H/F Losses on 70% attack?

[Dax]

I got this earlier on a target 70% of my score. Now, why the loss of honour? If I send before someone else decides to piggyback my attack - Why must I lose honour? I didn't ask that person to go two ticks behind me, and I specifically requested people in my alliance go three ticks behind me, to make sure I get all positive honour gains.
Please note, I have also never attacked this person this round, either.
Now I've been blessed with a 7% boost to my bounty level, that I don't really feel is justified. Anybody within rank 1 alliance will back me up and say I am at every single incoming pretty much at one stage or another, and I haven't sent a proper LET attack in over a week and a half. So why is my honour not going down at all over this time, but my fame does?
The honour gains for defending and winning, are much better than honour for attacking and winning. I don't understand. Can anyone help out? Or maybe support that the H/F might need a bit of tweaking for attacking piggybackers, rather than the original offensive sender.

Battle Report - Target [xxxx] - RANGE TICK {0 PIGGBACKERS}

Died: 1,073,256 [£51,705,790,000] friendlies dead. 40,472,503 [£368,494,044,800] enemies dead.

You gained 524,165 effectiveness.
You gained 51.30 fame.
You gained 30.21 honour.
You earned £10,133,145,423 bounty.
You will soon be receiving £10,341,143,000 insurance.

Battle Report - Target [xxxx] - CLOSE TICK {1 PIGGYBACKER APPEARS}

Distracted: 185,949 [£1,859,490,000] friendlies distracted. 34,913 [£13,979,800] enemies distracted.
Disabled: 823,995 [£24,506,210,000] friendlies disabled. 1,566,565 [£12,840,987,200] enemies disabled.
Died: 11,488 [£350,645,000] friendlies dead. 1,074,947 [£12,368,936,400] enemies dead.
Bribed: 6,293,034 [£55,206,438,000] enemies bribed.

You gained 15,750 effectiveness.
You gained 1.40 fame.
You lost 6.19 honour.
You earned £72,236,642 bounty.
You will soon be receiving £70,129,000 insurance.

Now, why the absolutely swag honour, for annihilating somebody in the green?

 

[Twigley]

You already answered it, im not sure why you are asking.
Someone sent behind so it classed it as 2 of you hitting.
It's just how it works, the game can't tell if the person behind was someone you wanted there or not on any attack.

 

[marvin]

Because there were 2 mobs on one tick?

Or maybe support that the H/F might need a bit of tweaking for attacking piggybackers, rather than the original offensive sender.

You might have a point there but I'm not one of these know-it-alls so I can't really go for or against it at the moment. It does however make sense to me considering the recent 'tweak' to triggering.

 

[Ezekiel]

No idea. I worked out last night that defending agaisnt the rank 1 alliance who are 400% of my score for 5 nights on the trot has earnt me a huge total of 21 honour, while attacking on the same tick has lost me over 350 honour for 3-4 attacks. I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm sure the system is working how it's supposed to, but I don't agree with this. And yes my attacks were at 70%.

I should be well in the green from defending these huge incs.

 

[Twigley]

Your attacks were at 70% and you got -350 honour in 3/4 attacks?
If they were at 70% when you sent, you must of had piggyers.

 

[Dax]

You already answered it, im not sure why you are asking.
Someone sent behind so it classed it as 2 of you hitting.
It's just how it works, the game can't tell if the person behind was someone you wanted there or not on any attack.

I don't know if you actually read ALL of my post {unlike Marvin}, but do you have zero opinion on my idea to change the code? I don't expect everyone to rise up and revolt, I'm just slightly irritated.

Or maybe support that the H/F might need a bit of tweaking for attacking piggybackers, rather than the original offensive sender.

You might have a point there but I'm not one of these know-it-alls so I can't really go for or against it at the moment. It does however make sense to me considering the recent 'tweak' to triggering.

This was more a reply to what I was looking for. People that see where I am coming from. Can a person that understands H/F a bit better than me explain the general dips and rises that you can achieve for H/F? I want a way of dropping the red a bit faster and efficiently than just doing nothing or defending. And does it go down by itself? And if so, how much per day?

 

[Twigley]

Dax, i would be annoyed too, and yes i did read all your post i just wondered why you had to ask the question and explain it so much when it's obvious.

I guess this is more of a suggestion - suggesting that the piggyers should get the negative honour and not the guy infront (assuming you send at 70% to begin with).

I don't think this would be too hard to code for Azzer as you *ARE* sending honourably to attack.

Only downside at the moment without the change is what if you are flakking someone at 70% then a tick behind you have your mate lending you flak to spread the losses? Or what if you are a TL and you get your mate to cover your last tick behind?

Giving negative honour to the guy behind solves this.

 

[Dax]

Dax, i would be annoyed too, and yes i did read all your post i just wondered why you had to ask the question and explain it so much when it's obvious.

I guess this is more of a suggestion - suggesting that the piggyers should get the negative honour and not the guy infront (assuming you send at 70% to begin with).

I don't think this would be too hard to code for Azzer as you *ARE* sending honourably to attack.

Only downside at the moment without the change is what if you are flakking someone at 70% then a tick behind you have your mate lending you flak to spread the losses? Or what if you are a TL and you get your mate to cover your last tick behind?

Giving negative honour to the guy behind solves this.

That's more like it - Ta.
I understand I have clearly explained it, but that is sort of there as a background to my complaint. The subject matter is how do I get it to go down faster and more effectively, and if you have an opinion on the change I sort-of suggested.

 

[Azzer]

There is no way of the game knowing whether you planned the wave hit with the other attackers or not. It would be silly if 3 players intentionally waved a target, but the first guy to land (the first wave) got positive honour throughout the entire attack while combined with his other 2 mates they're massively overpowering the victim.

If it's any consolation, I used my power of maths and deduced that this loss;
You lost 6.19 honour.
Is offset quite easily by this gain;
You gained 30.21 honour.

So it's not all tears for your (unintentional) wave attack.

 

[Dax]

There is no way of the game knowing whether you planned the wave hit with the other attackers or not. It would be silly if 3 players intentionally waved a target, but the first guy to land (the first wave) got positive honour throughout the entire attack while combined with his other 2 mates they're massively overpowering the victim.

If it's any consolation, I used my power of maths and deduced that this loss;
You lost 6.19 honour.
Is offset quite easily by this gain;
You gained 30.21 honour.

So it's not all tears for your (unintentional) wave attack.

Nah, but somehow that 6 honour loss made me get a 7% boost in bounty
In relevance to my second question, however; Does Honour go back to neutral over time? Or am I permanently stuck with it?

 

[Azzer]

Nah, but somehow that 6 honour loss made me get a 7% boost in bounty
In relevance to my second question, however; Does Honour go back to neutral over time? Or am I permanently stuck with it?

That wasn't down to your 6 honour loss - that was down to your overall huge negative honour and that last bit of fame you gained pushing you in to the next title. Even if you'd gained 20 honour on that attack instead of losing 6, your fame level would have increased your title to the next level anyway.

And no honour does not go back to neutral through inactivity - only fame does (which can lower your title in that way).

 

[Cheese]

You could have asked me to recall :S
I only lost 9 honour on that attack btw

 

[Dax]

You could have asked me to recall :S
I only lost 9 honour on that attack btw

I wasn't actively checking my phone - I knew he was in a 1-man alliance, so went for the kills ASAP.
But, as I know it's you - FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

Nah, but somehow that 6 honour loss made me get a 7% boost in bounty
In relevance to my second question, however; Does Honour go back to neutral over time? Or am I permanently stuck with it?

That wasn't down to your 6 honour loss - that was down to your overall huge negative honour and that last bit of fame you gained pushing you in to the next title. Even if you'd gained 20 honour on that attack instead of losing 6, your fame level would have increased your title to the next level anyway.

And no honour does not go back to neutral through inactivity - only fame does (which can lower your title in that way).

Cheers Azman. Though I am very upset now.

 

[WackyJacky]

DaX just for future - I've found fame seems to be dependent on $'s (Thus as a PoM I don't get much fame because I never kill anything.)

I've found I get more honour from defending against overwhelming odds then attacking at 70%. If someone loses land that tends to raise the honour gained as well. I'd say one defense cancels out a 40% hit. Roughly 40 honour gained, 30-40 lost. Course I don't hit at 40% anymore

 

[Dax]

Cheers for that too Wacky, that's the sort of feedback I wanted - I don't remember H/F from Age 4 very well, I got to like, upstanding, or something, as Prot TL. So yeah, I can't of been doing too well.

 

[saint1d]

You could have asked me to recall :S
I only lost 9 honour on that attack btw

hehe

 

[Davs]

(Thus as a PoM I don't get much fame because I never kill anything.)

I'm also a PoM, and I don't see getting a minimum of 25 fame per tick as particularly small. Include a land grab, and I'd get 50 fame in the last tick. Although kills undoubtedly get more, this isn't really a small amount if you attack regularly enough. Although I'm mainly hitting people between 90-110% of me, so that would make the values larger.