Lower Injury rates.

[Cheese]

As the title suggests... lower injury rates.
Why?
Because they are currently ridiculous... 85% for a pure solo is unbelievable... It then makes them untouchable for 3 days at least... how are you supposed to kill someone then? By the time their AR is back to a normal rate they have more staff than the first time you killed them.

The injury rate makes it currently impossible to kill anyone... It just makes it possible to slow down growth. Insurance was never this high why does injuries have to be?
My suggestion is lower injury max down to 60%
Injury should be a compensation for being raped... not something that helps you get the top ranks.
And come on I believe my strikers can fire and kill more than 15% of the staff... not just take 85% of their knee caps out so they have to go to hospital.

[Knotted Balloon]

Dont remember u complaining before u deleted and restarted

[pinpower]

BURN!!!! :onfire:

[CLem]

you only get the 85% injury rate if you get bashed as a solo. So if you want to do more damage to the solo, don't bash him :/

[Souls]

When injuries were mentioned, I imagined injury rates around 25, 30%. :P

[Hobbezak]

you only get the 85% injury rate if you get bashed as a solo. So if you want to do more damage to the solo, don't bash him :/

Now that's bollocks. I hit a solo at 170% and he got at least 70% back... (And if my memory serves me right, a lot more than 70%)

[CLem]

well I have not got over 65% injury before unless the attacker sent eta 7 on me

[CFalcon]

AR mod certainly needs a rethink now. It made sense last round, but this round it's completely overpowered to get most of your units back *and* get a huge AR mod.

I agree that maybe injuries need a slight reduction. Maybe take the 40/50/60 base percentages we have at the moment down to 30/40/50. The idea of stopping anyone getting instantly wiped is a great one, but it should still be possible to knock someone down, if not putting them out of the game completely.

[Garrett]

As the title suggests... lower injury rates.
Why?
Because they are currently ridiculous... 85% for a pure solo is unbelievable... It then makes them untouchable for 3 days at least... how are you supposed to kill someone then? By the time their AR is back to a normal rate they have more staff than the first time you killed them.

The injury rate makes it currently impossible to kill anyone... It just makes it possible to slow down growth. Insurance was never this high why does injuries have to be?
My suggestion is lower injury max down to 60%
Injury should be a compensation for being raped... not something that helps you get the top ranks.
And come on I believe my strikers can fire and kill more than 15% of the staff... not just take 85% of their knee caps out so they have to go to hospital.

you know i love you, but why did you not whine about this when you were a psolo this round? :P

now that you have turned traitor to the cause and joined an alliance, you want to cut me at the knees. FOR SHAME :D

[Cheese]

Course I didn't complain as a solo :P
Would you? :P

I am now experiencing it from the other side... and this side it sucks :P

[Garrett]

Course I didn't complain as a solo :P
Would you? :P

I am now experiencing it from the other side... and this side it sucks :P


well that's the whole part and parcel of my post my friend

[DarkSider]

Injuries *must* be smaller. Those that say you have to 'bash' a solo so he gets full 85% injury talk from rumours without having any kind of evidence. I was attacked by a single person 165% of me (150% is the limit for beeing lawful attack), had a defender as big as me and i still got max injuries. I don't think that counted as a bash. But before thinking of lowering the injuries we need part 2 of the changes where l/f will drop the rates for most players :P

[Melnibone]

And that in itself will negate any need for bounties to be brought back so you can all stop the silly whining in other threads :) but then you'll probably want to have your cake and eat it too :)

[Hobo]

Not quite sure why we need this.
Solos lost their insurance and allies gained injuries.... so although we get AR it goes ( and in this landwhoring game that isnt going to stop flak attacks getting your land), we get bashed by an ally again, and we get AR, then it goes, then we get bashed by an ally again then the round ends.
If you want to be able to wipe people out of the game and bash them senseless fight an Ally, they get less injury and you can send as much as you want.
Or maye we should just ban injury rates for solos, and then give them less AR

[Cheese]

Not quite sure why we need this.
Solos lost their insurance and allies gained injuries.... so although we get AR it goes ( and in this landwhoring game that isnt going to stop flak attacks getting your land), we get bashed by an ally again, and we get AR, then it goes, then we get bashed by an ally again then the round ends.
If you want to be able to wipe people out of the game and bash them senseless fight an Ally, they get less injury and you can send as much as you want.
Or maye we should just ban injury rates for solos, and then give them less AR

No maybe you should read my suggestion again.
Injury rates make it near impossible for you to kill anyone... not just solos.
It has slowed the game down too much.
I aint asking for a dramatic change but defo lowering it a little bit... then people will actually get ranks they deserve.

[Hobo]

not quite sure how its gonna affect the rankings when everyone is in the same boat regarding injuries? and apologies if you didnt mean solos, but you did mention 85% for solos, then AR and then insurance not being as high. So i kinda see where i made the mistake thinking you meant them. What with Ally players not getting Insurance or AR or 85% injury rates :)

i would have thought that the top ranks would appreciate being able to hit more targets, i haven't seen any particular issues and i think the only ones to suffer greatly would be solos who then couldnt defend themselves against the ally bashes that are increasing in frequency this round.

[Cheese]

If you think about it it would affect rankings.

Player A at rank 50 gets hit by Player B.
Player B 'zeroes' Player A...
12ticks later...
Player A has 85% staff returned and is now rank 62

With lower injuries same happens but they still properly feel the effect of being zeroed, somebody who last round would be long out of the top 100 if this happened to them.

The size of the injury return doesn't teach new people to understand the route layout as much no more...
You don't need to... you can now just mass a cheap unit and stop abuse the injury system with AR to keep nice and fat :)

[Hobo]

i agree that the massing of cheap units is getting silly ( and yes i know i have 300 million odd gurus :evil: ) they way the game seems to be going is that flak massing and flak stopper massing are all are being done because if you kill someone they are coming back where as i you take their land they dont get anything.
and that this means route set ups are way out at the moment, but its kinda cause and effect. If the people above are mass flaking then players will have to adapt to that and try to stop it.
if they send killing troops then they will have to adapt to that too. Cheap troops are soemtmes more cost effective to stop the flak for some routes.
As for AR abuse i agree its starting to suck, i can understand why its done with exp gone it is simply a case of tapping numbers into a calc ( i do it myself and this round i am amazed at the sucess rate) so AR is literally the only unknown on an attack.
maybe somesort of injury reduction on fair attacks? as in player on player, non bashing.
so not jeep/biker/hummer rushes
i know what you mean about not being able to kill, but im guessing the system was prob introduced to stop a mass bash destroying peoples rounds. getting a top rank can rely on who you know more than how good you are i think

[Cheese]

Setting it down to 60% max will still stop people getting raped.
But it will allow the round to flow more.

[willymchilybily]

you only get the 85% injury rate if you get bashed as a solo. So if you want to do more damage to the solo, don't bash him :/

Now that's bollocks. I hit a solo at 170% and he got at least 70% back... (And if my memory serves me right, a lot more than 70%)

now injuries. First of all, even IF what you said is true.

how on earth would you know how many men he gets back.
did you actually wait the time it took for your targets men to return.

Did you actuall flyover him and count his seeds every tick and check he didnt plant

did you do a calc and work out how much score of his is funds, then recalc when all his men came back to see how many men returned and what his funds were like and see if he bought any additional men. whilst checking he didnt plant his seeds. or sell his plants

If...thats right....IF you did ....then fair play. your right . congrats. but that doesnt change a damn thing because the fact is the system isnt meant to work like that and azzer will/is fixing it.

So stop whining.

now a personal point. im solo. I like the bonus 5% injury. so obv not going to complan. but i do agree. reducing the injury rate in general is a good idea....but at the same time. solo's should always have an injury advantage over an allaince member just because they only have one route at thier disposal. one store of funds to buy up with. (sure they cud have naps but so could anyone) So yes they will always be harder to kill.


Injuries *must* be smaller. Those that say you have to 'bash' a solo so he gets full 85% injury talk from rumours without having any kind of evidence. I was attacked by a single person 165% of me (150% is the limit for beeing lawful attack), had a defender as big as me and i still got max injuries. I don't think that counted as a bash. But before thinking of lowering the injuries we need part 2 of the changes where l/f will drop the rates for most players :P
agreed

[Hoofed]

my person views on the issue is that injury comes back WAY to quickly and also WAY to much staff is returned.... take a top 100 player.... getting completely wiped than a few hrs later having 80% of their staff returned.... WTF!!!! injury imo should be at around 10-15%. u still must pay for your bad attacks and the people u attack should feel pain after a nice attack on them....

to me this entire round is just about how much land u can hold onto..... the more land the faster u can grow.... u get wiped and your allaince manages to save your land, well back to square one... hence why the top three allaince this round aer just having a petty battle.... its piontless......

sigh.... overall not a fan of injury so take this as a one sided view if u like..

[Hobbezak]

you only get the 85% injury rate if you get bashed as a solo. So if you want to do more damage to the solo, don't bash him :/

Now that's bollocks. I hit a solo at 170% and he got at least 70% back... (And if my memory serves me right, a lot more than 70%)

now injuries. First of all, even IF what you said is true.

how on earth would you know how many men he gets back.
did you actually wait the time it took for your targets men to return.

Did you actuall flyover him and count his seeds every tick and check he didnt plant

did you do a calc and work out how much score of his is funds, then recalc when all his men came back to see how many men returned and what his funds were like and see if he bought any additional men. whilst checking he didnt plant his seeds. or sell his plants

If...thats right....IF you did ....then fair play. your right . congrats. but that doesnt change a damn thing because the fact is the system isnt meant to work like that and azzer will/is fixing it.

Yes I did, because I wanted to resend to take his land...

So stop whining.
Keep the "stop whining"-comments to yourself. I just give an example of why Clem's reasoning is bollocks.


now a personal point. im solo. I like the bonus 5% injury. so obv not going to complan. but i do agree. reducing the injury rate in general is a good idea....but at the same time. solo's should always have an injury advantage over an allaince member just because they only have one route at thier disposal. one store of funds to buy up with. (sure they cud have naps but so could anyone) So yes they will always be harder to kill.

Solos have the disadvantage of having only 1 route at their disposal, true. But they have the advantage of AR. So in your reasoning, I could say "Alliance players need a higher injury, as they can be bashed, and solos can't". You being killed = AR-mod of 90%. Don't you think somewhere that there's something overpowered somewhere if you get more troops back AND get a massive AR-mod? :/

[rooney]

BH was removed cos l/f is broken. injuries are based on l/f. therefore, injuries were broken from the start. the way to fix it is to fix l/f or rebuild it from ground up.

as for injuries making ally wars impossible, how about a massive reduction to injuries on an ally with a war declaration on them. for example ally A declares war on ally B, but B doesnt declare back.

A attacks B so B gets very low injuries.
B attacks A and A gets normal injuries.
C attacks A and A gets normal injuries.

maybe this could be abused but i dont see how so correct me if it could but thats the best way imo.

[willymchilybily]

now a personal point. im solo. I like the bonus 5% injury. so obv not going to complain. but i do agree. reducing the injury rate in general is a good idea....but at the same time. solo's should always have an injury advantage over an allaince member just because they only have one route at thier disposal. one store of funds to buy up with. (sure they cud have naps but so could anyone) So yes they will always be harder to kill.

Solos have the disadvantage of having only 1 route at their disposal, true. But they have the advantage of AR. So in your reasoning, I could say "Alliance players need a higher injury, as they can be bashed, and solos can't". You being killed = AR-mod of 90%. Don't you think somewhere that there's something overpowered somewhere if you get more troops back AND get a massive AR-mod? :/

Touche....but solos always had insurance alliance never did. alliance getting injuries is okay. but solo's getting injuries is required. as once they have been bashed and they have that ar mod if they are fully wiped out then its easy land for any one who follows on. not even 90% ar mod will stop 10k geos. injuries limits that window of oppertunity. also you dont have a continuous ar mod as a solo. but as an allie you should always get defence. They're clearly not compareable. especially as solos lost exp which they had before when bashed. and they lost insurance. and all they got was injuries which alliance has too.

an allaince can only really be successfully killed by another allie. a solo can be killed easily by the right route or any one bigger than him. and so few routes aren't able to be played (succesfully)as a solo. they are clearly at a dissadvantage. hence why they had insurance. sure im not saying 90%mod + injuries is good. but as an allie your relying on your allies to defend you. if they dont defend you then your allie isnt good enough. so yeah you could get bashed. but you have the ability to get adaquit defence. If your allaince is good enough. BEing in a good allie is so much easier than being solo.

if you're going to lower injuries. maybe something like this would work. imo anyway.
maybe put 50% inj. rate for defender 40% lawful attack 20% unlawful attack. pure solos get the 5%

and as a solo be able to develop another 5% at a high dev cost.

remember also injuries works both ways. if you raped and killed some one landing them. then in 9 days they will have 0 ar mod and be easily back in range maybe with more land for you to attack again.
I think that may work. ofc. havent put much thought into it. so feel free to pick holes in it

[tobapopalos]

my person views on the issue is that injury comes back WAY to quickly and also WAY to much staff is returned.... take a top 100 player.... getting completely wiped than a few hrs later having 80% of their staff returned.... WTF!!!! injury imo should be at around 10-15%. u still must pay for your bad attacks and the people u attack should feel pain after a nice attack on them....

to me this entire round is just about how much land u can hold onto..... the more land the faster u can grow.... u get wiped and your allaince manages to save your land, well back to square one... hence why the top three allaince this round aer just having a petty battle.... its piontless......

sigh.... overall not a fan of injury so take this as a one sided view if u like..

Agreed with pretty much all of that. The injury rates are way too high. I think about 30% would be decent. It's enough to be able to play the game, but you'll still be pissed off about getting attacked. At the moment I don't really care if I die, cause I know I'll be getting most of my troops back.

[Melnibone]

and therein lies the reason why i like injuries i see it from the other side of the coin so to speak

in rounds past everyone moaned at the lack of wars and fights in bush, now everyone is complaining that they dont care if they die as they get troops back, therefore people are attacking more staying when they'd previously have recalled and generally getting more involved

i think the problem here is not about yourself having fun its about 'zeroing' others and spoiling their fun, now that its impossible to totally ruin someones round with a bash/wave why isnt that seen as positive??? because you cant be petty and mean and kill everything someone has??? you can still kill them and steal their land but your complaining because they dont stay dead?????

i dont think the problem lies with the injury system but more certain peoples motivation for playing the game

[tobapopalos]

i think the problem here is not about yourself having fun its about 'zeroing' others and spoiling their fun, now that its impossible to totally ruin someones round with a bash/wave why isnt that seen as positive??? because you cant be petty and mean and kill everything someone has??? you can still kill them and steal their land but your complaining because they dont stay dead?????

Being mean is fun. The whole point of a war game is to kill other people and ruin their day. What could be more fun than that? And yes I'm complaining that people don't stay dead. And not just other people, but myself included. I get zeroed and 2 hours later I'm pretty much the same strength as I was before I even got attacked. It's ridiculous.

[Nonny]

i think the problem here is not about yourself having fun its about 'zeroing' others and spoiling their fun, now that its impossible to totally ruin someones round with a bash/wave why isnt that seen as positive??? because you cant be petty and mean and kill everything someone has??? you can still kill them and steal their land but your complaining because they dont stay dead?????

Being mean is fun. The whole point of a war game is to kill other people and ruin their day. What could be more fun than that? And yes I'm complaining that people don't stay dead. And not just other people, but myself included. I get zeroed and 2 hours later I'm pretty much the same strength as I was before I even got attacked. It's ridiculous.


I agree with Melnibone 100%.

We've gone from, "It's not fair, I spent weeks building myself up to lose it in a few minutes", to, "It's not fair! Although I can zero people and take their land just as before, after awhile they come baaaaacck!!!".......

Re: How you get your fun Tobapopalos. You are definately not being invited to my birthday party with that attitude young man! ;)

A wargame is not about grinding your opponent into the dirt and pwning them with your huge cyber dick. It's about being the better strategist and using tactics to acquire a prize.


If you're coming back virtually untouched then surely:

1) you must be being bashed
2) they're not landing.

[DarkSider]

I agree with toby 100% :D
How can you say it's all about attacking and getting land without carying what happens to your oponent. The booring way to play in an alliance is outfarm your oponents, steal land from noobs faster than they can. The "real" war alliances go for direct combat doing alot of damage to their enemies. How can you do that damage if even if you do manage to zero one target it's certain he looses at most 20% of his whole army while doing some damage back. Atm if he does 1/3 damage back and you totally zero him it's an even fight.
There must be a balance between attacking and defending. If you do random attacks every day when you cba and hope to get a bit of land it doesn't bother you much what the other guy gets as injury, he is not your enemy. If you are activelly involved in alliance wars .. see how many complain about too high injuries :P

[Nonny]

I think balance is the key word here DS.

Alliance players want it to be minimal so that they can beat each other down. (At least the bigger ones who are active, I don't know about the bottom?).

Solo's, without exp and injuries, don't.

This talk of 10 - 15% injuries, by a few not all, I confess, that I have seen in this thread is essentially what drew my response.

Cheese's initial 60% seemed much more reasonable as a number to work around.

No extension on the time out though. As BW has pointed out in another thread it's theoretically abusable as it is. Extend it and theory becomes a definate and usable fact.
Surely a day is enough for an alliance to rape an enemy of land? I don't mean that sarcastically, I honestly don't know. On the face of it it sounds like plenty?

If ally players want lower injury rates then maybe a mix of injury and a return of smaller insurance for solo players?

[Augustus]

BH was removed cos l/f is broken. injuries are based on l/f. therefore, injuries were broken from the start. the way to fix it is to fix l/f or rebuild it from ground up.

as for injuries making ally wars impossible, how about a massive reduction to injuries on an ally with a war declaration on them. for example ally A declares war on ally B, but B doesnt declare back.

A attacks B so B gets very low injuries.
B attacks A and A gets normal injuries.
C attacks A and A gets normal injuries.

maybe this could be abused but i dont see how so correct me if it could but thats the best way imo.

That is the most logical comment I have read in this thread! The fact that Injuries is based on the 'removed' l/f system is a clear indicator of why its been plagued with bugs and caused a lot of uproar. Secondly the level of returns is way too high. Last round insurance went up to 20% for everyone, more for Solos, and I thought that was generous. Now we have a system that effectively gives 60-80% insurance most of the time, which is rediculous. I like the fact that I wake up to find even though I've lost some land and troops, I have some Harvs & Gards that have returned so Seeds are still coming in and I can plant straight away. However what I dont like is that I put a lot of effort into hitting the alliance above mine, successfully drop their score, only to have them overtake us again 3 hours later. It means you have to go back again and again and again, demoralising and tiring for both attackers and defenders. This problem, I feel, has been the root cause of so many Alliances disbanding this round. As the constant waves has been more than enough reason for people to leave out of despair.