DeletedUser441
Guest
I just don't see the need for this idea
Its wasting the devs time
Its wasting the devs time
Create a "Stop Attack" feature in Battle Resolution
- Thread starter Lord Sandman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dns list failed idea
- Status
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser
Guest
These objections must be connected to some other development proposal. Because the objections above don't seem to have anything to do with offering attackers more cautious options.
"This would be way too easily abused....
-as you mentioned, easier spying....."
Wrong. People aren't reading the proposal in the first post. A withdrawing attacker gets NO spy information.
"-fake attacks that would receive few losses"
Wrong. This proposal doesn't allow for FAKE attacks. The feature only kicks in if a large part of the total land forces are in the attack. This is not a fake attack. And the attacker is penalized having casualties based the SMALLER number of troops lost, not based on lesser casualty rate when attacking forces are superior. So this objection is wrong in 2 ways - there can't be any fake attacks, and the losses are HIGHER.
"-completely safe C-Ship's"
Wrong. The proposal clearly states that it only refers to land attacks and the land phase of any attack across the ocean.
"-no penalty for attacking"
This isn't even a clear objection. If an attacker wants to attack in the same old way, he doesn't have to change the default setting. If he desides to attack with more caution, AND WINS, the loot he wins is LOWERED to the percent of caution he used.
If the attacker loses, his casualty rate is based on calculations that use the smaller size of the force (the number lost), not the maximum size of the force.
The objection summary reads: "You see, in other words, this almost nullifies the amount of effort you have to put into spying the enemy, building your army to beat them, timing your attacks, etc."
This rule doesn't affect spying at all. If he withdraws, he gets no information. This rule is for those who want to spend money on FIGHTING, not spying.
"Building my army to beat" an unknown city is not the most satisfying aspet of the game. FIGHTING is the most interesting part of the game. And so this rule allows an attacker to have more attacks AND LOSE THEM without putting his entire attacking force at risk.
People who want to fight the current way are STILL able to do so.
Sometimes I think people are being given objections they don't understand in order to raise a "fake" fuss.
Generals should be able to respond to high casualties by withdrawing at a disadvantage. People who argue against this don't really care about the reality of the fighting experience.
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
"This would be way too easily abused....
-as you mentioned, easier spying....."
Wrong. People aren't reading the proposal in the first post. A withdrawing attacker gets NO spy information.
"-fake attacks that would receive few losses"
Wrong. This proposal doesn't allow for FAKE attacks. The feature only kicks in if a large part of the total land forces are in the attack. This is not a fake attack. And the attacker is penalized having casualties based the SMALLER number of troops lost, not based on lesser casualty rate when attacking forces are superior. So this objection is wrong in 2 ways - there can't be any fake attacks, and the losses are HIGHER.
"-completely safe C-Ship's"
Wrong. The proposal clearly states that it only refers to land attacks and the land phase of any attack across the ocean.
"-no penalty for attacking"
This isn't even a clear objection. If an attacker wants to attack in the same old way, he doesn't have to change the default setting. If he desides to attack with more caution, AND WINS, the loot he wins is LOWERED to the percent of caution he used.
If the attacker loses, his casualty rate is based on calculations that use the smaller size of the force (the number lost), not the maximum size of the force.
The objection summary reads: "You see, in other words, this almost nullifies the amount of effort you have to put into spying the enemy, building your army to beat them, timing your attacks, etc."
This rule doesn't affect spying at all. If he withdraws, he gets no information. This rule is for those who want to spend money on FIGHTING, not spying.
"Building my army to beat" an unknown city is not the most satisfying aspet of the game. FIGHTING is the most interesting part of the game. And so this rule allows an attacker to have more attacks AND LOSE THEM without putting his entire attacking force at risk.
People who want to fight the current way are STILL able to do so.
Sometimes I think people are being given objections they don't understand in order to raise a "fake" fuss.
Generals should be able to respond to high casualties by withdrawing at a disadvantage. People who argue against this don't really care about the reality of the fighting experience.
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser2795
Guest
Alright, you will listen to no other argument.
Now, morale does not seem a bad thing when you look it in the face right? It seems to mildly favor a smaller player, a a low rate, it helps to prevent high rates of aggression from large players expanding to the rim, etc. But morale created the largest uproar in the history of Grepolis, as far as I can tell. Now this idea may look reasonable when you first think about it, but when it comes into place, then bad things happen
Now, morale does not seem a bad thing when you look it in the face right? It seems to mildly favor a smaller player, a a low rate, it helps to prevent high rates of aggression from large players expanding to the rim, etc. But morale created the largest uproar in the history of Grepolis, as far as I can tell. Now this idea may look reasonable when you first think about it, but when it comes into place, then bad things happen
DeletedUser
Guest
JKP,
Too much realism? All I want to do is fight ... and not spend endless days building up forces. The penalties and benefits clearly favor the defender.
So the attacker has to pay the price of wanting to attack LESS BOLDLY.
There are no negatives here.
You've hated this proposal from day one, and you appear to have convinced others to repeat objections that have already been settled and resolved.
Why don't you just relax?
Lord Sandman
Too much realism? All I want to do is fight ... and not spend endless days building up forces. The penalties and benefits clearly favor the defender.
So the attacker has to pay the price of wanting to attack LESS BOLDLY.
There are no negatives here.
You've hated this proposal from day one, and you appear to have convinced others to repeat objections that have already been settled and resolved.
Why don't you just relax?
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser2795
Guest
I believe I Said this before: Just because I dislike the current weighting in favor of defenders does not mean that I want a whole new feature in favor of offenders
DeletedUser
Guest
JKP:
This does NOT favor attackers. All the settings are in the favor of the defender. It merely allows attackers to lose their forces in smaller bites.
And the bigger the attacker becomes, the less useful the proposed feature becomes.
This is the PERFECT solution to increase the number of fights at the expense of the attackers.
Yes, I'm repeating myself. Because you continue to endorse repitition of objections that don't apply to this particular proposal.
Regards,
Lord Sandman
This does NOT favor attackers. All the settings are in the favor of the defender. It merely allows attackers to lose their forces in smaller bites.
And the bigger the attacker becomes, the less useful the proposed feature becomes.
This is the PERFECT solution to increase the number of fights at the expense of the attackers.
Yes, I'm repeating myself. Because you continue to endorse repitition of objections that don't apply to this particular proposal.
Regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser2795
Guest
fine! if it favors the defender, as you lalim it does, then it just makes the current ingame situation far, far worse!
DeletedUser
Guest
I agree with this idea, and once again, you could not choose to lose under 40% of your troops. The amount of resources gained would go down by the percentage of troops you wish to "save." This seems to be a good, well-balanced idea for the game.
DeletedUser
Guest
JKP,
You really aren't making any sense when it comes to this proposal. You write:
"fine! if it favors the defender, as you [say] it does, then it just makes the current ingame situation far, far worse! "
How can you keep writing things like this?
The rule favors the defender **IF THE ATTACKER CHOOSES THE OPTION**. It doesn't make the ingame situation worse for the attacker "beyond his control". He can always go ahead and attack like always. All he has to do is leave the default setting (which is the 100% setting).
This is why this is such an interesting "tweak" to the system.
It just doesn't seem like you understand the proposal at all. Is there someone else on this list who knows JKP and can describe the rule in a way that he will "get it"?
Regards,
Lord Sandman
For those who wonder "whats the point" - the proposed feature allows you to spend more time fighting and less time rebuilding troops or saving money to pay for spying. Grepolis is not "the spy game"; Grepolis is a "battle" game. But if you want to spy, you can spy too. The proposal doesn't prevent spying.
You really aren't making any sense when it comes to this proposal. You write:
"fine! if it favors the defender, as you [say] it does, then it just makes the current ingame situation far, far worse! "
How can you keep writing things like this?
The rule favors the defender **IF THE ATTACKER CHOOSES THE OPTION**. It doesn't make the ingame situation worse for the attacker "beyond his control". He can always go ahead and attack like always. All he has to do is leave the default setting (which is the 100% setting).
This is why this is such an interesting "tweak" to the system.
It just doesn't seem like you understand the proposal at all. Is there someone else on this list who knows JKP and can describe the rule in a way that he will "get it"?
Regards,
Lord Sandman
For those who wonder "whats the point" - the proposed feature allows you to spend more time fighting and less time rebuilding troops or saving money to pay for spying. Grepolis is not "the spy game"; Grepolis is a "battle" game. But if you want to spy, you can spy too. The proposal doesn't prevent spying.
DeletedUser2795
Guest
Grepolis may be a battle game, but information is one of the most important parts, imagine accidentally sending a slinger nuke against a city stacked high with swordsmen?
If it favors the defender then the attacker never chooses the option making the proposal pointless, this is based off of what you are claiming.
I should be saying the same thing about you
If it favors the defender then the attacker never chooses the option making the proposal pointless, this is based off of what you are claiming.
DeletedUser
Guest
JKP,
Perhaps you play Grepolis because it gives you a chance to SPY. But I play it so that I can fight. But in any case, you can STILL spy. Spy all you want. And block all the other people from spying. SPYING isn't changed.
But for people who aren't THRILLED with spying, and who would rather fight, I would be delighted to exchange loot or let the defender enjoy fewer casualties, so that I can FIGHT, and FIGHT MORE FREQUENTLY.
That's the great thing about this proposal. It favors the defender in terms of loot, in terms of casualties, and in terms of preventing ABUSE because the attacker gets no intelligence if he withdraws.
But it is STILL more fun to attack with lower risks to my army ... I am HAPPY to pay the price. And the defender STILL benefits.
It's the perfectly balanced proposal.
Regards,
Lord Sandman
Perhaps you play Grepolis because it gives you a chance to SPY. But I play it so that I can fight. But in any case, you can STILL spy. Spy all you want. And block all the other people from spying. SPYING isn't changed.
But for people who aren't THRILLED with spying, and who would rather fight, I would be delighted to exchange loot or let the defender enjoy fewer casualties, so that I can FIGHT, and FIGHT MORE FREQUENTLY.
That's the great thing about this proposal. It favors the defender in terms of loot, in terms of casualties, and in terms of preventing ABUSE because the attacker gets no intelligence if he withdraws.
But it is STILL more fun to attack with lower risks to my army ... I am HAPPY to pay the price. And the defender STILL benefits.
It's the perfectly balanced proposal.
Regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser2795
Guest
I play for teh fourms, not teh spying, and I play for teh interest of having teh conflicts beween player s(eg, forums, attacks, messages, etc.)
Maybe within itself it si balanced, but not when you put it in the rest of the game
Maybe within itself it si balanced, but not when you put it in the rest of the game
DeletedUser
Guest
It is very balanced, and does not allow for fakes or safe C-ships or anything like that. Even if it applied to sea battles, it would be balanced. To improve the idea, +/- 10% of the troops you selected to die would survive. So if you chose to lose 50% of your troops, your losses could vary anywhere from 30-50% of your total attacking/defending force. This will make it much fairer and will allow for a little variation without the effects of Luck and Morale
ro:.DeletedUser2795
Guest
+/- 10% means 40-60% . And if you want to prove it to me that it is balanced, then try implementing it, then see what happens
. And if you want to prove it to me that it is balanced, then try implementing it, then see what happens DeletedUser
Guest
JKP:
If an attacker chooses the 50% option, he has configured the attack to withdraw if he loses 50% of his total land attack points (including those in other cities).
If he has a lot of attack forces at home or in other cities, then he still going to lose most of his army before the "stop loss" kicks in.
If he actually wins, he only obtains 50% of the loot he would have normally received.
If he loses, not only does he lose 50% of his WHOLE army in the attack (this 50% might represent 90% of his attacking force), but the defender suffers fewer casualties - - as though the attacking army was never the full size.
So, JKP, what about the percentages don't you understand now?
Regards,
Lord Sandman
If an attacker chooses the 50% option, he has configured the attack to withdraw if he loses 50% of his total land attack points (including those in other cities).
If he has a lot of attack forces at home or in other cities, then he still going to lose most of his army before the "stop loss" kicks in.
If he actually wins, he only obtains 50% of the loot he would have normally received.
If he loses, not only does he lose 50% of his WHOLE army in the attack (this 50% might represent 90% of his attacking force), but the defender suffers fewer casualties - - as though the attacking army was never the full size.
So, JKP, what about the percentages don't you understand now?
Regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser
Guest
+/- 10% means 40-60%
Okay then, +/- 5%. No general can be sure that he has 50% EXACTLY of his troops killed before withdrawing. Not as bad as Morale.
DeletedUser
Guest
The majority of troops lost in a battle occur once the enemy has turned and begun to retreat. This is something that later made the Romans a very viable force, as they almost never retreated, regardless of the circumstance. Having said this, if an attacking army does retreat after x% number of troops are killed, then after the retreat they should also be penalized another percentage of troops to simulate the fact that they have turned their backs to the enemy. Just a thought...
Rolfgar
Rolfgar
DeletedUser
Guest
We see opinions that vary between "you can't tell when you have lost exactly 50%" vs. varying loss + or - 10% or even 5%". The original proposal allowed a sliding scale anywhere between 40% and 100%.
It was then suggested that we just have 3 levels: 100% as the default setting (the way the battles play out now), and 75% and 50%.
Imagine the 50% as representing a general with very little boldness. It's not the exact turn-around point of the attacking force.... but the the end result of turning around at the very first sign of significant resistance.
75% is a compromise between the current "COMPLETELY BOLD GENERAL" and the general that lacks any boldness.
The proposed feature is designed to simulate different degrees of leadership boldness. The presence of "luck" in any battle is still in force in calculating loss.
So there doesn't seem to be a need to "over engineer" the feature with +/- factors.
Regards,
Lord Sandman
It was then suggested that we just have 3 levels: 100% as the default setting (the way the battles play out now), and 75% and 50%.
Imagine the 50% as representing a general with very little boldness. It's not the exact turn-around point of the attacking force.... but the the end result of turning around at the very first sign of significant resistance.
75% is a compromise between the current "COMPLETELY BOLD GENERAL" and the general that lacks any boldness.
The proposed feature is designed to simulate different degrees of leadership boldness. The presence of "luck" in any battle is still in force in calculating loss.
So there doesn't seem to be a need to "over engineer" the feature with +/- factors.
Regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser
Guest
I think this is what makes grepolis special the necessity to find their activity hours, plan and attack relentlessly.
I would be pushed to give up grepolis if this came in.
I would be pushed to give up grepolis if this came in.
- Status