Land cap, injuries etc.

[BlackWolf]

Yeah well i dont give a smeg if some #1 guy complains how they are so sucky they cant attack their own size. Hell iv been there and i wouldnt complain of it.
Theres this concept of "good for game" and i actually honestly think this is amongst best changes in bush history... but but but!

Why the hell you Azzer wanna change it? uhh....
No anyways this is not gripe so to suggestion...

1. Land cap should start much higher not lower... it should start simply from 100% and from that drop bit by bit lower. It may sound stupid but if it drops down cumulatively lower you go it should work.
Why? Cause instead of people complaining of how they cant cap we could tell them to smeg off. There is no such thing as max cap of 15% its history but you could get that by attacking someone of your own size.
2. Higher cap for higher you attack... been suggested earlier too so thats it.
3. Injuries should get lower based on how low on range you attack same way as cap rates.
4. Waves, bashes etc should same time increse cap and lower injuries.
5. When someone send to guy whos ranked 2 times lower no matter what kind of def he gets those defenders and that target should get big injuries based on their rank and that whole attack was in first place such ridiculous bashing.
6. When someone send to a guy whos ranked 2 times lower no matter what kind of def there is should land cap still be as high as when attack was started.

Atm. i have seen ridiculous waves and bashes and when we finally been able to team up against one of them we get no units back... that is just stupid!!
If someone from 10 alliance ranks above us sends to us and we get lower injuries than he do... huh! This is still not fixed. But it really should.
Im not against alliance wars. And im not against resistances. Hell yes i think alliances are supposed to be able to attack others but im saying that if person whos ranked 150 ranks above is attacking alliance that is 10 ranks below and on top of that doing it on waves and still those defenders gets only 35% injuries... its just stupid!

Atm this game is still encouraging massing and waving. Its freaking ok when theres 2 alliances and they are close to each others in rank. They have war declared etc. But this game is not preventing and not even trying to suggest alliances, solo groups etc. not to attack low on ranks.
Hell let there be wars. But let those be against someone whom can stand up and fight back. Instead of massing and waving helpless alliances those top alliances should war and raid each others for acres.
In case they go after acres of low people then those on bottom should get advantage of injuries and land cap... and that 60% is not even nearly enough in such cases.

In case it would be retaliation, or attack on top it would be different story then i would completely understand game calculating as it is. Now i dont.

[LAFiN]

I'm going to say what I've been saying all along. I loved these changes as soon as they were introduced. Sure there have been some bugs, but that's expected. One thing I should think that has been needed is to raise the attack limit to 40% for +2, 50% for +1 and 55% for regular ETAs. That would even things out a little more.

I'm sad to see that land caps have been reduced. Learn to attack in your own range or don't complain when you're bashing smaller people is resulting in less gains. It's not very fair for the smaller people to have to deal with 100mil incs at this point in the round. How on earth are they supposed to stop that? They can't. Therefore easy acres should have less benefit.

As it is now, I'll be honest. I attack at 45-60%. There's no real reason for me to attack at higher ranges at the moment, and as I see it, some land is better than no land. But... I have to emphasize SOME. You should not get full reward for crushing people who have no chance of saving themselves.

[DarkSider]

Both your posts are subjective and you look at the situation entirelly from your position (you don't have problems getting bits of land at low ranks and you want any change to be implemented to save your ass).
You probably didn't notice land cap was way too harsh for something coded so basic. If grabs should go to as low as 2%-5% the system must work perfect. There is nothing to prevent abusing the caps on enemy member attacks, following an attack for easy land, diference between attacking a solo player or allianced, diference depending alliance size of victim compared to yours, if you are solo/allied, if it's repeat attack and list can go on. In fact i'm not even sure a balance can be found to cover all the important parts, especially the waving part. You look at this only from victim point of view as you personally have no problems on the attacking side.
Imho outside war attacks should have fixed caps, maybe this cap a bit lowered, say 10-12% standard for geos while in alliance war, depending the size of your oponent, you can get increased land grabs in attacks.

[BlackWolf]

Please dont go to that route when you know damn well we both know what is being in top too.
We know sides of this game so get a life. We just think even as part of top alliance we could live with either attacking someone of our own size or not at all.
Simple as that.
We clearly unlike you do have some guts to do so.
Trying to hide what you think and have written to other posts in form of "was too hars" is just BS. This is my suggestion disagree all you want, i dont care. But at least have courage to admit why your disagreeing.

[f0xx]

BW and his usual nonsense... you are the one that should get a life mate.

[DarkSider]

We just think even as part of top alliance we could live with either attacking someone of our own size or not at all.
Simple as that.
We clearly unlike you do have some guts to do so.



You're just a propaganda machine BW :P Everytime when something is against you, you post how you'd do if you where in the other guy shoes, how great and honorable etc bla bla.
You have guts to do what? IF you where in a top alliance to attack somebody of same size or not at all ? That's just theory, speculation, your big imagination, posts that have no connection with reality. Pretty much things that define you :P
You are saying something like: If i had a million dollars i'd donate 100.000 $ to charity. Look how generous i am.
Make your top alliance and attack only same sized alliances or not at all, it's easy to talk fiction ..


Back on topic, you sugested, i posted my point of view. If you don't want to get replyes to your sugestions send them in pm to Azzer :)

[BlackWolf]

I think I have been on top more than you have, also I say there was no reason to attack under 2 times of my score when i was there. Hell yes i did it cause it was easier but it was not nesessity.
So please before YOU! Have actually lead rank 1 alliance and been on top as many times as i have dont come to keep your lectures to me.

Ohh wait.... You have always been individualist whom wants to play as solo and abuse every loophole you can find from bushtarion to insane extent to perform good alone....
While i have taken Leading to be my assignment. While i ahve played rounds and rounds leading top alliances and spending my time with others on their ups and downs.
Where i can speak from view of Leader whom is thinking and talking on behalf of alliance players on bottom as on top. You are speaking only for youself.
I make suggestions based on my history and what i have done and when i say its possible for top alliances then it is. It would be challenging but nothing else. Its doable and would do less harm than good.

So untill that day you can honestly speak for anyone else but your own ass and how you want to abuse system and find new loopholes to get advantage off either leave my posts alone or at least be honest and say it straight that you dont want fairness and hard work to play out but to taka advantage of weaker players for your own ego boosting.
Good luck with that.

PS. You can keep repeating along lines "Show us" etc. No i wont. I have a life. I have other things to do. I have shown my skills so many times i have no need to show those again. I have shown to only person that needed to be shown what i can do. My self.

[pinpower]

tbh i just skim read the rest of BW post after getting rough idea so i may read it more later and edit this...but i will just comment on one thing...


PS. You can keep repeating along lines "Show us" etc. No i wont. I have a life. I have other things to do. I have shown my skills so many times i have no need to show those again. I have shown to only person that needed to be shown what i can do. My self.

BW, yes you had led top alliances but you havnt led them since the changes...you could have been the leader of the winning alliance for the last 27 rounds but you cant really comment (of course you can, but only as a "guess" or speculation) on what is like to be rank 1/2/3 this round...


also...

I think I have been on top more than you have
So please before YOU! Have actually lead rank 1 alliance and been on top as many times as i have dont come to keep your lectures to me.


Let this pissing contest begin!!! :roll:

[BlackWolf]

See i knew someone would post something exactly as you did Pinpower.
If you really think game today is so different of game it was on r5 when i started then your more wrong than you can imagine. If you think that leading and alliance play is different you know nothing about leading and alliance play.
And if you think that some changes are affecting today more top alliance than it has on any round your more wrong than you can imagine.
I have lead this game under such circumstances that i know exactly what is going on on top no i think iv lead under circumstances that these are jokes compared to. And unlike in past when affect was direct made by games owner today it is what it is supposed to be.

So if you think after as many rounds of leading alliances as i have the same come to tell me then.
Untill that i say you dont have any clue what im about...
So show me that you can do that and then come to comment my sayings.

[willymchilybily]

as far as i can tell:

Advantages and disadvantages of attacking at 80%
target has more land than smaller targets - bigger land gained from landing.[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
higher injury rates[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
there is no cap, therefore you get 15% of the possible available[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
you spend less on troops as you get more returned as injuries, in effect you land is costing you less[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
no eta penalty, you can attack more frequently as you get your troops home quicker[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
you can only send out one attack in general. so if it fails you dont get any land at all.[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
It may take more time to plan and calculate, therefore the over all process is more time consuming[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]

Advantages and disadvantages of attacking at 30%
you are attacking an easy target. It should require less man power and hence, be possible to send out multiple attacks[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
the reduced land gain of lets say 5% can be compensated for by sending out three attacks, and therefore you gain equal land to some one attacking a target of equal land at 80% score[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
most targets at 30% can be flacked past and as such any injuries incurred is only to flack, this allows your army to protect you and others[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
if one attack fails there is still a chance the otheres will land as there is the ability to send out multiple attacks[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
if you attack at 30% range you will recieve a land cap, reducing the amount stolen[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
even sending out multiple attacks to get around the land cap will not work as targets at 30% range will generally have less land than one target at 80%[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
attacking with three mobs also increases the chance that one of them will fail, so the chance of getting land is increased but also the chance of not getting as high amount of land has also increased[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]
you get +2 on your mob meaning it takes much more time to land and get your men home relative to attacking at a higher range[/*:m:3ptg1f9v]


so to sum up. You can attack at 80%, it requires more skill, it is harder to be successful, but those who can do it get more land, and far less injuries, and no cap, so over all if you dont regularly fail in attacks you will be getting mroe land and at a lower cost

attacking at 30% allows you just to send out to multiple targets. so if your unfortunate with one target the chances are you could still land with other targets. it requires less skill and time. but it is more money intensive as you get less land and less injury returns.

the point
i have no point any more. edited this due to recent attacks sucking hard. im back on the fence on this one. needs tweaking

NB:
[hidden:3ptg1f9v]attacking at 30% can also be advantages if not sending out multiple attacks, in the sense that you have more men than the target so you can send what ever ratios are required to get the job done.
the only downside is that there is more chance of triggering, but these advantages and disadvantages are down more to the players ability than the system, hence why these and similar adv+disadv have not been included[/hidden:3ptg1f9v]

[pinpower]

lol, arrogance doesn't suit you BW...

More on topic: Obviously the basis of the game is the same as in round 5...but the game itself has changed in so many different ways since then that it isnt the same round...and (this isnt a criticism of you) you cant comment on changes objectively until you have experienced them from every different angle...so when you've played at the top with the land cap, injuries etc and then played lower down...middle ranked...more active/less active etc etc...
that is why we have a forum (one reason) because nobody is able to objectively look at any changes so this is a place where people from all ranks/activity/experience etc can discuss the changes/game and from then a consensus can hopefully be found about how something is working out (i mean look at the most recent update)

BW your opinion is of course valid but i cant believe you would be so short sighted as to believe just because you are saying something (and experiencing something) from your position it is true...and backing it up by basically saying "ive led top alliances, therefore im better than you..." Normally a mature argument would get the point across better...

[BlackWolf]

Ahahahaaha
That you cant with your experience set yourself to such situations and see things from all angles doesnt mean others couldnt. If you cant do that let it be so. Go ahead make alliances be on top bottom and in middle, be solo on top bottom and in middle and when your finished you can come here to post again... So in 4 rounds we shall see.
Untill that leave posting to those who can. And ohh yeah im arrogant im ahole and everything else i want to be. I have right to think and say what ever i want. There is no way you can convince me that attacking to 30% is right no matter where on ranks you are playing. That is something that wont change no matter what you say.

Now you can either comment on what is suggested or smeg off and stop commenting everything else but what topic is.