted, but you have to remember an "attack" account can just buy attack and MS techs so they can take proportionately less losses when they farm, a turtle account has to boost defense, income, covert and anti covert to try and hold onto their advantage.

Plus you will never make more on a turtle account (barring unforeseen bugs/glitches that allow huge naq infusions to facilitate massive tech boosting), an "attack" account can farm all the turtle accounts, using each hit to further reduce the losses, a turtle account has only it's income plus low/no defense farms everyone is going to be fighting over to hit.

So yes on paper the attack losses seem to be very harsh, but they NEED to be otherwise the entire game will have to become sniper accounts just to compete.

TBH as it stands with the stupid techs people are just going to make godlike sniper set-ups anyway and ruin the game for anyone without a lot of free time to play. Just go all out in MS and attack, enough spy to see people's naq and you can farm at will. Stupid, stupid design...
Edmund Blackadder-"The path of my Life is beset with Cowpats from the Devils own satanic herd!"
User avatar
LuBu
Fledgling Forumer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 am
Alliance: N/A
ID: 0
Alternate name(s): Gilgamesh Enkidu (Old Main name)
Lubu (Current Main name)
Location: United Kingdom

Re: unit deaths on attack

Borek wrote:On paper that seems to be true, that it should be adapted, but you have to remember an "attack" account can just buy attack and MS techs so they can take proportionately less losses when they farm, a turtle account has to boost defense, income, covert and anti covert to try and hold onto their advantage.

Plus you will never make more on a turtle account (barring unforeseen bugs/glitches that allow huge naq infusions to facilitate massive tech boosting), an "attack" account can farm all the turtle accounts, using each hit to further reduce the losses, a turtle account has only it's income plus low/no defense farms everyone is going to be fighting over to hit.

So yes on paper the attack losses seem to be very harsh, but they NEED to be otherwise the entire game will have to become sniper accounts just to compete.

TBH as it stands with the stupid techs people are just going to make godlike sniper set-ups anyway and ruin the game for anyone without a lot of free time to play. Just go all out in MS and attack, enough spy to see people's naq and you can farm at will. Stupid, stupid design...


So far the only turtle accounts I have seen with anti covert in the Beta are in the single digits. A majority of them have little to no anti covert, which has made me laugh at how susceptible they are to covert actions. No idea why many had chose this. I Myself and many others that managed higher ranks made "all rounder" accounts, which took even more to accomplish than these anti covert-less turtles.

What you said holds pretty much true, but we'll see how the proportion of Naq available aids the ability to raise the tech level as you forsee.
Last edited by LuBu on Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Borek
Forum Addict
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:45 pm

Re: unit deaths on attack

Anti-covert techs were bugged for cost, that is why, apparently it's fixed now so we will see in this reset :)
Edmund Blackadder-"The path of my Life is beset with Cowpats from the Devils own satanic herd!"
User avatar
LuBu
Fledgling Forumer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 am
Alliance: N/A
ID: 0
Alternate name(s): Gilgamesh Enkidu (Old Main name)
Lubu (Current Main name)
Location: United Kingdom

Re: unit deaths on attack

Borek wrote:Anti-covert techs were bugged for cost, that is why, apparently it's fixed now so we will see in this reset :)


Still no reason to have none whatsoever. Many didn't even raise it enough to feel the cost effect of the tech bug, there was still the overcharge and plenty of units to increase it.

But I guess I don't know how others think, I may be completely off with my view. Guess you may be right, we'll see. :D
Last edited by LuBu on Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adapt
Forum Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:50 am
ID: 0

Re: unit deaths on attack

LuBu wrote:
Borek wrote:Anti-covert techs were bugged for cost, that is why, apparently it's fixed now so we will see in this reset :)


Still no reason to have none whatsoever. Many didn't even raise it enough to feel the cost effect of the tech bug. Guess you may be right, we'll see. :D


I agree, but take into consideration most users were inactive, plus most didnt have the resources to increase anti-covert enough to make a difference. They were to far behind for their own good, yet they could raise their anti-covert, but it would hinder their other stats.

The previous statment was true before, but now the anti-covert tech is fully functional its easy to make a defensive account, and harder to make and upkeep an aggressive account. :smt100
User avatar
LuBu
Fledgling Forumer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 am
Alliance: N/A
ID: 0
Alternate name(s): Gilgamesh Enkidu (Old Main name)
Lubu (Current Main name)
Location: United Kingdom

Re: unit deaths on attack

10:51 Kakarot 50,856,180 Naquadah stolen 15 332 20 100,412,000 101,474,100


101 attack mil vs 100 defence mil, 20 defence lost, 320 attack lost. 16x times the loss.....

Surely this isn't fair...... ](*,)
User avatar
Adapt
Forum Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:50 am
ID: 0

Re: unit deaths on attack

Forum wrote:
LuBu wrote:A few things I want to comment on. First of all is that the attack/defence loss is way over exaggerated. Having 10x the strike buit losing 5x the units doesn't seem fair to me. It's always like attack 1-2k units loss and defence 200-, even when the strike is MASSIVELY bigger.

Has anyone else noticed a majority of the lower ranks (out of top ten) build huge defences (200mil+), and little strike (less than 50 mil). We don't want a defensive server, how boring is that! Hope admin fixes it and the market turns soon! ](*,)


// Enemy///////Attacks///////////Enemy Losses///Your Losses///Damage by You//////Damage to You
11:23/???????/520,731,920 Naq//////20//////////////330///////// 149,286,977//////83,160,000

Thats a massive 16x more units lost from attack compared to defence!
User avatar
LuBu
Fledgling Forumer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 am
Alliance: N/A
ID: 0
Alternate name(s): Gilgamesh Enkidu (Old Main name)
Lubu (Current Main name)
Location: United Kingdom

Re: unit deaths on attack

Still lose ridiculous amount of attack units, even with 5x attack vs defence! :smt022
Lithium
Forum Zombie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:34 pm
Alliance: The Pirate's Panties
Race: Pirate
ID: 0
Location: Pantie's Island
Contact:

Re: unit deaths on attack

LuBu wrote:
10:51 Kakarot 50,856,180 Naquadah stolen 15 332 20 100,412,000 101,474,100


101 attack mil vs 100 defence mil, 20 defence lost, 320 attack lost. 16x times the loss.....

Surely this isn't fair...... ](*,)



its fair if u send them naked. send less with heavy weaps.

if u bat the def by just a little u dont suffer heavy loses
Image
Previously on GateWars Forum
The orgin of Guild
Spoiler
Lithium wrote:he was talkin bout me and remembering the days i was massing him wit one finger ;)
Guild wrote:is that the same finger you stick up your bum ? :smt060
Lithium wrote:no its the one who gave u life ;)
Field Marshall wrote:Lith put his finger up his bum and Guild arrived? :smt017
I wish that was genuinely true :)
Lithium wrote:oooo why there isnt any emo for this one , id have dropped of chair dead :smt042
MajorLeeHurts wrote:
Lithium wrote:oooo why there isnt any emo for this one , id have dropped of chair dead :smt042
Agreed that was the funnies **Filtered** ive read here!
Im sure JT is enjoying this thread , if he isnt hes in a coma !
Feedback Me
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 8&t=101259
User avatar
Forum
Site Admin
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:52 pm

Honours and Awards

Re: unit deaths on attack

the way the deaths are currently caculated is:
1) def max 30% of units (used to be 10%)
2) att max is 50% of units sent

attack and defense losses are multiplied by an '$attack_ratio' between 0.10 and 10
(ie attack/def for def loses; def/attack for att loses)
The more times ascended the less die.

The 'death divisor' is currently 10,000
$=the variable
$attStrength and $defStrength are the stike and defence action sent.

$AttacKilled =($attack_ratio * $defStrength) / ($deathDivisor * $attacker->timesAscended);

$defKilled = ($defense_ratio * $attackStrength) / ($deathDivisor * $defender->timesAscended);

So the 2 questions are really : Is the 10,000 right? is the def compared to attack deaths good?
Don't make me use this!!!
User avatar
LuBu
Fledgling Forumer
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 am
Alliance: N/A
ID: 0
Alternate name(s): Gilgamesh Enkidu (Old Main name)
Lubu (Current Main name)
Location: United Kingdom

Re: unit deaths on attack

Forum wrote:the way the deaths are currently caculated is:
1) def max 30% of units (used to be 10%)
2) att max is 50% of units sent

attack and defense losses are multiplied by an '$attack_ratio' between 0.10 and 10
(ie attack/def for def loses; def/attack for att loses)
The more times ascended the less die.

The 'death divisor' is currently 10,000
$=the variable
$attStrength and $defStrength are the stike and defence action sent.

$AttacKilled =($attack_ratio * $defStrength) / ($deathDivisor * $attacker->timesAscended);

$defKilled = ($defense_ratio * $attackStrength) / ($deathDivisor * $defender->timesAscended);

So the 2 questions are really : Is the 10,000 right? is the def compared to attack deaths good?

You sure this is correct? It kills units based on attack/defence strength (unit's + weapons + tech), but I see no variable checking the actual units in there. It starts out ok, but soon ends up HUGE. Also after so much, defence lose more than attack! o.O

I've made an MSL (Mirc scripting language) script for it quickly, as I couldn't be bothered to work it out with a calculator. I like any excuse to code/script :smt019. Here it is, check to see if I made a mistake:
on 1:INPUT:*: {
if ($1 == .gwattack) { ;cba to use regex here lol



;------- Variables start -------
set %attackStrength $2 ;attack strength is 2nd word

set %defStrength $3 ;defence strength 3rd word

set %deathDivisor 10000 ;The 'death divisor' is currently 10,000

set %attack_ratio $calc($rand(1,100)/10) ;attack and defense losses are multiplied by an '$attack_ratio' between 0.10 and 10

set %defense_ratio $calc($rand(1,100)/10) ;attack and defense losses are multiplied by an '$attack_ratio' between 0.10 and 10

set %attackertimesAscended 1 ;attacker ascension 1

set %defendertimesAscended 1 ;defender ascension 1
;------- Variables end -------


;------- Calculate start -------
set %AttacKilled $calc( (%attack_ratio * %defStrength) / (%deathDivisor * %attackertimesAscended) )

set %defKilled $calc( (%defense_ratio * %attackStrength) / (%deathDivisor * %defendertimesAscended) )
;------- Calculate end -------



msg #Channelhere %attacKilled %defKilled
}
}


It came out with (1,000,000 attack, 1,000,000 defence, both ascension 1):
[23:13] <@iCal> .gwattack 1000000 1000000
[23:27] <@iCal> 240 180

It came out with (5,000,000 attack, 5,000,000 defence, both ascension 1):
[23:15] <@iCal> .gwattack 5000000 5000000
[23:15] <@iCal> 2750 1050 (errrrrrrrrrrr)

It came out with (20,000,000 attack, 20,000,000 defence, both ascension 1):
[23:15] <@iCal> .gwattack 20000000 20000000
[23:15] <@iCal> 8000 14200 (big numbers.....)

It came out with (100,000,000 attack, 100,000,000 defence, both ascension 1):
[23:17] <@iCal> .gwattack 100000000 100000000
[23:17] <@iCal> 69000 97000 (wow, 50k+ losses at 100 mil attack?)


How's that? It's, errrrrrr, big numbers. Checked my variables and they seem right.... :-D
%attackStrength 5000000
%defStrength 5000000
%deathDivisor 10000
%attack_ratio 2.6
%defense_ratio 7.4
%attackertimesAscended 1
%defendertimesAscended 1
%AttacKilled 1300
%defKilled 3700


Does this mean it's going to hit the 30%/50% max kill limit for attack/defence a lot lol.

Going to try it with death advisor 5,000 20,000 and 50,000, see if something is up......


Edit:
5,000 death advisor (100,000,000 attack, 100,000,000 defence, both ascension 1):
[23:49] <@iCal> .gwattack 100000000 100000000
[23:48] <@iCal> 98000 174000

20,000 death advisor (100,000,000 attack, 100,000,000 defence, both ascension 1):
[23:49] <@iCal> .gwattack 100000000 100000000
[23:49] <@iCal> 27500 16000

50,000 death advisor (100,000,000 attack, 100,000,000 defence, both ascension 1):
[23:49] <@iCal> .gwattack 100000000 100000000
[23:50] <@iCal> 19800 6200
User avatar
Forum
Site Admin
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:52 pm

Honours and Awards

Re: unit deaths on attack

neat trick with the script :)
ascension 1 would have a lot of deaths ... 10x more than 10times ascended :)
I could also use the root of the att/def values or something, to keep it from running away when it gets big.

suggestions? now is the time, as its not yet finalized!
Don't make me use this!!!
Post Reply

Return to “Balance / Labels / Features”