DeletedUser2663
Guest
Bad idea IMO
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Create a "Stop Attack" feature in Battle Resolution
- Thread starter Lord Sandman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dns list failed idea
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DeletedUser
Guest
Sakaturou,
Could you explain how this proposed feature would change the game for you? You can attack exactly the way you always have. You don't HAVE to use the feature.
And anyone who attacked you at 50% or 75% boldness would just be setting themselves up for your form of combat.
So where is the "doom and gloom" coming from?
Regards,
Lord Sandman
Could you explain how this proposed feature would change the game for you? You can attack exactly the way you always have. You don't HAVE to use the feature.
And anyone who attacked you at 50% or 75% boldness would just be setting themselves up for your form of combat.
So where is the "doom and gloom" coming from?
Regards,
Lord Sandman
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
It will confuse people and those who use it will boast about their proness.
and "your form of combat" I never realised my guys could do kung fu. :S
and "your form of combat" I never realised my guys could do kung fu. :S
DeletedUser
Guest
Sakaturou
You write: "It will confuse people..."
And: "those who use it will boast about their prowess."
So then essentially you would quit the game because some people would be confused and other people would boast.
You're not serious, right?
Lord Sandman
You write: "It will confuse people..."
And: "those who use it will boast about their prowess."
So then essentially you would quit the game because some people would be confused and other people would boast.
You're not serious, right?
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser
Guest
As of the last post, I see that there are 27 votes AGAINST vs. 26 FOR the proposal. Frankly I'm stunned at the level of childishness of those who oppose the proposal.
From what I can see, the people who oppose this are actually the players with larger armies. And the only thing I can imagine is that they want people to destroy themselves attacking their integrated network of cities.
The proposal was designed to make it possible for people to engage in attacks without destroying themselves. So if you allow a bunch of bullies to prohibit anything like realistic combat (i.e., the ability to WITHDRAW BEFORE losing all your troops), you deserve pretty much what happens to you in the combats to come.
Respectfully submitted,
Lord Sandman
From what I can see, the people who oppose this are actually the players with larger armies. And the only thing I can imagine is that they want people to destroy themselves attacking their integrated network of cities.
The proposal was designed to make it possible for people to engage in attacks without destroying themselves. So if you allow a bunch of bullies to prohibit anything like realistic combat (i.e., the ability to WITHDRAW BEFORE losing all your troops), you deserve pretty much what happens to you in the combats to come.
Respectfully submitted,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser2663
Guest
As of the last post, I see that there are 27 votes AGAINST vs. 26 FOR the proposal. Frankly I'm stunned at the level of childishness of those who oppose the proposal.
From what I can see, the people who oppose this are actually the players with larger armies. And the only thing I can imagine is that they want people to destroy themselves attacking their integrated network of cities.
The proposal was designed to make it possible for people to engage in attacks without destroying themselves. So if you allow a bunch of bullies to prohibit anything like realistic combat (i.e., the ability to WITHDRAW BEFORE losing all your troops), you deserve pretty much what happens to you in the combats to come.
Respectfully submitted
Lord Sandman
Childish???, seriously, just cos your idea is getting the deny you resorting to that. People have voted no becuase of reasons of their own, and ultimatly they dont want your idea to be implemented.
i dont mean to disrespect your idea, ( at least you one ) but most people dont think it is any good.
DeletedUser
Guest
Metal Core:
Again, empty criticism.
We've heard it all. One person threatened to QUIT if the rule passed. Why? Because people might "boast".
Another person criticized it because it would cause problems for ocean attacks - - when it was long established that the rule would only apply to land attacks.
Face it.... the reason the idea is going down is because powerful collections of cities don't like the idea of people being able to attack and withdraw without destroying themselves.
It's pretty silly. Being able to thrust against the defenses but withdrawing from the attack, if the casualties are too high, is an ancient military principle. The proposal would have stepped Grepolis up to being a first-notch battle simulation. Considering how much more complicated this system is compared to Kingdoms of Camelot, you'd think you would **WANT** to have a more nuanced battle system.
As it stands now, the game system is just going to be a statue holding a mirror - - and the people who trashed the proposal will be able to admire themselves in the mirror - - happy that no one will be able to challenge their hegemony.
What a great game.
Lord Sandman
NOTE: It's too bad there doesn't seem to be a way for people to change their vote. I think if people realized they were voting for Grepolis REMAINING an elaborate SIM game ...
vs. Grepolis becoming a realisitic combat simulation....
there would be more people wanting to see Grepolis achieve the next step in battle simulation.
The ability to attack and withdraw in the face of high casualties is a NECESSARY and LOGICAL capability for a realistic battle simulation.
I have little interest in playing another SIM game. That's why I walked away from my level 10 castle in Kingdoms of Camelot.
Respectfully,
Lord Sandman
Again, empty criticism.
We've heard it all. One person threatened to QUIT if the rule passed. Why? Because people might "boast".
Another person criticized it because it would cause problems for ocean attacks - - when it was long established that the rule would only apply to land attacks.
Face it.... the reason the idea is going down is because powerful collections of cities don't like the idea of people being able to attack and withdraw without destroying themselves.
It's pretty silly. Being able to thrust against the defenses but withdrawing from the attack, if the casualties are too high, is an ancient military principle. The proposal would have stepped Grepolis up to being a first-notch battle simulation. Considering how much more complicated this system is compared to Kingdoms of Camelot, you'd think you would **WANT** to have a more nuanced battle system.
As it stands now, the game system is just going to be a statue holding a mirror - - and the people who trashed the proposal will be able to admire themselves in the mirror - - happy that no one will be able to challenge their hegemony.
What a great game.
Lord Sandman
NOTE: It's too bad there doesn't seem to be a way for people to change their vote. I think if people realized they were voting for Grepolis REMAINING an elaborate SIM game ...
vs. Grepolis becoming a realisitic combat simulation....
there would be more people wanting to see Grepolis achieve the next step in battle simulation.
The ability to attack and withdraw in the face of high casualties is a NECESSARY and LOGICAL capability for a realistic battle simulation.
I have little interest in playing another SIM game. That's why I walked away from my level 10 castle in Kingdoms of Camelot.
Respectfully,
Lord Sandman
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Bad idea! I don't like it.
DeletedUser
Guest
Andrew,
Would you care to offer any explanation for why you think it is a bad idea?
You have lots of reasons to copy from others:
1) It will screw up ocean attacks (it has no affect on ocean attacks - it only affects land battles).
2) It will confuse people (an attacker has only 3 choices: the default setting of 100%, or 75% and 50%. The lower the percentage, the fewer casualties you will allow before you want to withdraw your attack).
3) People will boast (frankly the dumbest objection I have seen yet).
4) It favors the attacker (no, if the attacker wins, he/she will only receive the percentage of the loot he chose for the attack. If he chose 75% or 50% boldness, then he will obtain only 75% or 50% of the loot. If he loses, casualties on the defender will be reduced as though he only sent the attack force he lost - and he gets no intelligence either, because he lost the battle.)
5) It will be abused. (It is impossible to abuse this feature because these are not FAKE attacks. They are real attacks. The attacker will lose more men sending multiple 50%-Bold attacks than one 100%-Bold attacks.)
6) It eliminates spying. (No, it doesn't eliminate spying. You can continue to use spy techniques.)
7) It favors the larger players. (Certainly not. The larger a player's forces become, the less the feature helps you, because the percentage is based on the total attack points of the city, not on the total attack points of the attacking force. The bigger you become, the less helpful the feature is.)
8) People will cheat. (It's impossible to cheat this feature. It is purely mathematical, which the system calculates).
9) It will ruin the flavor of your coffee.
Okay.... you have me there. It will probably ruin the flavor of your coffee.
But on the PLUS side, it will make Grepolis the first game to evolve from SIM system to a realistic battle system where attacks can be withdrawn in the face of high casualties.
Lord Sandman
Would you care to offer any explanation for why you think it is a bad idea?
You have lots of reasons to copy from others:
1) It will screw up ocean attacks (it has no affect on ocean attacks - it only affects land battles).
2) It will confuse people (an attacker has only 3 choices: the default setting of 100%, or 75% and 50%. The lower the percentage, the fewer casualties you will allow before you want to withdraw your attack).
3) People will boast (frankly the dumbest objection I have seen yet).
4) It favors the attacker (no, if the attacker wins, he/she will only receive the percentage of the loot he chose for the attack. If he chose 75% or 50% boldness, then he will obtain only 75% or 50% of the loot. If he loses, casualties on the defender will be reduced as though he only sent the attack force he lost - and he gets no intelligence either, because he lost the battle.)
5) It will be abused. (It is impossible to abuse this feature because these are not FAKE attacks. They are real attacks. The attacker will lose more men sending multiple 50%-Bold attacks than one 100%-Bold attacks.)
6) It eliminates spying. (No, it doesn't eliminate spying. You can continue to use spy techniques.)
7) It favors the larger players. (Certainly not. The larger a player's forces become, the less the feature helps you, because the percentage is based on the total attack points of the city, not on the total attack points of the attacking force. The bigger you become, the less helpful the feature is.)
8) People will cheat. (It's impossible to cheat this feature. It is purely mathematical, which the system calculates).
9) It will ruin the flavor of your coffee.
Okay.... you have me there. It will probably ruin the flavor of your coffee.
But on the PLUS side, it will make Grepolis the first game to evolve from SIM system to a realistic battle system where attacks can be withdrawn in the face of high casualties.
Lord Sandman
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I just simply can not see myself using this. If I attack somebody, I want 100% strength to get as much battle points as I can, as offence can be rebuilt faster than defence, and I feel this idea would take away some of the essence of the game.
As you say it could be a more realistic battle system, I think it is too big a change for the game.
I am willing to discuss points with you as much as you wish, so hit me with rebuttals for the few points I have made, and give me your opinions of some benefits, and I shall rebutt.
As you say it could be a more realistic battle system, I think it is too big a change for the game.
I am willing to discuss points with you as much as you wish, so hit me with rebuttals for the few points I have made, and give me your opinions of some benefits, and I shall rebutt.
DeletedUser
Guest
You keep wanting a "realistic battle simulator" my question is where do we stop? Do we suggest hit points for troops? experience and leveling to reflect troops becoming veterans? tactical plans for attacks? regiments of the same troop type in the same attack? actually having a battle sim where by generals (players) can issue orders to their units whilst the battle is occuring ala Age of Empires?
Additionally the following makes the idea completely pointless imo:
If I am reading this right then if I send 1000 slingers to attack at a 50% survival setting the defender will take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack, is this right?
If so then why would I bother sending that attack when I could simply send 500 slingers and acheive the same effect over 2 of my enemies polis'?
Actually it won't. I can't name the other game here but I am aware of at least one other browser game that has this implemented.
Additionally the following makes the idea completely pointless imo:
Defender Casualty Bonus: If a city is attacked by a cautious general using a 75% factor, the final casualty calculation inflicted on the DEFENDER is decreased due to calculating an attacking force at the 75% level, rather than the 100% level. The final casualty calculation inflicted on the DEFENDER is decreased even more if the 50% factor has been selected by the attacker.
If I am reading this right then if I send 1000 slingers to attack at a 50% survival setting the defender will take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack, is this right?
If so then why would I bother sending that attack when I could simply send 500 slingers and acheive the same effect over 2 of my enemies polis'?
But on the PLUS side, it will make Grepolis the first game to evolve from SIM system to a realistic battle system where attacks can be withdrawn in the face of high casualties.
Lord Sandman
Actually it won't. I can't name the other game here but I am aware of at least one other browser game that has this implemented.
DeletedUser
Guest
I never threatened, i just said i would. Calling us childish just because we dont agree with your view... hypocritical much?
Just because you said so my vote is no and i have now voted.
Just because you said so my vote is no and i have now voted.
DeletedUser
Guest
Andrew,
You say you can't see yourself using it. And I can see myself using it frequently. Why?
Because I would rather have 6 battles, each time only losing a portion of my forces.... instead of having 3 battles (if that) and rebuilding my forces to make up for 100% destruction of the attacking forces.
What I don't get is why you think you HAVE to use it? You don't. The default setting is 100% - - which is the same unrealistic kind of battling you've come to enjoy.
So why can't you let others have some other flavors? Why would you possibly oppose letting others use this if you think it wouldn't hurt you?
Lord Sandman
PS. Sakaturou: You say you didn't "threaten" to quit, you said you "would quit". Apparently you get as much enjoyment out of word games as the "overkill" style of battle used by Grepolis and Kingdoms of Camelot. You appear to be mincing words because you don't have a concrete reason for opposing this... except you don't want people to be able to attack you without being destroyed. Nice.
PPS. FurryIceCubes: You write:
"If I am reading this right then if I send 1000 slingers to attack at a 50% survival setting the defender will take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack, is this right?"
Not quite right. The defender will only take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack IF the normal calculation for the battle causes 50% attacker loss. If the attacker loss never reaches 50%, the casualty calculation for the defender is what would normally happen.
You also ask, in reference to adding a new dimension of realism to the game system, why we should stop with this proposal. And you provide a long list of all the other things we could add. This is like asking me why don't we STRIP OUT from Grepolis the current systems for Strength, Spying, Alliances and so forth. I'm not really interested in half of this crap. I just know it is stupid to have ALL battles decided at 100% casualty.... especially if we are actually supposed to stay in this game for weeks and weeks and months and months.
A battle system that decides victory on who is wiped out 100% first is not very realistic, and frankly not that enjoyable. No one has made a good argument for why it would be WRONG to have 2 other battle settings. It's that simple. (I sent you an email offlist.)
You say you can't see yourself using it. And I can see myself using it frequently. Why?
Because I would rather have 6 battles, each time only losing a portion of my forces.... instead of having 3 battles (if that) and rebuilding my forces to make up for 100% destruction of the attacking forces.
What I don't get is why you think you HAVE to use it? You don't. The default setting is 100% - - which is the same unrealistic kind of battling you've come to enjoy.
So why can't you let others have some other flavors? Why would you possibly oppose letting others use this if you think it wouldn't hurt you?
Lord Sandman
PS. Sakaturou: You say you didn't "threaten" to quit, you said you "would quit". Apparently you get as much enjoyment out of word games as the "overkill" style of battle used by Grepolis and Kingdoms of Camelot. You appear to be mincing words because you don't have a concrete reason for opposing this... except you don't want people to be able to attack you without being destroyed. Nice.
PPS. FurryIceCubes: You write:
"If I am reading this right then if I send 1000 slingers to attack at a 50% survival setting the defender will take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack, is this right?"
Not quite right. The defender will only take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack IF the normal calculation for the battle causes 50% attacker loss. If the attacker loss never reaches 50%, the casualty calculation for the defender is what would normally happen.
You also ask, in reference to adding a new dimension of realism to the game system, why we should stop with this proposal. And you provide a long list of all the other things we could add. This is like asking me why don't we STRIP OUT from Grepolis the current systems for Strength, Spying, Alliances and so forth. I'm not really interested in half of this crap. I just know it is stupid to have ALL battles decided at 100% casualty.... especially if we are actually supposed to stay in this game for weeks and weeks and months and months.
A battle system that decides victory on who is wiped out 100% first is not very realistic, and frankly not that enjoyable. No one has made a good argument for why it would be WRONG to have 2 other battle settings. It's that simple. (I sent you an email offlist.)
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I like this idea. But, the thingsI would change would be:
1) percentage of losses. If the attacker can have a percentage of 1% to 100% that won't be fun because they could be winning and then, but your losses reach that thresh hold and you have to pull back.
What I recomend: Switch it to a ratio based setting where both armies Make up a total of troops on the field. For example- the Attacker sends a total of 300 troops at a city with a total of 200 troops. The Total amount of trops in the battle makes up 500. The Attacker sets the "Stop Attack" At 50%. What this means is if his army is less than half of what is on in the battle field he will retreat. During the battle if his army becomes less then the defenders he will retreat.
What will this do: This makes the game more strategic. A general will not retreat if he is winning the battle but has lost a certaint number of troops. Instead he will retreat his troops make up a certaint amount of troops on the battlefield. This also stops farming runs from abusing this. If a General sends 100 troops on a farming run and sets troops loss to 15% his army will attack till he has lost 15 troops no matter of their standing in the battle.
2) Option to use: If you are farming other cities often and know you are going to win it becomes a hasle to set this everysingle time.
What I Recomend: Make this an option to use or not to use. This way when your farming it will not put this in as the factor because when farming it is difficult to predict the size of the defenders even though it should be quite low.
What this will do: Mke it a players choice to activate this.
3) Retreating: Thier is no such thing as a clean retreat.
What I recomend: IF looking back at that battle I quickly made know has 99 troops for the attacker and 100 troops for the defender. I propuse an equation: A = X + (X x W) where A = attacker's retreating losses, X = (the number of surving defendig troops x the stop attack percentage), and W = the wall defence (the small x's are times). Now with that upper equation lets say the the wall defence was a 10% boost. So that brigns the equation to A = 50 + 5 or A = 55. Now that might seem a bit too much so you can have it decided on each world that that 55 would be divided by so much to get the total.
What this will do: Will make it look more like a real battle and make the Attacker who would not be able to tell the differecne between amount lost on the battlefield and amount lost in the retreat because they would combine in the report to show amount lost.
1) percentage of losses. If the attacker can have a percentage of 1% to 100% that won't be fun because they could be winning and then, but your losses reach that thresh hold and you have to pull back.
What I recomend: Switch it to a ratio based setting where both armies Make up a total of troops on the field. For example- the Attacker sends a total of 300 troops at a city with a total of 200 troops. The Total amount of trops in the battle makes up 500. The Attacker sets the "Stop Attack" At 50%. What this means is if his army is less than half of what is on in the battle field he will retreat. During the battle if his army becomes less then the defenders he will retreat.
What will this do: This makes the game more strategic. A general will not retreat if he is winning the battle but has lost a certaint number of troops. Instead he will retreat his troops make up a certaint amount of troops on the battlefield. This also stops farming runs from abusing this. If a General sends 100 troops on a farming run and sets troops loss to 15% his army will attack till he has lost 15 troops no matter of their standing in the battle.
2) Option to use: If you are farming other cities often and know you are going to win it becomes a hasle to set this everysingle time.
What I Recomend: Make this an option to use or not to use. This way when your farming it will not put this in as the factor because when farming it is difficult to predict the size of the defenders even though it should be quite low.
What this will do: Mke it a players choice to activate this.
3) Retreating: Thier is no such thing as a clean retreat.
What I recomend: IF looking back at that battle I quickly made know has 99 troops for the attacker and 100 troops for the defender. I propuse an equation: A = X + (X x W) where A = attacker's retreating losses, X = (the number of surving defendig troops x the stop attack percentage), and W = the wall defence (the small x's are times). Now with that upper equation lets say the the wall defence was a 10% boost. So that brigns the equation to A = 50 + 5 or A = 55. Now that might seem a bit too much so you can have it decided on each world that that 55 would be divided by so much to get the total.
What this will do: Will make it look more like a real battle and make the Attacker who would not be able to tell the differecne between amount lost on the battlefield and amount lost in the retreat because they would combine in the report to show amount lost.
DeletedUser
Guest
PPS. FurryIceCubes: You write:
"If I am reading this right then if I send 1000 slingers to attack at a 50% survival setting the defender will take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack, is this right?"
Not quite right. The defender will only take casualties based on a 500 slinger attack IF the normal calculation for the battle causes 50% attacker loss. If the attacker loss never reaches 50%, the casualty calculation for the defender is what would normally happen.
You also ask, in reference to adding a new dimension of realism to the game system, why we should stop with this proposal. And you provide a long list of all the other things we could add. This is like asking me why don't we STRIP OUT from Grepolis the current systems for Strength, Spying, Alliances and so forth. I'm not really interested in half of this crap. I just know it is stupid to have ALL battles decided at 100% casualty.... especially if we are actually supposed to stay in this game for weeks and weeks and months and months.
A battle system that decides victory on who is wiped out 100% first is not very realistic, and frankly not that enjoyable. No one has made a good argument for why it would be WRONG to have 2 other battle settings. It's that simple. (I sent you an email offlist.)
You are using realism as a factor in your arguement, this is a game, not a historical sim. Your counter arguement is to suggest stripping out other realistic factors? Really? You think that makes sense?
I am simply pointing out that trying to use the arguement that it makes battles more realistic is fundamentally flawed unless you are proposing wholesale changes to the way that battles are currently calculated as opposed to simply piggy backing a calculation onto an already existing one.
DeletedUser
Guest
Riddenmark,
There are lots of ideas that could improve this feature I suppose. But frankly, your descriptions were confusing to even me - - and I'm the original proposer. All this proposal seeks to do is make it possible to retreat without losing all one's attacking force. We need to get people to support the basic premise before we can get anything else accomplished.
FurryIceCubes,
You can't take my objections and turn them on their head, because I'm the one who took YOUR objections and turned them on their head FIRST. You said - Hey, let's reject this proposal for greater realism because we'd HAVE to make all sorts of other changes too.
No.
We *DON'T* have to make any further changes. The proposal is inherently attractive because it adds to the realism of the battle system. But the OBJECTIVE of the proposal is to make it possible to have 3 levels of BOLDNESS, so that you can ATTACK without risking your whole force.
This proposal is capable of doing this one thing all by itself. We don't need any other changes to accomplish this one thing.
To increase realism is inherently a positive thing.... if it isn't too complicated. Right now Grepolis is VERY complicated AND UNREAL in how it calculates battles.
The proposal adds very little complexity to the game (though the math is complicated) - - in return it brings BIG IMPROVEMENT in the battle system.
Of all the other ideas you proposed as "possible" - - only this one protects the core of one's attacking force. And that's all this proposal seeks to address.
Generally speaking, making changes JUST FOR REALISM's sake is probably a bad idea. It just makes the system monstrously complicated. But this is a simple change that will bring realism and greater possibilities to an attack - - NOT JUST ONE OR BOTH SIDES LOSES VIRTUALLY THEIR WHOLE ARMY. Ugh.
Respectfully,
Lord Sandman
There are lots of ideas that could improve this feature I suppose. But frankly, your descriptions were confusing to even me - - and I'm the original proposer. All this proposal seeks to do is make it possible to retreat without losing all one's attacking force. We need to get people to support the basic premise before we can get anything else accomplished.
FurryIceCubes,
You can't take my objections and turn them on their head, because I'm the one who took YOUR objections and turned them on their head FIRST. You said - Hey, let's reject this proposal for greater realism because we'd HAVE to make all sorts of other changes too.
No.
We *DON'T* have to make any further changes. The proposal is inherently attractive because it adds to the realism of the battle system. But the OBJECTIVE of the proposal is to make it possible to have 3 levels of BOLDNESS, so that you can ATTACK without risking your whole force.
This proposal is capable of doing this one thing all by itself. We don't need any other changes to accomplish this one thing.
To increase realism is inherently a positive thing.... if it isn't too complicated. Right now Grepolis is VERY complicated AND UNREAL in how it calculates battles.
The proposal adds very little complexity to the game (though the math is complicated) - - in return it brings BIG IMPROVEMENT in the battle system.
Of all the other ideas you proposed as "possible" - - only this one protects the core of one's attacking force. And that's all this proposal seeks to address.
Generally speaking, making changes JUST FOR REALISM's sake is probably a bad idea. It just makes the system monstrously complicated. But this is a simple change that will bring realism and greater possibilities to an attack - - NOT JUST ONE OR BOTH SIDES LOSES VIRTUALLY THEIR WHOLE ARMY. Ugh.
Respectfully,
Lord Sandman
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
You guys are giving me a headache. This conversation has shifted to a very aggressive tone. Please approach the discussion in a calmer manner or I will close the discussion for this thread.
Remember to voice your opinions through voting. A simple majority wins, no matter if it's by 1 vote or by 100 votes.
Remember to voice your opinions through voting. A simple majority wins, no matter if it's by 1 vote or by 100 votes.
DeletedUser441
Guest
A simple majority wins, no matter if it's by 1 vote or by 100 votes.
What if the vote is 50:50 like now?
Anyway if this idea do go through and the devs do actually come up with something like that can't they implant this into a beta server to see what will happen?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Yeah! Go Beta. I definitely stand for this idea.Its not 50/50 anymore. All the arguments on the cons side have been overturned numerous times yet you guys are still debating over it. As sandman said, your arguments are unrealistic.
DeletedUser
Guest
I don't even remember all those points anymore, but I'm just speaking for myself here:
If I would be defender, someone bigger attacks with this: I defend it, he attacks again, I lose, this doesn't help me at all, only him. When you attack, you very rarely leave it there, so it doesn't help defender at all.
If I would be attacker, I would just send attacks with 50% loss stop to noobs, who have alliance incase I meet resistance. If I lose 50%, that doesn't really hurt me at all. No, I wouldn't send those attacks to farm them, I would send them to collect me bp.
If I would be defender, someone bigger attacks with this: I defend it, he attacks again, I lose, this doesn't help me at all, only him. When you attack, you very rarely leave it there, so it doesn't help defender at all.
If I would be attacker, I would just send attacks with 50% loss stop to noobs, who have alliance incase I meet resistance. If I lose 50%, that doesn't really hurt me at all. No, I wouldn't send those attacks to farm them, I would send them to collect me bp.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Share: