Home Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

We need new Moderators!


ModeratorWe are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.


If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

Make PvP Great Again (Limit the alliance support)

fujiwara (GB1)fujiwara (GB1) GB1 Posts: 647
Ok, bear with me, as I suspect most people's initial reaction will be one of mild horror.

The proposal is simple: For all alliance support sent, only 10% will actually fight (and bear losses, so if you send 10k and 30% troops are lost in the fight, you'll lose 300 of the 1000 that actually fought). All troops moved around by the defender in question obviously all fight.

The reasoning is less simple.

Improved target selection

At the moment, notable on the UK server but I suspect an issue elsewhere, is that all the top alliances are now close to invulnerable (aside from ninja hits at 4am with 3k+ horrors from point blank). With a 15 minute horn 100k support is commonplace, and it only stops there because "why send more?". Not only do they have a larger % of players online than the smaller alliances, they also can quite happily hold 10k defs per castle, so only a few of them need to be able to reach the attacked player, sending from a single outpost, to break the 100k support mark.

As a result, most of the big players don't bother hitting the big alliances all that much other than to kill off excess troops, as there's no other point to doing it. Instead, it's the tier 2 and 3 alliances that get to enjoy the big 6 wave hits. It's not uncommon at the 20 million might mark to have only 2 people online in the early hours, and 9 online at peak times. Quite a few don't have level 3 stables, and a typical castle might have 2-3k defs in, which gets insta-shredded by serious hits.

Rebalancing CY fights

Obviously it's a war game, and hitting other players is a thing even if they have no hope of defending, but I know a lot of bigger players are feeling like the game has become more and more unbalanced in the direction of the defender (and this of course was one of the reasons that the outcry about the new cast was so strong -- it's already too easy to defend as it is).

3k of horrors with a breach wants to see fights against 10-15k defs, not 50-100k. By limiting alliance support to 10% of what's sent, attacks against anyone becomes somewhat plausible, and scraps for bragging rights or honour (for those who care about it anyway) against top players start to be worth having a shot at. Mid strength alliances who get a castle trashed at 4am and know that the only thing a retaliation could ever achieve is losing all their attackers for 3-4k defs split over an alliance on the other end, suddenly get the opportunity to at least seriously hit their attacker's def numbers somewhere.

Not that anyone ever uses shells or carries dead accounts for any reason or anything, but it would make the theoretical practice a lot less effective too

PvP at a high level is mostly dead other than proper wars. Single or double attacks against a 50m+ alliance at sensible o'clock is mostly an exercise in futility. Castellan and commander kits are all well and good, but it's all irrelevant against six figures of defenders. Bringing serious PvP back requires some form of counter to the massive food/troop creep that granaries/food items and everything else has brought into the game.

Alternative proposals to deal with it are just as welcome as responses to this one :)
Post edited by BM Fujiwara on
fujiwara @ en 1

Author of the Empire alliance management studio web app - contact me if you want to try it out

invpng
«13

Comments

  • i find myself agreeing with bobby. either a flat limit to how much support fights, OR you could go the route of both ways. a set limit to how much support fights, and beyond that there is a varying range of support troops that fight depending on the additional support count. mind you i do recognize that such a thing would be very complicated and difficult to create with proper balance...

    one thing i'd also like to see is being able to see the defender's setup in your attack report even if you lose your attack.... would go a long way i think to making it easier to learn pvp for those smaller players instead of leaving them in the dark.

    also if one of your troops is alive long enough to send you a mail detailing exactly how many troops were lost and killed, you'd think they would be able to outline the enemy's defense setups lmao.

    i'm very happy that you posted this Fujiwara! its been quite a log time i think since a BM has posted about pvp. i know just about all of the BMs try to talk to GGS about it and GGS just doesn't listen, but for a while it looked like they gave up.
    GGS does not care about your feedback because most just keep buying rubies anyway!! this game is addictive and they know it. AS LONG AS YOU KEEP BUYING, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. don't say you're upset, SHOW THEM YOU'RE UPSET!!!!

    the same applies to all walks of life. many who are greedy get away with it because we allow it to continue. we give them their power because we choose not to stand against it as a whole. some do, but it's not enough. people need to learn that they hold the power, and they can take that power away.
  • msantos29 (GB1)msantos29 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 81
    edited 05.08.2018
    Doesn't seem a realistic idea... you just took meritocracy and threw it out the window.

    Not only that, it wouldnt have a practical effect because as you said, all the troops the defending player moved around would participate in the fight... and if that player has 10k defenders per base, well....

    and on the smaller alliances side, if they managed to send 8k you just cut that into 800 troops so i cant see how that would help them

    you already gave an alternative proposal

     BM Fujiwara said:
     proper wars. 

    Post edited by msantos29 (GB1) on
  • msantos29 (GB1)msantos29 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 81
    edited 05.08.2018

    one thing i'd also like to see is being able to see the defender's setup in your attack report even if you lose your attack.... would go a long way i think to making it easier to learn pvp for those smaller players instead of leaving them in the dark.

     can simply spy after the hit lands   :|   (costs a feather)
  • Kage (ASIA1)Kage (ASIA1) ASIA1 Posts: 2,943
    The game evolved so much, it started in 2009/2010, and after 8/9 years, the defense evolved as well, commanders, all mechanics, and also players.
    I don't know what else to say, any pro's or con's about this idea... but if this is a hit on defense.....
    If this is the case, make a limit on how many hits can a player recive from several players. Or being mass attacked.

    ] - asia 1 / Second player on power -   - 2.8m power - Oct. 04. 2019 

     I'm a ghost, but i'm still here.
     To be continued....

  • I think something needs to be done about the defender count creep, but I don't think this is a viable solution, as others have mentioned the smaller alliances get completely railed being unable to put up any meaningful support. As a 1m+ player that spent a long time in my own small alliance, I never got any support, and I was the only one sending support to anyone else, because small alliances are almost always super inactive. If my 50k stack was cut down to 5k when I sent it to anyone else, I could simply expect to lose my entire 5k each battle, and I wouldn't want to support anyone.

    The amount of times small alliances firecast and toolburn is already pretty high, because they can't defend the hits, I don't think reducing their already limited ability to support is the right solution.

    They created this problem by reducing defender food consumption (we on the moderator team argued about this exact topic with them back then), and creeping our food productions with build items. These things can't really be taken back effectively, and removing either of them wouldn't really solve the problem, so I'm not sure what direction this has to go in but I don't think limiting support counts is the best way to handle it
    Friedrich IV US1
    The Prodigal Scrub Returns
  • SteelSlayer (US1)SteelSlayer (US1) US1 Posts: 494
    So someone leaves 3k D in an op. Getting 10k support, only able to use 10% meaning the attacker can plow through only 4k defense. 

    Would destroy the benefit of supporting for smaller alliances. I'd say maybe 10k, and anything past that is 10%

    So you send 50k defense. It would give 10k + 10% of 40k = 14,000 support

    If this comes into play there needs to be a R to M bar for courtyard... But I'd prefer defense how it is tbh, GGE would figure someway to monetize it and hurt the little guy
  • krs25 (GB1)krs25 (GB1) Posts: 21
    edited 06.08.2018
    very bad idea mate

    as well you have just killed all small alliances as their now cant support each other as 10% has been taken way from their support  

    you have killed other alliances getting metros , kt and capitals 

    just like steelslayer has said leave our defense alone 
                                                 
  • pasanen (US1)pasanen (US1) US1 Posts: 18
    No thanks to OP, and agree on what msantos said. Single long horn attacks won't get any more exciting by crippling the defender, while the proposed change would harm the balance in masses and short range hits. Fast defending and support distribution are among the classical Empire skills, and they should be cultivated rather than eradicated. On the other hand, I'd be glad to see the defensive rebalancing of the last two years rolled back, since much of it has helped the high-end players disproportionately (e.g. cheap hol flipping , lower food consumption of defenders)
    pantti015 @ skn 1

  • one thing i'd also like to see is being able to see the defender's setup in your attack report even if you lose your attack.... would go a long way i think to making it easier to learn pvp for those smaller players instead of leaving them in the dark.

     can simply spy after the hit lands   :|   (costs a feather)
    that won't give you the ability to observe what happens wave by wave. the idea is to learn which tool combos do good against which defense setup and vice versa.
    GGS does not care about your feedback because most just keep buying rubies anyway!! this game is addictive and they know it. AS LONG AS YOU KEEP BUYING, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. don't say you're upset, SHOW THEM YOU'RE UPSET!!!!

    the same applies to all walks of life. many who are greedy get away with it because we allow it to continue. we give them their power because we choose not to stand against it as a whole. some do, but it's not enough. people need to learn that they hold the power, and they can take that power away.
  • Shares (AU1)Shares (AU1) AU1 Posts: 576
    posted on another thread a few days back..why not limit the effective defence to a multiple of the amount the defender can put the wall?..might help smaller alliances a bit AND encourage those who rely on their alliance too much to learn some defense..
    Shares @ au 1
  • BM FujiwaraBM Fujiwara Posts: 575
    Why not instead have like a cap of say 5 - 10x the attacking force is used to defend, then the top alliances don't get the benefit of having all those defenders and the lower tier alliances have a chance to defend against some of the big attacks.
    This is quite neat. It has the advantage of stopping the super support and helping the smaller alliances, but the value would be very hard to get right. Whatever the cap though, the big alliances would hit it each time, so it'll either be beatable too often or never beatable. I take your point on the small alliances, but the purpose of doing "something" is to make them hit less often by the big players, who gain a greater incentive to attack the bigger alliances.

    i'm very happy that you posted this Fujiwara! its been quite a log time i think since a BM has posted about pvp. i know just about all of the BMs try to talk to GGS about it and GGS just doesn't listen, but for a while it looked like they gave up.
    You're welcome. They may not listen to anything coming out of this thread either, but better for them to have something to ignore than nothing at all.
    Doesn't seem a realistic idea... you just took meritocracy and threw it out the window.

    Not only that, it wouldnt have a practical effect because as you said, all the troops the defending player moved around would participate in the fight... and if that player has 10k defenders per base, well....

    and on the smaller alliances side, if they managed to send 8k you just cut that into 800 troops so i cant see how that would help them

    you already gave an alternative proposal (proper wars)
    Not really, just individual meritocracy over alliance meritocracy. 10% was a number plucked out of the air, but an active alliance of 65 members means that at peak hours it's highly unlikely you'd have under a million defenders at your disposal. This is a pretty big deal. If the smaller targets are unable to defend, and you know it, hit someone bigger? We can all choose targets who can't defend, but that's normally not fun for either side. And yeah, proper wars are fun :)
    I think something needs to be done about the defender count creep, but I don't think this is a viable solution, as others have mentioned the smaller alliances get completely railed being unable to put up any meaningful support. As a 1m+ player that spent a long time in my own small alliance, I never got any support, and I was the only one sending support to anyone else, because small alliances are almost always super inactive. If my 50k stack was cut down to 5k when I sent it to anyone else, I could simply expect to lose my entire 5k each battle, and I wouldn't want to support anyone.
    Yeah, this is a fair comment, and I've been doing that for most of the last few months as well, so I take the point. I'd hope that small alliances would be hit rather less by the bigger players if they had bigger fish to catch.
    .... so I'm not sure what direction this has to go in but I don't think limiting support counts is the best way to handle it
    Me either, it would be nice to see enough brainstorming come towards something that looks like a legitimate solution though.
    we have fair play limits on GB1
    Just ... lol
    I'd say maybe 10k, and anything past that is 10%

    So you send 50k defense. It would give 10k + 10% of 40k = 14,000 support
    I really like this stepped idea, definite improvement over my suggestion. Gives the small guys the chance to defend, without the big guys swamping the attack into insignificance
    you have killed other alliances getting metros , kt and capitals
    Yeah, CoPs would have to be excluded from anything like this
    Single long horn attacks won't get any more exciting by crippling the defender, while the proposed change would harm the balance in masses and short range hits.
    Short range hits not so much, as either the player is online to support himself, or probably isn't getting any support, so it wouldn't affect anything. The masses point is well made though, that would become a bit of a nightmare, although SteelSlayer's adjustment would pretty much fix it cleanly.
    fujiwara @ en-1
    fujiwara @ us-1

  • i find myself agreeing with bobby. either a flat limit to how much support fights, OR you could go the route of both ways. a set limit to how much support fights, and beyond that there is a varying range of support troops that fight depending on the additional support count. mind you i do recognize that such a thing would be very complicated and difficult to create with proper balance...

    one thing i'd also like to see is being able to see the defender's setup in your attack report even if you lose your attack.... would go a long way i think to making it easier to learn pvp for those smaller players instead of leaving them in the dark.

    also if one of your troops is alive long enough to send you a mail detailing exactly how many troops were lost and killed, you'd think they would be able to outline the enemy's defense setups lmao.

    i'm very happy that you posted this Fujiwara! its been quite a log time i think since a BM has posted about pvp. i know just about all of the BMs try to talk to GGS about it and GGS just doesn't listen, but for a while it looked like they gave up.
    Yeah but this`ll become a problem for birds. In big alliances each castle of a bird can hold 100k+ troops per castle …. capping the amount of troops to be stationed per castle would promote making alts that are level 20 accounts with a bunch of undeveloped OPs by the alliance leaders as birds. 


         

                        
     
                                                                          
  • Toxik (INT1)Toxik (INT1) INT1 Posts: 18
    Not a good idea for reasons already expressed by others above.

    My question is if we still have to pay coins for all the troops sent or do we get a 90% discount on the support cost for all troops that won't fight.
  • NO just NO! Problem is the ruby whales in the game using super commanders that are next to impossible to defend against without a sh**ton of support.
  • king24 (IN1)king24 (IN1) IN1 Posts: 168
    keep a limit on number of defenders and then if limit exceed bring on the 10% soldier fight.......
    Live and enjoy your life to the fullest. 

    Proud member of  Godz of War (GOW) 3  -IN 1

    It doesn't get any more closer than this :P 
    http://prntscr.com/hda8dz

  • I would prefer a reduce of players in an alliance. I know this is impossible, but I think that will solve more problems then just this one.

    Leeuwenheart @ nl 1
  • interesting idea but im not sure how the community will react to it if it gets added in

    maybe cap the units to a set number like 5k - 7.5k it would be better i think
    I like this one.  ;)

    King clone
Sign In to comment.