attacking at lower range

[Walking_Death]

I have an idea. Instead of getting +ETA, which is really nothing but a pain in the ass for everyone involved and not a real deterrent anyway, maybe, you could give the defenders a bonus on those? Make it like, around 10%-30% for the defenders side (scaled up and down for defenders who are more or less "within range"). That would also encourage honorable attacking, as well as defending, as simple H/F doesn't really mean much anyway if your alliance can defend you. Just an idea

 

[tobapopalos]

No.

 

[Walking_Death]

No.

very constructive. Saying no to a well explained idea with purpose with no explanation of how it could be abused/overpowered and do anythign besides deter bashing and help smaller players.

 

[tobapopalos]

No.

very constructive. Saying no to a well explained idea with purpose with no explanation of how it could be abused/overpowered and do anythign besides deter bashing and help smaller players.

Stupid idea deserves short reply.

 

[Walking_Death]

No.

very constructive. Saying no to a well explained idea with purpose with no explanation of how it could be abused/overpowered and do anythign besides deter bashing and help smaller players.

Stupid idea deserves short reply.

How is it stupid to deter bashing? Don't look at the %s, think of the concept and tell me why people wouldn't attack someone 40% of them continuously.

 

[tobapopalos]

Because you haven't thought the idea through at all. Changing defensive effectiveness will unbalance the routes, it'll overcomplicate working out BRs, and it'll stagnate the game.

Edit: That isn't to mention the complexity of coming up with the equation for effectiveness and actually coding it into the game.

Further edit: And also, I just don't like the principle of the idea.

 

[Alcibiades]

Toby is right. Route balance would be shot to ****. And how would it work with multiple attackers of different ranges? Would the defending units fire twice? Would the bonus only apply against the +eta attacker? Etc etc sounds like a miserable thing to code. And this game is notoriously bad at "scaling"

poorly thought out idea. Too hard and confusing to implement. Thumbs down

 

[Walking_Death]

Toby is right. Route balance would be shot to ****. And how would it work with multiple attackers of different ranges? Would the defending units fire twice? Would the bonus only apply against the +eta attacker? Etc etc sounds like a miserable thing to code. And this game is notoriously bad at "scaling"

poorly thought out idea. Too hard and confusing to implement. Thumbs down

Route balance would not be shot to ****, except for bunker route, but no one cares about them anyway. The idea isn't to ensure victory when defending, but more to give them more incentive to fight, knowing they can damage the attackers a bit. And for the coding, it could actually just be a, roughly "total score defending" vs. "total score attacking" disregard the scalign for each player part :X.

Ok, this is the concept

"Massive trains are bashing someone, be them solo or allied. Their units are a tad bit stronger if they are facing overwhelming odds, and/or make it only for honorable players, and scale it up vs. dishonor as well,

 

[tobapopalos]

This is why I didn't bother explaining myself in my first post. Logic is wasted on you. If you can't see how this would effect route balance then I suggest you go think about it some more.

 

[Walking_Death]

This is why I didn't bother explaining myself in my first post. Logic is wasted on you. If you can't see how this would effect route balance then I suggest you go think about it some more.

what route can only attack at 40%?

Or is unable to attack at 55-60

 

[Alcibiades]

Puppets and bunkers.

Don't forget about recently zeroed players who are trying to rebuild. Also don't forget that in flakwars it is advisable to hit low ranked targets while you can avoid the penalty. I just don't see this solution of yours solving more problems than it creates.

 

[Walking_Death]

Puppets and bunkers.

Don't forget about recently zeroed players who are trying to rebuild. Also don't forget that in flakwars it is advisable to hit low ranked targets while you can avoid the penalty. I just don't see this solution of yours solving more problems than it creates.

bunker route doesn't need to attack anyway. I don't even see the point of it tbh, and puppets are able to hit someone 50%-70% of them anyway. Or, they can hit someone 40% of them and take a little bit more losses when this is implemented than before. Not all that heavy either, just slightly more. In my opinion give bunkers a side unit to compensate, maybe something mobile that would allow them to attack a little bit higher.

 

[Alcibiades]

Horse twaddle. Utter bullshit.

 

[Jonny]

Im amazed what kind of dicks people can be when other people take the time and energy to make constructive thoughts to improve the game. Generally Im not so sure I like the idea but Im not so black and white about it, more of a gray. Id say the % would have to be low but generally I like the idea of replacing the +ETA with something with a bit more point to it. +ETA only deters attacks from people with limited time on their hands, in other words only people outside the top 100 which just so happens to be where the newbies are. In this region of the game the +ETA very much stagnates the game in my opinion because it is not possible to send as many attacks. Higher up their arent any more/less trains just because of +2eta. As for route balancing, you really think Puppets and Bunkers are balanced as of now with H/F? No, I dont think so. They will need reworking anyways, so why not change the attacking disadvantages before readjusting the routes?
Like I said Im not sure if this is the solution but it is not absolute BS especially given the alternatives and what is implemented at the moment. Congrats WD for having the balls to post your ideas, lots of ideas! Keep them coming!

 

[willymchilybily]

i dislike the idea. you can kill your counter route at any size. up to 100% but you attack 40-70% for reduced time away from home and for decreased cap. if i could send eta 5 mobs to 30%-35% its infact for me personally more of an incentive to bash those ranges as generally they are lower than me because poorly set up or recently zeroed.

it also mean you could zeroe some one and players could send and land alot easier without the time penalty. time penalty is good as in an alliance if u wave 30-35% for easy land them firing a bit harder will not stop you you can easily still win with no worries that you wont be back for 17ticks and are unable to defend for 17 ticks i think you would incite more bashing at these ranges. i prefer by far eta + penalties. as a deterent, and obv h/f cap are good. but eta makes a considerable difference and i think it does enough. allows recently zeroed targets more time to get back online and by up. and prevents u attacking them more than once/twice before they are likely to get back on. cant be assed to explain more. but im afraid for numerous reasons eta is superior to a very hard to code increased damage/survivability which no longer allows you to know what to send to outflak a pom or what WK will do to your flak or what will happen if a robo is defended against by an rpg 30% of you and your attack is on some one 70% of you or vice versa some one 30% of u is defended by some one 70% of you that is now another level of complexity.


it seems to complex to understand and therefore to confusing for the player base to get to grips with. imo

 

[tobapopalos]

Puppets and bunkers.

Don't forget about recently zeroed players who are trying to rebuild. Also don't forget that in flakwars it is advisable to hit low ranked targets while you can avoid the penalty. I just don't see this solution of yours solving more problems than it creates.

bunker route doesn't need to attack anyway. I don't even see the point of it tbh, and puppets are able to hit someone 50%-70% of them anyway. Or, they can hit someone 40% of them and take a little bit more losses when this is implemented than before. Not all that heavy either, just slightly more. In my opinion give bunkers a side unit to compensate, maybe something mobile that would allow them to attack a little bit higher.

It wasn't the puppets or bunkers I was thinking about, really, although it would be a big nerf for them. I was more worried about fast-firing routes getting a huge advantage over slower routes. For example, it doesn't matter if you're an RPG and you hit a robo 40% of you and he gets a damage boost on you, because he won't fire anyway. But let's say you're a shield player hitting a TL player. His troops get a bonus on yours before you fire. This means most people will end up going RPG or SA and will definitely unbalance the routes.

Alternatively it could've been a health boost you were suggesting (your suggestion isn't that well explained btw), and that has similar problems.

And that is why I said you hadn't thought it through.

 

[Walking_Death]

Puppets and bunkers.

Don't forget about recently zeroed players who are trying to rebuild. Also don't forget that in flakwars it is advisable to hit low ranked targets while you can avoid the penalty. I just don't see this solution of yours solving more problems than it creates.

bunker route doesn't need to attack anyway. I don't even see the point of it tbh, and puppets are able to hit someone 50%-70% of them anyway. Or, they can hit someone 40% of them and take a little bit more losses when this is implemented than before. Not all that heavy either, just slightly more. In my opinion give bunkers a side unit to compensate, maybe something mobile that would allow them to attack a little bit higher.

It wasn't the puppets or bunkers I was thinking about, really, although it would be a big nerf for them. I was more worried about fast-firing routes getting a huge advantage over slower routes. For example, it doesn't matter if you're an RPG and you hit a robo 40% of you and he gets a damage boost on you, because he won't fire anyway. But let's say you're a shield player hitting a TL player. His troops get a bonus on yours before you fire. This means most people will end up going RPG or SA and will definitely unbalance the routes.

Alternatively it could've been a health boost you were suggesting (your suggestion isn't that well explained btw), and that has similar problems.

And that is why I said you hadn't thought it through.

It's just the idea of getting a penalty for attacking low and dishonorably, because H/F isn't that big a deal. WKs aren't that strong anymore, WWs never were, and both are limited in number. Maybe not this particular idea, but image that concept. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[tobapopalos]

It's just the idea of getting a penalty for attacking low and dishonorably, because H/F isn't that big a deal. WKs aren't that strong anymore, WWs never were, and both are limited in number. Maybe not this particular idea, but image that concept. Do you agree or disagree?

I've already said I don't like the principle of the idea. Attacking honourably or dishonourably makes no difference. It's just two different tactics. You should view H/F as a fun bonus rather than as a system to hindrance the bad guys. 30% is the attack range and that is that. I didn't like the land cap addition, and I don't like this either. People are always going to go for the easiest option so you'll always be trying to change something. You won't stop people hitting at 30% or 40% until it's harder than hitting at 50%. And then they'll probably just team up 2 vs 1 anyway. Big people are always going to be ******** on the little people. You can suggest all the changes you like but you can't change the playerbase.

If eta mods, land caps, bounties and H/F units aren't enough to get people to attack honourably then it aint gonna happen.

 

[Walking_Death]

It's just the idea of getting a penalty for attacking low and dishonorably, because H/F isn't that big a deal. WKs aren't that strong anymore, WWs never were, and both are limited in number. Maybe not this particular idea, but image that concept. Do you agree or disagree?

I've already said I don't like the principle of the idea. Attacking honourably or dishonourably makes no difference. It's just two different tactics. You should view H/F as a fun bonus rather than as a system to hindrance the bad guys. 30% is the attack range and that is that. I didn't like the land cap addition, and I don't like this either. People are always going to go for the easiest option so you'll always be trying to change something. You won't stop people hitting at 30% or 40% until it's harder than hitting at 50%. And then they'll probably just team up 2 vs 1 anyway. Big people are always going to be ******** on the little people. You can suggest all the changes you like but you can't change the playerbase.

If eta mods, land caps, bounties and H/F units aren't enough to get people to attack honourably then it aint gonna happen.

well **** them, and make it just as hard. H/F SHOULDN'T be a little bonus, it should serve a greater role. Basically, I believe that those things dont prevent it because it doesn't go deep enough at all. Bounties can be countered by being in HistoRy where everyone is always on and never sleeps, and H/F units... you act like they're actually useful. They were last round and made great deterrents, but were deemed too powerful (mostly because they totally were).

At the very least, on honorable defenses, increase injury/insurance with the only exceptions being alliances at war.

 

[tobapopalos]

No. There are already enough things to discourage dishonourable attacks. I don't want the game to start forcing people into one style of play. Bashing has always happened and will always happen. That's the way the game works. Forcing people to play one way will just reduce an already reduced playerbase.

In my opinion H/F units should not be a big boost. They should be something small but fun. Making them uber just unbalances things, as we saw last round. But they're still not useless. It's just a little something to reward people for playing honourably.