DeletedUser
Guest
This sounds like a good idea, it also stops people gettind frustrated over losing their whole army one one proxy attack.
Create a "Stop Attack" feature in Battle Resolution
- Thread starter Lord Sandman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dns list failed idea
- Status
DeletedUser
Guest
I've been told over and over again that this idea does not give the attacker an unfair advantage. I maintain that it does.
Since you insist that it doesn't, there is already a means of losing less troops by sending less. Why them would we need an extra feature to duplicate this?
This could be a good idea, but only if it is balanced.
Since you insist that it doesn't, there is already a means of losing less troops by sending less. Why them would we need an extra feature to duplicate this?
This could be a good idea, but only if it is balanced.
DeletedUser
Guest
Priscilla,
I saw a battle report where an attacker sent a large and impressive force against a city that did not have enough warning to enlist it's militia.
Not surprisingly, the attacker won. But his losses were massive. He won because he had half a dozen slingers left alive, and the city was completely wiped clean of life.
I think the defeated city would have LOVED for the attacker to have used a "stop loss" factor (if it was available). And the attacker probably would have preferred not to have lost virtually his entire attacking force for a few hundred units fo booty.
1) So how does a stop loss feature favor the attacker if the defending city would have preferred for a less bold attacker to have USED such a factor?
2) To say something favors the attacker suggests that it gives too much power to the attacker. In fact, a stop loss factor (if used) would have sent the attacker home BEFORE he could have won. And both the attacker and the defender would have troops left.
3) Finally, since all cities eventually attack, certainly the balance is obvious. All cities get to use it. And when used, it increases the likelihood that the attacker will withdraw before he achieves victory.
So I think you are going to have to spend a lot more time defining "favors the attacker" and defining the term "balance".
I think I've done a good job of showing "balance".
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
I saw a battle report where an attacker sent a large and impressive force against a city that did not have enough warning to enlist it's militia.
Not surprisingly, the attacker won. But his losses were massive. He won because he had half a dozen slingers left alive, and the city was completely wiped clean of life.
I think the defeated city would have LOVED for the attacker to have used a "stop loss" factor (if it was available). And the attacker probably would have preferred not to have lost virtually his entire attacking force for a few hundred units fo booty.
1) So how does a stop loss feature favor the attacker if the defending city would have preferred for a less bold attacker to have USED such a factor?
2) To say something favors the attacker suggests that it gives too much power to the attacker. In fact, a stop loss factor (if used) would have sent the attacker home BEFORE he could have won. And both the attacker and the defender would have troops left.
3) Finally, since all cities eventually attack, certainly the balance is obvious. All cities get to use it. And when used, it increases the likelihood that the attacker will withdraw before he achieves victory.
So I think you are going to have to spend a lot more time defining "favors the attacker" and defining the term "balance".
I think I've done a good job of showing "balance".
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser
Guest
If I was the defender in that situation, I wouldn't want to give up the battle points for the sake of 50 resources.
I see this tactic as more than likely to be used on turtles to whittle away their defences while retaining enough troops to farm resources for a quick rebuild. Ready to pound them again in a couple of days. Since turtles don't have attacking troops, they will not be able to make use of the advantages it offers attackers.
You have done nothing to show that if this idea was implemented, it will not change the current balance.
I see this tactic as more than likely to be used on turtles to whittle away their defences while retaining enough troops to farm resources for a quick rebuild. Ready to pound them again in a couple of days. Since turtles don't have attacking troops, they will not be able to make use of the advantages it offers attackers.
You have done nothing to show that if this idea was implemented, it will not change the current balance.
DeletedUser
Guest
Priscilla,
You completely side-stepped the point of my example. In my example, the city being attacked would WANT the attacker to use a Stop Loss so that:
1) the attacker would withdraw instead of winning;
2) the attacker would be denied intelligence because he lost the battle;
3) the city would not have all its troops wiped out AND booty.
The "stop loss" feature would, of course, benefit the attacker too.... because it reduces the cost of having their attacking forces decimated by underestimating their victim.
This modification helps both sides depending on the circumstances. This is the text book definition of "balanced". But the point of the modification is not simply because it is balanced. The point of the modification is to make Grepolis battle tactics more realistic.
If more realistic battle tactics somehow affects Grepolis "play" at some new level, it would be difficult to argue that the influence is a bad one.
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
You completely side-stepped the point of my example. In my example, the city being attacked would WANT the attacker to use a Stop Loss so that:
1) the attacker would withdraw instead of winning;
2) the attacker would be denied intelligence because he lost the battle;
3) the city would not have all its troops wiped out AND booty.
The "stop loss" feature would, of course, benefit the attacker too.... because it reduces the cost of having their attacking forces decimated by underestimating their victim.
This modification helps both sides depending on the circumstances. This is the text book definition of "balanced". But the point of the modification is not simply because it is balanced. The point of the modification is to make Grepolis battle tactics more realistic.
If more realistic battle tactics somehow affects Grepolis "play" at some new level, it would be difficult to argue that the influence is a bad one.
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser2795
Guest
replies in bold, and you have not responded to my last post yet.
DeletedUser
Guest
There is realism in this? I suppose when the attacker retreats from the battle, the defender's archers put down their bows and make sandwiches for the attacking army's trip home.
The reality is, the defender's archers will fire as many arrows into the retreating army as they can before they are out of range. Then the city gates will be opened for the horsemen and chariots to pursue the cowards.
How many more ways can I explain the need for a penalty for this type of attack?
The reality is, the defender's archers will fire as many arrows into the retreating army as they can before they are out of range. Then the city gates will be opened for the horsemen and chariots to pursue the cowards.
How many more ways can I explain the need for a penalty for this type of attack?
DeletedUser
Guest
Priscilla,
I think your objection lacks clarity. A "stop loss" feature doesn't mean the city's defenders suddenly stop fighting back and sit down to have sandwiches. The "stop loss" feature replicates a general's decision to withdraw (to a point beyond the reach of the city's counterfire) because he is experiencing too many losses.
Why is this hard to understand?
You want a penalty for this kind of attack? We've discussed the intrinsic penalty SEVERAL times.
If the attacker withdraws due to the stop loss feature,
1) He is denied intelligence, so he STILL doesn't know how strong the city is.
2) Because he lost, he gets no booty.
3) The ONLY benefit derived is that he has avoided losing any more troops in an UNSUCCESSFUL attack.
Is this enough? All you have to do is ask whether a city is happy or not that the attacker is leaving. Yes, there will be the times where a VERY LARGE CITY will have wished the attacker destroyed itself "on the rocks" of the city's forces.
But to the SMALLER CITY, we all breath a sigh of relief when the enemy attacker leaves WITHOUT BOOTY, WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE, and WITHOUT WIPING OUT ALL MY TROOPS!
If you still don't think I have responded to your objections, I don't think you understand the proposal very well.
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
I think your objection lacks clarity. A "stop loss" feature doesn't mean the city's defenders suddenly stop fighting back and sit down to have sandwiches. The "stop loss" feature replicates a general's decision to withdraw (to a point beyond the reach of the city's counterfire) because he is experiencing too many losses.
Why is this hard to understand?
You want a penalty for this kind of attack? We've discussed the intrinsic penalty SEVERAL times.
If the attacker withdraws due to the stop loss feature,
1) He is denied intelligence, so he STILL doesn't know how strong the city is.
2) Because he lost, he gets no booty.
3) The ONLY benefit derived is that he has avoided losing any more troops in an UNSUCCESSFUL attack.
Is this enough? All you have to do is ask whether a city is happy or not that the attacker is leaving. Yes, there will be the times where a VERY LARGE CITY will have wished the attacker destroyed itself "on the rocks" of the city's forces.
But to the SMALLER CITY, we all breath a sigh of relief when the enemy attacker leaves WITHOUT BOOTY, WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE, and WITHOUT WIPING OUT ALL MY TROOPS!
If you still don't think I have responded to your objections, I don't think you understand the proposal very well.
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser
Guest
JKP,
My apologies for a delay in responding to your comments.
You write: "As a defender, I would hate that, I want Battle Points!!!"
If you defeat the attacker, you STILL get battle points. And if you want MORE battle points, counter-attack the coward's city. The desire for battle points is nothing compared to the desire to have some troops left after a bitter engagement.
I wrote:
2) the attacker would be denied intelligence because he lost the battle;
You reply: "So? no advantage to the defender directly"
I don't get you, JKP. Are you just objecting about everything? The direct advantage to the defender is that intelligence is denied the withdrawing attacker. The benefit to the attacker (and sometimes the defender) is that there are still troops left to fight another day. These are meaningful aspects of realistic battle play.
Your comment to my point (3) also does not address the point of the proposed feature. You write: "If a defender is online, then they can easily counteract that, if not online, they still want BP." So go attack yourself and get some more. This proposal does not outlaw BP.
You write in response to an attacker possibly underestimating a city's defenses. You write: "Then don't underestimate them!"
I do not understand your point. I'm describing a realistic human response and need in the midst of combat: to decide NOT to lose an overwhelming number of troops - - even it means a technical victory. I have no idea what your problem is about that. All you can say is: "No, I want MORE BP" and "You should know enough about your target city before you attack." Are you really playing this game for enjoyment?
The stop loss feature will ENCOURAGE more battles, because it makes it possible to control your army realistically, and reduce the ALL OR NOTHING (or NOTHING AND NOTHING) losses that current battles produce.
You write:
"...if this is at all realistic, realistic does not balance with the current unrealistic other features."
Now you are just making me laugh!
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
My apologies for a delay in responding to your comments.
You write: "As a defender, I would hate that, I want Battle Points!!!"
If you defeat the attacker, you STILL get battle points. And if you want MORE battle points, counter-attack the coward's city. The desire for battle points is nothing compared to the desire to have some troops left after a bitter engagement.
I wrote:
2) the attacker would be denied intelligence because he lost the battle;
You reply: "So? no advantage to the defender directly"
I don't get you, JKP. Are you just objecting about everything? The direct advantage to the defender is that intelligence is denied the withdrawing attacker. The benefit to the attacker (and sometimes the defender) is that there are still troops left to fight another day. These are meaningful aspects of realistic battle play.
Your comment to my point (3) also does not address the point of the proposed feature. You write: "If a defender is online, then they can easily counteract that, if not online, they still want BP." So go attack yourself and get some more. This proposal does not outlaw BP.
You write in response to an attacker possibly underestimating a city's defenses. You write: "Then don't underestimate them!"
I do not understand your point. I'm describing a realistic human response and need in the midst of combat: to decide NOT to lose an overwhelming number of troops - - even it means a technical victory. I have no idea what your problem is about that. All you can say is: "No, I want MORE BP" and "You should know enough about your target city before you attack." Are you really playing this game for enjoyment?
The stop loss feature will ENCOURAGE more battles, because it makes it possible to control your army realistically, and reduce the ALL OR NOTHING (or NOTHING AND NOTHING) losses that current battles produce.
You write:
"...if this is at all realistic, realistic does not balance with the current unrealistic other features."
Now you are just making me laugh!
Warm regards,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser
Guest
Let's look at the current balance. The attacker gets to choose when the battle is and how much he sends. The defender can do nothing about these. The defender can stack the city or dodge the attack, but only if the time chosen by the attacker suits them. Through this, the attacker takes the risk that the defender might be able to use these tools.
The mere fact that you wish to remove most of this risk gives solely to the attacker.
If the defender was able to stack their city, you want to take away from them half the victory they should have had. What's more, if they log on after being away for two days with barely enough time to dodge the attack, the attacker gets full spoils while avoiding the risk.
You've agreed that the retreating army is at risk from the time it stops attacking until it can get out of range. During this period they will suffer further losses. Now the question is, does the attacker retreat at the set losses and sustain further damage (attacker's penalty) or does it retreat at a time when the total losses equal the set amount? This would result in lower losses for the defender (defender's benefit).
Until you address these disparities, you won't be able to convince the community managers to put the idea up for a vote on whether or not the developers are asked to look at it.
The mere fact that you wish to remove most of this risk gives solely to the attacker.
If the defender was able to stack their city, you want to take away from them half the victory they should have had. What's more, if they log on after being away for two days with barely enough time to dodge the attack, the attacker gets full spoils while avoiding the risk.
You've agreed that the retreating army is at risk from the time it stops attacking until it can get out of range. During this period they will suffer further losses. Now the question is, does the attacker retreat at the set losses and sustain further damage (attacker's penalty) or does it retreat at a time when the total losses equal the set amount? This would result in lower losses for the defender (defender's benefit).
Until you address these disparities, you won't be able to convince the community managers to put the idea up for a vote on whether or not the developers are asked to look at it.
DeletedUser
Guest
The way I understand it, the defender still gets a victory. Unless you have Athena you don't how big the attacking the army is anyway. So you don't know how big the victory will be. Since the defender doesn't know the size of the attacking force, they may wind up not stacking enough troops, or putting way too many troops in defense. Again, unless you have Athena, choosing whether to stack or to dodge is gamble anyway. If the defender decides to dodge as the system is now, the attacker gets the spoils without risk, so what is the difference?
The attacker would retreat "at a time when the total losses equal the set amount", that is the way I read the description, so the defender benefits.
I do not see the disparities, you are talking about.
The attacker would retreat "at a time when the total losses equal the set amount", that is the way I read the description, so the defender benefits.
I do not see the disparities, you are talking about.
DeletedUser
Guest
Any changes to the game don't just affect players with a single half built city. Advantages to attackers will give the most benefit to aggressive players. Likewise, turtles will relish any swing toward defensive advantage. Except where there is already a disparity that favors one side, any changes must address both sides of the equation.
While I might seem to be championing the defensive players, I am in fact an aggressive player. Only about a quarter of my cities contain defensive troops. These more commonly see action defending other players than my own cities. Any objections I have about proposed changes are certainly not motivated by fear. Getting more entertainment from my opponents before they are rimmed, perhaps.
The only future I see in this proposal is in expanding options. A new option should not make all other options obsolete and a poor choice. It needs cons to go along with the pros.
btw Sigi, congratulations on building your first special building. I'm hoping it was baths, but suspect it was the tower.
While I might seem to be championing the defensive players, I am in fact an aggressive player. Only about a quarter of my cities contain defensive troops. These more commonly see action defending other players than my own cities. Any objections I have about proposed changes are certainly not motivated by fear. Getting more entertainment from my opponents before they are rimmed, perhaps.
The only future I see in this proposal is in expanding options. A new option should not make all other options obsolete and a poor choice. It needs cons to go along with the pros.
btw Sigi, congratulations on building your first special building. I'm hoping it was baths, but suspect it was the tower.
DeletedUser
Guest
Priscilla,
You summarize 2 key points:
1) "The attacker gets to choose when the battle is and how much he sends. The defender can do nothing about these."
2) "...the attacker takes the risk that the defender might be able to use these tools."
You summarize with "The mere fact that you wish to remove most of this risk gives solely to the attacker."
This is not correct. It would be correct if the attacker withdrew WITH BOOTY and WITH INTELLIGENCE. He does not.
Then you write:
"... you want to take away from them half the victory they should have had."
You are playing both sides of the "complaint coin" simultaneously! At no time do I ever want to win a battle if it means I'm also stripped of my forces. That's a LOSE-LOSE. As a city, I would much rather have 4 "victory by withdrawal" battles, than 2 victories where I have only 5 archers left and 2 defeats where I have NO men left.
What is ironic about the "stop loss" feature, if approved, is that I believe most ATTACKERS would ALSO rather have 4 withdrawals, rather than 2 complete defeats and 2 wins where the attacker has only 5 slingers left to give the attacker victory.
Naturally, there are other kinds of outcomes. But by comparing 4 Withdrawal Defeats to 2 defeats and 2 Pyrrhic victories, the balanced nature of this proposed feature becomes obvious!
You then ask a very theoretical question:
"You've agreed that the retreating army is at risk from the time it stops attacking until it can get out of range. During this period they will suffer further losses. Now the question is, does the attacker retreat at the set losses and sustain further damage (attacker's penalty) or does it retreat at a time when the total losses equal the set amount? This would result in lower losses for the defender (defender's benefit)."
Then you call this issue a "disparity". It's not a disparity. It's an issue of what aspects of battle "game mechanics" are attempting to simulate. You are fixating on the idea of an attacking army deep within a city's defenses... AND THEN it wants to retreat.
That's not the aspect of the battle this "game mechanic" is trying to simulate. It's trying to simulate a general's decision to stop molesting a city because the defenses are too great, or because the city is too alert. On this basis, it is perfectly appropriate.
But, since we are on the issue of disparity, let's talk about CURRENT DISPARITY.
Under the current rules, the attacker "prays" that the defender isn't awake. In a REAL battle, once the attacker realizes he has lost the element of surprise, he can decide to withdraw or retreat. In our game system, an hour or two can go by.... and if the city is fully alert when we arrive, we are (shall we say) screwed!
This is a HUGE disparity when we remember that players live and work in time zones all around the world. The attacker **SHOULD** have the ability to abort an attack if the city is too well defended. In the case of the proposed "stop loss" feature, we **DO** impose a penalty of a MINIMUM loss that the attacker must accept, even if he wants to retreat: say somewhere between 40% to 50% of his total forces (including those back home!). That's a pretty hefty penalty.
But it's a lower penalty than sending off one's entire army off to total destruction .... even if it means you win by 2 slingers!
In conclusion, I really don't understand what it is that bugs you about this proposed feature. It is a feature that simultaneously does the following:
1) Simulates the realistic choices that an attacking general can make.
2) It is a desirable alternative to a LOSER who just had all his men (whether attacker or defender) wiped out. AND!!!!.....
3) ...It is a desirable alternative to the WINNER if he just lost a whole army except for a couple of slingers.
4) It helps soften the impact of time zone differences that can destroy a player's motivation simply because he has to go to sleep exactly when some aggressive player is waking up.
5) Because the resulting battles would become more variable in consequences, they would become more interesting
6) And, finally,because there is increased likelihood of surviving battles, players can wage MORE battles without having to invest considerable time building up their forces again. I think you have to agree that spending a couple of days just making more troops is not the best way to spend time with this game.
The "stop loss" proposal is a "win" for everyone. And if someone doesn't WANT to limit their loss, they can leave the default setting at 100%.
Why are you so "gung ho" against something that attempts to REDUCE the hurt and trauma of a never ending series of lop-sided battles, or battles where both sides get wiped out? There's nothing good in that.
Grepolis generals are just people.... busy people. Who hope they can have fun in return for considerable time invested. I have invested WAYYYYYY too much time trying to get my city to where I can actually start to wage battles. My "emotional investment" in the game is real, and should be protected (within reasonable limits of course). The "stop loss" feature protects this emotional investment.... on BOTH sides! There's not a lot of proposals that work like that.
Beating down this idea "tooth and nail" because it's ... what, new(?), just doesn't make sense to me.
Bewildered,
Lord Sandman
You summarize 2 key points:
1) "The attacker gets to choose when the battle is and how much he sends. The defender can do nothing about these."
2) "...the attacker takes the risk that the defender might be able to use these tools."
You summarize with "The mere fact that you wish to remove most of this risk gives solely to the attacker."
This is not correct. It would be correct if the attacker withdrew WITH BOOTY and WITH INTELLIGENCE. He does not.
Then you write:
"... you want to take away from them half the victory they should have had."
You are playing both sides of the "complaint coin" simultaneously! At no time do I ever want to win a battle if it means I'm also stripped of my forces. That's a LOSE-LOSE. As a city, I would much rather have 4 "victory by withdrawal" battles, than 2 victories where I have only 5 archers left and 2 defeats where I have NO men left.
What is ironic about the "stop loss" feature, if approved, is that I believe most ATTACKERS would ALSO rather have 4 withdrawals, rather than 2 complete defeats and 2 wins where the attacker has only 5 slingers left to give the attacker victory.
Naturally, there are other kinds of outcomes. But by comparing 4 Withdrawal Defeats to 2 defeats and 2 Pyrrhic victories, the balanced nature of this proposed feature becomes obvious!
You then ask a very theoretical question:
"You've agreed that the retreating army is at risk from the time it stops attacking until it can get out of range. During this period they will suffer further losses. Now the question is, does the attacker retreat at the set losses and sustain further damage (attacker's penalty) or does it retreat at a time when the total losses equal the set amount? This would result in lower losses for the defender (defender's benefit)."
Then you call this issue a "disparity". It's not a disparity. It's an issue of what aspects of battle "game mechanics" are attempting to simulate. You are fixating on the idea of an attacking army deep within a city's defenses... AND THEN it wants to retreat.
That's not the aspect of the battle this "game mechanic" is trying to simulate. It's trying to simulate a general's decision to stop molesting a city because the defenses are too great, or because the city is too alert. On this basis, it is perfectly appropriate.
But, since we are on the issue of disparity, let's talk about CURRENT DISPARITY.
Under the current rules, the attacker "prays" that the defender isn't awake. In a REAL battle, once the attacker realizes he has lost the element of surprise, he can decide to withdraw or retreat. In our game system, an hour or two can go by.... and if the city is fully alert when we arrive, we are (shall we say) screwed!
This is a HUGE disparity when we remember that players live and work in time zones all around the world. The attacker **SHOULD** have the ability to abort an attack if the city is too well defended. In the case of the proposed "stop loss" feature, we **DO** impose a penalty of a MINIMUM loss that the attacker must accept, even if he wants to retreat: say somewhere between 40% to 50% of his total forces (including those back home!). That's a pretty hefty penalty.
But it's a lower penalty than sending off one's entire army off to total destruction .... even if it means you win by 2 slingers!
In conclusion, I really don't understand what it is that bugs you about this proposed feature. It is a feature that simultaneously does the following:
1) Simulates the realistic choices that an attacking general can make.
2) It is a desirable alternative to a LOSER who just had all his men (whether attacker or defender) wiped out. AND!!!!.....
3) ...It is a desirable alternative to the WINNER if he just lost a whole army except for a couple of slingers.
4) It helps soften the impact of time zone differences that can destroy a player's motivation simply because he has to go to sleep exactly when some aggressive player is waking up.
5) Because the resulting battles would become more variable in consequences, they would become more interesting
6) And, finally,because there is increased likelihood of surviving battles, players can wage MORE battles without having to invest considerable time building up their forces again. I think you have to agree that spending a couple of days just making more troops is not the best way to spend time with this game.
The "stop loss" proposal is a "win" for everyone. And if someone doesn't WANT to limit their loss, they can leave the default setting at 100%.
Why are you so "gung ho" against something that attempts to REDUCE the hurt and trauma of a never ending series of lop-sided battles, or battles where both sides get wiped out? There's nothing good in that.
Grepolis generals are just people.... busy people. Who hope they can have fun in return for considerable time invested. I have invested WAYYYYYY too much time trying to get my city to where I can actually start to wage battles. My "emotional investment" in the game is real, and should be protected (within reasonable limits of course). The "stop loss" feature protects this emotional investment.... on BOTH sides! There's not a lot of proposals that work like that.
Beating down this idea "tooth and nail" because it's ... what, new(?), just doesn't make sense to me.
Bewildered,
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser2795
Guest
replies in bold
DeletedUser2795
Guest
replies in bold, and what about my "emotional investment"?Priscilla,
You summarize 2 key points:
1) "The attacker gets to choose when the battle is and how much he sends. The defender can do nothing about these."
2) "...the attacker takes the risk that the defender might be able to use these tools."
You summarize with "The mere fact that you wish to remove most of this risk gives solely to the attacker."
This is not correct. It would be correct if the attacker withdrew WITH BOOTY and WITH INTELLIGENCE. He does not.No, but as you say, and the attack leaves with more troops, and the defender and attacker lose the satisfaction of killing all of the other's troops. You make it sound as if booty and 'intelligence' are the most important things in the universe. Over half the time the attacker never gets either at all because the defender dodges and gets rid of a of their resources or the defender overpowers the attacker.
Then you write:
"... you want to take away from them half the victory they should have had."
You are playing both sides of the "complaint coin" simultaneously! At no time do I ever want to win a battle if it means I'm also stripped of my forces. That's a LOSE-LOSE. As a city, I would much rather have 4 "victory by withdrawal" battles, than 2 victories where I have only 5 archers left and 2 defeats where I have NO men left.Ah, but really you would send more "stop" attacks then if you only sent regular attacks, and many of them would fail as well. isn't this just prolonging the inevitable?
What is ironic about the "stop loss" feature, if approved, is that I believe most ATTACKERS would ALSO rather have 4 withdrawals, rather than 2 complete defeats and 2 wins where the attacker has only 5 slingers left to give the attacker victory.Again, that is not how it would work, because attackers would be forced to send out more attacks and defenders would be forced to be faced with far more force then they would in real life.
Naturally, there are other kinds of outcomes. But by comparing 4 Withdrawal Defeats to 2 defeats and 2 Pyrrhic victories, the balanced nature of this proposed feature becomes obvious!Again, it is a different tactical situation, meaning that how you predict it would be nothing like how it would turn out.
You then ask a very theoretical question:
"You've agreed that the retreating army is at risk from the time it stops attacking until it can get out of range. During this period they will suffer further losses. Now the question is, does the attacker retreat at the set losses and sustain further damage (attacker's penalty) or does it retreat at a time when the total losses equal the set amount? This would result in lower losses for the defender (defender's benefit)."
Then you call this issue a "disparity". It's not a disparity. It's an issue of what aspects of battle "game mechanics" are attempting to simulate. You are fixating on the idea of an attacking army deep within a city's defenses... AND THEN it wants to retreat. Ah, but there is no range in this, so who know where the attacking and defending forces are.
That's not the aspect of the battle this "game mechanic" is trying to simulate. It's trying to simulate a general's decision to stop molesting a city because the defenses are too greataka, part of a battle, or because the city is too alert. On this basis, it is perfectly appropriate.no it is not, not unless you make everything else in the game realistic, then this does not fit in well
But, since we are on the issue of disparity, let's talk about CURRENT DISPARITY.
Under the current rules, the attacker "prays" that the defender isn't awake. In a REAL battle, once the attacker realizes he has lost the element of surprise, he can decide to withdraw or retreat. In our game system, an hour or two can go by.... and if the city is fully alert when we arrive, we are (shall we say) screwed! Then plan ahead, a huge part of the current game is having to predict and account for this, and if that disappeared, the game would be greatly changed, and not for the better
This is a HUGE disparity when we remember that players live and work in time zones all around the world. The attacker **SHOULD** have the ability to abort an attack if the city is too well defended. wouldn't the defender destroy them before they could retreat? In the case of the proposed "stop loss" feature, we **DO** impose a penalty of a MINIMUM loss that the attacker must accept, even if he wants to retreat: say somewhere between 40% to 50% of his total forces (including those back home!). That's a pretty hefty penalty.It is not a penalty, it is a way to make things too easy on the attacker, normally they might lose 60%-70% of their troops in an unlucky attack from one of their offensive cities, so 40%-50% is nothing.
But it's a lower penalty than sending off one's entire army off to total destruction .... even if it means you win by 2 slingers!People actually enjoy the part about ony having a few troops left, it is part of what makes the game interesting
In conclusion, I really don't understand what it is that bugs you about this proposed feature. It is a feature that simultaneously does the following:
1) Simulates the realistic choices that an attacking general can make.choices, and anyways, what about the defender's 'general', why can't they destroy the attacker before they escape?
2) It is a desirable alternative to a LOSER who just had all his men (whether attacker or defender) wiped out. AND!!!!.....Ah, so favoring noobs?
3) ...It is a desirable alternative to the WINNER if he just lost a whole army except for a couple of slingers.as if any competent player would send every singe one of their troops there, they would still have other cities or more troops in their current city
4) It helps soften the impact of time zone differences that can destroy a player's motivation simply because he has to go to sleep exactly when some aggressive player is waking up.The 'aggressive' player would not use this anyways
5) Because the resulting battles would become more variable in consequences, they would become more interestingno, they would always be boring, the defender wins, no one takes many losses, no interesting battes will happen any more
6) And, finally,because there is increased likelihood of surviving battles, players can wage MORE battlesThis is not necessary if you win on the first battle without having to invest considerable time building up their forces again. I think you have to agree that spending a couple of days just making more troops is not the best way to spend time with this game.Fine, but you can wage other battles with your other troops while rebuilding
The "stop loss" proposal is a "win" for everyone. And if someone doesn't WANT to limit their loss, they can leave the default setting at 100%.And the defender has no choice
Why are you so "gung ho" against something that attempts to REDUCE the hurt and trauma of a never ending series of lop-sided battles, or battles where both sides get wiped out? There's nothing good in that.Where have you been all this time??
Grepolis generals are just people.... busy people. Who hope they can have fun in return for considerable time invested. I have invested WAYYYYYY too much time trying to get my city to where I can actually start to wage battles.What, all 7 days of waiting for BP to end? My "emotional investment" in the game is real, and should be protected (within reasonable limits of course).By destroying other people's 'emotional investment'? I hope not The "stop loss" feature protects this emotional investment.... on BOTH sides! There's not a lot of proposals that work like that.Oh, there are many ones that claim to, just like yours, but like yours, they are not beneficial to both sides. There are very few ideas with a good balance, and this just is not one of them.
Beating down this idea "tooth and nail" because it's ... what, new(?), just doesn't make sense to me.not because this is new, because it is new and a bad idea.
Bewildered,
Lord Sandman
Double post because of character limit
DeletedUser
Guest
JKP,
These discussions are starting to get awfully long. So I’m going to try to trim out extraneous text without minimizing your points. Your first comment to my long response to Priscilla was:
“You make it sound as if booty and 'intelligence' are the most important things in the universe.”
My point was to show that a “stop loss” feature does NOT reward a less bold attacker by giving him intelligence or booty. And so a victim city is actually in a pretty good situation if he is attacked by a cautious general who uses a stop loss factor.
You write:
“… but really you would send more "stop" attacks than if you only sent regular attacks, and many of them would fail as well. isn't this just prolonging the inevitable?”
I’d like to see you explain that to the defending city. If in a 5 day period he successfully fends off 4 attacks but loses the 5th attack, that is certainly more pleasurable and enjoyable than getting wiped out on day 1, and having no time to raise enough troops to keep from getting farmed for four more days in a row.
All this is based on an attacker that is not bold enough to set his “stop loss” factor at a default of 100%. You can go ahead and attack full force if you want…. and this rule won't affect you at all! You get to battle just as you say you always want to battle. And your victims will not enjoy any relief from this rule. Because that's not the way you want to fight. Great.
So what I see is that you NEVER want the victim city to have a chance to retain any troops from less cautious attackers. You want everyone to farm cities with impunity with no way for the cities to accidentally reserve its forces or recover more quickly. I would not consider this the most virtuous or courageous of positions to take. Isn’t this really the position of a bully?
We aren't even talking about YOUR play.... since the rule wouldn't affect you. You want EVERYONE ELSE to play like you too.
You write:
“Again, that is not how it would work, because attackers would be forced to send out more attacks and defenders would be forced to be faced with far more force then they would in real life. “
That’s a comment that betrays your motivations. The attacker can leave his stop loss factor at 100% and accomplish everything you say he should accomplish. But if the attacker is not as confident as you… he sends out more partial attacks. And this would be fine too. More survivors. More battles per day. More fun. Unless, of course, the attacker is a bully.
I wrote:
That's not the aspect of the battle this "game mechanic" is trying to simulate. It's trying to simulate a general's decision to stop molesting a city because the defenses are too great… or because the city is too alert. On this basis, it is perfectly appropriate.
You replied:
“no it is not, not unless you make everything else in the game realistic, then this does not fit in well.”
Your statement doesn’t make any sense to me. You don't want a form of realism because it isn't consistent with the game's LACK of realism? What? The "stop loss" feature matches the drama of the battle to the boldness of the attacker. If you want the stop loss at the default 100%, you get exactly what you have been getting all along. Why don’t you stop trying to impose your will on the less bold generals? I myself would WANT to have more indecisive battles, if it means having MORE BATTLES in the same period of time.
You comment that under the current conditions, generals should “…plan ahead, a huge part of the current game is having to predict and account for this, and if that disappeared, the game would be greatly changed, and not for the better.”
You haven’t shown this at all. You could fight just the way you have ALWAYS fought. This rule ONLY affects those generals who don’t want to fight like you. And you want to block them from fighting the way THEY want.
You add to Priscilla’s comments with:
“… wouldn't the defender destroy them before they could retreat?”
Frankly, this is a bizarre objection. You and Priscilla act like an attacker always has to carry out an attack to ABSOLUTE CONQUEST or COMPLETE OBLITERATION. Yes, sometimes an attacker reaches a point in a battle where he has no choice. But this is hardly a universal pattern. Tentative sorties can be followed by MORE tentative sorties until the attacker figures things out more. Or he can withdraw. Or he can charge into the fray.
The “stop loss” feature allows the attacker to adopt whatever stance suits the situation. Your comments INSIST that an attack has to universally be “CONQUEST” or “OBLITERATION”. The problem is when it really means “OBLITERATION” for both sides…. Even when both sides would prefer to AVOID mutual obliteration.
You write: “It is not a penalty, it is a way to make things too easy on the attacker”.
I’m sure the defending city that successfully defeats an aggressive attacker, but has only 4 archers left would not agree with you. A weak city is grateful for any caution an attacker takes. Why can’t you allow for SOME attackers to be more cautious than you?
Finally, we have this "howler" of an objection: “People actually enjoy the part about ony having a few troops left, it is part of what makes the game interesting.” I think this completely destroys your credibility as speaking for the common player on this list. I know FEW players who think this is “what makes the game interesting”.
I think **YOU** think it’s interesting when you wipe out a city’s forces…. So you can farm it every day without even thinking about it anymore.
I think you should give it another thought and let it be possible for “cautious attackers” to have their option for “cautious attacks”. There’s no real downside for players like you.
Just let people attack less boldly than you, okay?
Respectfully submitted,
Lord Sandman
These discussions are starting to get awfully long. So I’m going to try to trim out extraneous text without minimizing your points. Your first comment to my long response to Priscilla was:
“You make it sound as if booty and 'intelligence' are the most important things in the universe.”
My point was to show that a “stop loss” feature does NOT reward a less bold attacker by giving him intelligence or booty. And so a victim city is actually in a pretty good situation if he is attacked by a cautious general who uses a stop loss factor.
You write:
“… but really you would send more "stop" attacks than if you only sent regular attacks, and many of them would fail as well. isn't this just prolonging the inevitable?”
I’d like to see you explain that to the defending city. If in a 5 day period he successfully fends off 4 attacks but loses the 5th attack, that is certainly more pleasurable and enjoyable than getting wiped out on day 1, and having no time to raise enough troops to keep from getting farmed for four more days in a row.
All this is based on an attacker that is not bold enough to set his “stop loss” factor at a default of 100%. You can go ahead and attack full force if you want…. and this rule won't affect you at all! You get to battle just as you say you always want to battle. And your victims will not enjoy any relief from this rule. Because that's not the way you want to fight. Great.
So what I see is that you NEVER want the victim city to have a chance to retain any troops from less cautious attackers. You want everyone to farm cities with impunity with no way for the cities to accidentally reserve its forces or recover more quickly. I would not consider this the most virtuous or courageous of positions to take. Isn’t this really the position of a bully?
We aren't even talking about YOUR play.... since the rule wouldn't affect you. You want EVERYONE ELSE to play like you too.
You write:
“Again, that is not how it would work, because attackers would be forced to send out more attacks and defenders would be forced to be faced with far more force then they would in real life. “
That’s a comment that betrays your motivations. The attacker can leave his stop loss factor at 100% and accomplish everything you say he should accomplish. But if the attacker is not as confident as you… he sends out more partial attacks. And this would be fine too. More survivors. More battles per day. More fun. Unless, of course, the attacker is a bully.
I wrote:
That's not the aspect of the battle this "game mechanic" is trying to simulate. It's trying to simulate a general's decision to stop molesting a city because the defenses are too great… or because the city is too alert. On this basis, it is perfectly appropriate.
You replied:
“no it is not, not unless you make everything else in the game realistic, then this does not fit in well.”
Your statement doesn’t make any sense to me. You don't want a form of realism because it isn't consistent with the game's LACK of realism? What? The "stop loss" feature matches the drama of the battle to the boldness of the attacker. If you want the stop loss at the default 100%, you get exactly what you have been getting all along. Why don’t you stop trying to impose your will on the less bold generals? I myself would WANT to have more indecisive battles, if it means having MORE BATTLES in the same period of time.
You comment that under the current conditions, generals should “…plan ahead, a huge part of the current game is having to predict and account for this, and if that disappeared, the game would be greatly changed, and not for the better.”
You haven’t shown this at all. You could fight just the way you have ALWAYS fought. This rule ONLY affects those generals who don’t want to fight like you. And you want to block them from fighting the way THEY want.
You add to Priscilla’s comments with:
“… wouldn't the defender destroy them before they could retreat?”
Frankly, this is a bizarre objection. You and Priscilla act like an attacker always has to carry out an attack to ABSOLUTE CONQUEST or COMPLETE OBLITERATION. Yes, sometimes an attacker reaches a point in a battle where he has no choice. But this is hardly a universal pattern. Tentative sorties can be followed by MORE tentative sorties until the attacker figures things out more. Or he can withdraw. Or he can charge into the fray.
The “stop loss” feature allows the attacker to adopt whatever stance suits the situation. Your comments INSIST that an attack has to universally be “CONQUEST” or “OBLITERATION”. The problem is when it really means “OBLITERATION” for both sides…. Even when both sides would prefer to AVOID mutual obliteration.
You write: “It is not a penalty, it is a way to make things too easy on the attacker”.
I’m sure the defending city that successfully defeats an aggressive attacker, but has only 4 archers left would not agree with you. A weak city is grateful for any caution an attacker takes. Why can’t you allow for SOME attackers to be more cautious than you?
Finally, we have this "howler" of an objection: “People actually enjoy the part about ony having a few troops left, it is part of what makes the game interesting.” I think this completely destroys your credibility as speaking for the common player on this list. I know FEW players who think this is “what makes the game interesting”.
I think **YOU** think it’s interesting when you wipe out a city’s forces…. So you can farm it every day without even thinking about it anymore.
I think you should give it another thought and let it be possible for “cautious attackers” to have their option for “cautious attacks”. There’s no real downside for players like you.
Just let people attack less boldly than you, okay?
Respectfully submitted,
Lord Sandman
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
If I missed any NEW objection in your previous posts, please let me know. It was not intentional. I just didn't want to repeat the same objections over and over again.
Lord Sandman
Lord Sandman
DeletedUser
Guest
*puts on the moderator cap* Please edit your post rather than double posting. *takes off moderator cap*
Your replies are becoming increasingly long winded. Yet you have not introduced any new thoughts since your first post. Would you be so kind as to recognise that we are intelligent enough to understand what it was you initially posted.
Reiteration with increasing verbosity might win points in a debating competition or even bamboozle voters in a political arena, but it does little to convince an established community to change the ways it does things. Especially when one sector of that community will be disadvantaged by your proposal to the favor of another.
I have said several times that there will be a need for some penalty for using your proposal. You would not be arguing so adamantly if there was no benefit to using it. Clearly there is some benefit in your circumstances. Otherwise you would not be as persistent as you have been.
To strengthen and farm a NPC farming city, you need 150 horseman or 500 archers. Under your proposal the attacker will have enough troops remaining to meet this requirement. The defender who has no say in the time or type of attack is almost certainly going to fall short of this requirement. A defensive village normally does not have the right troops to farm semi active or even grey inactive. The attacker who can reserve 200 horsemen certainly has the abiliy to farm both. Under the circumstances that the defending city had attacking troops, it will lose all it's troops to the attack.
I'm not sure that your proposal can be taken seriously any longer, but if you want my endorsement, you will need to balance it.
Your replies are becoming increasingly long winded. Yet you have not introduced any new thoughts since your first post. Would you be so kind as to recognise that we are intelligent enough to understand what it was you initially posted.
Reiteration with increasing verbosity might win points in a debating competition or even bamboozle voters in a political arena, but it does little to convince an established community to change the ways it does things. Especially when one sector of that community will be disadvantaged by your proposal to the favor of another.
I have said several times that there will be a need for some penalty for using your proposal. You would not be arguing so adamantly if there was no benefit to using it. Clearly there is some benefit in your circumstances. Otherwise you would not be as persistent as you have been.
To strengthen and farm a NPC farming city, you need 150 horseman or 500 archers. Under your proposal the attacker will have enough troops remaining to meet this requirement. The defender who has no say in the time or type of attack is almost certainly going to fall short of this requirement. A defensive village normally does not have the right troops to farm semi active or even grey inactive. The attacker who can reserve 200 horsemen certainly has the abiliy to farm both. Under the circumstances that the defending city had attacking troops, it will lose all it's troops to the attack.
I'm not sure that your proposal can be taken seriously any longer, but if you want my endorsement, you will need to balance it.
DeletedUser
Guest
what if there where only 3 options:
50% 75% and 100%?
In reality a general cannot know when 45.6% of his army is lost, he only estimates and leaves when necessary
50% 75% and 100%?
In reality a general cannot know when 45.6% of his army is lost, he only estimates and leaves when necessary
DeletedUser2795
Guest
Okay, trying to keep this shorter I will refer to sections of Lord Sandman's as 1, 2, 3... were the sections are divided by which quote he appears to be responding to.
1. As I was trying to say, the attacker gets no more then the usual amount of booty or intelligence this way, meaning that there is no reason not to use this feature
2. -most attacks do not occur at a rate of an attack a day, most occur far more quickly anyways
-the rules will most certainly affect me, I do get attacked sometimes and will be strongly affected by this
3. Err, I have no idea what you are talking about, I think that you misinterpreted my post.
4. -YES! I do not want realism because of the current lack of realism
-More battles? You just need one to decide things, and, as I said, it will affect me, as the defender.
5. As I have repeatedly said, defenders get affected by this as well
6. "CONQUEST" or "OBLITERATION" as you put it, are going to happen anyways, they might as well happen in a fashion which is more decisive and short
7. I know many people that would be happy with that, they stopped the attack, got insane BP and they can still call for support, and a good part of the time that that situation occurs, the defender will have dodged and hidden their resources and enlisted militia. And you seem to be drawing from a very limited pool of information. Most of the time, one side decisively wins and the other is "OBLITERATED"
8. well what does make the game interesting? being a turtle? Doing everything without having to worry about any significant losses? The interesting part is being thrown down almost to the bottom and having to rebuild! Or it is to have thrown other people to the bottom and forcing them down. And yes, I do want to "...wipe out a city’s forces…. So you can farm it every day without even thinking about it anymore." How else am I supposed to farm people?
And I will not answer any arguments which I have previously seen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Invoker, that still creates the problem of this existing at all
1. As I was trying to say, the attacker gets no more then the usual amount of booty or intelligence this way, meaning that there is no reason not to use this feature
2. -most attacks do not occur at a rate of an attack a day, most occur far more quickly anyways
-the rules will most certainly affect me, I do get attacked sometimes and will be strongly affected by this
3. Err, I have no idea what you are talking about, I think that you misinterpreted my post.
4. -YES! I do not want realism because of the current lack of realism
-More battles? You just need one to decide things, and, as I said, it will affect me, as the defender.
5. As I have repeatedly said, defenders get affected by this as well
6. "CONQUEST" or "OBLITERATION" as you put it, are going to happen anyways, they might as well happen in a fashion which is more decisive and short
7. I know many people that would be happy with that, they stopped the attack, got insane BP and they can still call for support, and a good part of the time that that situation occurs, the defender will have dodged and hidden their resources and enlisted militia. And you seem to be drawing from a very limited pool of information. Most of the time, one side decisively wins and the other is "OBLITERATED"
8. well what does make the game interesting? being a turtle? Doing everything without having to worry about any significant losses? The interesting part is being thrown down almost to the bottom and having to rebuild! Or it is to have thrown other people to the bottom and forcing them down. And yes, I do want to "...wipe out a city’s forces…. So you can farm it every day without even thinking about it anymore." How else am I supposed to farm people?
And I will not answer any arguments which I have previously seen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Invoker, that still creates the problem of this existing at all
- Status