Game Biasy - Few thoughts

oWarHero (GB1) · 16.07.2013

Firstly, I would like to post about the game's biasy towards large alliances. I understand the larger alliances have contributed and therefore bought more rubies to get to where they are which makes good business sense by GGE. However, I would like to see more events helping the smaller alliances grow too. For example, the Herald of the Alliance Tournament is based on glory points from attacks only. This basically helps the big alliances grow even further apart from the smaller ones and I think needs to be changed. An alliance with 60 members is clearly going to launch more attacks than an alliance with 20 members so how are the small alliances even hoping to compete? In the recent tournament, my alliance (which holds 23 members, mainly due to the large ruby donations that I have done but can't afford) managed to fend off multiple attacks from the larger alliances, earning over 20,000 glory points from defensive wins. This however was not added to the tournament glory total and so we did not even earn the participation prize despite being fairly successful in our support of each other. The large alliances are clearly going to launch as many attacks as possible and because of such smaller alliances have to be on the defensive so their castles don't get destroyed.
Furthermore, the bigger alliances rarely quarrel with each other and so pick on the smaller alliances to earn cheap honour and glory as they know that just the shear size of their alliance will put many players off of any thoughts of retaliation.

Secondly, I'd love to find out how the game attack calculations are figured out. Two recent battles came to the same conclusion, their rough details are below and if anyone can explain this to me I'd be grateful.

Defence loss: Incoming attack of 990 soldiers with 200 tools (including 50 glory banners) against defence of 2100 with 400 def tools level 2 moat, level 4 gate and wall upgrade and level 3 towers (full castle boundary). Defence was set up to suit incoming attack (i.e. melee def against melee attack). 900 attackers and 1900 defence were killed. (Practically all soldiers for both players were vets).

Attack loss: Sent attack of 1040 (max at my level) with 250 attack tools (no glory banners/loot carts so all tools were to maximise attack strength). All attackers were vets. Target castle level 1 moat, level 3 gate, wall and towers full boundary. Player had 750 soldiers in defence which beat my army. (Def soldiers and tools not identified as I lost the attack.)

Either way I should have out-numbered both players with soldiers and tools yet I still lost.

Lastly, I think that GGE should make the tax collections that cost rubies (12hr & 24hr) so that they don't deplete if you miss their collection time. It's hard enough to come up with the rubies to buy it in the first place.

Love to hear any thoughts on these issues.

Ante55 · 16.07.2013

No they dont just pick on smaller alliances they divide their members in defenders and attackers and also make agreements with other large alliances, send over members and then attack each other with organisation

Eric768 (US1) · 16.07.2013

First off, on the big alliances attacking more and getting more glory note, my alliance had 21 members, and we came in forth in a tournament a long time back, against alliances twice our size. Sometimes size doesn't always matter.

On the attacking/defence note, you probably just failed at setting things up, and accounting for bonuses and what not.. What you may think is a good formation, may actually not be. Plus if the other person buys rubies and uses those tools, you are less likely to win without support.

derkader · 16.07.2013

its quality not quantity remember that some big alliances may seem all big and bad and strong but they are weak

Daniel Degude · 17.07.2013

Yah, it is quality not quantity. In fact levels dont even matter. Ive creamed people up to level 28 (im level 15). I have one of the highest honor ratings in the alliance i belong to. My honors 1165.

Billy962 · 17.07.2013

Daniel Degude wrote: »

Yah, it is quality not quantity. In fact levels dont even matter. Ive creamed people up to level 28 (im level 15). I have one of the highest honor ratings in the alliance i belong to. My honors 1165.

Wow. Your honor is so high I can attack you and not lose any honor.

Bobwormercastle · 17.07.2013

oWarHero wrote: »

Firstly, I would like to post about the game's biasy towards large alliances. I understand the larger alliances have contributed and therefore bought more rubies to get to where they are which makes good business sense by GGE. However, I would like to see more events helping the smaller alliances grow too. For example, the Herald of the Alliance Tournament is based on glory points from attacks only. This basically helps the big alliances grow even further apart from the smaller ones and I think needs to be changed. An alliance with 60 members is clearly going to launch more attacks than an alliance with 20 members so how are the small alliances even hoping to compete? In the recent tournament, my alliance (which holds 23 members, mainly due to the large ruby donations that I have done but can't afford) managed to fend off multiple attacks from the larger alliances, earning over 20,000 glory points from defensive wins. This however was not added to the tournament glory total and so we did not even earn the participation prize despite being fairly successful in our support of each other. The large alliances are clearly going to launch as many attacks as possible and because of such smaller alliances have to be on the defensive so their castles don't get destroyed.
Furthermore, the bigger alliances rarely quarrel with each other and so pick on the smaller alliances to earn cheap honour and glory as they know that just the shear size of their alliance will put many players off of any thoughts of retaliation.

Secondly, I'd love to find out how the game attack calculations are figured out. Two recent battles came to the same conclusion, their rough details are below and if anyone can explain this to me I'd be grateful.

Defence loss: Incoming attack of 990 soldiers with 200 tools (including 50 glory banners) against defence of 2100 with 400 def tools level 2 moat, level 4 gate and wall upgrade and level 3 towers (full castle boundary). Defence was set up to suit incoming attack (i.e. melee def against melee attack). 900 attackers and 1900 defence were killed. (Practically all soldiers for both players were vets).

Attack loss: Sent attack of 1040 (max at my level) with 250 attack tools (no glory banners/loot carts so all tools were to maximise attack strength). All attackers were vets. Target castle level 1 moat, level 3 gate, wall and towers full boundary. Player had 750 soldiers in defence which beat my army. (Def soldiers and tools not identified as I lost the attack.)

Either way I should have out-numbered both players with soldiers and tools yet I still lost.

Lastly, I think that GGE should make the tax collections that cost rubies (12hr & 24hr) so that they don't deplete if you miss their collection time. It's hard enough to come up with the rubies to buy it in the first place.

Love to hear any thoughts on these issues.

I have 2 things to say about this.

1) Number does not matter at all in any battle. I've taken out armies of 1040 with less than 500 troops to defend with, and won only losing a couple hundred troops and have seen people do better. A full 1040 troop shadow attack can be fended off with amazing ease. Your commander probably didn't compete with their castellan and the defender had a large advantage. Number doesn't always matter in alliances either, as Eric768 said. Quality before quantity.

2) I'd love to see the mathematical equations in which GGS uses to calculate battle results. Sadly, they won't ever let us see them. :P

As for the defense story, the attacker probably had a commander that was much better than your castellan, thus giving him a large advantage. Second, you probably let him get +30% into the courtyard (which usually ruins your hopes of victory unless you have tons of defenders of good quality). My advice for that is to just focus on 1 flank and win it if you are uncertain as to what to set up or do. A 100-0-0 or a 50-0-50 are good formations that increase your chances of victory on either that one side flank or the 2 side flanks. Not allowing the attacker to get +30% bonus into the courtyard is crucial.

oWarHero (GB1) · 19.07.2013

Thanks to all for the replies so far...

In reply to Ante55, that may be what you think happens but it's all too common for members of the bigger alliances to attack mine the moment one of my members get over 1300 honour. You may be an honourable player, your alliance may be the same but that doesn't apply to all of them and I wasn't trying to generalise I was merely stating that there are a lot of players who abuse the fact that they are in the top alliances.

In response to all those who were talking about quality not quantity, I was trying to point out that all of my tools were ruby tools, if anything used in excess (i.e. defender has 100% wall defence, I'll use 10 siege towers -150% wall defence) and only veteran soldiers with full upgrade researched. Also I spied on the target I checked the combat report of my defensive loss and their commander had barely any effects, whereas my castellan equipment had plenty of effects (relative to defence not crap like reduces occupation period).

@bobwormercastle thanks for the defensive advice pal, your suggestion makes sense lol although I and a couple of other members have developped a spreadsheet that produces the best defensive strategy by taking into account the strength and quantity of the attackers, and unless the attack is 1040 troops it has not failed us yet!

haha

Game Biasy - Few thoughts

Comments

Leave a Comment