DeletedUser3885
Guest
Already being crazy!!!
In a theater near you!!!!
In a theater near you!!!!
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
DeletedUser3500
Guest
LOL This is rly funny.
DeletedUser
Guest
This is diamond revived cause the score doesn't add up. Meaning it was prolly a much closer fight than it shows 
Well done though.
Well done though.
BestWarrior
Baronet
The main question here is not how many atacker troops died. Where is the limit for the 150% atack bonus? here we see 706% defense boost...
DeletedUser2752
Guest
It would be truly impossible to breach through a defense of 1174% given the units we can use right now. (So space-wise that's about 293 watchfires which is about 19 expansions worth)
DeletedUser
Guest
Actually according to my estimates you can mount first unbreakeble defensive setup at around ~850% defense bonus where without some terrible AI freeze/crash, human player really should not win any more never. But I think byeordie meant not even make 1 damage(close range howlitzer(127.5) vs tank(765) u assumed there?).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser2752
Guest
Yep
A tank has a very slight chance of not damaging a howitzer at full attack, so if you are really, really lucky. 8 howitzers (or howitzer and rogue combo) should have a chance at tanks past 850% defense
A tank has a very slight chance of not damaging a howitzer at full attack, so if you are really, really lucky. 8 howitzers (or howitzer and rogue combo) should have a chance at tanks past 850% defense
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Yep
A tank has a chance of not damaging a howitzer at full attack, so if you are really, really lucky. 8 howitzers should have a chance at tanks past 850% defense
Well just look at the ratios. It would be 127.5/102.5 howlitzer(150% bonus, 2 tiles away and on grass) against 30/570 tank(850% bonus). Tank would be hitting 29.3%(1/3.4) blows usually dealing out damage with it. Howlitzer would be hitting 22.4%(1/4.5) blows, rarely dealing out damage at that stage. Those ratios are for example quite similar to 8 tank vs 8 tank scenario where offense has 150% bonus and defense like 325%, which we know is no problem for attacker. But you would be in the position of defense there numbers wise, think how unlikely it is to win that one if you were fighting as defending army. One idea there is that if u can use few tanks in mix as bait to direct the bigger damage blows away from howlitzers. But I would not know if AI would fall for that trap having howlizers just in front of em. Besides ur tanks would never make any damage of their own to enemy so u are left with less firepower. But ok I quess 850% could still be possible in theory somewhere. I'd really love to try out tbh, this specuation stuff is just that
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser3885
Guest
DeletedUser3411
Guest
there should be an max for defence. I have seen 1000 defense on another world, thats to idiot for words
DeletedUser
Guest
The problem here lies in the Watchfires. I really don't know how they thought when they came up with the idea of adding a building that could boost defence and be bought as many times as the player wanted. Oh wait, I actually do know why:
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
They made a mistake, but the "fix" was worse than the problem.
The defense bonus is VERY bad, it's unbalanced to the offense bonus.
The logical fix would have been:
A) Remove the defense bonus from the attack bonus, leaving 150% attack for offensive bonus and 200% defense for defensive bonus, or
B) Reduce the defense bonus to half in the offensive bonus (so it has 150% attack and 75% defense), AND add a 75% max attack bonus to the defensive bonus (so it is 75% attack and 200% defense).
Did they do that? Noooo...
Instead, they introduced the watchtower AND the monastery, and made a worse imbalance.
The defense bonus is VERY bad, it's unbalanced to the offense bonus.
The logical fix would have been:
A) Remove the defense bonus from the attack bonus, leaving 150% attack for offensive bonus and 200% defense for defensive bonus, or
B) Reduce the defense bonus to half in the offensive bonus (so it has 150% attack and 75% defense), AND add a 75% max attack bonus to the defensive bonus (so it is 75% attack and 200% defense).
Did they do that? Noooo...
Instead, they introduced the watchtower AND the monastery, and made a worse imbalance.
Yang10
Marquis
You still have to remember that the monastery, at least, is for those in the Early Middle Ages, who have "no" defense. Also those who have this kind of excesive defense (putting aside the St. Basil's Cathedral and the Deal Castle) are those who spent al their diamonds and bought more in the Easter Event just to get the watchfires.
That's my piece in this conversation.
That's my piece in this conversation.
DeletedUser
Guest
Oh, yeah.
This Easter things are going to get interesting. If they do the same event and allow watchfires to be bought, there will be a frenzy about purchasing them and bringing defense to even more ridiculous levels, BUT if they do not offer the watchfire, the outrage against them will be deafening. Bad if you do, bad if you don't.
Currently, I think the only rational solution would be to admit they made a mistake about the watchfires, remove them all from the game, and put the offensive and defensive bonuses as I suggested in my previous post. This will create an uproar from all people that acquired too many watchfires, even spending diamonds on them, but it would provide a more balanced game in the long run.
Of course, doing that would mean that they had to swallow their pride and admit they made two mistakes: first imbalancing the offensive/defensive bonuses (I suspect that some developers wanted an "aggressive" game, and rewarded offense over defense), and second, that their fix was worse than the original problem.
Knowing human nature, it won't happen. They will make some attempt to fix the "defense problem" without addressing the original problem and probably will make matters worse. Only time will tell.
This Easter things are going to get interesting. If they do the same event and allow watchfires to be bought, there will be a frenzy about purchasing them and bringing defense to even more ridiculous levels, BUT if they do not offer the watchfire, the outrage against them will be deafening. Bad if you do, bad if you don't.
Currently, I think the only rational solution would be to admit they made a mistake about the watchfires, remove them all from the game, and put the offensive and defensive bonuses as I suggested in my previous post. This will create an uproar from all people that acquired too many watchfires, even spending diamonds on them, but it would provide a more balanced game in the long run.
Of course, doing that would mean that they had to swallow their pride and admit they made two mistakes: first imbalancing the offensive/defensive bonuses (I suspect that some developers wanted an "aggressive" game, and rewarded offense over defense), and second, that their fix was worse than the original problem.
Knowing human nature, it won't happen. They will make some attempt to fix the "defense problem" without addressing the original problem and probably will make matters worse. Only time will tell.
DeletedUser
Guest
So wait, u are actually saying that these watchfires/defenseGBs are overpowered?
If my opponent were to use 175 tiles of his town space to have some 700% defense bonus and be unbreakeble most of the time, I would clap my hands of happiness. I would not gain some 15k PvP points ala 300 rank points beating him, but that space misses him out on 175/13.5=13 deli shops. 13 deli shops can give 1.15M supplies ala 3.8k rank points per day if motivated and under LoA and RAH. Or 800k supplies ala 2.7k rank points if just under RAH(player has more than 40 deli shops anyways). Or even with wost case scenario, unmotivated and under just RAH, still 400k supplies ala 1.33k rank points. Either way he will be missing out on 5x+ more than he makes me to miss out on.
If my opponent were to use 175 tiles of his town space to have some 700% defense bonus and be unbreakeble most of the time, I would clap my hands of happiness. I would not gain some 15k PvP points ala 300 rank points beating him, but that space misses him out on 175/13.5=13 deli shops. 13 deli shops can give 1.15M supplies ala 3.8k rank points per day if motivated and under LoA and RAH. Or 800k supplies ala 2.7k rank points if just under RAH(player has more than 40 deli shops anyways). Or even with wost case scenario, unmotivated and under just RAH, still 400k supplies ala 1.33k rank points. Either way he will be missing out on 5x+ more than he makes me to miss out on.
DeletedUser
Guest
Depends on how we play the game
Me for instance, is not interested in global ranking at all, for me, it's just a number. What's important for me, is how much control I have in my current neighborhood So for instance, I don't attack to get points in towers, but instead to plunder. So if I can't attack someone just because he has bought a super defense is for me like InnoGames would have put up an offer like: "give us some cash and you'll be safe" DeletedUser
Guest
meh I don't see what the big deal is. He is missing out on a ton of other things by using this space, and what he is getting in return is not worth it at all. If he got plundered, he would not lose the amount of coins, goods, or supplies he is giving up. He also misses out on military buildings or GBs with that space. He chose to do that and most people wouldn't make that choice even if all those things were free. He didn't necessarily have to buy any diamonds to get there either. The watchfires were inexpensive in egg cost, and he could have gotten lucky in summer event. They have also given a lot of diamonds away on here. I feel like you not being able to attack one person in your hood is an incredibly minor problem given the consequences he faces for making his town like that. If he was able to do that without any trade-off, then I would have a completely different opinion.
