What exactly deminishes the ammount of H/F you gain from attacks. I've been Attack Dog rushing people250-300% of me and they've all be red titled. and i get little bounty (which i expect due to getting **** bounty for sending not eta 5 and w/o geos) but i also get like 7 honor and 10 fame. its so ridiculous the only way i've been able to gain is by losing land. so what are all the req.s?
H/F Losses.
- Thread starter Davis
- Start date
- eta send
- total score attacking vs total score defending
- k/d ratio (distract/disable gives less) value wise
- lose/gain land value wise.
- repeat attack
- total score attacking vs total score defending
- k/d ratio (distract/disable gives less) value wise
- lose/gain land value wise.
- repeat attack
no i dont expect to gain very much, but still if i'm attacking someone with a bounty on their head thats 300% of me and killing them, I should be rewarded more than 7 h 10 f and like 3% of the bounty. After all they were playing in a negative manor so they should be killed! RIGHT? 
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
didnt azzer say rush didnt affect bounty i thought therefore it would have little affect on h/f
also i would have thought its based on the amount of units you're facing aka its honourable because its >80% range but the actual numbers of units your facing must be small. for you to get to last tick with dogs and kill flak, surely means thier lethals are out.
or your not making much if any more damage to them than they are doing to you??
and 7 honour is probably only because they are so much bigger and have a red title, prolly would get zilch otherwise.
also i would have thought its based on the amount of units you're facing aka its honourable because its >80% range but the actual numbers of units your facing must be small. for you to get to last tick with dogs and kill flak, surely means thier lethals are out.
or your not making much if any more damage to them than they are doing to you??
and 7 honour is probably only because they are so much bigger and have a red title, prolly would get zilch otherwise.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
Bounty gains go hand in hand with honour, in the sense that as you say you are already aware that the nature of your attack rightly warranted a reduced bounty gain (single unit attack, low ETA attack etc.) - well those factors also apply to your honour gains thus making it net much less onour (though you still get honour nonetheless!).
So you can get honour for attack dog rushing people high up in the rankings, and a little extra on top for attacking the red titled ones, but it's never going to be up to the same scale as a "real attack".
(perhaps I should also point out there there are also some checks in how much % of your total units you have sent, so people that send out 5 attacks at the same time, each containing only a small proportion of their total units, will find it hard to get huge honour from all five attacks simultaneously).
So you can get honour for attack dog rushing people high up in the rankings, and a little extra on top for attacking the red titled ones, but it's never going to be up to the same scale as a "real attack".
(perhaps I should also point out there there are also some checks in how much % of your total units you have sent, so people that send out 5 attacks at the same time, each containing only a small proportion of their total units, will find it hard to get huge honour from all five attacks simultaneously).
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
oo thats a cool little feature. So if you risk it all and win its like mega h/f reward.
is that the same with dishonour presumably. attacking 3 targets 30% of you(assuming you send /3rd your troops) is less dishonourable than attacking 1 target 30% of you with all of them?
is that the same with dishonour presumably. attacking 3 targets 30% of you(assuming you send /3rd your troops) is less dishonourable than attacking 1 target 30% of you with all of them?
Ahead
Head Gardener
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 275
I've got a question on h/f losses so I thought I'd post here instead of making a new thread.
I'm not concerned about the fact that I lost honour or how much, it's more a case of spot the difference (i.e. I don't understand what's different between the two ticks, but honour loss changes hugely).
Tick 1:
Battle Report - Attacking bot [x]
[range] 200,000 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 135,064 hostile staff.
Died: 135,064 [£1,724,536,000] enemies dead.
You gained 1,690 effectiveness.
You gained 2.22 fame.
You lost 27.81 honour.
You earned £9,743,523 bounty.
Tick 2:
Battle Report - Attacking same bot [x]
[middle] 200,000 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 134,811 hostile staff.
Died: 134,811 [£1,617,732,000] enemies dead.
You gained 1,631 effectiveness.
You gained 0.42 fame.
You lost 5.40 honour.
You earned £7,072,938 bounty.
Obviously there's a difference of 22 in the amount of honour lost but no real difference in the amount killed. I was the only person there both ticks and I don't think the bot gained score between the two ticks but I'm not entirely sure - even still he was still less than 40% of me after second tick. Explanations?
I'm not concerned about the fact that I lost honour or how much, it's more a case of spot the difference (i.e. I don't understand what's different between the two ticks, but honour loss changes hugely).
Tick 1:
Battle Report - Attacking bot [x]
[range] 200,000 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 135,064 hostile staff.
Died: 135,064 [£1,724,536,000] enemies dead.
You gained 1,690 effectiveness.
You gained 2.22 fame.
You lost 27.81 honour.
You earned £9,743,523 bounty.
Tick 2:
Battle Report - Attacking same bot [x]
[middle] 200,000 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 134,811 hostile staff.
Died: 134,811 [£1,617,732,000] enemies dead.
You gained 1,631 effectiveness.
You gained 0.42 fame.
You lost 5.40 honour.
You earned £7,072,938 bounty.
Obviously there's a difference of 22 in the amount of honour lost but no real difference in the amount killed. I was the only person there both ticks and I don't think the bot gained score between the two ticks but I'm not entirely sure - even still he was still less than 40% of me after second tick. Explanations?
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
After hammering him without anything happening back for one tick (and ofc causing him to lose staff), the next tick is deemed as less honourable - still a positive honour gain of course, but not quite as impressive as your "daring do" for that first tick. (you can see the bounty gain is reduced too, it's all tied in together).
Ram
Head Gardener
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2008
- Messages
- 462
First tick sent +2 with no one on my tick.
Died: 1 [£17,500] enemies dead.
You gained 0 effectiveness.
You gained 1.52 fame.
You lost 23.72 honour.
Second tick with 2 other people at attacking period.
Died: 805,481 [£1,772,101,000] enemies dead.
You stole 597 land. [205] tree. [304] bush. [45] flower. [43] grass. [0] uncultivated.
You gained 1,240 effectiveness.
You gained 3.45 fame.
You lost 47.06 honour.
Surely the first tick shouldn't have been such a high loss?
Died: 1 [£17,500] enemies dead.
You gained 0 effectiveness.
You gained 1.52 fame.
You lost 23.72 honour.
Second tick with 2 other people at attacking period.
Died: 805,481 [£1,772,101,000] enemies dead.
You stole 597 land. [205] tree. [304] bush. [45] flower. [43] grass. [0] uncultivated.
You gained 1,240 effectiveness.
You gained 3.45 fame.
You lost 47.06 honour.
Surely the first tick shouldn't have been such a high loss?
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
The values have some pre-set "minimums" for certain situations, irrelevant of what happened. These are the "starting figures", before calculations get applied such as circumstances of attack, type of units involved, was it a "real" attack or a rush, what are the scores of people involved, how many people involved, repeat attacks, etc. etc. etc. - hence your let unit triggering the fact you were killing somebody at such a low range and triggering a big honour loss. So an attack with just 1 kill can generate that kind of honour loss in the correct circumstances (it doesn't scale simply based on what units have been killed/valuation of units killed - hence your 1 unit kill doesn't "scale" to the larger kill with a 40 honour loss afterwards)
I could probably alter some of the limits to require a minimum of say 1% of the total target's staff to be lost before any of these minimum's are required, rather than allowing them to hit from a single LET unit attacking, but either way there would have to be some cut-off point where the engine has to consider applying genuine values, or ignoring the attack as a "fake".
(it doesn't scale simply based on what units have been killed/valuation of units killed - hence your 1 unit kill doesn't "scale" to the larger kill with a 40 honour loss afterwards)I could probably alter some of the limits to require a minimum of say 1% of the total target's staff to be lost before any of these minimum's are required, rather than allowing them to hit from a single LET unit attacking, but either way there would have to be some cut-off point where the engine has to consider applying genuine values, or ignoring the attack as a "fake".
Ahead
Head Gardener
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 275
I actually lost honour both ticks
What's strange is that second tick was seen as "more honourable", i.e. I lost less honour (5 compared to 27). The bounty gain was reduced, as was the honour LOSS, but in actual fact the game saw second tick as "less dishonourable" than first tick, implying that bounty and negative honour are actually inversely tied?