We are once again looking for some awesome new moderators to help us out with keeping
the forum running and playing a crucial part in our Empire community! If
this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

Limit Number of Defenders in the CY

Breor (US1)Breor (US1) Posts: 236US1
PROBLEM: PVP is BROKEN!
  • Large and medium alliances can stack 30k+ (in some instances 100k+) troops in the courtyard of the defender.
  • With numbers like that, it doesn't matter if the defender knows how to hold the wall or not. There's no challenge to defending.
  • The attacker doesn't stand a chance of winning unless he's sent a snipe or is part of a mass attack.
  • Weak players who join strong alliances gain huge benefits and can unjustly dominate honor rankings.
SOLUTION: Limit the number of defenders that can fit into the courtyard.
  • I propose 7,000 units in the courtyard (plus whatever troops fit on the wall for a total of ~7,500).
  • Obviously lower number for non-70 players
  • Alliance can still send any amount of support.
  • It isn't realistic to believe 100k defenders could fit in a castle anyways (not that realism matters).
  • If alliance sends 20k support, the strongest ~7,500 defenders participate in the fight.
  • If alliance sends 20k support, and if there are multiple attacks, defenders killed in the first fight are replaced by the support "reserves".
  • Attack can still be outnumbered, but strong attacks now have a chance.
Perhaps there could be a mechanic or bonus by which players increase the space in their courtyard.

I'm interested to hear what you'll say. Thoughts?
Breor @ USA 1
Search for "Breor47" on YouTube
Forum likes validate me.

Comments

  • benja084 (ES1)benja084 (ES1) Posts: 9,672
    Hey there!

    Just wanted to tell you that there's already a thread discusing this topic:

    https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/en/discussion/335019/ggs-boosting-defense-too-much

    I just think that they shouldn't have made that change in the first place, having it back as how it was will do the job better. If that's not possible then limit the courtyard bonus in some other way, if not by Soldier quantity, then by soldier quality, making them less strong, maybe by limiting the bonuses of cast's CY gems, or boosting the bonus of comm's CY gems to stabilize. Or maybe the first option that you mentioned will do it better, having a limit of soldiers in the CY, either option would fix this problem.

    Regards.
    cat

    "There is no such a thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something to hear"
    "To pay attention, that is our endless and propper work"

    "No existe tal cosa como un espacio vacío o un tiempo vacio. Siempre hay algo que ver, algo que oír"
    "Prestar atención, ese es nuestro interminable y apropiado trabajo"
  • I would support this being implemented if the cap is only for alliance support. If a player has 20k+ of their own defense and they want to stack it there I believe they should be able to do so.

    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

  • benja084 (ES1)benja084 (ES1) Posts: 9,672

    I would support this being implemented if the cap is only for alliance support. If a player has 20k+ of their own defense and they want to stack it there I believe they should be able to do so.

    The problem isn't the ammount of troops that you can have, but the new advantage that the defender has over the attacker by being able to sustain 25% more defense troops than the attacker's attack troops giving them a 25% of advg over the attacker in the CY without consider gems.
    cat

    "There is no such a thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something to hear"
    "To pay attention, that is our endless and propper work"

    "No existe tal cosa como un espacio vacío o un tiempo vacio. Siempre hay algo que ver, algo que oír"
    "Prestar atención, ese es nuestro interminable y apropiado trabajo"
  • I would support this being implemented if the cap is only for alliance support. If a player has 20k+ of their own defense and they want to stack it there I believe they should be able to do so.

    The problem isn't the ammount of troops that you can have, but the new advantage that the defender has over the attacker by being able to sustain 25% more defense troops than the attacker's attack troops giving them a 25% of advg over the attacker in the CY without consider gems.
    I'm aware of that, and still support what I said ;)

    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

  • benja084 (ES1)benja084 (ES1) Posts: 9,672
    But it's unfair :( 

    I understand why you say it and it makes total sense, but I still disagree.
    cat

    "There is no such a thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something to hear"
    "To pay attention, that is our endless and propper work"

    "No existe tal cosa como un espacio vacío o un tiempo vacio. Siempre hay algo que ver, algo que oír"
    "Prestar atención, ese es nuestro interminable y apropiado trabajo"
  • But it's unfair :( 

    I understand why you say it and it makes total sense, but I still disagree.


    I don't know if you know all the reasons I said it, so I'll add a little more thought that might not be clear at first :)

    I believe that in PvP one's alliance should be able to help them and not everything be 1 vs 1. Not all my castles have the same amount of defense, but I would say I average roughly 6.5k per castle. Now with the proposed cap of 7.5k, my alliance would only be able to send 1k support that would actually effect the outcome of a glory hit. This doesn't really seem right to me.

    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

  • No, stupid idea. A lot of players have 10k def per castle. And it’s easy to wipe 7.5k def in a hit. And it will be easy to cap Capitals and ops and so forth. Just all round terrible idea 
    WAR PLAYER
  • benja084 (ES1)benja084 (ES1) Posts: 9,672
    edited 06.01.2018
    This is easy to solve: make it proportional to the player

    Instead of fixing an arbitrarial limit like 7.5K, maybe a proportional limit, like 19% of your own troops being able to be sent by the alliance (I say 19% as an example only) or MAYBE JUST FORGETTING ABOUT ALL OF THIS AND LEAVING IT AS IT WAS BEFORE THE UPDATE, DAMMIT GGE
    cat

    "There is no such a thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something to hear"
    "To pay attention, that is our endless and propper work"

    "No existe tal cosa como un espacio vacío o un tiempo vacio. Siempre hay algo que ver, algo que oír"
    "Prestar atención, ese es nuestro interminable y apropiado trabajo"
  • This is easy to solve: make it proportional to the player

    Instead of fixing an arbitrarial limit like 7.5K, maybe a proportional limit, like 19% of your own troops being able to be sent to the alliance (I say 19% as an example only) or MAYBE JUST FORGETTING ABOUT ALL OF THIS AND LEAVING IT AS IT WAS BEFORE THE UPDATE, DAMMIT GGE
    I could support that... however it doesn't really matter cause gge will never listen to us :/

    Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

  • I'd suggest something more like 7500 defense or match. So if a castle has 20k defense in it and the alliance supports 40k, only 20k alliance and 20k player is used. Likewise if the alliance sends 20k and you only have 2k, it will use 2k of yours and 7500 of alliance.

    Then make it so that this doesn't affect things like defenses for captures.

    Makes it more use for the defender to carry lots of defense and to get on when hit.


    SteelSlayer @ USA1
    Leader of Strikeforce, newest sub to DT
  • As stupidly broken as pvp is, I personally would like to see a quality over quantity approach taken.

    Not that the game has to be realistic, but a few hundred good defenders should be able to hold out against a couple thousand attackers, at least in my opinion.

    That being said, I still keep fairly def heavy, because I like being a defensive player in at least some respects.

    I agree that a def rebalancing probably needs to be done so that defending takes some sort of skill, but isn't super underpowered, I just don't think this is the way to do it.

    Also, I think property needs to be redone in general. RTs should imo have some sort of defensive bonus, instead of making every property holding alliance essentially a glass cannon, nobody defends property aside from RTs they just knock the caps. Seems backwards to me
    Friedrich IV US1
    The Prodigal Scrub Returns
  • There are a lot of good ideas here, in my opinion.

    I do think it would be nice if defense was more realistic, since it really doesn't make sense that two thousand soldiers are able to take out 6000 defenders. A battle like that was very, very rare back in the days of castles. If it ever happened, it was probably caused by illness in the defending party, fatigue, or famine-induced weakness.

    However, like others have said, GGE has quite a few unrealistic aspects. I like Turtle's idea for a limit on support only. I also like Friedrich's idea for more realistic defense.

    Maybe defenders could be made five times more powerful and five times harder to get. Each player would have far fewer defenders but would still be able to hold their defenses. And Turtle's modification of Breor's idea could be applied as well (with the tweaked to fit the 5x idea), because I agree that battles against players who have access to large amounts of support are completely unfair.


    In my opinion, alliance perks are unfair in general. For example—players in alliances that place in the top twenty during FL's/BC's get level nine gems. Assuming there are 62 players in each of those alliances (which is the approx. average), 1240 are getting level nine gems. Meanwhile, though, the top fifty reward for the Samurai Invasion is two level nine gems.
    That means that 1240 players—many of whom don't even get to the equipment rewards for the glory event—receive the same rewards that players who spent loads of time (and probably some money) do for placing as one of the top fifty players to compete in a different event.

    Doesn't seem fair to me.
    TheBlueIcicle    US1

    retired I guess. or trying to be.
  • legendary hall deff is too strong and here is problem
  • Dark Venom (ASIA1)Dark Venom (ASIA1) Posts: 2,049ASIA1
    I think the old defense update needs to be reversed, and change it so each upgrade on the HoL's gives a point to defense and attack. It's common for players to have all points stacked on attack side. So GGE decided to upgrade defense. Now if a player attacks with 3.6k attackers, and the defender has their HoL's set to defense they can easily use 3.6k defenders to stop the attack as defense is overpowered as.


    Famous quotes that may or may not be true:
    2+2= window - Albert Einstein 
    I'm sexy and I'm homeless - Abraham Lincoln. 
    God is not real - Steven Hawking
    Obama is a real G - Osama Bin Laden 
    I'm leaving this game - Dark Venom
  • Morentz (US1)Morentz (US1) Posts: 586US1
    This game is broken, and no amount of updates will fix ir.
  • This game is broken, and no amount of updates will fix ir.
    Another company might be able to. GGE is too much of a train wreck to accomplish anything better.
    TheBlueIcicle    US1

    retired I guess. or trying to be.
  • David Noble (US1)David Noble (US1) Posts: 2,552
    edited 06.01.2018
    legendary hall deff is too strong and here is problem
    If you can get five or six waves many players would actually prefer that over using HOL for defense. The only point I ever saw to using the HOL for defense is if you are in a small alliance that gets hit a lot by other alliances especially from those that are bigger or if you are in an alliance at war especially with another big alliance.

    Now once you can get past the six waves the defense for HOL might be more useful, but even then it can take a really long time to get maximum level HOL as well. Also of course is the 12% extra strength for all attackers as well which more than just getting the six waves is required by allocating at least 30 extra points. That leaves only approximately 160 points for you to decide what to do with the rest which of course is the most useful when you have the maximum level HOL.
    David Noble @ usa 1
Sign In to comment.